"There is a reason some states are called general election 'battlegrounds.' It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the 'bellwether' nature of Ohio: 'It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,' she said.
"There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually..."
1 comment:
Having Obama at the top of the ticket would increase the Democratic majorities in the house and senate. Looking at it from a practical perspective, 43% of all voters in the United States have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton. There's no way that Hillary Clinton, starting with such high negatives, would help Democratic candidates. With her incredibly high negatives, Hillary is destined to lose the National race. She knows that. That's why she is desparately pleading for Democrats to send Obama to the back of the bus (even though he'll have the most pledged delegates) as Vice-President--that's the only way she could win. But there's no logical reason to do that. Many "Recovering Republicans" like me, and independents, intend to vote for Obama in the General Election, but would NOT vote for a CLINTON/OBAMA ticket. The best hope that the Democratic Party has to win the Presidency in 2008 is NOT to send Obama to the back of the bus; it's to throw Clinton under the bus!
Post a Comment