Obama Still Faces Red State Challenge

Obama Still Faces Red State Challenge

Washington Post   |  Alec MacGillis   |   February 23, 2008 09:51 PM


stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

For Democrats desperate to reclaim the White House, the numbers have been tantalizing.

In winning Tuesday's primary in the key swing state of Wisconsin, Sen. Barack Obama drew support from tens of thousands of Republicans and independents. He pulled off the same feat in his landslide victory in the Virginia primary the week before, suggesting he could win the state in November. In South Carolina, he had more votes than the top two Republican contenders put together; in Kansas, his total topped the overall GOP turnout.

All along, Obama has argued that he can redraw the political map for Democrats by turning out unprecedented numbers of young voters and African Americans, and by attracting independents and even Republicans with his message of national reconciliation. But the picture emerging of his appeal in GOP strongholds and in swing states, even as he widens his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is more complex than his claim to broad popularity in "red state" America would have one believe.

Obama (Ill.) posted big wins over Clinton in caucuses in Plains and Mountain states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Idaho, but Republicans in those states scoff at the suggestion that victories in the small universe of Democrats there translate into strength in November. In Tennessee and Oklahoma, Obama lost by wide margins to Clinton, who lived in nearby Arkansas. He narrowly won the primary in the swing state of Missouri, but did so thanks to the state's solidly Democratic cities, losing its more rural, and more conservative, areas to Clinton.

"If he's the nominee . . . he'll start off with a good urban base, but he'll have to get out and develop these other areas," said former Tennessee governor Ned McWherter, a Democrat and Clinton supporter.

Clinton has been making her own electability case, saying she is more tested against Republican attacks and more able to turn out large numbers of women and Latinos.

Keep reading.


 
 

Comments
207
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
- vsign See Profile I'm a Fan of vsign permalink

Actions really do speak louder than words. I don't feel secure with a politician with only words. The Europeans, after the german experience, don't like religiosity and don't like self indulgence. That is what they don't like about Americans, in general. Well, now it is also because of the Iraq War but I bet they would say the war grew out of these two things - too much religion and self indulgence in politics.

They make fun of their politicians - and give them power without allegience and certainly without religious fervor.

I think they will soon see Obama as much too religious and self indulgent and therefore will be able to change nothing.

They will see him as more dangerous than Bush.

Obama will be more dangerous because he is not only a false prophet, but unpatriotic and a woosee!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 PM on 02/24/2008
- bevi8230 See Profile I'm a Fan of bevi8230 permalink

A Muslim in the WH how pc,yes B Hussein the one who refuses to wear a flag pin and refuses to place his hand over his heart during the Nathional Anthem, how pc and unpatriotic. Might sound petty but a minor thing to do to show your love for the country. Maybe he doesn't wear his wedding ring! The fact that his mentor from his younger days was Frank Marshall Davis,a member of the Communists party and his wife's not sure she's proud of America should scare the hell out of us all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 02/24/2008
- kevenseven See Profile I'm a Fan of kevenseven permalink

Do you know what I find really disgusting? That a politician would manipulate people in order to get them to like and admire him. What is this world coming to when a man like Obama can fool 20,000 people to show up to a venue and listen to him give a canned speech and cheer and cheer and be all excited and enthusiastic and get the stupid idea in their heads that they can make any difference and should have hope that tomorrow could be better?

What is happening when people make an emotional bond to a mere politician? Do these people not have brains in their heads? Are they on drugs?

You would think it was 1992 and Bill Clinton was running for president. That was the last time America had hope....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 02/24/2008
- ceasenake See Profile I'm a Fan of ceasenake permalink

WOW!

I think my comment was censored and there was absolutly nothing objectionable in it.

I guess that means pointing out that a lot of Obama's supporters are picking style over substance is ...

VERBOTEN!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 02/24/2008
- ceasenake See Profile I'm a Fan of ceasenake permalink

C'mon Obama supporters don't listen to them.

Remember, Hope! Hope! Hope! Change! Change! Change!

Think of all the great speeches that MLK Jr. gave, then picture my face, smiling!

Chant with me! Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 02/24/2008
- kevenseven See Profile I'm a Fan of kevenseven permalink

Go worship your Dear Leader, GW Bush, and save your sarcasm for the other cretins at freeper.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 02/24/2008
- imsosure See Profile I'm a Fan of imsosure permalink

He's going to be fine, just you watch and seen. even those old red-neck wife beaters will come around once they realize, (sober up) and think of someone besides themselves for a change.

Obama will have his Teamsters and other like minded people from those areas to do the persuading for him. Piece of cake.
Hillaryous!

