The WaPo picks up on an electability argument I've seen being made by Clinton supporters questioning Obama's ability to carry 'red' states. I don't get the logic here at all. Sure it's an unknown, but at least it's a question. Does anyone really think that Hillary has a prayer of carrying any states in the heart of CDS country either?
This relates to another argument that puzzles me, that being the notion that because Obama is drawing his wins from independents and even some Republicans that this is somehow a nefarious plot to hand the nomination to Obama so they can trounce him in November. The companion premise apparently being that it's unfair for the Democratic nominee to be chosen by anything other than declared Democrats. Am I the only one that noticed hordes of voters have left both parties in disgust? Are these 'outside' voters expected to stay home after they made such an effort to turn out for primaries? Aren't we all Americans first and partisans second?
Independents are the fastest growing demo. Treating their votes as somehow tainted in choosing the nominee doesn't sound like a winning strategy in November to me. I would think the goal would be to win with the largest plurality possible in order to acheive a true mandate. We don't need another election that spits the electorate down the middle where victory rests on a few hundred thousand votes. I really don't see how dismissing such a large chunk of the electorate as inconsequential is going to win any hearts and minds at the ballot box.