Ok, so if this were Vegas, the smart money would be on Sen. Barack Obama getting the nomination. In fact, even the most loyal of Sen. Hillary Clinton's supporters knows deep down it's gonna take nothing short of a miracle for her coronation to occur this August at the Democratic Convention in Denver. While there's still more primaries to go, and the race is indeed not technically over, it's pretty safe to say it's, well, over. That is of course unless something very interesting happens tomorrow in Oregon.
To be sure, Obama's facing tough challenges ahead if he cannot obtain the support of the white working class, Hillary's bread and butter. That said, if Obama becomes the party's nominee, he is certain to bring in millions of new voters this November. Inspired by his message of hope and change, young people and blacks have been turning out in record numbers to vote for him, and this support could possibly not only offset losses from poor and middle class whites, but could also help Illinois' junior Senator in redrawing the electoral map in key regions of the United States, particularly the South.
Despite her big win in West Virginia last week, Clinton is still viewed by most as having run out of steam. Though she continues to vow to fight till the end, that end could be very near. And Oregon holds all the cards. Oregon, which holds its primary Tuesday along with Kentucky, is split east and west among rural and urban voters respectively, but has been widely viewed as Obama-country for some time now. Like Washington, Minnesota, Iowa and others, it has many of the wealthier, more educated white "Starbucks" crowd that has been a cornerstone of Obama's success this year. As late as last week he led Clinton by 20 points, but new polls out today like Suffolk show that lead has dwindled to 4%. The RealClearPolitics average has him up by 10% still, but that indicator is not updated.
But the "Starbucks" crowd came aboard Obama's campaign early in the primary season, before the Rev. Wright implosion, before BitterGate, and before other controversies involving Obama and his wife (flag pin, pride, etc). Is Obama's hold on this group still as strong here in the middle of May? What if he loses Oregon tomorrow, or wins only by the barest of margins? What if the results show that Hillary gained on the Starbucks crowd, while Obama's support appreciably eroded? Would this enhance Hillary's narrative to the super-delegates? Would a measurable loss of support from one of his bread and butter constituencies -- combined with his huge lack of support among the white working class -- be just the watershed moment the super Ds are looking for to convince them that she's successfully made her case that she's the more electable candidate against the GOP's Sen. John McCain? That Obama is the one who has truly run out of steam? That, even with his tremendous field operation, he could not win this state when he was previously up by 20 points? In this crazy election year, anything can happen. Oregon is expecting a record 65% turnout tomorrow. That makes things even more unpredictable. On the one hand, it's a safe bet that the youth vote will be a large part of that turnout. But, will Hillary's supporters be coming out in droves as well?
Now the flip side to all this is if, as predicted, Obama wins the state handily. If that happens, and he demonstrates that his core support has not diminished, then her narrative will not change from yesterday, and for all intents and purposes, the race is indeed over...as it certainly appears to be right now. Judging from how she has turned graceful in her campaigning these past couple of weeks, if she suffers a decisive blow in Oregon tomorrow, she'll likely just continue to quietly fade from the picture, or, perhaps finally quit her exhausting fight and go home to Chappaqua.
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
liberal--indiana,penn,w.virginia and kentucky shows what is important--middle america--not liberal dreamers!!!
Putting a Hillary Clinton sign in your yard in the middle of Obama signs is like issuing a written invitation to the neighborhood pitbulls to attack and nip at your heels. I think the Hillary supporters should be given the Medal of Honor for bravery under fire.
That is why a majority of "Undecided voters" go for Hillary Clinton. They can express their preference in the secrecy of the voting booth and not be considered uneducated, backwoods hicks. They could not do that in the caucuses without intimidation and strong-arm tactics being directed at them. That is why Obama won the caucus states. It's called "Organization."
Funny since actual delegate reported here that bullying was done by Clinton supporters, like how some female delegate could be a "traitor" to her gender. Your candidate brought up "hard working white ppl" not Obama.
