For a while now I have been torn between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Clinton has a more comprehensive health plan and would be, I believe, a strong President. Obama, on the other hand, could unify the party and would probably stand a better chance of beating McCain in November. After Super Tuesday, the two Democrats are locked in a dead heat, but I am beginning to question Obama's electability.
Last night when analyzing the exit polls, I noticed a disturbing trend. Let me provide the background:
Obama has also done extremely well in southern states such as Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama in which large percentages of Democratic primary voters have been black. This also makes sense.
Let me point something else out: Before Super Tuesday, pollsters were suggesting that Obama was leading in California and Massachusetts, and had a shot at winning New Jersey. These are northern primaries with mostly non-black voting populations. Obama also had the momentum going into these primaries. One would have expected great showings there.
This was not to be. Late-breaking voters in these states tended to swing towards Clinton, giving her four double-digit victories.
But was this a fluke? Let us look back on the previous primaries and caucuses:
I still believe that Obama is more electable with Clinton, but we can't take it for granted.
Last night when analyzing the exit polls, I noticed a disturbing trend. Let me provide the background:
- States select their choices for party nominees by one of two ways: primaries or caucuses
- Primaries are like regular elections, in which registered voters can enter the polling place, sign in, cast their vote, and leave. It is the simpler way, and many more people cast votes.
- Caucuses are meetings which take place in living rooms, church basements, and stores: wherever is convenient. They involve lengthy debating, negotiating, and re-voting, and therefore only attract the most active citizens in the state. Organizational advantage is incredibly important in caucuses, where Obama could (and did) focus on bringing people in to swing the election in his favor.
- Exit polls, for those who are unclear, involve asking people as they exit the polling stations for whom they voted and who they are. This data can be cross-referenced. For example, we can see from exit polls that 31% of people who attend church regularly voted for a given candidate.
Obama has also done extremely well in southern states such as Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama in which large percentages of Democratic primary voters have been black. This also makes sense.
Let me point something else out: Before Super Tuesday, pollsters were suggesting that Obama was leading in California and Massachusetts, and had a shot at winning New Jersey. These are northern primaries with mostly non-black voting populations. Obama also had the momentum going into these primaries. One would have expected great showings there.
This was not to be. Late-breaking voters in these states tended to swing towards Clinton, giving her four double-digit victories.
But was this a fluke? Let us look back on the previous primaries and caucuses:
- Iowa caucus - Obama had superior organization, he won decisively
- South Carolina primary - Obama had largely black electorate on his side
- Nevada caucus - On the same day as South Carolina, Obama had focused his efforts on the latter, allowing Clinton to do well with the mostly white and Hispanic voting populations.
- Florida primary - No campaigning there, but Clinton won by 20 points
- New Hampshire - There is no doubt that Clinton's emotional moment helped her out, but Obama went into it with a 12 point lead, and emerged with a 5 point loss.
I still believe that Obama is more electable with Clinton, but we can't take it for granted.
4 comments:
Your opinion on this is valid, probably correct, and shows terrific insight on the election. You are a mastermind. However, you point is kind of scary, especially because it's probably true. I guess John McCain (as I've been predicting all along) will president number 44.
i looked at many polls before California and obama was not ahead in California he was behind by 7% after a few months ago being down 20% there is no doubt obama is the better candidate because he can bring change and obama has the better health care plan because it allows people to get affordable health care and it also covers all children he was also against the war from the beginning im not disagreeing with you on everything but i think right now unifying not only the party but the nation too is what hes doing and thats more important than 35 years of experience btw he is beating hillary in polls with white men so he does have the white vote too ohio is going obama i live here i do think its obama's state i think he will win texas too
i am 15 and i have read into everyone and have been reading the audacity of hope and i honestly think he will change this country
Please check out Dick Morris' column on Hillary's electoral challenges. It might change your thinking a bit.
Question for Chris - How is it possible for someone with little experience in Washington be well equipped to change it? Would a new principal for your school who'd never been an administrator before and had been teaching for two years be someone with a good enough understanding of the mechanics of the school and the inside politics to be able to bring about the change, or would you want someone with experience and intimate knowledge of how the school operates?
http://vote.com/mailmachpro/clink_track.php?cust_id=859628&link_id=1331
as a gop supporter, i could be wrong, but i think if obama won the democratic nomination, he would have an initial surge and then independent americans would realize that he is perhaps the most liberal senator in Washington, and be turned off. McCain on the other hand although being primarily a conservative, upholds the image of being quite centrist.
Post a Comment