Electability

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Some new GE state polling from Ras:

WASHINGTON

Obama 51
McCain 40

Clinton 47
McCain 42

ARKANSAS

Obama 33
McCain 57

Clinton 53
McCain 39 [More...]

IOWA

Obama 44
McCain 42

Clinton 42
McCain 45

KANSAS

Obama 34
McCain 55

Clinton 39
McCain 55

ALASKA

Obama 41
McCain 50

MAINE

Obama 51
McCain 38

Clinton 51
McCain 38

Obama has strengths in the West that Clinton does not, but Kansas, for example, is not one of those states. Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada can be flipped by Obama from Red to Blue out West. I doubt Clinton can.

But Clinton has strengths Obama does not match in the East and other states. Arkansas is clearly one of them. West Virginia can also be flipped. And most importantly, Clinton has distinct advantages over Obama in Ohio and Florida for turning them Blue from Red.

These are competing electability arguments. Both are reasonable. More importantly, their competing strengths argue for a Unity Ticket imo.

Comments closed.

< Medical MJ Sellers Face 20 Year Minimums | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Electability | 321 comments (321 topical)

Electability arguments (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:57:48 PM EST

That ignore strength in states that Kerry won aren't that interesting to me.

How's Obama doing in PA. . .?

RCP composite has him +5 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST

Clinton +10.She has an advantage there.

Obama runs better in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Parent

WI and MN are fair to point out (5.00 / 7) (#9)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST

but I think Obama can't win Ohio, and will have a very tough time winning PA. I don't know how you overcome that.

Parent

Exactly. (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:05:46 PM EST

Parent

What About FL and MI? (5.00 / 4) (#86)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST

Parent

Make me gag a little bit... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by GregA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:38:32 PM EST

But I think you have to find an electoral map without Michigan this year for either... Very strong anti-dem sentiment on the ground here in monroe county.

Parent

: Michigan's only port (5.00 / 1) (#247)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST

on Lake Erie won't vote for the Dem? Why?

Parent
: I Believe You Have Hit The Nail On The Head... (none / 0) (#133)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM EST

Parent

McCain still ahead of Obama in WI (5.00 / 2) (#170)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST

and ahead of Clinton in WI, with Obama and Clinton tied at both behind McCain by 4 points, per last Rasmussen poll here.

Not good for November but reaffirms what I said abou the primary and the local neocons encouraging crossover (to Obama at that point, which was before Rush pushed Clinton crossovers). This drop for Obama really hasn't budged more than a bit in Wisconsin since the Rev. Wright debacle.

Parent

Did either Obama or Clinton (none / 0) (#249)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM EST

beat McCain at any point?

Parent

: Not since three months ago (none / 0) (#255)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:37:46 PM EST

and the primary -- Obama's peak in terms of votes for November, not delegate votes for August. Not many polls since, as you can see from the link.

Parent

What About Massachusetts? (5.00 / 2) (#151)
by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:54:56 PM EST

I can't believe he'll have to work to win there, but his polling has always been terrible. I know Deval Patrick is unpopular, but that Obama polls so badly in the bluest of blue states worries me. Not that he will lose Massachusetts, but what it could mean for other less blue blue states. If he has to spend a lot of time and energy fighting for states Kerry won, it's going to make it harder for him to flip other states.

Parent

Mass voters had seen it all before. (5.00 / 2) (#184)
by jackyt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:02:57 PM EST

Evidently, Obama's Hope/Change message is a carbon copy of the Deval Patrick campaign. Mass. voters don't like what they bought the first time, so they're not inclined to be repeat customers.

Parent

35% only (4.50 / 2) (#196)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:10:56 PM EST

compared to other states, Obama got only 35% AA advantage. MYDD had a great diary on how it was odd that Mass was so low compared to the 60%, 80% and 90%. I guess they know the routine, Patrick did not deliver on anything.

Parent

No, he had a 35 point margin. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:12:26 PM EST

Parent

: yes..did it again (none / 0) (#202)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM EST

but much smaller than other states.

Parent

good. ahead by five points. (none / 0) (#269)
by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:45:56 PM EST

Parent

up by 5. (none / 0) (#270)
by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST

Parent

Western states (5.00 / 6) (#2)
by nell on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:59:02 PM EST

BTD, can you post any polls from these western states that show he has a better chance of flipping them? I don't really see him flipping Colorado, and why would you say he has a better chance than Clinton at Nevada or New Mexico when she won both states, albeit narrowly? I keep hearing this argument but I have yet to see any solid evidence of it.

I wondered the same thing. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by MMW on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST

An explanation would be good.

Parent

See electoral-vote.com ... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by cymro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:19:07 PM EST

... for all the polls. Their maps and tables are updated every day with the latest polls. Their summary today has:

Obama 237 McCain 290 Ties 11
Clinton 273 McCain 248 Ties 17

Parent

: This (5.00 / 3) (#73)
by DaveOinSF on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST

this also doesn't even yet include the newest Arkanasas poll, which Hillary flips by a landslide.

Parent

There are many hispanics in NV and NM who (5.00 / 6) (#90)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:31:19 PM EST

would not be inclined to vote for obama.

Parent

Oh, I am so glad you said it. (5.00 / 4) (#95)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:33:51 PM EST

I didn't want to point out the obvious.

Parent

: Someone Had To Do It.... :) (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:49:23 PM EST

Parent

Western States (5.00 / 3) (#200)
by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:12:32 PM EST

I've been ranting about the interior West for years. While it is a very promising area for Dems (witness recent gains in Colorado and Montana), that may not be the case when the opposition runs a Westerner who has a significant degree of popularity/acceptability with Latinos. Personally, as a Coloradan, I think that the odds of Colorado going blue in the Presidential are not as good as some say. It depends; there certainly is Democratic momentum with the Convention, the Senate race (Udall), and the trend. But--at best--it will be close. I used to feel optimistic about Nevada--until McCain became the nominee. I used to feel optimistic about Montana--but, the gun question always looms large there (with Obama's record in Illinois and the "questionnaire" controversy, that may be the attention-getter.) The degree of support from Latinos could be the key in New Mexico--and, that means more than Richardson saying some good things. If I were betting, I'd bet on New Mexico as the best chance, followed by Colorado. Together, the total electoral votes don't hold a candle to Florida or Ohio.

Parent

I think these numbers do suggest (5.00 / 7) (#3)
by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:59:42 PM EST

either might win if the election was held today. The problem is that it won't be held today. Clinton is getting stronger, Obama weaker, imo. Obviously, there is not telling what it will look like 5 months from now, but if I were a betting person I would put my chips on Clinton being able to go the distance. I fear Obama's slide may continue.

If One Looks (5.00 / 6) (#29)
by The Maven on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:15:04 PM EST

at the trends in many of these state matchups, it becomes even clearer that Clinton has been gathering strength, whereas Obama has been running in place or slipping backward.

For example, in Arkansas, Clinton gained a net of 21 points versus McCain in the two months since the last Rasmussen poll, while Obama gained only 5. Or in Iowa, where Clinton did 12 points better than her performance six weeks ago, with Obama doing 2 points worse.

The momentum in the general election matchups is almost entirely in her favor, yet the superdelegates coming out recently don't seem to have noticed this. Or they just. don't. care.

Parent

They don't care... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:18:30 PM EST

Everyone has made up their mind that Obama is the nominee, and that's that. They don't care if it means losing. They don't care. It totally blows my mind, but they really don't care.

Jim McDermott came out this AM for Obama. He had the gall to say that Obama had "won more voters", iirc. Ummmm. Not if you could all the votes, Jim.

Parent

Not true (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:23:03 PM EST

and I refuse to take that mindset just because the media and the Obama camp wants us to.

McDermott announced his endorsement yesterday.

Today, Jay Inslee and Norm Dicks both went on the news and said they saw no reason whatsoever for them to move away from their endorsement of Hillary. Cantwell and Murray take the same stand.

Parent

Well. Gregoire (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by oldpro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST

on a conference call the other day said she is 'working on Patty and Maria.' Some time ago, Maria indicated she'd go with the leader in pledged delegates....grrr...

Understandable that Chris would innoculate herself by choosing Obama...but not smart for any of our Emily's List promoted/elected pro-choice women to abandon Hillary...we're keeping score.

Parent

: Yep, my Congresswoman (5.00 / 2) (#182)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:02:07 PM EST

got a lot of help from EMILY's List and others of us -- and is an Obama super-delegate. Taking names. . . .

Parent
: She (5.00 / 1) (#221)
by nell on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:21:50 PM EST

actually clarified that remark later to make it clear that the popular vote was an equally valid measure. I also know that she has continued to be involved in Hillary's fundraising efforts, etc. When she first made that remark, a lot of confused people made calls to her office, and they made it clear that she was not ditching HRC.

Parent
: That's really funny (5.00 / 2) (#224)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:22:59 PM EST

CG must not realize that no one tells Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell what to do, and both of them have a long relationship with the Clintons. CG barely won her governorship for a really good reason.

