Democratic Doings in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington

Filed under: US Elections

MSM is trumpeting Barack Obama's "big wins" in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington over the weekend.

Click here and you will see a pop-up image of the 2004 presidential election results map (via Penn State University). It shows the vast majority of the country's territory hued red because George Bush won there, also taking a majority of the popular vote despite his much-vaunted lack of popularity, becoming the fourth Republican president to win reelection with a mandate since World War II (not a single elected Democrat has achieved this feat on reelection in all that time).

The map indicates electoral votes for each state won, and also gives shades of coloring to indicate the strength of the winner's margin. It's not a pretty picture for the Democrats. But the main thing is that Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska account for only 25 electoral votes between them, fewer than the state of Florida all by itself, and two of them (Nebraska and Louisiana) voted solidly for George Bush in 2005 -- meaning they are hardly bellweathers for Democratic candidates.

Nobody would be better pleased than me to see Obama showing great strength (in a prior post I said I hope he gets the nomination as he seems like a softer target for McCain), but it's simply stupid to say he's doing that, and in fact all Obama really accomplished over the weekend was just to win largely insignificant Washington State, which voted Democratic in 2004. As the map clearly shows, the states that really matter to Democrats in the actual election contest against the Republicans are California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan. Clinton has prevailed in every single one of these states to have been contested so far except for Illinois -- and that's Obama's home turf. The only one left is Pennsylvania, which doesn't hold its primary until April 22.

In other words, if Obama does somehow manage to become the nominee, the Democrats may well turn out to have pulled a Dukakis (Mondale, McGovern) once again. They'll be sending the candidate who lost in their primaries all the states they must win in the general election, and the one utterly without a resume, to do battle against the party that has dominated presidential election contests since World War II and a candidate who is a legitimate national hero.

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Comments

Jeff says:

Wow! I see things a lot differently than you do. Democrats are fired up about both nominees and will support which ever one wins the nomination. The fact that Obama is winning nontraditional states is a sign of his strength in a general election. He will win traditional states easily because the democratic base is so consolidated right now. Obama has consistently pulled independents and even republicans in states that allow crossover voters. Obama will have a legitimate chance of winning southern states something Hillary will have a hard time doing. Obama would also make a better challenger to Mcain then Clinton. Clinton could not win the experience card against Mcain. Obama does not have too. Obama is playing the change card. This plays well against a 71 year old Washington insider that has not consolidated his base. In sum, I don't think you could have been any further off.

Vova says:

Inasmuch as I like Obama the man and am rooting for Obama the anti-Billary force, the sad news is indeed what you said: he is a man "utterly without a resume". Add to this that his campaign is totally devoid of substance and you get an impression that he's goofing off knowing full well that the MSM (New York Slimes, Volkischer Beobachter, and the like) will never dare challenge him. His is like the Malignant Little Troll's first "campaign" when he refused to reveal his platform lest it be criticized, and got away with it.
So I hope Hillary rights her ship--she just brought onboard a curruption-tainted new campaign manager. She's a good target for Hero John

Aris Katsaris says:

"Democrats are fired up about both nominees and will support which ever one wins the nomination."

I've seen many people indicate that they'd vote for McCain over Clinton but for Obama over McCain. And if I was an American citizen I'd be voting likewise. I have only seen one person to be indicating the opposite (Clinton over McCain, McCain over Obama).

His support from independents is Obama's greatest asset and as it's becoming more and more obvious, democrats that might have otherwise preferred Hillary will also head Obama's way to have the best chance to defeat McCain.

La Russophobe says:

JEFF:

I'm not sure you're able to distinguish between a candidate you like and one who can be elected in a national election.

Democrats have been "seeing things differently" for half a century now, and losing consistently. I bet you "saw things differently" in 2004 too, didn't you?

The man is utterly unqualified to be president, and he's not a pretty boy from a rich family like Kennedy was, the last time an unqualified person was elected (by a razor-thin margin). You don't appear to realize what a field day the Republicans will have with his background if he gets the nomination.

Obama has not articulated any platform of "change" -- all he does is spit pablum just like Gary Hart and his "new ideas" (Hart loves Obama). He's a blank slate because Hillary, fearing to alienate the black vote, has left him that way. In a general election, that will change mightily.

Aris Katsaris says:

Obama's platform is quite specific -- check his website.

And as for electability, you were the person that kept talking about the non-electability of *senators*, and now it seems both parties gonna be having a senator as their candidate.

"You don't appear to realize what a field day the Republicans will have with his background if he gets the nomination."

Am sure the Republicans will try to depend on lots and lots of bigotry about Obama's background -- muslim name, raised in Indonesia, etc, etc.

