Do You Bayh This?
IN Sen. Evan Bayh, a Hillary Clinton supporter and surrogate, suggested yesterday on CNN that Super Ds should use the Electoral College to determine which candidate they'll back.
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
Per the NYT, Clinton has won states with a total of 219 EC votes, not counting FL and MI, while Obama has won states with a total of 202 EC votes. Obama has won more states, more delegates and leads in the popular vote, however. Meanwhile, as we know, the EC is not a factor in primary contests, only in the general.
Does this smack of desperation? Creativity? Barack Obama's campaign has argued that the suggestion is absurd, because the Dem nom, whoever it ultimately is, is bound to win CA and NY.
Readers ... Your thoughts and insights?
(JENNIFER SKALKA)
Desperate and absurd, yes. And classic Clintonian.
Next up: We think the standard should be people who have slept in the WH on the most nights in their career. Or, I know, it should be people who were born in large states. Or how about it's the candidate who lived in a state hit on 9/11?
They can make stuff up all day about what is important, but the only thing that matters is delegates.
interesting that, at the same time you post this, the political wire has this:
Quote of the Day
"They will do anything -- anything -- to get nominated."
-- A "longtime associate" of Bill and Hillary Clinton, quoted by Robert Novak.
Ridiculous! Not only is this a Machiavellian Clintonian ruse, the Electoral College is an anachronism that should have been discarded about 50 years ago when Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union. It disproportionately advantages small states and disenfranchises the popular will.
I'd like to suggest that we play spin the bottle, and whoever it lands on becomes president. The Clintons are really flailing. Without FL and MI there's pretty much no way for her to win without completely destroying both Obama, and the half of the party in his corner. Sheesh.
Yeah... but Obama won't win California or NY... suuuuure... and Clinton of course is going to win Texas...
Got any other tall tales to tell us?
Good rule of thumb... don't look at the Red or Blue states... odds are they're going to go for whomever they've ALWAYS gone for... instead look at the purple states..
Does that count include Obama winning Texas? Because... he did. Something tells me Hillary is counting it as a win even though she got fewer delegates from that state. Once Texas is put in the proper column, Obama is winning that too (I bet).
Pennsylvania will give Mrs. |Clinton the momentum.Also, Spitzer and Patterson scandals have made McCain asure winner outside Metropolitan areas, with many Democrats defecting or not voting when there respective candidate is not running.
How about Evan Bayh concentrate on rebuilding the Democratic Party in IN instead of sucking up to the Clinton campaign. Democrats hold fewer statewide offices than they did 10 years ago and lost the statehouse to the Republicans in the last cycle.
Trust me folks, Bayh only lifts a finger for anyone in Indiana politics if there is something in it for him. In this case, Bayh is playing surrogate for Hillary in hopes of securing a VP slot.
If Hillary wins the nomination, Indiana may lose every Congressional seat. But Evan doesn't care about those people.
Look, you so-called "objective" "reporter" types just don't get it.
If an analysis supports the contention that Sen. Clinton should be the nominee, then it is correct.
If an analysis supports the contention that Sen. Obama should be the nominee, then it is meaningless.
If you'd just recognize this as the ironclad logic that it is, and incorporate it into all of your storylines, we wouldn't have to keep sending Penn and Wolfson and Bayh out to pound the truth into your skulls.
Really, what does it take to get this simple concept through reporters' heads?
This is not an absurb perspective; it is a very realistic one. Senator Clinton is our only hope and can and will be elected. Senator Obama has gotten about as far as he can on the coattails of others. This is not what we want for our country. He may just be a little to light weight where it counts, and a little to slick, where it does not. God bless America! "Typical White Person Here"
This is not an absurb perspective; it is a very realistic one. Senator Clinton is our only hope and can and will be elected. Senator Obama has gotten about as far as he can on the coattails of others. This is not what we want for our country. He may just be a little to light weight where it counts, and a little to slick, where it does not. God bless America! "Typical White Person Here"
This is not an absurb perspective; it is a very realistic one. Senator Clinton is our only hope and can and will be elected. Senator Obama has gotten about as far as he can on the coattails of others. This is not what we want for our country. He may just be a little to light weight where it counts, and a little to slick, where it does not. God bless America! "Typical White Person Here"
Senator Bayh has tossed in some COMMON SENSE here.
