RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama's General Election Problem
March 06, 2008 12:58 PM
Very smart column by Mari Cocco in which she contemplates Sen. Barack Obama's limited appeal in battleground states -- Ohio, for one -- that the Democratic presidential candidate will need to win in order to win the White House.
"There is a reason some states are called general election 'battlegrounds,'" she writes. "It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiancesâor split their votes. Thatâs why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the 'bellwether' nature of Ohioâ¦
"There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the stateâs 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent to 36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.
"This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohioâand a must-win state for Democrats in Novemberâis considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.
"The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and itâs only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasnât shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obamaâs back, and not Clintonâs, is up against the wall."
- jpt
UPDATE: Obama campaign spox Bill Burton emails to say: "This would have made more sense had we not won Missouri and had not won landslide victories in Virginia, Wisconsin and Colorado. Forty states have voted, of which we've won a vast majority, and this one is supposed to be the singular bellwether? Balderdash."
March 6, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (151)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Polls, polls. They are only polls and they have been probing to be wrong. They predicted Hillary loosing NH and then NV and then CA and then TX.. And she got them all. Lots of people trying to demonize Hillary and minimize her hard work. That's just plain unfair. I've read some other people saying she will do anything to gain the presidency, well, isn't it what this is about?. And they also call her a b**ch for that?...If a man do everything he can to win, he is an accomplished man who know what he wants, but if a woman does it, she is a b*...C'mon America, this is 2008. And she is going to win, like it or not she will be the next president and we will continue to grow stronger and proud to still be American.
Posted by: Manny | Mar 9, 2008 1:30:14 PM
I’m looking for transformation….we need integrity, service-before-self, and excellence-in-all-we-do in a leader so this nation can once again lead the world and we need it to start in the White House.
Yes we do. And that is why I am for Hillary.
STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AIDE and look at history.
Posted by: melisande delissade | Mar 7, 2008 4:04:38 PM
It is truly amazing to see all of your comments. It's also disturbing to see so many "toxic" statements. To imagine we have our sons and daughters; mothers and fathers; sisters and brothers; aunts and uncles; grandmothers and grandfathers; cousins and neighbors dieing everyday to bring such "freedoms" to other nations, as well as defend your continued right to your constitutional right to free speech. I'm deeply saddened that I spent 22 years and countless years away from my family in distant countries to defend "you" and "yours" when I read these comments. Is this really how we say “thank you” to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama (and even Senator McCain even though I don't agree with his politics) for even attempting to serve this country and to serve you? It is not easy to do what they are doing and yes, both are fighting for your trust and votes. Your response was either answered in the past (by your vote in the primaries) or will be answered shortly. Support your candidate with the same dignity, professionalism, and integrity you are demanding from them. I too support Obama because I understand his call for people to stand up for this country's future to move beyond the past and to look forward to the future with hope, optimism, and vision. Some of you may want and desire "experience" because you believe it is the answer; however, I don't. I've seen it in action from Congress (filled with men and women with years of experience), Department of State and Embassies(filled with men and women with years of experience), DOD (filled with men and women with years of experience), Enron (filled with men and women with years of experience), Country Wide Mortgage, Federal Reserve, Wall Street, FDA, (all filled with men and women with experience)....need I say more...I’m looking for transformation….we need integrity, service-before-self, and excellence-in-all-we-do in a leader so this nation can once again lead the world and we need it to start in the White House.
Posted by: SledgeHammer | Mar 7, 2008 3:13:01 PM
Yeah, National polls show that Hillary is preferred over Obama too.
Also, those same polls show Hillary beating McCain in the fall.
Posted by: Sam1 | Mar 7, 2008 1:49:12 PM
National polls still show Obama fairing better than Hillary against McCain. In my home state of Minnesota, latest polls show Obama ahead of McCain by 15 points, but Hillary losing to McCain by 5 points. If she's losing in blue states to McCain, how is she going to carry swing states?
Posted by: FJ | Mar 7, 2008 12:25:22 PM
"we saw the numbers in reference to the Republicans this is just a primary to decide who is strong enough to run against the Republican candidate. For instance If I were a "Republican and I wanted my candidate to win I would vote for the less likely, I would have the people in my party come out in strong numbers to help vote the weaker in. So, when November came I would than cross back over to my party and vote my elected official into office. Make sense?"
