Electability Arguments And Stupidity

Avatar:
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
0

/39552411_7a381aded4.jpg

Jeralyn of Talkleft has once again busted out the calculations on the cocktail napkin to prove once again that Clinton is the more electable candidate. Ditto for this poster on Taylor Marsh's site (I guess they've quit attacking Sen. Kennedy for the moment). I wonder: are these sites going to play this stupid game right up until November? Are we going to be swearing in the next president while they've found yet another formulation proving in their minds that Clinton is the more "electable" candidate?

To begin with, the Democratic primary is about one thing and one thing only: getting delegates. That was true in December of last year, it was true on Super Tuesday, and it is true now. As we all know while it helps to win the popular vote, in presidential elections, what counts is electoral votes. Sure, some of us may think that popular vote is a better number, but we must deal with the rules as how they exist on planet earth. And until that changes: the rules are the rules.

Putting that aside, I'm sure many of you remember that in 2004 the Democratic party front-loaded its selection process to get the more "electable" candidate. On paper John Kerry was that electable person, and while I believe he's a good man and would have made a good president, it was clear that when it comes down to presidential politics John Kerry wasn't electable enough. If we used some of the metrics the Clinton supporters are pushing, we would have just handed the nomination to Clinton before any voting began - remember, she once lead Obama by double digits nationally and trounced him in places like South Carolina.

That is, until people actually voted.

The Clinton supporters right now are like that sports fan (like me) who tells you the seven thousand ways his team could have won the game, when the game is over for their team.

I'm sorry Veruca Salt, you can't have the party.