Facts
Lanny Davis wrote a post for the Huffington Post, in which he lists 10 facts about Obama and Clinton; facts that aren’t in Obama’s favor, but that are undeniable nonetheless. Below follow a couple, I suggest you head on over to the HuffPo (yes, even you Obama supporters) to read it in its entirety:
1. Hillary Clinton won by 10%, 220,000 votes, despite after most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showed her ahead by single digits and dropping. The exit polls showed her winning by +5. (It’s easy to forget that she won if you listen to the Obama spinners last night and today. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania’s Rep. Murphy, a freshman congressman who supported Barack Obama, actually said last night on Larry King that Senator Obama did so well in losing to Senator Clinton yesterday that he has a “wind at his back.” I am not kidding.
2. Senator Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks — and was trying to win, not just lose a narrow margin.
4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Senator Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.
6. Barack Obama hasn’t won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key “battleground” states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.
7. The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost — and Senator Clinton won — by substantial margins blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters — all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House. For example, yesterday in Pennsylvania she won Roman Catholics by 32 percent (66034), union households by 18 percent (59-41), and those most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42). Only 60 percent of Democratic Catholic voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election.
9. Barack Obama is currently in a dead heat with John McCain, according to a recent respected poll, in Massachusetts (actually, the results were McCain 46% and [edited: Obama] 44%), while Senator Clinton leads in Massachusetts by 15%. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.
I’m sure that these facts will cause some Obama supporters to (once again) have their panties up in a bunch (and therefore whine again), but that doesn’t do anything to counter the, you know, facts.
The point being that all the facts aren’t in Obama’s favor. Oh no! I’ll go cry in a corner now. No actually, I’ll put up my own post of facts later today.
Oh, and anyone who thinks Obama would lose Massachusetts or even make it a battleground state is smoking some good stuff.
"Barack Obama hasn?t won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key ?battleground? states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates." Apparently, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, and Louisisana all don’t count as states won by Obama that have switched between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates in the last three or four elections. Unless by "major industrial states" the author means"states that rhyme with Joe-hio."
For the hell of it, ’cause I’m bored and haven’t picked on HuffPo in awhile … Clinton actually won Pennsylvania by 9.2 + points, which (based on the last math class I took) does not round up to 10, even under the most generous assumptions. Does it matter in the scheme of things? Probably not. But blindingly painful accuracy is my middle name. Or at least it was until my parents changed it to something shorter.
Cain?
Sorry. It was there.