home

Will Obama Do As Well As Clinton In FL, OH and PA in November?

By Big Tent Democrat

Obama supporter Publius writes (see also yep, Josh Marshall putting up his hands to cover the sun:

Other bloggers have, however, made the logical jump that Judis leaves largely to implication. I usually leave linking to "Big Tent" Democrat to John Cole, but here's what he said over at TalkLeft (unclear though whether he was talking only for him):

Obama can not win beer track white working class voters, women, seniors or Latinos. This is why Hillary is more electable in PA, OH, FL and MI.

Florida, perhaps, but both Clinton and Obama will have struggles in the other states versus McCain. More to the point, the fact that Clinton is preferred to Obama among this bloc of voters within a Democratic primary is not strong evidence that she'll do significantly better versus McCain in the general.

I should be glad I suppose to get the "Florida perhaps" concession. But I am struck by the strange argument, I have heard it before, that how a candidate does in a primary with a demographic has absolutely no predictive power as to how a candidate will do in the general election with that demographic. Imagine this argument in reverse - Obama will not do better than Clinton in turning out and getting African Americans to vote for him in a general election. Or college educated white males. Or the vaunted "youth vote." If I wrote that I would rightly be ridiculed by these same "Creative Class" bloggers. But let's set aside the obvious unsoundness of Publius' argument. Let's look at polls on the flip.

In the Pennsylvania RCP Average, Clinton beats McCain by 6. Obama beats McCain by 2. If my math is correct, that means Clinton runs 4 points better in Pennsylvania. I believe that means Clinton runs better in Pennsylvania. Am I missing something? And the same is true for Florida and Ohio, where Clinton leads McCain and Obama loses to McCain.

In what demographics does Clinton run better than Obama? Here is how Quinnipiac puts it:

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama.

(Emphasis supplied.) It so happens that I think, because of his Media Darling status, Obama remains the more electable candidate. I think he can expand the electoral map in the West especially. But I am not foolish enough to deny what should be obvious to any person able to view this contest objectively - Obama is a much bigger risk in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The "Creative Class" is intent to be the bulwark of Obama Fandom, apparently utterly incapable of discussing the political realities in rational fashion. The reality now is Clinton runs better in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania than Obama. That is not to say Obama can not win in Ohio and Pennsylvania (he can't in Florida imo), but rather it is to say that Clinton would be more likely to win in those states (just as Obama is more likely to win in Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, etc.)

Covering your eyes will not make these realities go away.

< Innocent Texas Man to Be Freed After 23 Years | No Mirrors Handy? >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I know we disagree on this (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    you have said in the past that you think Obama will continue to be the media darling (not your exact words) and I think they will turn on him.  If I am right I do not believe that Obama will win most of those states.  I do not believe that he will win PA or OH in any case. NJ is also a possible pick up for McCain depending on how the media treats the race between Obama and McCain.  That is based solely on my knowledge of the people... so discount it.  Still I believe there is a good chance NJ votes for McCain and not Obama.

    They are bound to turn on him... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:39:05 AM EST
    ...at some point.

    The GOP will point out the free ride he got in the primary  from the media and the media will say:

    "Gee whizzz lookeeesee. the Republicans are right, we did give him a free ride.  Let's gut Obama to make up for our failings.

    [ Parent ]

    yes and they will pretend (none / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    it was not planned that way all along.

    [ Parent ]
    Wasn't there a poll out recently (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    that showed that NY becomes a tossup if Obama is the nominee?  I mean - shouldn't THAT scare somebody???

    [ Parent ]
    Mass...I saw we lose Mass (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    did I imagine that?

    [ Parent ]
    Some folks think I'm a bit nuts (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    when I say he'll have to fight for NY, but I'm standing by that gut feeling. Older voters are not just going to vote Obama because he has a D after his name. Nor are some of the other demographics. McCain is not that scary to the average voter from what I can tell. And he has the experience factor that some voters think is important.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe it too (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:51:48 AM EST
    Outside of NYC, NYS is pretty conservative.  Obama will not get the Jewish vote in NYC, but I'm sure he'll carry Brooklyn and the Bronx due to the AA vote, and Manhattan due to the latte liberal vote. Queens and Staten Island would likely go to McCain, as would Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester.  

    Of course, November is months away and anything could happen, but right now I see a lot of Dems here who wouldn't hesitate to vote for McCain, who is perceived as being somewhat moderate for a Repub.  It's ironic that the Repubs, almost by accident it seems, selected the one candidate who is more palatable to some Dems and Independents.  

