Democrats Fail to Learn the Lessons of 2004
Jim Geraghty reports:
... The first comment in response [to a post at the The Carpetbagger Report]: "If stupid, white, rednecks are who we want to elect our next President then I guess Clinton has it sewn up but haven’t we had one of those running the country for the past 7 years?"(emphasis added)
Geraghty continues:
Obama's fans are insisting that he can win the presidency without Appalachia - not merely West Virginia and Kentucky, but most of Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, the western part of Virginia, and half of Tennessee. They're left insisting that there's something unique about the white, working class voters in this region, an antipathy to Obama that is not shared by white, working class voters in Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, the upper Midwest and Mountain West.(emphasis added)
I'm now CONVINCED that the Dems are BLOWING their chance to win the White House by throwing Hillary! over for Obama. I don't believe Obama has the appeal in the "Western states" that he believes he has, and I know he can't win the traditional "red" states or middle-America swing states.
Voters don't generally go to the polls for people who hold them in contempt.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Attention Super-Delegates: Obama Cedes Ohio Valley?
Hey, You're Not Supposed to Say That
Rove: Hillary Over McCain; McCain Over Obama
Why North Carolina and Indiana Really Don't Mean That Much ...
Rich Lowry on Hillary the "Social Conservative" [UPDATED]
Why Is It Working-Class Whites That the Media Deems "Racist"
Obama Campaign Seeks to Close Family Gap [UPDATED]
Dems Are Beginning to Believe They Can't Beat John McCain [UPDATED]
Obama Delegate Admits the Obvious: "Bitter" Was Indeed a Big Deal
On Disliking Obama for the Right Reasons
What Obama Really Meant Was "They're Nuts"
Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]
Obama's Problems in Pennsylvania Mirror His Problems in Ohio
Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action" [UPDATED]
Labels: Elections, Hilliary, Moloch Obamessiah, Ohio, Racism, Values Voters
posted by Pro Ecclesia 9:39 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
It's especially problematic for the Democrats facing McCain. McCain is, as much as he fits any type, a pretty West Coast kind of Republican (though he's more conservative than many west coast republicans.) I suspect he will play better than any Republican since Reagan in California, Oregon and Washington. He should win Arizona handily. And New Mexico and Colorado (which are trending blue lately) will be very competitive.
Where exactly in the West is Obama going to make up basicly ceding Ohio and West Virginia? And is there even a way that Obama could win if he lost Pennsylvania?
All political and economic trends favor the democrats, but if they can't get over this "we don't need you ignorant rednecks" attitude, they'll lose the election for themselves real fast.
I wonder: how much does it help them at this point if they do a unity ticket of Obama/Clinton? I have difficulty seeing either one accepting the deal, but if they did, would it help? Or would most Democrats see that the way I see the possibility of a McCain/Romney ticket: the worst of both worlds.
I think Hillary can only help Obama. Is it enough to win? Could be.
That said, I don't think either are up for "unity ticket".
Hillary would just as soon have Obama lose in November and be able to say "I told you so" all the way til 2012.
And Obama isn't keen on becoming the latest case of Arkancide in order to make way for Hillary.
Jay,
This seems about the best thread to ask what I've been wondering for some time. Would strong Clinton surrogate Strickland help Obama in Ohio? I've seen him mentioned, but I simply don't see it. Moreover, how genuinely popular is he? Has he really done much, or was his popularity based on his name not being Bob Taft and his party affiliation not being Republican?
I just don't see the union hall Democrat from Youngstown or Dayton supporting Obama.
Strickland's main strength was, as you suggest, that he wasn't a Republican and he wasnt' named Taft. That said, he has shown some instances of true bipartisan cooperation (albeit on a very narrow set of issues), and there does seem to be some popular support for him.
However, Strickland's popularity doesn't seem to be so widespread and isn't of the sort of depth as to make him likely to carry Ohio as Obama's running mate. Obama's going to have to win this state on his own merits, and at this point I don't see that happening.
Mr. Obama is not all that popular in Ohio, but he is counting on places like Colorado and Iowa to make for the fact that he is behind in Ohio and perhaps other Great Lake states. We still have an advantage, it is a shame that we are not facing Mrs. Clinton, we could afford to lose Ohio to her because she is hated in the West.
OHIO JOE
Ohio Joe,
I think Hillary's much tougher than Obama, based mostly on her PROVEN ability to win states that McCain MUST win (see Ohio and Florida).
Obama is banking on an inside straight by SPECULATING that he can win in states that Democrats haven't shown an ability to win consistently in the past. Couple that with the fact that McCain is tailor-made for Western states - being from one himself, and Obama's claim to be able expand the number of blue states is questionable.
IF ... and that's a HUGE IF ... Obama is somehow able to win Colorado and Nevada (recapturing New Mexico and Iowa won't be good enough, because Gore won those states in 2000 and still lost), it does him no good if he loses Pennsylvania and/or Michigan, which is a real possibility. Besides, as I mentioned above, I don't see McCain losing his neighboring states.
The much safer route for the Democrats would have been to count on Hillary winning back states that Bill won in '92 and/or '96: Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas, etc.
You have a point, while it is true that Mrs. Clinton would do better than Mr. Obama in all of those five states that you mentioned, unless Mr. McCain falls apart, Ohio is the only state that Mrs. Clinton could actually win, but there is no guarentee that Mrs. Clinton would win Ohio while Mr. Obama would not. The same can be said about PA, although I admit that Mrs. Clinton has a better shot there too. Furthermore, Mr. Obama has an outside shot at Virginia while Mrs. Clinton does not.
To be sure we have the upper hand against either candidate, but I think Mr. Obama would be a little tougher outside our state.
OHIO JOE
Virginia is one of those states that, in the modern era, doesn't vote for Democrats for President. The last time the state went Dem was for LBJ in 1964. Before that, it was Truman in 1948. I mean, even Ford beat Carter in the Commonwealth - the ONLY Southern state Carter didn't win.
I think Obama's shot at Virginia is a LOOOOOONG shot, to say the least. I lived in Virginia in 2004 when all the pundits said it was going to be close. I think Bush wound up winning by 8 or 9 points.
Outside of Northern Virginia, the Commonwealth is still very conservative. And even in the big city areas of Northern Virginia and Tidewater, where Democrats tend to do a little better, there is a HUGE military presence that ought to help even things out for McCain.
I'm nervous about Virginia. I live accross the river (literally) in Maryland, and the state is definitely a purple one. Don't forget that the popular former governor, Mark Warner will be running for a Senate seat, and that could bring more Democrats to the polls (sort of a reverse pattern from where the top of the ticket helps the bottom).
The influx of leftist Yankees into NoVa (me being a rightist Yankee) is really changing the political balance of the entire state. Sadly, I think VA is in play this year.
I'm guessing McCain wins the Old Dominion by at least 5 or more.
don't warn them.
I might have to change my Virginia prognostication if this happens.
Post a Comment
<< Home