McCain Wins Blue (bad), Obama Wins Red (good)

by shamanic

I've been reading blogger reax, and I've seen a few commenters note two media narratives: "McCain won blue states and that's a bad thing for him" and "Obama won red states and that's a good thing for him."

Apparently some interpret this as hypocrisy or liberal bias or Obama bias, but here's the thing: McCain is almost certainly going to be the nominee for the GOP, but on the whole he was only successful in states he can't win in the fall. Obama, if he becomes the nominee, will almost certainly win the big states Clinton targeted yesterday. California, New York, New Jersey, etc., are blue bastions. As one Dem strategist put it last night, if we lose California in the fall, we've got much bigger problems than who the nominee is. This is why McCain=blue is bad for McCain and Obama=red is good for Obama.

I'm going to say again that Barack Obama might just be able to put the GOP on defense in a number of supposedly solid red states. An Obama nomination would force the GOP to drop precious resources and play defense instead of their usual offensive game (and I mean "offensive" in all senses of the word). 50% of voters 30% of the population in deeply, deeply red South Carolina is African American. You don't think John McCain and the RNC would have to spend some money to make sure his ducks line up in that contest?

I for one am tired of my vote here in Georgia not counting, and if Clinton's the nominee, she's not going to put a penny into this state and she's not going to change a single mind here. But Obama? Obama just might make it a race here. Obama just might give me a vote worth casting again.