The Clinton campaign has rolled out another pitch to undecided superdelegates in the form of a PowerPoint presentation that argues Clinton does better in competitive House districts than Obama. Slide three notes that "In 2006, the Democrats retook Congress by picking up 31 new seats. 20 of those freshman Democrats are in Republican-leaning districts that voted for President Bush in 2004."
Hey, I'm a fan of the Democratic majority as much as the next (liberal) guy, but taking a look at these districts in slide four, one notices that only five or six of them are in competitive states. The rest are in Dem locks like New York and California. Is the campaign arguing that a Democrat winning California will really hinge on him or her winning CA-11, for example? And even with the districts that are in competitive states, are we really supposed to believe that the results are going to hinge on those districts? I guess since learning that the Democratic primary isn't a winner-take-all system, the Clinton campaign decided to take that insight to its logical conclusion -- the reductio ad absurdum of all electability arguments.
--Mori Dinauer
