I've been an active participant here for four years and have been relatively quiet as the quantity of illogic has gradually percolated into a bitter brew. Daily Kos has always been a brutally honest champion of "reality-based" viewpoints, so I have a few to share. I may get flamed but I can't remain silent anymore.
- "Only pledged delegates matter."
It's not really about pledged delegates anymore; it's about superdelegates.
I know proponents of the candidate of hope and change suddenly love to champion rigid "hard numbers" and "rules are rules" regimes, but there's another hard rule that's getting overlooked here. Superdelegates count. All of those fuzzy intangibiles and matters of perception that may sway a mercurial superdelegate's mind are firmly ensconced in the party rules. It is non-negotiable and, if we're accepting party rules as moral arbiters, every bit as legitimate as a lead in pledged delegates.
A Hillary victory in raw popular vote is going to carry a lot more weight than an Obama lead in pledged delegates. She's nearly beating him now with Florida + Michigan (likely to swap after PA) and lagging only barely without those two states. Their delegates may not "matter" according to some, but are we ready to say the people don't either? Even if we remove Michigan on account of the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot there, it's still not going to look well. Pennsylvania isn't going to do much to abate this problem for BHO; if anything, it will only exacerbate it. Having one candidate winning more raw votes while a convoluted system awards more pledged delegates to another is only going to reflect poorly on the system itself. To deny the popular vote winner the nomination on account of a perversely ill-conceived pledged delegate apportionment system is going to instill the following in popular consciousnes: "That's... really... messed up."
And there won't be a mandate compelling any superdelegate to endorse the twisted results of a flawed system. They'll look at who the people chose. It's the democratic essence. And yes, this is all within the rules.
- "Florida and Michigan shouldn't count."
That's great. "Are you a Democrat? We decided to squelch your voice to punish you for a brazen coup by your Republican legislature." This is misplaced aggression. Already lagging in the two major swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama's message going into the general election will be, "Hi Michigan and Florida. I didn't want your votes to count in the primary, but please vote for me this November."
And this won't be a long-hammered GOP ad-meme in those markets?
Call it an "insult 45 states strategy" or whatever you'd like, but Hillary is right: Utah, Mississippi, Wyoming, Idaho, and all of its kin do not matter this fall. But when you have the audacity to try silencing millions of voters in Florida and Michigan, and then suggest that Pennsylvania is trivial, well, there are some serious November concerns to consider.
- "He has six weeks to campaign in Pennsylvania... it will be a tie!!"
Not likely. Obama is not going to be the only one campaigning in the Keystone state. There's nothing to suggest that he's magically capable of accomplishing more by campaigning than she is; if anything, it would be the contrary, given that her greatest losses have come from states where she never campaigned and her largest wins have come from states where she campaigned thoroughly. Pennsylvania has always been even more amenable to HRC than Ohio. And even in Ohio, Obama benefitted from the tail end of the Potomac primary bounce that floated him to victory in Wisconsin. The Potomac bounce period has now ended. The idea that "if people just get to see more of BHO they'll love him" while simultaneously attempting to maintain that "the same is not true for Hillary" is preposterous. Mind you, Pennsylvania is another one of her home states, having been partially raised here and born to a father born and buried in Wilkes-Barre/Scranton. It's hard to imagine what sort of miracle people envision that would close the gap here.
At this point, people do know Obama in Pennsylvania. We just don't like him. Another volley of Shakespearean hope speeches isn't going to change that. Obama will win Philadelphia county, I think, despite the Hillary endorsement by Philly's African-American mayor. He may pull out one or two of the more trendy or "fashionable" Philly burb counties like Montgomery or Delaware, and may have a shot in Allegheny (Pittsburgh) and Centre (State College). But the rest of the state is nil for him. Though we hear from time to time that all you find outside of Philly & Pittsburgh is "Alabama," more than half of the state's 12.5 million people live outside of those media markets. Pennsylvania is loaded with mid-sized cities/metros (b/w 300,000 and 700,000 people) like Allentown, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Harrisburg, York, Reading, Lancaster, Erie, etc. that are going to vote heavily for HRC. His "base" is notably absent in these fairly well-populated mid-sized cities.
Considering highly favorable demographics, the party machine backing her, and the defining momentum being Ohio rather than Marlyand/Virginia/DC, barring some unexpected calamity, Hillary by 15-20% is more plausible.
- "Call me a cultist, I just feel him more!"
Superlative. That makes bombastic cinema-worthy monologues the 2008 rebirth of "compassionate conservatism" and the "I'd rather have a beer with Bush" factor.
- "Hillary's commanding lead in White Americans shows they are racist!"
No comment. But feel free to consider returns from Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C., and contemplate whether there's an analogue.
UPDATE: The point here is that the "race card" cuts both ways and we shouldn't even be playing it to begin with. I'm not, as suggested below, Geraldine F. Further, I really thought Bill's tactic in South Carolina was starkly stupid.
- "Experience doesn't matter."
Now returning to your reality-based community.
UPDATE: Re: "straw man." I know it's fun to show how smart we are cause we all remember the definition of a straw man argument from Intro to Debating 101. Unfortunately, some restraint for that enthusiasm is direly needed here. The straw man term is inapposite for a pretty glaring reason, that being that the above notions are not direct quotes being attributed to any one person or specific group of persons. A straw man argument is a construct used to defeat a debating opponent by fabricating a hyberbole or outright misrepresentation of her/his argument and then knocking it down. I am not debating a specific person above, nor an entire community. The above sentences in quotes are notions and memes that exist both here and elsewhere on the web. They are not direct quotes. They are parcels of popular consciousness that some persons believe. If you don't buy into any of the above notions then, congratulations--this diary doesn't apply to you. I regret any ambiguity that occurred if it (incredulously) seemed I was quoting someone directly.