Demography Is Political Destiny

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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

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


    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.


    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.

    And then there's that (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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?


    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    He was in Ohio. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:18:40 AM EST
    Making cringe worthy pronouncements about Economy and Jobs.  



    NY (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    I have said this before, living in upstate NY offers a different perspective as to whether McCain or either Dem comes out on top. I believe Clinton has a a better shot of keeping NY then Obama, if you look upstate vs. down state, this state may be a toss up. Think Pataki former Republican governor. Bloomberg formerly republican. Think 9/11 and any question of patriotism comes into play. Don't assume Obama will take NY, the more we know about him, the more vulnerable he becomes.

    And I've said it before also :) (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST
    NY is not necessarily a blue state in Nov if Obama is the nom. My hood in Brooklyn has demographics that just don't favor him. She would do fine here though.

    I also see problems in CA for Obama. And NJ, PA, CT, MA.


    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 / 2) (#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.


    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.

    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.

    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!



    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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....


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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].


    Disagree Somewhat (5.00 / 1) (#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.    

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.  

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


    AMEN! (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    I like that.


    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?

    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 / 0) (#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...


    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)

    Look (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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 / 0) (#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.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#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.


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

    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.)

    How is the age group comparison (none / 0) (#19)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:57:34 AM EST
    CNN showed PA age group voting, 12%-18-29; 19%-30-44; 37%-45-56; and 32%-60 plus. That is 57% over 45.  And 59% women.

    In comparison to these numbers, where does NC and Ind fall. These numbers were as important as the AA vote in Philly. Philly made up 30% of the total vote I believe. So the rest of the state was important. Indiana has more rural votes. But how will the age groups compare? Can any of the above numbers be matched?

    And I would like new polls on the previous states where crossovers were allowed. I would like Dem numbers to really see where we are. I suspect that BHO taking NC would try and make it big and so Indiana has to be even more impressive.

    it is the 12th largest state (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:16:18 AM EST
    by my count, according to electoral votes, which are truly mostly based on population and not proportionally allocated by some arcane formula like the Democratic delegate counts.  So that puts in in the largest quarter of states, and on the borderline of the 'big state' theory. Also not applicable because of the reasons BTD puts forth.

    South Carolina is a bigger state, so I guess you could say Hillary can't win ALL the big states, but no Dem is going to win there either.

    The flip side (none / 0) (#44)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:27:32 AM EST
    is to what extent Hillary will be able to motivate a sufficient number of African American voters to get to the polls and vote for her in November, since under no scenario can she win the General Election if that does not happen.  That, too, is real concern given the dynamics of this primary season.

    For either of them to win in the GE (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:47:35 AM EST
    they have to get the other's base on their side.  That will have a lot to do with how well the non-nominee can motivate their own base to vote Dem.  

    Back before Super Tuesday when the Obama supporters, and Obama himself, said his base may not vote for Clinton, I remarked that it was a reflection on his leadership that he doesn't seem to be able to lead his own people to vote Dem.  Ironically, Clinton has already started talking to her base about this, showing that leadership, and making her the safer non-nominee in a lot of ways.


    Obama Can't Win With Only The AA Community, (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    youth and the so called creative class either.

    43% of PA of Clinton voters said that they will either vote for McCain or sit this one out if Obama is the nominee.

    Clinton's demographics comprise more of the general population than Obama's and they are becoming more and more unwilling to support him in the GE.


    And I suppose you're proud of this fact?? (none / 0) (#75)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:50 AM EST
    I thought it was Obama supporters who weren't real Democrats??? What do you call nearly half of HRC supporters in PA??

    I'd like to see Clinton win without blacks or young people. Good luck becoming president by relying on old people.

    News Flash: a lot of those old people, who don't like the idea of a black president, don't really like the idea of a woman president, either. With an old white man and former POW on the other side, Clinton will lose.

    So if McCain is gonna be president anyway, Dems should stick with Obama and avoid the racist label they currently pin on the GOP.


    Personally, I Would Call Clinton Supporters (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    people who care about  real issues like protecting Social Security and having universal health care.

