Obama "unelectable"? Tell me another one.

The hand-wringing about whether Barack Obama is "electable" has reached the point of absurdity. The claim that Hillary Clinton's 9-point win over Obama in Pennsylvania "proves" that Obama can't carry the Rustbelt in a general election is completely baseless. But that hasn't kept the Clinton camp, the Rightwingosphere, and a bunch of TV talking heads just parroting the currently fashionable line of patter from pretending to believe it.

They haven't convinced the superdelegates (since Tuesday Obama has picked up three new endorsements to Clinton's one), and at least one major Clinton fundraiser is about to jump to Obama, but they've managed to spread an atmosphere of gloom. If you're looking for something to worry about, I suggest global warming. A McCain Presidency is indeed a horrible prospect, but then so is an asteroid strike. Neither is likely.

In Pennsylvania, the Clinton campaign and the Rendell machine produced a massive turnout and won the primary. That's to their credit.

But Barack Obama got almost twice as many votes as any other candidate in the history of the Pennsylvania Presidential primary. So — unless you think that Clinton voters came out specifically to vote against Obama, for which I haven't seen any evidence — the notion that he displayed "weakness among key demographics" in a way that threatens his electability in the general election really doesn't pass the giggle test, does it?

Two Democratic candidates excited the Pennsylvania Democratic primary electorate as it's never been excited before. One did somewhat better than the other. But either one, at the head of a unified Democratic Party and with the support of the Rendell machine, ought to stomp John McCain in Pennsylvania in November.

The same analysis applies to various voter segments. The African-American share of the turnout was somewhat smaller than might have been expected, and despite Obama's appeal to the young the proportion of the youth vote to the total vote did not markedly increase. But in absolute terms, both young people and African-Americans turned out in astounding numbers; it's just that older people and whites kept pace. How is that A Bad Thing?

Comments

[harriscrl3]

Hilary won PA because the demographics favored her it does NOT mean that all those voters are going to vote for McCain. This elctability argument is silly. If he was unelectable he wouldnt be winning. He won her demographics in WI and VI and he basically trounced her so because she won her demographics in PA we are suppose to go Oh he is unelectable its the dumbest thing I've heard and sadly its just more proof that the media is dumbing down the american public. The corporate controlled media is the DEATH of independent thinking in this country. Its too sad to watch. What gives me hope is that there is a large group of Americans who are resisting this nonsense. They make me feel proud.

Carol

[jaynevada]

This entire article is based on "Barack Obama got almost twice as many votes as any other candidate in the history of the Pennsylvania Presidential primary."

Nice spin.

Ever consider the fact that the reason for lower numbers for PA past primaries is due to the nomination having being decided well before it gets there?

Essentially BO is ahead of HRC in the nomination. But still 55% of Democrats feel compelled to vote against him should tell you something about his weakness.

[harriscrl3]

So when 55% of people vote against Obama that means he is weak but when 68% of people voted against Clinton in some contest that means she is strong. Think about this 55% are NOT going to vote for McCain in the general. This is such a silly argument you think all of those voters are going to vote for McCain. And do you think all of the people who would support Obama in the general voted in PA NOPE because its a close primary he does better with Independents and some republicans. Honestly Hilary's delusion is spreading to folks. There is a reason polls have Obama beating McCain in PA in the general election. He does well with Independents If its Hilary all those independents would likely go to McCain and I bet you think Obamas 45% will all go Hilary while her 55% will go to McCain.

Carol

[ColinSF]

Many of Obama's supporters felt he "has it in the bag" and so did not bother to vote. It is impressive that 1.8 million of them still made the effort to vote, BECAUSE the votes in PA are not going to matter. The decision is done. Obama locked this up a long time ago.

Use another piece of logic - if Hillary Clinton were the more formidable opponent for McCain, would Limbaugh, Hannity, Orally, Coulter, and others be pushing her candidacy so hard? Take out the Republican effect on the PA vote, and chances are that Hillary would have lost. The Republicans want Hillary because she will be sitting duck for them. Obama is a formidable candidate, who will transform the political landscape for a generation or more. No more politics of fear and divisiveness.
We want real leadership.

