home

Demography Is Political Destiny

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:29:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If you have been reading this site, you know that we have made the case that demography is political destiny in the Democratic Presidential contest. In every contest, Barack Obama has won 90% of the African American vote. In almost every contest, he has had trouble cracking 40% of the white working class vote, seniors and women.

Pennsylvania was no different. Obama won 89% of the African American vote. But only 38% of the white vote. He lost white women by nearly 2-1

12 million dollars in ads from Obama did not change this at all. The very real question that has been there throughout remains. Can Obama capture white working class voters critical to PA, OH, MI, etc.? North Carolina will not be where the Media pays attention to this. Indiana will be where the question is posed again. I'll explain why on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat

The latest SUSA NC poll tells the tale. It shows Obama winning 50-41. It shows Obama winning African Americans 83-10. It shows Obama losing whites 53-36. You may note that looks a lot like Pennsylvania. But here it is Obama up near 10. The difference is SUSA projects 30% of the North Carolina Dem electorate to be African American. Clinton can not win in North Carolina. Period. Losing by 10 is as good as it gets for Clinton.

Indiana is where Obama's appeal to working class whites will be tested again. SUSA's latest Indiana poll shows us why. It has Clinton up 16. And the demos? Obama wins African Americans 80-20. Clinton wins whites 59-35. Pretty much like North Carolina. The difference? African Americans will only make up 11% of the vote in Indiana according to SUSA.

Obama will win African Americans 90-10. Mark it up now. The question is what percentage of the white vote will he get? He needs 45% of the white vote in Indiana to win. He has not gotten that in contested big states. Unless he breaks that mold, Obama will lose Indiana. And if Indiana follows Ohio and Pennsylvania, he'll lose by double digits.

< Media Elite v. The Voters: NYTimes Says Let Elites Decide, Not The Voters | Voters Scream At Elites: Let's Count the Votes >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Demography Is Political Destiny | 186 comments (186 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The latest SUSA for IN (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:53 AM EST
    is actually here. (Last week.)

    Interesting Information On SUSA Survey Cited (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    Indiana Men, Democrats, & Young Voters Move Away From Obama: In a Democratic Primary in Indiana today, 04/14/08, three weeks until the primary, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 55% to 39%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WCPO-TV Cincinnati and WHAS-TV Louisville. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released two weeks ago, Clinton is up 3 points, Obama is down 4 points. Clinton had led by 9 at the beginning of April, leads by 16 mid-month. Here's where the movement is occurring: Among men, Obama had trailed by 2, now trails by 12, a 10-point swing to Clinton. In greater Indianapolis, Obama had led by 12, now trails by 1, a 13-point swing to Clinton. Among Democrats, Obama had trailed by 12, now trails by 27, a 15-point swing to Clinton. Among voters focused on health care, Clinton had led by 10, now leads by 30, a 20-point swing to Clinton. Among the youngest voters, Obama had led by 19, now trails by 2, a 21-point swing to Clint


    [ Parent ]
    Ooops (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:50:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The only hope he has (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:25 AM EST
    in the general is to pound on teh idea that you are a racist if you don't support him.

    It's all very high stakes.

    [ Parent ]

    I feel dirty for saying it. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:55 AM EST
    It would be nice if the electorate were already more enlightened.

    It's going to be a pain in the ass to make this argument in areas like Penn and Ohio.

    [ Parent ]

    one of his surrogates was on TV (none / 0) (#143)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    making the case that if he lost PA it would be due to racism and "that will be very upsetting and something we have to look at".
    Being called racist once again, only made me even more determined that he lose.
    And I can tell you that the "average voter" does know this is happening.  More than one person brought it up to me when I was canvassing.

    [ Parent ]
    And then there's that (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:40:19 AM EST
    pesky women's vote.  Didn't Russert last night say that the reason Obama can't close the deal is because Hillary's a woman?

    (And BTW, shouldn't Russert be nominated for 'Worst Person In The World' like Ferraro was for her similar statement?).

    why yes he did (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:00 AM EST
    and I believed Tweety agreed saying that the women who vote for Hillary have been "hurt by men who keep moving the goal posts." Yes, Tweety, we women have no logic or sense at all -- just voting based on irrational emotions -- twas a dark day when we were given the right to vote at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't neglect (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:54 AM EST
    the "moving the goalposts" part of his comment.  Tweety's sexism is obvious, but for him to suggest that the Obama forces are "moving the goalposts" is more interesting to me.

    The pundit conventional wisdom took a huge U-turn last night, to my ears.  Whether the turn persists in the cold light of day after the excitement of last night is another matter.  But it was interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    Matthews is weird (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    He's a guy who grew up squarely in the middle of what is now Hillary's demographic, and he now is squarely in the middle of Obama's demographic.

