For The Record . . .

The West Virginia exit polls indicate that he lost white voters 69-28. Astounding? Not really. In Ohio, Clinton won white voters 64-34. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won whites 63-37. Indiana? Whites went for Clinton 60-40. Massachusetts? Whites went for Clinton 58-40. Rhode Island? 63-31 for Clinton. North Carolina? 61-37. And the same in Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri and so on.

Obama has won the white vote in Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, etc. West of the Mississippi all of them EXCEPT Wisconsin and VA..

West Virginia is not an anomaly. Obama's white working class problem is EAST of the Mississippi. It is not just Appalachia. It MUST be addressed. Calling West Virginia names is not going to solve the problem.[More...]

BTW, Wolfson is doing a great job on CNN. All Florida and Michigan. Kudos to Howard Wolfson doing a great job for his candidate Hillary Clinton. and Donna Brazile on the spot - and sez - "we have not made a decision."

By Big Tent Democrat

< The Media Downplays West Virginia , Focuses on Obama and McCain | Hillary Says The Race Goes On >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'll tell you something else (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:54:47 PM EST
    These numbers likely mean that he can't hold Pennsylvania or grab Ohio.

    Roland Martin agrees (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:55:50 PM EST
    and then says it doesn't matter!

    put that man on the list for (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:56:51 PM EST
    firings in December.

    These Obama boosters need to understand (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:59:45 PM EST
    that the November election is not proportional. Winner takes all!



    And no caucuses (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:52 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#11)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:01:57 PM EST
    I'll do you one better (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:48 PM EST
    Donna Brazile says this isn't a loss for Obama.

    Can I banish Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:05 PM EST
    from the realm of womankind?

    I just really hate for her to be representative of my gender what with all the air time she is getting.

    It doesn't bother me so much when men are the ones spouting the biased BS.  (gender bias?)


    Definitely hurts worse when the women do it. (none / 0) (#55)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    Guess consciousness-raising doesn't work on the unconscious.

    Don't worry (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    You're entitled to your math but Axelrod has THE math.

    Now we have Casey trying to indicate that Obama has a shot in states like WV and PA because McCain is no Hillary Clinton.  ::sigh::


    Geezopeetes... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:46:05 PM EST
    What a numbskull Casey is.

    This whole cycle has become a true Confederacy of Dunces.


    I said yesterday that he would lose (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:21:58 PM EST
    OH and PA, and I was told that Obama could just make himself into a populist.

    Here's the thing:  Kerry just barely won PA the last time, and that was mostly due to Teresa's positive reputation in the state. OH is one of the hardest hit states in the nation economically, and the exit polls everywhere consistently show Clinton scoring highest on ability to deal with economic issues.

    Eleanor Clift said it best recently, IMO, that Obama is looking increasingly like the candidate for those who think government is a luxury. Couple that with the Republican attack machine making Obama into John-Kerry-without-the-military-service (and without the flag pin!), and Obama is toast as a GE candidate. Sorry, but I think that's just the way it is.


    And he's (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    not going to win those states BTD listed where he did win the white vote in the general election except for WA.

    I believe it's responsible to wonder if the west (none / 0) (#88)
    by Salt on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:22:24 PM EST
    support might not have been more anti Clinton at the time my girlfriend in Kan. hates Clinton or did when she voted now she's not Hillary but not Obama either.

    No! (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:55:36 PM EST
    He lost West Virginia astoundingly.

    In all demographic categories, after he outspent her 2-1 and had the press telling voters that Obama was their next leader.

    She even got the creative classes.

    and the youth vote!!! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:13:48 PM EST
    Creative calsses? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by NWHiker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:12:35 PM EST
    She even got the creative classes.

    How is that possible? I heard there were no creative classes in WV, just uneducated white people? [end sarcasm]. Yes, I am still annoyed at Mara Liasson's report from this morning. And I'm not even from WV/Appalachia, though I visited a few times, so by Obama metrics, nobody knows more about Applachia them me.

    Nice win for Clinton! Yay!


    Bad news for Obama (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:56:54 PM EST
    in the GE.

    Yet, I can't really imagine him addressing it successfully.  Aside from his questionable associations that don't play well with conservative, working-class Dems, he doesn't have the "regular Joe" persona.  As Joe Scarborough said, he's too "faculty lounge".  

    He chickened out (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:59:13 PM EST
    He should have gutted out a congratulation speech in that state.  Instead he's on travels.

    Did you say the same thing when Clinton (none / 0) (#26)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:55 PM EST
    booked it out of SC for Nashville?

    I did (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    I don't care if they are not in the state as long as the acknowledge the other person's win...and I agree that Clinton also missed a couple of opportunities to do that.

    You mean when Bill... (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:51 PM EST
    ...congratulated Obama in his SC speech, and Hillary later echoed the congrats in St. Louis?

    Look Halstoon. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:18:32 PM EST
    Obama can't count on huge AA populations.

    He's actually got to confront this for his own sake.


    Pollster.com ponders if AAs are maxed (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:31:31 PM EST
    out already, without much "exponential" growth to come in the general election.  That is, their incredible turnout in the primaries may be their general-election turnout already.  That would mess with a lot of the polling models, analysts say -- and mean, with larger white turnout, lowering the proportionate impact of AAs in the general election.

    I think they'll be proved wrong. (none / 0) (#141)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:33:28 PM EST
    Just as I think that even more women would've turned out for Hillary, I think there's a big difference in voting to nominate a black man and voting to elect one.

     A lot of the increased white vote will be young white people supporting Obama. A lot of the new people Clinton brought into the party will stick with her preferred candidate, which will be Barack.

    But just on Pollster's AA pondering, I really think the underestimate the enthusiasm we'll see once Obama is literally one step away from the White House.



    It's not about enthusiasm; that is there (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:46:03 PM EST
    but there is a ceiling to the number of adults, i.e., eligible to vote, in any group.  Pollster.com analysts looked at the census vs. primary turnouts.

    Look Salo. (none / 0) (#140)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:26:39 PM EST
    Obama will be just fine once he's officially the nominee. In the meantime, he's busy beating the best political duo in recent American history.

    Contrary to what is being said right now, there in fact a lot of people who really want a Democrat to be president, not just a Clinton and not just an Obama. Those people who really want a Democrat but prefer Clinton will do like Clinton and vote for Obama. Some won't. Most will.

    Who are you a fan of?


    He needs to deal with it... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:54 PM EST
    otherwise, he won't be fine.

    There've been some really nasty bumps...and those won't just take care of themselves when/if he becomes the nominee.

    And the Obama supporters need to think about that too when it comes to trying to smooth things over with the various voting blocks that Brazile effectively told to stay home in Nov when she made that "we don't need you" statement.