Parent

Ooops. (none / 0) (#66)
by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:07 PM EST

I had no power all evening yesterday and didn't hear about McDermott until the morning, sorry for the inaccuracy.

I'm still contributing. I'm still fighting. I'm still angry.

Jay is my rep and dh will hopefully be talking with him this weekend. Dh knows what to mention. :)

Parent

Not everyone....just the ones with stars in their (5.00 / 3) (#97)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:34:19 PM EST

eyes, wearing blinders and have their fingers stuck in their ears saying "I can't hear you".
Because they don't want to face facts...obama is not a viable candidate.

Parent

BTD... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST

please show me a map that shows Obama is the better candidate in the GE.

Both arguments are not equally reasonable. HRC's is far stronger and always has been. Without OH, FL and WV Obama is toast.

Sorry.

Not (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by nell on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST

to mention the fact that her path is far easier. All she has to do is keep Kerry's map, which I think she will, perhaps with the exception of NH, and add Arkansas and/or Ohio. I think she will add both of those states and stands a great shot of adding WV, perhaps KY, and FL is in play...

His path is untested and it is not an equally good argument. I have yet to see solid evidence that he puts those western states into play.

Parent

: The "untested" path (5.00 / 2) (#235)
by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:10 PM EST

One of the best adjectives I've seen to describe Obama's electoral vote path is your word, Nell" Untested. The Western Theory is "Untested" (at best.) The Virginia-Carolina-in-play Theory is untested (even more than the Western push.) As a lifelong Democrat, I'd love to see those two theories work. (As a Coloradan, I'd truly love to see the West go blue.) With McCain's Western background and support from Latinos, the Western theory is really spotty. With McCain's military creds and his ole boy appeal, the Virginia & Carolina goal seems quite unreachable. What is very attainable is the path of holding the traditional Dem states (at least what Kerry took) and add Ohio. Switch out NH with Ark, and try to add another (like WVa or Florida) for good measure. That is Hillary's clear-er path. (Oh...I think she has every bit as much chance of winning New Mexico as Barack does in view of her primary win there and, especially, in view of her strong support from the Latino community in the Southwest.)

Parent

Let's be realistic (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:02:35 PM EST

Obama can easily afford to lose WV. The problem states are Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think he can win neither, frankly. That's his problem.

Parent

why in the hell aren't the media (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:04:58 PM EST

talking about this. IF they want a good story why aren't they confronting SDs asking them how they can support Obama when Clinton will have more votes and stronger electability argument. Why don't they want to see the SDs sweat? They are making it so easy for them!!

Parent

They want their BFF McCain (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST

to win the White House.

It will be much, much easier if Obama is the nominee.

Parent

please tell me where all the western states (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:21 PM EST

are, that dems are magically going to win?

FACT: we won't win without Ohio, Florida and West Virginia.

Parent

: its the 7 new ones (5.00 / 3) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:17:58 PM EST

Parent

Um, cuz they're waiting until after.. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by cosbo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST

the nomination of course...why would they want to inform voters of the truth NOW!

Parent

Good point, bjorn. (none / 0) (#162)
by Oje on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST

Never considered how the media has nurtured Obama in this way the past two months. Until last Wednesday, who was winning the SD's did not matter. Suddenly, it is the sign of things to be.

Parent

because they've already elected obama. (none / 0) (#296)
by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST

he is already the president in their minds, nevermind the silly primary.

this election season has been nothing short of vomitous.

why did she hire mark penn???? why?!?!?! why would she pick a man - especially that man - to run her campaign?

Parent

I don't think dems can easily afford to lose (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:10:43 PM EST

West Virginia. Ask Al Gore. Colorado isn't not voting democratic, not this year.

Hillary easily brings W. Virginia, and Arkansas. Contrary to media spin, her electoral map is bigger

Parent

Obama could win without West Virginia (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:12:19 PM EST

but not without Ohio. And frankly, the two are related. So is Pennsylvania, but there's an eastern buffer in that state.

Parent

: Not unless he turns a reliably red state blue (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST

I can't see one that is ready to vote dem this year

Parent
: True. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by liminal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:40:26 PM EST

Much as I hate to say it, we aren't essential to Obama - but the big loss in WV reinforces his deficits in Ohio. The big blue urban areas are really important to winning Ohio, but you can't win Ohio based on the urban/college vote and turnout alone, or Gore and certainly Kerry would have done so.
You have to be able to run well and perhaps win some of the counties/towns in the the Ohio River Valley that combination of the rust belt and Appalachia from, say, Pittsburgh to Portsmouth, to offset the huge wingnut advantages in the western half of the state.

Parent
: The Ohio-PA-WVa tie (none / 0) (#264)
by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:44:10 PM EST

Unless all the states are magically re-arranged and some new ones added, I agree with you completely that the key is Ohio. I believe that we have seen Hillary is best situated to unlock that door--because of strength in the surrounding area as well as Ohio. But, for Barack, because of demonstrated weakness in that region, he will have unusual challenges to get through the Pennsylvania door for starters. (The PA primary counties should be reviewed to see the lopsided nature of her victory outside Philly, State College, and Harrisburg. The numbers in western and northern PA resemble WVa. Like you, Andgarden, I think that signals more than just primary problems for Barack.) For years, it has been almost axiomatic that a Democrat needs two of three states to win the WH. Those states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

Parent

Well (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST

He clearly gonna lose WV. It would be better to win it of course.

Parent

: He can't afford to lose (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:06:47 PM EST

any Democratic states at this point.
But you're right, I meant to put PA in my little list. :-)
We really have to think ahead here. We know how the GOP slime machine is. Who do we think can stand the inevitable attacks better?
My $$$ is on HRC.

Parent

Other than the fact that TV schmundits (5.00 / 5) (#44)
by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:39 PM EST

like to point out Obama's exciting new Path to Electoral Victory Map, with Colorado and Nevada and New Mexico circled, I don't understand his electoral math. The schmundits -- and he -- seem to assume he has PA and MI in the bag. He doesn't. They admit that he has no chance in FLA. Ohio is seen as a "toss-up." It's not, for Obama.

Neither Obama nor Clinton can win Texas, but Clinton can make the Goopers spend more money there. Clinton can pick up Florida; Obama can't. Clinton can pick up Arkansas; Obama can't.

What the hell are the possibilities of picking up a few Western states with scrawny vote totals in comparison to the probabilities of losing traditional Democratic states, or potential pick-ups, with huge electoral blocs?

It still does not compute.

Parent

and I'd like to know the ECollege numbers (none / 0) (#154)
by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST

Obama can't win FL, but wouldn't he need to win 2-3 states to compensate?

Parent

West Virginia? (none / 0) (#225)
by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:23:21 PM EST

We've never relied on WV. The state has turned very, very red.

I don't know that Florida is reliably Democratic in the general election if Clinton is the nominee, either. Senator McCain is popular there, and Crist is a very popular governor.

I would keep my eyes on Ohio and Pennsylvania, but I don't know that an argument from primary results is a big indicator for the general election.

Parent

: Checked it out on line on 270towin (none / 0) (#280)
by FLVoter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM EST

WV went Dem in 1968, 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992 & 1996. Went Repub in 1972, 1984, 2000 & 2004. Would be nice to get back to Dem since in recent history went Dem more than Repub.

Parent
: bill clinton (none / 0) (#319)
by isaac on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:12:26 PM EST

'relied' on it on the way to 2 terms and the greatest presidency of our lifetimes. if either kerry or gore could have relied on it they'd have been elected. no other dem has won without west virginia and neither will obama

Parent

Hillary is by far more electable. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:04:33 PM EST

You don't have to change the map for her to win. plus, she'll win WV, Arkansas and probably Tennessee and Missouri. McCain will win these states, "Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada". You can put that in the bank.

I actually disagree with this (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST

She probably would not win Tennessee and would have a very tough time with MO (probably as tough as Obama will have with PA).

Obama could win Colorado and New Mexico, but not Nevada.

Parent

After the Republicans get done with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM EST

he won't win any Western states at all.

Parent

Most likely (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST

Very likely.....probably a given. The Republican pols know how to push all the Western buttons

Parent

CF: (5.00 / 2) (#62)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:24:46 PM EST

George W. Bush, super-wealthy, Connecticut-born, horse-fearing cheerleader and AWOL Champagne Unit pilot turns into:

George W. Bush, Texas rancher who clears brush, wears cowboy boots and supports the troops. And such a "treat in jeans!"

Al Gore, actual Southern guy who grew up on a farm, was painted as an elitist and did not even win his home state of Tennessee.

Parent

Obama has many weaknesses to (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST

exploit in the Western mind. The West is ready for a change but you can't be of the mindset that anybody deserved 9/11 and you can't befriend Hamas or even smell faintly like it. McCain is going to make Texas Toast out of him in the West after they pull all their dirty business.

Parent

False analogy (none / 0) (#69)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM EST

Gore was signicantly more liberal than his home state. Hence the loss. This is really very simple.

