30% of PA republicans voted against McCain; nearly 200,000 PA republicans switched party affiliation to vote for a democratic candidate.
The revolt against McCain in Nevada reflects a large faction of republicans who won"t vote for McCain.
The republicans have a greater problem than acknowledged.
MSM keep telling your selves that low voter turn out for republicans during this caucus/primary season does not matter. This year for this republican nominee it matters!
Media bias and glossing over McCain"s foibles to cast him as a straight talking maverick won"t wash.
Millions of Americans - democrats and republicans are not impressed! Americans will not be fooled by reinvention/reintroduction tours.
McCain"s MSM buddies who are sucking up to him can buy McCain"s BS but millions of Americans, including republicans, will not vote for McCain.
MSM you all should be ashamed " your misinformation and sucking up to the Bush/Cheney administration on Iraq got us into this morass of a war.
MSM for shame on you all for perpetuating lies that enabled the war to be sold to thousands of mothers and fathers whose son"s and daughters have died in Iraq.
MSM you are now helping the Clintons destroy Obama so that your horrible, little weasel friend John McCain can become president; how reprehensible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/27/nev-gop-recesses-state-co_n_98868.html
Obama may have problems attracting certain voters but McCain has problems too.
There may end up being riots of republicans at their convention.
No Laughing Matter: Obama Has Real Problems With Voters He Needs in November
It would be a mistake to assume that Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania by 214,000 votes just because she had the support of Governor Ed Rendell. Barack Obama's inability to attract the supporters that make up her traditional Democratic coalition goes far deeper than that.
After all, in progressive Massachusetts it was Obama who had the vocal backing of the Governor, Deval Patrick, and both U.S. senators, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. The effect of this powerful triumvirate was meaningless. Clinton won the primary by 200,000 votes, a whopping 56% to 40%.
No, there's another reason Obama outspent her 3 to 1 in the Keystone State, pounding her daily on TV for six weeks, and still lost by 10 points. There's a reason the same thing happened in Ohio, too, and it's in the exit polls.
Older voters, working class whites, adult women, and Catholics.
They support her overwhelmingly, and they historically vote in greater percentages than the blocs that comprise his coalition, which includes young voters, African Americans, and upscale independents with no allegiance to either political party.
Since winning the presidency takes 270 electoral votes (based on the popular vote in each state), let's examine the biggies. Here are the top 11 electoral states:
California - 55
Texas - 34
New York - 31
Florida - 27
Illinois - 21
Pennsylvania - 21
Ohio - 20
Michigan - 17
Georgia - 15
New Jersey - 15
North Carolina - 15
Obama won the popular vote of Democrats in only two of them: his home state of Illinois and Georgia. He may add a third, North Carolina, in two weeks.
Of these 11 states, five will surely go dem next fall regardless of the nominee (California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey), and three others will go repub (Texas, North Carolina, Georgia). These eight states are already betrothed for November, so crowing about a primary win is pointless.
This matters because a central argument of Obama's candidacy is that he'll be an electoral college "game changer" in the general election. However, the results from the 11 largest states in the country don't advance this highly touted selling point.
The other three states on the list (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio) are swing states. Pennsylvania is not so much a swing state as a "must win" for Democrats, and it's no given. In 1996, Bill Clinton won re-election there by 10 points. Gore won by only 5 points in 2000, and Kerry (with an actual Heinz on his arm!) won by a mere 1.5 points in 2004. See a pattern?
Hillary Clinton's wins in the '08 "swinger" primaries, with both candidates on the ballot, were not even close: Florida by 300,000, Ohio by 237,000, Pennsylvania by 217,000. That's three-quarters of a million vote advantage for Clinton vs. Obama among Democrats in just three large states the party needs in November.
Comments by Obama's campaign after Pennsylvania seemed defensive. First, manager David Plouffe said it's "a flawed exercise to suggest that performance in primaries is a leading indicator of what would happen in a general election." Yes and no. Hopefully, those who supported the loser lick their wounds and return, augmented by millions of new voters. Still, what large numbers of party regulars do in spring primaries is undoubtedly a "leading indicator" of current sentiment.
Then, strategist David Axelrod talked specifics on NPR, saying the "white working class has gone to the Republican for many elections" and that Democratic candidates "haven't solely relied on the demographic." The key word is "solely." We know that Democrats don't need the majority of this group, but winning - from state legislatures to the Oval Office - demands a plurality of them. Axelrod himself knows this because his onetime patrón, Chicago mayor Richard Daley, owes his success in part to voters like these.