    (And for the record, I'm a non-camp following Dem...not in either candidate's camp.)


    What is 'he needs to deal with it' (none / 0) (#158)
    by halstoon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:19:32 AM EST
    code for?

    As the nominee, he'll visit places like Ohio, Penn, West Va., etc. He'll make it clear--once again--that while his name sounds funny he really is American and really does believe in Jesus. He'll make it clear that hunters and sportsmen have nothing to fear with him and their guns. Once Sen. Clinton is saying those same things about him--instead of opposing him--you'll see people come around.

    Now, nothing can change the fact that people who are older or less educated are more likely--notice I say more likely and not certain--to have outdated views on race. Obama will have to overcome that small segment of the population, since he cannot change their minds.

    But as I said, what do you mean by 'deal with it'?


    It's code for... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:08 AM EST
    He needs to address the issues that Armando has brought up.

    I'd advise now rather than later. Later, he really looks like he's pandering to get votes he didn't care about before he became nominee.

    You really think that people are just going to turn around and say "Oh...well now that you're the nominee and visiting us, we'll just give you a pass"?

    His campaign has tossed a number of key Democratic base constituents under the bus.

    And one way of addressing the issue is getting Donna Brazile to reel it back in. She does not go over well telling the base to stay home...and turning around on national TV saying "We don't need x, y, and z voters."


    Would you mind expanding on the (none / 0) (#167)
    by halstoon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:47:42 PM EST
    threw constituencies under the bus line? Is accepting that Sen. Clinton has rock solid support among some groups the same as throwing them under the bus?

     Why are Catholics so opposed to Obama, for instance? Do he and Sen. Clinton not both support choice? Did President Clinton not veto partial-birth abortion bans? Doesn't Sen. Clinton support including condom and other birth-control education as part of sex ed., as Obama does? It would seem that practicing Catholics would oppose--or support--each of them equally, yet they support Clinton by wide margins.

     Women will obviously have to be addressed, but again--and with all due respect--this is a demographic that Sen. Clinton should have always won. Obama will certainly remind them that he supports their causes, but I also think some women are simply hurt that the first woman president won't take office in 2009.

     Sen. Obama supports a living wage, tuition credits, increased service opportunities (Americorps and Peace Corps), fully funded primary education/Title I, job training, and all manner of programs that will help disadvantaged people get a leg up in this nation. He wants to start his greencorps job program to replace the manufacturing base so many towns have lost. I could go on and on. The simple fact is Barack wants to help those of us who were not born with a silver spoon, just as the Clintons do. He doesn't want to take away any rural gun owners' rights to have a weapon. He is a Christian and respects the deep tradition that those of us in small towns hold so dear. Barack has spent his adult life trying to make life better for the poor.

     Once people give him a fair hearing they'll realize that he really does care just as much as Hillary, who clearly has put her life into service of others. He's starting to do that now, visiting MO, MI, and FL in the next week.

     For the past 15+ months Barack has been fighting an uphill battle against the most astute, well-funded, and brightest political name in the world. Some feelings have been bruised on both sides; that's to be expected when people are as passionate as our party is about this race.

     The important thing to remember at the end of this is that both Sens. Obama and Clinton are fighting to help the same people. We should--once this is over--all return to fighting that fight from the same side.


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM EST
    First, I'd suggest that you go back and read what Armando has written.

    Really...I'm way too busy and frankly, I could care less how Christian he is...or thinks he is.

    I'm equally unimpressed by the soaring, yet highly triangulating, rhetoric with regards to being "above politics."

    I'm not in either camp. I'm not a member of any fan club.

    But I've seen his resume...and his voting record, and he hasn't convinced me (a PhD, college professor, creative writer, and web designer--ostensibly I am part of the so-called "creative class") that he can do the job.


    With your resume, I'd expect you to be (none / 0) (#171)
    by halstoon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    more articulate than relying on Armando, who has his own agenda here.

    People don't JUST "come around" (none / 0) (#165)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:18:06 AM EST
    It's naive to even think that.

    "regular Joe" (none / 0) (#25)
    by s5 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:48 PM EST
    It doesn't matter which Democrat runs against which Republican. They're always going to brand the Democrat as an "out of touch elitist" who sips white wine and doesn't understand "real Americans", while the Republican will get branded as the "regular Joe". Even if Hillary wins the "regular Joe" vote in the primary, they're not going to concede that branding to the Democrat.

    I mean really, this script has played out so many times, that it's hard to believe anyone would expect anything else at this point.

    As Atrios is fond of saying, "no one could have predicted..."


    It would be a heckuva lot easier (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:10 PM EST
    to label Obama elitist than Hillary.  She's tough; he's not.  He's already been labeled as elitist and out of touch by Democrats - just imagine what will happen to him in the GE.

    Not so (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:29 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was derided as a bubba--by the right and the left alike.

    The Party has a flaw--an affinty with Ivy Leaguers or/and Massachusetts Liberals.

    It's very worthy and all that, but it's clearly a cultural blindspot that has nopt been fully examined.


    If This Doesn't Scare the SDs (5.00 / 13) (#8)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:05 PM EST
    then they are beyond help, I'm afraid.  

    The West Virginia results are so much worse than earlier results because people have been repeatedly told Obama has the nomination won.  Yet, they still come out in large numbers to vote for Hillary?  That's what's known as sending a message.  

    Increasingly blue and swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia seem out of reach for Obama.  He should concede for the good of the party.  

    I'm only sort of kidding.

    Yep. Until this year, my state (TN) always (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:54 PM EST
    voted after the nominee was chosen and unless there was a big state race in the primary, no one voted very much. That says a lot to me that people voted today to send a message that they don't want this over and the media can just shove it.

    You make an assumption (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    Suppose the industrial states always go this late because the Democrats want these sorts of losing candidates who fit the profile of Dukakis or Kerry?

    Iowa is a seriously poor spot to start this show. Do they have an affinity for Massachusetts?

    The Primary schedule might as well be based around Penn, Ohio and Missouri.


    absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by kempis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    people have been repeatedly told Obama has the nomination won.  Yet, they still come out in large numbers to vote for Hillary?  That's what's known as sending a message.  

    And the Superdelegates and the DNC seem to have their fingers in their ears and are going "lalalalala...."


    They're (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:10 PM EST
    just all wearing their

    CDS goggles
    CDS earplugs
    and special CDS lycra that keeps every sensation out.

    When Hillary drops out, they'll remove all this stuff and go:

    Oh shooot!  What the frack did we do!


    They are beyond help... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:05 PM EST
    ...actually it wouldn't surprise me if 20 of them came out for Obama tomorrow.