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see him winning my Brooklyn 'hood (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM EST
    easily. Yes, we are being 'gentrified', but the ratio of latte drinkers to old time Brooklyn folks is still lopsided. We have the Catholic vote, Jewish, working class, senior, Hispanic and women, for starters. Our AA % isn't that high as it's a very mixed area. A lot of the 'younger' vote you see, comes into visit and doesn't live here, it's too expensive for them now.

    He may not win all of Manhattan either. The diversity of NYC may end up being a B*tch for Mr Unity  ;)

    Hillary earned her upstate votes, so that's a vote Obama will have to hard work for.

    [ Parent ]

    No, not your hood (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    You're in Williamsburgh, right?  I'm sure BO will get the hipster vote, but not the Hasids and Latinos.  He'll definitely get my neighborhood, though - Boerum Hill is a combination of AA and latte liberals.  I believe that Hillary carried Kings County by only about 1,500 votes in the primary.

    I don't see him getting the upstate vote at all.  These are the same kind of folks he dissed with his "bitter" comments.  


    [ Parent ]

    Yup, Williamsburgh. (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    By Nov, even more of the expensive condo's they are building may be sitting empty.

    I think his popularity could go down in Kings Co if he campaigns here. Or some of those anticipated 527's run.

    I was checking out some of the work Clinton has done upstate and I wonder how well he'll be able to speak to some of those issues, like with the small farmers etc. He'll have some of those issues in the central valley in CA also.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's experience will be the dealbreakers (none / 0) (#130)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    and notice how the unity hope schtick just won't stick. People will be practical. Its the economy.

    they'll go with the devil they know. Hillary - the better half of one the most prosperous administrations in modern times.

    [ Parent ]

    Here (none / 0) (#33)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    it is.

    [ Parent ]
    Well MSNBC seems to think... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    ...that the Springsteen endorsement is going to make him a shoe in with blue collar workers. LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    Hee! The Ballad of Tom Joad (none / 0) (#19)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    got lost somewhere along the way, apparently.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no. Springsteen endorsed Obama? (none / 0) (#20)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    How did I miss that? When did that happen? I'm heartbroken.:( I love Bruce.

    [ Parent ]
    It was just announced this morning (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:55:50 AM EST
    I love Bruce too, but I think he's wrong on this one.  Still can't wait to see him this Saturday night in Orlando!!!  I'll try not to let this temper my enjoyment.

    I think it's been a long time since he tossed back a shot and a beer in a working class bar.

    [ Parent ]

    Letter to Fans (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    See BruceSpringsten.net

    This seems to be the money quote:

    He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."

    I am not sure this was worthy of an AP news item, but that is how I read about it.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Well that's it in a nutshell.... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    ...Obama speaks to (insert whatever).

    I just hope that if he is elected president that he actually does more than just occupy a bully pulpit. We need a bit more than that after what Bush has done to the country.

    [ Parent ]

    Jon Bon Jovi still hearts Hillary! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    There is a reason the MSM refuses to report on the Rezko trial and all the other negatives we know about Obama. They are sitting on that information until he's the nominee. It's been choreographed already. The fix is in if they succeed in making him our nominee-which they so desperately are trying to do.

    The Corporate owned MSM is NOT a friend of the Democratic Party. That's just a fact.

    Obama won't win any close state in the GE. If a state leans red or is purple, it's McCain's for the taking--with a lot of help from his adoring MSM.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't (none / 0) (#132)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    honestly believe he could win here in Wisconsin. Not sure she could either. I reluctantly think that our purple state is once again swinging towards red.

    Maybe when Cream comes around she can tell me how wrong I am. I hope so.

    [ Parent ]

    The creative class (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    ignores these truths at their peril. Obama has a serious white working-class problem.  Covering their eyes will not change this.

    its because everyone is assuming (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    ONLY that candidate can hold their demographic.

    the question is in the end, for the key demographics are Issues important and thus if their candidate is not there who is the next best choice?

    for Hillary's demographic she is the BEST choice, but assuming she is not in, do they then say, I think McCain is better on Healthcare, and the economy and what not?

    I mean when 1 drops out what do we think all their support goes? do they drop off the face of the earth? do they go to McCain?

    if the people of Ohio can't have Hillary will they say well only Hillary would change NAFTA she is gone lets go with McCain?

    right now people polling are saying they will NOT vote for the other candidate, but I mean if Hillary can win OH over McCain the question is why? is it issues or is it the person,

    if its issues, will people in OH then say McCain is their next best bet?

    and can't things change? doesn't Obama now beat McCain in MI while Hillary loses?

    does that mean if Obama is not on the ticket MI goes to Obama? why were these people polling for Obama? is it the person or the issues?

    will they find a Republican was closer to their stance then Hillary?

    me I don't know, but I think when we have 1 candidate the party with start to unite and the dem will get a bump

    but thats my opinion I freely admit it

    I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    Wishful thinking will not make it so. Between the defection of HRC supporters based on Obama's campaign and the fact that working-class white voters tend to swing between Republican and Democrats, he's got a serious problem. Those people like McCain. They think he's a Maverick. Latinos trust him on immigration just as well. And he's as much of a neophyte to Economics as Obama is.  

