WSJ Reported... "The Democrats Have a Nominee: It's Obama! Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee."This reporting though, fails to take certain things into account. The first is the entire reason why the 'Super Delegates' were created in the first place. It wasn't to mirror what the party wanted, it was created for exactly the reasons that the WSJ stated about the Democrat Party Primary Process, "No centrist can secure the party's nomination in a primary system dominated by left-liberal activists". Which is fine, if left leaning leberals are electable, but as the past has shown us, they are not. Obama, is nothing more than a modern day McGovern, completely unelectable, or did the newspaper not get the news? They wrote in this same article that McGovern (1972), Mondale ('84), Dukakis ('88), Gore ('00) and Kerry ('04), were exactly the types of far leaning left liberals that Middle America won't vote for. Obama is no different.
North Carolina is a perfect example of the massive problems the Democrats have if they side with Obama, According to Rasmussen, even though as of April 5th, Obama leads Clinton by 20 points, over half of Clinton Supporters say they won't vote for Obama against McCain, if he wins the nomination. North Carolina is just one of the 30 States that went with Bush in the 2000 General election against Gore, and they're also one of the 31 States that went with Bush in the 2004 General Election vs Kerry. The WSJ fails to see that in addition to having a huge block of voters that won't vote for Obama in the general election, Clinton has also won the states with the Most Electoral College votes. Ultimately most Obama voters would vote for Clinton in the General Election, which makes her the more electable of the two candidates. Also, Obama voters tend to be younger and less likely to vote than the Older voters that Clinton has.
One last thing that the WSJ fails to see is that both Florida and Michigan's vote WILL count in the general election, and if the Democrat Party fails to take them into account, they will lose the general election.
If the Super Delegates don't see this or won't act on it, then why have the Super Delegate system in the first place? They might as well adopt the same system the Republicans have and avoid all these headaches in the future.
read more | digg story
North Carolina is a perfect example of the massive problems the Democrats have if they side with Obama, According to Rasmussen, even though as of April 5th, Obama leads Clinton by 20 points, over half of Clinton Supporters say they won't vote for Obama against McCain, if he wins the nomination. North Carolina is just one of the 30 States that went with Bush in the 2000 General election against Gore, and they're also one of the 31 States that went with Bush in the 2004 General Election vs Kerry. The WSJ fails to see that in addition to having a huge block of voters that won't vote for Obama in the general election, Clinton has also won the states with the Most Electoral College votes. Ultimately most Obama voters would vote for Clinton in the General Election, which makes her the more electable of the two candidates. Also, Obama voters tend to be younger and less likely to vote than the Older voters that Clinton has.
One last thing that the WSJ fails to see is that both Florida and Michigan's vote WILL count in the general election, and if the Democrat Party fails to take them into account, they will lose the general election.
If the Super Delegates don't see this or won't act on it, then why have the Super Delegate system in the first place? They might as well adopt the same system the Republicans have and avoid all these headaches in the future.
read more | digg story
