Why did Obama run behind his state numbers in Fairfax?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Kind of weird, I guess it might be the lack of blacks.

[Beet]

He was always polling worse in NoVa. Outside of Shenandoah that was her best area.
... interestingly, Obama appears to do best in places that voted for Harris Miller over Jim Web in 2006.. though of course he far outperformed Miller.

[Alcon]

Clinton has a built-in base of support in suburban primaries.

It also has a notable Asian population, although not huge.

[Sam Spade]

I think I know why (hence why I pointed it out earlier), but once again this is one of those questions for Al.

Look @ Montgomery County Md. too...

[Beet]

Clinton has a built-in base of support in suburban primaries.

It also has a notable Asian population, although not huge.

Which sucks.

Frankly, Obama sucks in all the key demographics that Democrats need to win except for independents to win the GE
- suburban areas
- blue collar white working class
- white women
- Catholics
- Hispanics

He sucks in all of them. His only hope is that people really do pick up on his message of a new kind of politics and stop voting demographics, or at least create new demographic trends... making our lives less interesting ... or perhaps more?

[Verily]

Clinton has a built-in base of support in suburban primaries.

It also has a notable Asian population, although not huge.

Which sucks.

Frankly, Obama sucks in all the key demographics that Democrats need to win except for independents to win the GE
- suburban areas
- blue collar white working class
- white women
- Catholics
- Hispanics

He sucks in all of them. His only hope is that people really do pick up on his message of a new kind of politics and stop voting demographics, or at least create new demographic trends... making our lives less interesting ... or perhaps more?

Or perhaps these are simply strong Clinton demographics, and it has little to do with Obama specifically.

[Sam Spade]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

[Beet]

Clinton has a built-in base of support in suburban primaries.

It also has a notable Asian population, although not huge.

Which sucks.

Frankly, Obama sucks in all the key demographics that Democrats need to win except for independents to win the GE
- suburban areas
- blue collar white working class
- white women
- Catholics
- Hispanics

He sucks in all of them. His only hope is that people really do pick up on his message of a new kind of politics and stop voting demographics, or at least create new demographic trends... making our lives less interesting ... or perhaps more?

Or perhaps these are simply strong Clinton demographics, and it has little to do with Obama specifically.

Well you could be right. He did do very well in suburban St. Louis, and as has been pointed out before his perf. with Catholics, Hispanics and women have been variable... he's performed strongly or evenly with at least one of each group in at least one state.

[Alcon]

Which sucks.

The notable Asian population does?

Frankly, Obama sucks in all the key demographics that Democrats need to win except for independents to win the GE
- suburban areas

By what standard?  Obama does better in suburban areas than Clinton.  I have no idea how you've extrapolated this.  By white area standards, Obama runs much better in the suburbs than in rural areas.  You don't do better than the other candidate among well-educated, affluent voters and independents and "suck in he suburbs."  How could you?  His performance in Fairfax County wasn't overwhelming, but it was fine.

Also, are you talking about the General, or Primary?  Because you started off this post referring to the General, and most of this isn't so relevant beyond the Primary...

Obama polls better than Clinton in the General.  It's the only empirical yardstick we have right now of performance, and Obama performs better in it than Clinton.  So it doesn't really matter with whom Obama "sucks" like this...because his suckage is evidently, at this time, less wide than Clinton's.

He sucks in all of them. His only hope is that people really do pick up on his message of a new kind of politics and stop voting demographics, or at least create new demographic trends... making our lives less interesting ... or perhaps more?

That really has less to do with how Obama has run and more to do with the remainder of the calendar.  "We must all unite as one people" is one of his favorite clichéd platitudes, after all.

[TheresNoMoney]

Frankly, Obama sucks in all the key demographics that Democrats need to win except for independents to win the GE
- suburban areas

He's going to win the general election in a big way. have you even bothered to look at his primary turnout numbers? Have you seen the stark contrast between him and McCain?

Did you see his Virginia numbers tonight?  He got 177,883 more votes than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined. He is going to change the entire playing field in the general election.

[Beet]

Which sucks.

The notable Asian population does?

[/quote]

Lol. I need a coffee. And some sleep. And a more cheerful attitude tommorrow.

[Beet]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

Yeah but Clinton doesn't need to just win in those places... she needs to win big. I don't see something happening... frankly, if Hillary hasn't given up already, she needs to find a way to make news in a big way (without crying, o/c) or at least do something drastic.

[Saxwsylvania]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

Yeah but Clinton doesn't need to just win in those places... she needs to win big. I don't see something happening... frankly, if Hillary hasn't given up already, she needs to find a way to make news in a big way (without crying, o/c) or at least do something drastic.

Maybe she could save a black baby from being murdered by white supremacists!

[TheresNoMoney]

Primary turnout does not equal general election turnout.

You're right, but the numbers have been like this in nearly every state. The difference in energy/momentum on the Democratic side compared to the Republican side is HUGE.

I think Obama will have a great shot to win VA in the general election.

[TomC]

Why did the Beatles break up after only 8 years? They could've been great.

[Saxwsylvania]

Primary turnout does not equal general election turnout.

You're right, but the numbers have been like this in nearly every state. The difference in energy/momentum on the Democratic side compared to the Republican side is HUGE.

I think Obama will have a great shot to win VA in the general election.

Well, that's true.  But let's not romanticize it.  The Republicans are burned out over Bush, and they're saddened that Reagan's corpse won't be nominated.  As for Democrats, there is a lot of passion for both Obama and Clinton - more for the latter than Obama supporters would care to admit.

As for Virginia, of course it is in play in November.  But this is more due to the state's leftward trend than Obama's snake-like tongue.

[Sam Spade]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

Yeah but Clinton doesn't need to just win in those places... she needs to win big. I don't see something happening... frankly, if Hillary hasn't given up already, she needs to find a way to make news in a big way (without crying, o/c) or at least do something drastic.

Yes and no.

FWIW, I don't understand not spending a week in Wisconsin either (lest anyone think I don't notice it).  Of course, I don't trust any polling coming out of there, frankly.

[Verily]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

Yeah but Clinton doesn't need to just win in those places... she needs to win big. I don't see something happening... frankly, if Hillary hasn't given up already, she needs to find a way to make news in a big way (without crying, o/c) or at least do something drastic.

Yes and no.

FWIW, I don't understand not spending a week in Wisconsin either (lest anyone think I don't notice it).  Of course, I don't trust any polling coming out of there, frankly.

I have a hunch about why she's ignoring Wisconsin. Could be an interesting change in tactics from Virginia and Maine.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

Yeah but Clinton doesn't need to just win in those places... she needs to win big. I don't see something happening... frankly, if Hillary hasn't given up already, she needs to find a way to make news in a big way (without crying, o/c) or at least do something drastic.

Yes and no.

FWIW, I don't understand not spending a week in Wisconsin either (lest anyone think I don't notice it).  Of course, I don't trust any polling coming out of there, frankly.

I have a hunch about why she's ignoring Wisconsin. Could be an interesting change in tactics from Virginia and Maine.

What is it? Something more than downplaying expectations?

[TomC]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

Yeah but Clinton doesn't need to just win in those places... she needs to win big. I don't see something happening... frankly, if Hillary hasn't given up already, she needs to find a way to make news in a big way (without crying, o/c) or at least do something drastic.

Yes and no.

FWIW, I don't understand not spending a week in Wisconsin either (lest anyone think I don't notice it).  Of course, I don't trust any polling coming out of there, frankly.

I have a hunch about why she's ignoring Wisconsin. Could be an interesting change in tactics from Virginia and Maine.

What is it? Something more than downplaying expectations?

Hey- don't you go downplaying downplaying. It's one the foremost political tactics of our time.

[they don't love you like i love you]

At this point though Hillary needs every delegate she can get.

[Verily]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

Yeah but Clinton doesn't need to just win in those places... she needs to win big. I don't see something happening... frankly, if Hillary hasn't given up already, she needs to find a way to make news in a big way (without crying, o/c) or at least do something drastic.

Yes and no.

FWIW, I don't understand not spending a week in Wisconsin either (lest anyone think I don't notice it).  Of course, I don't trust any polling coming out of there, frankly.

I have a hunch about why she's ignoring Wisconsin. Could be an interesting change in tactics from Virginia and Maine.

What is it? Something more than downplaying expectations?

Sort of. Clinton has lost two states where she invested significant amounts of time and money by about twenty points (Virginia by more, Maine by slightly less). We didn't have any polls of Maine, but the media had already been talking about how it being a caucus might help Obama, and in Virginia the polls were all predicting a major Obama landslide, only slightly smaller in magnitude than what actually happened.

Therefore, the expectation now is that Obama will win the states the media says he will win, and that he will win them by wide margins. If Clinton is seen conceding Wisconsin, it will create the expectation that Obama will perform better than in Maine and Virginia, as he effectively has no opposition. However, Clinton may be banking on having a "core" vote in Wisconsin that won't win her the state, but may keep it within ten points or something. Then she can cite a "unexpectedly strong" finish in Wisconsin as proof that her campaign should go on.

Why is this important? Because if Clinton is seen pouring resources into yet another state and then losing it by twenty points, it will look terrible. She may believe that the risk of this happening is greater than the reward to be gained by trying to keep down Obama's margin in Wisconsin (or even playing to win the state). By not campaigning, she lowers expectations to the point where an Obama victory is less meaningful, as she might say about Louisiana or Maryland, but, if, as is realistically possibly, she comes within ten points without campaigning, it's a nice "moral victory" for her.

She does need every delegate she can get, but is the risk of campaigning in Wisconsin greater than the reward?

(Another possibility is that, despite her reasonably strong fundraising of late, she's still strapped for cash, and doesn't feel that she can afford to spend money in Wisconsin instead of Ohio and Texas. I doubt this, but it's possible. A third possibility is that the internal turmoil within her campaign has undermined her ability to organize in Wisconsin without affecting her ability to organize in Texas and Ohio.)

[bullmoose88]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

How much does the state senate caucusing in texas help him mitigate a state wide result that still seems like it will go in hillary's column?

Any?

[Sam Spade]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

How much does the state senate caucusing in texas help him mitigate a state wide result that still seems like it will go in hillary's column?

Any?

A good bit on the delegate side, actually, I suspect.

[bullmoose88]

Beet, this is the reason why Ohio and PA are so problematic for him to win.  When this is all done, I suspect we'll look at the results and see the same things happening we saw before - I'm curious to see whether there's any movement, but I suspect it might be minor.

He needs to hedge on Texas - because of the Independent/Republican voting factor, maybe he can squeeze something out there.  The other two are hard.

How much does the state senate caucusing in texas help him mitigate a state wide result that still seems like it will go in hillary's column?

Any?

A good bit on the delegate side, actually, I suspect.

So really Hillary's firewall is just Ohio and PA...and perhaps trying to seat FL and MI...since her margin in Texas may not be very big?