Thursday, March 10, 2016

Check out this map...

...from the print edition of the New York Times today. (It really struck me.) Doesn't it look like Hillary Clinton is winning mostly in red states while Bernie Sanders is winning in the blue ones? Does that mean anything for the fall? Would Sen. Sanders be a -- gulp -- stronger general election candidate than Mrs. Clinton?

1 comment:

Ed Crotty said...

First - I mostly agree with this -
- Basically, (to me) it says that as a straight white guy with a job and some $$, it would not be the end of the world if one of the Republicans gets elected, so I have the luxury of entertaining voting for a 74 year old Jewish Socialist. But people of color are much more fearful and want to go with a more proven commodity.

Second - As Democrats, we need votes and congress-folks from everywhere we can get them - and that includes red states. Texas has 11 blue seats in the house. Blue State Illinois only has 10 - and "Blue" michigan only has 5 ( while the republicans have 9! ). So discounting the wishes of the members of our party that are unlucky enough to live in red states is counter-productive, and cruel.

That said, I'm still not sure who I am voting for. I like that Bernie has shifted the "Overton Window" to the left ( As did the Occupy movement ), And I agree with his principles. But it is also clear that he is not creating the "revolution" that would be needed to get the congress to move substantially left and pass the items on his agenda. I think Mrs. Clinton is pragmatic and tough.