[skoryras]

OR THEIRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Syco]

well explain it

[ThirdSection]

The big question about the 55% who voted for Clinton is who they would prefer between Obama and McCain. Likewise, who would the 45% who voted for Obama prefer between Clinton and McCain? I suspect that Obama is the second choice for November among most Clinton voters and vice versa. In any case, I'm sure most Democrats will vote against McCain regardless of who wins the nomination.

[hhkeller]

I think Obama would lose a general election. Not because he isn't cute and well spoken.
Probably his zero track record of doing anything. How do you pretend to have a record when there is none. I'm still trying to figure out what he's done for the black community or for the nation.
I guess his support for Bushes NCLB may help him with the charter schools crowd.

[skoryras]

The only real record that Hillary has, is she has managed to stay out of jail since 1992 Check it out.

FIRST FIRST LADY to come under criminal investigation

FIRST FIRST LADY to almost be indicted acccording to one of the special prosecutors

NUMBER of Hillary Clinton fundraisers convicted of, or pleading no contest to, crime: 5

NUMBER OF TIMES that Hillary Clinton, providing testimony to Congress, said that she didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: 250

NUMBER OF CLOSE BUSINESS partners of Hillary Clinton who ended up in prison: 3. The Clintons' two partners in Whitewater wereconvicted of 24 counts of fraud and conspiracy. Hillary Clinton's partner and mentor at the Rose law firm, Webster Hubbell, pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges, including defrauding former clients and former partners out of more than $480,000. Hillary Clinton was mentioned 35 times in the indictment.

HILLARY CLINTON AND HER HUSBAND set up a resort land scam known as Whitewater in which the unwitting bought third rate property 50 miles from the nearest grocery store and, thanks to the sleazy financing, about half the purchasers, many of them seniors, lost their property.

Want more just ask.

[DHubble]

zero track record for doing anything? Please.. if you are "still trying to figure out" what he has done for the black community, then take 30 seconds of your time and to a google search on his personal biography. You have a right to vote for Hillary, but please do no short change Obama's work as a community organizer. You may choose to not vote for him for a variety of reasons, but this is not one of them

[Pieface]

The facts point to the necessity of Obama attaching himself to Hillary's ticket before he drags himself and the Dems into political oblivion in November.

[mdargo]

Why do so many people seem to think that Hillary Clinton would be good on the economy when she has bankrupted her campaign?

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

The more I look at McCain the less I care about which of them wins. I'll be surprised if the man can mentally hold together until November. He barely seems to know his right from his left and he's completley, grotesquely out of touch. The Democrats should give him a good pounding with either of them.

And no I don't put much stock in grumblers who threaten to vote McCain if their favorite doesn't win. Historically these types tend not to do it. Ann Coulter vowed to vote for Clinton if McCain won the nomination, do you really think she's going to do it?

[TakeSake]

Explain this: Obama gets heat for "not closing the deal", but he's the one who is ahead. The real question is: Why can't Clinton close the deal? After all, she started with a 25 point lead in Pennsylvania, whittled down to 9 points.

[Thorn]

That's what "closing the deal" MEANS. Winning again and again and not finishing the primaries.

[TakeSake]

That's what I'm getting at. Obama is ahead - saying that there is something wrong because he can't close the deal is like saying that whoever comes in second place wins.

[benman]

"Whoever comes in second place wins."

The Hillarists' argument in a nutshell! By her logic, the superdelegates should all go to Joe Biden.

[mindact]

It's funny, but I've started to wonder that as Hillary looses support amongst liberals, she's gaining support from the right wingnuts. Hmmmm....

[AsaNisMasa]

McCain/Clinton '08

[actionadventure]

Reagan and Carter lost Pennsylvania too.

http://origin.observer.com/2008/kennedy-bush-and-pennsylvania-lifeline

[skoryras]

The truth of the matter is none of them have won anything. The General Election isn't till November. What's going on now is just jockeying for position and bragging rights. When all is said and done it's the American people that will be winners or losers.

If it's McCain or Hillary we lose.

[TuffPosh]

No matter what the ReTHUGlicants say, Obama is completely electable! All those "issues" like Reverend Wright, "bitter", "never been proud of America", serving as (at least) a useful idiot for the Mexican government, constantly lying, Ayers, Khalidi, the new fundraiser guy linked to Hamas, and all the other things too numerous to mention will make no difference in the general election, my friends.

