Godd****t Hillary, shut up about the 'swing states'

In Hillary Clinton's 'victory' speech tonight, she said

Elections are won in the swing states, and I am winning the swing states.

(applause)

Enough enough enough!  Hillary, Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, and the DLC... listen up... for the last fucking time, you stupid corrupt idiot assholes

1. stop running the campaign of 1996 over and over!

2. Winning or losing a state in the primary doesn't mean one will win or lose it in the general

Stop it.  Just stop it.

Your Ohio-Florida swing voter strategy worked once ever, in 1996, and only with some convenient help from Ross Perot.  It then proceeded to fail every single time it has been tried since.  Give it up.

The future of the Democratic party is in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, and a bunch of other places that aren't on your radar.  Consult a map or wikipedia to be reminded that they exist.  These places are gaining in population, wealth, congressional seats, and electoral votes.  

Obama puts these places into play, plus he wins, and you lose, a bunch of traditional swing states that you seem to be conveniently forgetting:  Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, and so on.

Our electoral future is also with a bunch of demographic groups that you don't care about.  You can keep chasing, felating, and obsessing about "blue collar whites" and those "suburban moderates" until you're even bluer in the face and full in the throat... but guess what?  "Suburban moderates" no longer exist and "blue collar whites" aren't voting for us en masse in the fall.  Democrats will win this time and in the future with 1) The knowledge economy (you know, those 'latte sippers') 2) Blacks, 3) political independents, 4) some Latinos, and 5) people who are now 30 and under.  Consult any demographer other than Mark Penn to be reminded that they exist.

Stop running the campaign of 1996.  Yes, if Hillary is the nominee, this election will be decided, and likely lost, in Ohio.  But if Obama is the nominee it will be decided all over the country.

And you know what, I'm not even going to waste valuable ATP demolishing the notion that Obama won't win the general election in states he lost the primary in.  I will just say that by that logic we are guaranteed to win Utah in the fall because McCain lost it to Romney.  Looking forward to that.

•  she plays the only hand she has

  a pair of pocket deuces, diamond and club, when the community is 3 spades consecutive

  by teacherken on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:20:39 PM PDT

  •  The Dem party has won the popular vote

    exactly 3 times in the past 30 years. And guess which-- exactly those 3 elections during which we were led by the DLC that is so reviled here.

    by Wufacta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:25:29 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, while losing the Congress

      and selling out our principles.

      Fair trade, huh?

      by Culebrito Blanco on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:27:41 PM PDT

    •  None of those came in this century

      And none will.

      by MooseHB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:28:15 PM PDT

    •  So write it up

      Tell us, please, just what is so lovely and wonderful about the DLC.  Make a diary.  Let's hear it.  

      by huckleberry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM PDT

      •  I'd reccomend it

        I'd have to rec it, merely for having the chutzpah to post something like that on dKos.

        by gmhowell on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:31:48 PM PDT

        •  I'm legitimately curious

          I would recommend too.  "Go DLC" would be a good title.

          by huckleberry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:34:13 PM PDT

      •  oh no

        I smell a trap.

        by Wufacta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:34:01 PM PDT

        •  Honestly

          I have never seen the pro-DLC argument written in any reasonable form online.  Even at MYDD or other such sites.  I only recall it vaguely from 90's print magazines and such.  What is it?

          by huckleberry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:54 PM PDT

          •  Didnt

            The New Republic and the DLC's own site once host such arguments? I remember vaguely a feud between Kos and TNR wherein Kos would continually make fun of TNR's declined readership after 2003.

            But I suspect that if McCain wins in November these arguments will come back with a vengeance. The seeds of the new DLC argument will lie in the seeds of the obituaries of the Obama campaign. Political analysts' heads can turn fast, and nothing turns them faster than a Presidential election. Just as columnists are pining for a 'new conservatism' today, they will be pining for a 'new progressivism'-- one that makes our party competitive in the south again. What exactly would the proposed turn be composed of? No one knows.

            by Wufacta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:41:56 PM PDT

            •  DLCers ignore whole American states in their

              quest for relevance and deem them insignificant. what are you talking about???

              by soms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:45:46 PM PDT

              •  you can't

                win everything. That's a place to start. Even the anti-DLC strategy doesn't win everything... as we are seeing in West Virginia.

                IMO, a DLC argument begins and ends with the needs of suburban voters. The proportion of rural voters is grossly overestimated-- people think Kansas, for example, is a rural state, when it is not. Democrats are competitive because they rack up huge margins in urban areas. Suburban voters decide elections. What are the fears, the hopes, the concerns and needs of suburban voters? How can progressive values be tailored to match the day-to-day needs of those voters?

                by Wufacta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:49:39 PM PDT

            •  I recall

              what you're describing.  Will look it up.  Thanks.