    [ Parent ]
    we know how the Repubs (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    will attack Hillary because the media has shown us. However, none of their screeds will concern her "hate" for America.
    After the GOP and media wrap McCain in the American flag and dare patriotic American voters to vote against an American POW held for 5 years while serving in the American military, their ads of Obama's connection to Auchi-Saddam and Rev. Wright-Farrakhan, plus Michelle Obama's disregard for America will take on new meaning for the nominee that calls voters ignorant for clinging to their guns, God, and racist beliefs and rejecting THE ONE.


    [ Parent ]
    Sure it can change (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:20 AM EST
    but now the polls show that Obama does not hold Clinton's demographic in those key states.

    Obama's blogs should be talking about how he is going to work to change that between now and November, not pretending it does not exist. Or worse, that it does not matter because he is going to win enough western states to make up for PA.

    [ Parent ]

    And (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:52:16 AM EST
    FL, MI, OH, and even maybe NY and NJ. How many state are there out west anyway?

    [ Parent ]
    ha. Not enough. (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    And I hate to break it to Obama, but he's not going to win any of them.  With Ahnold and McCain being tight, he is even going to have to fight for California.

    [ Parent ]
    I've heard that too (none / 0) (#44)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    Not the Ahnald thing, but that make sense. I remember reading a while back that if Obama was the nominee, CA could be in play because McCain has a good relationship with Hispanics. Don't know if that's true or not, but it would certainly be interesting.

    [ Parent ]
    We always go blue (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    here in CA.  It'll just be without my vote on the top of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    Reagan? Bush Sr? (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think of CA as blue (none / 0) (#129)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    because I typically look at the last 4 elections when I am considering red/blue.  Reagan I think got help from celebrity and he seemed like a nice guy.  Seems like Obama would have got the state over Clinton for that reason, but didn't.  CA likes McCain for some reason.

    My prediction for CA as blue for 2008 is based on primary results....25% of Clinton supporters could switch to McCain, some indie support could switch to McCain, Repub turnout could increase 20% and Obama would still get CA.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it will stay blue (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    but Obama will have to spend more time and money there than he would like.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't speak for citizens (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Grandmother on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    of Florida, NJ or PA but I can tell you that Obama will not win the State of Missouri.  He will get St. Louis City/County and Kansas City with the possibility of Columbia Mo which is home to the Univeristy of Mo.  He can write off the rural vote which, as Claire McCaskill can attest to, you need to win an election in this state.  

    I have written before there is a wide swath of land between K.C. and St. Louis and it is not pretty for any Democrat (except Bill Clinton won here which ya think would tell the Democratic party something) but especially for one that has the baggage that Obama is now carrying around.

    I just returned from a trip to/from Springfield, MO (home of the Blunt family) and the 200 mile ride is littered with pro gun, anti-abortion, and Jesus Saves billboards. Go Southewast and you get into Limbaugh family territory.  Same thing.

    Without this state, you don't win elections.  

    I Agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    Obama will lose Missouri. Only way to win here is to have the combined support of the typical Democratic strongholds and enough appeal  in  rural counties to squeak out a win.  Obama will not garner enough support in the nonDemocratic counties to pull it off. Prior to being tarnished as a racist, Clinton had IMO a chance of winning here. Now McCain will can put MO in his win column regardless of the candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    since he and HRC actually split the number of delegates equally and she won 110 of the 116 counties - that does not bode well for him in MO. (Current polling has him almost 16 points behind McCain there).

    [ Parent ]
    16 points behind in Missouri! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    I had missed that.  That is just awful for us.

    As Missouri goes, so goes the nation, they say?  It certainly says that there goes the Midwest.  And with crucial swing states here, that's saying about the same -- as add to that the consensus of many pollsters that Obama maxed out the potential AA voters in the primaries, with their terrific turnout, so which states could he take, seriously?

    Ouch, 16 points, in a swing state that he won. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    While Obama Won MO By 10,000 Votes (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    in the primary, he lost in every county other than the typical Dem strongholds. Can't win the general with without winning in other counties.