Parent

Gore did not run as a liberal... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM EST

he ran as a more conservative Bill Clinton with better "family values." His perceived elitism did him in.

Parent

Perception is reality (none / 0) (#145)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:52:56 PM EST

and it's condescending to say that Tennesseans didn't know Gore well enough to know how to vote.

Parent

No way... (none / 0) (#243)
by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:30:25 PM EST

...he was running against a southern governor who threatened to veto a repeal of the state's sodomy law that only applied to homosexual sex. I remember commentators discussing how abortion and gay rights were troubling issues for a lot of evangelicals in TN. It was not his elitism that cost him the election, it was the perception of being a social liberal. Frankly, it hurt Kerry, too.

Parent

: Gore is an evangelical Christian. (none / 0) (#256)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST

I think "social liberal" and "liberal elitist" are fairly synonymous, personally. I doubt we disagree much.

Parent

He could if McCain were not the Repub nominee. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST

I think McCain will win Colorado and New Mexico.

Tennessee and Missouri are long shots, but doable.

Parent

McCain drives a stake (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:50 PM EST

in Obama's electability argument.

Parent

: That's why (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST

the Party picked him. He's the only one that even has a reasonable shot at it this year.

Parent

MO Is Doable IF She Can Get Strong (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:46 PM EST

AA support, but that is a very big IF. It would be a squeaker but at least 50 - 50 IMO. Obama no way.

Parent

Please explain why you think (none / 0) (#43)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:05 PM EST

Obama could win the GE in CO and NM.

Parent

Democratic state, Democratic year (none / 0) (#61)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST

Parent

: Great bumper sticker, in certain states. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST

Parent
: Sen. Obama is not viable in 11 of the 14 Western (5.00 / 1) (#175)
by wurman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:00:58 PM EST

States. He may be likely in CA, OR, WA.
His gun contral views will blow him completely out of the contest in all others. The NRA will take him apart & feed him to the 2nd Amendment Foundation.
He's waffled all over on this, but the wingnutz have quotes & filled out forms that will make him a "don't start."
And there's a lot of other stuff, too.

Parent

She polls better (none / 0) (#291)
by Benjamin3 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST

in Missouri because she can be competitive with McCain in the rural counties. Obama gets blown out there.

Parent

Hominidviews.com has Hillary with an 87% chance (5.00 / 6) (#18)
by Exeter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:06:54 PM EST

of winning and Obama with a 44% chance of winning. I think when you actual do the probabilities of Obama states and Clinton states, you see that we are in real trouble with Obama as the nominee.

: And that map (5.00 / 4) (#40)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST

is very generous to Obama, in fact. It gives him a lot of Western states and allows him to have a shot at beating McCain in FL, NC and VA.
In reality I'd say his chances are much worse. No way he wins those three.

Parent

I am not polling clever (5.00 / 0) (#19)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:06:58 PM EST

But this is how I see it. The Dems have an overall better chance at winning in any case this election, (Krugman's economy argument), Obama has the same map as Kerry. Hillary takes away the hard to get voter, the one the Dems keep trying to seduce that makes us lose each time.

If a Dem will flip a Western state, any dem will do it, but it's those eastern states that don't flip easy. Therefore, Hillary advantage. Probably a million flaws in my reasoning. But I think the West is ready to go any Democrat. In truth, Hillary did not compete in the West.

I think CA may not be a Dem. given (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST

if the Marriage is Between and Man and Woman folks have something to vote on in Nov. Plus the anti-condemnation folks.

Parent

I think it was in danger before (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:27 PM EST

the gay marriage thing but now for sure.

Parent

If Arnold isn't going to challenge it (none / 0) (#87)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM EST

and it's a State by State decision, why would it impact the GE? I'm not challenging your thought, I truly don't know.

Isn't Lockheed in So California? They just got a nice government contract.

Parent

because (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST

there is a petition that already has over a million signatures to put it on the Nov ballot as an amendment to the state constitution.
it could turn out millions of conservative voters.

Parent

Oh no. That plus affirmative action on ballots (5.00 / 1) (#189)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM EST

in several states -- such as Missouri, as I recall -- really has to be factored into this in terms of turnout of more conservatives.

The gay-marriage ban amendment in Wisconsin last time made it the squeaker, the closest state of all.

Parent

Affirmative Action DOA In MO (5.00 / 0) (#240)
by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM EST

They failed to get the necessary signatures to get affirmative action on the ballot in MO. Thank gawd.

Parent

: Still on on Colorado (n/t) (none / 0) (#248)
by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:32:49 PM EST

Parent

Iowa might be next (none / 0) (#218)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:19:40 PM EST

I guess

Parent

Ward Connerly---anti-afffirm action guy (none / 0) (#267)
by lookoverthere on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:45:21 PM EST

Ms. mag and colorlines for info.

Strong animosity is brewing over upcoming November elections in Colorado, because of a controversial anti-affirmative action initiative making its way on to the ballot. If adopted, the amendment would end all affirmative action programs, including equal opportunity measures in higher education and public employment. Similar anti-affirmative action initiatives have also been introduced in Nebraska, Missouri, Arizona, and Oklahoma. Founder of the American Civil Rights Coalition, Ward Connerly, is spearheading this national effort to end affirmative action. The California millionaire has had success in the past with similar measures in California, Washington, and Michigan.

Parent

Oh, I heard about the 1M signature (none / 0) (#242)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:29:28 PM EST

petition, but didn't realize how it was playing into the process (only 1/2 listening). Guess that's why Arnold is happy to do nothing.

Parent

: yep (none / 0) (#261)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:42:59 PM EST

thats arnold

Parent

I agree...they are taking (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:29:43 PM EST

it for granted. Watch McCain pull an Arnold, and California is gone.

Parent

McCain really a (5.00 / 2) (#105)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:36:21 PM EST

"california republican"

Parent

Plus, a respected universally for (5.00 / 2) (#157)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:56:34 PM EST

his being a Vietnam vet and POW and supporting military spending. Lots of active duty, vets, and military contractors in CA.

Parent

: plus high Latino pop... (5.00 / 2) (#216)
by jackyt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST

McCain gets points among them for stand on immigration.

Parent

Isn't this exactly how Bush got (none / 0) (#244)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST

Ohio last time?

Parent

CA is 30% Hispanic (5.00 / 1) (#230)
by nellre on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:24:52 PM EST

And Hispanics don't vote for Obama for whatever reason.
CA is not a given.

Parent

Obama does not have the Kerry map (5.00 / 5) (#59)
by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:23:44 PM EST

He cannot count on PA. He cannot count on MI. And he cannot count on FLA, which as you all recall, Gore actually won.

Parent

My way of viewing it: (5.00 / 4) (#64)
by thomphool on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:04 PM EST

You win 3 of the 4, OH, PA, MI, FL- you are the next President.

You win 2 of the 4, it comes down to Upper Midwest, Mid South, Pacific Northwest and the Southwest.

You win 1 of the 4, you have no margin for error and have to sweep the other toss up states and turn an unlikely state (for Dems, CO, VA or NC, for GOP, NJ, MA).

The way I see it, Clinton has the best chance of winning 3 of the big 4. She has a better chance to sweep the big 4. If any candidate does that, ballgame over.

Obama has the best chance of winning if the big 4 are split 2-2. Her losing both OH and FL would make her map very tough.

Obama is more likely to lose 3 of the big 4 than Clinton, thus making the path hard. If he does lose 3 of the 4 though, he has an outside shot of winning, while Clinton would not. It's an extreme outside shot though, and this is the scenario that should be scaring Democrats.

Winning the big states is going to be highly correlated with winning the the argument economy. Clinton (was) probably better positioned to do that, but that's not to say Obama can't win on the economy. Yes Obama has this an area of weakness, but so does McCain, and it is something he has a chance to win come November. Clinton would almost certainly win the economy battle come November.

That seems to be the electability debate to me.

Parent

: very helpful, thanks (none / 0) (#75)
by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM EST

Parent

Obama peaked in February. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:13:36 PM EST

Specifically, in WI. Let's look at states won since the beginning of March.
HRC:
OH
TX
RI
IN
WV

BO:
VT
WY
MISS
NC

BTD, I'd really like to hear your argument for how BO is the stronger GE candidate.

The Unity ticket is a crock, IMO. No one votes for VP.

: No one is a bit strong masslib. I would (none / 0) (#51)
by jes on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM EST

vote for VP if Hillary gets the nod.

Parent
: BTD already laid out a few days ago... (none / 0) (#70)
by Exeter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST

...why Hillary is the slightly better general election candidate.

Parent

Because of the electoral college (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:13:49 PM EST

what difference does it make if either candidate can win with a bigger percentage of votes? A one vote win takes all electoral votes.

Being a Washingtonian, either democratic candidate will be able to win the state. McCain really alienated this area when he actively, and proudly made sure Boeing did not get government contracts.

In the past 3 months, he's given a huge tanker deal to Airbus and gave them 100,000 new jobs; and, today the pentagon awarded Lockheed another contract Boeing was hoping to get.