If you count everyone, everything, and everyway, for Hillary, and don't count Obama, then Hillary wins. But if you count Obama and Clinton according to the rules put in place by the party for the campaign, which all candidates including Hillary agreed to, then Obama wins the number of delegates, the popular vote, and the number of primaries. That's a cold hard fact and the Clintons know it. Hillary knows she can't win if she has to play by the same rules everybody else played by. So when you see Clinton backers on TV unilaterally declaring she is ahead in popular vote and the number delegates needed to win is 2210 not 2026, could it be they're trying to attach illegitimacy to a Clinton loss in the minds of her supporters. If that happens,it would guarantee a McCain presidency because the division in the Democratic Party would be too wide witout enough time too heal it. The Clintons know that as well. At this point it's looking like the Clinton camp thinking is: if they're going to lose anyway they would rather blow up the party, let McCain win and give it another shot in 4 years. The Democratic party has to take Hillary out of the race sooner rather than later otherwise Hillary will take the White House away from the party. That's why we've seen the Limbaugh freaks pushing for Hillary.
If Clintons has another huge blowout in Kentucky, then I think she can still make the same arguments she has made before. If she makes it close in Oregon, that's just icing on the cake, but it's not necessary by any means.
If Obama makes it close in Kentucky, then that certainly strengthens his position.
But really, Obama needs to close the deal, and he hasn't done it. He's resting on the laurels of his early wins before he was fully vetted. He's not sprinting to the finish line, he's crawling there. And the way he is trying to get other people to bail him out now that the tide has turned is offensive to a lot of Clinton supporters.
"But really, Obama needs to close the deal, and he hasn't done it. He's resting on the laurels of his early wins before he was fully vetted. "
Nonsense. The states are falling exactly as scribbled down on a cocktail napkin by some Obama staffer back in December as Obama's path to the nomination. No tide has turned. A number of strong "Clinton States" happened to fall towards the end of the calender. He has not underperformed compared to polling in any state since being "fully vetted" (by that I take it you mean people finding out about Reverand Wright). He'll win by 12 in Oregon and lose by 30 in Kentucky, exactly as predicted.
MourningDude-- I guess it's just too bad that the Clintons couldn't "close the deal" back during the Super Tuesday days of February! And too bad they ran such a lousy campaign -- what, with their name recognition and automatic Dem support from the base of the Party... and they still haven't been able to "close the deal"!
If the November election is again close then let's not give up in a great big hurry like last time (are you listening Senator Kerry?).
I's about time people start realizing that the general election cannot be won by a Democrat without the Black vote. It's the most loyal Democratic demo and also the most downplayed. Hillary could never attract enough Black voters after what she's pulled. It's not about "poor whites", that's a wedge issue.
Obama's not going to lose Oregon and Hillary will win Kentucy. And while the Clinton campaign is celebrating this victory as a proud followup to West Va., I wonder if they will consider the strong possiblity that the majority of their votes were not for Hillary, but AGAINST Barack. [Does Sen. Byrd know something about this?] Desperate for continuing relevance by any means necessary, the Clintons probably couldn't care less. As for Barack, To Know Him is to Love Him: if folks aren't frozen-in-place by his color, they too will come to appreciate him in months leading up to the general election.
The point keeps getting overlooked that if Hillary is given the nomination despite Obama winning the pledged delegates (which is how the primary works), she becomes instantly unelectable.
That General Election Candidate Hillary Clinton would be "instantly unelectable" is a matter of opinion, but it is a reasonable opinion put forth by many reasonable observers.
On the other hand the reasonable observers who make the "Obama is not Electable" argument generally take the view that Clinton will face significant obstacles to election (not the least of which is the likelihood that large numbers of Obama supporters will stay home) but that Obama is unelectable from the beginning. So, the proponents of this argument who are thinking clearly and not out of their own bias are actually arguing that "a long shot is better than no shot." Don't shoot the messenger here, but that is essentially their argument when it is stripped down to its basics.