The only reason Obama's team is now dismissive of them is because he's not attracting them in necessary numbers.
Some say his appeal among independents might "expand the electoral map" in November, giving him a state here or there that has previously gone repub. The fact is that literally 30 states (from Delaware to Wyoming) are precast as blue or red, so only 20 or fewer states will even be in play, and of those less than a handful might really flip sides.
Obama officials cite only three or four possibilities: Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada. Yet these states are slowly trending dem anyway, so Clinton could win them, too. Besides, their electoral totals are small. You don't get the 270 electoral votes if you're winning Missouri (11) and Colorado (9) while simultaneously losing large crucial states like Ohio (20) and Pennsylvania (21).
That's new math even Hillary wouldn't try and add up!
Clinton's argument may be self-serving, but it's also true: the Democratic standard-bearer, whoever it is, can't afford to have tens of millions of working class voters, women, and those over age 45 unenergized on November 4th. John McCain will win if that happens, and Obama has so far failed to motivate them in meaningful ways.
It's a fact today, it'll be a fact to some degree six months from now, and it will matter most in the swing states that always decide the presidency.
I'll be a loyal foot soldier regardless of the nominee. All Democrats want to win the White House, and at least half want to see Obama as the nominee. The question is, can we achieve one with the other?
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
'Repo riots' at their convention would be something to see.
Otherwise, not such an interesting event.
Will there be grimaces?
And frowny-faces?
All of these arguments about who's going to win what state in the general election based on who won what in the primaries are just plain silly.
We do not get 100% turnout for Democrats in the primaries. Only those who are really motivated show up to vote. And those people are almost certainly going to vote Democrat in November; they are the Democratic faithful. Primaries have almost no relevance to the general, other than perhaps the turnout numbers, which bode well for the Democratic candidate, whoever that is.
These arguments that Hillary wins the important voters is ridiculous. She wins working class Democrats who ALWAYS VOTE DEMOCRAT, not working class Republicans. Are old women who have voted Democrat for 40 years going to en masse run to McCain if Obama is the nominee? Surely not! Retired people who rely on Social Security and Medicare are going to vote Democrat, end of story.
A comment below says the only reason Clinton won recent big states is because "Limbaugh told his listeners to vote for Hillary in Ohio and Texas in order to keep her in the race longer."
This whole bit about how "she's only winning the popular vote in large states because of Limbaugh" is a joke.
Before Ohio and Texas, it was Obama constantly bragging that Republicans were actually voting for HIM. He used it as an argument for why he should be the nominee. He said in his standard stump speech throughout January and February that Republicans would come up to him and whisper, "I voted for you, don't tell anybody," and he'd jokingly respond in a whisper, "OK, I won't."
It was a big applause line in his speeches for months.
Apples and oranges.
Here's the thing: The Republicans who have been coming out for Obama are doing so, because they like him. The ones for Clinton do so to disrupt the process.
Now, this obviously sounds like a double-standard, except for one very important point: Rush Limbaugh and many other Republicans ARE telling their fellow Republicans to vote for Clinton. Rush's plan has been called by various names: OPERATION RUSH THE VOTE or OPERATION CHAOS are the main names.
The ideas ( roughly ) are, that the Republicans...
1 ) Wish to prolong the internecine battle between Clinton and Obama. ( If they voted for Obama, the nomination process would be over. Voting for the underdog keeps the contention going. ) It disrupt the Dems and buy them some time.
3 ) It buys them free ad space, too. Both of the Dems are being tarnished in the battle, as they wage war against each other without McCain lifting a single finger.
3 ) Clinton is believe to be a much more polarizing figure; The Republican nominee would get all of the "anti-Clinton" votes.
At the end of the day, the Republicans want to fight against the weaker candidate. That's just common sense. Think about it.
Why did you stop at 11? Sounds like you're trying to ignore something at 12th place.
There are 50 states. Of the 25 largest states, Obama has won in well over half of those which have voted.
Besides, projecting electoral votes from primaries is just plain dumb. In the general election, Obama will get substantial crossover votes from Republicans (which Hillary will not) and the greater share of independents.