Anyone who cannot see how much (5.00 / 4) (#57)
by kenosharick on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST

stronger Clinton is, is not paying attention. Wisconsin (where I am From) was the closest state in '04, and after rev. wright WILL NOT go for Obama. Neither will Iowa. He will have to fight to hold Mass and NJ. He also has little chance in Co; none in Virginia or the South either. Hillary holds most(if not all)Kerrey states PLUS puts WV,OHIO,Florida and Ark. into play. Her path to 270 is clear- he will be lucky to hit 200.

You're right but it doesn't matter (none / 0) (#63)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST

The underlying dynamics strongly favor either HRC or Obama to beat McCain. America switches horses every eight years in the best of circumstances (see Bush v. Gore), so after eight years of Bush there is no way, none whatsoever, that Republicans keep the White House.

Parent

McCain way outruns the generic (5.00 / 5) (#67)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST

Republican number. I'm sorry but it's a fact. Things may change, but right now he's on track to be the next President.

Parent

'Fact?' Or your opinion? (none / 0) (#80)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST

I've noticed you often tend to conflate the two.

Do you really believe with the increased Dem registration we've seen, the disastrous state of GOP organization and fundraising, Obama's fundraising prowess, and America's distaste for three consecutive terms in the White House for one party, that McCain -- anathema to the conservative base -- has a chance in hell?

If so, how are you getting such a rep here as being politically astute? Think, man, think. Look at the trends, the dynamics, the history.

Parent

money did not help (5.00 / 4) (#94)
by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST

Obama in PA, OH, TX, West VA, etc....

Parent

It's helped him win the nomination is what (1.00 / 1) (#112)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST

Come on, are you all really this daft? I get that you don't like Obama, I don't either. But you don't think he can beat McCain, whom Republicans don't even like?

What are all these new Democrats going to do? Not vote in November, after they voted in freaking primaries and caucuses for months now?

Come on, people, think.

Parent

: You are dreaming (none / 0) (#123)
by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM EST

If you haven't noticed, most U.S elections are won on race and culture, not economics

Parent
: Primary vis-a-vis General (none / 0) (#302)
by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:05:44 PM EST

Jim: Your frustration at many of us here is understandable...if you have been focused mostly on the Primary portion of the campaign. A part of me still wonders why the Clinton campaign underestimated the need for a strong start, etc...and, here we are. But, all the stuff about fundraising and organization and enthusiasm may not make a dent in some key demographics in key states. Think about Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. A Democrat who would win always has to think about them. And, win them (or, at least, two out of the three.) Think about how those states are realistically within Obama's reach considering not just the large losses in two of them and the smoldering issue in the other one. This isn't just a matter of everyone getting on board. Those states are tough to win; and, PA is definitely not a given with Obama (demos of 60 of the 67 counties in the primary.) Meanwhile, McCain is a Westerner running in the West and a military man for Va and NC. Think about it.

Parent

I look at the head-to-head polls (5.00 / 4) (#99)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:34:35 PM EST

none of which show anything massively different from 2004. McCain is a strong candidate. He's defying the trends.

Look, I can parrot the "winning is inevitable" line from Daily Kos too, but I don't happen to believe it.

Parent

McCain stronger than Bush/Cheney? (2.33 / 3) (#117)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST

Sorry, buddy, you're off the rails. I don't even know what to say to that.

McCain will raise maybe a quarter of what Bush/Cheney '04 raised. Bush/Cheney was loved, LOVED by the base, McCain is loathed by the conservative base as well as the punditry, who you will recall adored Bush/Cheney as well.

I get that you don't care for Obama, I don't either. But I haven't let my brain rot because of it.

Parent

This is not just about my dislike of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST

If I thought he were a sure win, I'd say so. Hell, I'm going to vote for him. But I'm just looking at the polls.

You can have your "trends," but I have electoral-vote.com

Parent

Oh, lordie. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:56:05 PM EST

How absolutely perfect, you have summed up the blogosphere in one sentence:

"You can have your 'trends,' but I have electoral-vote.com."

In other words, nothing that happened in the primaries matters, there's this website I go to, see....

Parent

What electoral-vote.com reflects (5.00 / 3) (#166)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST

is pretty much exactly what's happened in the primary. Let Tom Davis explain:

Obama is a quintessential cultural liberal - the candidate of Hyde Park, the University of Chicago and Harvard. Educated upscale voters from both parties, as well as independents of similar backgrounds, identify with his style and rhetoric. Blue collar voters aren't so sure.
Exit polls in West Virginia showed that two thirds of Clinton supporters were unwilling to commit to Obama in the fall - and that's just among Democrats! With an economy perceived to be failing, these voters should be easy prey to ANY Democrat, but they're not. Herein lies the key for the McCain campaign, and potentially for alert Republican Congressional candidates.
Over the last twelve years, partisan alignments have moved away from wealth and economics to cultural and social issues. Some of the wealthiest precincts in America, from McLean, Virginia to Beverly Hills; from Potomac, Maryland to Beacon Hill; from Newtrier to Shaker Heights, voted for John Kerry by substantial margins. But Harlan County (Bloody Harlan), Kentucky, Bluefield, West Virginia and most of Appalachia voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
[. . .]
I point this out because Obama's appeal is to the liberal cultural base of the Democratic Party, not to its liberal economic base. His connection to high income suburbs, the granola belt and college towns, is strong, but his connection to poorer whites, rural voters and other voters who may be susceptible to the Democrats' message on the economy is not yet demonstrated.

Parent

: Six Months out (none / 0) (#241)
by caseynm on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST

and you have already decied on the basis of electoral vote.com that Obama can't win?????
Do you have ANY recollection of what this map looked like for most of 2004, until about 3 weeks before the election? I do. I was already buying my President John Kerry 2nd term memorabilia on the basis of it.

Parent

What are you talking about? McCain (5.00 / 1) (#176)
by tigercourse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:01:08 PM EST

is one of the most beloved figures in the coutry amongst pundits and reporters.

Parent

Stop being so rude (5.00 / 1) (#205)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:15:17 PM EST

Parent

: The above directed to Jim J (5.00 / 1) (#210)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:15:56 PM EST

Parent

I agree with andgarden. (5.00 / 5) (#101)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:34:44 PM EST

National polls are absolutely meaningless.

Obama's flaws are exactly the ones McCain does not have. Obama will get creamed on National Security, the only winning issue for Republicans. And imagine if Bush bombs Iran! You think people will want an unknown sooper-liberal terraist-lovin' secret Muslim church of God D**n America-belonging guy in charge?

I think not.

Cannily, McCain is now running to the left as quickly as possible; saying he wants to withdraw from Iraq, breaking from Bush on global warming, etc. etc. etc.

The Republicans are really, really great at winning elections. To be nonchalant and nominate the weaker candidate because we think we are a lock is absolutely wrong, IMHO.

Parent

You really think it's a nat'l security election? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:42:19 PM EST

Really? You sure you goin' with that?

Parent

100%. I believe they have said as much. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:48:52 PM EST

They are running McCain for a reason. "National Security" is the only strength the Republicans have as a Party, and McCain has it in spades. No one ever questions a Republican war hero, now do they?

McCain himself has a history of voting against his Party (although not nearly as much lately) and is perceived as "maverick" enough to peel off a lot of the Clinton Democrats who refuse to vote for Obama. With all the Republicans (who always vote the way their Party leaders tell them to) and a big enough number of Democrats and Independents, it's game-set-match McCain.

Obama's math does not work. Wishing and hoping does not make it so.

Parent

His math worked good enough to get the nomination (1.00 / 2) (#149)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:54:27 PM EST

I suspect it will be good enough to take us through the next few months and win in November. I preferred HRC, but she ain't gonna be the president, y'all. Get over it.

Parent

: Get over it? On THIS site? (1.00 / 1) (#227)
by caseynm on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:24:02 PM EST

Noooooo. Hillary is God, Obama is satan. God always wins, satan always loses. QED

Parent
: Your hysteria, hectoring (none / 0) (#168)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:59:03 PM EST

and insults are really annoying.
Fine, you disagree with some of us. So what? There's no need to have an aneurysm.

Parent

It's (5.00 / 2) (#201)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM EST

going to be national security because Obama isn't making an economic appeal to the voters. Neither McCain nor Obama have much in the way of selling their plans for the economy. Why do you think all those working class voters are saying that they'll vote for McCain in the fall? National security. Might as well vote for the one that will keep us "safe".

Parent

You're wrong on WI, which can go GOP (5.00 / 2) (#194)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:09:08 PM EST

quite easily -- McCain is ahead here now -- in part because the state GOP still is in good shape here.

If it's in bad shape in other states, that supports your argument in those states. But not all states.

Parent

: Yeah, I agree. I do not see WI (5.00 / 1) (#206)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:15:25 PM EST

going Dem.