    [ Parent ]
    His win (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    in MO was pre snobgate and Rev. Wright. Wright really tanked his numbers in MO.

    [ Parent ]
    Six months ago (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:30 AM EST
    I expected the political environment to give the generic Democrat a narrow win in Missouri. Now, not so much.

    [ Parent ]
    Nor Wisconsin, as noted here yesterday (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:55 AM EST
    when I linked to our leading AA columnist (okay, just about our only AA columnist) who hit hard at Obama's recent comments, and the bottom line is that Wisconsin would not go for Obama now.  And the columnist has said in other ways that we agree that what happened in the Wisconsin primary was a fluke for reasons that do not reflect well on our state -- btw, that description of the swath of Missouri with "Jesus Saves" and pro-gun signs and such really resonates, as that's what we see here in Wisconsin away from the southeast part of the state, more literal signs that the primary here, where those areas went for Obama, was about something else I shall not bring into this conversation again. . . .)

    [ Parent ]
    CC - could you please provide the link again? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Okay -- hope this works (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    as my computer was balky again, not copying url's for me, but I got it to behave -- or if it doesn't work again here, click back to my comments yesterday.

    You also might want to do so, anyway, to see a bit of the discussion in replies yesterday, including from another local reader here re this columnist and his comments, as he was exceedingly pro-Obama before.


    [ Parent ]

    I don't feel to confident (none / 0) (#72)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    that Obama would win Boone County (Columbia) where I live either.  Bush beat Kerry here in 2004 and it was the rural vote that put him over the top.  Obama's comments about guns will haunt him in the general.  

    [ Parent ]
    I do know that Obama is all in on Bittergate (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    He's apparently fundraising on the bitter comments now, so there is no going back with an apology.  He has certified that he stands by his comments.  He has certified that he is an elitist.  The only hope he has in the GE is the media spin continues for him that his remarks were just about bitterness and not about a causal relationship between bitterness and religion, hunting and oh yeah that pesky small-town heritage of racism.  Can he sustain that spin in the face of McCain and the 527's and the media love for the straight talk express?  If he can't, the beer track is unwinnable for him (can't say gone because he has yet to win them notwithstanding millions of $$ and a fawning press) and so is the election.

    It's not surprising. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    It's really just a recast of his strategy to unite enough Democrats around the notion that Clinton was the worst president ever (or at least as bad as Bush)and that Clintons should be reviled in order to win the nomination. That strategy has worked for him so who knows, maybe he can convince enough blue collar workers that they reallly are just are bitter clingers and therefore should vote for him. Republicans have gotten people to vote against their best interests time and time again. Obama is just trying to get people to vote against their own memories and judgments, or so it seems to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, as it stands, I actually don't think (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    we can win in November. I know that's nervous Nellyism, but after being on TV so much in PA, the fact that Obama isn't running ahead of McCain there is really quite concerning to me.

    My belief (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    is that come around October 10th or so, you will see some maneuverings with regards to Iran, plus lots of "good news" in Iraq.  McCain will look strong on security and Obama will look like a little boy who missed his bus.

    [ Parent ]
    Love that metaphor (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    Is that the bus that is running over grandma?

    [ Parent ]
    It's running over both Grandma (none / 0) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    and me ;-).

    [ Parent ]
    But where's the beef? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    Hypothetically, Obama could win some states, but there is no track record to judge this on and alot of the poll showing him doing well were at the height of Obamamania and before Wright broke.
    His only significant general election win came against joke candidate Alan Keyes in a fairly blue Illinois. In the medium to large primaries, with the exception of Wisconsin and his home state, he has failed to demonstrate an ability collect votes from a broad electorate -- in fact, losing all ethnic groups outside of African Americans. Even in his homestate, he last 14 counties to Clinton in southern Illinois.

    Clinton, on the other hand, can point to her solid general election margins in swing counties in upstate New York.  And she can point to her winning all of the top ten Democratic states, with the exception of Illinois.

    Plus, as you say, Clinton is clearly doing better in all the key large battleground states.    

    In a word, no. (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:56:58 AM EST
    Older women will be Obama's Waterloo.

    We are angry. We are bitter. We are clinging to our Clariol and deep pocketbooks.

    We will not vote for Obama.  

    Hear hear. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    I will be bitterly clinging to my couch on Nov 4.

    [ Parent ]
    Amateur sociologist Obama (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    should know that voters, when disrespected and disappointed by one candidate, become bitter and cling even tighter to another candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    at this point (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    it would take a severe risk of loss by one of my state reps to get off the couch should Barry be the nominee.  I have no real motivation to vote for Obama or even Chris unless he gets off his ass and endorses Hillary.  

