Home › Blogs › Lisa's blog ›

Obama's map

Submitted by Lisa on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 14:55
in

This is interesting. These are the bragging rights posted at Obama's site:

states won/lost by obama

The lighter states were won by Obama, the darker states won by Clinton. Look at that huge dark swath from the Great Lakes west to the Mississippi. That's really phenomenal.

Now, I'm the first to admit that using Obama's performance against a member of his own party to project a performance against McCain would be logically unsound. However, it's fair to say at the very least that this is a weak area for him. We know from exit polls that this area of the country in particular is worried about the economy above all else. I wouldn't be surprised to she Obama choose a VP with economic credentials and ties to this part of the country.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

The Appalachians are

Submitted by amerpun on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 15:41.

The Appalachians are definitely going to be a problem for him.

Obama's doing badly/horribly in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and many others. He won Alabama in the primary, but Rasmussen has him down 60-32.

Obama tended to do best in areas which were either...

Submitted by Ironman on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 18:08.

very one sided for the Democrats already (inner cities; college towns) or places where the Democrats have traditionally been pounded (the Mountain West and the Deep South).,

Math to ponder

Submitted by David H Dennis on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 21:43.

Think about this:

The non-Black electorate as was 60-40 for Clinton against Obama. 

But he held 90%+ of blacks.

With about half the nation voting in Democratic primaries, Blacks represented 20% of the electorate (since almost all Blacks are Democrats).

If 60/40 of non-Black Democrats go for Hillary, Obama still wins with his 20% of Blacks and 40% of Others.

In the South, you have up to 30% Blacks, but they are still not a majority; he has to win White votes for victory.  And I suspect that in the South a lot of Whites are not going to want to vote for a Black due to ancient antagonisms.

The problem with him is that in the general election, the Black votes are halved in effectiveness compared to the primaries.  We have about 10% blacks.  They still vote 90%+ for Obama but it's not enough.

The bottom line is that if McCain can hold even 10% or so of people who are prejudiced against Obama, either thanks to race, the "Hate America" factor or his lack of experience, he wins in a landslide.

I expect that to happen, not because of his race, but because I think the "USKKKA" tag seems likely to stick.  His ties to his pastor are too strong for his departure from the church to have any credibility.

Personally, I think he's still an athiest/agonostic at heart and joined Reverend Wright's church for political purposes.  He learned rhetoric from his Pastor; he learned how to thrill an audience and get them involved; he studied Wright's sermons for clues on how to speak and how to act.  

So he admires Mr Wright but one thing those tapes don't show is that at the end, everyone apparently rises up and Mr Wright makes some NON-divisive statements about people being together in the end.  And that's exactly what Obama seems to really think, and say.  He just doesn't go through the mean patch to get there.
So I think he believes in and echoes a lot of what Mr Wright says, and that's why it's so difficult to get rid of Wright in his campaign.

That's why I think this issue will stick.

D

...

Submitted by Lisa on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 23:19.

The key is turnout. Which voters are going to be most inspired to turnout? If the African American community gets a big enough turnout, we'll see a couple of red states in the south turn blue, even in spite of latent prejudice there.

Black vs White

Submitted by David H Dennis on Thu, 06/05/2008 - 13:32.

Yes, turnout will be extremely important.  But remember, if whites feel threatened by Obama, as many seem to be, the polarized nature of this election will probably hit turnout on both sides.

D

Right, David. That's the

Submitted by Lisa on Thu, 06/05/2008 - 20:53.

Right, David. That's the question. Which sentiment will inspire a bigger turnout?

Turnout

Submitted by David H Dennis on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 00:03.

 Obviously, it's tough to say.

One point is that Blacks normally turn out at relatively low levels and they have turned out at record levels for Obama.  They should continue doing that in the general election.

On the other hand, any highly contested election gets a good turnout, and I think many of the people voting against Obama believe that doing so is a matter of enormous importance.

So I would expect a record turnout from both camps, and since whites are still about 2/3 of the electorate even in the blackest states, I would give the Republicans an edge.  But I don't doubt that it will be close in some of those states.  As I recall, he lost the White vote decisively and now that vote will be roughly twice as important as before.

D

If McCain doesn't run on Growth and Economic Recovery, He's Done

Submitted by section9 on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 20:12.

That includes drilling for new oil. He can't afford to peddle hocus pocus energy solutions. McCain has to connect Real World energy solutions to jobs for working people.

This will resonate all over the midwest.

Anybody can make soaring rhetoric, but it's soaring substance that counts.  

Where in the Midwest

Submitted by RedMango on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 20:21.

Can you find me an example where "drilling for oil" has been a winner for the GOP in the Midwest?  Driving down gas prices isn't much a future-sounding energy policy.  It leads to the kind of corporate welfare that McCain has denounced.  Bush in 00 tried that tactic in Michigan by tying Gore to extremist anti-car policies.  It didn't work. 

Drilling for oil

Submitted by David H Dennis on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 21:52.

People in Michigan make their living by building giant SUVs.  $4 gas is killing them off.  That's a real issue today that was not one in 2000.

D 

The economy is the name of

Submitted by Lisa on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 21:27.

The economy is the name of the game. I said this elsewhere, but Obama honed his rhetoric and strategy in 2006, when all of this "every solider home" stuff played really well. But the economy has replaced the war on the airwaves, and many of us are having trouble figuring out how to pay for groceries and gas. He'll have to adjust his strategy to remain relevant.

Chartjunk

Submitted by David H Dennis on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 21:25.

Take a look at his chart and you will see the deception.  The light beams spread out of the lighter states all over the chart, so even the dark states are lightened and it takes careful study to find out which is which.

California, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio are all dark as night (if you disregard the phony lighting effects), and that means if they held a general election between him and Hillary, he would lose big.

The deceptive chart's a bad start in my opinion.  I don't like seeing people trying to deceive me even about the simplest and easiest to check things.

D

 

Some would point out that he

Submitted by Lisa on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 21:29.

Some would point out that he also didn't win Texas, but you could argue it either way, I guess. He got more delegates, but actually she won the vote.

 If you look at Texas, it's a

Submitted by David H Dennis on Wed, 06/04/2008 - 21:49.

 If you look at Texas, it's a gradient from white at the top to black at the bottom, perhaps indicating the partial victory he achieved.  Of course most of the gradient is in the part of Texas that tapers off, so you don't really see it.

This chart is a very interesting piece of work and it's obvious a lot of effort went into the formulae to make Obama look good without actually being completely wrong.  I think it was done by someone with a very subtle mind.

I think this kind of cleverness plays well in the Blue states, who just like to see a good design, but states like Pennsylvania and Ohio with commonsense values are unlikely to appreciate it.  They might actually look at it and simply say that it lies and Obama does not have all the support the chart implies.

It plays to where he is strong and ignores where he is weak which I think is a very poor strategy for the general election.

D