    I wonder if he's starting to realize that the blue-collar types whose values he constantly extols, and whom he claims kinship with, are overwhelmingly in Hillary's corner.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:29:08 AM EST
    Matthews cannot be conveniently pigeonholed.  I watch him every day (not by choice, long story) and I think he is quite conflicted about this race, partly for the reason you cite.  Hillary makes him crazy, but he also hugely admires her toughness and substantiveness.  He wants to be with the Kewl Kidz for Obama, but can't quite bring himself to buy the schtick.  He wants to be loyal to the people of his background, but can't quite shake his elitism and pride at having "risen above" them, either.  So he vacillates back and forth.

    Obama's definitely not his kind of guy.  His sole virtue is he's not Hillary.  Unfortunately, Bush is-- or was very much his type of guy.  He's gone totally off him and admitted he was taken in in the beginning.  Thompson would have been this time, if he hadn't turned out to be such a putz.  McCain is more his type, but Matthews has been vehemently against the Iraq adventure from the beginning.

    [ Parent ]

    The Hillary camp is moving the goalposts (none / 0) (#142)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    according to Tweety's conversation last night. Sorry to burst your bubble. The conversation took place after Terry Macullife said it was all about the popular vote.  Then Keith O, I believe, talked about moving the goalposts.  Then Tweety said yes it was, but women like the fact that Hillary is moving the goalposts because, well you know the rest.  

    [ Parent ]
    Don't give me (none / 0) (#193)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:30:21 AM EST
    "burst your bubble" if you want to have a civil conversation.  It's patronizing and demeaning.  Feh.

    [ Parent ]
    Different interpretation (none / 0) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    could be that men keep moving the goalposts in Clinton's favor and giving women artificial hope.

    The goal post was pledged delegates, now women are being told it's popular vote, now women are told Clinton can pull it out with a big finish at the end and get the superdeez... none of which matter as Tweety says pledged delegates are what matter and women can not make a difference for Clinton and should just vote for Obama. But maybe I'm just cynical when it comes to Tweety.

    [ Parent ]

    This makes me wonder (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by toinerz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:43:24 AM EST
    Is it possible to make a reasonable prediction what the demography of the GE turnout is going to be? That would make a strong argument in the electibility issue...

    Historically, yes. Now, ??? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:54:15 AM EST
    Historically, older voters are the most reliable.  This works against Obama in the GE.  

    The big question is how many new voters are Democrats and how many are Obamacrats?

    [ Parent ]

    Theoretically (none / 0) (#27)
    by toinerz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:09:54 AM EST
    How the demographic of the already held primaries has changed this year compared to other years could be a good indicator of how the demographic will change during this GE. But the question indeed remains: how many Hillary supporters and how many Obama supporters will stick around when their candidate won't make it to the GE?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't know. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    I think it might be better to ask

    How many X voters have voted reliably in the past?

    That won't give you a full picture, but it ought to be a good baseline of party loyalists.  They'll probably respond to a GOTV.

    [ Parent ]

    What's at stake (none / 0) (#61)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST
    It's probably just a function of the blogs I read, but most Obamaniacs rail at Hillary supporters saying that what's at stake is so important that we MUST vote for Obama in the GE.  

    If they truly feel that way, then the reverse should be true--that if Hillary is the nominee, what's at stake is so important that they must support her.  Anything else would be hypocracy.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with both statements (none / 0) (#111)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    Hillary supporters MUST vote for Obama in the GE.  

    And likewise

    that if Hillary is the nominee, what's at stake is so important that they must support her.

    I have been beating this one to death with every Obama supporter I know.  I hope everyone else does the same.

    [ Parent ]

    To a Large Degree (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:51:46 AM EST
    those white working-class voters are Catholics, another critical group that Obama has persistently had trouble with.  According to the CNN exit poll for Pennsylvania, Clinton won this group (which comprised 37% of the electorate) by a margin of 69-31, which can't be a terribly encouraging sign if Obama is the nominee in November.  I suspect this is also a good part of the reason why he runs comparatively poorly against McCain in another heavily Catholic state in the northeast, Massachusetts.

    On CNN ... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:58:23 AM EST
    John King raised the dreaded D-word (Dukakis) ... in explaining how Obama might do in the general in PA.

    If you're a Dem Presidential candidate that's a D-word you don't wanna hear.

    [ Parent ]

    They did a GE comparison (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:04 AM EST
    and they pointed out that PA might return to the 88 model which then turned it GOP until Bill in 92. This is not a good thought but it shows it can happen. BHO might be a media darling now against Hillary, but he can not carry them in the GE against McCain, their buddy. She, on the other hand, is use to not being the media darling and is still doing ok without it. With the demographics of the entire country, I don't think BHO can pull it off in the GE. SD beware! And keep your eye on the prize.

