Letters to the Editor

• A digest from an Obama point of view. Unanswered questions.

  [Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  The article, as about 500 people have pointed out so far, makes numerous errors of omission, and a few of commission. None of these, as far as I've read (a bunch but not all) have been addressed.

  Errors of omission:

  Error:

  "But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant?"

  Sean Wilentz and the Clinton supporters and right wing trolls here haven't shown where, exactly, Obama has wanted to change the rules. Thus, tarring Obama with a "sudden" interest in the rules is... disingenuous to say the least, malicious at worst. Furthermore, even if you give Obama a goose-egg for Michigan (which is unfair, given that uncommitted brought in a whopper of a vote at over 40%) he is leading in the popular vote.

  Obama is probably getting kicked in the ass in Puerto Rico. I think PA will be tight (measure my prediction in the future versus current Clinton whackos to see who is more prescient). In the end, he will have the popular vote still, no matter how you try to slice it to favor Clinton. He will have won more states than her, which is certainly a better indicator of his campaigning skill and appeal in the GE than the second error of omission:

  Error:

  Primary results, which are vastly the Democrats participating, and not the general public, are applicable to general election results, and a winner-take-all approach is therefore more sensible. This assertion is implicit in the article, minus a single fact to support it. Clinton supporters and even the article's author don't bother trying to defend this whopper, because it simply isn't defensible. No one, not lolcait, damnthatxanadu, AKA, or any of the more "strident" Clinton supporters can defend these assertions. They merely utter them over and over and over, as if that makes them true. Along with considerable invective.

  Furthermore, the very same polls that Wilentz uses this week (Survey USA, 600 people per state, meaning laughably weak), last week (or two) had Obama way up, and Clinton way down. The state by state EC calculations are performed even when the state is within a margin of 1% out of the laughable 600 polled. They further show the capricious nature of this winner take all system that Wilentz loves so much.

  The poll claims Massachussets and New Jersey are going for McCain. Ha! In his dreams. He actually knows better than those polls and I doubt he campaigns in either place seriously. You think McCain's gonna put up a fight in California? California going Republican in a Presidential nomination would be groundshaking. I don't care if he is half black, Obama can carry CA just fine.

  Don't give me any governor nonsense. Ah-nuld got elected with sub 40% of the vote. Yes, he got re-elected, because he was very, very calculated and savvy, and he was an incumbent. I could go into it but I won't. It won't happen again for a long time.

  CA, NY, NJ, MA, and MN are going to be just fine for us, whoever gets the nomination. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your leg for one reason or another. The pendulum is swinging, but not that way. The low voter turnout for the Reps, the record turnout for the Dems even with like 8 Rep candidates should be a little bit of a clue people. This isn't going to be a close one. Ralph Reed is yesterday. This is the dawn of our time. Let's not squander it with a blatantly unfair power grab, or anything that looks like one.

  Permalink Monday, April 7, 2008 09:40 PM