Lets hope so....
Posted on 04/23/2008 9:38:49 AM PDT by The_Republican
Hillary Clinton won a decisive ten-round decision over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary, but she didn't score a knockout. The struggle continues. Clinton still has virtually no chance of overtaking
Obama's delegate lead or his edge in the popular vote. And the superdelegates will be loath to ignore this advantage. Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary.
Clinton's best chance of winning the nomination was to win Pennsylvania so decisively that she would have set off a media firestorm about Obama's electability--one that would lead superdelegates to wonder whether she would not be a much, much stronger candidate in November. In the wake of revelations about Obama's relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Clinton was ahead by 15 percent or more in polls. I visited Pennsylvania during this time, and could feel the growing disillusionment with Obama.
Obama, of course, cut into Clinton's lead through outspending her two-to-one on advertisements, but Clinton seriously damaged her own cause by going negative on Obama during the April 16 debate--and probably, too, by her subsequent ads. ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson had already done sufficient damage without Clinton piling on. According to the exit polls, 68 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, and they backed Obama by 55 to 45 percent. It's hard to know for sure, but these tactics probably cost her among white college-educated voters who don't like to think of elections as prize fights. (The editorial in this morning's New York Times, entitled "The Low Road to Victory," reflects this dissatisfaction with the way Clinton conducted herself.)
For his part, Obama cut into Clinton's advantage, but couldn't erase it. Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn't crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics--losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can't win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn't vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.
But Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia's very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.
My colleague Noam Scheiber attributes Clinton's success among these suburbanites to the influence of Governor Ed Rendell, who campaigned with Clinton, but I wonder whether Obama's gaffes and his suspect associations--whether with Wright or former Weatherman Bill Ayers or real estate developer Tony Rezko--began to tarnish his image among these voters. If so, the electoral premise of Obama's campaign--that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents--is being undermined.
Indeed, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.
Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.
Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.
The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state's college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month to come.
This guy isn't racial pride candidate like Sharpton or Jackson, he's a legitimate contender. If he isn't nominated, they will view it as a betrayal of decades of lockstep support for the Dims. "Walking around money" won't make up for it.
You have more faith in them than I do. Hope you are right.
On which planet do these particular people live?
If Obama is the candidate we want to run against, Operation Chaos is not a good strategy. It seems to have the negative side effect of driving up Democratic registrations
Rush reminded republicans participating in Operation Choas to switch their registration back after it serves its purpose. He says public election funds are allocated on the basis of party registrations.
By the same token, had Bush really used his bully pulpit to push for drilling in ANWR, we might be seeing the first barrels of oil coming from there now.
When Bush really uses his bully pulpit, he's good, passionate, and gets his message across. When he lets the dhimmis stomp on him with their clear view of the past in which they live, we have high gas prices, skyrocketing food and other prices (that amount to an intangible tax on our political complacency!).
What to do, what to do . . . . .
Agreed. Bush put a fairly good energy plan forward for 5 or 6 years, but he never really fought for it, and he NEVER pointed out that the Dems were responsible for prices at the pump, and that they opposed the plan because they wanted high gas prices.
For the life of me, I will never understand why he walked away from his energy plan and let the Dems win the battle over domestic oil production. Since I doubt that he will begin to shine a light on this fire, I think we are stuck at the mercy of OPEC, the Saudis and Hugo for the foreseeable future. The spineless jellyfish in our Congress refuse to respond in kind for fear that the rest of the world may not like us. They already don't like us, so what's to lose??
FWIW, I'm waiting to hear the leftists start back with the "blood for oil" mantra. I think I'll take the next one to a gas station and ask them to prove it!! If it were true, we wouldn't be hearing about high gas prices.
The independents will decide the election. The environmental moonbats have screwed up energy policy, energy independence and our economy by having a 60 vote filibuster busting combination of RINOS and donkeys. Electing donkeys will make the current situation worse. McRino will need a miracle to sell that.
On Obama's Electability, Contra Judis
A lib's rebuttal to the author
“$4.00/gallon gas will seem like the good old days....”
Very true. Now the Democrat leadership wants to add an additional 50 cent tax on gasoline.
The only problem is McCain is in agreement with them as far as no drilling in ANWR or anywhere else.
It is interesting to note that this sentence fragment admits that the media sees itself as the arbiter of democrat power. If a "media firestorm" is necessary, why doesn't the media simply create one out of thin air, as they do for Republicans?
...”The racist Obama may be even left of McGovern, but the country is considerably less sane (ie more Leftist) than it was in 1972.”...
However, McGovern was a bona fide war hero, winning the DFC for his strategic bombing service over Europe in WWII. That alone makes it necessary to respect him, aside from his politics.
Obama on the other hand, is nothing - empty, vaporous - but potentially extremely dangerous to America in the Oval Office. In my view, he merits little respect given how the way was cleared for him as a sock puppet politically. He needs to be sent packing, preferably back to Chicago whence he came.
And even if he loses, Oprah’s Obama may have coattails to bring new Democrat socialists to House and Senate.
I don’t think so. I think a “D” means more to African Americans than any other letter of the alphabet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.