May 21 2008
Obama Can’t Win For Losing
Seems the Dems still have their tie going on given how the two candidates clobbered each other in different states yesterday (see here for the results and vote tallies to date). Clinton’s 35% and 250,000 vote win in KY was a route, a complete repudiation of Obama - again. It happened in West Virginia, and it happened in other large states in the rust-belt area. Obama is not closing the sale, and in the middle of the country he is, in fact, losing ground. In liberal Oregon Obama won by a respectable 17% and some 93,000 votes, but that only indicates how many Californians have retired to Oregon - not Obama’s ability to carry the state.
Here’s the deal, once you get outside of the major liberal cities like Washington, New York City, Los Angeles, etc you run into Main Street USA, where people are more like Kentucky than they are the liberal side of Oregon. Even Oregon is not as liberal as the liberal side of Oregon. Obama is not selling outside the far left enclaves of the big cities. Worse, he is in fact starting to be rejected by those outside the far left enclaves. All of these dynamics have been shrouded behind national polls that over sample these large population centers.
The truth of this is in the exit polls in KY where, by the end of the day, a whopping two-thirds of democrat voters said they would rather vote Republican or not at all than vote for Obama:
Two-thirds of Kentucky Democrats said they would rather vote Republican or not at all if Obama were the nominee facing McCain, according to exit polls. The percentage was slightly worse than exit poll data from West Virginia, where Clinton also won big.
Emphasis mine. Geez, I thought Bush and McCain were unpopular with their base! But there is a big difference between the problem Bush and McCain have and Obama now has. Bush and McCain gather their rock hard support from the center-right, those pragmatic enough to knowing even marginal progress is better than losing ground to the liberals. McCain can win by gathering a center right coalition, even if the far right sits home in a snit.
Clearly Obama has a very different problem now. He is the darling of the far left only. He was supposed to be the centrist democrat, bridging the aisle and all that. But to beat Clinton he has had to move left somewhat, and the public eye has exposed his liberal (and very out of the mainstream) roots and beliefs. Obama’s base is the marginal far left AND he is being rejected by those center-left to center-right. That is the only way you lose 66% of the democrat voters in a state like KY - you are too much a die-hard San Fran liberal type.
And that is what Obama is - a die-hard San Fran liberal trying to snooker all those bitter, bible thumping, gun toting, rubes into believing he is there for them and their values. And moreover he is a neophyte when it comes to a tough, national race against a seasoned opponent. I used to think Clinton was the easier candidate to beat because of her name. But with rejection numbers like this in the Democrat voting block it seems clear Obama is going to get his clocked clean by McCain. I now understand why Obama is not 10-15% points ahead of McCain like all democrats are at this stage in the presidential elections.
The race is not over, anything can happen. But the likely result will Obama, now the nominee, will continue to take hits and be deflated - which will send even his far left voters into a funk where they lose their will to vote in a lost cause. Obama really can’t win for losing in this one it seems.
36 Responses to “Obama Can’t Win For Losing”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] Continue Reading [...]
Well CNN stopped updating pretty much with 88% of the vote in last night but from what I am seeing on the numbers the turnout percent of registered voters should be close to the 2004 primary in Oregon and better than the dip in 2006 midterm.
However it is NOT going to be a big higher turnout like many preceding states were.
Now part of that comparison is Obama adding young voters, which were high per the exit polls in Oregon and the fact that Kerry was already the guy for the party in 04 and like McCain it depressed primary voting since the guy had already been picked.
But with what looks to be almost stagnant primary turnout to a so so 04 primary it doesn’t say much for the idea Obama is trying to push of him on a wave.
Also his claiming a majority of the pledged delegates is bogus since it leaves out millions of voters from Fl and Mi.
McCain looks to have pulled more votes than Clinton did and this is with a state that gave Paul over 40k or 1 in 6 votes, which says volumes about Oregon.
Poor, poor Barack Obama.
Perhaps he can console himself with the following new polling data from Reuters:
once again…this blog is so far to the “right” that the center looks left from out there on the fringe. bush’s only centrist stand is on immigration and his base completely abandons him on that. un-ending war, torture, illegal wire-tapping, and ginormous deficits are not centrist.
merlin…the delegates from mi. and fla. have not been “seated”…therefore, until they are, his claim is 100% valid. when the delgates are seated, most likely at 50%, then the math will change. what is dubious is clintons claim of the popular vote, which requires all of florida and michigan and that you discount all of the caucus states. in addition delgates nominate, not the popular…as much as i dislike that it’s the rules all agreed to play by. basically clinton is asking that all the rules be changed for her…which is what they are all about.
