Reviewing what happened in Ohio, Armstrong has this to say:
The rout in Ohio happened. Obama has a huge electability problem in the state. He took a total of 5 counties, and lost in 82 counties. Even though he's able to rack up a large number of urban black voters he did terrible among white voters, winning just 34 percent.
You don't win a general election in Ohio if you can only win in 5 counties. I realize I'm speaking out against the other members in my tribe, the wealthy post-graduate male clique of punditry, in pointing out Obama has a problem in Ohio. So be it.
In Ohio, Clinton won the votes of Democrats by a 14 percent margin, 56-42. Clinton and Obama tied among Republican & Independent voters. I find it ironic that the most strident of "progressives" find themselves backing the candidate whom does the least well among self-declared Democrats.
And lets not forget that Obama outspent Clinton by a 3 or 4:1 margin, and had the union help. There's no amount of money or youth organizing that is going to change the dynamics at work against Obama in Ohio in the November general.
We'll see in a month, but my guess is that we get about the same map coming out of Pennsylvania. There is not a winning Democratic electoral map which doesn't include either or both Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Yea, Wyoming is going to vote next. A place where Bush won 70 percent of the vote in 2004 and where Democrats will lose handily again in 2008. Neither Clinton or Obama will even return to the state past its caucus in a few days. It'll have about 20,000 people attend caucuses, and let Obama fans say that Ohio's win by Clinton doesn't matter, that Obama gained just as many delegates in Wyoming. This is process-powered politics; it may figure out well enough to take a lead in pledged delegates, but it's not a winning formula for the general election.
15 comments:
Couple quick facts:
"Progressive" is not exclusive to the Democrats. Most people who consider themselves progressives are independents.
Obama outspent Clinton in Ohio, yes. But the margins were 2 to one, not three or four.
If we are going to change anything in this country, we cannot say "this state doesn't matter, it's a red state and they are all idiots there." At best that will get us 50.1% to 49.9% in a general. Or there are two worse options: a popular vote of 51% to 49% in McCain's favor but Democrats win the electorate vote, or even worse a 51% to 49% with McCain winning both.
If we are going to win in November, we CAN NOT say that more than half the country doesn't matter. These are the UNITED STATES of America, not the red and blue states of America. As Franklin famously said "Join or die."
Following your same logic with states on a county level. Clinton has 0 chance of taking Ohio. The areas she was strong in, excepting the Youngstown area, Bush was very strong.
Or are you saying that thing you have lambasted Obama supporters for saying "Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama if he is the candidate"? Is Clinton going to go around Ohio saying "Don't vote for him"? She has already made a campaign ad for him and praised him in comparison to Obama.
These numbers mean less and less as the Republican race dies down, but both Clinton and Obama did very well against the entire Republican party in Ohio yesterday. I have little fear that Obama will be able to win these votes, especially if Clinton is working with him. That is unless her campaign works too hard to make sure all of her supporters absolutely hate Obama, which is the path she seems to be walking right now and may backfire on the entire Democratic party if she keeps it up.
John - move off of Fantasy Island now! Your "facts" just aren't ... well ... FACTS!!
By all account, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is it's going to be a close race in November. John McCain is a formatible candidate, if for no other reason than half of his own party HATES him, which means he must be doing SOMETHING right.
Our elections are not decided by "popular" vote, and never have been. They are decided by electoral college votes. Sometimes the winner of the popular vote is also the winner of the electoral college vote, but that is not a given.
So while your kumbaha ah approach is nice, it's not realistic. The last candidate to try a 50 state strategy in a race this tight was Richard Nixon in his race against John Kennedy. Nixon pledged to visit all 50 states, so while Nixon was in in Alaska, with 3 electoral college votes, Kennedy was campaigning in CA with 55, TX with 34 and NY with 31.
So talk all you want about this be a 50 state race, but that is simply bullshit.
I'm actually in favor of doing away with having an electoral college or pledged delegates in either race, and letting the winner be decided by popular vote. I think it's well past time to do away with these antiquated systems. BUT THAT'S THE WORLD WE LIVE IN TODAY.