    Now, you can keep on promoting the idea that Clinton's supporters are ALL racist and you will reap what you have sown. I refuse to accept the label that you are determined to assign so if your ONLY argument for Obama to be the nominee is that I will be called a racist, you have lost the argument with me and many other Clinton supporters.  


    The reason people will not vote for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:03 PM EST
    after supporting Hillary is that we don't want to be party to the travesty of having him in the White House. We have an inexperienced fool in there now, we don't need another. Obama does not have the experience, the knowledge, the policies or the ability to be President of the United States. And those of us who care about this country will not vote for him. He would be a bigger disaster than McCain. McCain would have a Democratic Congress to keep him in check. Assuming they grow a spine, that is. But to vote for Obama is to literally put the country in the hands of an arrogant, unprepared person with few actual principles. If Obama has any principles, I would like to see the proof. His actions and his votes only speak to his ability to duck issues, they are not stands on principle. To be perfectly blunt, we won't vote for Obama because he simply isn't good enough. In a few years with some humility and experience, he may be good enough. But right now, he isn't. And FYI, the only color that Obama is that I have a problem with is green. He is too green to be president. And we won't be party to putting him in the White House. I am a sixth generation Democrat, and it breaks my heart to see my party so deluded by the Obama hype. I will never vote for McCain, but I will not vote for Obama. I will support the undercard of Dems. But not Obama.

    You could theoretically... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    ...have every black person and 18-30 year old in the southern states (55% of the AA vote reside there) boycott her and it wouldn't affect the electoral college result a jot.

    Obama has ridden close seconds and wins in deep Red states to within an ace of the nomination.  Yeah I admit it---he BETA tested the insane system of PR that the Democrats designed. woopty-do.

    He broke this system. he hacked it's fatal flaw. He's the Alpha BETA tester of the party.


    You're right about the Electoral math. (none / 0) (#128)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    But that 55% helps elect a lot of members of Congress. That effect would be seen down ticket, which is the real reason SDs will support Obama.

    Well (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    if that were the argument being made, then I guess it would have died long ago after Obama won Georgia.

    Putting the spin of the current election aside, I assume everyone agrees that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are the three big swing states we always hear about in November, time and time again.

    There are a few problems here. (none / 0) (#73)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    One is that racism should not keep Obama from being the nominee. That the party would even consider allowing racism to overturn his delegate win and his near 2-1 margin in contests is embarrassing.

    For HRC supporters, it's very chic to point out that she carries "the base." What nobody seems to ask is, "How wil she win without blacks and young people?" Blacks in particular will stay home in the fall.

    If the Democrats are going to give away the election, they should at least do it standing on the principle that racism will not control its politics.

    This election is not a referendum on race. (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:56 AM EST
    No matter what Some People say.

    As much as you may not like it, and as much as (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    I'm sure you're not a part of it, HRC has become the candidate of racist whites.

    Nearly 15% of whites were willing to say so, and they voted 75-25 for Clinton. That's about 180k people who admit to voting for the white person, or against the black person, whichever you prefer.

    180k of a 220k vote victory is pretty significant, no matter what Some People say.


    Mccain will inherit that. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:47 AM EST
    and multiply it by 4.

    You may be right. (none / 0) (#91)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    I just don't think Democrats should bow to the racists. Lose on principle if you must, but don't stoop to their level.

    Let me get this straight... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    would you rather "lose on principle" (whatever that means) with Obama than win with Clinton?

    Obama's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    has revolved around coiming in a close second in states with 20+ electoral college points.

    it's not a good sign.


    But if it won't be deleted (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    Then I must reply that Obama is the candidate of racist blacks.

    I have never seen a demographic more militantly homogenous than what we're seeing right now with blacks and Barack Obama.  At least the white demographich shows a 65/35 split.

    90 - 95% SCREAMS "he's the black candidate and we're supporting him cause he's black."

    In short, Ms. Ferrarro had a point.


    Stalin would be proud (none / 0) (#126)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    of that sort of turn out.

    Is that what you think? (none / 0) (#165)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM EST
    You think black people supporting Obama is equal to white racists supporting Hillary?

