|
After South Carolina, though the pundits were marveling at Obama's rout of Clinton, the general talk was that Clinton was leading in every Super Tuesday poll and that Obama may have tagged himself with the burden of being the "Black candidate". The majority of Super Tuesday states were White (or worse, Latino) and there was some speculation as to whether or not Obama had earned a Pyrrhic victory in South Carolina. But now that day is behind us, which conclusions can we draw?
1) Obama played massive catchup
Obama came within 10 points of big, strong Clinton states like California and New Jersey, where she had her ground machine firmly established. His Illinois margin was double Clinton's New York margin. A few weeks ago, it was realistic to expect Clinton to win 18/22 states, but her winning just 8/22 was enough to give her supporters a sigh of relief. And Obama shows no signs of slowing down.
2) Obama has no problem with Whites
Obama destroyed Clinton in states west of the Mississippi, in John Edwards country. I think it's relatively safe to deduce that most of Edwards' support went to Obama, although Clinton's strength among blue-collar "lunchpail Democrats" may prove that thesis wrong. If Bill Clinton had tried to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson in order to try and peg him as the Black candidate, it failed. Nobody should question Obama's ability to draw White votes anymore.
3) Hillary dominates among Latinos and Asians
In California, I think Latinos went 60-40 for her and Asians went 70-30. Clinton won every Southwestern state (AZ, CA, NM), and that's a pretty important swing region. Ari Fleischer even suggested on CNN that if it came down to Obama and McCain, Latinos might go for McCain instead of typically rallying around the Democratic nominee. This is a headache for the Obama campaign.
4) Hillary is very popular among the traditional blue
Despite her polarizing status, Hillary is still popular in solidly blue states like NY, NJ, and CA. She somehow won the youth vote in California!
5) Republicans are desperate for a Clinton nomination
Ari Fleischer practically pleaded the Democrats to nominate Clinton, because Huckabee's resurgence shows that McCain has made too many enemies in the conservative establishment. McCain will undoubtedly be the Republican nominee, but when you have Limbaugh, Coulter, and Dobson calling for your head, it's difficult to be a party uniter. The only person who can take the heat off McCain is Hillary. Most conservatives don't have a good reason to vilify her so much, but that's the reality, and if the Democrats want to make a contest of the general election, they'll nominate Hillary; if they want a rout, they'll choose Obama.
----------------------------------------------
On the road to the nomination, who now has the ever-so-slight edge? I'd hate to tag him as a front-runner, but I'm going to say Obama. He won the expectations game on Tuesday night because everybody was talking about Clinton was positioned for a potential massacre. She did win the big states, but that was expected; what really matters were her comparatively small margins that stood in contrast to many Obama routs all over the country. New Jersey and California were won only by 10%, when polls a couple of weeks ago showed leads of over 20%. And it's a known fact that has Obama campaigns, people follow, and with a $32 million treasury, Obama stands in good shape for the next few primaries. Hillary has the momentum of winning MA and CA, but her funds are noticeably smaller, and she is not as good a campaigner as Obama. Plus, her advantage in identity politics (she has Latinos/Asians AND women, while Obama only has Blacks) will be rendered mostly moot, except in Texas. Obama has the money, the momentum, and the flow of endorsements that make him seem more viable with each passing day. But Clinton still stands strong with her strong appeal to Democrats.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
