Letters to the Editor
-
Swing state bull
The whole idea that Obama can't win the general because he cannot win a swing state is bull. In PA for instance the demographics have changed dramatically since 2000. Besides Electoral votes in the General are based on districts, based on population. Obama in all states has won the most votes in high population areas and that is exactly why he is ahead in the pledged delegates.
Besides those who are saying he cannot carry a swing state are thus assuming that no one that voted for Hillary will vote for Obama. The majority of new voters, which are party needs, are in the election because of Obama.
Besides Obama has a better chance of getting the cross over votes from republicans and independents than Hillary.
I really think Hilary prefer to kill the Democrats chances of winning the general if she does not get the nomination. The Clintons have always been about the Clintons and not the party.
-
Attention, Rebecca. It's over.
Even with a landslide win today and exceeding all expectations over the last primaries she'll still require a 2/3 split of the superdelegates. I just don't think that it's remotely possible that such a great number of Democrats will decide to throw the decision of the people out the window. Especially since it would mean decades of racism accusations.
It's been over since he won Texas...
Fighting a true enemy against extreme odds is bravery.
Shooting your team mate in the foot because he's winning the race is hubris.
-
@ cythera45
He may lose PA, but your candidate has lost way more states, way more delegates and way more individual voters. Not only can she not seal the deal, she has no cards left to play.
Everyone -- including Salon and cythera45 -- know that Clinton can win only if the super delegates overturn the will of the voters. Why would they do that? Most of them are elected officials who need big turnout in their own races.
And could someone please explain why Clinton winning OH and PA means Obama will lose to McCain in those states? Is it because Clinton is exactly like McCain?
-
@cythera45
Here's a very simple answer. Demographics. Old people vote for Hillary. Women vote for Hillary. She is the establishment candidate. The establishment is entrenched in large swing states. Obama is the insurgent. It's really not that complex.
I am not sure I even understand your point. If Hillary wins big states and loses the popular vote and elected delegates, she deserves to win ? Sorry your in the minority...err your a Hillary supporter.
-
Awwww, thats so cute...
Then perhaps the democrats should throw this complete give-away election just to give the adorable voters of the remaining states the once in a lifetime experience of assuring 4 more years of neocon reign.
-
@cythera45
"Can we have one brave Obamabot step up to the plate and explain WHY their candidate is going to lose the second major swing state since his February hot streak?"
Ohio was won by (a) Hillary lying about her support of NAFTA and spreading lies about Obama's stealth support, and (b) Limbaugh listeners coming out to vote for her in record numbers (they even made the popular vote difference, and then some, in Texas).
She's a Senator from a state bordering PA, and has the support of the sitting Governor and a huge political machine, not to mention 16 years of name recognition and a husband who used to be president, and many Pennsylvanians, as well as everyone else, long for a return to those years.
Working-class Pennsylvanians are trusting Hillary when she says she had serious reservations about NAFTA, even though NO ONE in the Clinton administration remembers anything of the kind, and the officials who'd be most familiar with her attitude at the time, Bill Richardson and Robert Reich, have broken with her and are supporting Obama.
What does that tell you about how they feel about Hillary?
The truth is that Hillary is not Bill. She's not nearly as nice a person, and doesn't support the same policies. She's very hard-line on war, again lying to people that she'd pull us out of Iraq, a war she enthusiastically supported at the time (and is suspiciously tenuous in her supposed "opposition" now).
Last, but not least, Hillary has made racism a key component in her campaign. What the hell, she seems to be thinking? Let me call him a Farrakhan-worshipping Muslim terrorist. It might work!
By the way, the next chapter in the Rove playbook, the only one Hillary hasn't used yet, is to commit massive voter fraud. It comes down to how much Ed Rendell is willing to cheat to get her votes, because Hillary wouldn't hesitate for a second.
-
Can we have one brave Obamabot step up to the plate and explain WHY their candidate is going to lose the second major swing state since his February hot streak?
Let's look at her BIG wins in BIG states.
I looked at states with over 100 delegates. Here is how the delegates split out. The total delegates in CA IL, NJ,NY,OH,TX, = 1129 delegates. Obama got 539 f those pledge delegates from the BIG states. Hillary got 590 delegates from those BIG states.
Hillary's big win in BIG states amounts to 51 more delegates.
whoopi do. Hillry is just spinning her wins. They are not that BIG.
-
@cythera45
Because in those larger swing states, Clinton has divided voters by subtly playing the race-who's more American-who's is going to save your factory job-card with blue collar voters. (Everything any candidate says on this count is a pandering lie, as the industrial jobs that supported blue collar communities for so long in this country are gone and they aren't coming back-politicians need to stop lying about this and blue collar folks need to start accepting this fact, tragic as it is [also, NAFTA, which BOTH CLINTONS were for, has helped perhaps more than anything to siphon jobs away from places like PA]).She also plays to their fears of "elites" all the while dodging the fact that she is very much an "elite" herself. Sounds like someone else...hmmmm...
Oh yeah. George W Bush.
This is not a great argument. She is winning some of these states (California, Texas, Ohio, etc), but she son most of them by somewhere between 5-14%. Factor in a margin of error, which is usually around 2-4%, and that closes the gap even more. Basically, that means the the candidates more or less break even.
On the other hand, look at the larger states Obama has won (Illinois, Wisconsin, the Potomacs)--he had far more decisive victories. Honestly, do you think California or New York has a chance of going Republican regardless of the candidate? Of course you don't, because that will not happen, so the argument that Obama can't carry large blue states is ludicrous.
Moreover, the telling number is in the more neglected states (Idaho, Kansas, Hawaii, etc). Though they may be small, and some of them traditionally red, they posted record breaking turnout. Most of that record breaking turnout went Obama's way. That makes sense, because that record breaking turnout was mostly people excited about voting for Obama. Also, in many of the traditionally red states, the Democratic turnout dwarfed that of the Republicans, which is a great sign for the Dems.
The fact of the matter is regardless of who can win here, who can win there, which group of people is more likely to vote for this or that candidate, Obama will be the nominee, and that will probably be clear sometime on Wednesday or Thursday when Clinton is abandoned by most of the Democratic galaxy. Also, watch for Gore to stick it to her at the worst (for her) possible time. No love loss there.