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Chris (none / 0) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    was endorsing BHO. In fact, when I saw that I thought, both the guys we put into office. Nice. Not.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I do have a state senate race (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    that will get me to the polls -- to vote for a guy over a woman incumbent, actually, so let no one say I vote for a woman uber alles.  As others have said here so well, I vote as I do because the woman who is crucial in the equation is me.  And I know when I see an awful pol, no matter the anatomy, who is the opposite of me on my issues, not only women's rights but many other local issues for us.

    And it is at the state level here, in part owing to this woman, that Roe v. Wade has become almost meaningless where we live our lives, anyway.  The Supremes have left it to the states, so we are left to fight for reproductive rights in the states.  I do not see the Supremes changing that anytime soon, not even with two new appointments to the court that could go our way.  And I do not see the conservatives actually doing away with Roe v. Wade, as they need it too much to keep their voters in line who may not like the economy, etc.

    So what I do at the polls about the presidential race, time will tell.  Just now, based on the above, my conscience tells me to fight for these rights at the state level, while a vote for the DNC candidate seems counter to what my conscience tells me about FL, MI, Brazile, Dean, and Co.  

    [ Parent ]

    Been Thinking About What I Will Do In November (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    We have a race for the Governors slot this year, so I will definitely vote. I currently think that Obama will get the Dem nomination because the party will not risk ticking off the AA community. Don't really want to vote for Obama and definitely won't vote for McCain. If by some miracle the presidential race is close here in MO, I will probably vote for Obama. OTOH, if McCain is way ahead and I think  he will be, then I will write in Hillary or some other candidate rather than help Obama increase his % of the women's vote.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm in KY (none / 0) (#105)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    So there is 0% chance I will have to vote for Obama, because there is 0% chance that it would matter.  I doubt I'll vote for McCain either.  Probably abstain or vote Libertarian.  As for downticket, unless the Dems seat FL & MI while it still matters, I'm abstaining there too.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL you two! :-) (none / 0) (#37)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just remember (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    McCain on Hardball last night reaffirmed his "pro life" position and that he would not consider Tom Ridge for VP because Ridge is pro choice.

    Frankly I am terrified about a host of constitutional issues if McCain is the nominee and gets to name Stephens' (age 88) replacement.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I have a hard time giving a shit anymore (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    if younger women can't vote for a woman who has spent her whole life protecting a woman's right to chose and instead vote for a guy who votes present rather than running for his next job, then why should I care?  I am not convinced that Obama's judicial appointments would be that much better than McCain's.  Believe me he HAD to have satisfied Bob Casey on this matter to get Casey to support him in PA.

    [ Parent ]
    Even (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    HRC has said that democrats should vote for the dem nominee in November.  If you aren't convinced that Obama would offer stronger nominations than McCain, then you haven't been paying attention.  The republicans have dedicated themselves to nominating judges that will, among other horrifying things, allow the executive branch to do whatever it wants.  Good luck with King McCain.  Even if you think Clinton would find better Justices, saying Obama would be just as bad as McCain is way off target.  
    I actually have a lot of hope for Obama in this regard.  Harvard Law churns out the worst kind of theory-lawyers.  A friend of mine hired a Harvard kid as a summer associate over another kid from a solid state school.  Harvard could quote you SC decisions but couldn't send a fax.  He also didn't realize that he couldn't just poke around on Westlaw all day.  Point being, I think Obama will try to appoint liberal, Harvard-law folk like himself.  
    (The previous Harvard-bashing is mostly just a joke, though the story is true.  Advance apologies to any Harvard Law grads.  And no, I didn't go to Yale.)      

    [ Parent ]
    Voting present (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    Voting present was something Planned Parenthood, and other pro-choice orginizations ASKED him to do and supported him for.  Maybe, just maybe, young women are voting for Obama because they actually THINK he will be a better president.

    I, personally, do not accept Hillary as a feminist candidate for reasons I would prefer not to get into on this blog.  Others can think differently, I am not trying to persuade on that one.  But it has nothing to do with drinking Kool-aid or listening to Opera (two things I never do).

    Maybe you don't care about young women's right to choose.  Maybe you don't care about young people being sent to die in the middle east.  Maybe you don't care about young people paying for the war in the future.  But don't get mad at us for caring.

    [ Parent ]

    What do you mean? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    For reasons you can't state here? Is it the fact that she's pro-choice 100% Naral rating? Or is it that she's the first viable female candidate for President? Or is it the fact that after being bullied to death by MALES she refuses to get out of a race that no other man has ever been asked to do? OR are you hinging it on the fact that she stayed with her husband?  

    And war? Samantha Powers got caught telling the truth that Obama would NOT have troops out immediately. And Obama refuses to get the mercenaries out.  

    [ Parent ]

    We DO care (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:11:04 PM EST
    That's why we think Hillary is the best candidate!

    [ Parent ]
    Do read what Illinois NOW said (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    about those present votes and much else about him, where they know him well.  

    And you agree with him, in his comments the other night, that abstinence is the best bet for your generation, so you won't need to worry about what he does or doesn't do to defend Roe v. Wade?

    As for not "accepting" Clinton as a feminist, well, this accords with what I see -- and I see many of your generation in teaching about this -- as a lack of knowledge about what feminism actually is.

    You can, within the confines of this blog's constraints, give us your definition of feminism, anyway.  That might help us understand your comment, as it just doesn't accord with the records and recent stands of these candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't be too sure. (none / 0) (#107)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    There are dueling quotes by Pam Sutherland on who had the voting present idea.

    "He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,' " said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

    source.

    Another quote by her makes it seem like it was their idea but this one clearly makes it seem like it was HIS idea to hide behind "present" votes.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh stop (none / 0) (#131)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:13:18 PM EST
     We do care about the kids in the war or else we would not have fought so hard in 06 to get the Dems elected. How is that going? As for Roe vs Wade. Where do you think the support came for that all these years. Us? Most of the young women take it for granted because it has always been there. I was glad it was there too and I have voted that for way all my life. Now, young women are not willing to take our advice with all our hard earned wisdom, so do not put that guilt trip on us. Why would we vote for someone who sounds as if he might be another GW? So, maybe we will and maybe we won't but we do have some power as middle to older women and we might just use it to send a message. We have been taken for granted and expected to cave as usual. I love men, but we are equals except they do not have to bear the pain of child birth and they make decisions on our reproductive systems. Obama will not be any different or he would not have liked Roberts or Alito.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't mean to guilt trip (none / 0) (#133)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    I was responding to that specific comment about "not caring about young women".  I am not arguing that you shouldn't vote for Clinton, you can vote for whoever you want in the primary, which is why I won't go into my Clinton feelings.  I am talking about the general election.

    "Now, young women are not willing to take our advice with all our hard earned wisdom,"

    That is VERY patronizing, we can't think for ourselves?

    Obama is VERY different from GW and McCain, if you can't see that, I got nothing, because you must have blinders on.

    [ Parent ]

    A link? (none / 0) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    I a pretty sure that the notion that planned parenthood asked him to vote present has been debunked.

    People no longer working for the agency endorsed the vote.  Those still with the agency didn't.

    It could be that it was NARAL and not planned parenthood that I'm thinking of, though.

    [ Parent ]

    You may not care (none / 0) (#66)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:34:39 AM EST
    Others might. Personally, I think the Constitution is worth a sh*t.

    Here is the quote in full.

    Chris Matthews: Would you put a person on the ticket with you like the former governor of this state who is very popular Tom Ridge even though he may disagree with you on the issue of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights? Would you put somebody on the ticket like that on that one issue. Would that stop him?

    John McCain: I don't know if it would stop him but it would be difficult.

    Chris Matthews: But why that one issue? Why is there that one litmus test?

    John McCain: I'm not saying that would be necessarily, but I am saying it's basically the respect and cherishing of the right of the unborn is one of the fundemental principles of my party and it's a deeply held belief of mine.

    Roe would definitely be doomed under McCain and you can bet more "settled" constitutional issues will be over turned.   I am going to keep raising this issue, because I think it important.

    And by it, I mean more than just Roe. Imagine this, a veto proof majority passes a health care bill written by Senator Clinton. Its challenged on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court with Stephens replacement reverts to Lochner mode, and declares it unconstitutional based upon the takings clause.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Apparently, (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    younger women need to learn for themselves what back-alley abortions are. Perhaps they need to watch one of their friend's have to self abort with a clothes hanger and get such a bad infection they die or almost die? Or watch a friend have an abortion under less than safe conditions by some hatchet "doctor?"

    Maybe they need to see what it's like to work in a male dominated workplace and be sexually harassed unabashedly? Or maybe they'd like to live in a world where women were expected to stay home, barefoot and pregnant because the husband wants it that way?

    It's all taken for granted and they will rue the day they let go of what so many women fought so hard for.

    [ Parent ]

    Frankly I find this comment appalling (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    Because younger women disagree with their respected elders on who to vote for they deserve back alley abortions? Did you really mean that?