    [ Parent ]
    Massachusetts also has seen this act before (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM EST
    in Axelrod's last "hope and change" candidate, Gov. Deval Patrick, and hasn't been happy with the results.  After having been persuaded to vote for Patrick and then having the same crowd of pols and elites pushing Obama, it's not surprising they declined to follow that lead again.  IMHO, the Patrick/Kennedy/Kerry endorsements hurt Obama in Mass. more than helped him.


    [ Parent ]
    gyrfalcon speaks for me (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MAbuyersremorse on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:16:20 AM EST
    Massachusetts HAS seen this act before.  

    I heard the "Words", was filled with "Hope", longed for "Change",  Bought the "package.  

    Buyer's Remorse!!  I want my vote back!

    Axelrod, fool me once, shame on you!  Fool me Twice, shame on ME!

     

    [ Parent ]

    In the GE... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    ...this info makes me imagine a scene where Obama's on the front line fighting hard and desperate against McCain and suddenly a terrific raw from miles in rear: the gunpowder magazine goes up in a fireball. BABOOOOOOOM!

    My friends Thar' she blows Massachusetts.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you really think the alternative is better (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    I am not saying Patrick is perfect, but as a Boston resident, I can't forget that the crime rate has dropped, particularly the youth murder rate.  Those are lives, you can't ignore that over some casino project you don't like.  I do think Patrick is responsible, particularly because he returned funding to BYCC.

    Also, Patrick is not the same as Obama, two different people, two different challenges.

    I think its a little early to pass judgement on Patrick, although I will admit he probably hurts Obama in Mass.

    I still don't think McCain has a shot in hell here.

    [ Parent ]

    As another MA voter (none / 0) (#169)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    Patrick wasn't "ready on day one".  He's spent most of his time trying to get his power back from the Speaker of the House who saw an opportunity to take more control and ran with it.  Might be a reason that Pelosi supports Obama.  Maybe she sees an opportunity, too.

    [ Parent ]
    It would take a lot (none / 0) (#194)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:39:48 AM EST
    for Mass. to vote R in the general, but if anybody could make them do it, it would be Obama versus McCain.  I do agree that ultimately, Mass. will probably go Dem. in the presidential, but it will be a hell of a lot closer than if Hillary were the nominee.  Obama will have to waste a lot of time and money on Mass, a state that should be automatic for a Dem.

    I pass no judgment on Patrick personally, since I haven't lived in the state since he was elected.  I'm only passing on what I understand from folks back there and from the papers. My sense is that, fair or not, voters in Mass. are pretty pissed.

    FWIW, I really doubt Patrick can take credit for a reduction in the crime rate in Boston.  That's something that generally has much more to do with demographic changes and city police dept. leadership than anything else, and Boston has also had good community policing, I believe, well before Patrick.

    And casino gambling in Mass. would ruin many, many lives, IMHO, just a very, very bad thing all around.

    [ Parent ]

    Reduction of Crime Rate (none / 0) (#195)
    by CST on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    Boston is a small city.  There are a few things that make MAJOR impacts on crime.  BYCC is one of them.  He is responsible for increasing funding to this program (unlike Romney who cut funding every year).  It makes a significant impact on the youth murder rate in the summer.  This has been studied to great effect.

    Casino Gambling - I am not for Patrick's proposal, but the fact is, it is coming whether people want it or not.  They recently granted a tribe the rights to build, so they are trying to work out a state program.  I think 3 is too many, but it is not really a make or break issue for me.

    [ Parent ]

    The Pope? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    I'm wondering what effect the Pope's visit had.

    My mother in law wandered out to the patio on Sunday afternoon and said she "Sure liked hearing the Pope say God Bless America" she paused for a couple of seconds and muttered, "It's a lot better than God Damn America"

    Two days later Obama lost in a landslide....

    [ Parent ]

    Demographics (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:57:46 AM EST
    What is interesting to read about the PA win is that those who are the most critical and blame Hillary for the negative ads seem to not pay attention to his negative campaigning, which has been going on since Texas.

    Also, the common wisdom is that no Dem can win without the very coalition that she has put together, yet they clang away for her to exit.

    Very odd.

    The assumption is (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM EST
    that Obama automatically inherits Clinton's demo.

    Without any evidence.  Perhaps it's time for a poll?

    [ Parent ]

    The exit polls in PA were pretty stark in saying (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    "NO" Obama will not inherit Clinton's supporters. Something like 50% of Clinton's supporters said they would vote for McCain or stay home if Obama is the nominee. Of course to be fair, many of Obama's supporters said the same thing but just not as high a percentage.

    The disturbing thing is that the percentage seems to get higher in each exit poll.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, then. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:49:35 AM EST
    It seems that the Dem Leadership has their work cut out for them, no?

    The odd thing is that I don't actually see the candidates themselves being all that "negative".  Their supporters are a different story altogether - [shudder].

