As I’ve been reviewing the polls for the Bluegrass State’s Democratic primary tomorrow, it’s struck me not only that Hillary has maintained a constant, comfortable lead over her party’s likely nominee, but also that she seems to run about 5-10 points behind her numbers in pre-primary Mountain State surveys.
Nearly all those surveys underestimated her final 41-point victory. Do the Kentucky polls herald a similar blowout? And if so, what does that mean?
Based on the polls and the demographics of the state, I’m going to predict that Hillary will win with a margin slightly smaller than the polls indicate about 58-42. I base that on Hillary getting 67% of the white vote and Obama getting 90% of the black vote, which represents a greater portion of the Democratic electorate in Kentucky than West Virginia.
I also predict Obama will do better among late-deciders than he has in recent contests. Should I be wrong about this and Hillary again get the lion’s share of voters deciding in the last 72 hours before the primary, I think Democrats would be wise to give the former First Lady a second look.
It would show as Victor David Hanson observed, commenting on her recent margins in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, “the momentum is still with her, despite a lack of cash and coverage.”
If Obama continues to do poorly among late-deciders, it would show he can’t break through to “swing Democrats,” those unable to make up their minds in a presidential contest which has consumed our national media for nearly a year now. With more organization, more campaign ads, the media blessing, a growing number of endorsements from party leaders (many of whom are asking his rival to withdraw from the race), he should have no trouble convincing the undecided party faithful to rally to his cause.
With these headwinds, if he can’t get his party’s own rank and file to vote for him in the interest of Democratic unity, he’s going to have an even tougher time convincing swing voters, no matter his financial edge, media support and the favorable (to his party) political currents of this year, to back him in the fall.
I think the fact that there are still undecided voters bodes bad for Obama, considering he is supposed to be the nominee now. Usually a high undecided number goes against the incumbent…which would be Obama now. I think she will win the most of them, as she usually does with late deciders.
Not that it matters, its too little too late now.
In other news of the weird, former Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd has endorsed Obama.
A couple of questions immediately leap to mind:
1. Did Sen Byrd know that B. Hussein Obama is non-white? Or did anyone on his staff even mention it to him?
2. Did this same President Pro Tempore of the US Senate know that his state’s primary was LAST week, and that Clinton won it by 40-odd points?
3. Is this same 90-year-old politician next going to announce that he does not support McCain because “he’s too old?” (Never mind that McCain is 20 years younger than Byrd – facts don’t matter to Dhimmicrats.)
Honestly, girls, you can NOT make this stuff up!
Regards,
Peter H.
Tonight I heard a Democrat pundit say that as the Presidential campaign heats up, “he ultimately will come up with specifics to all these questions.” The economy, national security, health care, taxes, gas and oil prices, energy strategy, etc. Eventually as we come down to two contestants…..Barack Obama “ultimately” will give us specifics as to his positions. Now that’s got to be an indictment of the Democrat party and the drive by media. You can become a finalist in this race and most people don’t know what you stand for.
The Democrats have helped to wreck the economy by raising the minimum wage. And have stabbed working Americans in the back by not allowing drilling in ANWAR to begin over 10 years ago. But in America there is no accountability for lefitsts.
The only reason Democratic “super delegates” are lining up behind Obama is either a fear of what black voters would do to the party if at this point Hillary is nominated instead of Obama or they are caught up in the left’s excitement about electing America’s first black president.
And every rational “super delegate” probably has his or her fingers crossed that Obama’s campaign and Howard Dean’s DNC can convince general election voters that John McCain is too old and/or is no more than a third term for George W. Bush.
#4 – I don’t see why the superdelegates are so scared. Dhimmicrats have already done far worse to black voters in terms of policies and hypocrisy than they would possibly yanking the nomination away from B. Hussein Obama.
Blacks will stay with Dhimmicrats no matter what. So if I had my say-so, I’d tell the superdelegates to nominate Hillary.
Regards,
Peter H.
The media coverage re: Obama’s inability to get working-class democratic voters is only an issue because Clinton is still technically in the race. Obama’s going to be the nominee, so there isn’t much to report without talking about the differences in voter demographics between him and Clinton. The fact is, given today’s political environmnet, it’s going to be nearly impossible for any republican to win in November.
Peter, I certainy wish the “super delegates” would nominate Hillary. For several reasons which, as I’ve commented before, are not relevant to these discussions, I’ve been a “Republican for Hillary” for several years. I have even more incentive now.
Unless there are some major changes — and I mean major — in the dynamics, I just can’t see the Republicans winning in November. If there is going to be a Democrat in the White House, I want it to be Hillary not Obama.
Good or bad, Hillary is a known quantity. We don’t really know much about Obama and probably won’t know a whole lot more before the election. When the media helped peel some of the veneer away from Obama’s carefully crafted image they quickly realized they better not let more come to light or he’d be toast come November. I’m probably the only one here who believes it, but having carefully watched her Senate career I’m convinced that if elected Hillary would govern from close to the center. Obama tends to campaign from the middle but I’m convinced that if he’s elected he’ll govern from far to the left.
I think Trace is right, Hillary would govern closer to the center only because she has learned lessons during Bill’s administration. Far better to win incremental victories than to go down to defeat with huge new programs. But alas Barack is the nominee of the Democrats… and the country will have to hang on as he learns in office how to run an administration. He has no experience as an executive. He was a “community organizer”. Some one wanna tell me exactly what that is? Did he get people together to chat about picking up trash and remodeling playareas? He gets amazing crowds, and gives speaches filled with blather. I remember seeing Hitler in those black and white movies speaking to huge crowds and he had them completely enthralled. How’d that all turn out?
Screw the front-runners. Vote Edwina & Patsy in ’08!
Regards,
Peter H.
#4
I would have thought that when it comes down to blacks or women, the liberals would toss the blacks under the bus. They built themselves by doing so, why would they stop now?
Affirmative action, obviously. 😉
Trace, I have to disagree. Since the GOP moved center this year and given McCain’s strong favorable ratings, I think we have a strong chance to win this year.
#11
White Guilt, more to the point.
#12
Ummmm….McCain’s running for the DNC nomination.
I think McCain is a poor candidate and the GOP’s strong chance to win this year rests on the fact that Obama is an even poorer candidate, another Carter or McGovern.