    How about ignoring it? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:27 PM EST
    Since that seems to be the game plan and all? ;)

    There you go with your (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:02:55 PM EST
    reasoning and facts again.

    The fact that Hillary Clinton is hugely popular (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:35 PM EST
    with white people East of the MS is a testament to her campaign. Race is a hurdle for Obama, but a lot of these #s are for Hillary, remember? She and her husband have a rather good reputation with the Joe Sixpacks for the work they did from the White House. Having the endorsement of the Clintons in the fall will boost his #s, though obviously there is a segment of the white population that is not going to vote for Obama regardless.

    It will also help once he is clearly contrasted with John McCain, whose vision of America is nothing like Sen. Clinton's or Obama's. For all his maverick history, McCain has re-cast himself as a staunch conservative, with global warming as his only true maverick position.

    In 1996, Bill Clinton
    only won 43% of the white vote, 43% of the Asian vote, and 84% of the black vote.

    Obama will not only improve on that 84% black, but he'll grow it exponentially. If he can approach the 43% Clinton got, he'll be fine.

    He will do a tremendous amount of outreach in places like OH, PA, WV, MI, FL, etc. With Rendell, Strickland, et. al. added to the Clintons, those states will still be in play.

    So Hillary for VP right? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:04:51 PM EST
    Won't work for me BTD (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    I am voting for president, not VP. Barack Obama is still unqualified and he has insulted half of America. She could do his campaign commercials for him and it isn't going to help.

    Everyone has told America he is the nominee and they are still voting and donating to Clinton. No way he crosses that bridge even if he puts her on the ticket. And she would be nuts to accept it.

    He will lose.


    Not Going to Solve His Problems (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:47 PM EST
    In the end, people vote for the president, not the vice president.   Hillary might get Obama a few more democratic votes, but his showing among white democrats portends disaster among white independents and Republicans in the fall.

    I woud've agreed with you (and I did) (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    a month ago, but now I'm pretty well convinced that both camps are irreparably divided.

    I'm starting to understand those who say to let him sink or swim on his own.


    If I were her (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:13:25 PM EST
    I'd avoid his inevitable undoing.

    he's too similar to Kerry, and Kerry was a very experienced and heroic chap.

    This sia cultural problem that the Dems have to go through one more time before they grow up I suppose.


    No Unity Ticket (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:15:44 PM EST
    Aside from the fact that I don't like it as a Hillary supporter, it will bring nothing but negative drama to the ticket, with the MSM focusing on the animosity between the Obamas and the Clintons.

    My own feeling is that Obama has conducted an ungracious and negative campaign, dissing the Clinton legacy and dismissing Clinton supporters.  If he wants try to to dig himself out of this and unite the party, let him do it on his own.  The "Unity Ticket" seems like a cheap fix to me.

    Hillary has better things to do - like go back to work being my Senator!


    Obama doesn't care what Dems want (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:17:31 PM EST
    on the ticket says a guy from Politico on Fox -- no way will Hillary be on the ticket, because Obama wants to attract Is & Rs. Well hot diggity dog! I'm glad I switched to "I" -- maybe Obama will try to earn my vote now.  

    BTD, get a map! Wisconsin is east (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:45 PM EST
    of the Mississippi River.  I mean, it has switched its course many a time (so that part of Illinois, its first capital, now is west of the mighty Miss) -- but not that much and not this far north. :-)

    Not necessarily. (none / 0) (#43)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:05 PM EST
    She and President Clinton can help Obama without being on the ticket. Hillary Clinton will be hugely influential in the Obama administration, but I don't think it will be from One Observatory Circle.

     I like the idea of Secretary of State; she and Bill are very popular around the world, and she can be Obama's enforcer. I also like the idea of Justice Clinton. She and Ginsburg would make a good tandem representing women on SCOTUS.

     Do you think it's VP or nothing?


    My opinion only... (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    I think she'll play no role whatsoever in an Obama administration, even if he made her VP. He won't allow it.

    I Doubt HIllary Would Want Anything To Do (1.00 / 0) (#104)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:36:08 PM EST
    with his administration.  She can watch from afar as he drowns in a sea of ineptness.  AND she will be back in the senate demonstrating to obama how a senator works and gets things done.

    Ignoring approx half (none / 0) (#113)
    by Lahdee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    of Democratic voters can't be good. Your math has shown, IIRC, that he can win the electoral vote. If that's true, and the animus we see elsewhere extends to the personal relationship why would Senator Clinton want to be in his administration, particularly if there's a chance she would have no role?
    Are we to ignore her people, and her, when they say that regardless they will support Senator Obama?
    No, no VP for Hillary.

    Good One (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:19 PM EST
    Um ... (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:07:30 PM EST
    Obama will not only improve on that 84% black, but he'll grow it exponentially.

    Do you understand what the word "exponential" means?


    There's always (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    the square root of negative one!

    aka "imaginary numbers"


    Shh ... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:37:51 PM EST
    people might think you're one of those "educated voters."



    How about innumeracy? (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:14:29 PM EST
    In 1996, about 9 million black people voted. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    They represented 10% of the vote. This year, they're likely to be closer to 14% of the vote, which could mean close to 20 million, more than double the 1996 turnout. Obama will get upwards of 95% of that.

    Will he square Clinton's result? No. Do you have to be a jerk instead of addressing my point? Apparently.


    I think your point is well made (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    I am wondering what states the Black vote will help him win?  What is your take on the actual states the Black vote will make the difference.

    If Clinton & Strickland help him get back to (none / 0) (#124)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:56:36 PM EST
    Kerry's '04 #s in OH, AAs could put him over the top. Kerry got 84% in '04 with them being 10% of the vote, or about 475k of 560k. I think Obama goes from 475k to 525k just by going from 85 to 95%. Registration will almost certainly surge by another 50k, and I think that's conservative. So AAs could influence OH, as long as Clinton helps too.

    I think AAs could help in NC & SC. In FL, AAs are 16% of the population but only 12% of the turnout in 2004. That will change.

    Now, the most crucial factor in Obama becoming president will undoubtedly be Hillary Clinton. He must get her on board to have any shot whatsoever. But, assuming he does, I think he can then expand that base in the places I mentioned as well as others.


    ok, if obama needs hillary, please tell (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:46:06 PM EST
    us why all we hear is how michelle despises hillary. we see obama give hillary the bird. axelrod says we aren't needed. i think the voters just might agree with him.

    You fall for some ridiculous BillO propaganda (none / 0) (#169)
    by halstoon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    like Obama giving Clinton the finger? Even his own body language expert said he was making s**t up there. jeez!

    Michelle--like Bill--gets pi$$ed when people attack her spouse. Bill doesn't have great things to say about Obama, either.