Parent

Look at (none / 0) (#310)
by dissenter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:16:10 PM EST

the number of Hillary supporters that will vote for McCain

Parent

So what happened with Reagan and then Bush 1? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by alexei on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST

No switch there, could be that the Dems ran Dukakis, which is what Obama would do at his best?

Parent

You forgot the obligatory shrieks of McGovern! (1.00 / 1) (#124)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:44:39 PM EST

McGovern! Obama's worse than McGovern!

Look, I don't care for Obama either. But you guys are losing your minds over this. Obama's raised more money than any candidate IN HISTORY. Dem registration and turnout is the highest IN HISTORY.

Come on, think!

I don't care for him much, but he's your next president, you guys need to get over it.

Parent

Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:46:21 PM EST

then how come he still has not had a blow out win to the end? Why can he not close it? All that money all that support and nothing.

Parent

"Nothing?" (none / 0) (#137)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST

He's winning the nomination. He is the nominee. That's not "nothing."

What are you guys smoking? Come on, can someone on here, anyone, be the tiniest bit objective?

I don't like Obama either, but I prefer to live in the real world.

"Nothing?"

Parent

Hey Jim--Newsflash (5.00 / 2) (#148)
by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:53:39 PM EST

His supporters (MSNBC) claim he has won the nomination. Ask the supers why they still haven't made up their mind

Parent

Nomination/GE (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:57:02 PM EST

Democratic nomination process and how he won cannot extrapolate to GE

( Not smoking, only person who believed Bill, I never used to inhale either)

Parent

Poppycock. (none / 0) (#169)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:59:06 PM EST

Of course it extrapolates to the general election. You've got to have a nominee first, then they retool their campaign for the general.

Established donor lists and voting patterns certainly extrapolate to the general election.

Really, can we at least try for a tiny amount of realism here?

Parent

: You think the caucus advantage (5.00 / 2) (#174)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:00:52 PM EST

will be there? His message, his whole concept and brand started to collapse, whereas Hillary's is getting stronger.
I guess we can argue till the cows come home but it will ultimately be up to voters.

Parent

Um, Jim J (none / 0) (#142)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM EST

this is your opinion too.

You don't live in "the real world" while we are "smoking" something.

Please don't paint yourself as so objective and above it all when you are also only presenting your opinion.

Parent

My opinion is supported by, um, you know (1.00 / 3) (#160)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM EST

the fact that Obama won the nomination and will outraise McCain probably four to one in what is clearly a Democratic year, with record Dem turnout and registration.

Y'all are just on another planet, I don't know what else to say.

Parent

Jim, no offense but if he was such a stellar (5.00 / 2) (#171)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:00:19 PM EST

candidate he would not be losing key primaries like TX, PA, OH. He wouldn't have lost WV by 41 points.

Parent

: exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#179)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:01:58 PM EST

This is stellar hype within the confines of the Democratic party and it's rules.

Parent

Your statement that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:02:01 PM EST

has won the nomination is a complete and total fabrication.

August 28th is when you will know whether that is the case or not.

Enough.

Parent

It's (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM EST

amazing how much money he has spent and still can't do well in large swing states. I don't think money is really going to help Obama that much because we aren't having a caucus in Nov. Otherwise, I'd tend to agree with you: In a caucus situation he who has the most money wins.

Parent

The money argument is interesting (5.00 / 2) (#199)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:12:30 PM EST

because, like the delegates argument, "more" is not enough. In terms of money, Obama has had to spend two, three, four, or even five times as much in state after state, and it wasn't enough to win many states.

So the question is not who has more money but who needs how much money, and do/will they have enough? Factor in that Clinton has -- i.e., set aside -- three times as much, $24 million, already as did Obama.

He can keep raising money like nobody's business, sure -- but is it enough money, considering how much he has had to expend even to pull even so far?

Parent

Just a friendly warning..... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
by Maria Garcia on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM EST

...read the site rules, you are approaching "chattering" level and one of the admins might restrict your comments for the day.

Parent

Unfortunately, Obama's primary strategy (none / 0) (#252)
by esmense on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:34:38 PM EST

has been very similar to McGovern's, as is the "new" coalition he is attempting to create and his demonstrated primary strengths and weaknesses (in terms of regional and state wins and losses). Also, exactly the same arguments were being made in '72 that you are making here today -- that it is a Democratic year in which the Democrats can not fail. Going into the '72 campaign both the war and Nixon were highly unpopular and the most influential Democratic strategists were convinced that ANY Democrat would win.

Yet, that widely held and optimistic belief proved to be exceptionally foolish.

Of course, 36 years later, the strategy that failed McGovern may prove a winner for Obama. Although Obama's decreasing support within his own party as the primaries wear on doesn't make a good argument for it doing so.

No one, of course, can assume that the Obama candidacy will end in defeat as McGovern's did, anymore than they can assume that the Democrats have a lock on victory this year. No one can predict future campaign or world events and how they may impact the election. And certainly there is no reason to expect a defeat for Obama as total and crushing as McGovern's. But the historical parallels should not be dismissed out of hand. Passionate participation in the primaries, most especially big increases in the participation of young voters, independents and moderate Republicans, did not translate into high turnout in the general election in '72 -- and much of the blame for the apathetic turnout in the general in '72 can be placed on the deep divisions created within the party during the primary fight. A situation we are seeing being repeated today.

Parent

Maybe that might have stayed true... (none / 0) (#104)
by cosbo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:36:13 PM EST

if Wright hadn't chase Obama's independent support away, and bittergate is not a waiting sound bite for ad. The problem is than presidential picks comes down eventually to the person and not the party. Especially since that's how the media plays it. The question in the GE is: who will the media love more? Cuz that's who is going to win.

Parent

I think (none / 0) (#212)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST

he'll carry IA. He's been polling ahead there forever and he spent a lot of time there so I think they're more immune to the Rev. Wright stuff than other states are.

Parent

Everyone sees it, that's why the (none / 0) (#253)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:34:41 PM EST

focus keeps changing between pledged delegates, popular vote, and what measurement the SD's should be using to determine their vote.

I would think that all the Hillary SD's and the undeclared would be outraged at the demand they give up their own judgment in favor of what the media and DNC are telling them to do.

Parent

What is the factual basis of your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by jere on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:53 PM EST

that Clinton cannot win New Mexico. She can win New Mexico.

Clinton could win NM (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:33:53 PM EST

The Clinton's hispanic support can't be argued and the state is purple and working class. It is ready to vote Clinton more than it is ready to vote Obama, but perhaps Richardson has helped some with that problem.

Parent

A lot of opinion is masquerading as fact here (none / 0) (#88)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST

these days. This is all a parlor game played by self-appointed armchair experts. No one here "knows" who's going to vote for whom in which states, otherwise we wouldn't have elections.

It's a Dem year if there ever was one. Obama is weaker than Hillary in the GE, but he will be strong enough. I wish it had happened the other way around, but such is politics.

All this electability stuff is moot and a waste of time unless you're a stats wonk.

Parent

I guess real votes & real caucuses may count. (5.00 / 1) (#215)
by wurman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:17:42 PM EST

"Alternative" Delegate Votes
(no sanctions)
Need to Nominate 2,210.0
B Obama 1,975.0
H Clinton 1,909.0
(available) 455.0
Uncommitted 55.0
J Edwards 24.0
No Preference 0.0
Total 4,418.0

I really dont' see a great deal of evidence here that Sen. Obama is all that strong a candidate, even among his fellow Democrats.

It is incomprehensible to me that any analyst, armchair or newsroom chair, would discount the turnout of conservatives & fundamentalists. That is the depth of silliness.

Parent

: I see a lot of people here (none / 0) (#307)
by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:13:08 PM EST

saying Clinton is such a powerhouse, but if that is the case how is it that some upstart jr senator from Illinois is leading? She had all the advantages when this started: name recognition, money, 100+ superdelegates, a former POTUS for her spouse. What did Obama start with? He's black, he has a funny sounding name, nobody outside of Illinois knew him. The fact that Obama has run a better organized campaign that had the vision to see beyond 12-15 "blue" states and recognized the potential of the new media, was able to inspire millions of new voters and outraised the Clinton political machine should count for something.
Has his campaign been flawless? Of course not. Has he risen to the challenges that hit him? I believe so. If Bill Clinton was able to overcome infidelties that came to light during the election year, then why can't Obama overcome Reverend Wright?

Parent

No need for you to indulge us then (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST

there are other threads where interesting discussion are ongoing.

Parent

You surprise me, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#178)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:01:54 PM EST

You are just indulging this transparently foolish "There's no way Obama can win" crap here because it's giving you traffic. I though you had more gumption.

You know as well as I do it's a strong Dem year and Obama is likely to win, possibly easily.

You yourself have gone on and on and on about Obama's superior electability. You know you have.

And now you're swaying with the prevailing breeze. Sad.

I would have preferred HRC, but it ain't gonna happen. Don't know why you want to rehash it, unless it's to keep the same old pity-party going on here.

