Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny 99
No, superdelegates are much more important at this point. If you are a super delegate why would you ever vote for someone that can't win the critical swing states that decide the real election - answer - you wouldn't. That is the whole purpose behind having superdelegates in the first place. Hillary has a commanding lead on the superdelegates side, not due in any small part to her husband and also the fact that she's running against a black person. The southern USA, I hate to say, is far readier to vote for a white woman over a black man. You can't name one president in history who was elected without carrying a large portion of the south.
|
That's one way to look at it, but the way that usually loses you elections. You want the candidate that mobilizes the most voters in the states you are weak. The Democrats know they are going to take California, New York and some of the NE states regardless of who they have on the ticket. The secret is to tap into the voters in the regions they have always struggled.
Obama has more appeal and is more likely to tap into diverse demographic sets than Clinton. In fact, Clinton could drive many of the voters away from the Democrats and directly to the Republicans or to Nader. Clinton will get destroyed against McCain. He's stronger on every single facet where Clinton claims superiority to Obama. Clinton is not an alternative candidate to what the Republicans are running, she's the exact same thing, which means all those things she's beat up Obama for will come back home to roost and aid in defeating her. Obama is the natural candidate to run against McCain because he presents a different perspective and this is what the people want. Going with Clinton will spell another painful defeat for the Democrats. You can bet on that.