              I also think that there is something generational happening that breaks the molds we know in this election.  Might not break through this time, but it's pretty unavoidable I'd think.

              by huckleberry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:48:00 PM PDT

              •  I do hope

                that it 'breaks through' this time-- and I'll do what I can to help.

                by Wufacta on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:04:43 PM PDT

    •  but not a majority of the popular vote

      And that was more than 10 years ago.

      by fizziks on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:34:12 PM PDT

    •  Isn't one of these 2000? n/t

      by theran on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:34:24 PM PDT

    •  Three times in 30 years is shameful

      That's a win rate of 1/3. I did a little trick called math.

      by jesses on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:49 PM PDT

  •  And she's playing it like a bad actor

    against a seasoned veteran.

    Obama would crush Clinton at poker.  That's why he will be better at foreign policy.

    by MooseHB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:26:31 PM PDT

    •  If Texas Hold'em is a metaphor for this

      campaign, then Hillary is the worst poker player ever. She's bought back in twice when she was playing from a position of extreme weakness. It's like buying back for a thousand when your opponents are all stacked over a million. It makes no sense whatsoever.

      by frankzappatista on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:28:10 PM PDT

•  Obama

  is winning the swing states, too.

  by jem286 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:23:03 PM PDT

•  Breaking news!

  To Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, and North Carolina:  Your status as swing states has been revoked because Hillary Clinton could not win you.

  by Namtrix on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:23:19 PM PDT

  •  Washington State, Oregon

    also he does better in Nevada and New Mexico in polls, despite not clearly winning those states.

    by Anarchofascist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:34:47 PM PDT

  •  No problem!

    I've been irrelevant for months now. I'm kinda used to it.

    by FireCrow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:36:10 PM PDT

•  Don't forget Poland!

  Oh, wait, wrong kneejerk response.

  I saw or heard it the other day, and wish that I could remember the source: there is no such thing as a 'Reagan Democrat'. Those are merely the last people to bail for the Republicans after Strom and the gang.

  by gmhowell on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:25:22 PM PDT

  •  You raise an interesting question

    How is Obama doing amongst Polish-Americans?  If he can't win Polish-Americans, he just can't win America!

    /snark

    PS.  Nothing at all against Polish-Americans.. I'm just sick of identity politics.

    by socratic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:06 PM PDT

    •  Thank you and Amen!

      I'm just sick of identity politics.

      by browneyes on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:13 PM PDT

•  tip jar

  by fizziks on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:27:13 PM PDT

•  Ross Perot

  They continually forget that Republicans voting for Perot helped them immensely.

  by The Dead Man on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:27:16 PM PDT

  •  I'm crossing my fingers for Bob Barr

    I mean, he's gotta pull more McCain support than Obama, right?

    by gmhowell on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:30:40 PM PDT

    •  defs

      hopefully he'll derail the ron paul supporters who are breaking for mcsame (presumably a small faction since FREEDOM is sort of the antithesis of the republican nominee).

      by mediaprisoner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:45 PM PDT

    •  One little drawback...

      I know a lot of Libertarians who can't stand McCain and will vote for Obama if there is no viable Lib candidate.  And many people who will vote for Barr are conservatives who wouldn't have shown up to vote for McCain anyway.

      by browneyes on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:06 PM PDT

•  Don't waste valuable ATP

  Adenosine triphosphate is to be preserved at all costs. So let's stop thinking about this primary, which is over, and start investing our valuable ATP thinking about the general election and how we're gonna beat John McCain so that America does not have to suffer a third term of George W. Bush-brand politics.

  by jhutson on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:27:23 PM PDT

  •  Is ATP preserved in our convoluted cortex? n/t

    by 417els on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:37:51 PM PDT

  •  God....I just got taken back to the Krebs cycle!

    by mselite on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:46:22 PM PDT

•  Stop caring what Hillary says. She can't talk

  her way into the nomination.  It's over.  Cut her some slack, she has to say something.  

  by keeplaughing on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:28:36 PM PDT

  •  she could say

    Thanks to all of my supporters, god bless America, and let's now all work to elect Obama!

    by fizziks on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:30:05 PM PDT

  •  Hillary needs to stfu

    Should have happened a long time ago.

    by CocoaLove on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:34:44 PM PDT

  •  Yes, she can say

    "I am tonight suspending my campaign for President, and giving my endorsement to our nominee, Barack Obama."

    She could say that.  But she won't.

    But the diarist is right, no more ATP wasted on Hillary.  Not one single molecule.

    by beabea on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:07 PM PDT

•  Good rant

  If she's calling WV a swing state then I am calling Alaska a swing state. OMG she can't win Alaska how can she compete in November?

  by 1 20 2009 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:31:07 PM PDT

  •  I am calling ID a swing state too.

    by soms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:47:18 PM PDT

•  How about

  Just asking her to shut up period?

  by jfern on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:37:28 PM PDT

•  Puerto Rico is a swing state now?

  How many electoral votes has it?

  by organicdemocrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:39:16 PM PDT

  •  none.

    by soms on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:47:39 PM PDT

    •  aah... n/t

      by organicdemocrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:18:44 AM PDT

•  she really doesn't want the veep spot!!!!!!!!!!!!

  by MI Sooner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:40:27 PM PDT

•  Hillary's just another word

  for nothing left to lose.

