Well, well, as Gomer Pyle would say, "Sur-prise, Sur-prise!" But is it really? The Hillcat is to Obama what Republicans are to Democrats: less hip and chronically underpolled. Just as Republican voters either avoid talking to pollsters at all or fudge on who they voted for, so too, it seems, have Hillary voters either avoided pollsters or fibbed.
So whatever the outcome of this primary (currently a 2-point Hillary lead), it's plain that she's doing much better than expected and will likely continue to do so.
Going forward she is in a pretty strong position. First, Obama would've gotten beaten badly in this primary without the help of registered independents. Going forward he won't have those independents since I think most of the primaries on Super Tuesday don't allow non-party voting.
Second, even though most of the primaries will be far less white than New Hampshire, will the black vote really go for Obama? I think not, not in the numbers Obama needs. Many blacks are prejudiced against lighter-skinned blacks and Obama is lighter-skinned. Also Hillary did much better with lower-middle class voters while Obama did better with upper-middle class voters in New Hampshire. Will class be a more important predictor than race? As for the Oprah factor, I've always had the impression that Oprah's audience is mostly white suburban women rather than southern black women so I don't know that that will help Obama. (I back that up with nothing other than my own hot air.) But FOX news analyst Juan Williams opined that as proud as he is of Obama (he is black himself), he didn't think Obama could rely on black votes to give him (Obama) the edge.
Third, Dems always flinch. Courage just isn't their strong suit. They flirt with the one they love & then leave them at the altar. Thus Howard "Bike Path" Dean and Gen'l Clark and John Edwards were all left behind for the arranged (loveless) marriage of John Kerry. Same in 2000 - many a liberal heart fluttered for the likes of the debonair Bill Bradley and the passionate Paul Wellstone before duller brains prevailed and Albert Gore got the nod. How about Humphrey in '68? It's certainly not limited to Democrats: the Republicans nominated Richard Nixon (twice!) and Bob Dole after all. But for a party supposedly fond of risk, the Dems sure like their establishment candidates. I think Obama might just be the next jilted lover.
On the Republican side, by my lights Romney didn't do well in the New Hampshire debate Saturday. Although I didn't watch the whole thing - who could've!? - I think he "protesteth too much". He came off as a whiner, though I understand he had to answer the other candidates' attacks. But I just don't think he is a strong enough general election candidate. What works for the Massachusetts electorate rarely works for Ohio, and Ohio seems to have undue sway in these presidential elections. Romney is too much Michael Dukakis, too much Aquinas, too much Spock and not enough....Huckabee. Romney might be the best potential president, but you have to get elected in order to prove it.
I think McCain has the gravitas, the familiarity, the personality and demeanour (and yes humor) to take on an Obama or a Hillary. “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B,” he said recently of Vladimir Putin. McCain has, rightly, never been the first choice among conservatives, but it's relatively easy to give him the nod this year given the political headwinds conservatives face. This election is the Democrats to lose unless the Republicans nominate McCain, in which it becomes a ballgame again. And to get a pro-life & fiscally-responsible conservative when the alternative is a pro-abortion, pro-taxer? I mean, it just don't get much better than that.
UPDATE: Deep Furrows on Obama here.
No comments:
Post a Comment