    What Axelrod said is true; Bill Clinton lost the white vote in 1996. The party does not count on winning white people to control the White House. If the truth is to be despised, then hate him.

     My advice is you should stop listening to Fixed News or work a little harder to cut through all the crap you're obviously hearing from somewhere.


    but halstoon (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:28:04 PM EST
    it won't be about popular vote, or increasing black voter turnout, it will be about the swing states.

    not trying to be a jerk, just don't see how this solves it.


    Good Dr. (none / 0) (#105)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM EST
    I understand what you are saying. In 2004, Kerry lost OH by 120,000 votes. If Gov. Strickland and the Clinton machine help Obama reach out to her base, I think he can add more than 120,000 black votes to OH. That addition combined with Clinton support + Conservative indifference to McCain + a Bob Barr candidacy could very well put Obama over the top. Same thing in PA.

    Once AAs have the chance to not only nominate a black man but elect one, I think we will see registration skyrocket, putting places like NC & SC in very real contention, despite what others say.

    Add that to his strenght in places like IA, WI, NV, CO, VA, OR, etc., and he could win easily instead of a close race.

    Can Obama win without Clinton support? No way. Would the Clintons and the vast majority of their supporters really prefer another 4 years of Bush policy just to spite Obama? I hope not.


    Tonight's exit polling (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    suggests that "the vast majority of Clinton supporters" would prefer McCain to Obama, and that number gets larger each time we have a primary.  I think that as much as her base supports her, a call from her to support Obama might not get Obama much. What can he do to change that?

    Why is that? (none / 0) (#129)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:03:37 PM EST
    Assume it's not racism. Assume it's not people wanting a woman more than a Democrat. Assume it's not  just the product of an intense primary in which people's emotions have taken over.

     What would make Mac more attractive to Obama when he opposes almost every Clinton position and Obama supports them?

     I want to be polite, but it's really hard to see how Democrats allow America to stay on Bush's course just b/c Clinton lost.


    Experience, for one. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Evie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:43:11 PM EST
    Armed Forces Committee service.
    Willingness to debate, anytime, anywhere.
    An actual record of bipartisan legislation.
    Less taxes, at least in comparison to Obama.

    Then there's not calling working class people "bitter" and not being associated with Wright, Rezko, Ayers, "America is a mean country", etc.


    Clinton has committed to raising the same taxes (none / 0) (#168)
    by halstoon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:58:42 PM EST
    Obama has. If you make more than 250k/yr, they're both gonna raise your taxes back to 39 percent. If you make more than 97k, Obama has said he's going to raise your taxes by making you pay FICA on your whole check, not just part. Clinton told O'Reilly she wouldn't necessarily, but she didn't give an unequivocal 'no' either.

    As for the record, you mean the record where he has now said he would not support McCain-Kennedy any longer? Where he would not only vote for the Bush tax cuts, but keep them permanent, after originally saying they were a bad idea? The record where he excoriated Bush for not amending the platform on abortion to only back off his own words now that he is the nominee? You mean his sudden support of waterboarding, despite being tortured himself? You mean his own refusal to abide by McCain-Feingold?

     Yes, that's some record he has there.

    Those last few GOP talking points are the final refuge of the politics of fear. They don't even deserve a rebuttal, b/c they are simply ridiculous, imo. If you really vote for McCain b/c of Wright or Ayers, then you really don't know McCain's friends all that well, 'cuz you can bet he's got the same kinda shadiness in his background.


    hmmm. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:56:30 PM EST
    well, maybe he can pull it off as you say with all those factors.

    btw, i wouldn't not vote for obama 'just to spite him'as you say. but i don't think i'll be voting for him.


    Tell me how someone who disagrees with 95% (none / 0) (#126)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    of Clinton's platform is better than someone who agrees with 95% of it?

    I don't want to be vituperative, but that just doesn't make sense to me.


    Well, long story (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:14:51 PM EST
    but, short version:  for me, certain progressive principles and processes are just as important as platforms. I honestly just can't be part of a process or movement that a) doesn't count all votes; b) casually smears people as racists; c) participates or stands complicitly and silently by in vicious and demeaning sexist commentary; d) tries to racially bully people into voting for a candidate they may not like.

    I hope you'll just respect my choice rather than tell me I'm selfish or petty for not voting for Obama.


    You smear the candidate I support and want me (none / 0) (#138)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    to 'respect' your choice.

    Well, I don't respect it, but I won't try to change your mind. I also won't respond in kind.

    Will you vote in the fall, or will you stay home?


    huh? (none / 0) (#145)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:08:21 PM EST
    How did I smear your candidate?

    Never mind. I tried to answer your questions and voice my opinions respectfully. Doesn't matter.

    In answer to your question, I don't think I'll vote. I deplore McCain, but I've also come to loathe Obama. I'm sorry if that offends you.


    Thank you for at least staying home (none / 0) (#159)
    by halstoon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:21:38 AM EST
    instead of voting against Obama. Perhaps Nader or Barr will offer something that appeals to you.

    Halstoon...what's with the name calling? It (none / 0) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:33:03 PM EST
    isn't necessary.  Ooooooh here comes another "1" rating for me from halstoon.  Seriously, try to be nice.

    We can exchange 1's all you want. (none / 0) (#111)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:40:22 PM EST
    My original post was complimentary of Clinton and thoughtful in my analysis. Petty responders chose to attack me on something stupid like the use of 'exponential.'

    You rate me 1's no matter what I write. At least this time you had the courtesy of 'speaking.'


    It isn't petty to point out (none / 0) (#131)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:07:42 PM EST
    that your argument makes no sense. If you can prove that Obama has any reasonable chance of "exponentially" increasing the AA vote in the GE, please do provide. Facts matter.

    The meaning... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by dmk47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:32:45 PM EST
    I'm guessing that means Obama will crack 90%+ and improve turnout substantially. Even so, best case of 30-40% increased turnout is fractional, not exponential

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:11:43 PM EST
    Obama will not only improve on that 84% black, but he'll grow it exponentially. If he can approach the 43% Clinton got, he'll be fine.

    Are you familiar with graphs?


    lol. (none / 0) (#85)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    I can only laugh. I would mock you back, but this is your night.

    I will, however, get you back come June.


    Who do you (none / 0) (#93)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    think will be laughing come November? And pre-emptive gloating? It's still gloating, and it doesn't help your candidate.

    Ah, but gloating and mocking me is (none / 0) (#97)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    completely acceptable and makes Sen. Clinton look so good.

    As for your attempt to extort the nomination out of the party by swearing McCain will win, it's becoming tiring.


    I'm not a clinton fan. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    that's your assumption.

    In that case I have no qualms with telling (none / 0) (#130)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    you what a pompous a$$ I think you are.

