Electoral Strength and Weakness Cuts Both Ways
On the delegate count side of things the totals are still not in from enough congressional districts to have a final count, but maybe Clinton picks up a dozen delegates out of 158 as I predicted. Still to be determined.
Pundits are latching on to the Clinton camp's questioning of Obama's November electability when he can't win in Ohio and Pennsylvania. However, a look at the results map in Pennsylvania shows that Clinton got most of her support in the less populous counties, while Obama excelled in places like Philadelphia. Sound familiar? It should because that was the pattern in the last presidential election, when Bush won in rural areas and Kerry won in urban areas. Clinton has been claiming Obama has been winning in so-called "Red States", yet hers is the campaign that has been weak in the urban Democratic strongholds.
How weak?
Well, just look at Philadelphia County's presidential election result from 2004 as compared to today's Democratic primary.
As of this writing, Obama received 279,921 (65%) votes and Clinton got 149,657 (35%).
In 2004, John Kerry got 542,205 (80%) and George Bush got 130,099 (19%).
I should note that in the 2004 primaries, which by that time were meaningless, Kerry got 94,072 (71%) to Howard Dean's 20,317 (15%), and for what it's worth, in that same primary Bush received more votes 26,759 than were cast for Republican candidates today.
These numbers reveal a number of things beside the fact Republican support looks to have dwindled.
Firstly, Democratic turnout was a far greater than in the past, and counted for 79% of the total of voters that voted for Kerry in the 2004 general election. The Pennsylvania primary was a closed primary, so only registered Democrats could vote for Obama or Clinton, and November 2007 registration numbers suggest that there are at least 749,652 registered Democrats in Philadelphia County, making today's turnout around 57%.
More importantly though is that Kerry crushed Bush in 2004 in Philadelphia County, so how can Clinton claim she will be the better Democratic candidate when she can't win in such an urban Democratic stronghold?
If she wants to make the argument that voters in Republican states are meaningless, then the corollary must hold true that the voters in Democratic urban strongholds, particularly in swing states, must be vital voters to win.
Yet she hasn't been able to, not in Philadelphia, and not in many other cities around the country.
At the end of the day, this is a fruitless exercise that will not change the math and the reality of the primary. Obama is within reach of clinching the nomination and Clinton still trails by 130 or so delegates. That gap will surely grow when North Carolina weighs in and Indiana is also looking like a state Clinton can't count on gaining delegates in. Yet Hillary will forge on because she in this for herself, and has little regard for what's best for the Democratic Party. That's a shame. She only sullies herself in the process.
Posted at 4/23/2008 12:05:00 AM PT
Permanent Link
4 Comment(s):
Are you an idiot? How does Hillary sully herself OR the Democratic process by sticking it out until the last vote is cast? Isn't THAT the democratic process?
And speaking of votes, the so called 'Democratic' party is disenfranchising TWO states worth of voters (and they thought 'W' was bad!).
Obama has all the flair of the flavor of the month and/or the pet rock. People queue up and stand in line thinking they are getting something really great when in reality it is a flash in the pan, smoke and mirrors. He hasn't sponsored/passed any legislation of his own. He has "co-sponsored" (jumped on the bandwagon really) numerous items but nothing he can call his. He is a junior senator with no clout or power and he thinks he can change things just because he says so. The reality of the Presidential office is working well within the established parameters of the political machine.
If the fine balance of power we Democrats now have somehow swings to the other party with him as our President then he, and the Office, really will be meaningless.
I find it strange that people can't see the Presidency as something a woman can do. In my opinion, Obama is popular simply because of his gender and nothing else. Not his ideas, his blackness or lack of, nor his, change for the sake of changing, speeches. People just climb on because it is still unseemly for a woman to want, or attempt to, attain the ultimate power position in this country.
I find that a sad testament to the state of this country.
Obama was given a free media pass for almost a year while his opponent was faced with daily, if not hourly, criticism about everything from 'real' tears to defending herself, AGAIN, over Bill. Obama was a poster child for all things good as far as the news media was concerned.
Hillary has proven herself far more and far better, and on a deeper level, than Obama ever can, has, or will. He comes across as an elitist. He makes me believe that just because he has succeeded as a black man that he is somehow transcendent of needing to prove himself or whatever he speaks, most of which he cannot. He talks of change we can believe in but change simply to change, with no plan or cohesion, is chaos. After 8 years of anarchy we don't need chaos.
If he is so upstanding and forthright, and worried about the people and party, then let him accept the Vice Presidency for the next two terms, then be the President for the next two following that. That would be 16 years of change he can believe in AND point to as the high road.
Wow.
So let me get this straight. In this country when you lose you get the Presidency?
No wonder we got Bush on 2000.
People were told the only choice was Clinton. Then a funny thing happened: they decided that was so and have given Obama record support.
Clinton has had no realistic chance to win this for three months, and while she has every right to stay in the race, she's done so with no regard to the consequences of her doing so.
Clinton fatigue is real. This primary has shown that. Every day she continues to actively pursue the nomination despite not having the delegate count needed to win it is one more day too long.
As for "disenfranchising", please don't misuse that term. Whether Clinton gracefully bows out or not, the primary votes will still take place, and people will still get to vote for her if they so choose, just like they have for Edwards.
People could say when Edwards left the race he "disenfranchising" voters, but he didn't. People recognized the reality of the race and most chose to vote for the remaining candidates.
The primary system has been the same for years and years. Those states that hold their primaries later aren't in a situation they haven't been in before. No one said they were being "disenfranchising" in years past.
Clinton has decided that she will do anything to win the nomination regardless of what that does for her party. That's the problem people have with it.
Oh, and regarding the "elitist" charge, pray tell, how is Clinton not an elitist. How much money did she make last year? Which universities did she go to?
Please.
The truth is, we want the best and brightest running our companies and running our country. We've seen what Bush type smarts have done for us.
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.
Links to this post:
Create a Link