Could Obama Pull a Goose Egg in November?
Posted by: Eniap Samoht | 04/24/2008 4:02 PM
Now, of course this is all assuming Obama wins the Democratic nomination. But this looks more and more likely despite Hillary Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary just days ago. The Democratic Party's foolish primary structure has created a cloud that could eventually rain on their parade come November. If even one of the major swing states had been winner-take-all, Clinton would be cruising on frontrunner status right now. But despite staunch momentum and a retiring Republican President with sub-thirty percent approval ratings, the Democrats still haven't realized just how much they have shot themselves in the foot yet again.
The mainstream media's lack of investigative journalism in regards to their favorite son, Barack Obama, led to a failure in cleaning out the proverbial skeletons in his closet. Now they have essentially crowned a man who we have much yet to learn about, and who has already suffered significantly since gaining his nearly irreversible lead some time ago.
Of course, there has been a lot of mention of a 'bump' that Barack will get when he finally wins the nomination; and I won't argue that there will be no momentum following his triumph over Hillary Clinton. However, it seems more and more likely that this coronation won't come until the Democratic National Convention in late August. Hillary supporters are already polling at 28% to choose McCain over Obama if she doesn't win the nomination, and only 59% to stick with Obama. That was back in March. Now imagine that number if the race continues to get more and more heated as we approach an even hotter summer to come. That 'bump' could end up being nothing more than a minor speed bump for the McCain train.
Next, let's compare demographics. Obama will surely win a very large percentage of the Black vote, but what other demographics can he win? Democrats have largely relied on a majority of the Hispanic vote in previous elections, but Obama has already shown more than just a minor lack of support from the Hispanic community in his battle with Hillary Clinton. She received almost two-thirds of the Hispanic vote in California, and John McCain has already shown a rare strength among these voters for a Republican. If Bush could win the nomination in 2000 with 35% of the Hispanic vote, imagine what would happen if John McCain gets half or more. Bush got 44% in 2004, so there are definite signs of Hispanic voters shifting right.
Then there is the blue-collar, Middle-America white male vote. After disenfranchising a large portion of these voters after his 'bitter' comments, Obama faces a slippery slope retaining them. And this was before John McCain's very palpable outreach to these voters in his current "forgotten" America tour.
Next, let's look at some targeted states come November: Democrats can always rely on the densely populated and heavily Democratic Northeast states such as Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, right? Wrong. In various heads-up polls, McCain is already polling +8 points in Pennsylvania, +2 in New York, and +1 in New Jersey. McCain has already taken a stronghold on the once swing-state of Florida, and is polling +7 in purple Ohio and +1 in the previously Blue state of Michigan(a Romney VP might secure this Democratic stronghold). Even California is in play this year, says the McCain camp - and with California's large Hispanic voting bloc, it's no wonder. So where does Barack go to get some of those crucial electoral votes? Some say that he is polling strong in the Red South, with a larger-than-normal number of Blacks expected to turnout this year. Could we really see a complete transformation from the Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry electorates? Doubtful. Although Obama has made some drastic inroads in the South, he will have to work much harder to defend the Democratic Northeastern states than McCain will have to work to keep the South Red.
Now, even after all of this analysis, we still haven't even delved into the important issues that will dominate this election. With Obama, you have a man who strays from even mentioning the very real threat of terrorists; and who only speaks of the previous failures in the war in Iraq and not the imminent challenges to come. Yes, there have been many mistakes over the past few years. This war is different from any war we have ever fought. What matters now is how we meet that challenge going forward; ignoring it simply will not work. He faces a challenge in November against a man whose cause célèbre was surviving through five years of torture and pain in a Vietnamese POW camp despite being given the opportunity to go home. He chose not to leave his men behind. This guy is tough.
This very stark difference has already begun to take hold in a large majority of Americans. Americans believe the Iraq war would be best handled by McCain over Obama by a two-to-one margin; and believe McCain would be the best choice to combat terrorism by an even larger margin. It's not even close. Can you even imagine how lopsided this election would become if there were another terrorist attack in the next six months? McCain also wins on the economy, although by a slimmer margin.