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I know what she means. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:54:44 AM EST
    I'm young. But a lot of my contemporaries are voting for Obama. They think being a feminist is being able to choose the better candidate (let's forget for a minute that IMO the FEMALE candidate is the one that fits that profile). They don't appear to be concerned about abortion and Obama's "present" votes. They don't appear concerned about the sexism he has hurled Hillary's way. They don't seem to care at all.  They seem to think feminism is dated. For the old hags.  They think it's funny that Hillary "cried." They have not had to suffer through a workforce of sexism because they're not old enough to have been there long enough.   That's the point I think of the original poster. Maybe if they didn't have it so easy they wouldn't be so quick to throw our greatest female candidate (and IMO candidate in general) under the bus quite so easily.

    [ Parent ]
    Got this joke today that is similar (none / 0) (#134)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    To make it short. The young guy is saying to the geezer "What did your generation offer? Mine has computers, jet planes, Hybrids,rockets to Mars, etc." The geezer says "Yep, you are right. My generation did not have any of those things so we had to invent them. What is your generation going to do?"

    We were there fighting for the causes, but people take them for granted. Just because a candidate has D next to his name it does not mean we will get a liberal judge. What, you think Casey is going to vote yes to one? Our best chance on this is with Hillary. On this, I know she will not let us down and the judge will probably be a woman too.

    [ Parent ]

    Is that what I said? (none / 0) (#94)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    I said apparently, they need to "witness""see""watch" those things because they certainly don't seem to respect the hard fought battles of the women's Lib movement. In fact, it's been mentioned that people are "over" all that silly "women's Lib/Feminist stuff" now. WHY are they over all that stuff now? Who is over it? I'm not. This fight will NEVER stop. Women will always be at the bottom of the ladder and younger women don't seem to care about it because they've never had to FIGHT for it.

    Obama is NOT to be trusted with the SCOTUS. He's NOT to be trusted with the abortion issue. He has said he will not "fight" with the Anti-Choice" gangs and I for one do not trust him to fight for MY rights as a woman, especially after watching him and all his MALE cohorts treat Hillary like a piece of cr*p throughout this election. He doesn't respect women AT ALL. He's made that perfectly clear to ME.

    [ Parent ]

    I would say yes (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    I said apparently, they need to "witness""see""watch" those things

    Who do you think "they" will be watching? They will be watching other young women.

    So yes, you are in effect saying

    Because younger women disagree with their respected elders on who to vote for they deserve back alley abortions

    It may not be what you meant, but it is the end result.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    that is not (none / 0) (#140)
    by isaac on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    what she said and you know it.  she said younger women need to be reminded how things were and how important this issue is, NOT that they should be subject to such horrors.  obama is too willing to kowtow to the right in the interest of some ethereal bipartisanship than stand up for women's rights as hillary would.

    [ Parent ]
    I stand by what she said (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    I said apparently, they need to "witness""see""watch" those things

    Maybe you need to re-read and think about the difference between remind, '"Witness', 'See', "watch'" Just words? I don't think so. Are you playing a variation on WVicsanRM?

    Her "reminder" is to witness, see and watch. What do you think they will be witnessing, seeing or watching?

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    so much anger at young women (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    I work in a male dominated workplace (I am an engineer).  And frankly, I find it refreshing.  People are, if anything, more open and impressed that I made it this far.  If anything, it HELPS to be a woman.  Also, consider the fact that currently WAY more young women are going to college than young men.  And young women in cities like New York, Boston, and San Francisco actually make significantly MORE money than their male counterparts.

    Do you honestly think this is what an Obama presidency will look like???  Have you heard of his wife???  Do you really think he thinks all women should stay home barefoot and pregnant???  GIVE ME A BREAK.

    Look, I think the women's right's movement was succesfull, and I am grateful.  I don't think that means I have to vote for the first female president that comes along.  I look forward to voting for others in the future, and I do not doubt that it will happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Women (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    are still making about 80c to the male $1. Women are still harassed in workplaces. Women still have a hell of a time getting time off for maternity. Women still do not get hired if they have small children. I saw a subway ad with a woman's breast and a man's face in front. It was about bowling. That is quite refreshing isn't it? After 50 years, we're right back where we started.  And Michelle Obama?  Her husband had to approve her first job after they were married.

    [ Parent ]
    The ONLY reason you and so many (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    other young women are where you are is because we older women fought for you. Do you honestly believe if we left your futures in the hands of men you would have had the education and job you now have? Honestly? Do you think abortion would have been legalized by men had we women not fought for it? Do you really think the men would have willingly given you a high paying/equal pay job without it being fought for by women? Do you really believe sexual harassment would have just gone away if left up to men?

