Texas is probably a bad example, because I can't imagine a scenario where either Dem candidate carries the day here. But what I'm saying is I can't see those Hispanics who voted for Hillary last night showing up in the same numbers to vote for McCain in November...or not showing up in similar numbers to vote for Obama in a general election.
After all of yesterday’s voting, projections show only an 8 to 10 delegate gain for Hillary. meh...
That's where you look at other tightly contested states to see if there's a trend. Look at Missouri, a Feb. 5 state when Clinton was considered the co-frontrunner nationally and there wasn't a Republican talk radio plea to vote for her. The race was essentially a tie (Obama 49, Clinton 48), but if you look at it, Obama dominated Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis... while Clinton won all other 115 or so counties in the state! Almost all of those are rural. There is definitely a trend in states where both Clinton and Obama campaign that Clinton has more success among working class voters in rural counties, a general weakness for Democrats in recent years. And that trend extends beyond the ridiculous Rush Limbaugh plan, which I don't think did much. Now, I'm not saying the total numbers aren't valid. Of course Obama drawing even more voters from urban areas impacts the voter margin, even if the Democrats would win those areas regardless of the candidate. But by that exact same logic, the same is true with Clinton in rural areas, and I don't think it's fair for you to dismiss that as relevant.
What I'm saying is I can't see those African Americans who voted 83 percent for Obama last night voting for a Republican in a general election. Sure, there will be a few holdouts -- just like there would be a few Hispanic holdouts if Obama wins the nomination. But by and large, the difference is negligible, imo.
i'm not talking about rural voters, specifically. i'm talking about republicans who found themselves voting in the dem primary. had it not been for rush's call to arms, would there have been as many showing up to vote for hillary? and what impact would have had overall? i don't expect you to have the answers to those questions...just thinking "out loud."
Oh, my mistake. I thought you were claiming Hillary's rural support in Texas was boosted by the Limbaugh plea... that's why I was comparing it to other states before the plea took place. I do think, however, that there's a general movement from Republicans away from Obama, at least compared to January. I think most of us can agree, regardless of what side we're on, that Obama is more left than Hillary. As a result, it's silly and superficially-based, imo, for any true conservative to support a candidate graded as the most liberal in the Senate. At the beginning of this campaign, his record wasn't as scrutinized and voters went more on personality. But now that records for all candidates are being thrown into the open on a daily basis, I think Republicans are trending away from him, at least compared to the enormous numbers that supported him early on.
This applies both ways. It's unclear whether either side's natural voters wouldn't vote for the other. Where most people think Obama has an advantage is that he is bringing in a ton of non-traditional voters into the process: young people, disillusioned people, first-me voters, etc. They are simply Obama-voters and may not vote at all if they aren't voting for him. Those are the people Hillary loses the most, I think. It's an opportunity to expand the Democratic Party, similar to how Reagan brought over many disillusioned Dems in 1980 - and who then became long-term GOP voters.
On the flipside, if you look at Missouri, Clinton won amongst Dems 50-47. Obama won Republicans 75-21, and Independents 67-30. There's a greater chance that Dems would be willing to vote for Obama than there is that Republicans/Independents would vote for Hillary.
I agree to some extent in that the 3AM ad and the like that focused on national security may have lowered his GOP support. But the reason GOPers are supporting Obama is not policy; it's leadership style. Of the votes that were used to compile that "most liberal in the Senate" thing, Obama and Clinton differed on a total of 2 votes if I remember properly. Kerry was also conveniently "the most liberal in the Senate" in 2004 too. Kinda odd that a conservative journal rates the opposing Presidential candidate the most liberal each of those years - but not in any other years. I'm not sure I'd put too much stock in that ranking. McCain, as a sidebar, wasn't rated due to "not enough votes".
I understand that. I've said all along that I really like both of these candidates, and while I certainly have a preference, there's no way in the world I don't vote for the Democratic nominee in November. For the long-term interest of the party, though, I think both have in-roads with specific demographics that Democrats haven't had before. You're right that Obama brings a lot of first-time voters and disillusioned folks into the Democratic side, but Clinton brings a lot of rural, working class Democrats into the fold that have been voting Republican for the past eight years, and sometimes it doesn't seem like the Obama folks recognize that. Personally, my guess is that it's a lot easier to get young voters to vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is, based on the platform of the party than it would be to get rural voters to vote for the Democratic nominee (against a Republican). I certainly don't know that and can't prove it, but I don't think it's the open and shut case that a lot of Obama supporters claim it to be.