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree Somewhat (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:17:18 AM EST
    Dem leadership can't change this IMO. If Obama is the nominee, he has to do something to change this or it will not change. IMO he has done little or nothing to convince Clinton supporters that they should support him. In fact, he has done a lot of this damage to himself. He and his supporters have gone out of their way to send the message that Clinton supporters are dumb, ignorant, and racist. He has put Social Security on the table and many of us object strongly to him doing that. He has run poison pill ads against UHC and many of us object strongly to him doing that. He has said he will adopt a foreign policy like Reagan and BushI and will appoint Republicans for Sec. of Defense and State and if we are going to have a Republican foreign policy why should we vote for a Democrat. He has thrown the gay community under the bus. He has praised Republican presidents and portrayed a Democratic president as not only a failed president but has branded him and Hillary as racist. Has portrayed white women as typical white racist. Has done absolutely nothing in the primary to assure women that he cares enough about choice to fight for it or for them. He has done nothing to promote unity in the party. In fact quite the opposite, by saying Clinton's supporters will vote for him but his voters will not vote for her, he has given his approval for his supporters to vote outside the party.    

    [ Parent ]
    When the decision is made (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    it is up to the candidate and every other Democrat of note to support the candidate and campaign actively for them.

    I just wonder how many people who've endorsed and donated and fund raised and campaigned for "X" will still be ready to go all out for "Y".

    That's a matter of public record.  Some may sit out.  Some may even slink over to McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm prepared to be (none / 0) (#171)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    a slinky.  "And I can go downstairs alone or in pairs".  In other words, I'm prepared to work to take others with me. And I haven't voted Republican in 36 years.

    [ Parent ]
    The funny thing is (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST
    I work with 2 very big Obama supporters - they go to his rallies, they do other events, one went to Philly this week to canvass, the other went up yesterday as a volunteer lawyer for the Obama campaign at the polls, etc - BOTH keep saying that when Obama is the nominee and cooler heads prevail, most of the Hillary supporters will support him.

    I just keep shaking my head and telling them "Not this one." They don't believe me - must be the kool aid.

    [ Parent ]

    His negative campaigning --since last year! (none / 0) (#68)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM EST
    For behind the scenes negative shots at Clinton, go back to last late spring, early summer.

    For outright negative things said by Obama himself, definitely January.

    [ Parent ]

    Exit polls skewed? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by 1horseNag on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:06 AM EST
    Last night's victory for Hillary in Pa didn't exactly match what the pollsters said would happen. To those living inside the Obama Happy Bubble, it must be those pesky white people who keep messing with Obama's well deserved victories:

    "Meanwhile, the result in Pennsylvania seems to be a case of white people lying to pollsters. Obama is currently carrying Philadelphia Co. by a margin of 130,000 votes. That should have been plenty to make the race a deadheat or even win. But he's losing the state by 190,000 votes. The reason? He got beaten by much larger than expected numbers in the rural areas and the suburbs barely went for him despite telling pollsters they preferred him 62-38."

    Now I've read quite a few first and second hand accounts of AA voters being bullied about voting for Obama, so maybe this shoe also belongs on the other foot. Early last night the tv pundits were all saying that the race was 'competitive' and 'close'. Was that the media bias answering to the koolaid kids, or was it in answer to poor polling results?

    could the numbers be screwed (none / 0) (#151)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    because they over estimated the percentage of the vote that would be AA?  Women went to the polls in record numbers even more than African Americans.  The were almost 60 percent of the vote.  Republican women who switched parties and new women voters were an even larger demographic than new AA and young voters.
    Women off all ethnicities are coming out for Clinton.  

    [ Parent ]
    Once you're in the privacy of (none / 0) (#154)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    the poll booth, I suspect more than a few women (and men) of whatever colour and "race" voted for HRC. But just didn't want to say so in front of friends or husband.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't AAs stay home? (none / 0) (#173)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    My guess is that a chunk of AAs in PA stayed home. SUSA had % of overall PA primary vote represented by AA voters at 14%; I understand actual percentage was 10.  

    [ Parent ]
    From NYT blog (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:35 AM EST
    If she somehow manages to become the Democratic nominee, "she'll have gone a long way to softening her image among Republicans," Goldfarb writes. "Obama may be more electable, [but] at this point he's also more likely to energize the Republican base. Terry McAuliffe just praised Fox News as fair and balanced for being first to make tonight's call, Hillary's out drinking beers, trashing MoveOn, and threatening to obliterate Iran. She's earning a lot of good will on the right."



    Ha! (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    That made me laugh.

    [ Parent ]
    are these Courtiers (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM EST
    so stupid to think that obama is more electable?

    There's no evidence he better than her in a tight contest.

    There's no evidence that he performs better in the holy grail catagories of swing moderates.

    arggggghhhhh! are these people insane or stupid or duplicitous?

    [ Parent ]

    The electoral college math isn't there... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    ...without winning either Florida or Ohio. Even if Obama wins all of the Kerry states and picks up Iowa and Colorado, he still loses. That's not even considering the very real threat of losing Pennsylvania and Michigan, which losing either to the GOP would be too much of a handicap to overcome.