Gotta love it, the shrill will be heard around the globe when the entitled one comes home to roost.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 PM on 02/24/2008
- Lemeritus See Profile I'm a Fan of Lemeritus permalink

"...think of someone besides themselves for a change."

I hope you're not counting on that. No election was ever won by people thinking of someone besides themselves. (Sounds a little George Patton-y, doesn't it?) Every successful campaign was won by convincing the voters that the candidate uniquely represented their own personal interests.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 PM on 02/24/2008
- DennyCrane See Profile I'm a Fan of DennyCrane permalink

There's no guarantee that Obama will be able to turn any red states into blue states, but he has a MUCH better chance that Clinton.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 02/24/2008
- imsosure See Profile I'm a Fan of imsosure permalink

Especially with record turn outs, that's why all the polls are meaningless. Obama is a shoe in and Hillary and McCain will either come on board or remain obstacles to change and a decent future.

Stop the War

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 02/24/2008
- vsign See Profile I'm a Fan of vsign permalink

I must still ask. Where are you guys from? Were you born in America? Do you know this country? Do you know the people of this country?

Obama cannot turn the red states blue. Unless of course, he can turn water into wine. Can he? Do you believe he can?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:41 PM on 02/24/2008
- kaafir See Profile I'm a Fan of kaafir permalink

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that "John McCain now holds a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers as of 24th Feb 2008. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Barack Obama 46% to 44% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 44%." Add Nader to the mix -gets quite interesting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 PM on 02/24/2008
- riano See Profile I'm a Fan of riano permalink

Those Rasmussen numbers say to me that the Hillary-hater quotient is about 2%. And even if it's twice that, I remain unconvinced it will be anywhere near enough to get Obama elected. What do you think the % of voters will be who voted against Hillary in the primary and who will never vote for Obama once she's gone?
Obama supporters should be careful what they wish for - it will be their race to lose and it's discouraging that McCain is already ahead. These are the heady days of early Spring when hope can win the day - it's when the blustery days of late October come when voters will be more tempted to turn back to that big old Republican daddy figure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 PM on 02/25/2008
- Lemeritus See Profile I'm a Fan of Lemeritus permalink

"John McCain now holds a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers as of 24th Feb 2008."

Well, gee howdy! Of course, he's increasing his leader. Since being caught in flagrante, filthy Republican apes from coast to coast are screaming "One of us! One of us!" Nothing like a scandal to rally the base!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 02/24/2008
- kaafir See Profile I'm a Fan of kaafir permalink

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that "John McCain now holds a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers as of 24th Feb 2008. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Barack Obama 46% to 44% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 44%." Add Nader to the mix. Gets quite interesting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 PM on 02/24/2008
- Lemeritus See Profile I'm a Fan of Lemeritus permalink

When I read your comment yesterday, I had a WTF moment that broke half the wine glasses in the house. The Rasmussen poll does, in fact, show McCain leading (and how the hell is that POSSIBLE?!)

RealClearPolitics offers a broader picture (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html) but it's not exactly Ambien for troubled sleepers.

Adding Nader does, absolutely, make the mix more interesting. Please forgive me if I seem dull on this issue -- but what "message" is it, exactly, that people think they'd be sending by voting for Nader?

The time to launch a serious third party challenge, it seems to me, is November 5th -- that's four years to put together a real coalition of people dissatisfied (as I am) with the two-party strangle hold on our political landscape. What does a vote for Nader do AT THIS POINT other than say "I don't care if McCain wins"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 02/25/2008
- ntmessage See Profile I'm a Fan of ntmessage permalink

This dynamic may be working its way through.

It will be fascinating for all us geeks that build models as opposed to polls alone, while useful some of the time, are only one dimensional points in time.

Note from a macro view, both Obama and Clinton have the same 44%. Obama's are likely tilted toward red or red states where the growth of the Dems voters likely still do not overcome built in leads for the Pubs.

Clintons are likely more tilted to large electoral swing states. Clinton needs to score a couple of touchdowns in swing states, Obama needs to kick a dozen field goals in Red states. I suspect that her negatives are already built in, so even with all this bashing.

At any rate today at the peak of the Obama momentum that Hillary is likely has the best shot at the EC is really fascinating.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 02/25/2008
- ntmessage See Profile I'm a Fan of ntmessage permalink

Here is my latest update on the Electoral College Clinton or Obama vs. McCain. This is not a poll but a predictive model base one empirical data and multiple dimensions.

Indeed a couple of the Polls published just a few days ago demonstrate some of the positions originally proposed. Some tried to discredit them but are now coming together as predicted.