    Ok, we agree on this much (none / 0) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    The extortion has got to stop.  Please understand that many Clinton supporters feel that Obama supporters are trying to extort us into voting for Sen. Obama in November "or else."  Usually they bring up SCOTUS or the prospect of a hundred-year war. Just as you want C supporters to stop trying to extort the nomination out of you, we want O supporters to stop trying to extort our GE votes out of us.

    I'm not saying you've participated in the SCOTUS screaming, I'm just trying to give you a view from the other side.

    I understood what you were trying to say with your exponential comment, and it's a good point.  I just don't think it will add up to enough votes in the right places to make the difference. No matter what Sen. Clinton does to promote the ticket, there will be defections that Sen. Obama has to deal with, potentially huge ones.


    I don't want to extort your vote. (none / 0) (#136)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:14:14 PM EST
    I want to know why having your candidate lose the nomination would cause you to defect from the party. I really don't understand it. I mean, we hear some about the conservatives still being cool to McCain, but overall it's assumed that those who voted for Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Thompson will all be there in November. Maybe Ron Paul's supporters defect to Barr now, but really, it's not like Republicans are gonna leave b/c McCain beat their man.

     So why is it that so many Clinton supporters are just hellbent on not being with the Democrats in the fall? Are they independents who were only drawn to Clinton b/c of her healthcare or her own historic change credentials?

     I don't consider it extortion when I ask you if you would really prefer to have the war go on, the rich people to get richer, and women's privacy rights to be threatened by not supporting the party in the fall. I really want to know: are you that angry? Disappointed? What?


    I am a dyed in the wool Dem (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    Never voted for a non-Dem for any office in the last 28 years, yet I'm thinking of changing my registration to Independent.

    It's not because my candidate might lose. I've suffered through losses of my candidates in the past.

    It's because of the rampant sexism shown toward a female candidate and the silence on the part of the party elders. I think that a party (and a presumptive nominee) that would tolerate this, and by doing so, legitimate this shabby and destructive treatment of a female candidate cannot take women seriously, cannot have my interests at heart.

    When people scream SCOTUS (not you, you've asked nicely, and I hope I'm explaining myself well), I'm reminded of how evangelicals are treated by the GOP, and at times, how AAs are treated by the Dems. The party wants their votes, but also has no fear that they will go elsewhere.

    Without the fear that people will go elsewhere, there is no force for change.


    Thank you for a sincere answer. (none / 0) (#160)
    by halstoon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:27:53 AM EST
    I may not agree with you, but I do appreciate that you took the time to share your honest thoughts.

    Speaking as a defector... (none / 0) (#154)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:20 PM EST
    I want to know why having your candidate lose the nomination would cause you to defect from the party.

    No matter who wins the nomination, I'll be changing my registration from Democrat to Independent after the primaries are over. I may still vote for the Democratic candidate -- but I'll be leaving the party.

    The reason is profound disillusionment with the party. I never thought that I'd see the day that half the Democratic party and the majority of the Democratic leadership would be arguing, with all sincerity, that not counting votes was the right thing to do. Were all the arguments that we made about Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 only because of wanting to win, and nothing to do with principle? Sure looks that way now. Because if it was about principle, our party would be bending over backwards to find a way to settle the FL and MI question without stripping away the votes. If the commitment of the party to democratic principles is that shallow, then they're really only different from Republicans when it comes to policy. So I can pick and choose who to support in elections based on that policy, but I don't have to buy into the party structure.


    I appreciate your honest response. (none / 0) (#161)
    by halstoon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:29:37 AM EST
    Your concerns seem sincere and honest. Thank you for taking the time to share in a polite manner.

    That wasn't gloating (none / 0) (#128)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    it was a question about whether or not you knew the definition of a word that was an integral part of your argument.

    To be clear, the definition of exponential, according to Merriam-Webster is

    1: of or relating to an exponent 2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression> 3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate>

    Gloat, according to the same source means

    1: to observe or think about something with triumphant and often malicious satisfaction, gratification, or delight <gloat over an enemy's misfortune>

    The dictionary is your friend.


    John McCain (none / 0) (#83)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    will not stop at global warming.  If it is apparent that the Dems are going to nominate Obama no matter what, look for McCain to soften his conservative stance on all things female and start planning for a troop reduction plan.

    If McCain actually had the guts to buck the (none / 0) (#94)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:26:18 PM EST
    Christian Right, I'd be encouraged. But he won't.

    He always points out that Hagee was not his pastor for 20 years, but nobody ever calls him on the fact that not only did he seek the endorsement, but he went and held a press conference to trumpet it. He gave the commencement speech at Liberty. He embraced the Confederate flag as 'heritage'.

    He cannot afford to lose his conservative base any more than he has. With Bob Barr running, he's going to move even more Right, imo.


    I know that's how the exit poll categorizes (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:19 PM EST
    This group of voters, but of course until we can talk about this group of voters as being something other than white (working class, smart, interested in solutions, not rhetoric, whatever) we, no, you will fail to solve the problem.

    Cultural conservatives but (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    economic populists was a good description I heard today of WV.  Defines people by their values -- not their demographics but, as marketing pros say, their "psychographics."  Obama is not reaching them culturally, economically, etc.

    And the most highly-rated response at DKos was: (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:10 PM EST
    Obama does not have a white problem, he has (14+ / 1-)

    a backwater inbred ignorant racist appalachian hillbilly problem.

    And we can win without them. They will mostly just vote repub in the fall anyway.

    There, I said it.

    Forget about appalachia; let's look westward ho!

    That is why I endorse Bill Richardson for VP, to build a new midwest & Hispanic Dem coalition.

    I have had it with these freakin' appalachian backwater "Deliverance" freaks.

    And before your faith is justified at the troll rating this excrement received... the rating was withdrawn after a general outcry.

    Hispanics (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by bigbay on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:13:33 PM EST
    don't seem to really care what Richardson thinks.

    Wow, (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    just...wow. I can't believe his campaign isn't stepping on this crap with heavy boots because they really can't win without Hillary's voters.

    Coal Miners, Steelers... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:14:38 PM EST
    ...river pilots. Yep those useless workers.

    Appalachian voters next door in VA (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    voted for Doug Wilder, AA governor there, as Fox pointed out.  

    Whether it would happen again, who knows, with this tendency to fling racism charges so wildly at people like them -- and like me -- who have not voted on racial lines.  As the Fox analyst said, it is not about race with Obama, it is about him and his campaign.  I would not be surprised if some of those exit pollees who said race was a factor today would, if there was followup, say it was a factor in ticking them off at being called racists no matter what they do . . . and have done since staying with the Union to stand against slavery.


    red meat for Bill O (none / 0) (#57)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:12:44 PM EST
    Boy will they be surprised is Richardson is... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    ...on the ticket. He won't add squat.

