Geoff: I did not speak to the November election at all in this post, I am just focusing on how this nomination will game out. I have spoken to, and will speak to the general election in other posts.

I think Republicans are very worried; people like Limbaugh did not go to great efforts to favor Hillary for no reason. Hillary they felt comfortable with; they know they can slime her, and paint her as being strongly unattractive. It has always been known that Hillary’s weakness is that she galvanizes the core Republican base; conservatives who might not worry too much about Obama would freak at the idea of Hillary (and Bill!) in the White House. This does not show in Democratic primaries.

Obama, meanwhile, appeals more to independents and does not really scare the right-wing base as much–a key factor when you consider that McCain himself tends to alienate that same base. What the polls don’t show is how candidate appeal would affect turnout. Hillary would be perfect for Republicans because she would neutralize McCain’s weakness with his own party. Not so much with Obama.

As for Obama’s “spanking,” you are analyzing it wrong. He did not lose in California because he lacks appeal, he lost in California because of Hillary’s early appeal. Current CA polls put Obama ahead of Hillary by 8% instead of behind by 10%, which was where thy were in February. Back then, Obama still hadn’t made his national popularity appeal; only in late February did he break through. New York he lost because that’s Hillary’s stronghold; but he’ll win it easily in November, like he will in California, because he’ll be running against McCain at that time.

As for Obama’s “base of blacks and college professors,” that’s a misconception. Obama has done surprisingly well in nearly all-white states. If you look at where he’s beat Hillary, it’s almost a map of how Republican candidates usually do against a Democrat in national elections; Hillary won the heavily populated and liberal states, Obama the South and northern mid- and west areas. Obama will win the states that Democrats win, but he’ll also challenge McCain where McCain is strongest. Obama has performed very well in states that traditionally go Republican and are nearly all-white.

The trouble he had in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and soon in Kentucky is clearly known: Obama does not play well in Appalachia. This is an area which, quite frankly, has very strong sentiments against electing a black candidate. Obama can win over the blue-collar vote; he’s got Springsteen’s endorsement and has been tuning up his working-class creds–Hillary was very constructive and instructive for him in that respect, and it’s an area he can fix. What he cannot fix are the biases that exist in a large swath along the Appalachian region. Look at this map showing the districts where Hillary performed better than 65% and you’ll see what I mean.

My take is simple: Obama does not need Appalachia. He’ll take California and New York, along with Illinois, along with a good part of New England, Oregon, Washington, and a few other traditional Democratic states; that’s his core base.

Next, keep in mind my post just yesterday: Republican party affiliation is way down; Republican candidates are losing in traditional party districts. That will help Obama, and put a lot more states in play. This is incredibly significant: Republican candidates have not usually had to commit too many resources defending places like the deep South. Obama, however, has done spectacularly in the South; do not underestimate the black vote, nor the appeal Obama has to whites and independents outside of Appalachia. McCain, who will be strapped for cash and resources anyway, will be fighting his own base in that region while Obama, probably outspending him 2-to-1, will be putting up a real challenge and forcing McCain to concentrate on far more areas, committing less time and money to the traditional battleground states.

Another benefit for Obama is that he’s already taken the biggest beating; McCain has not yet been trounced upon. Whether the media will do so is another question; what we know is that Obama can take a very strong lashing from his opponent and a marathon thrashing in the media and still maintain a lead.

In the end, several factors will help Obama win: strong distaste for the Republican brand; strong fundraising at the grassroots level; strong appeal with Independents and moderate conservatives; a 50-state strategy that will put McCain on the defensive; a greater ability to claim the mantle of change; McCain’s problems with his base; and Obama’s lofty oratorical style, his youth, his message of hope–the very things that made him popular in the first place. He has not lost those qualities; as much as the media has soured on him, Obama can still draw the huge crowds and he can still electrify them.

Thoughts?

Fair enough, but it’s something to keep in mind before you break out the Champagne.

Hey, one victory at a time. I’ll enjoy this one as we move on to the generals.

It’s certainly true that Hilary is a Republican bogeyman (bogeyperson?), but lately, they’ve jumped on Obama’s record, his associations with Wright and Ayres, and his wife’s comments (”First time I’m proud”) to form a general picture of a far-left, inexperienced, naive, out-of-touch, unpatriotic, over-sensitive, unmanly, black-liberation elitist.

Yeah, I’ve actually addressed this before:

But what the sound bites try to do to Obama is to make him out to be the kind of person which is contradicted by his manner and speech when you see him in action. The “bitter” comment idea is to try to make him out to be an elitist who sees the voters as hicks and rednecks–but listen to him at the compassion forum and that impression is so far from what you can clearly see him to be, it is impossible to maintain the idea that the sound bites were somehow accurate. The comments of Wright may be one thing, but you listen to Obama for more than a few minutes and you can clearly see that Wright’s speech is light-years from where Obama is.

An attack against an individual is only as effective as it is believable after having seen and heard the candidate yourself. Kerry was stodgy enough that you could maybe buy into the claims against him; Gore, with his debate sighs and wooden manner, was believable in the role of prevaricator. In contrast, Reagan didn’t seem like a liar or a front, which contributed to his “teflon” status. In each of these cases, the public image contradicted the reality, but the image stuck because people could witness the politicians and believe the images applied.

