Letters to the Editor
MaddieP
Published Letters: 706 Editor's Choice: 9
-
The problem with the STRONGER DANDIDATE argument
[Read the article: Clinton makes appeal to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a fervent Obama supporter but I think Hillary has better numbers in swing states. That's undeniable. But while I think she brings strength to a democratic ticket I don't believe that give the current situation, she is MORE electable just because of that fact.
WHY?
Because the current situation is that given the way our primaries run, Obama has earned more delegates. And while the rule is that the nominee must reach a certain number of delegates, the general consensus is (and common sense would dictate) that in a situation where neither has reached the magic number (at least so far), the nomination should go to the candidate who has earned the greatest number of delegates, barring some really obvious electability issues.
Obama's poorer number in states like OH and PA are important, yes, but may not rise (in the mind of superdelegates) to the level of a serious problem with electability.
WHY NOT?
Because we have no way to accurately predict if and how many of those voters would not vote for Obama or would vote republican in the fall.
We can add to this, the unique economic situation and our unique war status. Those factors make the predicting even more difficult.
Obviously Obama feels that those voters will come around. And mostly he's probably right. Tribalism often kicks in when we're "attacked" - its natural.
Of course Hillary believes she's more electable as well because she feels Obama's supporters will come around as well.
THE TRUTH IS: NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.
This is why I advocate a combined ticket. There's no other way to accurately predict November's outcome without it. Neither is MORE ELECTABLE on the face of it. Hillary's argument is based one the same assumption Obama's is: all democratic voters (or at least the vast majority of them) will ultimately vote for along party lines.
I'd like to think this is true but we JUST DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. And we don't know how many will. Would it be 60%? 40%? 15%? And how many do we need to take the EC points in a particular state? See why this electability argument is nearly impossible?
THIS is why the supers have held out so long. They realize this. To award Clinton the nomination because she won in the swing states veritably makes all the other states (and the whole delegate-earning process) a complete joke, especially when her competitor amassed a greater number of them than did she. AND this "joke" would automatically make her less electable. Don't you get it? On the other hand, there is no doubt that we must win at least two of those swing states to take the presidency. SO the supers have to decide whether they believe Obama can win over the majority of Clinton's supporters in those states by November. They must weigh that against whether Clinton can be awarded the nomination and then win over Obama's supporters by November.
It's a Tough Call. Many are choosing the latter because they feel that the perception of unfairness (choosing the candidate who earned fewer delegates) would make it much harder for Hillary to win over Obama's supporters. I don't knw oif this is true or not. But I'm sure that's what they are considering.
Of course, a combined ticket makes this all a moot point. Poor McCain probably wouldn't even win his own state of Arizona. It would be an EASY 50 state sweep.
-
cabrick
[Read the article: Clinton makes appeal to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree its a roll of the dice. I'll grant that. I've said that many time before. It woudl be a roll of the dice with EITHER candidate at this point (see my earlier post on this thread for my rationale). But you're wrong about the numbers of supporters. Let's be honest.
There have been 35 million votes cast in the democratic primaries this season.
About half for Hillary and about half for Obama. That's the bottom line. The truth. He DOES happen to have more delegates. (Being from Florida I'm not buying into the popular vote spin bull crap. I didn't get to vote - I'm an independent who would have gladly switched parties to vote in the primary except I thought it wouldn't count - that's what they told me way back in summer 2007).
But I digress. Its not important. I hope they seat 100% of the damn delegates.
Bottom line, Hillary and Obama have BOTH garnered tremendous support from democrats and even presumably some disaffected repubs and even some indies like me.
Its not nearly as lopsided as you say. So just stop it. It doesn't bolster your argument.