    She got 1.2M votes in PA, almost all of them white, and I pointed to 180k that were suspect of racism. I never said all whites who voted for her were racist. I said 180k admitted making race important in their decision, which does indicate racism. If you think those people are equal to the blacks supporting Obama, I'll leave you to that opinion.

    But do you really want to make the argument that blacks are racist for supporting Obama? Are women sexist for supporting Clinton? I didn't make that argument.

    Blacks and women have a special history...I know you know this, so I'm not gonna go into it.


    No (none / 0) (#183)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    I don't want to make that argument.

    But the very second you observe that any portion of Clinton's support comes from racist whites, I get to make the same observation that a portion of Obama's support comes from racist blacks.

    I would rather you didn't open the door to this discussion and then pretend that everybody on YOUR side of the equation is pure.


    That's a race baiting comment (none / 0) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    And should be deleted.

    No they did not say that (none / 0) (#158)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    What they said was that "Race is a factor."

    Not the same as "I voted based on race."

    A factor. Likely one of many factors.

    Enough already


    You should stop. (none / 0) (#166)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    They said race was important. IMPORTANT. Meaning it meant a lot, not a little.

    Stop it.... (none / 0) (#170)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    Enough already, get off it or find someplace else to discuss this particular issue.

    Ah, the race card again, like clockwork (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    after another embarrassing Obama loss.

    When in doubt, throw it out!


    What's embarrassing is when supporters (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    act as though a victory in which 80% of the margin of victory is an openly racist voting bloc is somehow a "big win."

    The obvious (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    is starting to be tentatively mentioned.

    Of course, his AA voter bloc is all about race.  Gimme a break.

    That's been obvious since the Potomac.


    So now you equate blacks supporting Obama (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    with racists supporting Clinton.

    How very Enlightened.


    You have made 39 comments on race (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    You are CHATTERING and trying to hijack the thread to spew your morning spin.  You have simply demonstrated yesterday's discussion regarding the expectation of the ONE issue Obama supporters were expected to bring here.

    No offense, but I think you are over your comments today.  Let me put this politely out of respect for the site.... BE QUIET.


    I'm touched that you're such a big fan. (none / 0) (#180)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:16:24 PM EST
    I support my claims and challenge people to critique them with something other than baseless attacks and avoidance.

    I present facts and in response I get reactionary spin intended to divert the focus of the argument. That's weak debate from those folks.

    People like you, for instance.


    are all of Obama's ... (4.50 / 2) (#92)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    ...black voters basing their choice on the merits of obama's resume?

    How many times has an expert long serving black employee been shafted on promotions by a whiz kid noob?

    Also If it's her and mccain would you say we shouldn't vote for mccain based on anti ageism?


    I'll not engage in a debate in which you (none / 0) (#100)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    impicitly justify white racism by disparaging black pride.

    I accept that women and blacks should be expected to overwhelmingly support their candidates. If you understand the history at all, you know this is completely justified. I also did not attack the women voting for Hillary.

    Saying that white racism is thusly justified is ignorant, imo. But you are right, blacks do support Obama b/c he's one of them.

    Between she and McCain, do you deny that she'll lose men by wide margins? I also never said misogyny was dead. I simply said racism should not be appeased.


    I don't begrudge... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    ...black voters for going with Obama.

    But a great deal of the resistance to Obama is IDEOLOGICAL.  He's not for UHC he's not keen on SS he's not proven he's able to commit to a war if needed, he's got a very short national record, he lists a graduate publication on his political resume, and he has a penchant for praising reagan and denigrating the 1990s...

    these are all red flags.  IDEOLOGICAL red flags.


    1.2 million + people voted for Sen. Clinton. (none / 0) (#162)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:35:25 PM EST
    I noted that 180k pointed to race as important in their decision. That leaves >1M who voted for her without race being important.

    One million people supports your position, which I NEVER DENIED!!!!!!

    180k people support mine, which you have yet to address!!!


    What is this? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    Race trumps gender?
    Black pride trumps white pride?
    Reaching out means reaching out only to select groups of voters?

    This is America.  The racist whites, the racist blacks and the racist browns are all part of America, as well as the misandrists and the misongynists. Let's not forget the cultists, organized religions, the disorganized religions, the agnostics and the atheists.  They are all America.

