« Satire (for now.) Hillary's NEXT powerpoint | kellyo101's Blog | ATTENTION GRABBING CAPS: Two questions for general discussion »
Electability, by any other name
I think HRC's claims of electability (which is not a word according to the spell check...) tacitly assume a fact that is not in evidence, viz. that John McCain strode to the convention on a red carpet with flower girls at both sides and trumpets behind. Fact Check:
Number of primaries won by McCain: 26 or my eyesight is bad, with 2 upcoming.
Number of primaries BHO has won (by his own count,): 33
So maybe he's counting a few that I didn't for McCain, so call it at worst even. But then factor in that McCain lost 20-ish states to basically chumps. Barack lost 20 to Hillary freakin' Clinton, heir apparent to America's throne. I think that's really a point in BHO's favor.
Interestingly enough, maybe, is that I just checked McCain's site and it's like the primaries never happened, which I guess could be a small point to him, but two weeks from now (knock wood,) no one will remember our primary either.
Number of primaries won by McCain: 26 or my eyesight is bad, with 2 upcoming.
Number of primaries BHO has won (by his own count,): 33
So maybe he's counting a few that I didn't for McCain, so call it at worst even. But then factor in that McCain lost 20-ish states to basically chumps. Barack lost 20 to Hillary freakin' Clinton, heir apparent to America's throne. I think that's really a point in BHO's favor.
Interestingly enough, maybe, is that I just checked McCain's site and it's like the primaries never happened, which I guess could be a small point to him, but two weeks from now (knock wood,) no one will remember our primary either.
Advertisement
I guess I may have missed a couple McCain pickups but I think the point remains the same.
"E Flat, Salieri!" -Stewie Griffin
June 2, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won 33 primaries, or 33 primaries and caucuses?
June 2, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but, is there a difference, besides the technicalities?
June 2, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was using the term primary to mean contest, I guess and like I said it's not the strictest accounting, just a point.
June 2, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, just so you realize that this is a sticking point to some people. When you combine it with the "heir apparent" bullshit, don't be surprised when we come to beat you with crooked sticks. (See the 29 words thread, don't know how exactly that got started).
June 2, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying Obama beat a serious competitor where McCain beat chumps. I think you mistake me if you see any slight to Hillary there. Heir apaprent was how we all treated her until Iowa.
June 2, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be nice to kellyo101, Des -- how can you not be, when they're holding that flower and looking so wistful.
I'm playing nice now (starting today, obviously), and it's my hope that everybody else will too...very soon.
Very, very soon, is my hope.
June 2, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is a particularly strong selling point. Since he became the presumptive nominee, the Republican primary became effectively obsolete to many people so turnout would have been strongly depressed. Where the turnout was so strikingly different was before the Republican primaries were effectively over but that was a hugely different climate: pre Hillary launching her onslaught and Obama's falling favourability polling etc.
Far stronger arguments exist - for instance I think Obama's brilliant grass roots campaign management, voter registrations etc.
There's also Creamer's article:
`Obama's path to Victory in November
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/obamas-path-to-victory-in_b_103880.html
June 2, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink