Maybe I should have stuck with Clinton

The Obama Surge may still be real, but it has hit the hard rocky shore of the Clinton Campaign in Ohio and Texas. Or has it. I heard an alternative theory explaining the patterning of the election last night that I think is pretty interesting.

This was related by Chris Matthews during election coverage on MSNBC last night, and sorry to say, I did not catch the name of the person who came up with this idea. Simply put, it works like this:

Among typical mostly white Democrats who are working class and middle class, there is a fixed percentage, not a surging or shifting percentage, of support for each candidate (Obama and Clinton). This has been true since early in the primary season, possibly (in my opinion) since after New Hampshire. What we when saw as what appeared to be a swell in support of Obama reflects the geography of certain other demographics.

The demographics are variations in Hispanic and Black voters, and may be some other factions, across the various states. The distribution of support for either of the two candidates is also fixed in these populations, but the representation of Black and Hispanic voters varies more across the different states. So what we are seeing is a simply shift in results by changing demographics as one goes from one state to the next, not a shift in anyone's opinion.

Right now, according to some experts, while Obama is ahead in delegates, and will remain so, but Clinton can still take the nomination. The details depend on exactly how the Great State of Texas (who put down an insurrection in the School Board last night) allocates delegates. Most likely Obama will win the next couple of primaries with Clinton taking Pennsylvania. After Pennsylvania, Obama will still have more delegates but when we count in the Super Delegates and a few other factors, the convention can still broker a Clinton nomination.

The Clinton campaign is giving all the signals that this may be what they are looking for at this point.

So the following outcomes seem to be possible:

1) Obama is the nominee, and he wins the general election. Or not.

2) Clinton wipes out Obama and takes the nomination by political force, Obama quietly withdraws. Many of the new voters brought into the process by Obama become disaffected with the political system, go away, and never come back. Clinton loses the general election by a few thousand votes.

3) Clinton, positioned to take the nomination by force, deals with Obama and Obama deals back, and we have a Clinton Obama ticket this year, a Clinton Obama ticket in four years, an Obama Somebody ticket in 8 years, and an Obama Somebody ticket in 12 years. The democrats, with a much larger body of support from independents to join the party, Rino's who come to the party, and all these new voters who have jumped on the Obama bandwagon, keep the Democrats in power in the House and Senate, and we go back to a one party system for 16 years. Having learned a number of lessons from the past couple of decades, the Democrats do an incredibly good job of governing. Election decisions are once again made at the primary level in the Democratic party rather than in the general election, except in a few staunchly Republican states, which slowly lose more and more Federal support and eventually dry up and blow away. The Global Warming Crisis is solved, the Evolution-Creation debate becomes moot, the deficit is eliminated and the Republican Debt is paid off, taxes lowered, higher education made accessible, public transit becomes the primary way people get around between home and their jobs. And everybody who wants a job has one.