Few voters outside Obama's existing support care about "The Speech"

Kurt_and_Hunter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-19-08 04:03 PM
Original message

Few voters outside Obama's existing support care about "The Speech"

Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 04:20 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter

It was a great speech. It appealed to Obama supporters, talking heads, super delegates and decent left-leaning people like myself.

I loved it. And I expect that almost everyone who say it liked it.

But that doesn't make it a vote-mover or even an opinion mover. I was thrilled by it, while being simultaneously aware while watching it that it wasn't an electoral positive... it's neutral. It preached mightily to the choir, shoring up some wavering support among white Obama fans while marking him as "the race candidate" to everyone else. It made the media less hostile, but for suburban swing voter types it raised more questions than it answered.

Rasmussen: "Just one night of polling is included since Obama’s speech and that single night result is not much different from the four-day average. The reason for today’s Obama bounce is that Friday night’s results have rolled out of the four-day sample. Following the initial media frenzy over Pastor Wright, Friday’s results were the single worst night of polling for Obama since the Primary Season began."

Gallup: "This is the first time Clinton has held a statistically significant lead in over a month. She last led Obama in Feb. 7-9 polling, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. Since then, the two candidates have usually been in a statistical tie, but Obama has held a lead in several of the polls, most recently in March 11-13 polling. Obama's campaign has been plagued by controversial remarks made by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama delivered a major speech on race Tuesday to try to move beyond the controversy. The initial indications are that the speech has not halted Clinton's gaining momentum, as she led by a similar margin in Tuesday night's polling as compared to Monday night's polling.

Obama will get killed in the general election. That doesn't mean he must not be the nominee... To me, viewing the SCOTUS as paramount, I cannot rationalize the upside of losing. But a lot of super delegates will pick Obama, while understanding the situation and fully expecting him to lose in November, because they think it's better for the party to lose with Obama than possibly win with Clinton. There are calculations about the down-ticket effects of black turn-out in some congressional districts, and regional gains. Obama could get crushed in the general election while benefiting the party in select areas in the midwest and northwest. And there are generational considerations... Obama could move the party more by losing than Clinton would by possibly winning. And at this point, since the people seem to want Obama, there's something to be said, party unity wise, for accepting the will of the people.

Obama will be the nominee, and you can argue Obama SHOULD be the nominee. And he might win... events might propel him despite everything, but those same events would propel Clinton just as well. And Clinton might lose... there's nothing automatic about this election anymore.

But for God's sake, please stop pretending that there is a rational electability argument for the Obama candidacy. All that stuff about negatives and independents and young voters and who you want to have a beer with is already baked in the cake, and it doesn't add up to a win. Clinton is likelier to win a general election than Obama. That doesn't require anyone to support her. Everyone is entitled to their own way of framing their own vote.