The Top Ten List of Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama's Weakness in the General Election Against John McCain
Let's forget about the spin on all sides and not use any adjectives to modify the following 10 Facts that should not be in dispute:
1. Hillary Clinton won by 10%, 220,000 votes, despite after most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showed her ahead by single digits and dropping. The exit polls showed her winning by +5. (It's easy to forget that she won if you listen to the Obama spinners last night and today. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania's Rep. Murphy, a freshman congressman who supported Barack Obama, actually said last night on Larry King that Senator Obama did so well in losing to Senator Clinton yesterday that he has a "wind at his back." I am not kidding.
2. Senator Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks -- and was trying to win, not just lose a narrow margin.
3. He spent $11 million on media -- about three times more than Senator Clinton.
4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Senator Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.
5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania.
6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.
7. The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost -- and Senator Clinton won -- by substantial margins blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters -- all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House. For example, yesterday in Pennsylvania she won Roman Catholics by 32 percent (66034), union households by 18 percent (59-41), and those most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42). Only 60 percent of Democratic Catholic voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election.
8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.
9. Barack Obama is currently in a dead heat with John McCain, according to a recent respected poll, in Massachusetts (actually, the results were McCain 46% and Clinton 44%), while Senator Clinton leads in Massachusetts by 15%. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.
10. Current polls show Senator Clinton runs ahead of John McCain nationally or dead even -- and Senator Obama runs only dead even. For example, in the most recent USA Today national general election poll, Senator Clinton leads Senator McCain by +6; Senator Obama leads by less than the margin of error, +2.
Those are the facts. To all Super Delegates: you decide who is riskier as a general election candidate. The candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account. Or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record of which many general election voters still are not aware.
Loading comments…
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
The illogic of this article is boundless. It consistently (and, I'll wager, deliberately) confuses primary election dynamics with those of a general election, and thereby produces arguments that are specious at best.
If Barack Obama loses a certain demographic or a certain state in a primary, where by definition he is running against ANOTHER DEMOCRAT, it does not mean he loses that demographic or state in the GENERAL election. It is absurd to argue otherwise. To do so you have to accept the idea that all would be Hillary voters will wind up voting for McCain in the general, which is completely without foundation.
As far as the differences in polling, Obama v McCain compared with Hillary v McCain, there are plenty of states where Obama fares better against McCain than Hillary does - Colorado, for example, and Texas, and California.
The writer also ignores the fact that Obama made up significant ground in Pennsylvania. Win some, lose some. Obama has won 30 states, to Hillary's 15, and he's still well ahead in the delegate count and the popular vote.
As for item #10, national polls are utterly meaningless. Only state polls have any bearing on or relation to the ultimate general election outcome. This will always be true as long as the electoral college is in place.
Lanny's "10 Facts that should not be in dispute" are anything but that.
Your argument actually works in Clinton's favor than Obama's. The demographics Obama is struggling with are the demographics most in danger of being picked up by McCain. The working-class, high-school educated "Reagan Democrats" are a huge problem for Obama, the PA primary demonstrated that Obama is going to have trouble with them in November and many of them could to vote for McCain.
Clinton, on the other hand, will still be able to get the votes of the upper-middle class liberals/A
Elderly Democrats are not going to be "picked up by McCain," not with his stance on Social Security. That's one demographic Obama is "struggling with." Female Dems split 56-44 for Hillary in PA, but there's no reason to believe those Hillary voters will be picked up by McCain either. That leaves us with your "Reagan Democrats," the main problem there being that Reagan's not running. McCain just doesn't have that kind of crossover appeal. You should also consider that, in PA at least, high school only voters made up just 23% of the vote.
Obama, on the other hand, has all sorts of crossover appeal. He'll pick up millions of independents and Republicans (just like he did in the open primaries) who would never vote for Hillary if hell froze over.
So I repeat - you simply cannot extrapolate primary results to the general election. It just doesn't work. The fact that a certain demographic, say the over 60 voters who went 59% for Hillary, tends to prefer Hillary over Barack in no way indicates that they'll prefer ANYBODY over Barack.
I just wish Al Gore was around....
Here's another reason to vote for HIllary:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," she said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." - Hillary on ABC on Tuesday
Yep, that's what we need - four more years of a president who likes to threaten, who likes to fight. Eight years of that just aren't enough. Obama has a more diplomatic approach and who need that! Diplomacy is for weaklings! Hillary has a strong record of not only voting for the Iraq war resolution. but strongly supporting the Iraq war long after the invasion and occupation. Why, her favorite word in campaign speeches is "fight"!
Yes, if you believe in dominating the world through threats, intimidation and the occasional invasion of a country here or there that isn't a danger to the good ol' USA, but that we just plain don't like, or whose oil we could sure use, then vote HRC! Four more years!
It's all for the greater glory
It's all for a saturday night
There's a hole where your face used to be
I got you in my telescopic sight
Gotta get into a fight
What do you want? A islamic state? That is what they hope for from he beginning of their existence of islam and we had to stop them in the old biblic days, or would you like Old Persia to try to conquer all? Maybe you should read the Koran a little bit an then come back on this board and kiss the ground Hillary walks on.
You're insane.
Oh please! Totally obliterate Iran - along with everything alive in the middle east. And that's not even to mention the fact that Clinton is (again) ignoring the NIE of 10/31/07 that said that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 and hasn't restarted it. And as far as an Islamic state goes - are you suggesting that Iran could nuke Israel and then turn what's left of the smoking, radio-active rubble into an Islamic state? Seriously? Yeah, more war for religion - that's just what we need...and it wasn't what Clinton was saying, anyway!