    Obama's Electoral Math in Key States (none / 0) (#109)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM EST
    According to Paul Lukasiak's analysis this morning, Obama's electoral math has gotten worse in recent weeks, Clinton's has gotten better.

    If you want to know why the Obama fans scream, it's because some of them can do the general election math.

    [ Parent ]

    this is why they have been pushing her to drop (none / 0) (#152)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    out and will continue to do so.  They will use their media lap dogs and the democratic party elitist leadership to try and shame her.  

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton Support is (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:38:50 AM EST
    hardening:

    http://www.bythefault.com

    And it's really, really not because (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    we're racists.  This link doesn't say that, but so many media and commenters are saying so today.  Thinking that easy way out, and not getting what does get us, Obama will lose.  And if he's the nominee, Dems will lose.

    Obama so likes to talk about problems but not about solutions.  I am not at all impressed with his problem-solving ability -- as his way seems to have been to just run the problems, the opposition, out of running against him, and that won't work.  Or his way seems to be to attack, and that's work with his hopey-changey imago.

    The first step in problem-solving is correctly identifying the problems.  He and his supporters simply do not want to do so, so he came into the debate unprepared to even attempt to resolve the concerns that Clinton supporters have about him: his lesser experience, his problematic minister, his connections with domestic terrorists (more on that -- and Dohrn, whom I've always seen as maybe more problematic than her husband, Ayers, is coming out today in his hometown Chi Trib, and it's even worse).

    [ Parent ]

    AMEN! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:18 AM EST
    I know that Hillary appeals to me because she talks like I think leaders should talk.  It should be about solutions.

    Race?  Doesn't interesting me.  He is, to me, just another guy but he happens to have tan skin.  He's not particularly a "race" candidate.  He is another Washington insider to me.

    She's the Washington maverick.

    Obviously.

    I like that.

    [ Parent ]

    Is this a good strategy for him? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:49:52 AM EST
    1. Calling people "racists" who don't vote for you is probably not a good lead-in to try and win their votes back in the fall.

    2. Does he think this will pick up additional voters for him?  The people who think the racists aren't voting for him are already voting for him. Does he think he will attract voters from McCain's camp with this rhetoric?

    3. Even if someone is still on the fence, does whining seem presidential?


    [ Parent ]
    breaking down (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    The events and Hillary did two things:  Showed that Obama is not genuine and is just another politician.  People were willing to go for it, but they are not willing to risk their interests for a roll of the dice.  

    Addressing just one of your points (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:55:50 AM EST
    HRC has told her supporters in no uncertain terms that she expects them to vote for the nominee. Not so Obama. His words from long ago about how he could get HRC's voters but she couldn't get his continues to dog him precisely because it betrays his lack of loyalty to the party, a loyalty that HRC displays every day when she tells her voters to vote for the nominee.

    Now the reason why I (for instance) won't vote for Obama is not becaus HRC is so divisive and has told me not to vote for him. It's because Obama is so weak on Democratic issues that mean a lot to me: health care (not universal), the economy (a tepid copy of her plan), women's right to choose, and more. Couple that with his inability to voice a robust assertive foreign policy and his invocation of Reagn and Bush I and I and he just plain loses me.

    Obama's supporters want to blame HRC's voters lack of loyalty to him as an artifact of our racism, or a result of HRC's divisiveness. Obama's campagin seemingly can't be introspective enough to cut into her base, the very base of the Democratic party. The problem isn't that HRC is standing in the way of people voting for Obama. It's that Obama does it to himself.

    Why Is Obama Repeating Republican Talking Points (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    against Clinton? Why did Obama put Social Security on the table and run Republican ads against Universal Health Care? Why has he abandoned his Unity message or only talked about unity when referring to uniting with the Republicans? Why haven't I heard Obama tell his supporters to support the Democratic nominee no matter who it would be like Clinton has done?

    I will vote for HRC (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    as a write in or not at all for the top of the ticket.

    I prefer Hillary's message of reality instead of Hope and Unity. I don't like that he has been getting paid for chairing a subcommittee of a very important topic and doing nothing, yet claiming he is in the best position to lead on foreign policy. I don't like that he didn't bother to show up for Kyl-Lieberman, once again proving he refuses to take positions on controversial subjects. I didn't like that he voted for Cheney's energy bill. I didn't like that he touts his nuclear energy bill, which was a complete sham.

    I don't trust him - he is a snake-oil salesman.

    It's started already (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    Here are a couple of ads put out by the North Carolina REPUBLICAN party against the Dem candidates for governor.  Even John McCain has written a letter on the Wright ad asking them to take it off the air, but this is a taste of things to come...

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

    Correction (none / 0) (#147)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    The first one is put out by the NC Repubs, the second is from a group called Exposeobama.com (whoever they are)

    [ Parent ]
    Look (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    Obama is TOTALLY UNELECTABLE in the GE.