    Why focus on just the whiteness? (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:21 PM EST
    Has he won any working class voters except for AA? Working class whites and Latinos and Asians and seniors and women (who tend to be lower income) seem to be voting Hillary as a whole. I don't think this is about race so much as class and who each group thinks will work hardest for them. AA working class voters are placing their trust in Senator Obama, but other lunch-bucket Dems aren't hearing him ask for their votes.

    Asians? (none / 0) (#63)
    by dmk47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure there aren't enough states with data on Asian votes to do a meaningful comparison (though there was a SUSA poll in showing Obama winning California in a revote, primarily b/c of movement towards him among Asians).

    Exit polls (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:16:03 PM EST
    of the actual vote showed she was winning Asians in the primaries. I hadn't heard about a revote in CA, is this related to the county conventions?

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#98)
    by dmk47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:30:18 PM EST
    For some reason, SUSA did a poll of a hypothetical revote in CA.

    Is there any state besides CA that has data on Asian voters? I just scanned OH, TX, VA, and PA and there's nothing.


    Hypotheticals (none / 0) (#146)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:17:39 PM EST
    are always interesting, aren't they? Would be informative to see them for WI and MO too. I only know she's won Asians in the exit polls I've seen. My point was just that he's not winning working class voters other than AA's and that I'm tired of everyone focusing on race as the main reason.

    I'm not voting against him on June 3rd because he's black; I'm voting for Hillary because I think she'll work hardest for me and my family and to take our country's government back from the neocons. I believe in her because of her specific substantive policies and speeches, her answers in debates and Q&A's, her record, her courage and grit, and my experiences with her over the last 17 years. Making this all about race is insulting to both candidates and to the voters.


    We agree (none / 0) (#156)
    by dmk47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:30:51 PM EST
    I'm voting for Hillary because I think she'll work hardest for me and my family and to take our country's government back from the neocons.

    Those are great reasons to support her. I just hope you'll vote for either Democrat in the fall.

    Making this all about race is insulting to both candidates and to the voters.

    I couldn't agree more.

    Btw, could you find a link for those exit polls on Asians? I just haven't seen one for any state but California.


    Puget Sound's Asian population (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    is bigger than its AA population. My org. spends a lot of time and energy in coalitions registering Asian voters. But, in any case, Obama would win WA in the GE.

    I agree, with one quibble... (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    Obama didn't win the white vote in Iowa. He got about the 28% of the white vote in Iowa. He won a plurality, but not a majority. Plus, it was a caucus, and those results have proven to not reflect the will of Democratic voters.

    All or almost all caucuses, neh? (none / 0) (#91)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST
    West of the Mississippi, I mean.

    I despise Donna Brazille (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:12:19 PM EST
    "the rules are the rules," she says.

    Campbell Brown (none / 0) (#60)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:13:44 PM EST
    keeps surprising me because whenever she has Donna in a room she goes at her and calls her on stuff.

    So predictable. I think Wolfson won (none / 0) (#92)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    that round, though.

    The difference between... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    You're right that the margins among white voters have been pretty grim for a while now. Still, 69-28 is a 41-point margin. My goodness.

    Wolfson was good on CNN....EOM (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by dskinner3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:16:01 PM EST

    Yep, he made Brazile look, well (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:18:17 PM EST
    like she is.  Obdurate, bullheaded, controlling.  All about the roolz, not about justice.

    I think that all the states BTD (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:21:00 PM EST
    mentions in which Obama won the white vote were won before the Rev Wright, before the "eltist comments" and before the Ayers "Weathermen" problem.

    Simply put, his flaws are hurting him with the white vote, and will do so even more as they become visible.

    Heh (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:41:16 AM EST
    A loss is a loss.

    And his problems started after he became better known, and after his associations became better known.

    This tells us that it is issues and character that have now came to the surface.

    As for your attempt to label all those who disagree with you racist, well, try away.

    But I would also ask you to explain why Obama is getting 90% of the black vote. The answer is obvious. Blacks are voting for him because he is black.

    Does that mean they are racist? Not in my mind.

    As I noted in the OJ trial, I have no particular problem with that. Given the history of race in this country some "payback" is to be understood.

    But Obama's minions shouldn't be calling those who don't vote for him, or who question his positions or question his associations, racist when he is the obvious benefactor of race based voting.


    BS As Usual (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    Blacks are voting for Obama because he is a Democrat first, he represents their values. The fact that he is black is secondary. Guaranteed that if Hillary were running against Condi, Clarence Thomas, or any one of the token amount of GOP Blacks, AAs would vote for Hillary hands down in larger numbers than they have voted for Obama.

    Great win By Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:23:57 PM EST
    I hope the supers WAKE UP. Here is another thought for Not Picking Obama..... I noticed McCain is now running a way more moderate, populist type campaign. He is talking about global warming in Oregon...!!??? If McCain would camp out in around my tri-state area, on the borders of WV, PA, OH, he wins hands down. They would only have to take the BS-Express in a 250 mile TRIANGULATION. Harrisburg to Dayton, then down to Charleston in a triangle. Those are the three states he needs to win. Thats it. Obama, won't win Florida or Michigan either.

    McCain was in North Bend today (none / 0) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    about 20 minutes from my house.  The local news gave him extremely positive play.  Our media is pretty right wing here.  He's also doing a fundraiser in Bellevue

    Obama only won the PRIMARY (not the stupid caucus) by only 5 points.  Dino Rossi is running for governor after a previous passionately contested governor's race with Christine Gregoire.  That could bring out Republicans.  Washington could easily be in play if McCain spends time here and the media is friendly.

    George Bush really never spent time here, did fundraisers in Medina and pretty much got the helck out.  It's interesting that McCain is here.


    I think WA will go blue (none / 0) (#135)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:14:01 PM EST
    regardless of the Dem candidate.

    And Rossi.hasn't.got.a.chance!


    Wasn't Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:37:38 PM EST
    take back religion for Dems shtick supposed to help with this problem?  Wasn't that originally his way of sweeping up white voters?  Or do we now see they are too "bitter" for that, in other words, religion isn't the issue, the economy is?

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    You have to realize that Obama is not interested in fixing those problems. He should have had a wake up call when he lost the white vote in MA on super tuesday. But he ignored it. He should have had a wake up call in OH and TX but he ignored it. He should have had a wake up call in PA but he ignored it.

    He arrogantly thinks that these people are just going to vote for him because McCain is so, so, much worse.