Almost all reporters missed an important side story here in Pennsylvania: A substantial number of Republicans voting in their own primary wrote in Democratic candidates or left the choice blank, rather than vote for their own candidates.
Blue says "Here's the thing: The Republicans who have been coming out for Obama are doing so, because they like him. The ones for Clinton do so to disrupt the process."
Really? So his repubs are pure of heart but hers are not? I haven't seen any polling that makes that distinction, or much less even addresses this question at all.
I think the point I was making was that the whole argument by his supporters that her wins are based on reputiles shows we're into the political silly season. And you've not disabused me of that notion.
'In the general election, Obama will get substantial crossover votes from
Republicans (which Hillary will not) and the greater share of independents.'
I wonder why you think that's true? I'm an Obama supporter, I hope you're right,
because otherwise his chances are not-so-hot, but why do you think this is so?
Looking carefully at projected electoral votes, Demos dominate larger states,
Repos dominate smaller states. Taken together, they're more or less even.
BUT, if the Repos win, it will be because of the effect of 'extra' electoral votes
from smaller states. The 'extra' votes are coming from the way the system is
designed/intended to work, of course. (In this case, 'smaller' states are those
with less than 10 electoral votes apiece.) Which, of course, is exactly how a
popular vote victory (in total) becomes an electoral vote defeat.
"Almost all reporters missed an important sde story here in PA."
The story was not missed, it was not discussed. The right wing conservatives cannot afford to acknowlege they asre stuck with McCain.
Also, all of the republicans who were told to vote for Hillary in Ohio, Texas, Pa. and other places to keep chaos going in the dem primaries will not do that in the general
If Hillary Clinton is so great, why is she losing?
As a Hillary supporter, here is what I want to see from Obama to get my vote.
Incidental I am an under 40 professional with an advanced degree.
1. I want to see the plan. Hillary's strength is that she has specific plans especially on health care and the economy while Obama seems to have some flower child philosophy about working with republicans.
2. Work Ethic. I see Hillary as a policy wonk who likes nothing better to plow through details and become an expert on whatever issue is at hand. I see Obama is someone who never held a real job before he went into politics. He billed 3700 hours in his 4 years of law practice. Thats basically part time.
3. Balls. Hillary has big brass ones. Obama comes off as some kind of Kerryesk whiner and he doesn't even have 2 purple hearts. How can Obama survive the Republican attack machine. When the other said is calling you every name in the book you have to respond. To me when I hear "i want to work with people on both sides of the isle" it translates to "sell out"
4. Obama can't win. Not Hillary has been setting the agenda. In the fall, McCain will be able to dominate Obama on subjects, like national security and immigration, that are important to independents. Obama will say "but I'm going to raise the taxes on the rich"
Obama's campaign has no BEEF its just Mayo.
Here's his healthcare plan. It took less than 10 seconds for me to find on the Internet.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
With regards to her work ethic. Uhm... Come to Upstate New York sometime. She has been absent for years, while our economy tanked. I'm not really sure, this counts as a work ethic, do you? The reason, that she appears to be an expert on every issue, is that she either makes stuff up with conviction or that you do not take the time to research the issues.
With respect to having balls. There is a difference between being mean and fighting for yourself --- or being diplomatic and fighting for others. I don't know about you, but the latter ( Obama ) is the kind of role model, that I hope, our kids have.
We've had the other kind far too often before.
Obama can't win? Uhm... you might want to look at the political map again. People have already begun writing Hillary's political obituaries.
Pfft.
Well, this is just silly.
1) If you don't know what his healthcare policies are that's not his fault, it's yours. He's more than put that out there.
2) This leads right into the work ethic thing. If you'd done just the most cursory examination of his policies by using, say, "the GOOGLE", you couldn't say that. As for HIS work ethic, apparently you don't know what it takes to get a law degree (from Harvard no less) and pay off your loans as the child of a single parent who wasn't wealthy. --By the way, he JUST finished paying them off.--You certainly don't know what it takes to be a community organizer. Perhaps you should do a little investigation into union organizers, or someone like Abbie Hoffman, or any number of people who beat the street in downtrodden areas to get the people involved to make a better life for themselves.
3) I'm not even dignifying this. It's clear he responds. He just has the decorum to not sling mud the way Clinton or the GOP does. That translates into "statesman."