And Senator Clinton has made it VERY CLEAR that she wants her supporters to back whoever the nominee might be. It's people like YOU who are turning people like ME off about wanting to support Obama.
YOU are doing MUCH MORE DAMAGE to your candidate's image than he is. Your blind defense of his every flaw is not at all attractive, or attracting to potential future supporters.
My suggestion to you is to stop coming to a blog that is obviously supporting Clinton and call her a LIAR. That is NOT going to win you friends or supporters for your candidate.
Have I come to your blog and posted day after day what a liar I think Obama is? NO
For months now you have been trying to make your case for your candidate and guess what ... I'M STILL NOT BUYING IT.
It's probably because I've been down this road a number of times, and I know an empty suit when I see one. The first presidental contest I had any interest in was the Kenney/Nixon contest, and I knew Nixon was't someone who could be trusted from the moment I saw him!!
But back to Ohio. The reason Ohio is very much in play this year is because the economy is in the toilet, and people in OH are hurting. McCain has ADMITTED he doen't know anything about the economy, while the Democrats have a solid plan. And Clinton's name alone is associated with having a strong economy, which would be a plus for her.
So give it up John ... it's impossible for you to defend a candidate who simply can't close the deal.
BAC
As a Clinton supporter, I've always said that if Obama wins the nomination I will, of course vote for him. But it is becoming an increasingly painful prospect when I read comments from Obama supporters like you, john j.
The thing that disturbs me the most is the twisting of facts such as this supposed "McCain endorsement." She did not endorse McCain but stated the simple fact that McCain has more experience than Obama, and when the average citizen votes, they will look at that fact.
My own mother, a lifelong democrat, has said to me that she is very very worried about Obama's lack of experience, and that maybe McCain would be better.
john j., people are starting to hate Obama, but it's not because of anything Clinton's saying.
I never said that she endorsed McCain, she praised him and compared Obama negatively to him. Not an endorsement, but when a party leader compares you detrimentally to the other party's presidential nominee, it isn't good for your party.
The last president to do a 50 state campaign was Ronald Reagan. I know he is your arch enemy, but he did it and he won. I have done the electoral math, and according to both campaigns' math, they can both win without Ohio. If they get the states Kerry won in 2004 (and in very few do I see in serious risk with either candidate) they win 252 electoral votes. According to Clinton, she claims she can win AZ(10), NM(5), NV(5) and FL(21), giving her an extra 47. Without Arizona, McCain's home state, she still has 37 extra. Obama, based on the primaries so far, claims he can win CO(9), GA(15), IA(7), MO(11), ND(3), and SC(8), giving him a chance of 53 more electoral votes, with ND being least likely and worth 3 electoral votes. Both can put them over the 270 required.
As for the experience argument: I understand that that is important to some people. However, if that is your driving factor in the election, then John McCain beats Clinton just as easily as Obama. McCain has served in the military, he has handled emergency situations, and he has been in Congress for 25 years.
My argument is that experience matters much less than perspective. Looking at Obama's writings, votes, and speeches has led me to trust his perspective over both of the other candidates. But that is my opinion and I respect your position on Clinton.
All I have asked, from the beginning of your attacks, BAC, is that you speak about the positives of your candidate and not spread lies about Obama.
Here is what I have been seeing: since the beginning of January, you have had about 13 posts more or less positive about Clinton, in that same time frame you have had about 36 more or less negative posts about Obama (not including the comics) and one post congratulating his Iowa win. In comparison, in my much smaller blogging record, I have had one pro-Clinton, two pro-Obama, 10 policy comparisons, including one attacking both of their health plans and two anti-Clinton - one about FISA and one about the 527. If anything I have posted is inaccurate or a lie, please come tell me, give me the facts.
I am not asking you to support Obama in the primaries. I only ask that you stop the burn all bridges attacks against both Obama and his supporters. If Obama wins, your words will be turned against you and the party at large. If Clinton wins, your words will be used to at least keep the Obama supporters home, if not encourage them to vote for McCain.
