Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 272 Editor's Choice: 11
-
"It's the Popular Vote Winner, Stupid!" (The Al Gore re-mix)
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Somehow the Obama campaign decided that the superdelegates must endorse the candidate who gets the most pledged delegates in the primaries. Is Obama's campaign making up the rules as we go?!"
What, they can't make that argument to try to persuade delegates? Clinton gets to make any crazy argument that suits her needs, but you cry foul when Obama tries to make a commonsensical pitch?
"According to the DNC rules, the superdelegates are free to endorse ANY candidate they choose. Their INDIVIDUAL decisions could be based on the number of pledged delegates, the states won, WHICH states they won, the popular votes, the candidate they think would be strongest in the General Election, or simply the one they like the most. (Those are the rules.)"
Thanks for telling us the rules. We understand they CAN support whoever they want. The question is, is it advisable to select a candidate in defiance of the voting results of the primaries?
"- Most of the states Obama has won are red to deep-red states that the GOP will win in November."
Most of Hillary's victories are in states that ANY Democrat will win. If you want a reasonably accurate assessment of where HIllary has a GE edge over Obama, and vice versa, see electoral-vote.com. Obama is surprisingly competitive against McCain in many red states. Hillary turns red states redder.
"- Obama has won only ONE large state, IL, which happens to be his home state and a state that Hillary would also win with a comfortable margin in the GE."
But let's all remember that Obama is the elitist who doesn't care about people in Middle America.
Nevertheless, if you don't live in MA, NY, NJ, IL, OH, PA, FL, TX, or CA, you don't matter.
"- A very large number of delegates pledged to Obama have been from the CAUCUS states. Caucuses are inherently discriminatory, undemocratic and not representative of the general population."
Winning by superdelegate, however, is highly democratic and perfectly representative of the will of the populace, even when it contradicts it.
"- One way to quantify the claim in the previous paragraph is to look at the number of votes per pledged delegate for each candidate. Based on RCP data: While Hillary has 1,333 pledged delegates and 13,917,o09popular votes, giving her 10,440 votes per pledged delegate, Obama has 1,489 pledged delegates and 14,417,619 popular votes, giving him only 9,683 votes pre pledged delegate. (Just do the math.)"
Although you are allowing that Obama is 500,000 popular votes ahead of Hillary, you adduce this as evidence AGAINST the legitimacy of his lead. Ouch - my head hurts.
"- Why would 10 Obama voters have the same voting power as 11 Hillary voters?!"
You have heard of the Electoral College? That thing that gives small states a disproportionate role in picking the President?
"- Hillary has consistently won all the LARGE states with the sole exeption of IL (Obama's home state)."
Most of which - NY, CA, MA, NJ, IL, PA - have gone Democratic in every presidential election since 1992. Others - like Texas - have virtually no chance of going Democratic (although Obama is currently competitive against McCain in Texas while HIllary is not.) Yes, in a few of those large states, Hillary is a more competitive candidate than Obama (Ohio, Florida). But McCain won those same states in the Republican primaries. Doesn't your logic imply that McCain would win those states in the GE?
"- Hillary has won the KEY SWING STATES of Ohio and Pennsylvania. NO Democrat will be able to win the GE without winning three of the 4 swing states: OH, PA, FL, MI. Hillary is well-positioned to win FL. Obama has ZERO chance to win FL and he is extremelly unlikely to win either OH or PA. He may be able to win only MI. Conclusion: Obama is a weak candidate for the GE."
Check out polling data. Both Hillary and Obama are likely GE winners in Pennsylvania. Electoral-vote.com has Hillary losing Michigan but Obama winning it. You have a point about Ohio and Florida. But Gore could have won without either Ohio or Michigan if he'd only carried WV.
"- After the PA primary, Hillary has SURPASSED Obama in the Popular Vote by 122,471 votes ! This is counting the votes in MI and FL, which MUST be counted."
"For those in the Obama campaign who say that it would be undemocratic for the superdelegates NOT to favor the candidate with the largest number of pledged delegates, I say, it would be undemocratic not to count the votes of MI and FL (even if the delegates are not seated). The MI and FL voters have the same right as any other voter to have their votes counted."
Bullshit. If you include Florida, Hillary is still over 200,000 votes behind. Counting Michigan is ridiculous because Obama wasn't on the ballot. If you count the 55% who voted for Hillary but disregard the 40% who voted "Not Hillary" you are "disenfranchising" the voters who weren't able to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is where the hypocritical sanctimony of the Clinton arguments really starts to stink...
"1) Hillary is winning the Popular Votes." Bullshit. See above.
"2) Hillary is posed to win the key swing states of PA, OH, FL and MI. (Obama is clearly not.)"
See electoral-vote.com. Hillary is poised to win Ohio and Florida (Obama is not); both to win Pennsylvania; Obama to win Michigan (Hillary is not). Obama is stronger in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, states which we also need to win.
"3) Hillary is clearly the strongest Dem candidate for the GE."
Based on all your factitious logic.
"4) Most importantly, Hillary is electable, Obama is not."
There you have it - the oracle of Delphi has spoken.
"If delegates do their job responsibly, it's a no brainer: Hillary should be the nominee"
Thus, if the superdelegates do their job responsibly, they will render the past six months a moot exercise. My, that's really going to drive up voter participation in future primaries!