And Obama's winning in states like Montana and Virginia, both of which are trending Dem and stand a much greater chance of going blue in the General election. Assuming results similar to the last few elections, the states on your list, TX will probably remain R, CA and NY will definitely be D. Missouri is ever so slightly trending blue and who the hell knows what's up with FL. If VA does go blue, that means the Repubs absolutely have to get Missouri, Ohio, and FL and hang on to every intermountain state from NM to MT and pick off one of Iowa, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. If VA stays red, and MT turns blue, that means the Dem nominee must win Ohio or FL or Mizzou and NM or any combo of Mizzou, CO, and Iowa or CO and any two of NM, NV, and ID. If both VA and MT stay red, Dems would need Ohio or FL or Mizzou and Iowa or some combo of Mizzou or Iowa with two of NM, CO, and NV. As much as the twins' rhetoric is escalated, McCain faces a much less forgiving electoral map than the Dem nominee will. Not to mention the demographic trends, general issues, Iraq, and the economy all favor the Dems this cycle. All that considered, I don't think this will play out like the past few... I think states like ID, NC, LA, and Ark... maybe even GA... will be in play and I don't see McCain sweeping Missouri, FL, and Ohio.
Oh, if you're talking about the big picture, absolutely. But when you look at the county breakdown, I'm pretty confident that Republican/Independent support is from the big city businesses and not the traditional rural/social conservative demographic. (Part of that stems from my belief that rural locations aren't being represented well enough in exit polling data, so I know this is speculative on my part.)
That makes a lot of sense with the exit polling. I've always wondered how that works since they can't have exit pollsters everywhere. I also find the rural/urban thing fascinating. Early in the contest, it seemed that Obama's strengths were rural and hers were urban, but that definitely seems to have flipped.
Yeah, I thought that too. But now that we have a larger sample, it seems the previous difference in rural areas had more to do with his ground game than any particular message. In the rural, caucus states like Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota... he had representatives on the ground daily, while she basically ignored them. That was the difference, imo. That's why I've started to look at trends in states where both campaigned, and if you look at it that way, the rural/urban split becomes slightly less bizarre than it seemed before. (EDIT: on a side note, this is exactly why Florida would have to have a re-vote and the results couldn't be counted as is. I know a lot of Clinton folks argue that Florida voters had access to all the information, but there's a clear trend in this race of local campaigning influencing voters.)
There are Clinton supporters that vehemently oppose Obama? Those 3 people don't compare to what is very likely millions who would not accept Hillary. What, do you argue, has Obama done to raise as much ire as Hillary has? And other than maybe some Republican Women who vote for Hillary, Obama is the one bringing in new life to the party.
Three people? Let's look at the numbers: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM Among all Texas voters, would you be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination? 70 percent said yes. Would you be satisfied if Obama won the nomination? 66 percent said yes. Furthermore, among the voters... "would you be satisfied only if Clinton wins"? 28 percent said yes. "Would you be satisfied only if Obama wins"? 24 percent said yes. You're arguing based on the way you think things should be. I'm arguing based on how things are. Look at the above question. The percentage of voters who would only be satisfied if Clinton wins is actually greater than the percentage of voters who would only be satisfied if Obama wins. It's a two-way street.
Isn't this a Democrat EXIT POLL? Do only Democrats, i.e. Democrats who voted in the Texas primary, get to vote for President? I'm arguing based on my beliefs and the polls that ask the right question. Only Obama beats McCain in national polls, not Hillary. And in polls where Obama is not defeating McCain, Hillary loses by more. The swing votes (in mass) generally won't be from staunch Republicans or Democrats, and the number of Reuplublicans and Independents who would be willing to vote for Obama over Hillary is huge. And unless she can undo history, she will NEVER get those votes. So if Hillary wins the candidacy and loses the election, you can comfort yourself in knowing that at least more Democrats will have been happy she won over Obama than the other way around.
That was just an example. Exit polls from other states reflect the same trend. Also, if you're the one throwing out something outlandish -- like the amount of Clinton supporters who wouldn't vote for Obama being about 3 while the amount of Obama supporters who wouldn't vote for Clinton being in the millions, the burden of proof is on you to find evidence to support that. There were several national polls in January that showed Hillary beating McCain. The polls you're citing were during Obama's 11-state winning streak. Polls have a funny way of changing depending on who the presumptive frontrunner or person with momentum is. Let's see where they are in a few days. Also, national polls don't particularly matter -- it's all state by state. The swing votes will also be from rural, working class voters who don't identify with any particular party. The number of those who would be willing to support Hillary over Obama is huge. Look at the results. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the problem is that you only consider one side of the equation. By the way, if it's Hillary against McCain, I'll be happy to bet any poster on this board $100 (tip jar, if you prefer) that she wins. Same for Obama against McCain. Electability isn't the slightest concern of mine.
