- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Although it wasn't in a complimentary way, so I'll leave that one alone.
No I don't think he can snap his fingers and get states. You're right to call me on that. I also don't think anything's for sure.
But I don't think he's going to lose California and New York as some people charge. And I find the notion that he's going to lose 30 states laughable. I also find the idea he's a secret Muslim, which some seem to believe, crazy.
The point is he's as electable as any other candidate, IMHO because of the map. To me too many people in the official Clinton campaign are operating on the notion the map will stay static, the same as it was in 2004. This just isn't going to happen for a myriad of reasons, starting with the war, Bush's huge unpopularity, the fact that Republicans are losing districts they've never lost before (the one in Illinois they held for 30 years and the one in Louisiana for 20 years) and the fact he turns out the one segment of the population that could significantly tip the scales simply because it hasn't been voting up until now (young people.)
People over 29 have been voting somewhere along the clip of 61-63%. People 24-29, only 40%. 18-24 it's even lower. So I think, to a certain degree, he changes the map.
But you're right to call me on any notion I may have been transmitting, that it will be easy. Or any notion that he doesn't have a serious problem getting either Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida. He does. That's where the problem lies. He's GOT to get one of those.
