skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Has Obama jumped the shark?
- Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton 3-to-1 in Pennsylvania and lost by ten. Shouldn't that be story? Why can't the uber-charismatic guy with all the money win important states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, states Democrats need to pick up in November to have a shot at winning?
- For all the bogus spin we hear from both sides about their candidates changing the map, let's get real. The November election will be fought in the same six states that the last two elections were fought in - Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, and Virginia. If I were a Democrat, I'd be damn concerned about the fact that Obama does poorly among core swing constituencies in all of those states - blue collar voters, rural whites, and Catholics. Obama's big win in Virginia owed overwhelmingly to black turnout and college-educated voters in the D.C. suburbs. Missouri was close, Michigan wasn't contested, and Obama got blown out in PA, OH, and FL.
- Why won't the talking heads mention how Obama's narrow lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote owe largely to his running up the score in states in the Great Plains and the Mountain West that Democrats have absolutely no chance of winning in November? Are Obama's whopping victories in states like Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kansas really the stuff that Democratic superdelegates want to base their decision on? The voice of voters who will do NOTHING to bring them the White House come November?
- Watching Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews make excuses for Obama is hilarious. Matthews looks like someone backed over his puppy with a car. And reading the fawning losers at the NYT whine about Obama's loss is equally tasty. They accuse Clinton of taking the low road, but at least she's taking a road that actually exists. Obama's spent a year trying to sell voters the yellow brick road, and it's starting to come up short. Swing voters aren't buying it.
10 comments:
I am still trying to figure out what you have against Obama. His past political and personal life are definitely no worse than the other two left standing.
I am quite sure that you will not be voting for Hillary either. It would seem that you are doing damage control for the Republicans.
McCain only got 73% of the vote even though he is essentially the only one in the race. What of that?
By merely looking at the turnout of Democrats and Republicans, it would seem that even though the polls show a close general election, McCain is going to be blown out by whoever is the Democratic nominee.
This is but one step toward November, McCain is using his "free pass" wisely but it will not be enough when the election is narrowed to two.
I won't contest your initial point regarding background because for the purpose of this post, it's not relevant.
What should matter to Democrats is that Obama struggles mightily to connect with vital constituencies in swing states.
I actually do believe personally that Hillary is a much better candidate than Obama, in addition to believing that she would be more competitive than Obama.
Unlike many Republicans, I'm not walking into a Democratic primary to vote for the person I think is most likely to lose. I hate that game. I'll go in and vote for the person who I think would be a better President.
Based on her experience and her proven record of being willing to work in a bipartisan fashion, I think that candidate is Clinton. Sadly, so much of Obama's lofty rhetoric is simply that - just talk. His record in the Senate (what record there is) is largely partisan and he seems to be nothing more than a pretty face on the same old left-wing agenda.
It kinda sucks how those votes for Obama in traditionally red states don't count for anything. Hooray for the electoral college?
I love federalism.
Obama didn't campaign in Fla, as was the agreement among all of the candidates. GodzHilla broke the agreement anyway and now wants to count the total votes of Fla AND Michigan. She lost Wisconsin and Minnesota, two states that are a must for a Dem win. so, what does this mean? nothing. primary wins and losses don't mean anything in November. The only way Clinton wins the nomination is through a process that will be regarded as stealing the nod from Obama by his supporters. Not exactly the strategy to victory in the fall. I, for one, have bush/clinton fatigue. We don't need more of bush (mcCain) and we don't need more of clinton. What's so gawd-awful about being inspired by someone smarter than most of the nation? I am excited about the additional dems registering as a result of the competition that continues.
Wisconsin and Minnesota aren't relevant because either Democratic candidate will win them. Wisconsin hasn't voted Republican since 1984, Minnesota before that. Caring about who wins those states is like caring about who wins Connecticut or Maryland. It just doesn't matter.
Frankly, all those candidates are smarter than the nation. And if you're going to be comparative, Yale Law is a lot harder to get into than Harvard. So I guess that makes Hillary smarter than Obama.
Anon 4:14, Clinton did not campaign in Florida. Both she and Obama held fundraisers in the state in the runup to the primary, but neither "campaigned," per se. In addition, Obama ran a national cable-TV ad that aired in many Florida markets just before the primary, which Clinton chose not to do.
I'll break it down further:
Pick the 12 most important states in November. My list would go something like this:
NH, OH, PA, MI, FL, MO, WI, IA, NM, NV, VA, MN.
Hillary won 7, Obama 5. However, I would probably switch MN with WV a state Clinton will most likely win, which brings us up to 8-4.
Another way to look at it is by the most populous states:
CA: Clinton
NY: Clinton
TX: Clinton
FL: Clinton
PA: Clinton
IL: OBAMA! YAY OBAMA!
OH: Clinton
MI: Clinton
Ppppppplease nominate Obama!
Primary wins don't equal general elections wins.
Obama lost some big states but some, like Pennsylvania, lock out independents, who are going overwhelmingly for Obama. So the argument is when all those registered Dems have a choice, they'll go for "the Maverick" McCain? That facade will drop faster than anything about Obama. He's flip flopping on everything and his record (the WHOLE thing) isn't much less conservative than Obama's is tagged as liberal. I'll go to RS's AD57 argument that it is better in '08 to be the liberal than the conservative. Especially when you're trying to sell staying the Bush course in Iraq and continued tax breaks for the wealthy when gas will be $4+--don't think that's not all we're gonna talk about ALL summer on this guy.
Back to the big states: yes, Obama lost MI (name not on the ballot), NY and CA but those states are going Dem no matter what and I'd make an argument for PA too, plus he'll be fine in MN, WI, NH and in IL.
Texas? If W. switched parties a Dem still couldn't win. Other big states like FL (Obama didn't campaign, so no real ideas), NV, NM? McCain's alright on immigration but try telling all those Latino's not to buy the GOP line on fences and mass deportation. VA could go Dem no matter what thanks to Mark Warner's coattails.
So what's left? MO? IA? Boy oh boy, it is sure to be McCain's year!
Did I forget to mention how absolutely ABSURD McCain sounds whether he's off the cuff (CRAZY!) or on cue (rehearsed much?). He starts sounding off and you've got the crazy old coot who can barely move against the handsome young orator who inspires. I'll take my chances, thanks.
Post a Comment