    The Democrats nominate him at their peril.

    I'm Concerned About Courting the Black Vote if (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by NOBAMA08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    Clinton becomes the nominee but I am more concerned about losing the Reagan Democrats if Obama is the nominee. We need to take back the white working class. We need to help them realize that the Democratic Party is home for them. That we will address their concerns and work in their interest. The Clintons are the only Democrats who have been able to do this. This is why the Clintons are the biggest threat to the Republican Party.

    Yes, I know blacks who dislike the Clintons but this is a tough race. Of course many of them want nothing else but to see the first black president. Many of them have been fooled by the Obama campaign to believe that the Clintons are racists (I will NEVER forgive Obama for his race baiting). But I also know many more who still like the Clintons and will vote for her if she is the nominee. They are not very likely to vote for McCain. They know a vote for Clinton is better than a vote for McCain. If Obama puts his ego aside and accepts to be VP, we would win this election. I wish Obama would have the sense to agree to seat MI and FL. If he did that we wouldn't have a problem right now. Clinton would be ahead in the popular vote count.

    Ted Strickland appears to agree as do I (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:14:42 PM EST
    Strickland: "This is, for me, a no-brainer. If we're going to plan to win in November we need to choose the candidate that has the greatest strength in the states necessary to get us the electoral votes she needs."

    Query: what changed after Iowa, (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:38:24 AM EST
    which has a small percentage of minorities?

    My guess? Obama started focusing on (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:40:09 AM EST
    race after he lost New Hampshire. That polarized the electorate.

    [ Parent ]
    Race not so much (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:08:53 AM EST
    I think voters kept waiting to find out hope for what and change to what and never heard it.


    [ Parent ]
    During the NH campaign is when Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    campaign began to play the racist card: Recall accusing Hillary of dissing MLK bcz she mentioned it took both LBJ and MLK to pass civil rights legislation?

    And Jesse Jackson Jr. accusing her of crying about her campaign but not about the victims of Katrina?

    In SC, it became obvious with the leak of the memo citing all the Clinton racism.

    The negative campaign has been in place for a long, long time--back in '07, the Obama people were shopping the idea of a First Gentleman as First Womanizer.  

    Anyone have that blog post listing all the neg attacks?

    [ Parent ]

    IIRC It Was On The Left Coaster (none / 0) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:30:46 PM EST
    Don't have the article but it should be easy to find there.

    [ Parent ]
    Eriposte has list of negative approaches by Obama (none / 0) (#190)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:47 PM EST
    at The Left Coaster

    Nice, complete list, with links.

    [ Parent ]

    Iowa is a caucus state. (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:44 AM EST
    NH is a primary state.  Obama does well in caucuses.  In Iowa, lots of IL college students participated in the caucuses as well.  They don't check to see how long you have been in the state before they let you vote.


    [ Parent ]
    Some check, but Iowa requires only 3 days (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    of residency and has same-day registration.  Now, I'm from a same-day registration state, but we require 6 months' residency.  Only 3 days is, essentially, as you say: no residency required.

    I heard from a relative, a student there, that a lot of Illinoisans came across the river to caucus, and they weren't students in Iowa.  Reports in the Des Moines Register from readers repeated that.  That has influenced this primary season ever since -- and  has played a huge part in the party's problem now.

    Iowa really, really has to shape up or be shipped out as getting the primo and influential primary spot, and only in part because it's not a primary election at all.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not "open" (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:50:50 AM EST
    that's an engraved invitation to abuse and fraud.

    [ Parent ]
    In fact (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:10:12 AM EST
    the Des Moines Register investigated and found that only a very tiny percentage of caucus-goers turned out to have addresses that couldn't be verified.  The stuff about busloads of students from Illinois is pretty much just mythmaking, I'm sorry to say.

    Consider, if you will, how hard it would be to pull off any kind of widespread voter fraud in a aystem where there's no secret ballot and the people in the room are mostly your neighbors.  A few people gamed the system, I'm sure, but it didn't swing the election.

    [ Parent ]

    But you only know very few of your neighbors (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:20:56 AM EST
    I live in Iowa, and even though the caucuses have our "neighbors," of the 400 people who showed up in our precinct, I only knew a handful.

    Still, I don't think there was a lot of voter fraud.  This is a college town, and many students did come back from IL for the caucus, but as long as they didn't also vote in IL, no problem.

    The only problem I have is that caucuses are disenfranchising.  I know some old folks who couldn't make it.  I wished I'd checked with them again before going.  I'd checked a few days before and they said they had a ride lined up, but I didn't think to check that night to make sure it had worked out.  These were Hillary supporters, and who knows how many others fell into similar circumstances.