Yes that makes perfect sense and that is exactly what I am trying to get across. Look at the number of Republicans voting in the Dem race. They are going in large part to Obama. That is who they think they have the best chance of beating. This is so frustrating, why is no one noticing how many are voting Dem vs. Repub in prodominatly Red States? Do you all really believe that they are switching parties. Wake up Democrates before it is too late!
To those that say that the Republicans are voting for Hillary, where are you getting your information? All the stats that I have seen say just that they are going for Obama 9 to 1. What does that say to you? Also who won all the Red States? Ok you are just repeating what Rush Limbaugh the drug addict put out. Are you really that
gullible?
Posted by: TxMom | Mar 7, 2008 12:04:00 PM
Democrats always act as if they're the Fair Party, but history doesn't bear that out. This party was the one that was pro-slavery and pro-discrimination. It seems like they're going back to their roots, judging by the racist comments posted here. They've always used black folks to win elections, but now that one is close to winning the nomination, old racists are back i full force.Blacks and all the Obama voters should seat home in November if Clinton and the democratic party steal the nomination from Obama.As a matter of fact, they should become independent voters and screw both parties.
Posted by: joseph pierre | Mar 7, 2008 11:18:06 AM
To the guy up top who disparages the Obama-Reagan comparison: The Soviet Union took themselves down by getting bogged down in a meaningless war in Afghanistan (against the people we financed, who we now are stuck fighting) for 20 years! Don't you forget it. Reagan was the lucky guy who happened to be president at the time.
Posted by: Peter Nevins | Mar 7, 2008 11:08:36 AM
Vic,
How many excuses do you Clintonites have for your 27 of 41. If not too many blacks, it's too many caucuses. If it's not "states we can't win", it's small states.
You guys are just delusional!
Excuses will not even the 27 to 14 score.You're such sore losers!
We're going to beat you fair and square and we don't blame the states we lost on Hillary's idiots.
Posted by: joseph pierre | Mar 7, 2008 11:02:14 AM
I am so happy people are finally coming out and stating things so clearly - that they are racist and will never vote for a black!! You have all been hiding under all sorts of reasons against Barack. When he keeps the lead and there is no new thing you can say, you finally admit that the real reason is because he is black and you are racist!!!
Thank you! And that is so true - I know very much that racism will never die. Most whites will always be racist!!! Always! I wish Obama the best. One part of me does not want him to win because it is going to be a miracle they(the racist psychos) dont kill him if he wins.
Out of the remaining 3 candidates, Obama's the best. But racism will not allow America to admit facts. Pathetic! So SAD!
Posted by: Esther | Mar 7, 2008 10:48:17 AM
I continue to learn from your responses just how prejudiced this country still continues to be... I have had a glimpse of the "promise land" when I have seen whites, and particularly younger white people committed to Obama's candidacy who rightfully see Obama as a viable option for president - This mirage can give an African American woman hope about her country. But, after this week ( the blue collar whites and the majority of white women)reality is starting to sink in that you Hillary folks may be right about those Dems voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't "swipe" the nomination! They are not going to vote for a BLACK MAN. You can cry all you want about her "so-called" experience, etc. but we know the undertone of your commentary is the fact that Archie Bunker; you know as you euphemistically call them the "lunch-bucket" Democrats are fearful of such a "risk" in these perilous times. Although for example, I have been chastended by the undertone of racism of the White feminist ( Gloria Steinham and Tina Fey)I won't give up on my country and OBAMA!!!
Posted by: agbi | Mar 7, 2008 10:39:30 AM
MomentofZen,
You don't seem to understand zen very well to be calling yourself that. One must mature through experience and in Zen every mind should be a beginners mind. But no one said to elect an unexperienced Chicago style hack like Obama.
I cannot believe you would compare Obama to Reagan. Regan was a two term Governor of my state. He took on a lot of chaos in California during those years and had to clamp down at times using the national guard. Obama is more like Jesse Jackson or Mayor Daly of Chicago.
Anyways, don't insult the great former Governor Ronald Reagan by comparing him to Obama. Reagan took on the 1960's anarchists in California and brought down the soviet union. My friend, obama is a joke. Tell him to go back to Chicago and do something before applying for the toughest job in the country.
