Letters to the Editor
-
Pot.Kettle.Black.
Yes, because everyone knows that the best thing for the economy is four more years of tax breaks for the rich. And the best thing for our foreign policy is another 100 (or 10,000) years in Iraq. That's why I'll vote for McCain, no matter what. Because another 4 to 8 years of Bush policies is exactly what our country needs right now
Whereas you're so concerned about it that you're going to keep ignoring the electoral math and promoting this fantasy that Barrack Obama is somehow going to suddenly appeal to the elderly, blue collars, hispanics, Asians and Catholics that clearly want no part of him which makes virtually every big electorate state a Dem needs to win besides Illinois, suddenly in play for John McCain.
Plus I'm sure the Republicans will have all sorts of difficulty finding ways to smear a guy who has had two Muslim fathers, connections to indicted slumlords, has no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and has pretty much based his entire campaign on a speech about Iraq when he didn't have to worry about the consequences of it.
-
@ lolcait
1) What happens when they redo Florida and Michigan and Obama remains on top with Elected Delegates, States won, and Popular vote?
What will you do then?
2) Obama's got a longer legislative record and history that Clinton by about 4 years. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and look at his proposals.
Better still, look at these DKos diaries on the subject. This is of course if you're interested in the truth as opposed to talking points.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783
3) The only one throwing a tantrum right now are the Clintons. They're behind in every single metric whether it be States Won, Delegates Awarded, Popular Vote, Money Raised, you name it.
Obama has run a damn clean and honorable campaign compared to what the Clintons have done. I seriously think you have it backwards.
-
@ ShawnWM
You've got it backwards. Only a small percentage of Hillary Clinton supporters (roughly 10%) want no part of Obama. The rest would support him as the nominee but like them both.
About 25% of Obama supporters want no part of Hillary Clinton. Where does this come from? The fact that a lot of his supporters are Independents and Republicans. They're also a lot of democrats who are sick and tired of the Clinton's and do not want a return to the fights of the 90s that she would bring with her.
It makes logical sense in every way shape and form about who's supporters are dyed in the wool lock step democrats and who's supporters are not.
p.s.: All of the groups you mentioned will come around to Obama eventually. Why? Because he won those groups by huge margins in Illinois and he has done well with them in a lot of states. He came pretty damn close in New Mexico, for example.
And consider California where he only lost by 10pts after being down by 20-30pts.
Consider Wisconsin where he took every single demographic away from Hillary Clinton, including older voters.
And so forth and so on. Hillary Clinton has much less of a chance pulling Obama's supporters to her than the other way around.
If she ended up wrenching the nomination away from Obama like Ed Rendell suggested today on MTP, i.e., through the Super Delegates even if he had all of the votes and elected delegates and states, she would need him as VP to remain viable.
He does not need her however. It would probably hurt him to have her on the ticket considering how despised she is with the very people he's trying to bring into the democratic fold.
-
Fortune-tellers are stupid
Sure, maybe McCain's staff is laughing at the idea of facing Hillary. Well, I think she'll wipe the grins off their faces pretty quick.
There's a famous expression in the movie business, "Nobody knows anything," that I wish political junkies would learn too. It was in William Goldman's book, "Adventures in the Screen Trade," about his life as a screenwriter. He had seen endless predictions of this being a hit, that being a flop, proved wrong over and over. People, directors, writers, are always saying they KNOW this or that will appeal to a demographic, but that's just to get money out of you; Goldman had the answer: Nobody knows anything. Political pundits in training ought to pay attention to that. Sure, you can make a plausible case for anything, but you just...don't...know. And you might even get people to invest in a story, in a director, and then it will bomb miserably, and they will hate you. And just when you think your career's over, somebody will give you more money for another film, because of your "track record," and that will be a huge hit. You don't know.
So stop it with, "X will do better against McCain, or Y will do better." The truth is, you're lying. You don't know.
I distinctly remember the speech that Bill Clinton gave in front of some steelworkers, during the time when he went from last to first, when I finally connected with him. Evidently, a lot of America did the same. Would anybody have seen that he would "beat Bush"? You'd have to have been a fortune teller to say that, and they're all frauds, you know.
The last theory of "inevitability" was Marx's inevitable triumph of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and it turns out, there was nothing inevitable about that at all.
-
@Mgm
You've got it backwards. Only a small percentage of Hillary Clinton supporters (roughly 10%) want no part of Obama. The rest would support him as the nominee but like them both.
Really? How do you know. By all accounts at least 25% of HRC supporters would sit this one out but that's already obsolete. Given the divisive, racially charged tone of the Obama campaign, it's possibly quite higher.
About 25% of Obama supporters want no part of Hillary Clinton. Where does this come from? The fact that a lot of his supporters are Independents and Republicans.
Actually I'd love to see your citation for that. The cites I've seen have shown (at best) Obama getting 3% of the Republican vote.
They're also a lot of democrats who are sick and tired of the Clinton's and do not want a return to the fights of the 90s that she would bring with her.
Really, where? And what makes you think that any elected Democrat isn't going to get the same sort of fights from the GOP, assuming they get as far as the Clinton's... All I know is the Clintons, tired as you may be of them, are the ONLY Dems to win two presidential terms conseq. since FDR.
It makes logical sense in every way shape and form about who's supporters are dyed in the wool lock step democrats and who's supporters are not.
convincing.
p.s.: All of the groups you mentioned will come around to Obama eventually. Why?
Because he won those groups by huge margins in Illinois
Not true. He only won half of the Illinois hispanic vote and that was in his home state. Very very ominious for him in a general where Dems *have* to win NJ and California and would be damned helpful to get NM, AZ and/or Colorado.
and he has done well with them in a lot of states. He came pretty damn close in New Mexico, for example.
On all he's only getting about 15% of the hispanic vote so how does that fair for him in critical high-hispanic states like NJ and CAlifornia, not to mention Arizona where McCain is actually from and like HRC, is popular with hispanics.
And consider California where he only lost by 10pts after being down by 20-30pts.
I AM considering California. That's what I'm worried about.
Consider Wisconsin where he took every single demographic away from Hillary Clinton, including older voters.
I'd be careful. He may have won a few over. Maybe. Wisconsin had open primaries much like Texas and the votes he did get from GOPsters playing trip-up won't be there in November. Remember by then the McCain had it sewed up and Republicans were voting in Dem primaries.
And so forth and so on. Hillary Clinton has much less of a chance pulling Obama's supporters to her than the other way around.
Okie dokie. Let's say she doesn't. Well, that pretty much means that we will lose black southern states - nothing new there. And Wyoming and Idaho and a few states that went Republican anyway. Meanwhile with HRC California, NJ, NY, MA, OH, PN, much of the southwest is guaranteed. So I guess we can afford to lose Vermont.
If I have to take chances on one campaign or the other sitting out it therefore makes more sense to let the Obama camp do it. Because she wins the big electoral states and he doesn't.
If she ended up wrenching the nomination away from Obama like Ed Rendell suggested today on MTP, i.e., through the Super Delegates even if he had all of the votes and elected delegates and states, she would need him as VP to remain viable.
I disagree if she "wretches" the campaign away from your Messiah's rightful title to it, she nominates Richardson and sweeps up the southwest.
He does not need her however.
Yeah, sure. What does he need with NY, the southwest, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida or New Jersey.
It would probably hurt him to have her on the ticket considering how despised she is with the very people he's trying to bring into the democratic fold.
If you say so.