Parent

: Have you provided links/evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:15:41 PM EST

Can't recall any from you upthread to polls; sorry if I missed yours. But BTD has provided evidence, so have others, on the status of the race today. And that is all he's arguing -- and all that the super-delegates can see, unless given internals that say otherwise about candidates' current electability.
If you have countervailing evidence, cool. Let's see it. If you have only opinion, we've seen yours.

Parent

It is my opinion (none / 0) (#92)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:32:27 PM EST

I do not state it as fact and indeed no one can state anything as fact as the election is in November.

Parent

I asked for the factual basis for you opinion. (none / 0) (#122)
by jere on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:43:05 PM EST

I did not say you were saying it is fact. I understand that opinion does not equal fact. You must be basing you opinion on something. That is what I want to know. Clinton has a great connection in New Mexico. She will carry Santa Fe County, which went for Obama, if she is the nominee. People love her here, but there are a lot of liberal elites in Santa Fe, so it is not surprising that Obama did well in Santa Fe County. I also think she will do well in Bernalillo County. Heather Wilson barely survived her last election, won by only a few hundred votes over a terribly weak opponent in Patricia Madrid, who by the way was hand picked by Nancy Pelosi.

Parent

Point is moot (1.00 / 2) (#127)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST

Obama is the nominee. He is the most prolific fundraiser in political history, Dem turnout and registration is the highest in history.

I preferred Hillary as well, but Obama's your next president. Get used to it.

Parent

well (none / 0) (#134)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:47:57 PM EST

I think indulging in some opinions.
I am starting to agree with the first one about him probably being the nominee.

Parent

Oh. My. God. (1.00 / 1) (#141)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:50:14 PM EST

You're saying Obama is not an incredible fundraiser and Dem registration and turnout are not breaking records?

What is it about blogs that makes people lose all contact with reality?

Parent

well (5.00 / 2) (#147)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:53:22 PM EST

this:

but Obama's your next president

was the part I was actually talking about as opinion.

Parent

Jim, high turn out has favored Hillary, (5.00 / 3) (#153)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST

not Obama. Further, this isn't like when Kennedy ran and the youth group was demographically really big. That group in the boomers and they are not exactly in Obama's corner. Additionally, Obama has weak support among key groups, like latinos, jewish voters, working class whites. It's not a matter if he can win a majority of some of these groups it's the margins.

Parent

You're misrepresenting this (5.00 / 4) (#156)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM EST

First, yes, he raises lots of money, no question. But the turnout has been driven by both candidates, not just Obama.

Just because he's winning the nomination (barely) doesn't mean that we have to pretend that his "movement" is some kind of supernatural force, or the only thing driving Dem excitement this year.

Parent

What is it that makes Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#223)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:22:30 PM EST

reflexively insulting and belligerent?

And don't try to say you're a Hillary supporter again. Nobody believes it. You obviously never were.

Parent

: What is it? (none / 0) (#239)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST

It's the fact that they know they need us in November if their Precious should manage to stagger across the finish line.
Of course, they are fully prepared to blame us (and HRC) for McCain's victory if this happens.
Truth is, it will be their own fault - and the fault of their candidate. But they're too immature to admit it.

Parent

dem turnouts are breaking (none / 0) (#233)
by Jlvngstn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST

records because they are tired of failed policy and both candidates HRC and BHO have stirred them up. 4 years ago turnouts were embarassing, Kerry did not inspire. Obama inspires his base and HIllary inspires her. I believe victory for the left is incumbent upon a joint ticket. VP's almost never tip a race, this year is definitely the exception.

Parent

Is this Obama love you're sending us? (none / 0) (#304)
by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST

Just want to know if you're part of Operation Reach Out to Hillary's Supporters.

Parent

Assuming He Can Flip Those Western States (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST

I'm a skeptic, his trendlines in some of those states are not good. SUSA had him up by 6 in NM in Feb. and Mar., he was losing by 6 in April. Rasmussen had him up 4 in Nevada in March, down 5 in April. He looks better in Iowa (which I think he would win in a GE) and Colorado (which I think is going to break our hearts in the GE). See all of the polls here.

But even assuming he can flip them, the total EVs for Colorado (9), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5) and Iowa (7) is 26, which is less than Florida and six more than Ohio. He has to flip at least three of them to make up for losing Ohio.

All things considered (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:34:36 PM EST

these polls do not take into account what the Republican side has in store for the candidates between Sept-Nov.

OT? But timely: (5.00 / 2) (#116)
by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:41:11 PM EST

"They're trying to scare you and trying to keep you from seeing the truth," Obama told a cheering crowd packed into an agricultural arena. "And the reason is, they can't win a foreign policy argument on the merits."

Tucker Bounds, McCain's spokesman, responds. "It was remarkable to see Barack Obama's hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn't even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama."

But can Obama make a foreign policy argument on the merits? Oh, that's right--he learned it all in Indonesia as a kid.

Screaming (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:45:32 PM EST

"fearmongering" seems to be the extent of his foreign policy.

Parent

This is silly...in fact, Obama was (none / 0) (#192)
by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST

going after George Bush and McCain--you know, the real enemies of the people--for making ludicrous, and demostrably false statements about Democrats appeasing terrorists, and the people here at talk left are batteing who? Obama. Puh-leez. Obama is taking just the right action and tone in this instance. In other words, taking it to the GOPers and calling them on their BS. Sounds like a fighter to me.

Parent

No, sorry (5.00 / 1) (#236)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:15 PM EST

he sounds like a whiner. Hillary's defense of Obama was much tougher and more of a smackdown than Obama's defense of himself. His tone is terrible, IMHO, the same kind of "Bush is an unfair meanie!" plaint that didn't work real well for Kerry.

Parent

: This is how it would be in an Obama Administration (5.00 / 1) (#246)
by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:32:01 PM EST

Momma's gotta clean up the mess again! ;)

Parent

Obama (5.00 / 1) (#294)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:01:13 PM EST

sounded like a whiner. That's the problem. It was pathetic. When someone attacks you, you don't give a whine back.

He was stupid to respond anyway. He didn't mention Obama and the GOP started making all kinds of jokes about Obama such as "when you throw a rock over the fence and a dog barks, you know you've hit them."

Parent

Right Now on FOX (5.00 / 1) (#254)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:37:27 PM EST

Susan Turnbill (DNC VP) has just said the comments of Bush yesterday were directed at McCain, not Obama or Clinton. She's given a very reasonable argument for that, and it confirms what many of us were thinking yesterday.

Not everyting is about Obama, despite how sure he is the world revolves around him.

Parent

McCain's spokesman (none / 0) (#229)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST

is very, very good, unfortunately.

Parent

BTD (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:48:40 PM EST

I know this is o/t but "operaton turndown" in on the radio right now. It is both empowering and heartbreaking to hear the callers actually voicing the pain this election has caused them.

Why don't we split the Democratic party into two? (none / 0) (#150)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM EST

We can have the hard working whites join the Clinton party, and the the blacks and intellectual elites join the Obama party. Then we can ensure that Republicans move further to the right and win every election.

You have to really wonder about the intelligence of some of these people.

Parent

Why (5.00 / 3) (#159)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:57:04 PM EST

are you worried? Obama doesn't want anybody but the elites, young people and AA's in the party anyway. After all everybody who didn't vote for him in the primary is a racist or an Archie Bunker. Whatever. You reap what you sow.

Parent

So you're saying... (none / 0) (#183)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:02:50 PM EST

Hillary doesn't want blacks, whites who went to college, young adults, or liberals? I guess you reap what you sow there too, right?

It's odd that Clinton supporters don't see that all the arguments work just as well in reverse. It seems like you'd want to figure out how to mend fences, not take them down.

But maybe I'm just crazy and think that having McCain seat two more Supreme Court Justices wouldn't be such a great thing.

Parent

Listen, if you are so worried about the (5.00 / 3) (#191)
by tigercourse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:07:12 PM EST

Supreme Court, you should have really not supported Obama. It was blindingly clear over a year ago that he would not be able to win the general election.

Parent

Supreme Court... (none / 0) (#214)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:17:18 PM EST

I must admit that I'm moderately worried about the Supreme Court. I think they'll continue to make bad decisions. I do think that McCain's court will overturn Roe v Wade. Doesn't effect me personally -- I'm male and Christian :-)

Parent

Wow, you really don't get it (5.00 / 3) (#226)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:23:24 PM EST

as what does being Christian have to do with Roe v. Wade? Many Christian denominations support it. You must be in one of those fundie ones?

And if you were not a newbie here trying to fill up bandwidth, you would know all the reasons why many of us have said to stop trying to scare us with SCOTUS, anyway.

Parent

: My mother a catholic has no problem with (5.00 / 1) (#297)
by FLVoter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:02:50 PM EST

Roe vs. Wade. She actually thinks that Roe vs. Wade is about the government telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. It has nothing to do with religion in her opinion. Religion is only part of what you base your personal values on. She is personally against abortion but strongly believes that it is a decision left to the woman to make. Government has not place in it.

Parent

My dad's Christian... (5.00 / 2) (#238)
by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:34 PM EST

and adamantly pro-choice.