Clearly, neither of the sides in this discussion are going to be moved by what the other says.
My personal view is that there is no way that any Democratic nominee should lose this election given Gas, Iraq, Bush and the Economy.
Your argument cuts both ways and I think it is sharper on Obama's side.
With Clinton's very high negatives among all voters, she starts out with a handicap that Obama does not have. With Clinton's unique ability to energize the old Bush base, she has a second handicap.
Further, Clinton's only path to the White House is the same swing-state strategy that Gore and Kerry followed. Neither succeeded. The only reason Clinton has a better chance at it is because of a relatively weak candidate in McCain and Bush. But Obama shares those advantages.
Obama has already lost most of the big states in his own party's primaries and got victories mostly in states where he has a zero chance in November.
It's obvious that he will lose in November, and badly.
Highly inaccurate.
CA (55) - Polling indicates Obama would now win the primary in that state. CA goes Dem regardless.
TX (34) - This is a Republican stronghold but McCain will have to battle for the votes if Obama is the candidate.
NY (31) - Will vote Dem regardless of the candidate.
FL (27) - A Clinton advantage, but a battle ground state regardless. Florida has gone Republican in the past two elections.
IL (21) - Will vote Dem all the way.
PA (21) - Will vote Dem regardless of candidate.
OH (20) - Trouble spot for Obama. Will be a battleground state where he needs help.
MI (17) - Another state that is polling better for Obama than Clinton at this time. Still a battleground state.
NC (15) - Obama could make this a swing state. Clinton would have no chance.
GA (15) - Republican all the way.
NJ (15) - Another state that would be Obama's if the primary was run at this time. Will go Dem regardless of candidate.
Those are the big states, and Obama is in the mix for all the same ones that Hillary would be, with the Ohio.
I strongly disagree, and have with this argument from Day 1. Why? Just because Obama couldn't win these states to Clinton, doesn't mean he wouldn't win these states.
Big states that matter:
NY- Will vote Democrat either way
CA- Will vote Democrat either way
IL- He won his home state, and would carry it in Nov
PA- Hard to say really... It think this state could swing either party with any candidate, but recent polls show Obama would stand a chance
OH- Similar case to PA, but certainly a possibility
TX- Hillary's victory in the Primary was minimal, and Obama took the state in delegates. This would be a tough state for them both in Nov though... very Rebulican
FL- Toss up, but it will be difficult for any Dem right now
MI- Similar to FL, but I think either could take this state from McCain easily (lots of AA voters, lots of Blue Collar workers)
NJ- I'm not sure how this state would go
I think that covers most of the so-called big states, I acknowledge that Clinton did take most of them, but that doesn't mean Obama couldn't
Besides, Obama brings in swing states. He has a chance in the deep south, CO, IO, MO, and its not unreasonable to think he would pick up some die hard red states (maybe even some in the Northern Rockies, its not impossible) and these new victories have the potential to counterbalance any losses in the 'Big States'
Youre not sure how NJ would go? Hillarious. In NJ, I voted for Nader in 2000 mostly BECAUSE I knew it was a safe state for Gore. It will not go to McCain.
I disagree. There is a lawsuit being filed in TX and I believe more Texans would have voted for Obama than for Hillary. Obama draws the crowds. Why Ohio went for Clinton and for Bush
I never know given that they have no jobs. But in 2004 when I did check the Ohion Newspaper
their results favored Kerry by 89 % and then Bush ended up winning. Go figure!
Let's see, hmmm Obama is ahead in every catagories and in November the Democratic nominee (Obama) will get the big states. Obama is a stronger opponent agaisnt McCain then Hillary. The mood of the country wants change and Hillary and McCain aren't seen in that light. Yeah I guess you're right. Major Tom, now get back into the spacecraft.
"To be sure, Obama's facing tough challenges ahead if he cannot obtain the support of the white working class, Hillary's bread and butter."