4) This isn't anything he can DO for you. It isn't even a fair critical question. You just don't WANT him to win. The truth is, it's not that he can't win. He just can't win YOU. So, say that. You don't have to obfuscate to get recognized for your opinion.
But, seriously, you've made me smile ,because now I'm even MORE confident.
great response to mr. under-40 advanced degree. i guess they didn't teach him/her research skills in grad school.
Turnout not Turnoffs win elections.
Obama has energized an entire base on new voters. HRC has failed miserably. Her support among independents is almost non-existent.
Williams makes some interesting points, but dismissing Obama's strengths so easily renders his blog tendentiously obsequios.
I don't know a single Independent who will vote for her. But I know many, who are hoping for ( if not out-right campaigning for ) Obama.
Myself included.
Tendentiously obsequious!... who said he cannot relate to working class people.
No Laughing Matter: Obama Has Real Problems With Voters He Needs in November
==================================================================
your title and your point are as banal and meaningless as the clinton camp's red herring "big state" argument -
EVERY POLITICIAN HAS REAL PROBLEMS WITH VOTERS SHE NEEDS IN NOVEMBER, especially hillary clinton, and it is no laughing matter as it becomes increasingly clear to the american people just how low she will go to salvage her badly mismanaged campaign
A candidate's performance within a primary doesn't necessarily correlate to how he or she would perform in a general election. More important is the number of Democratic vs. Republican voters.
If you have a state with 25% Democrats, what would it matter if Clinton beat Obama by 90%? In a general election, the Democratic primary winner would still end up with just 25%, plus or minus some crossover voters. So let's look at actual turnout:
--- In the 28 (non-disqualified) states that have held both Republican and Democratic primaries (not caucuses), nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans voted (27,371,217 vs. 14,617,247) and 26 occurred on or BEFORE McCain clinched on March 4.
--- Democrats outvoted Republicans in 25 of 28 primaries (exceptions: Alaska, Arizona, and Utah)
--- Over all 28 states, Obama received TWICE as many votes as McCain (13,502,540 vs. 6,797,249) and nearly as many votes as ALL THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED (Obama: 13,502,540 vs. ALL REPS 14,617,247)
--- Adding together the votes from the "big states," Obama received MORE TOTAL VOTES than ALL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED:
............................................ OBAMA ..........ALL REP CANDIDATES
ILLINOIS.........................1,301,954.............885,009
NEW YORK...................... 697,914.............602,747
OHIO.................................. 979,025.........1,010,864
PENNSYLVANIA ......... .1,045,910.............807,122
TEXAS............................. 1,358,785..........1,320,653
CALIFORNIA....................1,890,026..........2,514,047
.........................TOTAL .....7,273,614..........7,140,442
In fact, Obama received more votes in 4 of the 6 big states than ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED.
You can't argue that Clinton is more electable by virtue of her primary performance. It's a non-issue. Based on turnout, either candidate swamps McCain in November.
I think you've made an irrelevant argument. The low primary turnout for Republicans doesn't mean that the Republicans won't be at the polls in November...it just means that they aren't as energized during the primary as we are. (Considering the candidates they had to choose from, can you blame them? Besides, since McCain wrapped up the nomination ages ago, it's probably not as exciting to go vote.)
You didn't add Sen. Clinton's totals to your chart in those big states, SO just to make a more complete presentation, I've done it for you. (You also had old numbers, apparently, for Barack in OH, IL and CA, so I've ramped those up to match the official totals, courtesy of the NY Times.) Just for the record, Hillary actually beats the Republican candidates AND Barack in all the states besides Illinois, but if all the knuckle-dragging, backwards-thinking Repubs in my state (TX) turn out for McCain in November, it'll be a moot point:
............................................ OBAMA ............ALL REP CANDIDATES .......CLINTON
ILLINOIS.........................1,318,234...................885,009..............................667,930
NEW YORK...................... 751,019...................602,747...........................1,068,496
OHIO.................................. 979,025...............1,010,864...........................1,207,806
PENNSYLVANIA ......... .1,045,910..................807,122...........................1,260,444
TEXAS............................. 1,358,785..............1,320,653...........................1,459,814
CALIFORNIA...................1,890,026..............2,514,047...........................2,608,184
.........................TOTAL .....7,639,635.............7,140,442...........................8,272,670
See the revised chart, below.....I accidentally failed to add Baracks's updated numbers for California, but the totals were already correct for each column:
............................................ OBAMA ............ALL REP CANDIDATES .......CLINTON
ILLINOIS.........................1,318,234...................885,009..............................667,930
NEW YORK...................... 751,019...................602,747...........................1,068,496
OHIO.................................. 979,025...............1,010,864...........................1,207,806
PENNSYLVANIA ......... .1,045,910..................807,122...........................1,260,444
TEXAS............................. 1,358,785..............1,320,653...........................1,459,814
CALIFORNIA...................2,186,662..............2,514,047...........................2,608,184
.........................TOTAL .....7,639,635.............7,140,442...........................8,272,670
Of course Clinton's numbers weren't added, because that would prove the entire point if Mr. Williams' article--and the fact that Senator Obama simply will not win (or even come close to doing so) in November.
