So much at stake in this primary including the future of the “50 State Strategy”
The last Democratic President to win the white house used the narrow electoral college strategy. Bill Clinton’s campaign picked up stream down the stretch and while winning only 43% of the popular vote, Clinton bested HW Bush 370 to 168 in the electoral college.
At that point Democrats got it stuck in their stupid heads that the “electoral college strategy” (that is to say spitting the map into Blue states/red states and “swing states” and focusing campaign efforts on swing states) was the winning strategy. Gore ran a terrible wishy washy campaign that tried to suck up to those swing states while leaving his base in the “blue states” cold.
It allowed a well known moron like GW Bush to narrowly win the 2000 election, with 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. Even after the worst first term in history, in 2004 George W. Bush received 286 Electoral Votes to John Kerry’s 251 Electoral College Votes when Kerry basically ingnored “Blue states” in an effort to win 51% of the elctoral college vote by winning in Ohio.
Right now there is a Democratic running in for the nomination that is committed to the electoral college strategy and there is one who is committed to the “50 state strategy”
This Kos diary does a great job exposing Hillary Clinton’s electoral college mindset and I don;t think I have to convince Delawareans who have seen both Michelle Obama and Barack Obama speak that Obama favors competeing in all 50 states.
The bottom line is that a vote for Obama is a vote for WINNING in November while a vote for Clinton is a vote for the same losing half-assed electoral college vote counting that has failed and failed and failed.
When you look at the voting numbers from 2004 one thing stands out. While some states were predominately blue or red, most were purple. Writing off red states is a flawed strategy. The primary turnout numbers demonstrate that these “red” states are in play.
Obama is putting them in play, rather than ignoring them or demoralizing them.
It’s why “yes we can” is such a powerful, motivating, inclusive, and winning message.
A 50-state strategy is also a creating coattails strategy. A candidate may not change alot of minds, but if folks get a chance to hear the message and hear it again from locals you may create a possibility for even more change. If Obama wins, it is also a strategy that lays a stronger groundwork for a governing coalition and begins to make the red state blue state corners currently staked out by legislators harder to hold onto.
Not to mention Obama’s central theme, we aren’t red states and blue states but American states. It would be nice to like my fellow Americans again.
If the super delegates overrule the voters and vote for the Machine…democrats calling into cspan said, “they will not vote in November”. Its all about the party machine, one would hope the party would overhaul itself and get rid of the super delegates, and stand with the one person, one vote…the person that wins the state…all those delegates go with the winner. If they refuse and overrule voters, even democrats will begin to see…the fix was in.
Obama’s theme One america is a great theme, but John Edwards “two americas” is more truthful.
Dogless calls Liz uninformed. Per NYT (OpEd):
“…renewed attention is being given to the gap between the haves and have-nots in America. Most of this debate, however, is focused on the wrong measurement of financial well-being. …Looking at a far more direct measure of American families’ economic status — household consumption — indicates that the gap between rich and poor is far less than most assume, and that the abstract, income-based way in which we measure the so-called poverty rate no longer applies to our society. The top fifth of American households earned an average of $149,963 a year in 2006. …they spent $69,863 on food, clothing, shelter, utilities, transportation, health care and other categories of consumption. The rest of their income went largely to taxes and savings. The bottom fifth earned just $9,974, but spent nearly twice that — an average of $18,153 a year. How is that possible? …those lower-income families have access to various sources of spending money that doesn’t fall under taxable income. These sources include portions of sales of property like homes and cars and securities that are not subject to capital gains taxes, insurance policies redeemed, or the drawing down of bank accounts. While some of these families are mired in poverty, many (the exact proportion is unclear) are headed by retirees and those temporarily between jobs, and thus their low income total doesn’t accurately reflect their long-term financial status. So, bearing this in mind, if we compare the incomes of the top and bottom fifths, we see a ratio of 15 to 1. If we turn to consumption, the gap declines to around 4 to 1. …Let’s take the adjustments one step further. Richer households are larger — an average of 3.1 people in the top fifth, compared with 2.5 people in the middle fifth and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. If we look at consumption per person, the difference between the richest and poorest households falls to just 2.1 to 1.”
The article was titled “Why John Edwards is a pandering moron” or something like that.
This is an extremely important selling point on behalf of Obama–to Delaware’s superdelegates.
A return of the Clintons means Terry McAuliffe or someone like him returns to chair the DNC. McAuliffe was most noted for making the D’s every bit as much as a corporate party as the R’s. It’ll mean a return of the Citigroup, et al, influence at the expense of the grassroots.
The McAuliffes and Rahm Emanuels bitterly opposed Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy. Ironically, thanks to the 50-state strategy that built grassroots party movements in states not viewed as hospitable to D’s, we now have Sen. Jon Tester from Montana and Sen. Jim Webb from Virginia, and a majority in the US Senate.
Without the grassroots organizers that were hired in Delaware, Bryon Short doesn’t win a special House election, and the Democrats don’t eclipse the R’s in party organization.
John Daniello, Karen Valentine, Rhett Ruggiero and the other superdelegates (I exclude the semi-retired Ruth Ann Minner, who clearly couldn’t care less) would do well to weigh which candidacy would best protect and promote those grassroots efforts before deciding on who they’ll support.
“”John Daniello, Karen Valentine, Rhett Ruggiero and the other superdelegates (I exclude the semi-retired Ruth Ann Minner, who clearly couldn’t care less) would do well to weigh which candidacy would best protect and promote those grassroots efforts before deciding on who they’ll support.””
They are!
Inside info Rebecca or speculation?
I don’t know who wrote that op-ed, but it’s as intellectually dishonest as it could possibly be. It failed to list the most common source of unearned spending money — credit. For crying out loud, this country has a NEGATIVE savings rate. You’d think that might dawn on someone selling himself as an economist…
I think you might have posted on the wrong thread.
I think that Al is responding to post #5 by Dogless…
Yeah, sorry, that was aimed at Dogless.
BTW Al – Sorry I had to bag the call this morning.
(there is a PCN in Smyrna on Main street)