Daily Kos

View Story | 36 comments

  •  good point! (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps we should stick with the best metric we have then - delegates!  And forget all this other bunk.

    Repeat after me - pledged delegates are our best indicator of the will of the people.

    Also, Obama leads Clinton on every "who can win the General Election" poll that I've seen.

    So ... case closed!

    "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle

    by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:05:02 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  delegates should win the nomination (0+ / 0-)

      However, it still doesn't tell us anything about the GE.  You can score delegates from red states in primaries, but in a winner-take-all GE those states don't help you.
      I don't put a lot of faith in the polls.  I believe the polls overestimate Obama's lead in the GE.  People are vocal about their dislike of her, but I believe not everyone who say they "would" vote for him over McCain will actually bother to vote in Nov.

      by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:10:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  polls tell us more than primary victories do (0+ / 0-)

        The underlying point of this diary is that no primary victory has any relation on the relative strength in the general election.  Clinton's people would like us to believe that it does.  But it's just obfuscation, and I'm tired of it.

        No more bamboozling!

        "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle

        by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well except that (0+ / 0-)

          The diarist is making a point that Obama's wins do mean something.  I don't think either proves a win in Nov.

          by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:18:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as the diarist (0+ / 0-)

            what I'm saying is that Clinton's attempts to cloud the issue by bringing "big states" into it are themselves facile, because the truth is that there are PLENTY of swing states and overall, Obama is doing as well or better in them.

            Nothing "proves" a win in November, but the analysis does help blow Clinton and Rendell's point completely out of the water.

            They need to stop using it.  It's a nonsensical argument and doesn't hold up to the light.

            "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle

            by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yeah they do (0+ / 0-)

              And I also think Obama needs to stop using the twice as many states argument because it is also bogus.
              We have no way of knowing at this point who is more likely to win in Nov.

              by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  he rarely uses it (0+ / 0-)

                and only in combination with the far more important fact that he HAS MORE DELEGATES, and to counter the claim that Clinton's states somehow are more important

                If he were up 30-20 in states but behind in delegates, that would be something else.  But he's not.

                "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle

                by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

View Story | 36 comments