Mixed Signs for the General Election

Even though it is the beginning of March, it looks as if there are some troubling signs for the General Election in the fall.

First, the good news: According to The New York Times, on Saturday voters in the 14th Congressional District of Illinois selected Democrat Bill Foster, a physicist, to replace former Speaker of the House Dennis Hassert. Foster ran against the war and the unpopularity of the president/ GOP in a heavily Republican district. Senator Obama campaigned for him as well.

Yet, this may not reflect a trend throughout the country, as evidence on special elections helping the November elections seem mixed. It is interesting to note that the Democrats won a seat for a Congressional District that the Democrats have not contested since 1986, helping the "change" argument that both Democratic candidates employ.

Now, for the bad news: first, according to The New York Times, the DNC is broke and the RNC is drastically out fundraising its competition. Having a settled nominee is helping the RNC as opposed to the DNC, but that cannot explain it all. Since the DNC has no money and since a candidate cannot spend their money on the General Election until he/she is the nominee, the DNC needs some serious help.

Second, This would not be a problem if one of the Democratic candidates could knock the other out of the race, allowing the DNC to focus its efforts. However, Senator Obama could not knock out Senator Clinton in New Hampshire and Texas, though I am not sure if a defeat in Texas would have knocked her out of the race as she stated many times that she would continue. As for Senator Clinton, The New York Times has another story on the terrible state of her campaign, which undercuts her experience and "Day One" argument.

If Senator Obama could deliver the fatal blow or if Senator Clinton would have managed a successful campaign, the DNC may not have its problem.