It’s articles like this that I’ll just never understand. CNN.com, along with most other media outlets, love stories like this where they plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of the delegates as far as Barack Obama’s electability. According to the article a big win in West Virginia would mean that Hillary is the better candidate for the Democratic Party. This is based on exit polls that found that 35% of Clinton supporters in the state would vote for John McCain in the general election.
Why are articles like this bad? Because they’re pointless. So what if Clinton wins West Virginia? As it currently stands Obama has control of the popular vote and the Democratic candidate is supposed to be chosen by the delegates anyway. It doesn’t really matter who wins the popular vote or what exit polls say. All that matters is who wins the superdelegates. Not to mention, how does winning a state like West Virginia mean anything in the long run. In the general election the number of electoral votes you get from West Virginia is minimal compared to states like Florida, New York, California and Texas. You just can’t tell me that West Virginians reflect the the minds and opinions of the country as a whole. They are one state. A state that is not nearly as diverse as Texas or California. I’m just sick and tired of Hillary Clinton’s excuses for staying in the race and the media’s buying into her fantastical reasoning.
Tony
Wallace
enice5555
kingstamper
Matt
2 responses so far ↓
Tony // May 14, 2008 at 1:14 am
A victory for hilary, here here. all 16 delegates won and 9 delegates netted on obama’s lead. this clearly makes all the difference. not to mention that traditionally, no state greater reflects american values as well as west virginia does.
goodtimepolitics // May 14, 2008 at 3:35 am
Its was the exit polls that said this about Obama not being as electable as Hillary not the media. If the exit poll would have favor Obama you would have been hollering from the roof tops!
Leave a Comment