Ohio Superdelegate Chris Redfern: Primary Results Not Evidence Of November Viability

A pop quiz from [Ohio Superdelegate] Chris Redfern: "Who won Mississippi in 1976?"

Uh, Jimmy Carter?

"You'd be one of the few who know that," Redfern said. "Why? Because most people don't pay attention to details like that. They understand the election's going to occur this November, but 90 percent of Ohioans haven't really paid as much attention."

Some factors that helped Clinton win Ohio--such as her appeal among women and working-class whites--are unpredictable in terms of how they would play out in an Obama-McCain or Clinton-McCain contest.

In his own convoluted way, Redfern was trying to make a point about last week's Ohio Democratic primary, which Hillary Clinton won by 10 percentage points over Barack Obama. Redfern was suggesting that come November, Clinton's Ohio win March 4 won't mean much more than Carter's Mississippi victory in November of '76.

"It's a long road," he said. "I wouldn't read into it whether Barack Obama won Ohio or Hillary Clinton won Ohio. It's far too early."

That's an interesting argument for him to make when you consider that Redfern is chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party--an organization for whom last week's primary was a rather big deal.

It also puts him at odds with his governor, Ted Strickland, who has said the primary offered evidence that Clinton has a better chance than Obama of carrying Ohio this November.

Story continues below

advertisement

So it's kind of a weird thing for Redfern to say--except that he's right.

It is natural for Clinton to sell last week's result as proof that she can win Ohio against Republican nominee John McCain. She'd be foolish not to.

What's strange is that so many pundits independent of the Clinton campaign have bought into that idea.

Click here to keep reading.

Who are the superdelegates? HuffPost's OffTheBus has been investigating. Click here to read superdelegate profiles and interviews.

To get involved and join OffTheBus in profiling the superdelegates, click here.

Comments

[kennedy]

Redfern,

The Ohio voters came out in mass to vote for Hillary and you spit on them. Great call. Your not the smartest guy are you? Evidenced by the fact that Carter became president in that election cycle. Your a dim wit!

[S1m0n]

Ohio's was a closed primary: non-democrats can't vote in it.

In the general, the battle of Ohio will be won by the candidate that captures the centre: swing and independent voters. Given that these couldn't and didn't vote in the primary, its results tell you nothing worth knowing about the primary.

[kennedy]

So is PA.

[foreffectivegovernment]

I've got this wonderful idea.

Since most of the people who comment on this Post must be people who don't work for a living, who are stealing time from their employer's, who don't have classes in school. or are retired like I am and none of us have E.S.P., lets just let this race play out to its conclusion with both candidates vying for the nomination and concentrate on getting the person who wins elected President.

If no candidate gets the required number if delegates to win, then let the superdelegates select the nominee as they are supposed to without subjecting them to threats and strong-arm tactics.

I don't think there are enough "Temporary Democrats" to make a difference in the General election, so the "Regular Democrats" will have to turn out in higher numbers as they are doing now.

This is our year so lets don't screw it up again.

[kennedy]

Duck! The Obama people really don't like older people. You may get egged. To much experience scares them.

[TylerRose]

I am an older voter supporting Obama and I love my eggs to eat - not to throw. I like experience but I do not see much of it in either of the candidates. I do see that we are still paying trillions of dollars as a result of Hillary's experience - voting for Iraq war without reading the documents in front of her. That is what is so amazing to me. No one seems to attach Hillary experience to the economy woes we are having now. So let me try this, pretend Hillary was POTUS back when that vote took place. Look at where we are now as a result of the POTUS vote? In simple terms, Hillary helped put us in this financial crisis. MATH: RECESSION = IRAQ FINANCIAL BURDEN = VOTE YES FOR WAR.

[echoesohio]

Pulling stories from 'The Other Paper"? Thats about as 'ground level coverage' as you can get in Columbus, other than the local High School news sheet which is actually much easier to find. But I guess that is how deep you have to dig to spin Hillary's win in Ohio for Obama.

[CrimsonTom]

I don't understand his point. Is he saying that Obama lost to Clinton in Ohio yet would still beat McCain as evidenced by that loss?

[fantagor]

How about Obama has won more states, more popular votes and more delegates all told than Clinton as proof that he's equipped to whip McCain more so than Hillary.

Believe it or not, winning the Ohio primary isn't commensurate to winning the election. Why is that so difficult to accept?

Randy

[kennedy]

He's to dumb to check out the latest Ohio polls. They show Hillary beating Mc Cain in Ohio and Obama losing big to Mc Cain there.