    Even if he wanted to fix his electoral problems, which obviously he does not, I don't think he can. He is an east coast ivy league elitist. People don't vote for these candidates. They lose election after election. Obama will lose the election if he is the nominee. It will be the same as all the other similar candidates except that for the first time in 20 years there is an acceptable GOP alternative to many dems-John McCain. If he can't compete against Hillary in a democratic primary with those demographics don't expect him to be able to get them in Nov.

    And once again, this is just the damage from Rev. Wright emerging. There are still other stuff for the gop to throw at him.

    Obama worse than Kerry w whites (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:18:54 PM EST
    From NRO so don't go there, but from the article:

    In state after state, Barack Obama is drastically underperforming John Kerry's general election numbers among whites among a voter pool almost entirely limited to Democrats.

    In the Ohio Democratic primary, Barack Obama carried 34 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 44 percent of the white vote.

    In Pennsylvania, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 45 percent.

    In Missouri, Obama won 39 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 42 percent of the white vote.

    This phenomenon occurs in states that aren't seen as teeming with those classic Rust Belt/Midwest demographics. In Connecticut, Obama carried 48 percent of the white vote; John Kerry carried 51 percent.

    In New Jersey, Obama carried 31 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, Kerry carried 46 percent.

    In Rhode Island, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election Kerry carried 57 percent of the white vote.

    In Maryland, Obama carried 42 percent of the white vote; Kerry carried 44 percent in the 2004 general election.

    There are a few states where Obama's primary percentage outpaces Kerry's general election share. In North Carolina, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 27 percent. (So much for help from John Edwards.)

    In Indiana, Obama carried 40 percent of the white vote; Kerry carried 34 percent.

    In New Mexico, Obama carried 55 percent of the white vote, Kerry got 43 percent. (Of course, in that state, Kerry carried 56 percent of the Latino vote (32 percent of the electorate that year), while Obama carried 36 percent of that key demographic in this year's caucus, according to exit polls.)

    Interesting side by side.

    I'm still waiting (none / 0) (#12)
    by s5 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    for any analysis that shows this as an actual problem for the general. Is it Clinton > McCain > Obama, or is it Clinton > Obama > McCain?

    Considering that it's almost certain that Obama will be the nominee, I think it's worth exploring this. Who is the second choice of these white, working class voters east of the Mississippi? Is it McCain, or Obama?

    Given the Increasing Number of Clinton Voters (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    who say they'll vote for McCain is the nominee, I think it's slowly becoming Clinton > McCain > Obama.  I don't think it started out that way, I think voters have turned against him in the last couple of months.  Personally, I don't think he's put either Wright or bitter-cling behind him.  The effects are simply muted in a democratic primary.

    His supporters aren't hepful either (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:11:43 PM EST
    They are arrogant and dismissive of a good portion of the population. You don't call people low information or purport them to be racists simply because they don't agree with you. You attempt to sway them with reasoned arguments. The thing is they MIGHT have been able to do that if they hadn't fallen for the cult of personality tactic. It's going to backfire.

    Oh the irony... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    I've seen alot of Hillary supporters being arrogant and dismissive around here.  You don't call people FanBoyz/sexist/elitist/Creative Class simply because they don't agree with you.  

    I haven't seen much in the way of "reasoned arguements" coming from here.  I see a lot of name-calling and put-downs and troll rating.

    I agree with BTD on one thing, both candidates leave something to be desired. Even though I've stated many times over I don't have a dog in this hunt, I still get attached as an Obobot.  

    Same goes for anyone else who dares to question the cult of personality around here.  None of that makes you an effective advocate for your candidate.

    Or "hepful" either.


    uh " creative class " (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:42 PM EST
    was from Obama supporters(Feel free to talk to Bowers). For the record, when you make comments like Hillary Clinton is an ex stalker girlfriend for continuing a process she is entitled to continue then you are making a sexist comment. When you argue that you can win without the white working class vote or the latinos, and you argue the people who don't support you are low information, you are being elitist. I am not pulling these comments out of thin air by the way. These are arguments Obama supporters have made(some of them on national tv).

    I'm not a cult of personality person. I voted for John Edwards. I voted for him because philosophically I agreed with him and he had a policy platform that solidly got you from A to B. When I visited Dkos I argued that policy and issues(even philosophy) should have been our focus. Unfortunately, the argument was they are all the same(even though they weren't). At the end of the day if you are going to say they are all the same the only thing you are left with is cult of personality. Personally, I haven't been there much since Kos declared that Clinton wasn't a Democrat. I have disagreed vehemently with Senator Clinton on some issues but I would never disown or toss somebody under the bus for the sake of political posturing. Never.  


    Yeaaah... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:27 PM EST
    ...you're talking about what you see on TV, I'm talking about what I've seen and experienced right here at TalkLeft.  Two very different things, no?  Do you have examples of me saying any of these things you seem to be accusing me of?

    Also, I don't know what Kos or whatever its called has to do with anything.  Never been there, never will.  The fact is that there are stupid things being said on behalf of both sides.  It's not a one way street.  

    Maybe it's because I've been around here awhile and remember how nice it was to be able have a intellegent conversation about actual issues. Before the name calling, the troll rating, the ganging up on people to drown out their opinions.  


    Two of those (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:38:12 PM EST
    comments were made on other blogs and one was made on national TV(and the person who made their comment on national TV ought not be allowed to take the national stage on behalf of Democrats again IMO).

    I can count on one hand the number of times I have ever elected to censor anyone and I don't even need a hand to count the number here.(Hint: I haven't) I'm a strong believer in debate and the issues. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Clinton supporters wouldn't jump at the chance to debate issues with you. I remember trying to have a conversation with an Obama supporter and asking him to explain how we got to universal health care with the Obama plan(i'm the first to admit that Clinton and even Edwards plan wasn't perfect). I got told that the President doesn't have that much control over policy and it isn't that important because it would have to go through Congress. If that is the case, why not call this what it is? Presidential Idol. I'm banging my head against the desk trying to wrap my head around the concept of a progressive actually thinking the presidential candidates stances on issues don't matter.

    For the record, I supported Obama on foreign policy(even over Edwards). I keep trying to remind myself that Obama should not be held responsible because his supporters appear to have hoof in mouth disease. That said, hubby(an indy cnservative) thinks the idea that some of his supporters might have some power or sway over Obama ought to be considered scary. You should give pause when an Indy observes that Obama seems to have a cult like following.

    Talkleft seems like the last bastion of sanity to me. The site where you are actually allowed to voice concerns without being pilloried for not drinking the kool aid. Does it lean Clinton?(Sure) Does it declare you swear fealty to her? Absolutely not. That's a welcome change from sites where she is called a stalker or declared to be not a "real" democrat.  


    Fox News (none / 0) (#18)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:04:10 PM EST
    seems to think it's a problem.  KKKarl Rove (I hate to say it, but I find his analysis interesting) thinks so to.

