Yesterday, Hillary Clinton met with top donors in Washington D.C. for a "pep talk" designed to reassure them that the campaign was still on track. Greg Sargent talked with one of the fundraisers who was present, and I found this passage noteworthy:
[T]he clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate.
These criteria seem to the last thing you'd want to bring up. After all, Hillary trails in both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, as well as the number of states she's won. Now, the quote says "specific states won by each candidate" which appears to be a reiteration of the argument that Hillary has won the only states that will matter in the general election. But as we know, that is meaningless; primary voters are not like general election voters. These criteria are clearly designed to win over superdelegates, but don't they make the case for Hillary's rival, rather than for her? Very strange.
--Mori Dinauer
