illusionofjoy: (Hillary Clinton 2008)
[personal profile] illusionofjoy

I am not the only lifelong Democrat finding myself less enchanted with Barack Obama the more I get to know him. Frankly, it will take more than a minor miracle for him to get my vote in November if he is nominated - or, more accurately, installed - as the Democratic candidate of choice to run again John McCain at the convention in August. I live in Pennsylvania, which is shaping up to be a battleground state, should Obama be the nominee. Richard Baehr at RealClearPolitics lays out what happens when enough voters feel as alienated as I do:

In 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton won Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas. In 2000 and 2004, George Bush won all three states. In the current Democratic Party nominating contest, Hillary Clinton won all three states by huge margins -- 30 points or more in each case. West Virginia (3%), and Kentucky (7%) have relatively small black populations. Arkansas is just over 15% African American (in the same range as Florida and Tennessee).

The three states have 19 Electoral College votes among them, almost as many as Ohio (20). In 2004, Bush won the Electoral College by 286-252. Had he lost Ohio, Kerry would have been elected. In 2008, Ohio will undoubtedly be a battleground again.

Were the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, the Democrats would be in very good shape even without Ohio. That is because current surveys show Hillary Clinton winning all three states by solid margins over John McCain. But John McCain trounces Barack Obama in the same three states by over 20% in each case. So with Clinton as the nominee, these states vote as they did when her husband was the nominee. When Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, these states vote as they did when George Bush was running. The differences in the poll results are shocking. Clinton wins Arkansas and Kentucky by 14% and 9% respectively. McCain wins against Obama in the two states by 25% and 24% respectively. This means the shift from Obama to Clinton is a change of over 34% margin in one state, 38% in the other.

Roughly 40% of the voters who are for Clinton will not support Obama in these two states.

The main problem with Obama's campaign is that he has completely and utterly failed to reach out to voters in categories he is weak in. He has even gone so far as to commit the egregious political sin of writing off certain voting blocs, refusing even to curb his supporters who would make outrageously biased claims about the people who are not voting for him. While the youth and African-American voting blocs are a lock for him, his inability to take any votes from Hillary Clinton's groups - and indeed, his liability of haemorrhaging votes to Clinton nearly across the demographic board - should be a huge flashing red warning light about his general election prospects.

The article goes on to point out why caucus wins are not reliable indicators of general election wins:

At this point, Obama appears to be the all but certain nominee. This is despite Clinton winning the same number or perhaps slightly more total popular votes, and winning virtually all the contested primaries since February when the Reverend Wright story surfaced. Obama's wins since then have been in states with very heavy African-American voter percentages -- North Carolina and Mississippi, and in very liberal Oregon. With almost all super delegates now breaking for Obama, he could wind up with close to a 10% delegate margin, but be only even in the popular vote. This will result from a 5% elected delegate margin (built on low turnout caucus victories), and perhaps a 30% super delegate margin, if the remaining 200 or so uncommitted super delegates break as this group has since North Carolina (62-10 for Obama). A system built on proportional distribution of elected (pledged) delegates will have grossly expanded the popular vote margin to give one candidate a decisive victory among these delegates, which has been used to justify the shift to that candidate of super delegates.

Obama's caucus victories (he won every caucus except Nevada) were built on enthusiasm from activist left wing Democrats and young voters willing to participate in the several hour process. In the general election, the participation rate will be much higher and voting patterns should mirror much more closely the results in primary states, where Obama has not done nearly as well.

Nominating Hillary Clinton would guarantee a Democratic win in 2008. Instead, based on either fear of being called racist, a desire to reach into the bottomless pocketbook of Obama or some misguided desire for revenge on the Clintons, the Democratic Party is looking to set us up with a candidate whose prospects of defeating John McCain are shaky, at best. This is sheer lunacy! I will be laughing through bitter tears when John McCain is sworn in, should the current course remain unchanged.

Profile

illusionofjoy: (Default)
Seth Warren

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
1112 1314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 07:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios