Caucus Woes

Caucus Woes

… .. This memo is important in that Obama has fared way better than Clinton in caucus states on the whole and such tactics may have figured in those successes. … .. How much of his ability to win caucus votes has been predicated upon these alleged tactics? .. … Given the above information and the fact many of the states Obama has won so far have been “reliably Republican … such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio …” (this written by Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jonathan Last this week), the question of “electability” must be revisited. And although many polls have shown Obama to be the tougher competitor against Republican John McCain in a general-election match-up, one wonders whether that continues to be the case. Democratic caucus disruptions, by Bonnie Erbe

This isn’t the first example of Obama caucus disruptions. I witnessed one in
Nevada myself. But I’m getting so many emails out of Texas about what happened
I’ve yet to return them all. Ms. Erbe’s writing above is an example of the latest
news out of Obama caucuses, which puts more doubt on exactly what’s going on
in all the states he won via caucuses. There’s obviously a reason Obama likes
caucuses, which report after report seems to suggest that his team’s tactics
may influence, though we can’t know for sure. However, it does raise questions
on Obama’s caucus wins, especially in terms of the general election.

But is Obama actually losing ground? That’s what
a Clinton memo states. But according to Gallup, both Clinton
and Obama fair about the same against McCain, at least right now, though
I’m a believer that these types of match up polls don’t matter at all this far
out. If they did, Rudy would have been the GOP nominee.

The following went out wide under the title “Keystone Test.” Obviously,
the Clinton team are setting up Pennsylvania for the ultimate test. If his team
is smart, which they are, they’re going to head into that state in the hopes
of keeping Clinton to as small a victory as possible. Upset? Unlikely, but no
one should underestimate Obama’s talents, or his team’s tenacity. I assure you
Clinton isn’t.

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin. But now Obama’s support has dropped among all these groups. In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats. … .. So the late deciders – those making up their minds in the last days before the election – have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

Weighing electability through the prism of caucuses is problematic, especially with what I’m hearing out of Texas. Obama might have “won” the caucus, but how did he do it?