I think it'll backfire on them -- I think the American people are brighter than you believe them to be.

La Russophobe says:

ARIS:

It's pretty telling that while you claim Obama has a "quite specific" platform you don't deign to try to defend a single one of his alleged policies as being specific. And the point isn't what he's got on his website, which nobody reads, but what he says in his speeches. Can't you at least try to be a little bit fair?

In the same vein, Obama's resume is a postage stamp compared to McCain, especially in foreign policy. You seem to think that McCain being a Senator is good for Obama, but not vice versa. Excuse me for saying so, but that's kind of crazy. And if you thought my point had no validity, why do you raise it?

If you are suggesting that the American people will view Obama as being just as experienced and credentialed as McCain, then quite simply you're a nutjob who's not worth talking to.

Chris says:

Interesting analysis, but I think you're drawing incorrect conclusions. CA, NY, PA, NJ, IL, MA, MI may have a lot of delegates, but all but Pennsylvania and Michigan are solidly blue and it won't matter who the nominee is. The three big swing states are Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes, Kerry by 2.5% in 2004), Michigan (17, Kerry 3.4%), and Ohio (20, Bush, 2.1%) and either haven't voted yet or didn't have a legit primary.

If you look at the swing states that have voted, Obama has a slight edge (IA (7), MN(10), CO (9)) over Clinton (NH (4), NV (5)) but there isn't enough data to really draw any conclusions.

Aris Katsaris says:

"It's pretty telling that while you claim Obama has a "quite specific" platform you don't deign to try to defend a single one of his alleged policies as being specific."

Well it is certainly telling of the fact that you never accused him of being vague on any *particular* issue, and so I didn't know which particular policy to defend him on.

"And the point isn't what he's got on his website, which nobody reads, but what he says in his speeches. "

The speeches you are most aware of are the inspirational speeches. Inspirational speeches are never focused on specifics. I doubt McCain has described many policy details on *his* inspirational speeches either.

"In the same vein, Obama's resume is a postage stamp compared to McCain, especially in foreign policy."

Sure, but electability-wise, Obama's foreign policy attitudes is more popular than McCain's right now.

"If you are suggesting that the American people will view Obama as being just as experienced and credentialed as McCain, "

Don't put words on my mouth, I certainly don't claim that. Am just claiming that experience isn't *everything* that the American people will base their vote on.

La Russophobe says:

CHRIS:

"all but Pennsylvania and Michigan" is a pretty big mouthful young man. Lose either one and the Democrats are toast.

Perhaps you've forgotten that California has a Republican governor and that Mr. McCain is MIGHTY at drawing independents and free thinkers?

The main point is that Democrats winning Republican states means nothing. Nothing you've said challenges that point, and indeed you seem to support it.

Interesting analysis, but I think you're drawing incorrect conclusions.

Chris says:

Re: La Russophobe

In regards to PA and MI, all I'm saying is that we don't have any data to determine if Clinton or Obama has a better shot at taking the state in a general election.

As for the other 5 states that you say would kill the Democrat's chances if they lose them - I agree, but it will be no easy task for McCain. NY, MA, IL all went blue by over 10%. NJ was 6.7% but is in Clinton's backyard. California is probably the best chance, Kerry won it by 10% but Arnold is popular and McCain polls well. Immigration will probably be the huge issue there, it will be interesting how McCain approaches it.

Anyway, you're saying that Democrats winning in Republican states doesn't mean too much, and I'll counter that Democrats winning in Democratic states doesn't mean that much either, unless the state has a chance of flipping. What is much more interesting is how the candidates do with the independents - so far Obama has been strong with them, and Clinton is weak. McCain has historically been very strong as well, so is his biggest weakness a blunting attack on his strength (from Obama) or a galvanization of his opponent's core (from Clinton).

Personally I think that McCain matches up much better against Clinton - her current talking points (Experience! Toughness! Known quantity!) are useless against McCain's long resume, and while she may get her base, she also turns out the Republican opposition.

Bink1 says:

Think that in terms of the OLD politics you may have a point. Today, things have changed radically. The margins of win/lose are the mitgating factors-- that and the vote transfer from aisle to party to no affiliation. Momentum may play a role and considerable for the youth vote, however, strong negatives must be figured in.
THIS IS A NEW BALLGAME...Old politics dont seem to get the candidates to rise to the bait. Humour is the best part of this new election cycle and dogmatic calculation elicits a yawn...no matter who trie to spin it.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/638

Democratic Doings in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington

Filed under: US Elections

Comments

Post a comment

TrackBack