A question for Senator Clinton

Will somebody please pose this question to Senator Clinton: In the general election versus McCain, if she were to win more Electoral College votes, but McCain were to win more popular votes, would she hand over the Presidency to McCain?

I believe that it is Senator Clinton's right to continue campaigning through the end of the process. I think it is in her best interest to do so to gain something from her failed campaign, though to save face she is beating down the Democratic Party.

But what I cannot stand is the constant change in her campaign's logic as to what constitutes a "win" as if changing the parameters will somehow gain her the nomination. Her most recent argument is for popular vote. It is possible that if all the votes from Florida and Michigan are counted and if some screwy method of figuring out how many caucus votes were cast are tabulated, that Clinton could end this process with more popular votes than Obama.

Again I pose the question: If towards the end of the General Election Hillary has more Electoral College votes, but McCain has more popular votes (just like Bush/Gore in 2000,) would Clinton be okey-dokey with changing the pre-existing rules of the election so that the people's voice could be heard and counted and thus hand the Presidency over to McCain?

According to her logic, yes. And I think that is just mind numbingly idiotic.

No comments: