Hillary Clinton is more likely than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the fall election. So I don't understand the logic behind the assertions by Obama and his supporters that Hillary Clinton can't--or worse, shouldn't--win the nomination. The Democratic party has established a system which utilizes super-delegates. Regardless of its popularity, the system lets party bigwigs attempt to override the will of the people and install the strongest candidate as the nominee.
The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who the stronger candidate is. Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote. Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan. But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote. There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes. But you know what? I'll bend on this one: I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass. Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes." (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!)
Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. So delegate count is no longer the issue. Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play. Super-delegates will decide the nomination. Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates. So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?
As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee. So the question is: How should super-delegates decide who to support? Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game. (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls. Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote. Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)
Here are the facts: Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House. As this primary season has proven, she outperforms Obama in California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Again: Hillary is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall.
So why are there still questions? The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton. This should be over.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Why is there any question as to who is the stronger candidate?
Hillary Clinton is more likely than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the fall election. So I don't understand the logic behind the assertions by Obama and his supporters that Hillary Clinton can't--or worse, shouldn't--win the nomination. The Democratic party has established a system which utilizes super-delegates. Regardless of its popularity, the system lets party bigwigs attempt to override the will of the people and install the strongest candidate as the nominee.
The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who is the stronger candidate. Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote. Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan. But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote. There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes. But you know what? I'll bend on this one: I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass. Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes." (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!)
Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. So delegate count is no longer the issue. Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play. Super-delegates will decide the nomination. Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates. So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?
As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee. So the question is: How should super-delegates decide who to support? Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game. (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls. Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote. Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)
Here are the facts: Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House. As this primary season has proven, she outperforms Obama in California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Again: Hillary is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall.
So why are there still questions? The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton. This should be over.
The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who is the stronger candidate. Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote. Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan. But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote. There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes. But you know what? I'll bend on this one: I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass. Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes." (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!)
Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. So delegate count is no longer the issue. Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play. Super-delegates will decide the nomination. Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates. So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?
As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee. So the question is: How should super-delegates decide who to support? Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game. (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls. Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote. Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)
Here are the facts: Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House. As this primary season has proven, she outperforms Obama in California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Again: Hillary is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall.
So why are there still questions? The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton. This should be over.
Why is there any question as to who is the stronger candidate?
Hillary Clinton is more likely than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the fall election. So I don't understand the logic behind the assertions by Obama and his supporters that Hillary Clinton can't--or worse, shouldn't--win the nomination. The Democratic party has established a system which utilizes super-delegates. Regardless of its popularity, the system lets party bigwigs attempt to override the will of the people and install the strongest candidate as the nominee.
The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who is the stronger candidate. Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote. Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan. But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote. There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes. But you know what? I'll bend on this one: I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass. Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes." (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!)
Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. So delegate count is no longer the issue. Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play. Super-delegates will decide the nomination. Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates. So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?
As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee. So the question is: How should super-delegates decide who to support? Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game. (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls. Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote. Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)
Here is a fact: Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House. Again, she is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall. So why are there still questions? The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton. This should be over.
The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who is the stronger candidate. Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote. Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan. But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote. There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes. But you know what? I'll bend on this one: I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass. Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes." (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!)
Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. So delegate count is no longer the issue. Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play. Super-delegates will decide the nomination. Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates. So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?
As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee. So the question is: How should super-delegates decide who to support? Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game. (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls. Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote. Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)
Here is a fact: Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House. Again, she is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall. So why are there still questions? The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton. This should be over.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Amazing: She did it!
Hillary Clinton is doing exactly what she needed to do in Pennsylvania. She needed something like a "double-digit" finish over Barack Obama to prove that she's more electable than he. With 88% of the precincts reporting, Hillary has that double-digit lead.
The fact of the matter is Obama isn't getting the votes he needed in the counties surrounding Philadelphia (Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware, and Chester). He needed to get a shitload of votes in those counties and even in the ones he won, it just didn't happen.
The irony is hearing the reporters who were saying she couldn't do it. Now that she's done it, they're moving the goal post. Now the problem is that she doesn't have enough money or she's not likable enough. When she's the nominee, the money will come rushing in...and likable or no, she's more electable than Barack Obama, especially in bellwether states (like, uhhhh, Pennsylvania).
And I'm really sick of hearing Larry Kane on KYW, who obviously doesn't like Hillary Clinton. I don't know if he's a Republican but he's certainly a Hillary-hater. The anchor on tonight actually had to argue with him (albeit, through a forced smile). Kane obviously has a horse in this race. Local celebrity or not (and regardless of this political season, I'd vote "no"), he shouldn't be covering this race.
The fact of the matter is Obama isn't getting the votes he needed in the counties surrounding Philadelphia (Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware, and Chester). He needed to get a shitload of votes in those counties and even in the ones he won, it just didn't happen.
The irony is hearing the reporters who were saying she couldn't do it. Now that she's done it, they're moving the goal post. Now the problem is that she doesn't have enough money or she's not likable enough. When she's the nominee, the money will come rushing in...and likable or no, she's more electable than Barack Obama, especially in bellwether states (like, uhhhh, Pennsylvania).
And I'm really sick of hearing Larry Kane on KYW, who obviously doesn't like Hillary Clinton. I don't know if he's a Republican but he's certainly a Hillary-hater. The anchor on tonight actually had to argue with him (albeit, through a forced smile). Kane obviously has a horse in this race. Local celebrity or not (and regardless of this political season, I'd vote "no"), he shouldn't be covering this race.
Is it bad to smear someone by comparing him to Osama bin Laden? The GOP isn't sure.
Frank Donatelli, a longtime Washington lobbyist who has been feverishly working for John McCain and who last month took a post with the RNC as chief liaison to McCain's campaign, was being interviewed this afternoon on CNBC or MSNBC or one of those NBC-owned things. (I wouldn't normally watch any of them but someone at work left the channel on in the break room.)
They showed a picture of a sign out front of a church. The sign reads: "OBAMA OSAMA/HUMM/ARE THEY BROTHERS?" Sorry to say, this sort of political smear--which flies in the face of a little idea called separation of church and state--has become all too typical of organized religion.
The question for Frank: "Do Republicans condemn this sort of thing?" Frank's response began, "Well... I didn't even know about this until, um, until it was brought to my attention." Well, yeah Frank. That's pretty much how people find out about things.
How appalling that anyone would have to stall before admitting it's not cool to smear one's opponent by comparing him to Osama bin Laden. Sorry to say, this sort of thing has become all too typical of the shithead Republicans.
They showed a picture of a sign out front of a church. The sign reads: "OBAMA OSAMA/HUMM/ARE THEY BROTHERS?" Sorry to say, this sort of political smear--which flies in the face of a little idea called separation of church and state--has become all too typical of organized religion.
The question for Frank: "Do Republicans condemn this sort of thing?" Frank's response began, "Well... I didn't even know about this until, um, until it was brought to my attention." Well, yeah Frank. That's pretty much how people find out about things.
How appalling that anyone would have to stall before admitting it's not cool to smear one's opponent by comparing him to Osama bin Laden. Sorry to say, this sort of thing has become all too typical of the shithead Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
