We have our party hats on as Pennslyvania votes come in. Obama has fled the state.
Obama has been run out of of Pennsylvania by those bitter and clingy voters.
Obama is unelectable – Obama can’t win big states that are crucial to a November Democratic victory.
There’s this presumption out there, it seems to me, as if it’s just a CRAZY notion that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, would be able to win the Keystone State, like the idea is INSANE, just unfathomable, as if the state consists of Bill, Chelsea, and les freres Rodham.
I don’t begrudge the Obama campaign for successfully setting Sen. Clinton’s bar so high — that’s its job — and of course I understand that in order for Clinton to have a real shot, she needs a big W so as to eat away at Obama’s 800,000 popular vote lead, and to make the argument to super-Ds that states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida are a problem for him.
But what’s so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner — flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings — should be able to win a blue state primary?
Just because Clinton has the support of the governor and the mayors of the two largest cities? So what? This isn’t about Ed Rendell.
After Obama swept Wisconsin, doing well if not winning in key traditionally Clinton-backing constituencies — labor voters, seniors, white women, Jews — his campaign put forth the notion that he was about to put this thing to bed. But then the dynamics returned to what they had been — seniors, women, whites, and blue-collar voters for her; educated voters, blacks, young voters and men for him.
Why can’t the frontrunner win working class voters?
The Obama campaign may likely spin tonight’s outcome as a W for him as long as she doesn’t win by 25 points. I, for one, ain’t buying it.
Obama is a loser, today and in November. Voters are just not that into him – no matter how much money he spends.
But just what are the targets? Some say Clinton needs to win by 10 points — which was her margin in Ohio last month. Others say eight points. Some say, given the amount of money Sen. Barack Obama is spending on television ads, anything over five points would be a respectable victory for Clinton. Staying within five points would give Obama the opportunity to assert that he overcame a state whose demographics tilted heavily to Clinton.
Some ‘splaining to do? No matter tonight’s result, keep this in mind: Obama spent an enormous amount of money on TV — and we mean ENORMOUS. He spent so much that he will have a very hard time explaining a double-digit defeat, despite what the campaign might say. Sure, they can claim he started out more than 20 points behind in some polls. But to lose by more than 200,000 votes after all the money he spent would be embarrassing and could rightfully get superdelegates nervous about his durability. Also, this is the first vote since Rev. Wright and the “bitter” comments, and if he simply performs as well or a tad bit better among white voters than he did in Ohio, the campaign can argue to supers that he wasn’t damaged with these voters for the long term. But if his numbers are worse than Ohio (he lost by 10 points) then, in the words of Ricky Ricardo… he’ll have some ‘splainin’ to do.
Tonight America’s voters will once again realize why Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi have wanted to shut down this election and prevent Americans from voting.