Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Obama's Negative Momentum
Winning By Losing
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | Rooting For Injuries | The Best Democratic Primary EVER — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The bottom line on last night's Pennsylvania primary is, on the surface, what it has been for a while: Obama has the lead, but he has serious problems reaching Hillary's voters, and the voting results seem to support the notion that who wins and loses is determined less by events than by hardened demographic facts; Hillary has arguments about how she's a better general election candidate, but she's probably running out of forums in which to press them. I still think there's no way she can get the superdelegates to give her the nomination; even if were to up and decide en masse that Obama is by far the weaker general election candidate (a point that remains fiercely debatable), he represents three factions of the party (African-American voters, hard-left anti-war activists, and young people with little or no prior voting history) who are most likely to react poorly to the perception that their candidate won at the polls but was sold out in a back room deal. And at that point, the long-term damage to the party from backing Hillary will outweigh considerations of who could win this one.
That said, the Democrats do have to worry that to the extent that momentum is at all discernible in this race, their likely nominee has essentially negative momentum. Obama has faced the voters in seven states in the past 60 days, and here are the popular vote counts:
| State | Date | Obama | Clinton | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | 4/22 | 1,042,297 | 1,258,245 | -215,948 |
| Mississippi | 3/11 | 265,502 | 159,221 | +106,281 |
| Wyoming | 3/8 | 5,378 | 3,311 | +2,067 |
| Texas | 3/4 | 1,358,785 | 1,459,814 | -101,029 |
| Ohio | 3/4 | 982,489 | 1,212,362 | -229,873 |
| Rhode Island | 3/4 | 75,316 | 108,949 | -33,633 |
| Vermont | 3/4 | 91,901 | 59,806 | +32,095 |
| Total | 3,821,668 | 4,261,708 | -440,040 | |
| Overall% | 47.3% | 52.7% |
Obama can probably still run out the clock, but he's going to end with the worst run-up to the convention since Gerald Ford in 1976. And the real finish line, of course, is in November.
« Lefties get angry as Obama exposes his confused self — Comments (2) | John Podhoretz left out a few upcoming super-delegate perks. — Comments (14) »
Obama's Negative Momentum 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
good lord
by adamclay
This is an unbelievably silly analogy. Is your suggestion that the Democratic party should send in ground troops against their members to quell descent? Or maybe they should play it safe and just carpet bomb New York and Illinois? What a ham-fisted and absurd argument. Can we not hate on the Democrats with at least a modest display of common sense.
One quibble, Dan:
by Moe Lane
...he represents three factions of the party (African-American voters, hard-left anti-war activists, and young people with little or no prior voting history) who are most likely to react poorly to the perception that their candidate won at the polls but was sold out in a back room deal.
So what? Based on past history, the first group won't go anywhere else, the second can't go anywhere else, and nobody with a lick of sense relies on the third for anything that matters anyway. Sure, the second group especially will scream if Hillary gets the nod. They may even riot. And then they'll get up the next morning and go back to work for the Democratic Party, like they always do.
Because that's what they're there for, and that's what they'll always be there for: the empowerment of Party elites who can barely mask their essential contempt for them.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I respectfully disagree, Moe
by Dan McLaughlin
The first group can and will stay home. I'm from NY, I vividly remember what happened to Democratic candidates for Senate (Bob Abrams, 1992) and Mayor (Mark Green, 2001) who were estranged from African-American voters. In New York, no less. Multiply that out by every race in the country....
The second group can riot (they probably will anyway), which ain't gonna help the Colorado Democratic party.
The third is, notionally, the future, and while they don't show up in large numbers they can make the difference in states like Wisconsin where the narrow partisan divide rests on turnout of college students and urban black voters.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Rioting
by sinz52
"So what?" Are you kidding?
Have you forgotten the Chicago convention of 1968 and the riots that took place outside the convention hall?
All the Democrats need is for some militant blacks to start rioting in Denver or any other American city to protest Obama's loss at the convention. Those scenes, televised live on TV while the convention is still taking place, would ruin any bounce from the convention for Hillary and perhaps even destroy their chances of beating McCain for good.