    So if you want to be the American President, then you have to represent everyone even if you don't agree with them.  Otherwise it sounds suspiciously E____st.


    I'll contradict you. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    he has underperformed in ohio and Penn.  He only won in Missouri because the Wright Ayers and Rezko info was supressed by the media.

    If you lose Missouri and Ohio, and all th eearly polling suggest Obama will lose to mccain in those two states---obama is literally unelectable.

    If he loses Penn he's going to lose New Hampshire, and Comnnecticut and maybe New Jersy.

    His highbrow personality rubs voters to wrong way.


    HRC has her own (none / 0) (#90)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    extremist connections, and you'll start hearing about those now. Ed Rendell heaped praise upon praise on Farrakahn, but nobody chose to talk about that.

    60% of the country thinks HRC is a liar and untrustworthy. If that's your idea of a strong candidate, best of luck to you.


    zzzzzzzzzzzzz.... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:01 AM EST
    yeah the 90s were so XtReME.

    look here (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    I don't actually support her.

    I'm asking you to defend obama. This has NOTHING to do with Clinton.

    I like the fact that she can lie with a straight face.  Politics is like poker.  Yeah she is a liar.  Good for her. Blair was a good liar--thank god--he gave us 4 terms of Labour.

    Defend obama. he's won anyway.  Defend him she's already beaten.


    What exactly is your charge against Obama? (none / 0) (#104)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    My defense of him, generally, is that he is a politician who does care about making changes through the people rather than the politicians. He has a better record of supporting transparency in government than HRC. He emphasizes community activism on a scale that I think will really change this country for the better. Instead of saying he has all the answers, Obama argues that he has the judgment and the principle to get the job done. He insists that people play an active role in changing their lives instead of saying "trust my solutions."

    Obama believes foreign policy should be based on active engagement, not a continuation of imperialism and nationalism that has alienated us from a big part of the world. Barack Obama makes people fear hopeful, not scared. He doesn't rely on images of 9/11 or OBL to get people to the polls. Instead of knowing that he is rotten but untouchable, people can't really prove that he's rotten, just that he doesn't demagogue people that he disagrees with.

    I hope that helps, but I doubt it.


    He pulled a punch on UHC (none / 0) (#113)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    He's unserious about the issue. he's ideologically suspect.

    Also, in my judgement he's cynically ridden the antiwar movement to the nomination while he knows he'll continue the bloody messy war in Iraq and elsewhere.

    the debate between him and Mccain will be

    100,000 troops in Iraq or 60,000 troosp in Iraq.

    it's still a war and Obama has posed as the peace candidate.  It's fundamentally dishonest.


    At this point, you simply sound like a (none / 0) (#161)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:11:44 PM EST
    true cynic. If you don't wanna believe anything he says, that's up to you. If you think HRC is ideologically sound and completely honest, I'll leave you to that opinion.

    Obama has said he'll remove our troops in 16 months with no permanent bases. HRC has hedged more, saying 1-2 brigades a month, but she's gonna obliterate Iran. If you think that's peaceful, so be it. She also was all about the war until the country turned against it. That's the kind of ideological honesty I admire right there. Yeah!

    Obama says he'll televise UHC negotiations, making the process transparent so the American people can see who's serious and who's not. Clinton says she needs the privacy to play the game the way it usually is. She just thinks as president she'll be able to do what she couldn't as First Lady.


    Racism is not keeping (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    Obama from becoming the nominee.

    Elitism and an insufficiet attention to Democratic issues is what is keeping him from getting the base.

    Stop blaming the voters. The burden is on Obama to win, not on the voters to feel guilty for not voting for him.

    Also, "vote for Obama or you're a racist!" is even LESS apt to play well in a general election than in the primaries...


    if he had said (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    1005 medical coverage is the aim of my reforms...

    i'd prolly support him with a whole heart.

    his only merit is that he rhetorically opposed the war from the start. It could beat McCain but I doubt it.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    if he were truly for universal healthcare, I wouldn't feel so heartsick at the prospect of having to vote for him in the general election. I could even vote for him and feel slightly good.

