Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Daily Politics: Red State, Blue State

TH has been claiming that a win in Ohio is more important than a win in Texas and all the other Red states where she was soundly beaten by Obama. The rationale is that those states will be red anyways and that that her blue state wins are more important. Again, great excuses for a possible loss.

Let me attempt to figure this out. When she wins a blue state like CA and NY which will go blue in November anyways, that somehow means she will fair better in the GE. When Obama wins big in a red state (even if the Dems who voted just for him outnumbered the total number of GOP voters) it is not as impressive. This, imo, is the most insane logic, but I'm not surprised. It just follows her overall poorly run campaign.

Naturally, there is a lot of time left before November, but to me, it seems that capturing both red, blue and purple states is the goal here. Obama does not want just the big ones. No, he wants all of them and is going to fair much better in the red ones than she would. Kerry tried to simply hold the blue states in hopes of an electoral victory, but it bombed. She is trying the same thing. Remember 2000? We were all up in arms about the absurdity of the electoral college, yet now, TH seems to think that it is the best way. The Dems will fail if they try to coast in on blue states.

Also, she is alienating so many voters by continually reducing the importance of red states. She might beat Obama in Ohio, but that does not suggest that Ohio will be blue. If you have been alive for at least 15 years, you know that she is polarizing enough and to base her strategy on the possible color of a state in November is so risky.

I would have thought her so-called "experience" would have produced more than this.