Historical Errors in Sen Clinton's June primary logic

[jlacivita]

Alright there's plenty of emotional talk about whether or not Sen Clinton should have used the example she used when citing the 1968 primary and how it was still an open game in June. Lets just take her point, though, and ignore the controversial nature of how she expressed it.

It may seem on the surface like a reasonable claim: Other primaries in the past have gone into June and were still open game.

However, if you look at the timelines of the 1968 and 1992 primary seasons, the are pretty different from this primary.

1968:

In June of 1968 only 13 states had conducted their primaries and less than half of the delegates had been awarded.
Thats quite a difference from our current primary in which all but a handful of primaries are over, and 93% of the delegates have been counted (the percent is about the same whether you include MI and FL or not)

Urls to support:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968#Primaries

1992:

Its harder to find numbers on what states had held primaries so far in June 1992, but here's what i dug up:

1) primaries started in Feb, one month later than this season
2) primaries were not so heavily concentrated early in the season like they have been this time around.
3) Bill Clinton was a strong front runner as early on as March. Brown staged a mild comeback which sputtered out quickly. So yes, Brown stayed in the race, but there was no lack of clarity on who was winning and would be the nominee. It wasn't really an open game in June 1992.

Sen Clinton said it herself: her husband didn't wrap up his campaign till June. He finished the task of becoming the nominee by getting a lead in delegates and then "wrapped it up" by waiting for his opponent to realize it was not possible to win (which happened in June)

The only similarity between 2008 and 1992 is that the eventual nominee was continually challenged by a candidate with little statistical hope of winning and was banking on a long shot statistically unlikely victory (Brown was hoping for a lopsidedly win in CA since it was his home state to get enough delegates to prevent Bill Clinton from getting the nomination)

Urls to support:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E2D91138F935A35750C0A96E9C8B63&scp=3&sq=conrad+1992&st=nyt
http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=694&title=ClintonB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brown#1992_presidential_campaign

[Muttocracy]

1. were there only 15 states in 1968? nt

[Hardrada]

2. Yes.

[jlacivita]

3. lol... and i hoped we'd be serious :) n/t

[Muttocracy]

4. I meant primary states, not in the union - see sandandsea's post. nt

[jlacivita]

not sure, but the delegate percent is still valid

you might be right on how many states have primaries, but the number of delegates awarded at that point is still valid: less than half.

With less than half the delegates awarded that primary was not nearly as far along as this one, regardless of what month it happened to be.

[jlacivita]

6. not sure, but the delegate percent is still valid

you might be right on how many states have primaries, but the number of delegates awarded at that point is still valid: less than half.

With less than half the delegates awarded that primary was not nearly as far along as this one, regardless of what month it happened to be.

[pnorman]

5. THIS is why I so value my beloved DU community!

I come here (many times a day!), NOT to enter into an echo chamber of like-minded clones of myself. Rather, I come here to tap into the collective wisdom/insight of such a large and DISPARATE community! The sun never sets on the DU Community!

Let us all hope that these seemingly irreparable fissures are soon mended. November isn't all that far off, and ending this One Party Government may not be such a slam-dunk operation as it may seem at present. The sooner we can get focussed on that, the better!

pnorman

[Swamp Rat]

7. Well come together.

Obama will crush McNuts. :D

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. The Fallacy of Clinton's 1968 Analogy

Lost in the uproar over Sen. Hillary Clinton's invoking of the assassination of Robert Kennedy when explaining why her staying in the race won't hurt party unity is an actual examination of her comparison of the 2008 Democratic primary season to the one from 1968.

Clinton yesterday before the Argus Leader editorial board also invoked her husband's race in 1992. We've already twice now looked at how her reference to how her husband was still campaigning in June 1992 is a disingenuous claim.

All serious competition to Bill Clinton had dropped out in March 1992, and party leaders began rallying around him in April.

Yes, he literally did not secure the nomination until June 1992, but by then it was a foregone conclusion that he would be the nominee. Serious competitors -- Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, then-Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., the late Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass -- had done the math and dropped out.

Moreover, the timeline doesn't square because the first real contest in 1992 was the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 18. (No one competed in Iowa because Harkin was so favored.) This year's contests began on Jan. 3, 2008. Meaning this race started earlier than ever. Bill Clinton competing in June then is more like her competing in April today.

And that makes the 1968 analogy all the more inapt. Because the first contest that year, the New Hampshire primary, was on March 12, 1968.

Meaning, the fact that it was still going on in June then would be like this year's race still going on in March.

But that doesn't even really begin to explain how the 1968 comparison is ludicrous.

*****

Back then, only 13 states even held primaries -- the party bosses in most states controlled the delegates.

That's why it was possible for the 1968 Democratic presidential nominee -- then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey -- to have secured the nomination after having won exactly ZERO primaries.

To recap, then-President Lyndon Johnson won the New Hampshire primary in 1968 with 49 percent of the vote, with then-Sen. Eugene McCarthy, D-Minn, having secured a strong second place finish with 42 percent of the vote.

Then-Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., announced his candidacy on March 16. On March 31, Johnson gave his famous address to the nation, announcing, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."

But delegates allocated by primary victory were not as important back then.

McCarthy won Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Kennedy won Indiana, Nebraska and South Dakota, and was assassinated on June 5, right after winning the California contest over McCarthy, 46 percent to 42 percent.

Meanwhile, Vice President Humphrey was focused on winning the delegates in states where they were in the pocket of party bosses (which was most of them). Though McCarthy won the Pennsylvania primary, for instance with 72 percent, the man who ran the Democratic Party at the time, Mayor James Tate of Philadelphia, made sure Humphrey – who was not even on the ballot -- got most of the delegates.>>>>snip

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/the-fallacy-of.html#comments