And the Race ContinuesIt's two days later and I'm still shocked (and pleased) that Sen. Hillary Clinton pulled out three larger-than-expected wins in the Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio primaries. Although many Obama supporters are crying foul (I'm not sure why, she did win fair and square), the losses in these three states open up some serious questions about Obama's efficiency as a candidate. First of all, with all the momentum and wind at his back, why couldn't Obama win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island? Secondly, why did Obama perform so poorly in these states compared to how he was polling in recent days? Most polls had Obama losing by only 5-8 in Rhode Island (he lost by 18), losing Ohio only by 1-4 points (he lost by 10), and winning Texas by 2-4 (he lost by 4). This tells me several things. For one, Obama is not a strong of a candidate as many claim. Secondly, Obama performs poorly under attack. And lastly, simply put, Clinton, not Obama, had the message which resonated with the voters.
Exit Polling and What it Portends in the Keystone State
Exit polling from Tuesday's contests tells the story on Clinton's success. For one, Clinton won over white men significantly in Ohio and Rhode Island, and by a little less in Texas. That is a major improvement as she has been losing white men in almost all of the contests since Super Tuesday. Clinton also expanded her lead among Latinos, which allowed her to run up huge margins in Southern and Western Texas. Also important to note, Latinos are a key swing group in the general election. They could deliver New Mexico and Nevada to the Dems. Clinton can carry them. Can Obama? My feeling is that Latinos would vote Republican again, as they did in '04, if Obama is the nominee. Clinton also won those blue-collar workers by a larger margin than almost any other contest to date. These are the "Reagan-Democrats". They would vote for Clinton come November, but again I'll ask the question, will they vote for Obama? Hopefully, but McCain does have appeal to them. Clinton also won seniors and those over 55 by her largest margin yet.
So what does this mean for Pennsylvania? It means that if Clinton can do what she did in Tuesday's contests, especially Ohio, in Pennsylvania, she can win, and win big. Pennsylvania is more Ohio than Ohio is, if that makes any sense. Pennsylvania has fewer African Americans, many more seniors, less young voters, and is even more "blue-collar". The Pennsylvania primary is also closed, which means no Independents or Republicans can vote on April 22. These statistics don't mean we should count Obama out in Pennsylvania, but it does mean that he has a tough seven weeks ahead. If things continue on the current path, Clinton could win on April 22 by a significant margin.
A Personal Note
I must say that I'm really getting sick and tired of listening to Obama supporters on other blogs talk about how if Obama isn't nominated, millions of people who voted for him will sit the election out. Therefore, in their logic, we must nominate Obama or face certain defeat.
Well, news flash to them, millions of people have also supported and voted for Sen. Clinton. Is there any basis for believing that Obama supporters are more likely to be pissed come November than Clinton supporters? It's almost as if, in their mind, they think that their candidate is so great, that if he is nominated no one will be hurt, but if he is not nominated, the whole world will be hurt.
Listen, this isn't about me. I prefer Sen. Clinton and I think she would be a better President, but if Sen. Obama is the nominee, I will support him and work my hardest for him. But to imply that Clinton's supporters won't be hurt if she doesn't get the nomination is ridiculous. At the end of this, we are looking at a 50.1-49.9% split for one candidate over the other. That means that almost half the party won't have the candidate they supported as the nominee. Trust me, I've talked to many people, especially women, who tell me they would be absolutely devastated and sit out the election if Obama is the nominee. I try to tell them otherwise, but they are adamant, just as adamant as any Obama supporter.
So my message to Democrats out there is this: One candidate is not going to lose any more support than the other would if nominated. Regardless of who the nominee is, some will be hurt, but not a disproportional number for one side over the other either. Our work, as Democrats and as Americans, is to unite this party and unite this country to elect the best person to the Presidency. And although some of us may support Sen. Clinton, and others Sen. Obama, I think we can all agree that either of them would be better than McCain. So let's have a great campaign and choose a nominee, but let's remember that there is always another view. I think we would do ourselves and each other a great deal to keep that in mind.
