My two cents. An insightful rant/analysis/temperature post Pennsylvania
Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:57:05 PM PDT
It's been a long, or short night for many of us, depending on who we rooted for, and how we coped with it. I for one, expected, and prepared for a Hillary win, despite the fact, I kept fighting the idea, that Obama, could pull it off. Ok he lost! Move on guys! Here's a couple of things.
The MSN needs to stop saying "Obama has struggled to reach working class white voters". That may of been the case in Ohio and Pennsylvania. But that was not the case in Iowa, Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota & Vermont, etc. It's funny, if you let them do the talking all the time, you never get a chance to think & say " oh yeah, that's true".
It's all geographical, as well as racial, demographical. But the media has a tendency to generalize/sensationalize, for their intere$t.
Remember, There are some areas that Obama wins the working class white vote, and others where Hillary does.
Think about this. Hillary Wins the rustbelt (Ohio, Penn, maybe Mich?), and Obama wins the heartland (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana?). He also won the white working class in Virginia/Maryland as well. note: Obama's actually polling even, or ahead of Clinton in Michigan currently. But what this all suggest is, it doesn't mean, he "can't win" those "rustbelt states" in the General (he's already polling ahead of John McCain & Hillary Clinton in Penn, as well as the previously mentioned Michigan)anyway.
One thing that's forgotten, Besides the blacks, the young, and the over $50,000/educated crowd, Obama always brings the independents. A group the media almost never relates to Obama, when discussing his appeal/chances. Hillary can't win over the independents! Impossible!
But the bottom line is, Obama is winning a larger demographic overall than Clinton, cause he is ahead by all measure (30:15 contest won, larger popular vote, more delegates). So calm Obama fans.Even the popular vote is a "roost", cause (despite the fact Obama has won more primaries than Clinton), he has won a bunch of caucauses, where you can't quantify/count the vote. One estimate said, he be up another 700,000 if those were votes.
As we know, Obama and has won much more predominately white states, than Sen. Clinton has. But the MSN, doesn't like to talk about that. Why? Cause it doesn't fit their talking points or Meme. I know many of us know this. But sometimes it's easy to forget (especially the night, after an Obama Primary loss, and another shrill Hillary speech).
And of course, we have our cable networks, we love to hate. Don't we all love, how Pat Buchanan talks, when he says, "Why can't Obama win Pennsylvania if he's the party's frontrunner". I always find those type of statement's rich. Cause, it's the same media, that portrays this as a horse race in the first place. How are Hillary's, "low information" voter supposed to know, when both she and the media, keep selling this thing like she has a chance. What irony.
But there in lies the problem. Hillary's voters (not to sound elitist),as mentioned are older, ethnic/working class, and immigrants (in other states). Those voters, don't consume politics on cable, radio and the newspaper, as Obama's base does (in general). Neither do they have time (Hillary's base), the interest or open mind, to research/find out, for themselves on the internet.
For-example, If you noticed, when you ask most elderly Clinton Supporters why they don't like/vote for Obama, you get a lot of "stilted" or clichéd answers, that make no sense sense? Their emotional gut decisions says, things like "well the economy was good while her husband was in office, maybe it'll be good to have him in the white house again"). Hillary's base, actually says stuff like that, all the time. Lol.
It's not hard to explain the Catholic vote either. But it's never answered/discussed on TV. Most Catholics, in states like Pennsylvania and RI, are the same much discussed white ethnics/blue collars (i.e Italians, pols, Irish, etc., in eastern and Rustbelt states), that "won't vote for Senator Obama". Many of the above, vote for Hillary (when they do), because she's familiar to them. She's all they know. There's no rhyme, rational or reason at all. Obama's too new/different to them.
Hell the "big state" argument needs to be kept in context also by the media. Besides the obvious (name recognition, multiple TV markets/$$$, time), these are all machine states, with complicated/intricate demographics. Having the various Governor's and mayors in your pocket always helps (Clinton). These states also contain, large groups of ethic whites/working class whites/Catholics we discussed previously (that's helps her in certain states).
Lastly, Obama will win NC by 20-30points and Indiana (almost similarly to Wisconsin) by 13 points. I told all my friends, months ago, that this thing would end (literally, or in the SD's minds) on May 6th. Don't worry it will. Does Obama have a chance of losing Indiana. Certainly! Do I think he will? Absolutely not. As far as North Carolina. You notice the media, is not even giving it a second thought. Gee! Gee! Isn't it funny how Obama, can close in/win on a state he's down in (and get no credit), and states, that Hillary's expected to lose (or no one thinks she can win) she seemingly never gets penalized for it. She can skip it (the state), or they'll ignore it (like Missisipi and Wyoming 6wks ago), regardless of the margin of victory (if it' Obama)? What is she going to do, 2 wks from now? Is she going to try to spend money, and keep the vote down in NC, or try to win Indiana? Mmmmmh?
Either way; Hillary's going to get smoked Kossacks in IN/NC! There's no way they will be able to spin that one, in their constant game of Obama goal post moving (yes Obama will carry large swaths of the white demographics in both NC and Indiana, that he's carried before, that they like to criticize lately).
Unfortunately, the media/Republican's, seem to be setting him up for the general against McCain, with the previous mantra(Hillary's demographic base), and current talking points (the new Kerry/Dukakis/Un American candidate).
But what they don't realize is. This is not 2000, or 2004. "Where not going to take it anymore", as the song once said!
Permalink | 5 comments