(Disclosure: I have not publicly supported Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. This question comes from an unbiased political point of view.)
A new web site launched today and was mentioned by CNN.com. The site is called DelegateHub.com. Now, at first glance this site appears to be a neutral, non-partisan site in which questions about the delegate process can be answered. But if you look at the writing,it is a blatant attempt at the Clinton Campaign to twist your perception of the delegate process. The site claims to provide "Facts" not "Myths" about the delegate process. Here are some "facts" it mentions.
1) The first fact is fairly tame and may lead you to believe the whole article is unbiased. "Fact: The Democratic Party chooses its delegates in three ways: 1) through primaries where millions vote; 2) through caucuses where thousands vote; and 3) it gives a role to elected leaders and other party activists in the process." However, read it carefully and you’ll see specific language was included to strip the caucus process of some of its legitimacy. "Millions vote in primaries, thousands vote in caucuses." Nowhere does it mention that Obama basically sweeps caucuses. That line is designed to show you that Caucus delegates are unrepresentative of the election process.
2) "FACT: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates." There are 4,049 total delgates, of which about 3,200 come from state primaries and caucuses. Obama has 1158 of the 2174 (Clinton has 1016). So technically, Obama could mathematically sweep 867 out of the remaining 1100 or so. So, this is unlikey, but not a true fact. Another werid part of this statement is the claim, "These delegates represent nearly half of the 2,208 delegate votes needed for the nomination." CNN says you need 2,025, not 2,208. And 2,025 seems to be the right math.
3) FACT: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party. This seemes accurate, bu tmeans, "They don’t have to, and shouldn’t, listen to their constituents."
4) FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy. Now, this is no more a fact than me saying I think it’s going to rain today. This is like when you are playing kickball and a car drives up, so you yell "Time Out." But the kicker doesnt hear you and pops it in the air and you catch it. Then you claim the time out didn’t really count. This is even more shady. All the candidates adhered to the Democrats’ wacky decision to punish Florida and Michigan and not seat their delegates. Now that Clinton "won" those states (no one else was even on the Michigan ballot) her campaign wants to take away the punishment. Just plain slimy if you ask me. A revote could be fair, but simply counting votes based on a race only one person participated in seems wrong.
5) "The race is currently a virtual tie, with the campaigns now separated by a small handful of delegates, barely 1% of all the delegates to the Democratic Convention." Obama today leads 1319 – 1250, a margin of 69 delegates. True, 40 delegates make up 1% of all delegates. That is one way to look at the numbers. Another way to look at the numbers is that Obama has 51.3% of votes between them compared to Clinton’s 48.7%, which is a 2.6% spread. And another way to look at the numbers is to only count the "Pledged" delegates – the ones from the primaries and caucses (aka the non-Super Delegates.) In that race, Obama has 53.3% and Clinton has 46.7%, a spead of 6.6%.
Why do I care? Because this kind of marketing seems non-genuine. It feels a lot like a web page Mortgage companies put up in order to generate leads. Or maybeit reminds me of web sites that sell "How to Get Rich" books. So I’m curious if I’m over-sensitive, or if this carefully spun web site makes anyone else just a little uncomfortable.
