The newest Clinton talking point.
This one is a beaut.
So, only through proxies at this point. They must know the weakness of the argument.
Later Still: The WSJ's Harwood has a slightly different Clinton argument, that Obama's wins in Republican states shouldn't be valued the same (That's a little better argument.)
The counter would be that Obama's decisive wins in red states coupled with his stronger pull among independents and Republicans gives him greater reach in the general. (Winning a Dem primary in a "big state" isn't the same as winning it in the general.)
(PS. The Clinton "electoral" map includes her winning Texas, both in the primary (arguable) and in the general election (impossible.) (Texas has 34 electoral votes.))
Judge for yourself.
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”....
This is very clever, if semantically deceptive. It's just a different version of the "big state" argument which has the bonus of giving the impression that New York and California are "winner take all" primary states. (and Obama could never carry New York and California....)
Later: It's official. Here's another citing by Ed Rendell.Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Edward Rendell noted that if the Democratic primaries were winner-take-all instead of proportional, Clinton would be ahead by up to 70 electoral votes.
So, only through proxies at this point. They must know the weakness of the argument.
Later Still: The WSJ's Harwood has a slightly different Clinton argument, that Obama's wins in Republican states shouldn't be valued the same (That's a little better argument.)
The counter would be that Obama's decisive wins in red states coupled with his stronger pull among independents and Republicans gives him greater reach in the general. (Winning a Dem primary in a "big state" isn't the same as winning it in the general.)
(PS. The Clinton "electoral" map includes her winning Texas, both in the primary (arguable) and in the general election (impossible.) (Texas has 34 electoral votes.))
Judge for yourself.
posted by mikevotes at
9:32 PM
10 Comments:
More desperation. Clinton is starting to remind me of Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard.
The only way she can win, short of Obama's plane going down, is to tear the democratic party apart.
By
Anonymous, at 11:26 PM
Aside from the faulty logic, 219 to 202 is not exactly a convincing margin, so the argument does fall a bit flat. I would guess they are making a more sophisticated case in private. In particular, they are likely pointing out to superdelegates that Obama could easily lose to McCain in the three biggest battleground states--PA, OH, and FL--which would make it very difficult (not impossible) to win.
I'd also be curious to see Survey USA repeat that electoral vote poll they did a few weeks ago. My guess is that it would now show Clinton doing slightly better than Obama, but McCain doing much better than in the previous poll, possibly pulling ahead.
By
Anonymous, at 1:23 AM
TG, my first thought is that I bet you're right as of right now regarding the SUSA. There's some tracking polling evidence showing a top number bounceback, but that's very early to call a trend, and there are no useful internals at all.
I don't think he's "bounced back" yet. If they redid the SUSA last week, I'm sure you're right. I'll bet if they did it now, it might show that, too. We'll have to wait and see what this week holds.
(Of course, Clinton also went down in the national head to head vs. McCain. so, depending on how it slices, there's no telling.)
.....
Abi, I hate to tell you this, I don't know the reference. Never seen Sunset Boulevard.
By
mikevotes, at 6:50 AM
Never seen Sunset Boulevard?! The classic Billy Wilder film noir?!
You're dead to me, mike. Dead.
:)
But anyway, Clinton isn't Norma Desmond, she's Faye Dunaway's Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest. Can't you just hear Bill Richardson on the phone with Hillary, screaming "I am not one of your FANS!"
HA! I crack me up....
By
-epm, at 8:03 AM
You can bet in those private conversations about PA, OH and FL, the Clinton camp is raising the "they'll never vote for the black guy" argument.
And with the help of whisper campaigns from the Clinton camp -- and not-so-whisper campaigns from the right wing -- Rev. Wright will be an issue right up through Nov. I think to many on the right who harbor some repressed racial bigotry, "Rev. Wright" has simply become a caricature upon whom they can attribute any outrageous statement, no mater how accurate or factual. This straw man "Rev. Wright" will become their excuse -- their attempt to legitimize -- their own racial bigotry on the airwaves from FOX News to your local hate-radio blow hard.
By
-epm, at 8:13 AM
I agree on Rev. Wright. It' something of a rorschach.
(And I'm not that much of an old movie guy, but let me try Hillary Clinton as the Humphrey Bogart role in Treasure of Sierra Madre.)
By
mikevotes, at 8:24 AM
Obama as Robert Redford in The Candidate.
For an interesting electoral vote projection based on individual state polls, not a nationwide survey, check out www.electoral-vote.com
McCain 292, Obama 231, 15 Tie
McCain 246, Clinton 268, 24 Tie
The big difference is Pennsylvania and Florida, which he has Clinton winning and Obama losing.
I've been looking at this website since 2004 and it's pretty serious and scientific; no biases I've been able to detect. If the Clinton camp isn't using this electoral map or something like it in talking to superdelegates, they are falling down on the job.
And about the "they won't vote for the black guy" argument--it ain't pretty, but it has substantial basis in fact. Democrats who care about winning in November need to consider it, just as they need to consider the "they won't vote for the woman" argument.
By
Anonymous, at 3:35 PM
So, it's your position that no black person should be allowed to be the nominee for the presidency?
You feel that all black people should all be ruled out of even getting the chance because of the color of their skin?
That's the "ain't pretty" argument you're making here.
That's where your support for your candidate has taken you.
By
mikevotes, at 6:03 PM
Actually, that's a really unfair distortion of what I'm saying.
My point is that, like it or not, race is one of the things that affect a candidate's electability. It's not decisive, but it's a factor. Everything we know indicates that, unfortunately, some people will vote against Obama based to some extent on race.
Despite that, you can still make a very reasonable case that he's the most electable candidate on balance; but his race will likely cost him votes, just as Hillary's gender would cost her votes, or Mitt Romney's religion would have cost him votes. It's something that has to be considered if electability is important to you. Maybe you even decide his race is a wash, or a net plus; but you need to at least consider it (along with all the other things you consider.)
I just don't think it's ever a good idea to ignore empirical facts.
By
Anonymous, at 1:57 AM
Yeah, you're probably right, I blew, but you gotta understand how that could go down wrong.
As part of your months long argument specifically for Clinton and against Obama, bringing race as a factor of electability in at this very late (and somewhat desperate) point for Clinton appeared pretty gross.
You gotta understand that I wrote posts, disgusted, that the discrimination against Romney wasn't exposed for what it was. I would have done the same for Clinton if that ever really came about.
I refuse to factor that into my decision making.
I refuse to let other people's racism (not yours)be validated. I think that's a really bad thing.
I may be wrong, but I'm unapologetic about it.
(If the Obama camp was making a similar argument against Clinton, I would be all over them as well.)
By
mikevotes, at 7:25 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home