April 25, 2008
Well it looks like members of our esteemed media have bought into the Clinton theory/lie that Obama is unelectable in the general election because he has not been able to carry the big swing states like Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania as well as solid blue states like New York and California. This theory is of course based on the dubious assumption that the people who voted for Clinton in those states will not vote for Obama in November.
Obama's "problem" apparently is that only kids and black people like him. Old white women and blue collar workers can't stand him because he sucks at bowling. This has led to the dreaded "McGovern" comparison:
Indeed, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.There is only one problem with this theory: Actual votes. Obama has received well over 14 million votes during the 31 primaries held so far. John McCain received less than half as many votes over 29 primaries to capture the GOP nomination. And how many votes do you think George McGovern received in the Democratic primaries to snag the nomination? If you guessed 4,053,451 then you are faster than Google.
Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.
Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.
Obama has energized the Democratic Party and, as a result, record numbers of voters have been turning out to vote in the primaries. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been sucking the air out of the Democratic Party, dragging the campaign into the mud and doing the Republicans' job for them. The country obviously wants a change so the November election is the Democrat's to lose. If the Clinton campaign continues to influence the media, yes, Obama's chances will diminish. So you have to ask the question, "Does Hillary Clinton care more about herself or her country?"
(image "courtesy" of carolynbaker.net)