After any close election, not only will there be a sense of frustration and anguish among the supporters of the losing candidate, but there will also be a significant amount of feeling that the result was somehow unfair or unjust. The 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination campaign will be no different in this regard, as there are already numerous narratives from the Clinton campaign and Clinton supporters that Senator Hillary Clinton was, in some fashion, robbed of the nomination.
However, while there are at least six narratives of this type, none of them hold up to closer scrutiny. I examine, and debunk, each of these six arguments in the extended entry.
Popular Vote: The Clinton campaign has long claimed that Senator Clinton received more votes in the nomination campaign than did Senator Obama. However, when all states are included, and when Senator Obama is, as per exit polls, properly allocated 72.9167% of the Michigan uncommitted vote and uncounted write-in votes, then he actually leads by 17,393 votes. This is the only counting system that I know of which includes every state, and which only counts each voter once. As such, it is the broadest and fairest count, and Obama leads in it. Senator Obama, not Senator Clinton, narrowly won the national popular vote.
Caucuses: This complaint is mainly a subset of the popular vote argument, but it has still cropped up enough to deserve individual mention. The Clinton campaign has repeatedly argued that Senator Clinton leads among primary delegates, and would have won the nomination if every state held a primary instead of a caucus. As I explained earlier today in more detail earlier today, it is probably correct that Clinton would have won the nomination if every state held a primary instead of a caucus. However, since Obama won the popular vote, since every campaign knew which states would hold caucuses more than a year ahead of time, and since no campaign complained about caucuses until at least late January 2008, this argument doesn't hold any weight. These were the rules, everyone knew them ahead of time, but the Clinton and Obama campaigns simply approached caucuses with different amounts of resources. For example, according to an article in today's Washington Post, Obama had 21 campaign staffers in Kansas to Clinton's 3, and the Obama campaign has an official presence in the state three months longer than the Clinton campaign. Clinton did just fine in the caucuses she targeted--Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. Her failures in other caucus states are due to a lack of organizing and her inability to sway the Democratic activist class.
Media Coverage: The Clinton campaign and Clinton supporters have complained excessively about imbalanced, supposedly pro-Obama media coverage during the nomination campaign. However, as it turns out, media coverage of Clinton and Obama was equally favorable from January 1st through March 9th, according to the latest study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism. The time period of the study, which ended just before coverage of Jeremiah Wright exploded across the corporate media, showed Obama with 69% favorable media coverage, and Clinton with 67% favorable media coverage. As such, in 2008, it does not appear that Senator Barack Obama received more favorable media coverage than Senator Hillary Clinton.
More Sexism Than Racism: I won't attempt in this space to determine if there was more sexism or racism in the campaign, if one candidate benefited more form the refusal of certain voters to pick a woman / African-American, or if one campaign played the racism / sexism card more. From my vantage point, it has pretty been a wash. I suppose someone could conduct a survey of exit polls, and add of the Clinton vs. Obama split in every state among voters who said that "race was a factor" in their decision and that "gender was a factor" in their decision. Combine that with a more extensive media study, and maybe we can make an actual determination. Until that time, however, this is a question with only subjective, indeterminate answers.
No Florida and Michigan Revotes: Finally, according to today's Washington Post, the Obama campaign was always opposed to any revotes in Florida and Michigan, because they feared such revotes could give Clinton momentum, delegates and a popular vote advantage. This does seem like an egregious act on the Obama campaign's part. However, the Clinton camp never approved a revote plan for Florida, either, so the Obama camp is no more at fault in that state than the Clinton camp. When it comes to Michigan, any revote would have probably allowed Obama to narrow Clinton's popular vote margin in Michigan (a margin of roughly 135,000 according to the above popular vote totals), and at least draw even to the five delegate margin that Clinton eventually received from the Rules and Bylaws committee. This is because the only post-primary poll of Michigan showed a dead heat, 41%-41%, between Obama and Clinton in Michigan. Had there been a Michigan revote, Obama's delegate margin would not have been reduced, while his popular vote margin would have increased. So, while it was not the most enlightened action undertaken by the Obama campaign, it would not have affected the ultimate outcome.
Overall, while the margin was extremely narrow, Obama still won the nomination fair and square. He won the popular vote, did not receive more favorable treatment in the media during 2008, probably did not disproportionately benefit from the racism vs. sexism divide (although more study might be needed on that one), and would have still prevailed under any Florida and Michigan scenario. It was a tough, bitter, slog of a campaign, but the outcome was not unfair. In the most fascinating nomination campaign any of us will probably ever witness, Barack Obama emerged the narrow, but ultimately deserving, victor. Let the healing begin.