Posted by: Bill Nelson | Mar 7, 2008 2:59:05 AM
Thank you, America. Reading these comments has reinforced my thoughts that basically Americans are dumb. Only in America can people pick a draft-dodger over a war hero...call an extremely educated man unqualified, yet vote in a C college student that has managed several failed businesses not once, but twice...and then the topper, say that because someone slept with the President for 8 years she has more experience in national security and running the country. What??? I also seem to remember that Reagan was heavy on communication and light on experience, but everyone seems to hold him in great esteem. Yet somehow now after watching a buffoon represent this country to the world for 8 years, being eloquent is now a bad thing. McCain will win. America is filled with mostly dumb, racist people. Obama can't win because he's black, and Clinton can't win because a lot of people hate the Clintons for no good reason.
Posted by: MomentofZen | Mar 7, 2008 1:56:28 AM
actually, obamaites, clinton supporters going to mccain instead of obama isn't just speculation. rasmussen polls show that 20% of clinton supporters would vote mccain over obama, compared to 10% of obama supporters. plus florida is absolutely furious at obama - hillary could win florida but obama has no chance whatsoever to win florida. and ability to win the big states does have meaning. obama's winning caucuses in red states doesn't; it just gives him delegates in the nomination battle. and if you're buying the line that he can make those states competitive, i would love to sell you the brooklyn bridge.
Posted by: so saddened | Mar 7, 2008 1:51:32 AM
Obama has a huge disadvantage. It is not a tired observation that even a vague hint of scandal involving a black guy, increases at a faster rate our fertility to question, doubt, mistrust , suspect that unfortunate black guy.
I am not talking about racism per se. Obama himself believes race won't cost him the nomination, and evidently he's right: he's won in several white areas. Everything being equal one would expect equal support from his two biological inheritances -white and black.
I hypothesize that the level of a white politician's integrity requires only a proportion (less than one) of the integrity-evidence I black politician needs to present to attain similar level of integrity. If this is not rejected, then there are serious implications about what Hilary says about free pass for Obama in the media. Granted she is right, an equal negative scrutiny isn't equal in the presence of different propensities to associate negativity with the candidates. Evidence last week?
Posted by: Ryan | Mar 7, 2008 12:54:54 AM
I don't care what Bill Burton says, if Obama wins the nomination, McCain will win the general - period.
Every delegate loaded state has been won by Hillary and for good reason. Texas, Ohio, California, NY, Florida etc. Obama wins Missouri and Illinois and Maine. Congrats dude, but news flash: many of the voters that voted for Clinton in those states will be voting for McCain in the general if BO wins. Why? Because his rhetoric is getting stale and it's all he has. Seriously, wWe're at war, our economy is in shambles. We don't have time for a rookie like Obama to ummm and hope and think about what to do. And if you think I'm wrong - just wait for the commercials the repubs will put out re: experience. And watch McCain win.
So if you want a Dem president in the white house - vote for Hillary. She can beat McCain. With her eyes closed. Obama cannot. Not even with all the helpful people who are holding his hand and writing his speeches.
Posted by: Brooke | Mar 7, 2008 12:00:22 AM
yes he won more states but most of those the republicans are going to win in the general election, he can't win the big states
Posted by: Chris | Mar 6, 2008 11:46:43 PM
Dan, wake UP! WAKE UP! These are not the 90s, see what Samantha Power did? Is she one of those experienced people Obama is surrounding himself with? Did he not say he wants to change things and do away with old Washington? If he is truly pushing change, then he should not have any of the traditional and experienced people so yes, he would have people like Samantha Power making idiotic statements at international negotiations. I hope that all of you wake up and realize you're in a trance before it is too late. I said this too about Bush. Now look at where we are today. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK.
Posted by: Salida | Mar 6, 2008 11:42:10 PM
To quote Hillary, "let's get real." The only way the Democrats can possibly win the general election is by having Obama as the nominee. If Hillary ends up being the nominee through some divine or clintonite intervention, you will see defections of democratic voters on a scale you ain't seen anything like yet. Republicans are voting for Hillary in the open primaries not out of affection for her, or for prolonging the Democratic primary process, but for the simple purpose of installing Hillary as the Democratic counterpart of McCain. I will come back to this forum come November for a bit of postmortem.
Posted by: saif | Mar 6, 2008 10:59:56 PM
Colorado is a caucus state, and Obama's Va win was due to the huge black vote. Wisconsin is no bellweather in anyone's mind. Good try Obama spokesman. What's balderdash is Obama winning in November.
Posted by: Vic | Mar 6, 2008 10:55:33 PM
Post a comment