One doesn't negate the other...

Parent

well (5.00 / 2) (#213)
by DJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:17:14 PM EST

I am white, college graduate. Hillary all the way! You are correct. You will reap what you sow.

Parent

Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#232)
by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:25:44 PM EST

But seeing as you are on a blog with a good number of Hillary supporters, many of whom not only went to college, but have advanced degrees, I think your premise (and that of the MSM)- that only uneducated rubes vote for Hillary - is completely off base.

Parent

Are you one of the 400 new bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#245)
by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:30:48 PM EST

recently hired by the Obama camp to bring Dems back into the fold?

If you are, you need practice.

Parent

oh my god (5.00 / 1) (#251)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:34:15 PM EST

is that true?

Parent

From over at (5.00 / 1) (#268)
by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:45:53 PM EST

Confluence

Parent

that is just funny (5.00 / 1) (#272)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:48:29 PM EST

Parent

(if that really is your name) (5.00 / 1) (#274)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:49:57 PM EST

Parent

Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#284)
by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:53:52 PM EST

Parent

Lavendar Newswire... (none / 0) (#285)
by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:55:28 PM EST

has an interesting piece...

Parent

bwahahahahaha (5.00 / 2) (#292)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:59:29 PM EST

"OMFG REDID DA MATH: WE FD UP. 86 OPERATION HRC BASH IMMED PROCEED W/OPERATION MAKE NICEY NICE ASAYGT. ACK."

Parent

: That made me laugh too... (5.00 / 1) (#301)
by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST

Though I'm not sure what "ASAYGT" is.

Parent

Haven't you noticed (none / 0) (#276)
by cmugirl on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:50:34 PM EST

LOTS of new commenters here that all seem to be just a wee bit disagreeable at times?

Parent

it seems almost (none / 0) (#279)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:53:11 PM EST

unbelievable to me that they actually think that would change minds. but whatever.
I hope thats not the core of their general election strategy.

Parent

: "Vote for Change" registration drive (none / 0) (#293)
by cannondaddy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:59:45 PM EST

is the core of their general election strategy...

Parent

I've noticed... (none / 0) (#281)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST

Yes, I've noticed too. Where did they all come from? I didn't realize that Hillary had this many supporters?

Parent

Hired by Obama? (none / 0) (#259)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:39:20 PM EST

Hehe, I think Obama would hire me not to blog! I actually like to find places where I don't agree with everyone. What fun is it to simply agree. Sure I could go to the DailyKos, but then I might as well talk to a mirror.

At the end of the day, I think a united party would be great. I'd love to see Obama win. With that said, if Obama and the Dems lose, it can't be worse than the past 8 years. And even with that said, the past 8 years hasn't been that bad for me personally. I don't know anyone who actually went to Iraq. The house I bought in '98 is worth about 4x more than what I paid -- and that's after this recent turndown, and I've made a couple of millions from stock options. Unless McCain decides to start the draft for middle aged millionaires, I think I'm safe :-)

Now 9/11 was horrible. I do want to make sure we prevent that, but I think all choices will do their best to stop that. Which approach will work best. Honestly, I don't think anyone knows.

But back to my point. I'm no Obama operative. But if you think I'm effective, I'd appreciate you letting him know. Maybe I'll get paid then :-)

Parent

You're a millionaire huh? I bet you have (none / 0) (#260)
by tigercourse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:41:46 PM EST

a 10 inch ^#*$ as well. Ah, the internet.

Parent

Ummm... (none / 0) (#277)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:52:21 PM EST

Well 11 inches really, but I only measure daily. :-)

Parent

red_vlx@hotmail.com (none / 0) (#283)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST

Parent

What's that mean? (none / 0) (#290)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:57:18 PM EST

Are you asking me to email you?

Parent

: it was a joke (none / 0) (#295)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:01:59 PM EST

never mind

Parent

re-read the post... (none / 0) (#273)
by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:49:56 PM EST

The part about practice? I wasn't kidding. You really aren't all that effective.

And I don't really care if you're a millionaire or just some guy with a mom who makes him snacks.

Parent

It's like Bill Clinton said... (none / 0) (#303)
by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:06:45 PM EST

many of the people who are passionate Hillary supporters just need a President a lot more than so many Obama supporters.

Parent

No, they don't. Those groups are all reliably (none / 0) (#188)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST

Democratic.

Parent

All Democratic... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST

You think they're all reliably Democratic? Maybe in the past they've been, but I've heard humblings of a switch if Clinton is the nominee.

Here's the argument Republicans will use to win over Blacks:

Barack Obama played by the rules, and they screwed him for a white woman.
This is the history of the Democratic party. They pretend like they'll help Blacks, e.g., affirmitive action, but the main beneficiary is white women.
Bill Clinton disproportionately screwed Blacks with Welfare Reform.
Under Clinton Blacks saw the lowest rise in jobs and income of the ethnic groups.
We (Republicans) actually respect Blacks more. When there's a strong Black we will hire them for the best jobs. See Condi Rice and Colin Powell, as Secretary of State. Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court Justice.
What have Dems done, besides screwing Obama, in terms of national positions? Lani Guiner, wow Clinton threw her under the bus.

That's a pretty damn good case. If I was Black, I think I might have convinced myself to start voting Republican!

Young voters are becoming more Libertarian. Most won't vote McCain, but many simply won't vote. Why vote for the same ole' same ole'? And the intellectual elite is getting tired of the way that politics trumps ideas, even among the Dems (see how Howard Dean was tossed in 2004).

The Democratic party is on shaky ground. Neither Barack nor Hillary should be too comfortable.

If I were the Republicans, and Hillary gets the nomination, I'd make the hardest push for African Americans you can imagine.

Parent

If you (none / 0) (#258)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:38:42 PM EST

think that Obama's the nominee then it's up to him to do the mending. He's doing a poor job so far.

Parent

Mending... (none / 0) (#266)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST

Interesting comment about Obama having to do the mending. I do agree that he will have to. Myself, I wish we could drop the whole notion of Reagan Democrats myself. That's one group that I'd like to never have to pander to. What's with pandering to a group of voters that supported arguably the most evil president in my lifetime? I guess you something have to go with the party that you have, not the party that you want...

But would be nice to increase turnout on the left though, so we can dump those on the right who pull the party down.

Parent

: Wow (none / 0) (#289)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST

trying to eliminate working class voters from the party? You'll never win that way. You can max out in a demographic group like upper income whites but you'll never win unless you EXPAND your demographic groups.
I don't think you'll have to worry about Obama "pandering" to them. He obviously thinks they are some kind of alien species to be examined. It's why, like the salon article today said, he will have a hard time winning the general election.

Parent
: 'dump' those who 'pull the party down'? (none / 0) (#305)
by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:11:17 PM EST

I can see that average hardworking Americans (not just whites) are nothing but a bunch of rubes to you (and probably to Senator Obama) who must be 'pandered' to. Sure, let's forget about addressing their concerns or thinking about things from their perspective. Not doing your candidate any favors here! This just reinforces the elitism charge.

Parent

Powerful, huh? n/t (none / 0) (#311)
by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:16:12 PM EST

Parent

BTD (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:53:12 PM EST

I think you could put the EV this way:
Outside of WV, Obama polls better than Hillary in the Dukakis states. Hillary polls better than Kerry did in his states. She also flips some red states.

I'm not sure about the west. I would think that the GOP having a western candidate would make it hard for either to win in those states.

CO had Kerry polling head for months in 2004. In the end it didn't happen so I don't think it's going to happen for Obama either. Obama is too much like Kerry with more baggage.

A poster linked to an article in salon on another thread that did an EC analysis that said Obama's path to winning doesn't look too bright at this point.

Have you considered the fact that Obama could lose MA? Polling there says it is tight. And with the unpopularity of Deval Patrick Obama could lose that state.

Over the past couple months Obama has (5.00 / 2) (#163)
by tigercourse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:58:06 PM EST

gotten weaker and weaker in polls, particularly in the west. He was strong in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado in January and February. Now he's losing the first two and weak in the 3rd. Given that New Mexico is more Dem friendly then Colorado, if he can't win there he won't win anywhere out there. At one point people were saying that Obama could make a strong showing in Kansas. Cleary, no. He is slipping in Iowa as well and no one talks about a Missouri victory any more. The MN, Wisconsin and Michigan polls aren't pretty right now and New Hampshire has flipped back to red. He's weak in all areas of the country.

: There was never a chance of a missouri victory. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:02:06 PM EST

He got creamed in the rurals. You got to at least be competitive there.

Parent

those polls are less than (5.00 / 1) (#177)
by cpinva on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM EST

meaningless. should sen. obama be the dem. nominee, talk to me in mid oct., after all the repub 527's have had their way with him. by then, he'll be lucky to be elected dog catcher, if they don't actually want to tar, feather and ride him out of town on a rail.

they've been doing this to sen. clinton for 16 years now, there's really not much else they can say about her, that hasn't been said a million times already. take sen. obama out of the equation, do those polls again, and i bet those #'s change significantly in clinton's favor.

