The bulk of our previously discussed "ifs" didn't come to pass tonight, other than Obama's continued but, in terms of tonight, not decisive weakness among non-affluent whites, Catholics, and rural voters. Clearly, he was able to mitigate those flaws with wickedly large turnout among young and African-American voters.
A few interesting nuggets nonetheless:
1) Indiana Democratic primary voters were asked to name their top issue. 67% said the economy. Only 18% said Iraq. You'd never guess that if you listened to the netroots.
2) Speaking of the netroots, proud liberal Kevin Drum says they don't matter much for national elections (h/t: HotAir). His Fox News diatribe aside (according to the logic of his argument, Republicans should never appear at another debate hosted by MSNBC), he says internet activists on both sides of the aisle lack strategic electoral influence. Provocative, but probably true...though one could certainly argue their influence on issue advocacy is much more significant.
3) Obama mentioned tonight that North Carolina gave him a big state win. That and watching the TV pundits play with their big screen maps got me thinking. What significant primaries - not the more narrow caucuses - has Obama won?
That question yields an interesting answer, using this source. Absent a strong African-American base that gave him so much strength in the Deep South plus Maryland and Virginia, he has won in only seven primary states: Connecticut (Ned Lamont country), Delaware, Illinois (his home state), Missouri, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Of those, only Missouri and Wisconsin are truly significant. Even at that, the latter was colored by being part of the Clinton campaign's much-discussed, post-Super Tuesday, should-Mark-Penn-be-sacked, what-the-hell-are-we-doing funk. Meanwhile, the map of the former looks eerily similar to the famous red v. blue county maps of 2004, with Obama's huge margins in urban areas and the state capital in this case narrowly trumping Clinton's substantial victories in suburban and rural regions.
To put all that in perspective, African-Americans have been the most reliable Democratic constituency in recent memory. Yet whenever the less reliably Democratic demographic of white, working class voters - not to mention Latinos - comes into play in a primary, Obama almost invariably loses.
That said, Obama racked up delegates galore in the caucus states, as well as a goodly share in the primaries thanks to proportional representation rules in the Democratic contest. He looks increasingly like the Democratic nominee. Yet, that shouldn't be confused with the idea that he has been demonstrating formidable, diversified electoral strength. He's simply winning the nomination. There's a difference.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 06, 2008 08:34 PM | Email ThisIf only the republicans had nominated a economic guru like Paul.
Posted by: Lysander on May 6, 2008 08:53 PMDear God, that's the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.
Posted by: Cliff on May 6, 2008 09:02 PMYour analysis goes right to the heart of the matter. There are not enough Blacks in the country to give Obama an edge in the general. He's toast if he's simply relying on those who share his skin color to vote for him. Sad, he talks so much about unity, but he's the ultimate divider. Far from being a post-racial candidate, he's set race relations back many years by giving those Black Americans who think in terms of color someone to focus on for the sake of color.
But Obama is a much easier path to the White House for McCain. So all is well that ends well in the Dem primary.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 6, 2008 09:07 PMHowever: Given Clinton may win WV by something like 2:1, and that she will also likely win KY by a comfortable margin, I don't see her dropping out yet, even if she loses IN by a small margin. She'll probably slog on until the last dog dies. Plus PR has 55 (D) delegates, and I'm guessing Obama will not be the favorite there.
SUMMARY: Obama may get close on pledged delegates, but he still can't get over the magic number without the Supers. They'll both likely spend several more millions of $$ before it's over (which is fine by me).
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 6, 2008 09:16 PMHow sweet it will be in November...for the Republican party retaining the whitehouse.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 6, 2008 09:16 PMNow it's time to get down to the issues that matter to us all/
Sorry gang. Back to reality...
With this win in Indiana, the Dems have another guaranteed month (or 4) of tearing themselves.
Posted by: megadittos on May 6, 2008 10:27 PMBut, I wonder if that could also be the reason Clinton started tacking center when she came out recently with her MidEast nuke policy and pandering to gun-toter middle class normal people. Maybe she realizes her way to the nomination is to show rationality versus Obama extremism in order to get the supers.
Posted by: swatter on May 7, 2008 07:21 AMI find it ironic that so many see him as a uniter for the nation when he can't even unite the democrats.
Posted by: Ken on May 7, 2008 08:12 AMI think I see a McCain/Clinton ticket in the near future.
I find it ironic that so many see him as a uniter for the nation when he can't even unite the democrats.
Democrats will come into line after they realize McCain will just keep on chugging along with Bush's failed policy's. McCain is like Bush Lite...all the temperament, none of the tenacity.
I don't see McCain uniting the GOP, seems at least 10% of the GOP base still wants Huckabee. Sounds like a sign he has to embrace the Huckabee wing rather than the Romney wing of the party (which would be the wiser choice). If the Christian Coalition wing stays at home on Nov. 4th then McCain would be in serious trouble.
Considering that the economy is being significantly influenced by Iraq in a number of ways, I don't quite see the point. But then again, that's why you're a Republican shill. Hope you enjoy November.
Posted by: thehim on May 7, 2008 10:04 AMThe only thing the Republicans can hope for is for Hillary Clinton to sabotage her own party out of spite. I just don't see that happening.
Posted by: thehim on May 7, 2008 10:07 AMWhat happened to them bolting for Ron Paul? =P
Any thoughts on why?
A number of reasons. He's been antagonistic towards Christian conservatives in the past, his support of the war hurts him among isolationist conservatives, and he's not trusted among the radical anti-immigration crowd. I don't think a lot of those people will vote for Obama either, but they will vote for Barr or just stay home.
Posted by: thehim on May 7, 2008 12:09 PMWow, it's like deja vu all over again.
Posted by: ewaggin on May 7, 2008 12:47 PMFrom Reuters:
In Clinton and Obama matchups against McCain, anywhere from a quarter to three in 10 Democrats said they wouldn't vote, or would support McCain.
also, the amount of obama-gazing going on here at sp is fantastic. it really does demonstrate the republican strategy for the fall---tear down the dems b/c the republicans don't have anything to offer.
to quote newt:
In a piece published in Human Events, the Republicans’ onetime captain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned his old colleagues that they face “real disaster” on Election Day unless they move immediately to “chart a bold course of real reform” for the country.
my friends, does anything mccain say sound like a "bold course of real reform"?
Posted by: dinesh on May 7, 2008 02:25 PMAbsolutely. Starting with, "Runaway federal spending will end on my watch."
That's the "change" that I most want.
Posted by: Palouse on May 7, 2008 02:50 PMWhy does someone have to have a "bold new reform"? It all sounds good as a campaign slogan, but let's face reality here. Which of the candidates would really have a "bold new reform" once they got into office?
How about Iraq? There is a reason why Hillary voted for war as has not backed down from that vote. If you think about it, who would have had better intelligence than Hillary to know what had been going on for the last several years in Iraq? All she had to do was turn over in bed and ask Bill if the intelligence was correct (remove all jokes about Bill neing elsewhere). You can't tell me that she can still tell the "we were mislead by intelligence" line when she read the same papers while Bill was there AND she crusaded for war BEFORE we invaded.
So think about Barak. Do you think his bold action is to go talk to Al-Queda? He won't even talk to Fox News. If he's so intimidated by a reporter can you imagine what Hamas, Iran and Al-Queda would do for him? Please...
So let's talk housing crisis. All of the candidates have stated the same line about government bailout. Move on... nothing new here.
How about trade. Hillary and Barak both talk about NAFTA being a bad thing, but the truth is that neither one of them will do anything about it as it's good for the economy. They just pander to the unions until November.
Immigration? All 3 are with the open crowd. McCain says he's changed his position, but if you listen to his speeches closely you'll see that the only thing that's changed has been that he's emphasizing other parts of immigration reform, not that he's changed his stance. Barak and Hillary are both too busy pandering to the hispanic vote to actually care how the average citizen feels about the subject.
So as you see, there really is no "bold new reform" from ANY of the candidates except maybe in campaign slogans.
As for Newt...
Actually, Newt is right in a sense. Republicans will win if they act as real conservatives.
The trend we find in many states that lean left or middle (like Washington) is that the republicans act much like the democrats that are in power to get themselves elected and once in office, they act no differently than their counterparts. So the general populace is apethetic and feels as if there is no difference between them (and they would be right).
McCain is really a democrat of yester-year, but he is also the lesser of all evils. If it wasn't for the fact that the next president will be nominating possibly 3 supreme court justices, I wouldn't care who wins this election because I know it would only be a 1-term presidency no matter who gets in office.
too bad mccain couldn't show the leadership to reign in spending during the 2000-06 explosion in federal spending when republicans ruled the house, senate and white house.....
why should we believe mccain now? oh, wait, recent polls are indicating that people trust the dems more than republicans to reduce the deficit. shocking!
some additional color (no pun intended) on the stats run down:
% of vote % for Obama
IN: People with college degrees 35 56
NC: People with college degrees 44 57
IN: First time primary voters 19 69
NC: First time primary voters 22 60
IN: Independents 23 54
NC: Independents 19 45*
IN: Liberals 39 56
NC: Liberals 42 63
IN: Urban 33 60
NC: Urban 27 66
IN: White 17-29 year-olds 12 54
NC: White 17-29 year-olds 8 57
IN: All 17-29 year-olds 17 61
NC: All 17-29 year-olds 14 74
IN: 17-64 year-olds 86 52
NC: 17-64 year-olds 80 60
You must not have been paying attention. He did. He frequently spoke out against runaway spending and voted against alot of it. Just like he's ripping the current Democrat controlled Congress for increasing the budget by $500 billion.
As President, he'll have alot more power to stop it.
Posted by: Palouse on May 7, 2008 03:21 PMHe also spoke out and voted against Bush's beloved tax cuts. Now he seems to have flip-flopped and now wants deeper cuts. Earmarks too, he was against all earmarks, now he favors some earmarks. He's gotta make up his mind.
@17:
The real question is if Clinton dropped out what would would the spin be if she took a sizable chunk from Obama in W. Va and KY or even won those states? Would you be asking the same question?
Wrong Cato. He's always been for tax cuts, he just wants a balanced budget, and because the tax cuts weren't also accompanied by spending cuts, he voted no.
Earmarks too, he was against all earmarks, now he favors some earmarks.
What earmarks does he now favor? Given that Hillary and Obama have requested $3 BILLION in earmarks during their tenure, and McCain hasn't requested any, I'd say he's got alot more credibility on that issue too.
Posted by: Palouse on May 7, 2008 03:42 PMCute of you to combine Hillary's earmarks with Obama's even though they are two separate individuals. Google gives you Obama's earmarks.
Looks like Hillary
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/lawmaker.php?id=S0NY00188">earmarks for campaign donations, sad.
Perhaps one day, liberals will have matured enough to realize the difference.
I don't seem to recall the liberals caterwauling about the billions spent on aids in Africa that was pledged by G.W. Bush...But when Israel is involved, anti-semitism usually creeps up in cryptic language like that you'd get from Cato's hyperlinked sources.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 7, 2008 09:04 PMOh yeah... and had republicans chosen Paul we would have a candidate that would favor cutting spending back to pre clinton levels and ELLIMINATING the need for the IRS in the process. But the GOP has unfortunately lost its way.
Posted by: Lysander on May 7, 2008 10:04 PMThey had a choice then, they won't now. He'll have the power of the veto, which is much stronger than one vote, or a speech. Besides, unless it's a dramatic sweep into power, which I'm not predicting, McCain will be dealing with a Democratic congress.
Lysander, McCain has pledged to balance the budget. Given his strong stance against government pork and for fiscal responsibility, he's the most credible candidate who has made that declaration (I don't know if Obama or Clinton has).
Cato - that's still quite a long list of earmarks for Obama, compared to McCain's, which is zero. Money for Israel? Is that what you are passing off has "supporting some earmarks"? No wonder you have a credibility issue around here.
Posted by: Palouse on May 8, 2008 07:28 AM