1. Demonstrates KS as coming into play as predicted and likely flipped by Obama in the general.
2. Reinforces the prediction that Obama loses PA to McCain while Hillary would win it.
3. Moves WI as a toss up with Obama, while Clinton wins there.

Overall Summary:

Obama flips KS, MO and IA, loses PA, MI, NJ (yes that is the prediction) and CT while FL, OH, TN, AR, KY, NM, CO, NV stay RED, WI is now a tossup. Obama and the Democrats lose the Electoral College and the Presidency.

Clinton keeps PA, MI, NJ WI while flipping FL, OH, TN, AR, KY, NM, CO (yes that is the prediction), NV, KS, MO, WI and NV Clinton and the Democrats win the Electoral College and the Presidency.


McCain still runs the lower Rockies and the Bible belt. VA may come into play, but we do not see that just yet.

For Clinton NM, is ripe for the taking and will bleed into CO, another controversial position. Few Indy"s and Pubs move to Obama in CO. Tancredo"s district and the eastern districts take a hit in Clinton"s favor. The increased democratic turnout puts this state in play, but Clinton actually more moderates, Inds and Pubs. Obama stalls here.

Posted some good stuff on WI in the past. Here it is.

The REAL overriding demographic was that Wisconsin like Iowa are neighboring states to Illinois, one of Obama"s home states. The Chicago, Milwaukee and even Madison have turned into a huge extraburb. All other lower slices of the data simply represent this fact and are not indicative of real Pubs or Inds moving Obama"s way. It may or may not be happening, but WI does not prove that point.

In IL, he won 65-33. In WI, he won 58-41. This is also, why comparisons to OH are incorrect. However since Axelrod"s great at manipulating the media, he has them talking about the OH demographic being the same as WI to try and peel off OH voters, hoping that people will just vote for Obama, because others like them (which they are not) did.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 02/24/2008
- gornackguy See Profile I'm a Fan of gornackguy permalink

Finally, someone having a realistic analytical discussion on who can win, not just a version of "but he makes us feel so good!" Remember: Lieberman lost the Connecticut primary and won the election. Its about what red state can turn blue and which blue state will stay that way. With all of her faults (Bill & Voting for the Iraq war being the biggest) Hillary has won over the centrists in New York (Al D'Amatos helpers through the years) and has the Clinton machine which has real, winning experience on a national level. She may have screwed up the primaries and is not perfect but she is basically there with Obama on every issue. A President Clinton is better than a President McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 02/24/2008
- bemused08 See Profile I'm a Fan of bemused08 permalink

Thank you for this reality check. I've been saying for months that Obama's wins in red state caucuses where the turnout, although bigger than in other years, is still such a small percentage of the total votes that will be case in the general election, really, really distort the value of those delegates -- and are creating a misleading impression of his electability.

This type of distortion was exactly the reason that the super delegate system was set up -- a way to give proper weight to primaries/caucuses when looked at through the lens of the general election.

Let's just hope that they (the super delegates) remember this -- I lived through the McGovern election (my first) and don't want to see that type of collapse this year.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 02/24/2008
- ornery See Profile I'm a Fan of ornery permalink

My understanding was always that the "superdelegate" business was a reaction to the nomination of Hubert Horatio Humphrey and the shennanigans of the Party Bosses like Daley I pulled at the 1968 convention.

HHH had won no primaries, and was installed by the insiders when he pulled out in March 68, announced he wd not be a candidate. The Bosses took over from there.

Now, superdelegates are cruisin for a bruisin if the flout the rank & file vote and go w/ Bil&Hill.

Because Barack HAS run in the primaries and proved himself against the Clinton machine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 02/24/2008
- NoahVail See Profile I'm a Fan of NoahVail permalink

Where do you get this shit, Annin? Obama and his campaign have been nothing but respectful of every person, place and thing in America. It was Clinton who did not bother to campaign in the "fly-over states" because they did not matter.

The ugliness I have observed seems to be coming from the Democratic and Republican apparatchiks, and certainly not from the Obama campaign.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video-interviewer-picks-the-wrong-obama-supporter-to-try-to-railroad/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 PM on 02/24/2008
- NoahVail See Profile I'm a Fan of NoahVail permalink

Uhh... your point?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 PM on 02/24/2008
- ntmessage See Profile I'm a Fan of ntmessage permalink

Here is my latest update on the Electoral College Clinton or Obama vs. McCain. This is not a poll but a predictive model base one empirical data and multiple dimensions.

Indeed a couple of the Polls published just a few days ago demonstrate some of the positions originally proposed. Some tried to discredit them but are now coming together as predicted.

1. Demonstrates KS as coming into play as predicted and likely flipped by Obama in the general.
2. Reinforces the prediction that Obama loses PA to McCain while Hillary would win it.
3. Moves WI as a toss up with Obama, while Clinton wins there.

