I thought I recognized something as I was reading the returns threads this evening.
1. Candidate wins the states that matter
This one is being found in the “confederate states” kind of posts that make their way into returns threads. Basically, the Democratic party should discard the results from southern states due to the reality we won’t win a majority of those states in the general.
The diarist writes:
“Clinton has more swing state support. There are many theories about what determines a swing states. However, everybody agrees swing states have about equal Democrat and Republican voters. So, based on this common agreement I determine that any state that had less than a 3% margin between the Democrat and Republican vote in the past election is a swing state. I have compiled a list of the current swing states and have arranged them in order of electoral vote count:
Pennsylvania: 21, Clinton Ohio: 20, Clinton
Wisconsin: 10, Obama
Iowa: 7, Obama
Nevada: 5, Clinton
New Mexico: 5, Clinton New Hampshire: 4, Clinton
A quick look at the list shows that Clinton has more swing state support. Obama has 17 votes and Clinton has 55 votes. The general election will be won by the candidate with the most swing state support. Since Clinton has over three times more swing state support than Obama, she has a stronger chance of winning the general election. Thus, in order for the Democrats to increase our chances of winning the general election it is best to vote for Clinton to be the Democrat nominee for president.”
Sound familiar? You can interchange confederate states with independent voters, blue states or whatever ludicrous construct your mental gymnastics can come up with. At the end of the day, the story is the same: Clinton was losing then just as Sanders is losing now, and supporters are trying to justify the only path to the nomination (superdelegates overturning the will of the voters).
Which leads to my next one:
2. Kos thought the electability argument was stupid then too
”She's lost on the math. Absent a whooping tomorrow, what little hope she has of winning the popular vote will disappear. So what's left? The "big state" nonsense.”
And:
”The supers can decide whether they want to hitch their wagons with the candidate who is trying to spur an intra-party civil war, who has lost on the math, who will lose in the popular vote, and who is loosing support rather than gaining it.”
3. Losing candidate wins "key" state surely shifting the momentum her direction
This one’s just to give a sense of how meaningless tonight is. Secretary Clinton was going to win six of the next ten contests and tie in a seventh (Guam). This was after Obama pretty much sealed the nomination in March.
Not that Clinton didn’t try the same bullshit Sanders and his supporters are pulling now:
4. Losing candidate whining about how winning candidate points out they're winning
“But after the Obama campaign's "go-for-broke" Pennsylvania strategy, after their avalanche of negative ads, negative mailers and negative attacks against Sen. Clinton, after their record-breaking spending in the state, a fundamental question must be asked: Why shouldn't Sen. Obama win?”
“Sen. Obama's supporters - and many pundits - have argued that the delegate "math" makes him the prohibitive frontrunner. They have argued that Sen. Clinton's chances are slim to none. So if he's already the frontrunner, if he's had six weeks of unlimited resources to get his message out, shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight? If not, why not?”
Look for these style of arguments from both the Sanders campaign and its surrogates. Especially the last sentence: They have argued that Sen. Clinton's chances are slim to none. So if he's already the frontrunner, if he's had six weeks of unlimited resources to get his message out, shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight? If not, why not?
Now replace it with:
They have argued that Sen. Sanders chances are slim to none. So if she’s already the frontrunner, if she’s had six weeks of unlimited resources through her bought and paid for mainstream media to prop her up, shouldn’t she be the one winning tonight? If not, why not?
In closing, I agree with Kos. The best description is karmic justice for what Clinton engaged in during those 2008 primaries. That doesn’t change the view from someone who wants to win the general election. I supported Obama then, in the first election I voted in. I support Clinton now. The next few weeks will be interesting, to say the least, but it’s phenomenal how close these two elections are starting to track.
I still think Clinton is winning by a larger margin than Obama did—and I also think the demographics that comprise their bases are significantly changed—but it was a neat trip down memory lane (back when I was just a lurker).
Also, just for fun, because I thought it was funny:
David Sirota, paying attention to black people before he was against it