http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/politics/05assess.html?hp
The article above underlines the fact that Clinton is winning the key battleground states for the Democrats. Obama has not proven that he can carry big states, crucial swing states like Ohio and Florida that have figured so prominently in the past two presidential elections. What are we to make of this? If Obama cannot carry these states in his own party's primaries, why are we to believe that he will carry them in November's general election?
The fact is that Hillary Clinton is galvanizing the true Democratic base: large, urban and liberal states. We all know that the Democratic base does not lie in Idaho or Louisiana, or Kansas or Georgia. These are red states. The base lies in California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts (to name a few), all of which Clinton has won. And now she has claimed victory in Ohio and Texas, further proving that Obama has struggled to win large states, and with the huge amount of electoral votes that these states have in the general election's winner-take-all system, this becomes a discouraging sign for the Democratic party in November should Obama win the nomination.
This nomination process will last until June, and the end result will be a unified ticket between these two candidates. The only question that remains will be who will be on the top of that ticket.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with the majority of what you have said with the exception of one thing. You say that Clinton is supported by these "large, urban and liberal states" but if you look at the county by county voter turn out, you will see that the densely populated, urban areas are going consistently to Obama. In Texas for example, Travis County, Harris County and Dallas County, three of the most urban, most liberal and most populated areas, are going overwhelmingly to Obama with an average of 60% to 70% in his favor. This doesn't change the fact that Clinton is still winning the overall state but Obama does hold sway in the urban areas.
No, you are right. There is no doubt he is winning the big cities, which is ironic as he has problems winning big states.
Ok, fine I'll post. Please do not confuse Clinton winning key "battleground" states in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY with Obama (if he gets the nod) losing these states to McCain in the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Also all this proves is that Ohio DEMOCRATS prefer Clinton over Obama but not necessarily that they prefer Obama over McCain. Instead of being discouraged by Obama's losses in these "key" states the Democratic party should be encouraged by the record turnouts. In February John McCain raised $13 Million, Hillary and Clinton combined raised over $100 Million. Voter turnout is equal disproportionate. Perhaps this is only indicative of the fact that McCain is running on autopilot but I suspect the Republicans just won't show up in November, unless Clinton is nominated in which case they vote against her just in spite.
On what grounds do you think the Republican voters will just not show in November? This will be a tight and closely-contested general election, no matter who the Dem candidate is. You think that Republicans will not want to put a stop to Obama? He has a more liberal track record than Clinton. And yes, the fact that McCain has virtually been running with no opposition, of course the voting turnout is going to be lower than the Democratic contest.
The point of the article and the post is that Clinton has so far shown that she is winning these big states over Obama, and that these battleground states are critical in the general election. Also, the states I cited above are Democratic strongholds, so she is doing a better job of recruiting the true Democratic base, not winning small red states like Idaho and Kansas.
Post a Comment