Overall Summary:

Obama flips KS, MO and IA, loses PA, MI, NJ (yes that is the prediction) and CT while FL, OH, TN, AR, KY, NM, CO, NV stay RED, WI is now a tossup. Obama and the Democrats lose the Electoral College and the Presidency.

Clinton keeps PA, MI, NJ WI while flipping FL, OH, TN, AR, KY, NM, CO (yes that is the prediction), NV, KS, MO, WI and NV Clinton and the Democrats win the Electoral College and the Presidency.


McCain still runs the lower Rockies and the Bible belt. VA may come into play, but we do not see that just yet.

For Clinton NM, is ripe for the taking and will bleed into CO, another controversial position. Few Indy"s and Pubs move to Obama in CO. Tancredo"s district and the eastern districts take a hit in Clinton"s favor. The increased democratic turnout puts this state in play, but Clinton actually more moderates, Inds and Pubs. Obama stalls here.

Posted some good stuff on WI in the past. Here it is.

The REAL overriding demographic was that Wisconsin like Iowa are neighboring states to Illinois, one of Obama"s home states. The Chicago, Milwaukee and even Madison have turned into a huge extraburb. All other lower slices of the data simply represent this fact and are not indicative of real Pubs or Inds moving Obama"s way. It may or may not be happening, but WI does not prove that point.

In IL, he won 65-33. In WI, he won 58-41. This is also, why comparisons to OH are incorrect. However since Axelrod"s great at manipulating the media, he has them talking about the OH demographic being the same as WI to try and peel off OH voters, hoping that people will just vote for Obama, because others like them (which they are not) did.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 AM on 02/24/2008
- Lemeritus See Profile I'm a Fan of Lemeritus permalink

"Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble."

ntmessage, last weekend I did a sketch of how the primary results might reflect in the electoral vote (and got blown out of the water for my efforts). Clinton does, however, seem stronger in the "must have" states, while Obama is surrounded by so many variables elsewhere:

Primary wins are not the same a general election majorities (and electoral votes):
- can Obama get more (D)s to the booths than (R)s?
- can he hold onto any Republican cross-overs, or were they just one-night stands?
- can he hold onto the youth vote, or will it vanish as it always has before?
- now that Nader has declared, will the 'message' driven independents feel they've found a better way to send a candy-gram?
- how will racism affect the vote?
- is the Democratic Party really in such a shambles between Clinton and Obama supporters that it can't win its way out of a paper bag?

Clinton has her own problems -- a mountain of sexism (the worst because it isn't recognized) and a swamp of Clinton-hatred in which we have mired ourselves by uncritically accepting Right Wing Lies as truth. (I swear, if the RW Slime Machine had existed when JFK was president, we would be looking back at him as a crippled lecher whose inexperience almost got us into a hot war with Russia and, thank God, he didn't do more damage!)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 02/24/2008
- ntmessage See Profile I'm a Fan of ntmessage permalink

Yes all absolutely good points. Those are clearly some of the multi dimensional variables.

Have not done the Nader analysis yet and yes are Clinton's negatives, although high all baked in already?

Her negative were driven up within the party, but on a national scale will it move? Which way?

Obama is still strong no doubt. Nationally all 3 all are within the margin of error.

Stay tuned!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 AM on 02/25/2008
- prob See Profile I'm a Fan of prob permalink

Great synopsis!!!

The superdelegates only see "momentum" but they and Democrats better look at the whole picture.

I have been saying for months that based upon the electoral college...Obama would have a tougher time winning as opposed to Clinton!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 PM on 02/24/2008
- NoahVail See Profile I'm a Fan of NoahVail permalink

Are you tripping, or what prob?

Recent National Poll on CNN

Clinton 40% McCain 48%
Obama 48% McCain 40%

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 PM on 02/24/2008
- leftLibertarian See Profile I'm a Fan of leftLibertarian permalink

Sadly, there are still people out there who support the criminals Bush and Cheney.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 AM on 02/24/2008
- vsign See Profile I'm a Fan of vsign permalink


Obama the tele-evangelist is taking over the Democratic Party. He has gathered up anti-war pacifists and our American youth. The sports and entertainment worlds have merged with the religious left and left us VOTERS out of our RIGHT to vote.

I call FOUL. Obama's delegate count from caucus states should not count.

We are patriotic Democrats.

This is some kind of religious take-over of our own Democratic Party.


    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 02/24/2008
- NoahVail See Profile I'm a Fan of NoahVail permalink

Someone needs to take over the party. Voting with Bush is certainly not providing an opposition.

    Favorite