AJ,
Should we pay any attention to polls between now and November?
One suspects that the machine has the pollsters as locked in
as the “news” organizations.
“All of these dynamics have been shrouded behind national polls that over sample these large population centers.”
Should we tell soothie and norm about this?
hehehe
Sooth & Norm, what’s it like supporting and hoping for a Marxist? Haven’t you learned that lesson yet? Just what, pray tell, in concrete ideas of course, and not that just that the guy gives you a chubbie whenever he speaks, does this candidate have to offer us?
McCain is also starting to catch up with the money. In fact the RNC has more money than the DNC and the Obama campaign is now spending more than it is taking in.
And the general election has not really begun yet.
I think McCain will pick up a lot of these people and that is what should be worrying the Democrats.
As for polls, it is the electoral college that matters. Instapundit had a link to Slate that showed yet another electoral college count with Obama in trouble.
as for norm and soothie, ignore the poor pitiful creatures.
norm:
Actually Bush had majority support on the drug prescription plan and his judges as well as other programs. The man did not win two terms by being out of touch with the majority. After 9/11 he had really high numbers. The problems came later. Obama has not thus far managed to gain that kind of support inside his own party, much less the country. Ever.
Terrye, Those “problems”, as you call them are his fall in popularity due to his fall from grace amongst conservative issues. The Dems were always going to hate him. That leaves the low rating due to indies, centrist, mods, and conservatives. And since Bush has drifted towards the center ever since his first election, it doesn’t take a genius to see what causes his unpopularity. If “centrism” were the true American trend, Bush’s popularity would be rising.
75:
Bush did not drift toward anything. His attitudes on issues like immigration are the same today as they were when he was elected. It seems to me that the right wing pundits were the ones who did the drifting, right off a cliff.
Bush still has strong support from Republicans.
I mean really, what changed? Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. He did not pretend he was the second coming of Newt Gingrich.
He was talking about No Child Left Behind when he was running against Gore. He was talking about guest worker programs when he was the Governor of Texas.
Bush stayed truer to the right than they did to him. He did not falter when it came to pro life issues, whatever the public opinion polls might have said. He did give into the doves on national security, even when the war in Iraq was killing him in the polls.
Bush could have helped himself in terms of poll numbers many times just be walking away from the right. But he did not. Whatever paranoid crap they might say to the contrary.
Bush is a Republican president and somehow people on the right thought that bitching about him was going to help the rest of the party win support. That is stupid.
It had the opposite effect.
The thing that pisses me off is that Bush can take crap from the right, but they will sing the praises of some guy like Tom DeLay who got himself indicted and helped bring that whole corruption K street stuff into Congress in the first place. Do you think that helped Republicans?
No, if you want to bitch about Bush go to HuffPo or DU or Daily Kos, you will be more at home there.
And if centrism were not the trend, McCain would not have the nomination.
When was the last time the far right won an election? Look at Congress.
The trend in the House for the Democrats is to go center with the Blue Dogs. Whatever craziness Obama and Hillary might be up to, my Congressman Brad Ellsworth makes a point of sounding positively rational. He wants no part of that whole debate.
The Republicans that do best are the moderates, or as 75 would call them the RINOs. But then again I don’t think they are the RINOs. They are Republicans, and they want Republicans to win. They are not the ones who are constantly threatening to sit home and let the Democrats win.
You just said so yourself. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative.” So if he favored the conservatives to get elected, why wouldn’t he continue to favor them once in office?
And as I’ve said repeatedly, the only reason McCain is our candidate is
A) we didn’t have a strong conservative candidate,
B) he’s the media’s chosen golden boy and
C) the Dems have given us two far left candidates.
None of these point towards any big groundswell of centrist support. In fact, and I’ve stated it before, the Democrats themselves have given us far more reasons to vote against them than McCain has given us to vote for him. And that indifference, is what you should really be worried about…not some conservative boogeyman that doesn’t exist.
And one more thing 75, most Americans do not think of Bush as centrist. Most Americans think of Bush as conservative. That is just the way it is. You might not see it that way, but they do. They have said so time and again in all sorts of polls. They do not think of him as far right however, most Americans do see a difference.
That is why Newt Gingrich could never win a national election. That is why Tancredo can’t either.
When did Bush not favor conservatives? When they accused him selling out the American people to the Mexicans? When they accused him selling the ports to terrorists so that they could kill us all? When they accused him of trying to put a liberal on the supreme court?