Obama does NOT have a problem with working class whites. This is Hillary spin and repeating it endlessly will not make it any truer.
Ohio is 85% white with an average median household income is over $43,000 (2004).15% of Ohio"s jobs are manufacturing. Oregon is 90% white with a median household income of about $42,000 (2004) 18% of the state"s jobs are in manufacturing.* The only working class whites who seem to have an issue with Obama are the ones who live in Appalachia.
*USDL-BLS
Exactly. I live in Appalachia and we do have a problem. Some of us might not admit it, but some will. But that is not Obama's problem. His problem will be with the media if they want McCain to win.
I am a white female over 50. I do have an education, but I have lived in the Appalachian area all of my life. Guess who I'm supporting? Obama!
You'd have to be crazy to support another Bush Republican and I AIN"T crazy!
Spin, spin spin all you want --- so why did saint Obama LOSE Ohio by 10 points?
Yes i agree with RoseBlue on this. If we see different results from white working class voters in Ohio than we see from white working class voters in Oregon, we must then consider that these voting blocks are not the same, (or as similar as this year's election narrative would have us believe). Despite the fact that they are both "white working class voters". The answer is obvious (to myself, a black man living in Virginia), the "white working class voters" in oregon have less of a history of... how shall we say, "racial sensitivity" than the "white working class voters" of Appalachia.
Regardless, if we have two groups, X and Y, and we label both groups as being defined by property P; yet X votes differently than Y, we can no longer base electoral assumptions merely on property P will do in the GE, we must look deeper at the socioeconomic and historical forces at work (perhaps there's something in the water, or some other unplanned variable), and once we find that unplanned variable, that new property that we are ignoring, (let us call it V), then we can now talk intelligently about what voters with property V will, and wont do in the GE.
Why did Hillary lose in North Carolina by 16 points?
That is exactly to my point. Given that Oregon actually has MORE working class whites than Ohio, his loss in Ohio cannot be solely attributable to his "problem with hard-working class whites" as Mrs. Clinton professed. This is a regional issue (along with WV, KY, etc) not a socio-economic one.
No slam to Mrs. Clinton, but the analysis is wrong.
Two comments.
One. According to "the current narrative," this race, defined as the race for pledged delegates, has been over for some time. While some of her supporters might be, HRC is not delusional. She knows that the race itself is over and she has admitted that she's hanging around because "anything can happen." So, the expected outcome (big Obama win in OR, big Clinton win in KY) won't change that narrative.
Two. I don't get the premise of this article. The likelihood that Obama will win Oregon by less than 10--15 points is virtually non-existent (one poll showed it closer, but it is a decided outlier). 70% or so of voters there have already cast their ballots and they poll at 59%+ for Obama.
Morons and more morons posting here.....
Hilaryites and Obamites both drinking the kool-aid....BOTH bashing the other half of
the Democratic base.....
WAKE UP.....instead of POSTING INSULTING BULLSH*T about the other camp....take
some time off and travel to the next state that has a primary and VOLUNTEER for your
candidate....get out the vote....DON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME BROWBEATING A FELLOW
DEMOCRAT.
You people are such rabid, myopic losers......
WAKE UP MORONS......BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
God, is it November yet?
Passion helps. Tantrums don't.
Stop yelling. I've been a Clinton supporter, and now I've moved on and am an Obama supporter. You could say I'm "united" behind Obama. SO, come on HRC supporters, unite with me.
Being critical of what I see is being a good citizen, ignoring flaws in your own team is considered drinking the Kool-Aid. Criticism makes us stronger. Now let me wipe the foam from my mouth since I'm so rabid...
I agree with you too! I support Obama but I will vote for the dem nominee. I might not like it, but I will do it. We need to win this one.
Puerto Rico here we come (boy do I need a vacation!!!)...
You might try taking your advice b
Posted May 19, 2008 | 03:44 PM (EST)