Hillary Clinton’s Flawed Argument to the Super Delegates

Cross Posted on Grizzly Groundswell

 Hillary Clinton can’t overtake Barack Obama in the delegate count to win the nomination. Barack Obama can’t win enough delegates to earn the nomination either. This leaves the nomination of the Democrat candidate in the hands of the super delegates. This can all be blamed on the fact that the liberal’s whole idea of nobody ever really loses, everybody is always a winner attitude has crept into their nomination system. How else can you explain that you can lose a state and still win delegates? If a winner was a winner in this process the candidate would have long ago been decided, but no, Democrats need to reward the loser also. Or should I say reward the second winner also?

 But that is not the topic of this post. I want to write about Hillary’s argument to the super delegates on why she should be the nominee. I can see no other alternative to this primary other than the super delegates having to decide their nominee. So both candidate must appeal to party insiders, I wonder who has the advantage there?

 Hillary Clinton’s argument to the super delegates is the fact, and it is a fact, that she has won all of the big states. She has won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida (even though it didn’t count), Texas (even though Obama managed to get more delegates while losing the state. Another example of the everybody wins mentality of the left), California, and New York (surprise!). She also rightly states that these are all states that Democrats must win in order to win the presidency. The Democrats don’t have to win all of those states, but probably a majority of them.

 Hillary Clinton is using the argument that because she won those states, and those states are so important to the prospects of a Democrat winning the presidency that she is the only candidate that can beat Republican turncoat John McCain.

 While she is right on two points here, one, that she did win those states, and two, that Democrats need to win those states in the general election, her argument is flawed.

 She is proposing this theory as if she has beaten a Republican candidate in those states. She is also making it seem as though Obama has lost to a Republican candidate in those states by using this argument. Thus she is projecting that because she won those states that she is the only candidate that can win the general election. She is forgetting the fact that this primary is only between two Democrats. Democrat voters are trying to decide who should win their nomination. That doesn’t mean these same voters would not vote for Obama if he were to win the nomination. Her argument hinges on the fact that she is trying to convince the super delegates that because she won those states she is the only one that can carry them in the general election over McCain.

 That is flawed logic. Democrat voters in those states are going to vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of whether they voted for Clinton or Obama in the primary. Just because Hillary won the primary in those state doesn’t mean she can win the general election any more than the fact that Obama lost those primaries means he can’t win the general election.

 She is making the case that because she won those states once she can win them again. While I can see what she is trying to say it just doesn’t hold water.

 Just because Obama didn’t win these states in the primary doesn’t mean that Democrats won’t rally around him if he gets the nomination. Once the candidate is decided it is a whole new ballgame in those states.

 So while Democrats do need the states that Hillary has won, it doesn’t mean that Obama can’t win those states when he goes after the Republican turncoat. Winning or losing in the primary doesn’t necessarily guarantee the same result in a general election.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance