Posted on 02/24/2008 1:01:46 PM PST by jdm
Barack Obama has raised hopes for a Democratic victory in November by winning primarily in states that normally vote Republican. He argues that this shows he can redraw the Electoral College map in the general election and force Republicans onto the defensive in normally safe areas of the country. However, Hillary Clinton has an argument by reflexion that she can safeguard the Democratic strongholds better -- and that Obama's red-state strength could be overrated:
In winning Tuesday's primary in the key swing state of Wisconsin, Sen. Barack Obama drew support from tens of thousands of Republicans and independents. He pulled off the same feat in his landslide victory in the Virginia primary the week before, suggesting he could win the state in November. In South Carolina, he had more votes than the top two Republican contenders put together; in Kansas, his total topped the overall GOP turnout.
All along, Obama has argued that he can redraw the political map for Democrats by turning out unprecedented numbers of young voters and African Americans, and by attracting independents and even Republicans with his message of national reconciliation. But the picture emerging of his appeal in GOP strongholds and in swing states, even as he widens his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is more complex than his claim to broad popularity in "red state" America would have one believe.
Obama (Ill.) posted big wins over Clinton in caucuses in Plains and Mountain states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Idaho, but Republicans in those states scoff at the suggestion that victories in the small universe of Democrats there translate into strength in November. In Tennessee and Oklahoma, Obama lost by wide margins to Clinton, who lived in nearby Arkansas. He narrowly won the primary in the swing state of Missouri, but did so thanks to the state's solidly Democratic cities, losing its more rural, and more conservative, areas to Clinton. ...
The red states where he has won have tended to be in the Deep South, where victories were based on overwhelming support from African Americans, or in mostly white states in the Midwest and West, where he relied on a core of ardent backers to carry him in caucuses, which favor candidates with enthusiastic supporters. He has not fared as well in areas that fall in between, with populations that are racially diverse but lack a black population large enough to boost Obama to victory.
This tends to deflate the enthusiasm argument for Obama. He has won his states through hard work and outreach, but primarily to the Left and among his own base in red states. His caucus victories in these states show that he can fire up Democrats, but Democrats don't decide general elections in states like Kansas and Georgia. Hillary has a point when she notes that Obama fares less well in traditionally strong Democratic states, suggesting that the centrist appeal of John McCain could prove deadly.
However, Karl Rove proved that a party could win a national election by sufficiently motivating its base -- twice. Obama shows that he can do that much in the red states, putting them at least in play. The problem for Obama is that the African-American electorate is traditionally the most motivated and responsive segment anyway, and young voters tend to skip the actual casting of ballots. Can he really gain enough momentum in a general election to squeeze enough new votes to change the electoral map?
It's possible. Hillary could claim that she could hold the blue states more effectively, but with her out of the picture, nothing indicates that Obama wouldn't do well. The biggest problem Obama will have will be the purple states -- states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and others that barely went red or blue in 2000 and 2004. If McCain makes the case that Obama is too much a lockstep liberal and big-spending statist, the battleground states will make all the difference -- and McCain's maverick track record gives him the inside track for the center.
If he does, the red is dead.
Obama is a RED!
Obama drawing republicans? Ridiculous. Those are anti Hillary republicans voting in open primaries.
Obama can’t do squat until he answers some questions. The most unanswerable, for him, is: “Will you go to the mat for Israel?” The only answer he can win with is to more or less ignore the question. That will not cut it. He cannot win (if the press and the repubs do their jobs).
OBAMA will NOT win.
I would have phrased it “Can Obama turn the Blue states Red?”, and the answer is yes, yes he can.
Obama doesn't need the red states. All he has to do is take the blue states that Kerry took and pick off red states that have been trending blue lately like Ohio and Utah and Colorado and maybe Florida, not impossible.
Obama can carry the red, just not the RED, WHITE, and BLUE.
“Those are anti Hillary republicans voting in open primaries.”
We have a winner!!
Don’t forget Old Virgnina. That has trended blue recently. They just elected a Democrat Senator and a Democrat Gov.
In the end, he is an extreme liberal Senator.
Democrats have an extremely poor record running them for President.
Yeah yeah, hope, and he’s black, well, half black.
Well that is already starting to wear thin.
His cult is peaking for the nomination sure, but will it withstand the scrutiny he will get when he is the the nominee?
There isn’t much there holding it up. Just personality and skin color.
Who said the election wasn’t already decided and the votes tallied?
utah? really?
Oops, I meant Nevada.
Of course, they don't stop to think what they and Obama owe the United States. It's precisely why he doesn't deserve to be president.
I sure do hear a lot about “I know a lot of Conservatives who say they’re going to vote for Obama because...” But it’s odd that I don’t know of any myself.
A week ago I would of agreed laughed at your assessment about how this year's elections are probably going to turn out. After spending the week listening to Obama, I am not so sure anymore.
To be brutally honest, I have no dog in this fight. All choices this Nov are bad. It is just a question of who will be the least bad.
Some days I think Obama will be least bad, then I wonder if McCain might not be. McCain has a better chance of succeeding at getting his polices, bad and good, enacted by Congress then Obama. However, Obama will do nothing good and try to do quite a bit that is bad but Obama has much less chance of actually getting any legislation thru Congress. Then, there is the possibility that stagflation is rearing it ugly head again. Maybe we are better off having the Democrats running things so they take the political hit for the coming lean economic years then us. However, Obama will appoint fellow radicals to the SC. That would be a long term serious problem for the USA that would do damage for generations. However, Obama election would be a political enema to a political class seriously in need of a good cleaning out. And so the thought ball pings and pongs back and forth thur my mind, first McCain derangement, then Obama derangement then back.
Politics is much more complex then the a simplistic "good us bad them. rah rah team" the two Party propaganda machine is always shouting.
In many ways a seriously flawed “moderate” McCain Presidency, with a Democrat controlled Congress might be far worse for the long term health and security of the USA then a ineffective neophyte radical Democrat President and a Democrat Congress.
Having a GOP President enthusiastically pushing a Democrat agenda in a period of economic down turn would be the worst of all worlds. Democrat polices, doing enormous long term damage to the US Economy for which the GOP would get the blame for decades to come from the voters.
In politics, as in war, winning, no matter the cost, can turn out to be a Pyhrric victory. That is a hard lesson for Americans, raised in the "Winning is not every thing, it the only thing", sports tradition find hard to grasp but it is true.
For example, that a GOP President named Hoover won the 1928 election turned out to be a total disaster for the GOP. They spent the next 20 years out of power because of Hoovers disastrous policy decision taken in response to the 1929 Stock Market collapse
Here is the question. Are the people of this country really angry or do they just think they are angry because everyone in the Junk media from Talk Radio to their nightly sit-coms has been screaming at them "hate Bush" for the last 4 years?
Take for instance Iraq. Superficial media pundits LOVE to scream that "60% think Iraq was a mistake" pre Surge Poll number. Unfortunately the actual views of the American people is much less clear then that.
Yes, in hindsight, the American people have been sold the bill of goods that Iraq was a mistake. What they ALSO do not buy is the Democrat's notion that we should cut and run from Iraq. Only about 40% (i.e. the Democrat Party base) buy this notion we should have a time-line for withdrawal from Iraq. So while voters don't trust Bush on Iraq, they also don't trust the Democrats either.
Most of them say "Well yes, Iraq was a mistake but now that we are their we have to win". The Surge is showing them "Yes, we can win in Iraq" which is why, expect for fund raising efforts with their fringe base, Democrats have pretty much dropped Iraq as a Congressional election issue.
Pundits love to talk about "Bush's record low approval rating" What they fail to point out is Bush's approval rating has been pretty steady for over a year now. What has changed in that same year is the Democrat Congress's approval numbers.
From a high of 50% the Democrat Congress has seen it's approval rating drop to, and stay at, a jaw dropping 17%. That is about 1/2 of Bush's. In that time frame, the only thing of note the Democrats did was fight furiously with Bush over Iraq. Bush's positions on Iraq, like his approval rating stayed rock steady, meanwhile Democrat's approval numbers dropped like a stone. That indicates the people have some serious mixed feelings about what to do about Iraq going forward.
So while right at this minute it is the Democrats election to lose in Nov., that is not set in concrete. McCain's campaign strategy of painting himself as better then Bush but not a scary radical like Obama may just sell this year. McCain is basically using Clinton's triangulation strategy.
McCain's saying "see I am not a scary radical like those people on the Left or Right, I am right here in the middle with you regular folks." may just be more comfortable to the average voter then Obama vague, and vaguely ominous, promises of "change".
Right now the country is angry, or at least thinks it should be. What most polling types seem to be missing is the people are mostly angry because they are fearful about the future. They worry about the economy, their job, their retirement, their health, about Iraq, about Iran, about their kids safety etc etc etc. So it is possible that Obama's vague promises of change are not going resonate with a mass of voters all ready highly nervous about their future.
I stopped clinging to my McCain Derangement Syndrome and spent the week actually listening to Obama. I was surprised by what I found. Obama is a serious radical radical. A sort of Afrian American version of Ralph Nader running for election in a country that has never been kind to radical politicians
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.