The War for the Democratic Nomination

The leaders of the Democratic Party are not exactly excited about the race for the party’s presidential nomination. The warfare is not over and the end may not be for another six weeks with the primaries end in early June—or as late as August if no solution is found.

The president of the party, Howard Dean recently said that he opposes anyone asking Clinton to dropout. She has beaten Obama in the last three sizeable contests. He also called for superdelegates to commit to either Clinton or Obama as soon as the primaries are over so the candidate can be decided by the end of June lest they damage their chances of winning the White House in November.

The Tuesday night loss in Pennsylvania was a blow to the face for Obama, not enough to stop his lead, but enough, perhaps to give Hillary momentum. Hillary Clinton has now trumped the presidential campaign record set by Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas who raised $6 million in 24 hours. Clinton raised $10 million only 24 hours after defeating Obama.

The question now arising is not so much: why won’t Hillary just drop out? The new question isn't familiar too us: why can’t Obama just win? Doubt is shaking the faith of liberal and progressive voters who back the Illinois Senator. I honestly don't know what took them so long. Obama has lost every high-population state to Clinton except for his home state. If the Democrats were smart—in my opinion— they would back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why? For starters, she won the two large traditionally “blue states” California and New York.

Secondly, she has won many of the predicted 2008 swing states such as Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Arkansas. Arguably, she won Michigan—a swing state with a sizeable electoral vote—she won 55% of the votes and Obama supporters voted “uncommitted” earning 40% of the vote—it isn’t as if she pulled in 100% of the vote; as one of the country’s largest centers of manufacturing and labor unions, the state leans Democratic—should the Democrats ignore their votes, it could certainly be a red state come November and that is not in all in their favor.

But what is even more crucial are the “Big Three” swing states Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida that presidential candidates spend most of their time campaigning in. No candidate since Kennedy has won the presidency without winning two of these three states. Hillary beat Obama in all three of those states (by a double digit margin in all three). According to the most recent polling data, Hillary is predicted to beat McCain in all three. Obama would lose in two out of three, winning only Pennsylvania. Historically, no Republican candidate has won the White House without winning Ohio; indeed, the winner of Ohio has been the winner of every general election since 1960. Arguably, in a face-off between McCain and Obama, if history says anything, it favors John McCain.

Texas is considered a swing state in November. The polls show a statistical tie with Obama-McCain in Texas and Clinton just points behind McCain. Clinton beat Obama in the Texas primary. Reaching out to Hispanic voters, she could close the gap with the uncommitted voters in Texas and thus possibly win New York, California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—more than likely securing the White House.

The growing anti-Obama sentiment among voters suggests a serious problem. 56% of Clinton supporters in North Carolina declare they won’t support Obama if he wins the nomination. A similar 32% in Pennsylvania—a swing state—will not support Obama and this is in a state where he already has a disadvantage to John McCain.

Obama opposed the Clinton offer to re-vote in Michigan and Florida. It seems that it is finally catching up with him. If Obama wins the nomination, Michigan and Florida are a sure lost for the Democrats for not having their votes counted.

Pennsylvania Governor recently said, “This is for me a no-brainer. If we're going to plan to win in November, we need to choose the candidate that has the greatest strength in the states that are necessary to get us the electoral votes we need.” He added, “I hope the superdelegates are paying attention.”

Hopefully, by the end of June, there will be a declared nominee for the Democratic Party. If the Democrats let this contest drag out until August, they will definitely cost themselves the 2008 Election. The only way I can see them not losing Michigan and Florida, carrying crucial swing states, and uniting the party behind sound leadership is to back Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania for the moment has silenced serious talk that she should consider quitting. Despite an endorsement from Sen. Bob Casey, a pro-life and pro-second amendment rights Catholic, Obama lost 70% of Catholics to Clinton, 58% of Caucasian Protestants, and 62% of gun owners. Catholics made up roughly one-third of the vote of Pennsylvania.

The presidential candidate that has won the attracted the most Catholic voters, the majority of which is coined, "the Catholic vote," has won the presidency in eight of the last nine contests for this office; the one exception was Al Gore who won the "Catholic vote" but lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush. Catholics have quite a record and if any argument can be made, Clinton has trumped Obama the entire primary season on Catholic voters and history shows us, Catholics vote and the more you have on your side, the more you're likely to win.

From a simply objective standpoint, if they were smart, they would choose Hillary. But I don't believe they will and they will lose a third time to the GOP.