Additionally, none of these points are new; the media, for all they love to attack, usually don’t keep harping on one scandal endlessly. The issue wears out, even the Wright issue. If the GOP tries to use him, for example, people will just turn away from the attack bored. That’s the favor Hillary did for Obama: she used up most of the GOP’s ammunition. The GOP will try to make hay of it, and some will stick–Hillary did do some damage there. But after seeing it through, I have to admit that I think it was a good thing after all. Obama is stronger for it, and has not only survived, but prospered.

As for this:

Limbaugh, who you mentioned, recently announced that he now favors Obama as the candidate, seeing him as a weaker opponent generally than Hilary.

Of course Limbaugh said he’d rather have Obama be the candidate–but only after it was a foregone conclusion that Obama would be the candidate. As long as there was uncertainty, Limbaugh and many other conservatives not only spoke, but fervently acted on the idea that they preferred Hillary. Limbaugh had to reverse himself, else admit that Obama was the better candidate. The fact that he turned a 180 only after Obama became inevitable shows up the lie. Don’t believe it for a second–you can bet that Limbaugh & Co. are hoping for Obama to self-destruct now even more than Hillary is.

Many Democrats feel that Obama should appeal to Republicans. But this ignores his very liberal voting record (most liberal in the whole Senate), seeming weakness on foreign defense, and “Big Government” proposals such as Nationalized Health Care.

Okay, a few things wrong here. His “most liberal” label is applied wrongly. Seriously, can you remember a Democratic candidate who wasn’t named “most liberal” by some organization or another? Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and now Obama have all been called “the most liberal” something or other during an election year. It’s a scare technique. Do you really think that every Dem candidate for the last three decades has actually been the most liberal pol out there? This ranking has been thoroughly debunked, just like the claim about Kerry four years ago. In short: The National Journal chose only some votes–not all–to make the count with, and Obama was absent for one-third because he was out campaigning; he returned for the important votes and usually voted with the party, ergo skewed results. Like Kerry, he was not the #1 in previous years. Also, of the 66 or more counted votes he attended, he was in line with Clinton on all but two (he voted yes to ethics reforms and to allow immigrants to stay in-country while visas get renewed), and yet somehow that made Clinton #16 and Obama #1. The study is pure bunk.

As for Obama’s health care plan, it is not “Nationalized,” and it is more centrist than Hillary’s plan. In fact, Obama has taken hits from the left for not forcing people to buy insurance–instead using various techniques and incentives to make health care affordable, so that anyone who wants it will be able to get it.

Even many independents may be more attracted to McCain, given his centrist reputation and well-documented history of bipartisan cooperation.

“Reputation” is the key word; his actual record is very conservative. You cite what you claim is Obama’s actual record instead of his reputation, but then you cite McCain’s reputation instead of his actual record. This suggests a thumb on the scales; it’s either the real records of both, or the reputations of both.

Conservatives aren’t happy with McCain, but I doubt many of them would prefer Obama.

It’s not about right-wingers preferring Obama, I did not say that. It’s about motivation for going to the polls. Hillary would galvanize the right wing core, Obama not nearly as much. McCain does not excite the right-wing core. Clinton-McCain would bring out more right-wing votes; Obama-McCain would have more of them staying at home. Activating that core constituency is vital, and helped Bush win in 2000 and 2004.

Incidentally, many of the states where Obama “won” are clearly going to go Republican in the general election. He won them because a small number of motivated followers swayed a caucus or because the Democratic race wasn’t widely contested there.

The point is not that Obama would win all of the traditional GOP states; the point, as I wrote, is that Obama put more of them in to play, so McCain will have to go into defense mode in enough of them to reduce his resources in traditional battleground states. Traditional Republican states have been turning deeper shades of purple for some time now, and Obama will force McCain to waste money on them, giving Obama an advantage in places like Ohio, Michigan, Florida–even places like Texas, where Obama is not so far behind McCain right now. Also, don’t discount those motivated followers–they changed Obama from a never-will-be to vault over the presumed nominee and eventually win the whole shebang. Democratic registration and turnout has been through the roof. That is not just going to vanish in a puff of smoke this fall. An energized base won two terms for Bush; they can do the same for Obama.

Obama will be demonized as I described above, so that independants are steered away and the lower-income base of Democrats continues to distrust him.

Obama has already been thoroughly demonized over the past few months while McCain has been getting favorable press, and yet Obama is winning in the polls over McCain, including with Independents. I mean, really, you have virtually non-stop scare videos of Wright endlessly repeating “God Damn America,” you have the media uncritically buying into characterizations of Obama as loved by terrorists, you have so many people believing the underground stories about Obama being a closet Muslim–Obama has been drowning in attacks for two months, ever since the NAFTA dirty trick from conservative Canadians, and yet he wins the nomination and is currently seen as beating McCain by a comfortable margin.

Hillary is no wimp of an attack dog. The GOP is of course going to attack Obama with all they’ve got–we’ve seen a lot of that already. My point is, it’s not going to work. Obama has shown his resiliency. Bush & McCain pull stuff like they did today, Obama hits the country with inspiration, youth (more voters are turned off by old age than race), and a huge war chest built up almost entirely by small, private donations…

I’m not saying it’s a lock. I’m not saying it won’t be hard. What I’m saying is that Obama has a very powerful campaign this year.

Of course, if the media wants to play him as the underdog, I can go along with that. The expectations game can be just as important.