Letters to the Editor
SCfellow
Published Letters: 3
-
sc primary
[Read the article: Setting the South Carolina bar]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know what to make of all the spin on the SC primary. Seems to me that Barack Obama won in Iowa and came close in New Hampshire, two states that are vastly majority white. At one point, there were questions about whether he'd enough support from the black community; now, some are labeling him the "black" candidate because he's getting support.
I suppose Hillary Clinton supporters are latching onto whatever seems to make things look best for Hillary, and maybe that's just how it works. But if such spin is taken seriously, it seems pretty silly to me, considering how support for Obama has shaped up so far.
And I'll say this: I'm a white guy in SC, and I'm planning to vote for Obama. Most of the white Democrats that I know here (not that there are very many) seem to be leaning toward Obama, too.
-
a different way of looking at SC results
[Read the article: Appreciating Obama's win in South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Calderon" wrote this:
"(Obama) won in South Carolina, by getting about 80 percent of the black vote while winning only about 25 percent of the white vote (the "NPR audience," as some pundits like to say)--and, again, these were voters in a Democratic primary. What does it say that, even in this limited, friendly context, Obama lost 75 percent of the white vote? What does that augur for a general election with Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate?"
What this tells me is -- especially when you consider that more Democrats voted yesterday than GOPers did last week in SC -- that Barack Obama can energize the black vote in a way that might actually bring some Southern states into play in November. To me, that would be huge. If he could snag Georgia or one of the Carolinas....wow. I'm not sure I think it would happen, but the numbers yesterday suggest huge potential turnout among black voters, and that could change the dynamic in some Southern states.
Meanwhile, what about the rest of the country. Maybe Obama wouldn't do as well as Hillary Clinton among white and Hispanic voters, or maybe he would. But bottom line -- do you think he'd lose California to a Republican nominee? How about New York? What about Illinois?
I figure that Obama would be favored in all the same major states that Hillary would be favored in....AND that he'd have an actual chance in some Southern states where the GOP won't even have to lift a finger to stomp Hillary.
I think a reasoned analysis of the whole thing suggests that Obama is simply a stronger candidate in the general election than Clinton.
-
yeah, anonymous....
[Read the article: Appreciating Obama's win in South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It does seem fairly straightforward to me.
1. Barack Obama is probably likely to win in the general election all the same major states that Hillary Clinton would be favored to win.
2. Obama may actually engage black voters at such a level in certain Southern states that they come into play. If he snagged any ONE of those states, it could be huge. If he makes the GOP spend more money in the South and have to work harder, it could help the Dems in other places. In Spartanburg, SC, the Republican county chairman was quoted as saying that if Obama wins the nomination, he figures SC actually becomes "a battleground state." Would he say that of a Clinton candidacy? I seriously doubt it.
This analysis may be somewhat over-simplified....Maybe Hillary would be much stronger in NY or Cal., not just marginally so. Maybe it depends on whom the GOP nominates. Maybe either Hillary or Obama takes a GOP attack on the chin in a way that has an unforeseen effect. Lots could obviously have an impact.
But if you're a Democratic voter or organizer trying to look at how to win in NOvember, I think my simple analysis is pretty reasonable.