Go to Ask.com


enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Chris Wilson's Bad idea
by djg1229
Obama stands no chance to carry WV or Kentucky in the general election. It is likely that Hillary couldn't carry these states either. Why should he care if he alienates voters in a state that he can't carry. He won the primaries in Nebraska and Idaho and I hope that he is smart enough to only set foot in those states if he is flying into the Omaha airport to campaign in western Iowa (a state he can carry) or going mountain climbing (in Idaho). He needs to focus his attention on the electoral votes now, not the number of Democrats that are alientated who need to have him beg them to vote for him (unless they are in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Missouri). Sorry, WV you just became irrelevant -- or actually never reached a level or relevance -- for this election cycle.
Re: Chris Wilson's Bad idea
by nerdnam

If WV is irrelevant, then all the states are irrelevant.

Once you let one vote go, then you might as well let them all go. Don't forget how close 2000 was, and 2004 wasn't much less close. Fighting for that one vote might make all the difference in the world.

I know he's probably going to be the nominee, but it bothers the hell out of me that he isn't fighting for every last vote. That bespeaks entitlement and arrogant presumption--exactly what liberal eggheads are widely despised for.

Re: Chris Wilson's Bad idea
by progressivebulldog

The real problem is the electoral college. Obama will get some delegates from West Virginia even though Hillary will clearly win big. If we had a direct popular vote for president it would make a lot more sense for Obama to focus on West Virginia.

As it stands now if there is a huge preference for McCain in this state Obama might as well ignore it. After all if he loses by 5% or 90% McCain still would get all of the electoral votes.

We should end this stupid system and move to a direct popular vote. Doing so would bring our country together too as most states are not all "blue" or "red" but some shade of purple.

Re: Chris Wilson's Bad idea
by pwoxby

"We should end this stupid system and move to a direct popular vote."

That would take a constitutional amendment. But the constitution doesn't mandate winner-take-all apportionment of electoral votes. Indeed, Maine and Nebraska don't do that. So all other state legislatures should be lobbied to follow the examples of ME and NE.

Obama 08!

Re: Chris Wilson's Bad idea
by mariah healy
This article was about as good as Chris's April 24th "Obama Should Drop Out." Who is this guy?
Re: Chris Wilson's Bad idea
by malandolf13
Hillary can carry both WV and Ken. over mccain, Her husband did. hmm do a little research.. disenfranchising the states that arent voting for your candidate is extremely childish, just like all you obama supporters that want to keep florida and michigan out of this, there are 50 states in this country unless you are obama then you need to add 7 to that.
Re: Chris Wilson's Bad idea
by pigbodine
How much did Perot siphon off to allow Clinton those states? We're going going to have a far right third party candidate to take care of the white male vote. Anyway, Clinton lost the white male vote to both Bush and Dole. Do a little research yourself.

Florida and Michigan were out of the picture as agreed to by all the candidates, including Clinton, well before she realized she would need them. If Obama has a chance to campaign, do you really think she would have gotten as many votes as she did, especially with momentum he was carrying? Florida she probably would have won but Michigan was up for grabs. And the only reason she got votes in Michigan is because she didn't take her name of the ballot as everyone agreed to, including her.
Re: Chris Wilson's Bad idea
by djg1229
Last time I checked, Hillary was not Bill (according to Carville, she has one more testicle than Bill does) and 2008 is not '92 (and especially not '96). Maybe she can compete in these states in the general election and maybe not. However, Obama doesn't seem to be able to, and he will be the nominee whether the Clintonistas. So, based on a strategy that says "The next President will be the person who wins the most electoral votes", he should ignore those states. Of course, you will respond that that makes him a bad nominee; you can have your opinion, but whether he is bad or not, he followed the rules, won the most states, most delegates, most votes, and will be the nominee. So, if you care about progressive government, stop whining and start working towards an Obama victory in November. If what you want is another Clinton in the WHite House or a woman in the White House, then work to defeat Obama, live though 4 years of McCain and his appointments to the Supreme Court (which will almost certainly end a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy), and maybe Hill will tee it up again.
View as RSS news feed in XML