[HAP]

Hey man--good post. If you are a commenter and like this, try www.samefacts.com where MK obsessively blogs.

[katefranklin]

The media wants to find Armageddon at every opportunity. That's what sells newspapers. Certainly there's no way that the folks in Pennsylvania were pro-Clinton. Oh no. They must be vitriolic Obama-haters. Of course, we can't blame the media. Clinton ran a nasty and divisive campaign there, so the logical conclusion is that she was able to make everyone in Pennsylvania *loathe* Barack Obama. The punditocracy has jumped on the band wagon. They all now assume that Clinton-supporters in PA will never reconsider Obama for his careless stating of a semi-truth (which will be a 7-month old story by then!), and will vote for John McCain in knee-jerk fashion without considering a single one of his policies. Why? Because the media has verified with 100% certainty that all those PA voters now abhor Barack Obama.

[DoTheMath]

Finally some sanity! I can't believe the spin I've been hearing about what a 9-point-something win in Pennsylvania means. Suddenly it's as though none of the other states should have bothered. We're breaking down the electorate into subgroups by favorite beverages and hobbies. Pledged delegates don't matter. The popular vote can be calculated by multiplying the number of angels on the head of a pin by the number of pinheads - uh oh, I better stop with that one. I'm getting a little carried away. Let's just say we're hearing some very creative calculations of the popular vote. Who needs superdelegates? I think a team of psychologists should step in.

[laksa]

Chris Matthew has been saying for 2 days now that Obama is not electable without the white votes, may be he forgets that Hillary is not electable too without the black votes.

[Doofus]

In the words of the Soup Nazi, who knows as much about politics as anyone:
'No Presidency for You!'

[OrangeMocha]

When Chris Matthew's contract is up next year, they need to replace him with Rachael Maddow.

[trevor01]

Who is going to stop black people from voting for Hillary? Black people are not childish or stupid. To suggest otherwise is pretty insulting, don't you think?

[Syco]

considerings the incident with the police in new York I think they are pissed

[nomobull]

hillary and bill

[4Detroit]

Right on point!

[RobertArend]

Excellent, laksa. Critical thinking at it's best.

[THEhillbilly]

Jeremiah Wright's grandiloquent, done-nothing protege is unelectable. His pattern of unsavory associations--four, so far, (Wright, Ayres, Rezko, and a wife who isn't proud to be an American and very likely more to come when the Republicans take over after (if) Clinton's lying wife loses her bid for the nomination) have alienated way too many voters. This is aside from the bigger factor, i.e., that he isn't ready for the job even if he were what you Obama thralls have tried to make of him. With either of the Democrats' unpresidential candidates, it's likely that they'll be for the thrid consecutive time snivelling and trying to overturn the election in November. Hordes of "undecideds" are going to say, "We can't put the country in the hands of this run-olf-the-mill tyro whose talent is all in his tongue."

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Anyone who in any way supported the atrocious presidency of 'W" frankly is in any position to critique the the personal qualities of either Clinton or Obama. Frankly I think we would have better off with his lapdog Barney running things, and either Clinton or Hillary have more competence in their fingernail clippings than in the present oval office.

The republicans are stuck running Grandpa because he wound up being least worse of the epically bad field that the Republicans ran for this election. This befuddled , out of touch relic is headed for a historic drubbing come November, if the Democrat actually ran Barney for the office.

[laksa]

Thehillbilly, you are at the wrong blog with your tirade.

[nypoet22]

it is wonderful to see that there actually are some huffpo bloggers who can accept that hillary and barack are both excellent candidates and both doing a great job, without trying to tear one of them down. for those of us who genuinely do like both and would still like to see both on the ticket in november, huffpo can be a pretty lonely place.

[katefranklin]

Don't blame HuffPo. Contact Nancy Pelosi here: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/. She's the one shooting down the dream-ticket idea.

[BitJam]

Don't blame Nancy Pelosi for facing the facts. It was Hillary Clinton who shot down the dream ticket by endorsing McCain over Obama multiple times. If Obama and Clinton were on the same ticket we would endlessly hear Clinton's endorsements of McCain:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Newboyx]

A joint ticket would never work, HRC could not handle being #2