  She's like a friggin' cornered wild animal.

  by debrazza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:42:38 PM PDT

•  I think they both would win, but...

  Hillary would be the last President of a past era, while Obama would be the first President of a future era, one made up of the voters you correctly identified in this diary.

  Hillary would basically run on the Gore/Kerry map, only my gut is, with this economy, she probably would pull out Ohio 52-47 and take the White House. She would hold the Pacific Northwest and Minnesota, though certainly not as comfortably as Obama would. She'd run on that map better than Kerry did. In fact, she'd probably be a heavy favorite since she'd get the A-A vote and Kossacks back in the long run on policy.

  Obama will absolutely carry Colorado, he'll hold Pennsylvania, and he'll put together enough out of Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and (perhaps) Ohio to get over the top. I have little doubt that thanks to his strength west of the Mississippi, he'll overcome whatever softness his race brings in the Rust Belt and Appalachia.

  On balance, Obama probably has a slightly greater chance of falling short of 270 than Hillary does, but also a much, much higher upside. I'm excited to watch him reshape electoral politics for a generation.

  by MikeMinCT on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:48:25 PM PDT

•   "I'm not even going to waste valuable ATP"

  This stuff????????

  Adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) is a multifunctional nucleotide that is most important as a "molecular currency" of intracellular energy transfer.[1] In this role, ATP transports chemical energy within cells for metabolism. It is produced as an energy source during the processes of photosynthesis and cellular respiration and consumed by many enzymes and a multitude of cellular processes including biosynthetic reactions, motility and cell division. In signal transduction pathways, ATP is used as a substrate by kinases that phosphorylate proteins and lipids, as well as by adenylate cyclase, which uses ATP to produce the second messenger molecule cyclic AMP.

  by internationaljock on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:50:28 PM PDT

•  If she were the nominee, WA would become

  a swing state instead of fairly solid blue.

  Scary.

  Obama changes the map.

  Clinton would too.

  We have simply decided we like how the map looks with Obama better.

  STFU Hillary.

  by broui on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:50:39 PM PDT

•  This is shows you the media is useless...why?

  As each candidate that was clearly on the wrong end of the totem pole of results.....found their media coverage start to DECREASE.....in the days after a loss.....

  Take your pick, Huckabee, Edwards, Rudy, you name it. But, Clinton gets MAJOR coverage as if IT IS STILL AN OUTCOME IN DOUBT?????

  What gives....do you see the compliance by the media to keep any negative frame going. Most times the candidate trailing and near the end....does not get this kind of coverage.

  by alnc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:52:42 PM PDT

•  We need to be realistic

  Hillary won WV.  Let's not trivialize that.  

  Instead, we need to focus on and point out the fact that Obama will win the delegate count.

  by hienmango on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:58:02 PM PDT

•  WV is a swing state in the sense...

  that it swung from solidly blue to solidly red btw 1996 and 2000

  by Johnnythebandit on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:13:36 PM PDT

•  Well, first we have to identify the swing states

  I think we should prioritize the smallest states first because you get
  THE MOST bang for the buck.  As the core example, Gore was trying to
  win Florida in 2000, and Florida is about 13 times the size of New Hampshire.
  But if he had won New Hampshire, he would've won the election.
  Kerry won NH in 2004, but dropped Iowa and New Mexico (which was
  the closest state in 2000, even closer than Florida).  If he had kept them,
  that would've been enough to win in 2000, but not in '04 because of
  census shift; Kerry needed 1 more state than Gore did.   But that 1
  state could've been Nevada or West Virginia; all those together were
  still arguably easier than Ohio.  So:

  (4)  New Hampshire, New Mexico
  (5)  Nevada, West Virginia
  (7)  Iowa
  (9)  Colorado
  (10) Wisconsin

  Don't let anybody distract you.
  Pennsylvania (for example) is not a swing state.
  It is reliably blue.
  Ohio and Florida are must-hold for the other side.
  We DON'T NEED them; they do.

  by ge0rge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:03 PM PDT

  •  damn right

    by fizziks on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:50 PM PDT

•  The old-style politics

  I guess if you aren't in a fairly large state with an even division of political preferences, then you are just SOL.

  Really, we need to think about ways to make the election process mean more instead of less. The Democratic party made a good move in going to proportional allocation of delegates in primaries. This principle should be carried to the Electoral College, but only if it is done for every state. That is a small step away from determination by popular vote.

  There is much more reform needed. The early primary system is screwing things up and letting the media have too much opportunity to control the direction and message. I like Clinton and Obama, but why, early in the year, are they reduced to the only two choices. I am delighted McCain is the putative Republican candidate. I'll take that back if he's elected, that would be a disaster.

  It's really hard to get reform out of a system where the persons who are able to change it benefit from the status quo. We really need to acknowledge that we have a government controlled by legalized formal bribery, and it doesn't get better results than good old fashioned smoke-filled room palm greasing.

  by Lib Rule Guy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:03 PM PDT