David Yepsen
From the Des Moines Register's David Yepsen, the worst political columnist in Iowa:
Much has been said about what an interesting presidential campaign this has been. But it could have a nightmare ending:
Barack Obama could win the popular vote, but John McCain could win a majority in the Electoral College - and the presidency.
It's not probable, but it is possible, and it's enough to make you shudder.
Some people would just come unglued, even more so than in 2000, when George W. Bush got fewer popular votes but more electoral votes than Al Gore to capture the White House. Bush's presidency was snakebit from the beginning.
Here's how this could happen again: Obama wins by huge margins in Democratic states such as New York and in states with large African-American populations. But McCain wins toss-up states such as Missouri and Ohio by narrow margins. In most states, whether you win by a big margin or a small one, you still get the same number of electoral votes from that state.
Right now, Obama holds a slim lead in national polls of the contest. The average is just over 2 percentage points. But national totals mean nothing in November. It's the Electoral College that counts, and state-by-state projections show McCain with about 100 solid electoral votes and Obama with about 60. As a result, it's entirely possible McCain wins enough states to capture the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House even though Obama gets more popular votes.
It would be sad. A president needs a popular majority to lead and govern. That will be especially important to the next president, who faces some of the toughest decisions ever faced by an American president.
Of course, David Yepsen conveniently ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton got more popular votes than Barack Obama did during the campaign season (if you count Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot).
Oh, and what is David Yepsen's opinion about superdelegates? This is from March 2, 2008 in the Des Moines Register:
Barack Obama could finish off Hillary Clinton with victories in Tuesday's primaries in Ohio and Texas.As it turned out, Hillary Clinton clobbered Barack Obama in Ohio (53.5% to 44.8%) and Texas (50.9% to 47.4%).
Or, voters could render a split decision, giving Ohio to Clinton and Texas to Obama.
In that case, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination will go on, at least until more states vote and until the so-called " superdelegates " of party leaders and elected officials weigh in to make decisions that crown a winner.
Superdelegates, those delegates who become delegates by virtue of their party or governmental positions, are a good idea. They can bring closure to a messy nomination fight.
Since these superdelegates are in the business of winning elections, they aren't immune to wishes and preferences of constituencies and people back home, but they know a thing or two about what's needed to win an election and govern afterward.
They could prove pivotal this year. According to Zogby polls released Friday, Obama leads Clinton in Texas, 48 percent to 42 percent, with 7 percent undecided. In Ohio, Clinton leads Obama, 44 percent to 42 percent, with 9 percent undecided. Also, her lead is shrinking.
The surveys were conducted last Tuesday through Thursday, and each has a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.
These numbers would indicate Obama can win Texas and eke out a win in Ohio. If that happens, even more money, momentum and delegates would move in his direction. That would pretty much end any prospect for Clinton getting the nomination.
So David Yepsen hates the Electoral College but loves the Democrats' Superdelegates.
If the Democrats have a system where the elite party members get to throw their support behind a candidate who is basically in an equal fight but might be losing ground towards the end then that's "a good idea", but if America has a Federal system whereby the Constitution protects smaller states like Iowa from being marginalized then that's a bad thing.
Yepsen might as well just come out and say that the Electoral College is racist. You know that's how these media types are going to spin everything in this coming election. If Obama doesn't win every single vote and state, it'll be the "racist and xenophobic Republican party" to blame.
That, or those stupid religious smalltown redneck xenophobic gun-toting "Reagan" Democrats.
You can see where this is all going, right? David Yepsen and the rest of the intolerant and hypcritical leftist assholes at the Des Moines Register are hoping to stir up a race war. If "their" candidate doesn't win, it'll be a Scorched Earth policy. You know I'm right about that. They would love to see riots and "whitey" get killed because Obama isn't elected.
3 comments:
I've been saying it all along, if you don't vote for Odrama, you're a racist. Sadly, many sheeple will vote for him just because he's of color, disregarding his idiotic platform. That's the real racism.
There is bad racism and good racism. Only Democrats and certain other enlightened types are able to discriminate between the two with any accuracy.
You gotta be kidding. You might be right about that guy's stance, but don't exaggerate. I don't think anyone wants a race war. Except maybe a few of the rednecks you mentioned and possibly some disallusioned black people buying into this idea that racism is only a one way street.
All in all I think the numbers pretty much spoke for themselves. It's always the final tally that matters after all. I'm giving Obama something like a 80% chance to win against McCain. McCain just can't recover from his negatives whereas Obama's negatives like lack of "experience" are strangely seen as positive in this election year.
Post a Comment