England for Obama

There is more than a little dismay in Democratic Party circles today. Not because Clinton won the popular vote in both of her “firewall” states of Ohio and Texas, but because of how she won and what it means.

Reading today’s headlines you’d be forgiven for thinking that Obama was expected to win both Texas and Ohio, but in truth both contests were statistically impossible hurdles for Obama. He did well to make up so much ground in Texas, but Ohio was always going to be an uphill struggle, as we pointed out last week. But the results of the two contests hide some interesting, and potentially disturbing facts.

The first fact should be a cause for concern for Obama’s campaign team: late voters (those who made up their minds in the last 3 days) opted for Clinton in large numbers, whilst early voters backed Barack. The conclusion is that the negative campaigning - most notably the 3am phone call ad - worked. Hillary found the chink in Barack’s Teflon armour and exploited it in a similar fashion one might expect of McCain’s camp. That opening will need to be plugged by Obama’s team if he’s to succeed in November (assuming he wins the nomination of his Party).

The second fact is more worrying for the Democratic Party: Clinton potentially won Texas because of tactical Republican support. If she hadn’t won Texas, the headlines would likely be screaming a different story - that Clinton was finished and she should save the Party further division by stepping aside. But Clinton didn’t lose Texas, instead she narrowly took the lion share of the popular vote, and that win together with Ohio gives her credibility to continue argue the media. How much credibility does Clinton deserve if it turned out to be tactical and ephemeral Republican votes which won it for her though?

Clinton does the opposite to Obama when it comes to Republican voters. While his collegiate campaign encourages disillusioned Republicans to support him, Republicans are united in their hatred of Hillary Clinton. That hasn’t prevented the bastion of right-wing propaganda, Fox News, nor fiercely conservative radio talkshow hosts like Rush Limbaugh openly supporting Hillary Clinton as their best hope for a McCain victory in November:

“I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They’re in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it’s all going to stop if Hillary loses. So, yeah, I’m asking people to cross over and, if they can stomach it — I know it’s a difficult thing to do, to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it’s something I think we need. It would be fun, too,” explained Limbaugh recently.

The Republicans are desperate for sure, but there’s some evidence to support the notion that Clinton did indeed win because of additional, and altogether bogus, Republican support in these open contests.

In Wisconsin - a contest which Obama won - Republicans made up 9% of the Democratic primary vote. Obama won them 72-28 over Clinton. But in Ohio, where once again 9% of voters were Republicans, Obama and Clinton split them evenly, 49-49.

The story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states, was even worse. Although Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, self-proclaimed conservatives (22% of all voters) went against Obama. For the first time, they were Clinton’s best ideological group: and they broke 53-43 for her. More tellingly, Clinton won 13% of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate. So, at least 13% of the conservatives did indeed hold their noses and vote tactically against McCain’s biggest threat - Barack Obama.

None of this changes the fact that the headlines are full of claims that Clinton is clawing her way back into contention. Nothing, not even the facts, can change those idiotic stories. Amongst the well-informed and thinking superdelegates the reality of last night is unlikely to be ignored. The best hope the Republicans have for victory is a lengthy and increasingly bitter Democratic contest, which ironically demonstrates division even where there is none, with Hillary Clinton emerging as the Democratic candidate.

In the days ahead, if this message has indeed sunk in, expect superdelegates to back Obama over Clinton in increasing numbers. The contest is now not really in voter’s hands, but in theirs. It’s time for the ‘men in grey suits’ to speak up loud and clear. “It’s time for change” they must say. It’s time to unite behind the one who can beat the Republicans. It’s time for Barack Obama.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am and is filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.