    But this whole "yay Reagan and Bush!" "social security is in crisis!" and "let's all try to understand how compassionate pro-life people are!" stuff really goes down the wrong way.

    And just to doubly accentuate this:

    P.S. I'm not a racist


    You're not a racist. (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    You're an uncompromising liberal who refuses to acknowledge that an acrimonious politics is the reason why so little gets done. At least that's how you sound.

    you're pushing talking points. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:23 AM EST
    and you have not studied the history of UHC  and how it was implimented in the UK or Canada.

    I said nothing about UHC, UK, or Canada. (none / 0) (#155)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    So I'm thoroughly impressed that you know exactly what I've studied.

    Is it your position that HRC is proposing a UK/Canada type of UHC? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure she's gonna resent the socialized medicine tag.


    And just what, specifically, (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by seeker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    has he proposed that would lessen, let alone end, political acrimony?  Do you really think the Repugs will just roll over and support whatever he suggests?

    It's the issues (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:36:46 AM EST
    That's the problem I have with him--his stances on health care and social security, plus his strange notions on foreign relations.  It all seems to me like someone who doesn't know core Democratic principles or seem ready for prime time.  He's still a first term senator and he was only in the IL senate for less than a handful of years.  Not that these are required, or anything, but he just doesn't seem to have a good picture of what needs to be done or how to do it.  

    He Better Do A Lot Better On Choice IMO (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:36 PM EST
    His pandering to the religious right  on choice and gay issues has not only NOT captured the Catholic and other religious vote but has made many pro-choice women doubt that he would select pro-choice justices for the SCOTUS.

    He does say that. (none / 0) (#105)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:25:50 AM EST
    The difference is he doesn't say from the start that he'll mandate coverage, which is what killed the '93 proposal.

    If you think HRC putting forth the same plan as 16 years ago will work, good for you. If you believe McCain is gonna come through on his massive expansion of Medicaid, good luck.

    If you really believe people will buy insurance that is affordable and of high quality, Obama is your man.


    stop pushing yout Talking Points. (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:31:56 AM EST
    i've heard them all before.

    Obama and the media suppressed the Ayers Wright and Rezko information and managed to hoodwink Iowa and some other places in the west into thinking that the GOP couldn't pin radicalism and militancy on Obama.


    You are following me around (none / 0) (#157)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    pushing your own talking points. How 'bout you stop that?

    What is his Ayers connection, pray tell? Ayers is an English professor in Chicago who lives in Obama's district. He gave $200 to one of Obama's campaigns. They were on the same board of a charity. Ayers lives a normal upper-class life in Chicago. I really don't see how Obama is tainted there at all.

    Rezko is on trial. Obama is not. Obama is not an unindicted co-conspirator. Obama is not on the witness list. Stop trying to pretend Obama is guilty of something.

    The worst thing is people like you are the same ones who will swear 'til their dying day that Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, The Rose files, Juanita Broderick, etc. were all fabrications without merit.

    That's why HRC's camp is now being condemned as GOP copycats. You hate when it's done to you, but if you can win by doing it to Obama, great. Rev. Wright was one of the "spiritual advisers" who came to the aid of the Clintons in their "time of crisis." Rendell heaped praise on Farrakahn. Bill addressed the Million Man March.

    If you're so honest, why not point out those things?


    Wow, you're a twofer (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    Race baiting and spouting talking points.  Both are really boring at this point.

    Affordable and high quality? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    And who can I sue if this doesn't come to pass?

    Politicians say many things.  The cynical, skeptical and disillusioned believe few, if any promises a campaigning politician makes.  The Hopeful?  They are different.  They Believe.


    Yeah, but he keeps funding the war! (none / 0) (#160)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Every single time. Can I trust him to do what he says? Or to do what he's done?

    And his out-of-Iraq plan is so timid compared to Clinton's.


    AA Voter interests (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    aren't nearly as relevant where I live as Latino interests.

    Sorry, but I don't live in the deep South.  I live in LA.

    I am firmly interested intested in my Latino constinuents.

    What is good for them is good for me.

