Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
It's just amazing to me that the Clinton crowd doesn't realize her basic unelectableness in November, especially against the presumptive "moderate" Republican. This post isn't about her qualities, which I agree are considerable.
A horrible sense of Deja Vu is descending as I realize this is Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale all over again.
How many times do we go down this road? If Clinton ekes out a delegate win, we're going down it one more jolly time. And everyone here will be surprised.
There's a complete and utter lack of grasp of reality here. Witness the tone of this article, which turns a fairly close Democratic race into a blowout. Huh?
I voted for Hillary, but it was very close for me. I alternate between voter's remorse and confidence that I chose the right candidate. I am one of the people who identified with Rebecca Traister's last column. Finally, I chose the person who I felt would be a better president, although I feel Obama is probably a better candidate.
Last night and this morning, I was thinking about the electoral map. I live in Alabama where Huckabee narrowly beat McCain and Obama trounced Clinton. That tells me that, at least in this state, support for McCain is soft and support for Clinton is non-existent. Conventional wisdom says that Huckabee voters will stay home in a McCain-Obama contest, but will get out the vote for McCain over Clinton.
Alabama doesn't matter. I don't think Obama can carry Alabama. But what about swing states with strong evangelical populations? What about Tennessee and West Virginia? The Democrats will need to expand their support outside of New England and California to beat the Republicans in the fall. In a year that seems like a can't-lose for the Democrats, are we nominating a candidate that so alienates red-state voters that she reproduces Kerry's loss in 2004? What was I thinking to assume that any year could be a can't-lose for Democrats?
When it comes down to it, I think Obama has a better chance in November than Clinton. I think Obama is a candidate who can win discouraged Republicans over to the Democratic side, and there are a lot of discouraged Republicans this year. Clinton can't do that.
Personally, I was heartened to take another look at the map this morning and see that Clinton carried Tennessee and came very close to winning Missouri and New Mexico. She will need these states in the fall if she is the nominee. Exit polls show she did well among Hispanics. Maybe the Hispanic vote will decide the election this year.
Arrrgh! I so badly want the Democrats to take my country back that I can't think about anything else!
(I guess if Michigan and Florida could do it over again, they might not mind having a late primary this year.)
cowboys - Obama took Missouri and the "Show me State" always
picks "the final winner" - thats a fact and bothing but a fact!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.
A huge part of her campaign has been her saying over and over again "I have 35 years of experience." This will mean nothing against someone who's actually been a senator for over 20 years. Add in McCain being senator of a border state, his POW backstory, and the fact that even HRC herself can't bring herself to say anything bad about the man (hell, I haven't heard a single Dem say a single negative thing about him), and you've got some serious problems shaping up for HRC should she secure the nomination. It'll take more than winning over traditionally Democratic populations (working-class, Latinos) to beat McCain this fall and anyone who ignores this has got to be kidding themselves.
"Less jobs, more wars"
Maybe Clinton is more popular in die-hard blue states like Massachusetts and New York. Then again, so was Dukakis.
Independents are preferring Obama by wide margins. We're seeing waves of first-time voters turning out for Obama. And while McCain fractures the Republican base, nothing unites and motivates them like Hillary Clinton -- while I'm watching former Republican friends crossing the aisle to support Obama.
Being a feminist, I judge the candidates not by their gender but by the content of their campaigns, and our best hope for a Democrat in the White House is Obama.
I vote for what I believe and who I believe can deliver that. I do not vote for what some pundit tells me or some notion that we know what will happen 10 months from now. Voting for notions of electability based on the data of the polls (like Zogby etc) and pundit opinions is not something I will do ever. This is an idle threat that obviously millions of people in the Democratic base do not believe in.
Thank you to the independents for participating, thank you to the young people who came out and voted with passion. But please do not try to create some artificial panic that a vote for Clinton means the dems will lose. As you can tell, the pundits and polls don't know much.
It'll take more than winning over traditionally Democratic populations (working-class, Latinos) to beat McCain this fall and anyone who ignores this has got to be kidding themselves.
Feel our pain, Czarina (and welcome to Salon; I hope the Clintonites give you a day or two breathing space before they start hurling rocks at you for wrongthink).
We've been trying to point this out for months, but it seems that the reality-based community has largely flown from Salon, replaced by the Anonymouseketeers and the fealty-based community of Clinton.
"Less jobs, more wars"
---Wow, you've got random Dem blogs and crazy Pat Buchanan decrying McCain's platform. This comprehensive evidence really settles it, then!
---For the record, I want a Dem in office, but I'm also not blind to McCain's power and reputation. It's not an insignificant thing that he pulls in independents.
"No guy would ever get elected with such weak credentials" - Brightstar
Uhhhh...GWB?
Cute joke, one I empathize with.
But GWB, for all his seeming inadequacies is not the dummy he portrays on TV, but the front man for dark forces inside our government.
You see, the rich are getting richer faster, the poor are drying out, the middle class is shrinking. Excessive irrational laws have pinned us all down against the rat wheel, our rights have been stripped from us, and the government/military complex enjoys endless PROFITABLE unjustifiable warfare, the economy is about to collapse ON SCHEDULE so the elites can pick up the choicest assets for cents on the dollar, we no longer have borders (thanks to your Democraps), industry is being pumped to create new ways to subjugate us, spy on us, shorten our lives. I thought BIN LADEN was the enemy. Oh, I forgot, he's on the CIA payroll and another front man for this phony staged terror war.
GWB has been a freaking GENIUS, just not for you and me or for anyone who does not have a billion dollars stored away in Switzerland.
I blame Democraps, instead of voting in change, they keep getting suckered and vote in the elite selected clowns du jour who go in and do NOTHING. If there were some awake voters, there would be third parties because people would be DEMANDING THEM.
But there are not, in my view, the human race is completely inadequate to rule itself and requires totalitarianism-- which means it is completely and utterly INADEQUATE altogether.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