John J:
I don't care for Obama or his campaign on any level. And I don't mind that he needed Rezko to get started. Christ, Bill Clinton needed Dan Lasater! That's not the problem. I also believe that if Obama can sell fascism, collaboration and homophobia to college students he's a force to be reckoned with. Give him another 8 years in the game and maybe some more time hanging arond the Rezkos of the world and learning some of the lessons of Democratic party politics and he could become one of my favorite politicians.
But this idea of coming in as an African-American love child of Jerry Falwell and Paul Tsongas doesn't play with me at least.
Obama's hero is Dr. King, right?
Please tell me what Dr. King was doing in Memphis when he was assassinated. You know the answer.
HE WAS SUPPORTING A TRANSIT STRIKE. THE RANK AND FILE WERE MOSTLY "WHITE AND UNEDUCATED."
If ONLY Obama was doing a weak imitation of King I'd go for it in a second. If he were doing a weak imitation of Jesse Jackson, I'd go for it. He's doing a rather good imitation of Harold Ford, Jr, only without Ford's sense of humor,and I'm not going for it.
I don't blame African-Americans for being proud of Obama or wanting to see dark skin going this far, I really can't. Race is a weird thing in the USA. I'm glad I live elsewhere.
And gee whiz I remember being super-proud of Senator Metzenbaum when he kicked Republican ass during the Iran-Contra hearings. It was partly ethnic for me: "Wow, here's a neighborhood dude like my dad and my uncle and look at this!"
But with Obama's "educated, tech-savvy, 'independent,'" White supporters, it's a whole other thing now, isn't it?
If Obama wins the nomination, I'll hope he wins the presidency and is the kind of person his supporters believe he is.
If he loses the nomination, I agree, the supporters who got him close, will defect to McCain because they are White Republican jackasses. BAC and Taylor Marsh and I can write whatever we like and Clinton will still end up with African-American and student support in huge numbers.
How the "blue collar, uneducated" vote goes is a whole other question and I'd propose it's you folks who are alienating "them."
This whole thing is very personal with me, John J. It touches on every aspect of my life in a deep way.
If you're a young guy from the suburbs and you want to be part of a movement or whatever, hey, mazel tov. I'd recommend using your education to do pro-bono work or to tutor reading or math, but whatever floats your boat.
My little boy has known nothing but privilege. When I lived in the states I owned a racing stable, we'd go to the Hamptons for the summer, and he gets elaborate hannukah and birthday presents and all that crap. But I grew up on the other side of the fence and I send him to public school in the city and explain to him in a age-appropriate way where HE comes from. His grandfather does the same. The boy knows what a union is. He knows how he drew the LONGEST STRAW in the bag when he was born.
He isn't 9 years old and he knows to say "yes, sir" and "yes ma'am" and "please" and "thank you" in English and Spanish to people who serve him a fucking meal in a restaurant or whatever. There isn't an ounce of snob in that kid in any way.
So, believe me, I take this social class thing very personally. I cannot abide a campaign with snobbery sauce.
Yeah, yeah, I know all about it.
America is "post-class" and "post-race" now.
Right.
Kelso, I would rather not take BAC's post off track, but I would like to get more clarification of your position. A lot of the information you have been giving is completely inaccurate about Obama's history.
You also seem to have a completely wrong impression of me and why I support Obama.
If you want to go into what you have said here, please email me. I don't expect to "convert" you, but I would like the chance to show you that Obama isn't the effete aristocrat you have been led to believe.
... since the beginning of January, you have had about 13 posts more or less positive about Clinton, in that same time frame you have had about 36 more or less negative posts about Obama..."
John, the simple answer to this is -- IT'S MY BLOG. I get to write whatever the hell I want to write!
And if I think the MSM is not doing it's job, then I think it's my obligation to share information that I think voters have a right to know.
You post what you like on YOUR blog, and I will do the same on mine. If that bothers you, then don't read my posts. It's as simple as that.
BAC
So, tio, put it back on track and explain where I'm wrong about his history and his votes on labor versus management issues.
Be aware that I know what I need to know about Clinton and I surely realize no one would mistake her for Emma Goldman. Yet, leaving aside the union leadership, I have studied her votes on issues affecting the rank-and-file and find her neutral-to-slightly-pro-labor as a Senator. I'd say her husband was somewhat pro-management.
