Signs your campaign is in trouble #217
My friend Judy sent this snapshot from the fire sale table at a LaGuardia Airport gift shop. Apparently retailers haven't heard the electoral votes theory.
My friend Judy sent this snapshot from the fire sale table at a LaGuardia Airport gift shop. Apparently retailers haven't heard the electoral votes theory.
Comments
I just don't get it. Are these people trying to say that in the states that Hillary beat Obama (even by thin margins) that McCain would also beat Obama? The logic doesn't follow.
Posted by: Gina | March 24, 2008 12:21 PM
Yes, that's what they're trying to say. Or more precisely (but equally illogically) because Clinton beat Obama there, she can beat McCain.
The real question is whether a Democrat can win each state at all, and if so, whether one Democrat has a better chance than the other. The primary results don't answer that at all.
Posted by: radosh | March 24, 2008 12:23 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Gina.
It amazes me that no one in the media (at least that I have seen) has questioned that very questionable "logic."
Posted by: Tim H | March 24, 2008 12:25 PM
Notice how Rudy gets a flag but Hillary doesn't. My favorite campaign swag is a Fred Thompson for President refrigerator magnet my brother gave to me featuring a photo of grumpy-faced potato-headed Fred in his Law & Order office. Now that would make a good t-shirt.
Posted by: Patrick Broderick | March 24, 2008 12:44 PM
Agreeing with Gina and Tim, everytime this "theory" comes up, my wife rolls her eyes knowing I'm going to start yelling at the screen. Last week, one of the talking heads on CNN almost asked the question, but did not pursue it fully. The answer to "So, do you actually believe that Obama would not win NY?" (or CA, or NJ, etc) would speak volumes about the Clinton campaign.
Posted by: therblig | March 24, 2008 1:21 PM
I understand they had Nader gear but it spoiled.
Posted by: al in la | March 24, 2008 1:39 PM
Shouldn't the donkey on Hillary's mug be facing left (of the person viewing it)?
On the t-shirt, Hillary's mug is facing left.
Posted by: JohnnyB | March 24, 2008 2:32 PM
it's irrelevant which democrat won which state since democrats will still vote democratic either way. to make a big deal out of hillary winning "big states" is silly
Posted by: d | March 24, 2008 5:06 PM
This is the other half of the "kitchen sink" approach. Keep coming up with nonsensical arguments for your candidacy until something sticks. They're not just throwing the sink at Obama, they're throwing it at all of us.
Posted by: Reed | March 24, 2008 5:33 PM
Also notice that they say "...in most other leading indicators", as if electoral-votes-in-primaries is already accepted as a leading indicator.
Posted by: Squidocto | March 24, 2008 6:13 PM
Funny- I was at LaGuardia on Friday and took the same picture...
Posted by: DemNamedRNC | March 24, 2008 6:19 PM
The electoral vote "theory" is not based on the primary results. It is based on polling data of McCain/Clinton or Mccain/Obama matchups in all 50 states, and based on that data, who would be more likely to beat McCain in the general election.
Posted by: Steve | March 24, 2008 9:29 PM
Sorry I realize that is not what that the linked article says, but if Clinton continues to win and catch up in the popular vote, this is what you will be hearing about, there is already some data out that shows that Clinton may be more liekly to win versus McCain
Posted by: Steve | March 24, 2008 9:34 PM
The electoral vote "theory" is not based on the primary results.
Believe it or not, it is:
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
Not a word about polling data. If, however, the Democratic party wants to go back to the pre-1968 days of letting party officials pick candidates based on their own analysis of who's strongest, let them go ahead and make that argument.
Posted by: radosh | March 24, 2008 9:36 PM
You beat me to the punch with your clarification. And yes, I have no doubt that when this theory fails to pan out, the Clinton campaign will find another one that favors it.
Posted by: radosh | March 24, 2008 9:37 PM
i'm so over her and her desperation. zzzzzz....
Posted by: nomoreclintons | March 24, 2008 9:53 PM
I'm sure they can't give that junk away.
Posted by: Mark Gillis | March 25, 2008 6:19 AM
although I agree her campaign is in trouble, it seems more likely they just ordered a lot of stuff from the "NY" candidates and now realize no one buys campaign material in the airport and are discounting it heavily. I mean, there are elephant and donkey shotglasses in that picture on heavy discount too. there may very well be a similar sad Obama table at O'Hare.
Posted by: lmsa | March 25, 2008 7:45 AM
My favorite Clinton campaign souvenirs are President McCain and millions of Iranian scalps.
Posted by: TG Gibbon | March 25, 2008 8:14 AM
Sorry, I forgot: Zing!
Posted by: TG Gibbon | March 25, 2008 8:15 AM
Look for good deals on Hillary's "I survived sniper fire in Bosnia" t-shirts at military base souvenier shops today.
Posted by: JohnnyB | March 25, 2008 9:59 AM
Hillary is toast, but she's going to make this the longest movie ending in history
Posted by: radosh | March 25, 2008 11:45 AM
@JohnnyB:
Bingo, you win the prize. Apparently, some people didn't catch the jab about "which end is more appropriate to be facing Hillary?" The part she thinks we all are, of course.
Posted by: Jeff | March 27, 2008 4:29 AM