Looking back over the Clinton — Obama Democratic primary race, I have the sense of a peculiar problem by way of perceptions.  At a certain point, the evenly matched match-up becomes one where you can slice the states which either candidate should win based off of demographics.  And that is what has happened.  The problem comes in that the media-storyline, and thus ours and thus the contrived reality, has the rules that a candidate can carry along the contest so long as she wins the states she has been demographically sliced to win.  (Or, you know, he).  As soon as she loses one of those states she is supposed to lose, the momentum is such that the contest is closed.  (Or you know, he).  Further, the fact that the other candidate was unable to win the state he was not suppose to win, based on these demographic cut-ups, he will be questioned on why he can’t win this state he was not supposed to win, in lieu of the next contest where he will almost surely win a state he is supposed to win.

It is all a little bit baffling.  I propose, though, in an even party match-up such as this one, and I tend to like Obama’s response on why he can’t, quote “close the deal” end-quote of “I am”, that it is going to show the demographic electoral faultlines of either candidate by definition of a 50 (plus one) -50 (minus one) contest, and if the line of focus on the problematics were flipped because Hillary Clinton lead by the insurmountable 100 delegates, her candidate’s demographic make-up would shatter to pieces far easier than Barack Obama’s.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. 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.