Auto-SummaryThe post criticizes the comparison between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, arguing that the comparison is unfair and inaccurate. The author points out that Obama has performed better in key states, such as Wisconsin and Ohio, than Clinton. The post also discusses the electoral map, suggesting that Obama has a better chance of winning in smaller states and that the Democratic brand is stronger in the Northeast. The author argues that the electoral strategy of focusing on Ohio and Florida is outdated and that Obama should focus on traditional Republican strongholds. The post concludes by stating that Obama appears to be the nominee, despite Clinton winning more popular votes, and that the Democratic primary process has been unfair to Obama.
Annapurna1 said:
UDPATE ..
can you say "mcgovern"??...its the very reason the sups exist in the first place..and its time for them to do their jobs...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamas_woes_a_tale_of_three_st.html
Quote:
May 29, 2008
Obama's Woes: A Tale of Three States
By Richard Baehr
First, I think the McGovern comparison is absurd- McGovern was a feckless milquetoast, not a cunning and charismatic politician who has adapted himself to the nation's zeitgeist.
I'm sorry, but this is stupid. Yes, Obama does poorly in Appalachia. Who cares? Kentucky and Virginia aren't going to go blue anytime soon, and the rest of Appalachia is too spread out in the remaining states to overcome their basic political and demographic tendencies. The states that the article mentioned, like Wisconsin and Ohio, actually show Obama doing well in, better than Clinton at that. While Obama did lose Pennsylvania by less than 10 points, he was competing(and did quite well at that) in Clinton territory- she had the support of the Democratic establishment there(the Northeast is her base and is also solidly Democratic) and Pennsylvania shares the same media market as New York, where she's a Senator. The fact that he was so competitive, especially at a time when the press was nearly pissing its pants with glee at mocking and slamming him, should tell you how strong a candidate he is. He will almost certainly win Pennsylvania in the general. The Democratic brand is stronger than ever, especially in the Northeast. Also, the polls I've seen show Obama in the lead in Ohio and Michigan.
Quote:
(2) If Obama is the nominee, the 2008 race looks like it will be a squeaker again, with a few tight races in smaller states -- Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Iowa (7), Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4) and Wisconsin (10) being decisive. There is far less margin for error with Obama than Clinton. If Obama is shut out of Florida (which seems likely) and loses Ohio, where he ran very poorly in the Democratic primary and trails in most surveys at this point, he will need to hold all the Kerry states from 2004 and pick up the needed Electoral College votes from the West and Iowa, and perhaps Virginia. (13).
This is just nonsense. Except for Nevada and Florida, Obama does much better in all these states. The old "the Democrats must win Ohio or Florida" electoral maps are dated and have led to 2 successive defeats. Why would we choose a candidate who's still following this foolish strategy instead of cultivating support in traditional Republican strongholds? And if the Clintonites were so concerned about which way Florida votes in Novemeber, maybe instead of trying to blame Obama for the botched primary she should campaign for unity there.
Quote:
At this point, Obama appears to be the all but certain nominee. This is despite Clinton winning the same number or perhaps slightly more total popular votes, and winning virtually all the contested primaries since February when the Reverend Wright story surfaced. Obama's wins since then have been in states with very heavy African-American voter percentages -- North Carolina and Mississippi, and in very liberal Oregon. With almost all super delegates now breaking for Obama, he could wind up with close to a 10% delegate margin, but be only even in the popular vote. This will result from a 5% elected delegate margin (built on low turnout caucus victories), and perhaps a 30% super delegate margin, if the remaining 200 or so uncommitted super delegates break as this group has since North Carolina (62-10 for Obama). A system built on proportional distribution of elected (pledged) delegates will have grossly expanded the popular vote margin to give one candidate a decisive victory among these delegates, which has been used to justify the shift to that candidate of super delegates.
Obama's caucus victories (he won every caucus except Nevada) were built on enthusiasm from activist left wing Democrats and young voters willing to participate in the several hour process. In the general election, the participation rate will be much higher and voting patterns should mirror much more closely the results in primary states, where Obama has not done nearly as well.
This is even stupider. The fact that the writer would claim that Hillary is tied or winning in the popular vote shows how divorced from reality he is. As I've said before, it's absolutely false.
Now let's take apart the claim that Clinton's won every primary since February. This is bullshit- Obama won Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Wyoming, and Mississippi. Clinton has won Indiana(by less than two percent), Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia, all of which are part of her base. I also find it funny that Obama's landslide victory in Oregon is dismissed since it's liberal but Clinton's New York and California victories still count. Interesting...
As for the caucus thing, the caucus measures a candidate's active support and not just their passive support. A supporter who canvasses, donates, phonebanks, writes letters to the editor and is otherwise involved in the campaign is worth a Hell of a lot more than a supporter who's too lazy to do anything more involved than pulling a lever. Considering that Hillary's in debt and has nowhere near the organization nor the grassroots support of Obama, that matters. A lot. A campaign overflowing with cash is in a much better position than a campaign plagued by debt.
Quote:
(3) The serious daily tracking polls, Rasmussen and Gallup, show John McCain with a 3-4 % national popular vote lead. This is a stunning result given the general weakness of the Republican Party this year, the low approval ratings for President Bush, the strong perception the county is headed in the wrong direction, the still unpopular Iraq war, the economic slowdown, gas and food prices, and what was supposed to be a consolidation among Democrats for Obama now that the media chorus has awarded him the nomination.
That's weird considering that the same website lists Obama ahead of McCain in the national vote. Either way, a poll in May is not going to reflect the final number, and it's certainly not enough reason to overturn the will of the voters. And this magical consolidation has not happened because Hillary is purposefully stirring up resentment and acting like a sore loser. When she drops out and her former supporters realize that the choice is between an anti-choice shill who wants more wars and less healthcare and Obama, I think they'll come around. Of course, this all depends on Hillary and how much she's willing to fuck us all over in order to pursue her futile quest for power.
Quote:
It is I think a reflection of the weakness of Obama as a candidate. Starting with the revelations about Reverend Wright, the Obama campaign has dropped from the semi-celestial status it enjoyed in the eyes of many. The gaffe-a-day express, the foot in mouth disease among Obama advisors, the glaringly weak posture on national security and foreign relations the candidate has put forth (and for which several times he has been forced to backtrack), all have damaged Obama's chances. Now he is a mere mortal -- except to the true believers, and they are not enough to put him over the top in a general election.
Have we been watching the same election? Is Hillary "I lied about wartime experience when my opponent would be a war hero" Clinton really comparing gaffes? Ms. Hillary "I'm in it in case the black guy gets shots" Clinton certainly shouldn't be talking. And do you really think that Obama has shadier associations than the FUCKING CLINTONS? Or McCain for that matter?
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Feminized Cannabis Seeds
Mr. Mushrooms 
Yossarian22 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
lonestar2004
RandalFlagg
1 2 all )
ekomstop
carbonhoots
luvdemshrooms