Obama's strongest trait is his ability to unite. Yet earlier this year, he was labeled the most liberal Senator in America. McCain once again encroaches on Obama's turf here, because the Senator from Arizona has actually crossed the aisle many times during his political career. Obama has repeatedly been to the left of even his own Party throughout his career in the Illinois State Senate as well as the U.S. Senate. You can read more about his voting record in Illinois here, here and here. This inconsistency will only become more and more prevalent as the election moves on.
Now, barring a horrendous terrorist attack, do I think McCain is going to pull off a Nixon of '72? Of course not. Obama will win a handful of states in the Northeast and probably a large part of the Northwest. He may even pull off a win or two in the South and hold on to California. But with Obama continuing to sink in the polls as he battles a still very-real opponent in Hillary Clinton, and a comparative look at the geographic and demographic strengths of the two presumed nominees, this could be one very, very lopsided election.
CATEGORY:
FEATURE, Making of the President 2008









This week, the North Carolina Republican Party has came out with a political TV ad that highlights Rev. Jeremiah Wright, specifically, his "God D___ America" rant. The ad, while making the case that Barack Obama was too extreme for America, was directly targeted at two Democrats running for governor of North Carolina since they had both endorsed Obama for president. As a result, liberals and Democrats are up in arms over the ad, even as the Hillary camp plays on the same points.
In the wake of the ad, John McCain and the RNC have asked the NC Republican Party to remove the ad as being divisive. Up to now, the state party has refused to comply. Notwithstanding his disapproval of the ad, McCain is taking heat from Democrats. Howard Dean is attacking McCain for his inability to force the NC Republican Party to take down the ad.
Then there is MSNBC's blatantly partisan Keith Olbermann, who, last night, called the ad racist and attacked McCain in his "Worst person in the world" segment for his "connection" to those putting the ad up.
What connection, Mr Olbermann? John McCain has disowned the ad and tried to have it taken down (something he does not have the authority to do).
John McCain should be praised for his attempt to conduct a non-divisive campaign (at least to this point). But was the ad racist, as Olbermann and others on the left are charging? I think not. Just because Obama has a pastor who cries "God d___ America" and rails about white people and the "US of KKK", does not make those who point out the truth racists. If anyone is racist, it is Reverend Wright. I would agree that the two Democratic gubernatorial candidates of North Carolina should not be saddled with Jeremiah Wright just because they endorsed Obama. That is another step removed. At any rate, I don't consider the ad racist just because it criticizes a black pastor who has said outrageous things.
Olbermann's charges of racism surrounding the ad are to be expected. While he rails against Bill O'Reilly and Fox News ("Fix News" as he calls it.) on a nightly basis, Olbermann is a hypocrite when he makes these statements. His own show is nothing more than a one-sided exercise in bashing of Bush, the Republican Party and all things conservative. Unlike Fox, which has debates between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Hannity and Colmes, as well as O'Reilly bringing on opposing voices, Olbermann debates no one. His guests every night are the same tired old faces, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Jonathan Alter and others who agree with him on everything. So now, Olbermann is attaching the "racist" label on the North Carolina ad without any explanation or evidence.
In the wake of the ad "controversy", David Axelrod, campaign chief for Obama, has thrown in his two cents worth with a comment about "white working-class voters" who will vote for the white candidate (as opposed to Obama).
Then there is Joy Behar of "The View". This morning, she joined the fray in bringing up the "Republican Attack Machine", that "will do anything to hold on to power- anything." What Joy refuses to understand is that Obama is still engaged in fighting off Hillary Clinton for the nomination. It is the Clintons that are playing the race card against Obama, not John McCain and his campaign. It is the Clintons who will do anything to win-anything.
In short, the NC ad, while stretching to connect Jeremiah Wright to the two Democratic candidates for governor, are not racist. If they are, then any criticism of a black public figure is also racist. I would like to think we have progressed beyond that point.
gary fouse
fousesquawk