There was not a strong conservative canidate, because the country is moving away from conservatism. It will undoubtedly move back. In the UK the politics are moving toward the right, these things do cycle.
The truth is the conservatives do not want to face certain realities. It is easier to pile on Bush and help the Democrats make his life a living hell than it is to face the fact that the Republicans in Congress did not nothing to help themselves. That way they don’t have to change. They can party like it is 1994 forever.
But times change. And one thing I have learned, there are people on the fringes out there who have no loyalty at all to any party.
But hey, why change. Just lose in 06 so that you can win in 08 and lose in 08 so that you can in 10. Once Bush is gone everything will be fine for Republicans. Sure. But then the right will just start doing the same thing to McCain that they did to Bush.
And I do not believe in boogey men conservative or otherwise. I vote a straight Republican ticket 75 and if that is not good enough for you then maybe you are the one with the boogeyman problem.
Hey Hadit:
Hate to bust your bubble, but the there is a far greater likelihood that the algorithms being used by the pollsters don’t include factors for the massive numbers of new voters who will flock to the polls in November to get rid of the Republican nightmare.
Like I said, the futures markets have it at 62-38 Dems v. Republicoids™ . . . and its only going to get worse the ‘coids.
AJ,
Good post. And good observation that California retirees vote in Oregon. It’s full of nature worshippers anyway.
McCain supports victory in the War, tax cuts, elimination of the AMT, human life over privacy, respectful workable immigration solutions and the American interests in general.
He has been tested by fire and his unpredictability should send chills up the back of our enemies here and abroad.
Seldom does a candidate meet all our specifications, but McCain meets most and is a true American.
So if most Americans see Bush as conservative, why are you always in his corner regardless of his position? If he’s a conservative, as you say, and his popularity has plummeted, that would dovetail nicely with your theory that the country is going centrist, right? So why are you always in Bush’s conservative corner yet no one else’s?
Now, just for fun, and a little ribbing, can we always expect 4 postings from you when you say “and just one more thing”?
And if centrism vs conservatism “cycles” as you say, then why would one opt or one over the other? Are you saying voters “cycle” away from what works to what doesn’t work? What makes you cycle in and out of principles? Do you cycle out of immigration? Abortion? The war on terror? When are your principles for sale?
And how can you claim that the “fringes” have no loyalty to a party when almost all lefties are Democrats and all conservatives are Republicans? Your backing of “centrist” republicans and “conservative” democrats just disaproves this statement by default.
And what makes you think “change” is good for the country? Are we to accept your “change” because “times change”? Obama is for change too. Should we get on board with his change because “that’s just the way it is”?
And who taught you that weaving in and out of positions and constantly painting yourself into a corner was a good debate tactic?
And finally, which idiot taught you that avoiding a link that might exonerate your position was a good tactic?
75:
Am I ready to accept change? Change happens, it has nothing to do with what I accept. It is just IS.
You are drawing too many lines here. Most people who know me, think of me as a center right kind of person. They think I lean conservative. I do. You seem to think that both sides are monolithic, but they are not. A lot of people are moderate on some things, conservative on others, liberal on some. It is not black and white for everyone.
Bush has always been pro life, for all the good it has done him, and yet you do not seem to think he is a REAL conservative. Why? Because you say so that is why.
Or so it seems. I really do not know what you mean when you say Bush is not a real conservative. Meanwhile the Democrats treat him like Hitler. They certainly consider him a conservative. I think Bush is just what he says he is, a compassionate conservative.
My principles are not for sale. I voted for Bush and I still support him. I still support the war on terror. I am not going to abandon that.
Bush could have helped his numbers a lot by abandoning Iraq, but he did not do that. Bush could have helped his numbers a lot by taking popular stands and supporting embryonic stem cell research and Kyoto. You can say that not going further to the right hurt him on immigration, but since the country seems damn close to electing a liberal like Obama who is way to the left of him on that issue, I don’t think his stance on immigration hurt him with the general public. I do think that the far right’s rhetoric on the issue hurt them, however.
So I am not the one in a corner. I have been consistent. I did not elect a man who supported comprehensive immigration reform and then get in a snit when I discovered he supported immigration reform. I did not elect a man that I knew was concerned with improving the educational system and then get in a snit when he supported No Child Left Behind.
And I don’t know what that business about the link means. But I have to admit, I think this conversation is a waste of time.
