Letters to the Editor
-
@lolcait
Your argument is based on flawed logic that assumes Barak can't win.
However all evidence to the contrary points to the fact that Barak can win.
You deride caucuses for being "undemocratic" however if you understood the purpose of caucuses you would understand their entire purpose is to determine electability.
Caucuses are about on the ground grass roots organization, something that the working man Obama, beats the elite Senator Clinton in, time and time again.
If your argument is electability, at least be honest and realize why Senator Clinton is unelectable. No money, no ground support, and a real lack of popularity.
Barak can win, because he has won, he continues to win, and his machine is solid, while Hillary's wheels are falling off as she once again "mispeaks" and is "overtired".
We're all getting overtired of Clinton. Her argument is born of Aristocracy and has no place in the Democratic Party.
-
Stupidity spreading?
I guess Walsh's (sic) leadership of this magazine is spreading and infecting everyone. Jesus, Joe, are you really this stupid? Please go back to grade school where you might learn critical thinking. Oh, unless you're another Clinton shill. I used to think you were sharp.
"On the merits of that argument, she could be correct. Despite Obama's appeal to a substantial number of independents and a dwindling number of Republicans, her chances to build an Electoral College majority may well be better than his are, owing to his difficulty in attracting white working-class voters."
Here is Kos' answer using the SAME Clinton Map. Kos who apparently runs rings around yours and Salon's smarts as Obama is to Clinton.
"1)The Clinton and Obama maps by kos
Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM PDT
So the pro-Clinton camp is circulating these Electoral-Vote maps to "prove" that Clinton is more "electable" in the fall:
Clinton v McCain:
McCain: 239
Clinton: 289
Ties: 10
Obama v McCain:
McCain: 254
Obama: 269
Ties: 15
I can quibble with the methodology, but I won't. There's a larger point to be made using those maps. The author has helpfully divided the states into Strong, Weak, and Barely Dem/GOP. Let's see how our two candidates fare:
Obama Clinton
Strong Dem 67 74
Weak Dem 144 98
Barely Dem 58 117
Tied 15 10
Barely GOP 76 13
Weak GOP 44 89
Strong GOP 134 137
What's this tell us?
It tells us that Obama's base is stronger: "strong" and "weak" Dem add up to 172 for Clinton, and 211 for Obama. We have to play less defense.
With Obama, McCain's base is weaker: 226 EVs versus Clinton, and 178 versus Obama.
These two data points alone are worth the price of admission for Obama. With him as our nominee, Democrats have a larger safe base, and Republicans have a smaller one. But what about the contested states?
More Democratic states are at risk with Clinton. In the "barely Dem" category, Clinton has double the EVs -- 117 to 58. What's more, the "tied" state -- Wisconsin, is a Blue state. So with Clinton, we have 127 EVs that are in weak hands.
With Obama, however, we have only 58 "barely Dem" EVs, and the tied states, North Carolina, is a Red state.
Obama puts more pressure on McCain states: With Obama, McCain has 76 "barely GOP" EVs compared to 13 against Clinton. Put another way, best case scenario where our candidates take all the states in their column and "barely GOP" columns, Obama ends up with 360 EVs, while Clinton would get 312. Obama has far higher ceiling.
Obama Holds the Kerry states better: This is related to the "base states" stuff above. The only Kerry state Obama currently loses is New Hampshire. On the other hand, Clinton loses Michigan, New Hampshire, and ties in Wisconsin. Furthermore, Obama has three Kerry states in the "barely" category -- Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Clinton has six -- Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii. That means that Clinton is losing or barely holding on to 9 Kerry states (out of 19), compared to four for Obama.
Democratic numbers versus McCain are currently artificially depressed because of our long-running primary. But despite that disadvantage, Obama still runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton.
**If Democrats want to run the same campaign that has served us so poorly the last decade -- hold the Kerry states and win Ohio and Florida, then Clinton is the person. It's clear in her rhetoric that she can't fathom any other path to the White House. That's why she has insulted so many "Red" states and small states and whatnot. Because in her mind, 50%+1 is the only thing that matters.** (my emphasis-Ken-this is the rub)
Beside having a more solid base than Clinton, Obama's campaign would have a tough time competing in Florida, no doubt about that. But he opens up the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Montana, North Dakota, and even one or two of Nebraska's EVs (they are apportioned by congressional district). Obama would be competitive in Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia -- with their large youth, African American, Latino, and creative class voters.
And I'm getting this all from the map currently cited by Clinton supporters as evidence of her supposed better electability. The map, sad to say (for them), says the exact opposite.
-
Wild guess
I live in Pennsylvania and I felt the same way in the waning days of Sen. Santorum when he realized he'd been beaten and spent days sputtering about media bias and Casey "ducking" him in debates. After the campaign she's run it's hard not to feel a little schadenfreude watching Hillary lose.
You liked the Clintons before the cheap suit ran and launched the same cheap brand of attacks we saw against Gore and Kerry, didn't you?
-
lolcait
There was nothing unfair about how Obama won - he understood the rules and Hillary Clinton's team did not. It is no good whining about the rules now that the race is nearly finished.
Oh and there is nothing undemocratic about a caucus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Democratic_Party_process.
And while the rules allow the superdelegates to vote for whoever they want, well, the thing is that over-ruling the popular will of the Democratic voters in this primary, as shown by Obama's leads in just about everything? Yeah, that would be allowed but it wouldn't exactly be smart.