Comments on: More “Electability” Nonsense

By: mambochicken23

mambochicken23 — Thu, 29 May 2008 07:07:17 +0000

Wait a minute, you guys! Didn’t Hillary win California and New York? Uh oh… McCain won those states in the Republican primaries too! Democrats neeeeed those states in the General Election. McCain has already proven that he can win there, and only HILLARY is the only Dem to show that she can win those states! Obama doesn’t stand a chance!!!!!!

/end stupidity

By: Porlock Hussein Junior

Porlock Hussein Junior — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:31:28 +0000

Right, so let’s follow Sean’s principles, and instead of just assuming that “beats” is transitive, let’s look at specifics.

Wel, the Big Deal in her campaign is sexism, right? I mean, it’s not as if the two were all that far apart on the issues. So, sexism ruined poor Ms Clinton’s chances here, when she’d have been a shoo-in for the Demo nomination otherwise. We all know that because she and her followers never cease telling us.

Hence in the general election, she’s much more electable, because Republicans (and Independents, I concede) are so much less sexist than Democrats. Hence, though she loses within the party, she’ll do vastly better against McCain. See how simple it is?

By: jojo

jojo — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:11:35 +0000

Let me see if I have this argument straight:

Paper beats Rock
Rock beats Scissors
Therefore Paper must beat Scissors, right? Right?

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:41:05 +0000

What August said. I’m using their own rules to make this case.

Which has to be nearly the stupidest defense you could come up with. There is, I assume, a certain amount of sarcasm intended but… still.

I agree with you on the majority of things, OW (in other words “With all due respect…” (Heh.)) but you completely undercut your own credibility when you make such a statement. You can’t criticize the methods used by someone and then, when caught in a weak statement, fall back on “Well, the other guy does it.”

By: mike in dc

mike in dc — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:32:55 +0000

McCain hasn’t attacked Clinton since, what, March?

The minute Clinton concedes, Obama goes up 5-10 points in every matchup.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:14:44 +0000

What August said. I’m using their own rules to make this case.

By: August J. Pollak

August J. Pollak — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:21 +0000

You can’t compare how A does against B under one set of conditions and then say that has any bearing when you compare either to C under other conditions.

THANK YOU, NOW TELL HILLARY THAT.

By: mambochicken23

mambochicken23 — Wed, 28 May 2008 22:38:55 +0000

Sean’s absolutely right on this point. It’s the wrong argument, OW. The BEST* argument against Hillary’s claim is that it’s a load of shit. A huge pile of rancid horse feces.

*OK, maybe this isn’t the best argument, but it’s sure the most fun. Not to mention that its faster and less tedious than going into all the real reasons why Hillary’s wrong about this.

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Wed, 28 May 2008 21:54:59 +0000

The Clinton campaign claims they can beat McCain and Obama can’t, but then if Obama is so weak they should have beaten him, no?

Not necessarily. The logic doesn’t flow like that. You can’t compare how A does against B under one set of conditions and then say that has any bearing when you compare either to C under other conditions.

By: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle — Wed, 28 May 2008 21:44:51 +0000

Her claim is a bunch of horseshit. When is the last time McBush has attacked Clinton? January? Obama is getting double teamed right now(and McCain is getting a bump from the Clinton supporters that are still mad/angry).