[rwferr]

Primary Results Not Evidence Of November Viability

Well all the Obama supporters seem to think it is despite the fact that he has won mostly undemocratic causcuses and no big state primaries. Caucuses are for people with a lot of time to hang around and walk to different sides of the cafeteria like students skipping their classes. Primaries are for the rest of us democratic voters.

[StephenJK]

Mostly made up of college students who have the ability to skip a class or two. If they even need to do that.

[VespaGirl]

Excuse me, but I worked in Sioux City for the IA caucus and their record turnout was NOT from college students who had time to kill. The caucuses are in the evening (most of the time); what does that have to do with classes? Almost every single one of the Clinton supporters at our precinct were white women over 50 (I'm being generous; most were over 60). In contrast, the Obama camp was like the U.N.: white, black, native American, a few Asian; young, old; male, female. Our precinct was by no means unique so that should tell you something about Obama's appeal.

Spin it all you want, just like the Clinton team. Every other week they've got some new group or state that just "doesn't count" or "doesn't mean anything". When you add them up they mean a whole lot.

[ClevelandTom]

You can try to diminish Obama's caucus success all you want. The reality is that Obama out-organized, out-executed and out-hustled Clinton in getting out the caucus voters. I'd say that's a pretty good recommendation for a party nominee.

[PADDYWHACK]

cleveland the big end-hustle is coming up and the Clintons will not be denied.

[EinChicago]

And if the general election was run by caucus, the caucus kid would be my choice. Unfortunatley, it's not. The general election is an actual election and not a prom king show of hands ballot.

[kennedy]

THERE ARE NO "CAUCUSES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. ANOTHER REASON OBAMA WOULD LOSE IN A LANDSLIDE TO MC CAIN. HE CAN'T WIN A FAIR ELECTION, ONLY ONE THAT HE AND HIS PEOPLE RIG!

Obama and his cult workers lied and cheated at those caucuses.

If not, Obama would have lost BIG!

[AuntSally]

As an Obama supporter, the piece of evidence convincing me of "November viability" is consistent national and state-by-state polling that shows Obama beating McCain. For example, Sen. Clinton won California; but polling on the general election scenario shows Obama beating McCain in California in the general...

[thirteen13]

Primaries are for you lazzy mindless folks who are easily manipulated.

[EinChicago]

You mean, oh, every single voter in the actual general election that will actually matter?
All teh arguing over whether ice cream parlor socials or democratic votes are more valid is pointless and moot. At the end of the day all that matters is the fact that the general election does not use caucuses, sand until it does, caucuses are worthless as indicators or any chance of success in November.

[kennedy]

Caucuses = manipulation = intimidation = stolen caucuses

Primaries = fair = no lost ballots = best way to get a true vote = Hillary won more primaries because voters voted the way they really wanted to. Without pressure from Obama cult workers.


AND THERE ARE NO "CAUCUSES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. ANOTHER REASON OBAMA WOULD LOSE IN A LANDSLIDE TO MC CAIN. HE CAN'T WIN A FAIR ELECTION, ONLY ONE THAT HE AND HIS PEOPLE RIG!

[Ozarks]

"fact that he has won mostly undemocratic causcuses and no big state primaries" Gee Rwferr, you are sure loose with your "fact". No "big state primaries": Obama won Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia and yes Rwferr, check Texas; Obama won Texas combination of primary and caucuses.
Undemocratic caucuses. Bet you wouldn't say that if Hillary had won them but you have bought into her inconsistent arguments. Your "fact" of caucuses being undemocratic is outweighed by the fact that caucuses have been a mainstay of American democracy for a couple of hundred years.

[EinChicago]

So, I take it Mr. redfern is also saying Obama will not stand a chance of winning in Colorado, wyoming, or any of those western states or any of those southern states too. After all, the same logic cuts both ways, right?

Yeah, Right. This is the Obamapost.

[lovethesinner]

WIthout buying into the "big state" theory, Joe Scarborough has no way to sell his daily soap opera "Morning Joe." On this morning's show, Joe sells soap with the idea that Obama's pastor is a racial terrorist set to destroy America with the notion that 9/11 was a result of "Blowback".

Thank God, Peggy Noonan is having none of it.

Obama-Webb '08

[LeftLeanWing]

She makes this same claim of CA, MA, NY.

Why have so many bought into this ridiculous assertion.

[suekzoo]

Exactly. CA, NY, MA are not going to be red states no matter what. Get over it, Senator Clinton. But CO, MO and some other purple states could go blue....places where she lost.

[EinChicago]

And if Obama wins amazingly well and gets even 50% of those states... he'll still lose without CA, MI, FL andPA and OH. It's simple math.

[Tariqahmed]

Agree.
This is the OBAMA year.

Barak Obama for President.