But, I think the Democratic Party will have no choice but to hand him the nomination (because _he's_ not going to win enough delegates outright, either), thereby destroying the village in order to try and rebuild it in 2012.
This is just another obfuscatory scare tactic from Clinton's Rovian playbook. I suppose all of the Clinton voters in PA will stay home or vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't win the nomination? How will Hillary fare against McCain without the Obama votes, if those voters decide to stay home or vote for McCain.
Hillary is unelectable. She is intensely unpopular with large segments of the population because of how she acts, not because the color of her skin.
obfuscatory scare! here we go again.First Tendentiously obsequious! now this.
That's odd. Nobody mentions that Obama's "trouble" with those constituencies only came into existence since Clinton began smearing him with the same tactics she's objected to being used against her in the past. It's surprising how her supporters seem to be convinced that she's right to slander him even though they hated such false and irrelevant claims against her, meanwhile accusing him of negative campaigning when he has assiduously avoided bringing her blemished record and changeable allegiance into the race.
The same supporters ignore the slew of independent analysis proving her plans incapable of doing what she promises, claiming that this is all due to misogyny and jealousy because they can't let themselves believe they're wrong to follow her destructive path. And her supporters now adopt such fierce defense of her simply because they don't want her to be wrong and as hypocritical and mercurial as reality portrays her to be, so they must strike out in emulation of a woman who currently acts like nothing better than a bully willing to take everybody around her down with her.
Cognitive dissonance has gutted the Democratc party.
Obama has never appealed to working class voters. He has never tried to reach out to them. Early on John Edwards was courting them. Obama's idea of insulting the voters he needs to win is certainly a change from "Old" politics, but it's a pretty feeble strategy. Now he has to rely on threatening the Democrat Party if they don't let him keep the ball.
You act like this article is a personal indictment of Obama rather than an objective political analysis of the electoral situation, by saying in essence that - if Obama is the candidate and loses in November- that "it's not his fault." That will be some consolation for Democrats.
Jackson, ALL candidates have problems with groups they need in November. Hillary especially has problems with key constituencies, like voters.
She didn't have problems with voters in OH and PA. THAT"S the point.
Actually she did. Limbaugh took his listeners to vote for Hillary in Ohio and Texas in order to keep her in the race longer. She does not have enough democrats who support her. In Pa. Gov. Rendall sent out emails telling his supporters to switch over and vote for her in Pa primary. Folks know how she continues to say in the race in recent primaries and no one is pretending to be impressed. It is not an honest win, but cheating. She told Limbaugh to be careful what he wish for on the day after the Ohio contest. Limbaugh had to tell his listeners that he would take full responsibility if there were legal consequences to what he told them to do in Ohio. How sad.
states she had trouble in the ones she lost. and the real truth of Pa is the 11 points cut off her 20 point lead.
Stop already. He lost Pennsylvania. Just because she didn't win by 20 points is not a victory for him.
The inevitable narrowing of that race is only providing a "sweet-lemon" rationalization for Obama believers desperate for validation.
The reality is that PA showed Ohio wasn't a fluke but rather a pattern, and a troubling one for Obama. Clinton actually increased her lead among Catholics in PA slightly over OH.
It is a trend that should alarm all Dems looking to the fall.
It's always amazed me that the working class voter for whatever reason seem think Hillary better understands their plight in life and has more compassion for them than Obama a black man raised by his mother and grandparents and is a self made man. I hope they are watching the news tonight, pretty good insight into the type neighborhoods in South Chicago he spent most of his adult life living and working in.
Posted April 25, 2008 | 03:48 PM (EST)