"Why can't Barack Obama close the deal?"
Um, I am thinking the same reason Hillary Clinton can't.
/Why are reporters this stupid?
They have a fiscal stake in this primary continuing... it is good for ratings.... they will posit any talking point that serves his purpose...
Interesting on how Hillary loses 12 straight contests and she's, "Still in it!"
But Obama loses a couple of states, and, "Why can't he close the deal?"
Some double standard.... she can lose the majority of primaries and caucuses, but he has to go undefeated for the media to be happy...
Not to state the completely friggin obvious, but HE'S the one who has been saying he has this race locked up, not her. And HIS supporters are the ones crowing all over the internets about how the "math" means the race is over, not hers. So the only one to ask the question "Why can't he close this deal?" is Barack Obama. No other candidate for president in his position (clear delegate lead, massive fundraising advantage, lots of chatter about how his opponent can't win) has been unable to end the race in short order. What's wrong?
I'll tell you what's wrong. A big chunk of the Dem base just won't vote for him. And I'm not confident they'll show up in November.
In 2004, there were 6% of democrats who voted for Bush. I fully expect that intelligent electorate to fully vote for McCain and give or take an additional 4%. The good thing for Obama is Independents favor him over McCain so he can overcome that deficit quite soundly.
Obama can't close the deal because he can't close his margin among white women. He lost white women again by something like 67% to 33%. Neither Obama nor Clinton will be able to deliver a knock out punch. We will just have to wait till June, for the super delegates to decide.
Can you cite to where Obama said the race is locked up? I think he has consistently said that this was going to be a long hard race.
The reason that he loses big Dem states like Penn and OH is because that is where the Democratic party has the most institutional infrastructure and most of the party insiders like Hillary better. Watch what happens to the "big chunk if the Dem base" in NC, outside the influence of this political infrastructure, for a better gauge of whether Obama can win them over.
That doesn't play into their vision of Obama as an arrogant jerk that is trying to steal her rightful place as nominee.
He had pretty much implied it when he had that blasé tone in announcing that Clinton shouldn't feel "forced" to drop out.
Well, thats how I would expect Clinton here to read that statement.
I don't think it is any secret that both candidates wanted the race done quickly when it looked like they would win. I don't remember any complaints around here when Clinton said it would be over by Feb 5.
Where did she say that?
A very weak statement- he had "pretty much" implied- he was basically, almost, sort of pregnant.
Okay, so then he didn't mean anything by saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't feel forced to drop out. He just felt it important to announce that for no reason whatsoever.
"A big chunk of the Dem base just won't vote for him. And I'm not confident they'll show up in November."
There is no part of the Dem "base" that won't vote for him. There are outliers--the "Reagan Democrats"--the ones who voted for W twice--who won't vote for him.
They will be replaced by the millions of new voters that Obama brings in. The brain-donors who vote against their economic interests can reap the benefits of that.
No guarantee that those "new voters" that Obama brought in would go out and vote in November.
These are people for Obama, not necessarily for the Democratic Party. That may pose a problem in November.
is working class voters, other than African Americans.
I'm just gonna put this on a macro because it bears repeating.
Because?
Because Obama can't improve his standing in that demographic between now and November?
Given his improvement in most demographics that have gone heavily for Clinton in the weeks between OH and PA, it sure seems like he might have a chance to improve his standing in the months befoe November:
OH PA
60 and older 28 38 White 34 38 White men 39 44 White women 31 34 Less than $50K 42 46 No college 40 38 College 51 49 Catholic 36 31 Protestant 36 53
"These are people for Obama, not necessarily for the Democratic Party. That may pose a problem in November."
Only if the nomination is taken from him.
Wait -- I thought that he won 11 straight contests, and those included such all-important contests as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Democrats Abroad primaries. (Not that I dismiss the voters in these contests, but there aren't many of them and I don't think they could turn the election to McCain the way voters from swing states like Ohio, PA, Florida, etc. could.)
yes... but aren't Hillary supporters counting on Puerto Rico to give her a nomination clinching victory???
I guess Texas isn't major. Oh right, because it's a red state. (I forget to update the Clinton criteria).
Aside from the fact that there's only been 1 primary in the past 6 weeks, Obama officially won more delegates out of Texas' "two-step" primary and caucus.
Those weren't elections. In MI his name wasn't even on the ballot and neither candidate campaigned in either state. In both cases voters were told that their vote wouldn't matter. It's pretty sad that we've got some Democrats advocating that we mimic Banana republics and the Soviet Union for elections.
it's not the same thing, because he's been the front runner and he was polling higher than she was, and he had far more money. He was expected to close the deal, and when that doesn't happen the candidate is viewed as not the right one, and you look to the next in line. I think it's because he needed a mandate to sell his world view, he's always said he needs to bring congress with him and have the people behind him, in that bottom up way that is the basis of his theory. So even if he squeaked a win, he would have set himself up as unable to get his bottom up agenda underway. Her message of change is a strong task-master leader who'll make sure things are done properly. He's made a few bad mistakes or errors in judgement. His idea of taxing capital gains like income is a non-started, not only does it bring in less revenue and tax middle and lower income people, it makes it harder to invest, and people do want to invest, it's part of the American Dream as much as home ownership. His health care plan appeals to the very people who want a flat tax on capital gains, so he's lost that advantage. He can't take advantage of the war issue because her exit plan is more far reaching than his. Most of his talent is in his campaign and he's not keeping up with world events and national priorities the way she is. She puts out several press releases a day on issues and where she stands, her solutions campaign is contained in her press releases. Also, we know who her advisors are and where they stand, while his are more academics who haven't taken as many decisions, so not only do we not know much about who advises him, we don't know their advise. he's put that aside with the idea of bottom up, but he doesn't have a mandate from the bottom, what will he do? We actually don't know, and I suspect he doesn't know either. His problem in debates isn't that he has vetting issues, it's that he can't speak clearly about what he plans to do. And his jokes are only understood by academics, when he quipped that she was in her element in debates he meant that she can parry better than he, but most including me heard it that she's a politician and is comfortable in the area of politics. That's good, not a deficit. If he can't sway anyone in a debate, how does he plan to negotiate with congress and with foreign nations? The big point is that she's now clearly more qualified, whether or not he denigrates her past experience, her experience shows in her solutions and capabilities. So, it's a much bigger problem for him, that he hasn't closed the deal. the longer it goes on the less chance he has of recapturing those he's lost much less of gaining any new support. I hope he gets more practical and starts thinking of the vice presidency. i can see him giving a great concession speech saying she won if, and that means to him she's the right one for the job, and that also means to him that he can learn from her and he'd be proud to run as her running mate. That would thrill the entire world, and would show that he's a decent man who does want what's best for the nation and who's thus willing to put his ego aside and do what's right.