    I'm not a minority, but I live in a minority area.  

    I'm minority in my home town, in other words.

    What's good for Latinos is good for me.


    Obama should keep calling people old (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    stupid and racist. Hello President Clinton! wOOt

    I love it that his supporters are so willing to sabotage him further by helping him insult people with cries of racism just because they don't like him, his policies, his insults, his contempt...

    I love it, keep it up.


    This is a scurrilous charge unwarranted (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50:42 AM EST
    and unfounded it a  grevenace that has been exploitated and overplayed as a politcal wedge to inflame their is no honor in that.

    This is a scurrilous charge unwarranted (none / 0) (#132)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    and unfounded it is a grievance that has been exploited and overplayed as a political wedge there is no honor in this game.  

    NC Republican women (none / 0) (#78)
    by honora on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    Since NC is an open primary, what is the chance that R women will vote for Hillary and eat into Obama's AA total?  It seems like a lot of the R to D switching in Pa was by women who wanted to vote for Clinton.

    I believe I heard Catholic Women not sure how (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    many fit this demographic in NC, this was alos true in Ohio by the way.

    lots of republican women switched (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    parties to vote for Hillary and many more are waiting to vote for her in November.  Some of them are catholic.

    Another Aravosis post... (none / 0) (#116)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    is also worth a read.

    I have two issues with Hillary's recent nuke talk.

    One, on the merits of extending the umbrella of deterrence.  Israel doesn't need it (they have their own), probably wouldn't want it (see "Harvard" article linked here a couple of days ago), and our explicit alliance with Israel would certainly be played by Islamist extremists against the US.  So this part strikes me as irresponsible pandering.  Extending to other Arab states to deter Iran might make more sense, but it's a huge can of worms and Clinton strikes me as being entirely too glib about it.

    Second, the words she uses to dicuss this policy: "we should be able to obliterate?"  That kind of rhetoric's really not appropriate and would certainly be used by the Iranians to paint the US as a neocolonial oppressor.  If anything, such language probably reinforces the Iranian conviction that they need their own deterrent.  Is this what she's going to say when she answers the phone at 3AM?

    Oops... (none / 0) (#127)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    wrong thread.  Sorry!

    Demographics is destiny (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    I agree with that, but i think the performance in PA has more to do with the age of the electorate, rather than its race.  What is the age of democrats in Indiana?  

    Finally! (none / 0) (#118)
    by betterdiplomacy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    I couldn't agree with you more. Very well said and something the Democratic party really needs to take into serious consideration in their strategy moving forward.


    If she lives outside (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    Missouri, Ohio or Penn  what she does really deosn't matter at this point.

    the pol who carries Missouri, Ohio and Penn and will be the next president.

    North Carolina (none / 0) (#139)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    Other demographics are in play there besides race.  North Carolina is teeming with colleges.  there are over 60 colleges and universities in addition to about that many community colleges. I believe the overall population is better educated than either Virginia or South Carolina.  

    He'll rack up huge numbers in the "Predmont Crescent".  That's the urban center that starts in the Triangle and crosses the state all the way to Charlotte.

    I nailed PA's 10% win for Hillary (check my posts).  I'm calling NC for Obama by 14%.

    Indiana for Clinton by 4%.

    That was not a reply saying why you will vote (none / 0) (#174)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:08:44 PM EST
    for Obama, just one saying why you don't like Hillary. Please enlighten us as to his qualifications for the presidency. Do explain his policies and how he plans to implement them. If you want someone to vote for your candidate, you have to give them a reason besides "He's the ONE!!!" Try thinking for a change, thinking about what Obama's policies really are. Then come here and explain them to all of us ignorant older white women. So far, all you have done is spew talking points. That is not the same as making a case for a candidate. This is something Obama needs to learn too. When he does, he will be one step closer to being ready for the White House. Right now, he has a long way to go.

    BTD can you or anyone explain (none / 0) (#181)
    by smott on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    ...why your outline at the top makes sense in the general, where BO will not be running against a white woman but a white man?

    I agree it makes a ton of sense for all the primary contests but why in the world would we for example think that he'll lose white women 2-1 to McCain the way he does to HRC?