    [ Parent ]

    my caucus was easily open to fraud (none / 0) (#153)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    The PCO was not the one doing most of the math on delegates or candidates. I didn't know most of the other people in the precinct. Mass confusion, noise, not enough seating, moving locations for the precinct within the building, even officials not familiar with all the rules. BHO supporter yelling about how unfair or unjust it was to be an Undecided delegate or even undecided voter. No ID checked. In '04 two people on the other side of my street were in 2 different precincts and should not have been.

    At the end I and my partner, the HRC delegate & alternate, were left off the handwritten list and therefore official list of Delegates. The BHO delegates were all on.

    I had to go back and check the sign-in list and show them the note for how many delegates got picked before I could vote at the Leg Dist caucus.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama didn't win a majority of voters in IA... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:00:26 AM EST
    First of all it was a caucus in a small state, which skews the results, because you only need a relatively small number of people too effect the outcome. Second, even in those results, he didn't get a majority of voters. According to the entrance polls, it was Obama 35, Clinton 27, Edwards 23, Richardson 7, Biden 5, Dodd 1, Kucunich 1, and Uncommitted 1.

    So about 2/3 of the state didn't vote for Obama, but he was instantly vaulted to front runner status, because it was a crowded field in a caucus state.

    [ Parent ]

    Read an interesting analysis a while back (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:31 AM EST
    that Obama does well in states where the AA population is less than 5 percent or so, or more than 25 percent.  In states where the AA population falls in between.  In states with a small AA population, voting along racial lines has never been an issue historically.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the real (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09:48 AM EST
    problem was pointed out in a salon article a while ago (the title had the word "Rubes" in it, and the author's last name was Lind).

    Not to oversimplify, but the article seemed to reduce the two sides of the Dem party down to elitist (think Adlai Stevenson and Obama) vs. populist (think Truman and Clinton). As a Clinton supporter, that certainly jibes with my politics. I'm voting for her as a populist who wants universal health care, obviously not as a racist, as the press is implying. I wonder if that accounts for the underlying dynamic of the race in Pa. She spoke to the people's economic concerns.

    But in some ways the Obama campaign has an interest in "minimizing" his electoral problem as being rooted in racism, not rooted in his disconnect with the blue collar, working class. I guess they think that racism can be overcome with his inspirational speeches, while a problem with the base of the party can't be so easily addressed.

    Whatever the problem is, either one spells trouble for Obama's ability to be elected in the ge.

    [ Parent ]

    My guess (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    "Average Americans" don't hang on the internet reading political blogs each day.  Most people's lives are too busy to spend alot of time on anything other than jobs, home duty and children.  When they tune in at the last minute to see what all the commotion is about, they gravitate to Clinton as the more experienced candidate.  They know the county is going down the tubes and they see a stronger leader in Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's ties to radical (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    churches and other radical figures was exposed by teh media.

    He's never have won in Iowa idf the Ayers stuff had been used by someone like Biden or Dodd.

    [ Parent ]

    the SUSA Poll from the 14th (none / 0) (#3)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM EST
    has the AA split at 72-23.  

    Looks like she may be making some inroads into his core constituency.  Makes one wonder how those numbers might change with this big PA win.

    I think that's a reverse Bradley effect. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:41:41 AM EST
    African American voters who may like Clinton and may be willing to vote for her, but decide in the end that they really want to vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    The early numbers look like that in every state.

    The common-sense answer is that at least some people are kidding themselves when they tell pollsters they're still undecided.

    [ Parent ]

    Won't last (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The area (none / 0) (#11)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    where Hillary might be cutting into his core in Indiana are the 18-34 and 35-49 age groups.  

    [ Parent ]
    Much of Indiana much more like PA (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:21 AM EST
    and OH than like Illinois.  But so many more live in the Chicago media market, it's a very split state -- very Midwestern in the north, very Southern in the south.  (Fyi, despite the Northwest Ordinance banning slavery even before the Constitution failed to do so, Indiana had de facto slavery in the infamous Black Codes, codifying Virginia law with so many Virginians moving there -- and that de facto slavery in Indiana also continued into the Civil War.)

    [ Parent ]
    NC and the Big State Argument (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:44:17 AM EST
    Now that Pennsylvania is gone, North Carolina is the biggest prize remaining in the Dem contest. In fact, it only has a handful fewer delegates than PA did, and has more than states like Wisconsin and Minnesota. Obama will more than likely win North Carolina, and to me, North Carolina is a "big state."

    What effect will this have on the big state strategy that Sen. Clinton is putting forth? Certainly, she will still have the large bases of Dem support in the big states behind her (California, PA, Ohio, New York, etc.), but winning NC would certainly seem like a "big state" to me. Any thoughts?

    My view? (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:49:38 AM EST
    North Carolina is a GOP state that no Dem has a chance of winning in November.

    And Obama can not answer the white working class question there.

    Demography is destiny.

    [ Parent ]

    Will that be lost on (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Lahdee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:58:49 AM EST
    obamasphere? You bet.  