Exonerate my position with a link. What a hoot, like it would make a difference. What exactly am I supposed to link? That Tom DeLay was indicted? That Newt Gingrich can not win a general election? That Bush is pro life? That the UK is about to go to the right? That Republicans are not winning elections right now? Do you need help with these things. Are they not self evident?
I also think that the price of gas has more to do with Bush’s and Congress’s low numbers than any particular policy. This is just an opinion, so don’t expect a link. But I think it scares people and pisses them off to see that gas price go up and up. And of course, there is really not a lot to do about that in the short term. And since people prefer conspiracy theories to economic realities is just easier to blame the oil companies.
But what the hell do I know?
Terrye, the “those who know me” arguement goes about as far as it has the other times you’ve pulled it out…just another ridonkulous and stupid debating tactic.
Nice try…again.
As for the link, I was referring to the other day when I sent you a link to a video regarding Conman’s claims about McCain and negotiations with Hamas. If you recall, you refused to even view it which is the very thing we’ve come to expect of you in this forum. Put the big girl pants on and come back when you’re ready.
What the hell do you want me to look at?
I saw a video over at Hot Air about the same thing,. It was part of an interview done with McCain back when Hamas won the election….and if I remember right this was right after you went out of your way to be obnoxious with me.
Why should I bother when you obviously have no respect for me or my opinion.
And if the “those who know me” means nothing, then what does any of this mean? We are strangers arguing on the freaking internet for Chrisake.
So go ahead, call me a liar.
Here is the link about John McCain and Hamas from over at Hot Air
You’re not going to cry again, are you?
And why would I send it to you again? So you can refuse to watch it again? And then you expect respect?
And if you will recall, the obnoxiousness started when you whined that Conman and I were “teaming” up on you but that’s not really relevant is it.
But as to your last point, why would I call you a liar? I don’t think you’ve shown any dishonest tendencies yet, have you? You have something you want to share with us? Enlightened and wise comments will earn our respect but dumb ones will only earn our scorn. So step up, offer some wisdom, and receive your kudos. I’d enjoy givin you some for a change.
I think the right abandoned Bush because his numbers were starting to slide and they wanted to save themselves. It had nothing to do with principle. He just ceased to be a benefit to them.
75:
Oh, so that remark about “those who know me” was not questioning my honesty.
I am not crying. I am just saying that you can dish it out, but you can not take it. And as far as conman is concerned, I was just noting the irony in the fact that you and a leftie both felt the need to jump on me. It was almost as if you were on the same side.
Maybe you are. After all, you could be anybody. Even one of those “pretend” conservatives.
So buzz off. We are done.
Uh, no Terrye. The “those who know me” comment was pointing out yet another piece of non-evidence you constantly draw on to make your point, which of course, doesn’t help your point in the least. Why would I call you a liar when I have no way of authenticating such a claim anyway? That, by the way, is what makes your claim so pointless. None of us know you, those who know you, or even care who you or they are…it’s an irrelevent comment that I would expect from a dumb college kid in a Che Guevara T-shirt. Dishonest? No, but utterly meaningless. Would you accept my intelligence level as a given if I told you “those who know me” think I’m brilliant? Of course you wouldn’t…all we have to go on are our comments here and yours speak volumes so if you can’t handle constructive criticism, wear a cup.
Hard to believe I have to spell out such simple logic to anyone let alone someone in this forum who isn’t a Democrat but hey…such are our times we live in…when 40% of our country is willing to vote for leftists and another 40% like yourself are willing to play ball with them! “Compromise” is what I believe you call it.
Hmmmm…”So buzz off. We are done.” sounds vaguely familiar to what you said last time you got slapped around in this forum. I know it’s tough hon but wear a cup…eventually you’ll get something right and I’ll be the first to congratulate you. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure I’ve given you some pops in the past. Must have been a long time ago, huh?
A little off topic but she sure does crack me up!
http://www.anncoulter.com/
I saw an analysis earlier that seems about right that since Obama has as his main support the Elites and young college types and Blacks he ends up with most of them in urban settings and those are the counties he is winning in all the states so far.
The theory is that the pollsters tend to call urban areas and thus have a higher chance of hitting an Obama supporter.
Looks like it could be enough to influence the polls from 3 to 7 points from their take on the issue.
[...] for trouble because he was losing moderated democrats who were flocking to Hillary (see here and here for examples). The indicator this would happen would be polls showing no bump for Obama if he won [...]
[...] gun owners or not? Who knows, but he clearly is misleading someone here (and maybe everyone). Here I posted on how he was supposed to be the centrist, but was talking far left behind the scenes. Now he seems [...]