Reviewing what happened in Ohio, Armstrong has this to say:
The rout in Ohio happened. Obama has a huge electability problem in the state. He took a total of 5 counties, and lost in 82 counties. Even though he's able to rack up a large number of urban black voters he did terrible among white voters, winning just 34 percent.
You don't win a general election in Ohio if you can only win in 5 counties. I realize I'm speaking out against the other members in my tribe, the wealthy post-graduate male clique of punditry, in pointing out Obama has a problem in Ohio. So be it.
In Ohio, Clinton won the votes of Democrats by a 14 percent margin, 56-42. Clinton and Obama tied among Republican & Independent voters. I find it ironic that the most strident of "progressives" find themselves backing the candidate whom does the least well among self-declared Democrats.
And lets not forget that Obama outspent Clinton by a 3 or 4:1 margin, and had the union help. There's no amount of money or youth organizing that is going to change the dynamics at work against Obama in Ohio in the November general.
We'll see in a month, but my guess is that we get about the same map coming out of Pennsylvania. There is not a winning Democratic electoral map which doesn't include either or both Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Yea, Wyoming is going to vote next. A place where Bush won 70 percent of the vote in 2004 and where Democrats will lose handily again in 2008. Neither Clinton or Obama will even return to the state past its caucus in a few days. It'll have about 20,000 people attend caucuses, and let Obama fans say that Ohio's win by Clinton doesn't matter, that Obama gained just as many delegates in Wyoming. This is process-powered politics; it may figure out well enough to take a lead in pledged delegates, but it's not a winning formula for the general election.
No comments:
Post a Comment