why the "best candidate to beat mccain in november" argument is bogus

[unblock]

actually, there are several reasons why it's a bogus argument, but here's the biggie:

BECAUSE WE WIN IN NOVEMBER

yeah, i know all about the perils of overconfidence, we've certainly got to work hard to make sure it does, in fact, happen.

but the reason why the democrats have outfundraised the republicans for like the first time in virtually forever is because the smart money KNOWS the the republicans aren't winning in november.

and it has little to do with the actual candidates. sure, it always makes a difference to add faces to the issues, but realistically, we're dealing with a crap economy, an unpopular war, a plummeting dollar, inflation, unemployment, outsourcing, oil prices FIVE OR SIX TIMES what they were 8 years ago, gas at an all-time inflation-adjusted high (WORSE THAN WHEN CARTER GOT THE BOOT) an incumbent who's less popular than the ebola virus, rats scurrying to tell-all and flee the sinking ship, massive shifts in party identification, and the republicans put up someone they don't even care for.

the smart money knew the republicans weren't going to win a long time ago. why do you think they care so much about OUR primary? because our primary IS the general election. WE determine who will be president. barring monster-sized news between now and november, the general election will merely be about confirmation and coattails.

arguably, the republican powers that be don't even WANT the white house. a lot of ugly news will come out starting in 2009, it won't be pretty, and it's time for them to get a democrat in so they have someone to blame.


i've always said, as jon stewart did, we have two GREAT candidates and either would beat mccain. ted williams or joe dimaggio, take your pick. but either way, we win in november. so, EVEN IF hillary has a wider margin of victory, over mccain, who cares? we win either way. now, coattails, that's worth talking about, but that's a different argument.