Obama's voting record is hard to decipher. He voted pro-management head-to-head against Clinton three times as a Senator and they have been on the same side every other time.
If you tell me that he's for improving NAFTA and perhaps even revisiting TAFT-HARTLEY, I'll look for evidence. We both know that the former is up in the air and the latter is a non-starter.
I don't know you but I know you write very well and think well, so I'm trying to put the best spin on why you support Obama. Please correct me and explain why someone as intelligent as yourself would support him. If you want to give me reasons why you think Clinton is bad and you are choosing the least worst, please do so. But everybody who looks in the mirror sees a saint looking back, so tell me the PROGRESSIVE reasons you support him. Or, if your support is based upon the more right-wing, religious vibe of his, please say so and why it's good.
You can't convert me and I can't cnvert you, but I am on a mission to understand and if that takes being a prick about it, I will.
I don't think Obama is an effete snob. I think he's a child of privilege, who is bright, well-educated, and has chosen a strategy and series of tactics to get where he wants to get. One of those tactics is to play to blocs of voters' needs to feel successful and modern and hopeful in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I also think he has been and is sharp enough to see the conservative drift of the country and realize that he had a chance to peel off all of the cross-over Republicans, independents, and most of the Democratic Right, with religious, homohobic, and messages that they, too, are "morally good". I'm guessing that he's letting his skin and vague, positive, message speak to the Democratic Left.
All that is is smart politics and I don't hold it against him. I respect people who try to win.
I just don't have to like it or IGNORE the words.
Now, does snobbery play a role in holding his coalition together? You better believe it.
BAC, I was not telling you that you can't post these unfounded attacks. I was trying to show that such attacks will hurt your candidate and the Democratic party. If you don't care about that long term, and would rather burn bridges to more than 50% of the people who have voted in the Democratic primary, go right ahead. I expect many of the people you and Clinton have derided and ostracized during this campaign will then stay home and let whatever will happen, happen.
I believe that the only way we are going to win in November is to work together.
Kelso, I won't go too in depth, because this is off topic:
I was raised in a lower middle income, broken family. I did go to a private school, but it was the cheapest, crappiest Catholic school in the city (I lived in South St. Louis). I worked my way into college, in part with earned scholarships based on my test scores and later by working two jobs. Due to a poor choice in courses, I lost those scholarships and eventually was unable to afford further college. I have self taught myself programming and now make just better than the national median income doing web and software development.
Obama was raised by a single mom, a grandfather who had been a door to door salesman, and a grandmother who worked her way up from secretary to, eventually, bank VP. (not exactly a child of privledge). He worked for years in Chicago (before Harvard) helping improve living conditions for the subsidized housing complexes and getting job centers set up. He was able to eventually get into Harvard and earned the position as president of the Harvard Law Review (first ever black man to do so). Then, rather than working on Wall Street, he went back to Chicago as a civil rights lawyer (continuing his fight from his organizing days) and as a constitutional law professor at a small local university. Eventually he got into state senate, passed lobbying reform, health care improvements, and fought for civil rights. In 2004, he was able to get into national Senate and there he has fought for these same things. After he sold his book "Audacity of Hope" in 2004, he finally paid off his student loans from Harvard (again, belies the "child of privilege" claim).
The policies he has espoused and shown support for in the Senate include: Repeal Defence of Marriage Act, his government transparency policies (which president alone can pass as Executive Orders), his campaign finance reform proposals, his very strong first amendment record, his financial oversight and consumer protection plans, his vocal net neutrality support and related tech policies. None of these, at least when I did my policy comparisons back in January, were being supported by Sen. Clinton.
He has also had the foresight and perspective required by a leader. Not just on Iraq, although that was very important, but also with the mortgage crisis we are in now. Back in 2006 he proposed legislation called the STOP FRAUD Act designed to prevent what we now know as the subprime loan crisis. In 2006, if it had been passed, it would have been to late to stop what we are now facing, but it was a year ahead of any other legislation and has none of the ex-post facto constitutional issues than current legislation proposed by Clinton does (i.e. freeze mortgage foreclosure, which the government can't legally do).