    I mean I certainly accept (none / 0) (#182)
    by smott on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST
    ...that he'll need approx 45% of the non-black vote vs McCain to top the general.

    But I don't think you can extrapolate his male and female nbrs  v Hill to the same v McCain.

    I never mentioned Kool-Aid, you did.. (none / 0) (#184)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:14:41 PM EST
    and as for the rest of it..

    I made it very clear that I prefer his Health Care model because I think it has much more of a chance of passing and will do exactly what Clintons does without the mandate
    No, it won't. It will leave over 15 million people without coverage. And the implementation plans are not there.

    How about his unwavering support for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his principled stand against it in the first place.

    His unwavering support is not backed up by votes. He wasn't in the Senate when the war started, so anything he said cannot be backed up any way at all. He keeps voting to fund the war, so how is he against it?? He talks a good game, but doesn't play well. When it comes down to the crunch, he votes, "present".

    His stance against lobbyists and PACS and ethics reform.
    He takes as much money from lobbyists, and bundlers(including Hu) as any other candidate. And HIS OWN PAC has given more money than Hillary's by hundreds of thousands of dollars to superdelegates for their campaign. I can see why he is taking a "stance against....ethics reform", he wouldn't be able to raise the sort of funds he does with ethics reforms in place. And his past associations say that his own ethics are not above reproach.

    will be accountable to the American people,
    Unless they happen to live in Florida or Michigan. Then their votes, and voices don't count, apparently.

    How about the excitement he has generated amongst young voters and independents.
    Yeah, saw the same thing with Nirvana. And we all know how that turned out, right? And those "Dems for a day"..yeah, bring in people to the party who don't really support it, just to get the nomination, then they go back to being Republicans in the GE. That is no way to build the party. That is getting the other team to help you score against your own team. Not what most people consider fair play.

    So he is weakening the party by getting people NOT in the party to vote for him when they will not be voting Democratic in the GE. He isn't strengthening the party when he slimes Hillary and uses sexist talking points against her. He also doesn't help the party when he whines and makes excuses for losing or getting caught out about his past associations.

    If he can't stand the scrutiny, he should not be running for President. And he can't. If he gets the nomination, McCain will bury him in the GE, and all he will have to do is tell the truth. Over and over again. That won't help the Democratic party, or build it up, or attract new voters to it.

    But that doesn't matter, as long as Obama gets to be the nominee. Because in the end, all that matters to Obama is Obama.

    About the FL primary date... (none / 0) (#187)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    if the Florida Dem. Party fought hard and you supported them before this decision was made then props are deserved. It seems like they didnt and they are the ones that are responsible for this in my opinion

    In Florida, the legislature sets the primary dates, not the relevant party. The Florida legislature has a Republican majority, and we have a Republican governor. There was a bill that provided for a paper trail for all Florida voting which the Dems had worked to get and the Republican committee attached a "poison pill" amendment putting the FL primary on the new date. The Dems could not vote against it, even though they protested the amendment, because that would mean no paper trail for Florida elections. After 2000, there is no way that was going to be acceptable. The bill was passed, with the new primary date. So, you can see that the FL Dems were not responsible for the primary date change, the Republicans are. And by insisting on not seating the delegates, the DNC and Obama are letting the Republican party have a big say in who our candidate will be. And they are helping the Republicans disenfranchise Democratic voters. So is Obama when he insists on not seating the delegates. I don't appreciate that at all, and neither do the rest of the FL Dems. Before you go around blaming people for things, you should at least find out if they are the ones responsible. The FL Democrats did not set the new primary date, the FL Republicans did.

    You just don't GET IT, do you??? (none / 0) (#189)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:13 PM EST
    THERE IS A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE. DEMOCRATS CAN NOT FIGHT IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES!!! It doesn't matter what the Dems say or do, nothing can get the Republican majority to come around to our views. And there is no way for the Dems to MAKE anyone do anything. So any fighting would have been nothing but noise and fury which would have made a great show of Democratic impotence. I am sure you can understand why they didn't make a big fuss. Most grownups know it is stupid to start a fight you know you can't win.