By Big Tent Democrat
Speaking for me only
The electability argument rages on. Former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd writes:
[T]here seems to be a concerted effort by the Clinton campaign to point out weakness in the Obama effort related to November electability. . . . One argument being made is that there is a relationship between primary win in states and ability to win those states in the Fall. For example, the Clinton campaign likes to point out they won Ohio and Obama lost it, and that this bodes badly for his chances of winning that state in the Fall. The Obama campaign points out wins in red states in the primary process trying to prove their strength.
To put it bluntly, there is no relationship between primary success in any given state and November success in those states.
Dowd says it so it must be so. Um no. Dowd is wrong and he misdescribes the argument as one expects a politician or political operative to do. More . . .
|< Obama, Emil Jones and Earmarks | Endorsing Richardson's Statement On Ending The Dem Contest >|