    I know who Michelle Obama is. Yes, I have seen her and she TOO is where she is because of the women's movement. We had to fight and fight hard for everything we have....and HILLARY was a huge part of that fight. Obama was NOT. Obama may not believe women should stay home barefoot and pregnant, but many men still do and if it wasn't for the women's movement, that would be the NORM today. TRUST ME.

    I'm not going back there and I prefer to vote for people who are more willing to fight for me and MY values. Obama isn't that person. Hillary IS.

    [ Parent ]

    as long as you are talking (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    Hillary v Obama that is perfectly reasonable. But if it becomes McCain Obama, I would urge you to vote for Obama.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    You can urge (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:34:21 PM EST
    all you want. I don't trust him on women's issues. Or any other issues for that matter. I don't have to vote for him. I can write in Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope. I won't do that. (none / 0) (#118)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    I live in Illinois, so I don't have to waste a vote on him. I'm writing in Hillary's name. Obama is G-d here. He doesn't need my vote and isn't getting it.

    [ Parent ]
    well thank goodness for small favors (none / 0) (#121)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM EST

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#125)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    Mr. Hope has ticked off women all over this country. Not just women in his home state. THAT is going to be a huge problem in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep. (none / 0) (#148)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    And I live in a state where a few thousand votes makes the difference between it going Dem or Rep, but I'm still going to write in Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    He's not going to win Florida anyway, I may write in Clinton myself.

    [ Parent ]
    Remains to be seen (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    But hey, let perfection be the enemy of better than McCain. Writing in HRC will so help both Hillary, the Democratic party and prevent further erosion of the constitution.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Do you have a link regarding young women (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    making significantly more money than men in those cities?

    It wasn't that long ago in NYC that I enthusiastically was told "You make a fine salary for a woman."

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    It's a tad misleading though (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST
    One, judging by the salaries, those are lower level positions. When you start hitting the mid to higher level positions, it falls apart.

    Same with age and profession. By their 30's they are making less according to the NYTs article. And making less in general on Wall Street, for instance.

    here's some info on Working Women in general:

    http://www.womenemployed.org/index.php?id=20

    And thie just went up today (how timely, lol!~):

    hhttp://tinyurl.com/48qad3

    [ Parent ]

    Some stats (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    The trend is up. Up 1 cent.

    From the census bureau:

    Real median earnings of men age 15 and older who worked full-time, year-round declined 2.3 percent between 2003 and 2004, to $40,798. Women with similar work experience saw their earnings decline by 1.0 percent, to $31,223. Reflecting the larger fall in the earnings of men, the ratio of female-to-male earnings for full-time, year-round workers was 77 cents on the dollar, up from 76 cents in 2003.

    And the AFL/CIO

    In 2007, women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Economist Evelyn Murphy, president and founder of The WAGE Project, estimates the wage gap costs the average full-time U.S. woman worker between $700,000 and $2 million over the course of her work life.

    These figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earn only 68 cents and Latinas 57 cents for every dollar that men earn. Asian American and Pacific Islander American women earn less, too. Their pay inequality is less severe than for women as a whole, but they still earned only 88 cents for every dollar that men earned in 2000.



    [ Parent ]
    Sorry for double-post (none / 0) (#138)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    myr eson for the stats is that not all women live in cities and not all women have salaried jobs.

    And this was an FYI.

    [ Parent ]

    Also big cities (none / 0) (#93)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    do not an entire country make. Big cities have been more progressive than most of the country for the last 2 centuries.

    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#98)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    But I am talking about a trend.  This didn't used to be true about big cities either.  I am not saying it's perfect, I'm saying it's much better.  Also, it's necessary and will only improve since women are coming out of college more than men, employees will HAVE to hire them.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you see the irony? (none / 0) (#137)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    Also, it's necessary and will only improve since women are coming out of college more than men, employees will HAVE to hire them.
    See there in that quote? It is not that they want to hire them, they will HAVE to. Sounds like WWII and plane production. But even that had to do with no men around. Guess what? Woman could do what the men could. Oh, look, we have a Women President. Maybe Feminism has only re-entered my vocabulary. I wanted Edwards. I trusted Edwards.I don't trust Obama. And bring back the ERA Amendment. Let me roar.....

    [ Parent ]
    That wasn't my sister's experience (none / 0) (#88)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    I work in a male dominated workplace (I am an engineer).  And frankly, I find it refreshing.  People are, if anything, more open and impressed that I made it this far.  If anythi