Hillary wins the "big states" so I should eat fish tacos?
Now that I'm a partisan again in this fight, I have been wondering about HRC's strategy to win the nomination. It seems to rest on the idea that she has the ability to win the big states in November that Obama doesn't.I think HRC's reasoning goes something like this:
1) Voters prefer HRC over Obama in all the big electoral states
2) Without HRC, voters in those key states will prefer John McCain to Obama in the general election
3) Therefore, HRC should be the nominee because voters prefer HRC and she can win the White House
There are some logical fallacies in that argument. Let me offer an analogy that I think shows that this sort of thinking is just crazy.
1) I prefer steak tacos over chicken tacos at Taco Bell
2) Without steak, I will prefer fish tacos over chicken tacos
3) Therefore, if steak tacos aren't available at Taco Bell, I'll leave and go get fish tacos at Taco Del Mar.
Now anyone that knows me, knows that I'd rather starve than eat fish (fish swim in their own pee), so the chances of me leaving Taco Bell to to go Taco Del Mar are virtually none. I'd rather have steak tacos, but I'll be happy with chicken tacos. There is virtually no chance that I'd ever eat a fish taco.
The same goes for HRC's argument. Plenty of Democrats have voted for her, but we have little reason they wouldn't support Obama in the general if Hillary wasn't there. Democrats are going to be much happier with Obama than with McCain. The only way millions of these Democrats would move over to the Republican Party would be if Obama were somehow equal to or worse than McCain. And that assertion is just plainly false.
HRC's main argument is full of gigantic holes. It is time for the Super Delegates to line up behind Obama and put this thing out of reach for HRC so we can put our full attention on how bad John McCain would be for America.
Hat tip to Mrs. Expat Teacher who helped me finally tease this idea out of my head.
posted by Expat Teacher @ 5:32 PM
