Letters to the Editor
-
@cyretha
Except towards the end it does. The first sentence is totally correct, at least at this moment in time. But why play it safe? Roll the dice and see what it brings you. And watch the working-class whites, Catholics, older voters, and Latinos flock to McCain. But hey, you don't need them to win any more, right? You've got a whole new metric. Fired-up college kids and BMW-driving liberal elites will join up with African-American voters and change the face of politics forever.
As the Mamas and the Papas once sang, "Dreeaaamm, Dream, Dream, Dream...."
There is something to be said for winning the right way. One wonders why you're a dem in the first place.
-
Unsurprised
Given Obama's purportedly unassailable delegate lead, it was stunning that 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters said they believed that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.
It's considerably less surprising when you consider that 55% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania are obviously idiots. ;)
-
@HP
"I live in downtown Philly, and it is a major concern of black voters, they are waiting to get screwed."
If it makes you feel better, be assured that the great majority of Americans feel that they are also being "screwed" -- although in different ways.
This is a critical election for the Dems -- which is why I'm really so pissed off at the Hard Left. The real question here should be "Can The Democrats Seal The Deal?". It looks more and more like they cannot.
-
W.E.S.
Sure enough. Only Florida doesn't count because their legislature and governor crapped their own bed. And if/when it does, she'll still be a quarter million votes down.
Losing is losing. Obama lost PA, and no spin can change that. Hillary needed 10% to cut into the delegate lead and remain relevant and viable. She missed that mark, but with the help of MSM lies, she's managed to spin an 8.3% win into $3million over night. Good for her!
But for us, it's a little sad: the people who flushed all that money down the crapper are flushing the parties chances in November with their money. By funding this continuing knife fight, they're chumming the water for whichever Democrat finally wins.
W.E.S., in this thread you've already admitted her only path to win the nomination is by convincing Supers to ignore the electorate. Combine her path to victory with the broader personal animosity towards her outside the party and it's clear she cannot win in November. I concede Senator Obama might be damaged by Senator Clinton's "kitchen sink" tactics, and recognize the hurdle for a black man is much higher than it is for John McCain (who looks more like every President ever elected).
The fact is any Democrat is running head first into a wood chipper. The media clearly doesn't want to talk about issues, and prefers a horse race to a conversation on facts. I think there are sound reasons to vote for either of these candidates, which boil down to one's vision. If you believe politics is what it is and always will be that, well, Hillary is a good choice, since she definitely plays to win and is unencumbered by reality or even human decency. But, since I can remember a time when things were not as they are, I harbor hopes that we can chart a different course. We have to: the problems we face cannot be solved by eeking out a 51% majority and calling it a mandate (the status quo of the Clinton/Bush era). I think we have one chance to get it right - after 2008, we'll be too poor, too bogged down, and too debased as a nation to change our fate. Hillary will be a great engineer if you plan on heading deeper into this off-road wilderness. Barack is better if you hope to get out of the ditch and back on the road.
PA has proven beyond all doubt that Hillary is a 51% leader, who can only get ahead by going negative. In other words: She's running just like George W. Bush. If that's what you want, WES, you've got her. It's more fun to be cynical and contrarian, and often you're right. While it's more difficult to face the future with hope, it's worth remembering that things CAN change, because this nation has changed course in our past. We have our moments and this is certainly a great opportunity.
The good news: Nothing you or Hillary say change the basic math, and it's unlikely Supers will choose Hillary's career over their own. If the elite overturns an election, and hands victory to the loser by every measure based on a flimsy argument, the Democratic party turns a sure-win year into a dismal trainwreck. Barring a total collapse by Senator Obama in North Carolina, it's STILL over. The only question is how much mud Hillary is willing to sling to keep her chances alive for 2012? So far there appears to be no limits... she is a Clinton after all!
-
Good evidence, bad conclusions.
Failure to build on his base?
Several weeks ago, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania by 25 points. Yesterday, he lost it by 10 points. That's a 15-percent improvement.
How is that "failure to build on his base"?
"43 percent of Pennsylvania voters said they believed that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee". Translation: 57% believed that Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee.
And, of course, there is the issue of Hillary Clinton's scorched-earth policy. While I suspect that less and less Obama supporters would be willing to vote for her should she win the nomination (although I still would, if only out of disgust for McCain), I do not think for one minute that the majority of Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama over McCain.
This is sloppy work.
-
Obama Already CLOSED The Deal
Following the MSM, whose only interests lie in hyping this supposedly ongoing fight, Walter Shapiro takes the same, lazy path to his final analysis.
Obama can't close the deal? Just what planet do you all live on at Salon? Obama has already CLOSED the deal. Hillary cannot catch him in elected delegates and it's close to impossible for her to overcome him in the popular vote. Any ground he lost in Pennsylvania, he'll surely make up in North Carolina and even Indiana. And oops, Obama added another Super Delegate today.
And then you extrapolate that 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters don't watch any cable TV news, or, as you really meant it, they simply don't care about the world around them. In the next breath you tell us that these voters did not decide to vote for Obama. Is that any wonder if you're lecturing us on their supposed indifference to this race?
Far from it being Obama who can't close the deal, it's Hillary who's never even come close to sealing the deal. She had the megawatt name and starpower, the party establishment, tons of money, big time consultants, a popular ex-president by her side, an air of inevitability and the MSM all but coronating her. That she can win in states such as Pennyslvania where a popular governor is her biggest cheerleader, where she once held a huge lead, and where the Clintons have been campaigning for years and years is no surprise.
No, the surprise is that Obama is not only standing at this point, but has won. And by any reality based measure, Obama won Pennsylvania simply by forcing Hillary's campaign into the red. He cut in half a once mighty 20 point lead and all but bankrupted her. Sure, she'll raise some cash off the win, but that well is drying up.
The only way Hillary can win the nomination is to destroy the Democratic Party by stealing an election she and her high priced consultants lost through their own ineptitude. Any objective and reality-based analysis quickly cuts through all this BS about Obama not closing any deals. He's already won. Deal closed.