Barack Obama had a great night on Super Tuesday. Thanks to superior organization (especially in the mountain west caucus states), he won more overall states than Hillary Clinton and more than held his own in the delegate count.
In looking at the results, however, it is quite clear to me that Barack's strength came from liberal democrats, liberal leaning independents and african americans, constituencies that vote democratic in general elections no matter who the candidate is. He did not do well among the marginal constituencies that democrats need to carry in order to win general elections: working class white americans and latino voters. Hillary Clinton carried these constituencies and demonstrated her strength as a potential general election candidate.
Obama had several advantages in Tuesday's elections. He was better organized and outspent Hillary in the caucus states. He had far more positive press coverage that was sustained over several consecutive days. Hillary received the type of negative and dismissive press coverage that Gore experienced in 2000. African American voters completely abandoned her. The Democratic establishment in DC completely abandoned her.
Yet, Hillary Clinton appears to have received more votes than Barack Obama overall in the states holding contests on February 5th. Her actual vote total was far greater than predicted by the exit polls. She was a formidable candidate in rural and suburban counties and with non-African American voters in urban areas. She won more big states. Although Obama's wins in Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Idaho, Utah and Alaska were impressive, Democrats have no chance of carrying any of these states in the fall. The caucus system does not reflect how elections are run in the fall. They do not account for early and absentee voting, all day voting, and do not not have flexibility to accommodate voters work/family needs.
In states like California and Missouri, Obama won counties that Democrats always carry in general elections (e.g., San Francisco, Alameda counties in CA, St. Louis County in MO). He did not demonstrate an ability to win in suburban or rural counties. With such results, he would not beat John McCain in Missouri in the fall. Furthermore, given that McCain is from the west, it is not likely that voters in that region will abandon him for Obama, as the region already leans conservative and McCain's politics and heritage fit the demographics better than Obama. Therefore, Obama's victories in the mountain west, while important from the standpoint of earning delegates, are illusory if one thinks that these results will have any bearing on the general election in those states.
Obama certainly put himself in a good position to win the nomination, but Democrats may want to think twice before handing over the nomination to him. The data from yesterday's contests show that Hillary Clinton is the one proving to be the most electable candidate. She can effectively challenge John McCain in the states that Democrats have a chance to win in the areas and demographics where McCain would be strongest. An Obama victory would mean that we would be selecting a candidate with the traditional Democratic disadvantage in rural counties and that hasn't worked out well for us in the last 2 elections or the 3 elections prior to Bill Clinton's 1992 victory. Bill Clinton outperformed most Democrats and carried many rural counties in places like Ohio and Missouri on his way to two general election victories. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated the ability to do the same. Barack Obama has not done so. He's simply winning the liberal and african american vote in a Democratic primary. That's not enough to win in November.
I voted for Hillary Clinton yesterday and was proud to do so. If Obama wins the nomination I will support him. As I look at the results, however, I think my choice for Hillary was more than validated. She is not only ready to be President, she is better positioned to win in November.