And check your history. We didn't stop "them" in the old "biblic" days. The crusades were to reclaim Jerusalem for the Christians and "we" didn't win most of the crusades. (Try to keep in mind that Jerusalem is a holy city for Jews and Moslims, too. All three religions are descended from Abraham and Christians have no more claim to it than Moslims do.)
So I assume, jakibaez, that you approve of Bush's war in Iraq.
I am glad you have internet access from Iraq, since you are so fond of fighting an anti-Islam crusade, surely you're over there engaged in one.
jakibaez..
Facts? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!
How funny that you recommend that we "forget about the spin on both sides" when you have been one of Senator Clinton's most shameless surrogates. Forgetting that for a moment, however, I would assume that your "indisputable" top 10 list would apply to Senator Obama's victories in the 30 races he has won?
I must admit I find it funny that you speak with such authority about what it takes to win the general election and do so based on "history," considering that recent history has not been too kind to the Democrats, at least as far as winning goes.
Oh yeah, and thanks for your vague reference to a "well-respected poll."
Wow, couldn't even get the first "undisputed" fact correct.
Clinton won by 9.3%, which rounds down to "9", not up to "10". That's with 99% reporting so far:
Clinton 1,260,208 (54.6573%)
Obama 1,045,444 (45.3427%)
This is basic arithmetic, people.
Just normal use of 'rounding' :
Clinton 1,260,208 ( 54.6573% rounded up = 55% ) - tv tickers use rounding of percentage
Obama 1,045,444 ( 45.3427% rounded down = 45% )
That's where they've gotten the 10% because rounding is approximate but it's
still how it's normally done.
It doesn't change the fact that she won by that much when he outspent her about 3-1 and he was there for 6 weeks trying to, as they like to say, put her away - far, far away.
Almost $12 million is a lot to spend on a state to get this kind of result.
That's not how arithmetic works. You do the math first, and THEN you do any rounding. Anything else is simply wrong and dishonest.
It's what sleezebags call "spin", and what normal people call "lies".
Hillary won by 9.4. If this was truly Hill country, she should have blown O out of the water by 20 +. She went from a 26-point lead all the way down to 9.4. Yes, she won, but not by enough. This ain't the GOP, Lanny boy, so winner does not take all. It is your candidate who can't seem to close the deal. If she is so electable, why is this race still on? And why is she so damn broke! Get out of my face. I am so sick of the spin.
If you were to bet me a 100 bucks to come up with a name of con artist with less credibility than Larry, I would loose.
Try the guy in the white robe and pointy hat (Bennie).
How about the name Hillary Clinton, or William Jefferson Clinton, or Terry Maacaliff (sp) - Lanny Davis wins!!!
All that spinning makes me dizzy...
Good try Lanny...I just glad you said you will work hard for Obama to make him our president.
Get a clue we are not scared of your window breaking or any other bullshit you Obama assholes pull . Go right ahead start shit and you'll be the ones with your heads cracked in the hospital.
Wow, your eloquence has really convinced me! She'll definitely win the nomination with supporters like you!
Lanny, I heard you on POTUS yesterday and I thought you were fair. But this kind of convoluted argument (and you admitted yesterday that it was a difficult argument!) is ineffective at convincing anyone other than Hillary supporters that she has a legitimate case.
I'm sure I'm about to be labeled as an Obamabot or even more delightfully an "asshole" but I supported Edwards and am of the demographic that should be Hillary's by right. These tactics and specious arguments do little to advance her candidacy.
Here is the exit poll question that SHOULD have been asked yesterday.
Also, 16% of whites who said they voted for Hillary admitted that race was a factor. Those are just the ones who admitted it. Reality or not, are you really suggesting that this is the standard for which the party should strive? We can't win without the racists so let's accomodate them? I expect better of you Lanny, better of Senator Clinton and better of the party.
Oh, yes, lovely. Raise the specters of the race riots of the 1960s. Accuse Obama supporters of being thugs. Such a wonderful contribution to party unity you are. A bright light amongst the ashes of this campaign. Please, tell us more about how we're worthless and deserve to be assaulted for crimes we haven't committed and will not commit. I'm dying to hear how it's going to happen, who's going to start it, and why it's a reason to side with Hillary Clinton. I warn you, you get negative points for every slur, epithet and curse word, and you're already behind. Of course, in your world, being behind is the same as winning, so I guess it won't matter, will it?
Hey look a nice calm reasonable angelic Senator Clinton supporter. In so many blogs here they insult Senator Obama's supporters for being brainwashed and what not, and here is a supporter of Senator Clinton threatening them with physical harm :O
There's only one reason that counts as far as why Hillary can't win in the general. In order for her to "win" the nomination, it'll have to be handed to her despite the fact that she's behind by every objective measure in the Dem. primary. This will likely result in a revolt by many Obama supporters who'll feel that the nomination was stolen; even more blatantly so than the 2000 election. They won't switch to McCain, but they may very well stay home. Of course that won't matter to her, since according to her, the votes that Obama has received don't mean anything anyway.
Wow, I wonder which spin machine you wish you were working for? Are you on HRC payroll, it may be a while before you get your money, she still owes Penn a boatload of money. Fiscal responsibility my a$$.
"There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvan
*chokes*
You must not own a television set, or a computer, or a radio Lanny.
One thing we must not forget - McCain is really McWar, and wants the Iraq war to go on forever. The war was a tragic mistake to begin with. Who will vote for McWar ? Maybe McWar will get the idiot vote.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