    [ Parent ]
    What about Indiana? Local pol expert on BBC (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:02 AM EST
    this morning said chances of Dem taking IN in prez race are slim to none--"and Slim just left the state."

    IN is important in once again showing how the Dem voters are trending, but not for the Big Dance, right?

    Or do you see a chance for Hillary over McSame there?

    [ Parent ]

    No way Indiana goes blue in the GE (none / 0) (#146)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    Here in Lake County, in the Northwest part of the state we are in the Chicago media market.  But there's a large part of the state that is more like Kentucky.

    [ Parent ]
    My Only Stipulation To That (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    Is that we heard a lot about "Obama can't win a big state" after Hillary won Texas as well. So I was wondering if it was a "big geographical state" argument or a "big Dem state" argument.

    And Idunno. I think North Carolina has a shot to go Democratic this year. Voters reg'd in NC for Dems just vaulted past voters reg'd as Republicans for the first time since the mid-90s for here, but who knows. We shall see. If we can win VA I think we have a shot at NC as well.

    [ Parent ]

    How do the Congressional (none / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:57:00 AM EST
    and gubanatorial races trend in NC?

    If there's no D trend in the national or governor races, I don't see it happening just for the POTUS.  People often get more conservative for Presidential races, not less.  I think it's the CiC/National Security influence.

    [ Parent ]

    There IS a D trend (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:04 AM EST
    Bev Purdue and Richard Moore are polling very well for the gubernatorial race this year in NC (both Dems), and we've been able to pick up a few seats in the state Senate over the past 2 years. Furthermore, the NC Dem Party is expanding--they just bought about six more offices statewide, and as I said previously, registration is spiking.

    [ Parent ]
    What about (none / 0) (#136)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    I know there is a Dem primary for Senate, but how would either candidate do against Liddy Dole?

    [ Parent ]
    I think including Texas (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:10:49 AM EST
    was a bone to Obama. It should not have been really.

    [ Parent ]
    Texas has a bright future (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    in about 20 years, when there simply aren't enough whites to keep it ruby red. We're not there yet.

    [ Parent ]
    The phrase is "big blue state" (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:46:21 AM EST
    not just "big state."  If you hear someone saying the latter, they're just being imprecise.  

    [ Parent ]
    when was the last time a Dem President (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:51:00 AM EST
    won NC?  Not even Kerry and favorite son Edwards could pick it up in 2004.  I think our chances there in November fall somewhere between Zero and Snowsball's Chance in H-E-double hockey sticks.

    Now, CA, NJ, NY, PA, OH, FL?  Yeah, we need those, we can realistically win them and there's only one candidate -- despite being outspent and fighting daily calls to "drop out for the good of the Party" -- who can actually, you know, win them.  And consistently win the votes of core Democratic voters.

    And that person ain't Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm... (2.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:57:25 AM EST
    I think Obama OR Clinton would win in places like CA, NY, NJ, and even PA over John McCain. Demography tells me so. :P Ohio, probably, as well, in my opinion. Florida might be the one that Clinton can pick up and Obama can't, but conversely, I think Obama can pick up Virginia and Clinton can't. I could be wrong though.

    FTR, I do buy in to the argument that "just because Obama is losing certain demos in the primary, that doesn't mean he'll lose them in the GE." We've seen that happen time and time again (re: Clinton vs. Tsongas, Gore vs. Bradley, etc.)

    I just really feel good about the Dem prospects this year, no matter who wins. I think it's a blue year.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's going to take (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    Reagan Democrats in PA -- and Catholics -- over McCain (a huge faction of the vote there)?  I really don't think so.

    I don't think Obama can beat McCain in PA

    [ Parent ]

    Kerry only won by 2% (none / 0) (#85)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    I suspect McCain would beat Obama based on all the evidence in voting patterns there.

    [ Parent ]
    You vastly underestimate (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    John McCain's appeal.  If any of the other Republicans had won the nomination, I would agree with you.  But McCain breaks the mold in both voter perception and media worship.


    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    The Republicans, for all their seeming disarray, did manage to nominate the only guy in their field who could possibly win.

    [ Parent ]
    Not just McCain's appeal (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by IVR Polls on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    I polled PA last week and asked primary voters who they would vote for in November if their candidate didn't get the nomination, and then asked why.

    About twice as many Clinton supporters as Obama supporters would pick McCain in the GE, though Obama supporters were slightly more likely to not vote. Neither scenario was pleasant.

    Of the Clinton supporters going for McCain, 39% said their reason was that they disliked Obama, compared to 36% for Experience, 13% for Character and 11% for Issues.

    I don't have the breakdown for Obama/McCain supporters due to a flaw in my coding at this point, which also killed the subsequent Demographic questions for these respondents, along with any chance that I could release the poll. What I do have tracks pretty well with the actual results, so I believe these are representative.

    [ Parent ]

    He was in Ohio. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:18:40 AM EST