The Clintons are claiming that she is The Candidate because the states she won have more votes in the electoral college — the only metric by which she could possibly be seen as winning — and **I’m** accused of bad analogies?

– SCAM
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com

You overstate the case mightily. The Clintons may be acting petulantly, but your metaphor is tortured at least.

If we stick to the rules, then superdelegates can vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they want: thems the rules. WE may have ethical issues with superdelegates going against the “popular will” (which we can measure in only one way, really: popular vote totals, since delegates are apportioned by a variety of different methods, and often weighted in non-democratic ways), but that doesn’t have anything to do with the rules.

“Coup by superdelegate” is a clever “frame” (which we’re all so in love with these days) but it has nothing to do with reality or the rules.

The Clintons are behaving badly, but there’s no need to excite yourself into fits of analogy. Besides: our guy has it in the bag, and no amount of whining can stop him if he is indeed the strong candidate we believe he is.

The Clinton campaign is like a chess-playing child who has been checkmated. They have swept the board and the pieces off the table and onto the floor. Their hope is that the board will land on the floor with the pieces arranged in such a way that they would be in a position to win the game. The probability of this tantrum gambit working is nigh null. If it were executed from now until the heat death of the universe, it would probably never pay off.

But that laughably infinitesimal chance — upending the contest and crossing their fingers — is the Clinton campaign’s only hope now that they have been mathematically eliminated.

Note: I can also do an analogy about a professional wrestler drawing a double disqualification if would prefer to go the low-brow route.

– SCAM
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com