Using the Electoral Vote Metric
by mefck, Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EDT
Losing in delegates, popular vote, states won, etc, etc., Sen. Clinton's surrogates have been pushing the Electoral College metric.
In sum, they claim that we should choose a nominee based upon who won states with the most aggregate electoral votes.
Now, this argument is deeply flawed for one basic reason. Sen. Clinton won California and NY, but is there any doubt that Obama could easily win those two states in the fall? On the other hand, Sen. Obama won Illinois easily, but there is any doubt that Sen. Clinton could win it in the fall?
But maybe there is some merit to the argument, but not in the way the surrogates anticipated.....
Look at the trusty mydd 2008 poll watcher in the upper left and right hand corners of the screen (which I hope is more up-to-date than the mydd delegate counters).
The electoral votes based on all the latest polls would be:
with 15 undecided....
By the way, Obama's count includes giving NY to McCain which will absolutely not happen.
So what does that say about electability?