This just scratches the surface, and again, I don't believe this really belongs in the comments section on this post. If you want any more detail on these things, or on the other reasons I support him, I would be happy to take this to somewhere it belongs. I also have not taken a look at these labor related votes you have mentioned and would like more information so I can form a clear opinion on it. Neither candidate has made a strong position on labor, but both have lots of support from various unions.
BAC, I'm sorry for co-opting this post to answer Kelso on this.
John J:
It's food for thought, and it was well-stated. I can disagree with you on some of the details such as STOP FRAUD (fewer teeth than anything Clinton has suggested, see Biden, Carper, Reid and Ensign for details) and your characterization as unconstitutional Clinton's mortgage plan. Of course, this can't be done by executive fiat! But a president can get the interested parties together to create a different series of private contracts. Securities of most types are still fungible, last I checked.
My problem,again,is let's say that all of what you write is true and that Obama is the progressive in the race. Let's say he's a handsomer version of Galbraith and Nader. Fine. Why doesn't he even give shirt-pocket versions of any of this in his speeches?
I know why he doesn't speak about "net-neutrality" no matter what his views on the subject are. 4 words: Time, Warner, Richard, Parsons.
OK,that's politics. I understand. Clinton's not telling you she's not about helping those who got her there. Obama is telling you he's not a politician; he's an angel.
For the record, John J, I'd support you for president without blinking.
Nice little dig there, by the way. I'm sure BAC can handle a little side discussion on her post. But I will say that you as opposed to me are quite GALLANT. And you do get apple-polishing points. Except nobody likes a fucking soplon (ratfink). I live for this, son. You can't get that lame stuff past me!
I agree with you on the mortgage thing, and, strangely enough, that is what Bush (more specifically Sec. Paulson) has done. I wasn't pointing to it as a spectacular piece of legislation that deals with all the issues we are facing today; I was pointing to it as a sign of his foresight.
The reason he doesn't talk about these things as much in his stump speeches (until more recently) is because that is how he lost his first bid for state legislature. In his first run for office, he was "professor on the podium" and put people to sleep faster than Kerry did in 2004. He learned from that mistake and took the "Campaign with poetry, govern with prose" route, which has since gotten him into state legislature, the Senate, and now with 51% of the vote for the nomination.
Thank you for the compliment, but I am not presidential material. I will stick to being the wonk that I have become in the past six or so years.
My last comments to BAC are an etiquette thing I picked up from my time before blogging that I spent on IRC, message boards and Slashdot, nothing more, nothing less.
John - I don't believe the allegations are unfounded. I think there is very little investigative reporting being done by the MSM. The only reason any of this is seeing the light of day is because some bloggers are refusing to give Obama a free pass.
I think the strengths of my preferred candidate far outweigh any weakness. I do not have the same opinion about Obama. Now is the time to find out the truth, NOT when we are in the middle of a general election!
The NAFTA-gate is a perfect example. A Canadian source named a member of the Obama campaign team in the matter, but Canadian officials have YET to provide a name of anyone from the Clinton camp -- even when Sen. Clinton asked them to.
It's not surprising to me that Canada is now back peddling on this, because they know they are going to have to work with whoever gets the Democratic nomination -- because that person is most likely to become the next president.
And blogs are for engaging in discussion - it makes no difference to me if someone stays 'on topic.'
BAC
John J: I was actually being sincere about voting for you. I agree with you on EVERY issue, I think. And while I told you the snob thing was personal with me, I didn't mean that YOU were a snob. You didn't have to go into so much detail for my sake. I NEVER thought your were full of shit at all. I've written before that I like the way you think and write.
Our ONLY disagreement is in our perceptions of Obama. I don't want to argue that I think that he fails a lot of your own tests, but the issues you highlighted are all of MAZIMUM importance to me, too.
And if you can bring some of that -- yes -- IDEOLOGY to some of your fellow Obama supporters and put some pressure on him to let everyone know where he stands, I could like him. I think you'd find a lot of members of the Clinton-support LEFT feel that way.
We may prefer her, but it's a coin-toss right now and I'd like to root for Obama with a clear conscience!
Post a Comment