WE DO CHOOSE president via the Electoral College system. In the midst of the CHOAS about to destroy a damaged and blemished Democratic Party, let us consider Mr. Bayh's reasonable suggestion.
It is a solution that fits the problem.
Mr. Bayh is frequently suggested as a running mate for Hillary Clinton and, perhaps, he has just performed a righteous act to spare America prologned agony and get on with this election. True, I would rather see Hillary leading the ticket over Obama, but, even in a non-partisan way, isn't it time to decide our nominee in a LEGAL and ORDERLY way rather that a royal blood-letting in Denver???? Now, I ask you.
Senator Bayh has tossed in some COMMON SENSE here.
WE DO CHOOSE president via the Electoral College system. In the midst of the CHOAS about to destroy a damaged and blemished Democratic Party, let us consider Mr. Bayh's reasonable suggestion.
It is a solution that fits the problem.
Mr. Bayh is frequently suggested as a running mate for Hillary Clinton and, perhaps, he has just performed a righteous act to spare America prologned agony and get on with this election. True, I would rather see Hillary leading the ticket over Obama, but, even in a non-partisan way, isn't it time we decide our nominee in a LEGAL and ORDERLY way rather than via a royal blood-letting in Denver???? A number of apparently ILLEGAL and DISORDERLY WAYS have been suggested. The Carville vs Daschel squabble over the weekend might be an example of disorderliness. Now, I ask you.
Consider the wisdom of our founding fathers in establishing the Electoral College.
To abandon it we might as well trash the whole Constitution as well.
Concentrations of citizens in the tight northeast colonies together with Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angles, San Fancisco, and Seattle (all common liberal interests for the most part) DO NOT REPRESENT the collective values of ALL OF THE REST OF US. Thus, the Electoral College levels the playing field so that we are not GOVERNED by just city folk values -yet, everyone sees their fair share vote count. Remembering that all the rest of us DO NOT all live on farms or in the "sticks;" we live all across America and our values differ greatly from high concentration city dwellers.
A national popular vote, therefore, would misrepresent the values of ALL AMERICANS as we reside in different legal states making up one union of differing values.
May we have the wisdom to continue the foundational pillar which is the Electoral College and thereby protect ALL OF AMERICA from being 'ruled' by the ultra-liberal values of the concentrated few.
May God continue to Bless our Constitution and the Electoral College system.
This isn’t playing math tricks. All those 3 metrics repeated by Obama followers are ridiculous themselves, especially the crap of “how many states one candidate has won”, which means NOTHING.
The rule says the purpose of the primary of a party is to pick a candidate the party believes having the biggest chance to win in Nov. The super delegates system was particularly designed for this purpose. The crap of “pledged delegates” is just hijacking the rule. All these 4 are just factors for the SD to make their decisions. NONE of them is the rule!
Obama is obviously the weaker for GE. Even if we buy his point of whoever from DEM can win NY and CA, Obama still has 0 chance to win OH, MI, FL, and PA, especially after his effort (or let’s call it dis-effort) to disenfranchise voters of MI and FL.
Please don’t pretend as if Obama can win any of Georgia, Idaho or North Dakota. By the way, I'm already fed up with Obama's cronies' activities around this ridiculous thing called "caucus". Hasn't anybody notice the fact that Obama steal about 15% of the votes in Washington state by comparing the results of caucus and primary in that state? Does any single state hold caucus in the General Election. This thing called "caucus" is more disgusting than the thing called "Fox News" as Michael Moore depicted in his movie.