    Yes, that's the question (none / 0) (#24)
    by dmk47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:40 PM EST
    At the moment, it's a split. And still Obama is beginning to pull ahead in national polls. Not to sound too pollyanna-ish, but I'm pretty sure it only gets better from here. (And I'd expect things to go the same way with the roles reversed.)

    He is still way back in the polls (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:12:37 PM EST
    compared to a couple of weeks ago, in terms of the average of polls at RealClearPolitics.com -- he was 10 ahead but dropped down to a tie, and now is back to barely 5 ahead (and not solidly, as it dropped back today).

    Hmm (none / 0) (#87)
    by dmk47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    Not sure which poll you're looking at, but he's trending really nice vs. McCain in Pollster.com's poll of polls.

    This is the thing to look at IMO, not state polls. State elections aren't independent events; it's possible for a discrepancy between the nat'l pop. vote and the electoral college vote, as we all know, but it's happened a grand total of 4 times, and the last two (2000 and 1888), the pop. vote margin was less than 1%. If the nat'l pop. vote margin is larger than 2-3 points, it's pretty much a lock that the electoral college will follow.


    Your link is to McCain vs. Obama only (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:42:12 PM EST
    and I look at the Dem nomination link at the site.

    Dukakis, Kerry, and Gore were all far ahead (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:14:32 PM EST
    ..in national polls at various stages in early in their campaigns. Those don't really mean anything right now.

    Regular Virginia (none / 0) (#14)
    by dmk47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:26 PM EST
    He won whites 52-47.

    Suburban DC... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    ...at the height of the Hillary Hate.

    So it doesn't count? (none / 0) (#40)
    by dmk47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST

    HH won't count in the GE (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:11:54 PM EST
    if Hillary isn't on the ticket.

    Two Months Ago (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:06:50 PM EST
    IIRC, he hasn't won the white vote since Wisconsin.  

    That's what makes this entire nominating contest so infuriating, these candidates are not the same as they were two months ago.  Clinton has gotten a lot stronger and Obama a lot weaker.  Yet, we're all supposed to pretend it's still February and all is great in Obama's world.  All is not great.  He's been bleeding support against McCain for two months.


    Actually, nearly three months ago now (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:45:13 PM EST
    as that primary was mid-February, and it's now mid-May.  

    Good point (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    At this point, irrelevant (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:07:07 PM EST
    Stuff has happened since then.

    BTD: Geography (none / 0) (#38)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:25 PM EST
    Wisconsin is completely EAST of the Mississippi.

    Are you an east coast elitist? /snark

    While fixing that, BTD... (none / 0) (#70)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:15:48 PM EST
    the spelling is "anomaly."

    WI is east of the Mississippi, but I get your (none / 0) (#42)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:50 PM EST
    point.  WI is between the MS River and Lake Michigan.

    Moving the goalposts (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    or is it the lake buoys?  Or the lighthouses?  

    As a Wisconsinite, with our heritage first in New France and then the Old Northwest -- with the ordinance older than our Constitution and far more progressive in outlawing slavery and supporting public education -- I don't think I get the point at all.  Those origins have shaped us quite differently  -- as has much else in Wisconsin history since, such as our aversion to women in politics, sadly -- from the region west of the Mississippi.


    Condescending Olbermann (none / 0) (#77)
    by JoeCHI on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:18:14 PM EST
    Listening to the condescending tone of Olbermann tonight makes me VERY, VERY EXCITED TO VOTE FOR McCAIN in November!

    Brilliant idea (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by s5 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    The tone of a TV pundit should absolutely be the reason to vote for John McCain. Having to endure 4-8 more years of war and the Republican agenda are totally worth it if it means you get to stick it to Keith Olbermann.

    I've said forever (none / 0) (#127)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:02:32 PM EST
    that I will vote for the Dem in November, no matter who it is. But I can't deny my concerns about Obama and the media have grown -- especially since I think the talking heads will turn on him without a hitch.

    Of course they will... (none / 0) (#139)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:26:34 PM EST
    Look at who writes their checks:

    Old, white, male conservatives who's only concern is their bottom line and ensuring that the rich get richer, no matter the cost to this Country.  That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.  

    And it's not going to matter whether its BO or HC--it's not in their interest to support Democrats.  


    True enough (none / 0) (#155)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:22:41 PM EST
    But I firmly believe that Clinton, who has been the target of their vitriol for 17 years, is much better suited to fend off those attacks.

    Still... (none / 0) (#80)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:19:01 PM EST
    There's no apparent path for Hillary to the nomination.  Well, if she could win Oregon, maybe.

    Oh, but there is. Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:42:58 PM EST
    condones pledged delegates dishonoring their pledge.

    Wolfson schooling John King (none / 0) (#81)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    That was fun to watch -- no yelling, just batting down the talking points one by one.

    Before Wright, Bitter, Typical White Person, Ayers (none / 0) (#89)
    by Saul on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:23:03 PM EST
    Those states that Obama won the white vote in was before Wright, Typical White Person, Bitter, and Ayers controversies.  If those states voted now would he win them now?  

    I'd like to see the OR results (none / 0) (#110)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    This is a tailor made white demographic for BO.  So how wide is the margin for him?  What do the voters say about HRC?  Do the white BO supporters express a willingness in exits to vote for HRC if she wins?  If the latte white vote doesn't go overwhelmingly and more importantly exclusively for him, then supers really need to think about who loses the most vis a vis McCain.  If this is a game of electoral chicken, who blinks first?  My gut tells me that latte sipping whites don't really care as much as working class whites about getting their first choice.

    I will grant a caveat to BTD on white independents in the West.  I think they are not as likely to be activated by Clinton.  Perhaps a relationship to a libertarian spirit?  But will the latino advantage to HRC and the malleability of lattes make the difference in places like OR and WA and NM?  Yeah CO is gone for her, but um I'll trade that in a heartbeat for WV, PA, OH and AR.

    I want to see the exit poll data on OR.


    No exit polls in Oregon (none / 0) (#132)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:10:06 PM EST
    Since all voting in Oregon is mail-in, we don't really have exit polls. In fact, while we know approx. how many ballots have already been returned, we don't even know who voted. All will be revealed after 8 pm (PDT) on May 20.

    The latest Rasmussen (none / 0) (#133)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:10:29 PM EST
    shows this for Oregon:

    Obama 51%
    Clinton 39%
    Undecided 10%

    Portland, Eugene and Ashland are the liberal strongholds (what you might call "latte" liberals). The rest of the state is more purple and red, especially east of the Cascades, just like in WA. A little scary out there, actually. Bend, which is growing fast right in the middle of the state, seems to be getting more blue. Lots of wealthy people buying up property.