Obama Wins Mississippi, Texas (That’s Right—Texas)

The mainstream media’s “horse race” angle on the Democratic race has gotten a bit ridiculous. For example, Hillary Clinton’s widely touted comeback on March 4 turns out to have been more or less a draw.

Why? After Texas tallied up the results if its caucuses—Texas uses a combination of a primary and caucuses to allocate its delegates—Barack Obama actually won that not-so-small state. Outside a few web sites, his victory has barely been covered. (How many of you political junkies who read my drivel were aware of it?)

It’s more than a little disingenuous to continue playing up a comeback that never was. And now that Obama’s also won Wyoming and Mississippi, Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Rhode Island seem pretty insignificant.

Take, for example, this headline at ABCNews.com—“Time on Her Side: Obama Maintains Lead, but Clinton Might Have the Edge.” Never let it be said that the mainstream media let facts get in their way.

The delegate math makes it nearly impossible for Clinton to win. Regardless of whose data you use (CBS News and CNN are reporting slightly different figures,) Obama needs to win about 45% of the remaining delegates to prevail, and Clinton, about 60%.

The superdelegates are breaking Obama’s way already, and the math favors a continuation, and probably a deepening, of that trend.

I wrote four weeks ago today that the media were pretending the race was neck and neck, when in fact, Obama was pulling away in the home turn. Now, Obama’s still pulling away, and the race is well into the home stretch—yet the mainstream media continue their charade.

The reason is simple: a tight race attracts viewers and readers.

It’s a matter of maximizing ratings and circulation, nothing more, nothing less. They want a photo finish, and if reality doesn’t give them one, they’ll make one up.

As always, follow the money.

Newsprism