Remember, if it starts to look like Hillary really does have a host, we can expect Al Sharpton and the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers and a whole bunch of other gangsters to descend on Denver to support Obama. Just having them standing there and marching there will not be good publicity. If a riot breaks out, that's really the end.
Obama Got Thrashed
by ggross56
As I point out here, the county-by-county vote totals tell how badly Obama got thrashed.
Right on Target, Moe!!
by PhxG
No matter what happens in Denver, the run of the mill Dems will just fade into the background simply to support or get past Nov 2008.
I'll probly be in Denver when the convention is underway, I can't wait to watch the spectacle.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
Your implication, diplomatically put, is correct.
by spainishirish
The superdelegates have to weigh whether a weak, almost sure-fire loser is a lesser problem than the alienation of major blocs and those blocs' possibly violent and disruptive reactions to his loss. Given the impact the latter would have on the long-term health of the Democratic Party and this cycle's congressional election, superdelegates will go with the weaker horse.
I use "weaker horse" because I have concluded that Obama is much more vulnerable than Hillary, high negatives and all. If superdelegates could turn back the clock, I imagine precious few of them would not prefer Hillary to be where Obama is now.
And appropos of nothing, is "superdelegate" capitalized?
Where Hillary stealing the nomination will drive people away from the polls. That's why I'm hoping Obama maintains a very slim lead in elected delegates and Hillary pulls out a victory by bribing the super delegates. Just think of all the down ticket races that may change based on turnout....
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I think you are correct and
by c17wife
this is why I think at the end, Obama will prevail. I think the supers will cede the presidency in order to increase their margins in both chambers.
I'd like your ending though.
And, no matter how it plays out, my biggest HOPE is that after this is over, Obama never again has the chance to CHANGE America. He needs to be put out of national politics forever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
I think that you are right c17wife....
by Susannah
Last night on CNN's election coverage, Roland Martin (big Obama supporter) actually said that, "There are worse things than losing an election, like permanently alienating certain blocks of the Democratic party". I think that this might be the new battle cry of Obama supporters--"Yeah, he might lose the GE, but Democrats will win more congressional seats with Obama, and giving the nomination to Hillary will alienate the young voters in the future".
You left out Guam
by Joliphant
And I can already here the Obamites saying that if Hillary doesn't win she will have to pull out.
What a primary
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As Guam goes...
by Dan McLaughlin
Guam hasn't voted yet, has it? I have them down for May 3.
7 states, Puerto Rico and Guam still need to vote; I'll try to update that chart as we go.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Oops my bad, I had them as 3/5 not 5/3
by Joliphant
It was probably all the laughing from the way this is shaping up.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Agree completely
by notanideologue
I still believe Obama is the better candidate, but even if I were to consede he is the sub optimal candidate for this election, the long term consequences of awarding Hillary the nomination far outweigh the short term benefits.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
I've heard that LNG
by bloochPickens also obviously knows nothing about electrical
by ehostermanI agree.
by bloochNo telling where you got that idea.
by VladimirGrab your hammer and sickle!
by Marcus TraianusThing is...
by TheSophistWhat's interesting about this...
by Stinger808Huh
by vonDon't know about a blog, but I know the location:
by streetwiseViva Obama! Viva el Jefe Loco de la partida Democratica!
by streetwiseAnyone, feel free to do so:)
by bloochLOL
by bloochThunderbolt. Yep
by wennejunkOTOH-Romney, Rudy, Fred & Huck were all frontrunners
by streetwisePickens owns vast Natural Gas holdings
by koertliIt's curious
by 10ksnooker
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
Your point - and a well-taken one it is - reflects concern that the young, the far left, and AA's would resort to disruption or worse if the Super Delegates exercised their discretion freely.
If Democrat leaders must appease their own party members and fellow citizens because they fear violence from them, how will they react to a nuclear armed Iran or a post-surrender Iraq controlled by radicals?
Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law