: That's naive... (none / 0) (#306)
by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:11:42 PM EST

...because Senator Clinton would have faced a sexist campaign that, while painting John McCain as a principled war hero in the model of Eisenhower, battling special interests, would have painted her as corrupt and beholden to special interests. And it wouldn't just be the 1990s, it would be the pardons, the library, the early senate campaign, what Bill has been up to, etc.
And then there's the behavior on the campaign trail. "Senator Clinton says states X, Y and Z don't matter in November. Will you matter in January?"
And then what about the "Hispanics don't vote for blacks" meme, that "historical statement" according to Senator Clinton? The 527s would have a blast with that, in the West, in Florida, in Ohio and Michigan (where there are plenty of black voters they could try to cut into, just to get enough votes to spell disaster on election day).
McCain's strategists know all of this, and they would have been very cunning in the general election. A New York-based senator, a new political dynasty, wouldn't have been painted and tarred as elitist? These people turned a war hero into a coward. The message is slightly different this time around, but trust me, it would have been just as bad.

Parent

SuperDelegate Poll (5.00 / 1) (#197)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:12:09 PM EST

Good place to feel like you had a voice in Barbara Boxers endorsement.

We all know ... (5.00 / 3) (#204)
by Robot Porter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:15:14 PM EST

that, absent divine intervention, Obama loses.

Unfortunately, we also know that the DP gets a kick out of nominating losers.

Sigh.

: I know no such thing. (none / 0) (#282)
by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST

Sorry. I don't see it. your arguement about taking Obama out of the equasion and then re-polling works in reverse too. Take Clinton out of the equeastion and in many places his numbers improve too. That's not a sound arguement. Right now they are splitting Dem votes. That will change.

Parent

Those who have said (5.00 / 1) (#315)
by miriam on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:28:29 PM EST

that any Democrat can win this year have again dismissed the women's vote. There is no way yet of predicting accurately how many women will stay home (thus also affecting the Democrats on the down ticket) or who will vote for McCain, but the male Democratic leaders who take this as a hollow threat do so at their peril. Women may well see this as a defining moment in this country. If they do, Obama cannot win. Not if he is seen as winning by virtue of the ridiculous caucus manipulations, the unequal and preferential (to Obama) handling of the "rules" regarding Michigan and Florida, and by the DNC's silence in the face of brutal mysogynism on the part of the media.

correct me if I'm wrong... (none / 0) (#7)
by p lukasiak on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM EST

But I thought the dems won in New Mexico in 2004...

Gore won NM in 2000 (5.00 / 0) (#54)
by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST

by the narrowest of margins. There was a recount there too, but it was resolved within a week.

Parent

Won in 2000 - Gore took that State. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by alexei on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:37:16 PM EST

Bill Clinton took it too! Hillary would have a better shot than Obama - Hispanics and she did beat Obama.

Parent

: I'm not counting on a Dem win in NM.... (none / 0) (#314)
by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:21:53 PM EST

...Senator Clinton won the primary narrowly, and it is a close race every year. In 2000 Gore carried it by a narrow margin, and even then weather played a hand. With McCain running, NM may be even more difficult to win.

Parent

you would be wrong (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:03:41 PM EST

Parent

I remember listening to Bill Richardson (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM EST

promise into the night that NM would come through. It was clear that it would not, though.

Parent

: Heh, he's no (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:35 PM EST

Jeb Bush. Richardson looks more the fool every single time he shows up on TV.

Parent

Wrong (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:03:57 PM EST

but Gore won in (barely) in 2000.

Parent

Why did you leave off VA and NC? (none / 0) (#30)
by cannondaddy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST

I no longer believe they are in play (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST

Parent

Why? (none / 0) (#41)
by cannondaddy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM EST

The polls were from Monday and are in the margin of error.

Parent

not in play? (none / 0) (#48)
by TruthMatters on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:04 PM EST

He is polling within 3, when the party isn't united and we have 6 months to work on it?

isn't that a good thing for a usually red state?

why do you not think it will be in play?

Parent

: Too many (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM EST

working class whites for Obama to win those states.

Parent
: Sorry, do not buy it (none / 0) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:44 PM EST

Parent

Not a huge difference (none / 0) (#60)
by DaveOinSF on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:23:51 PM EST

In NC anyway.

Obama (v. McCain) vs. Hillary (v. McCain)

North Carolina last 3 polls:
Obama -7 vs. Hillary -8 = Obama +1
Obama -3 vs. Hillary -3 = Tie
Obama -9 vs. Hillary -12 = Obama +3

Parent

NC was never in play and I doubt VA was either (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:20:23 PM EST

Parent

: Not with McCain on the ticket. (none / 0) (#89)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:31:10 PM EST

Probably not without. But a big military state like that is going to go McCain.

Parent

There is zero chance McCain loses VA or NC (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Exeter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM EST

Parent

Links (none / 0) (#36)
by cannondaddy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:18:01 PM EST

VA

Parent

Even being close enough (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by cannondaddy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:21:50 PM EST

to force the expenditure of resources "changes the electoral map" does it not?

Parent

did you notice Clinton and Obama run the same in ? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST

I do not believe the poll at all, but actually it seems to me to be a good sign for Hillary.

Parent

: In NC (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:23:42 PM EST

In Va, Obama runs 3 points better.
I do not believe that result for either Obama or clinton.
butheck, it argues for a unity ticket too.

Parent

Obama (v. McCain) vs. Hillary (v. McCain) (none / 0) (#38)
by DaveOinSF on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:18:51 PM EST

I'll give you Nevada. Last 3 polls:
Obama -6 vs. Hillary -11 = Obama by 5
Obama +4 vs. Hillary +1 = Obama by 3
Obama +5 vs. Hillary -8 = Obama by 13

Not sure about New Mexico. Last 3 polls:
Obama -6 vs. Hillary -3 = Hillary by 3
Obama +3 vs. Hillary -3 = Obama by 6
Obama +6 vs. Hilary +6 = Tie

It's unpopular to say here, but I still maintain (none / 0) (#49)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM EST

that in this particular year, when Republicans face unprecedented malaise and disarray and Democrats have unprecedented registration and generic ballot advantages, the point is moot.

The Democrat will win in November. I wished it would have been Hillary, but it will be Obama.

Let's face it, he survived the worst storm in Rev. Wright. The effect will diminish the more it's brought up from now on.

And Republicans loathe McCain, their turnout will be disastrous.

Obama's your new president. I don't like it either, but that's what's going to happen.

Wright (5.00 / 4) (#115)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:40:38 PM EST

isn't the worst storm. I wish it was. There's way worse coming down the pike.

Parent

Oh (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:41:57 PM EST

and you're also forgetting that 25% to 50% of Dems won't vote for Obama. So as demoralized as the GOP is the Dems are almost as bad IMO.

The house and senate races are a different animal imo.

Parent

Sorry, that's approaching ignorant (none / 0) (#132)
by Jim J on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:47:03 PM EST

to say Dems are just as "demoralized" as Republicans. There is not a single metric, NOT ONE, to justify your position on this.

Parent

: Have (5.00 / 2) (#173)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:00:42 PM EST

you looked at the exit polls where large percentages of the party are saying that they will not vote for Obama? Do you think they are lying? Or do you think that they'll just "come on board". Obama just "expects" us to vote for him. Is he going to ask for our vote? I'm beginning to wonder. Maybe he doesn't really have it wrapped up after all.

Parent

GOP is not in disarry in every state (none / 0) (#217)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST

is the point. That the general election actually is 50-plus local elections is the point.

Parent

Hint: Iowa is not "out West." (none / 0) (#65)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:26:06 PM EST

Having stated that, I must acknowledge Iowans stand by their man Obama. Who woulda thunk?

Obama is a lock in Iowa (none / 0) (#71)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST

Parent

Iowa (none / 0) (#91)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:31:57 PM EST

is supposed to have a gay marriage decision coming any day now.
I wonder if that would effect the expected outcome like it could in CA?

Parent

: As a former Iowan, I'd be quite (none / 0) (#312)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:16:50 PM EST

surpised if the majority of the state favored same-sex marriage. But, things may have changed since I left.

Parent

If we chose a candidate on polls (none / 0) (#72)
by HelenK on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:27:15 PM EST

then I suppose some here might have a point. But we don't. Delegate count is all that matters.

It really is amazing that Hillary supporters can only hope for a major crash and burn by Obama for her to get the nomination.

Let everyone vote, but pushing to overturn the results that ARE the metric that matters is ugly.

total delegate count is all the matters (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM EST

and Clinton can still win on that .... won't be easy but it is possible, so calm down.

Parent

Delegates may consider polls. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST

Your point?

Parent

Oy (5.00 / 3) (#113)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:40:06 PM EST

I hate these silly comments.

Would you Obama folks please stop repeating the same silliness?

Parent

when did we decide (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM EST

the popular vote was irrelevant?

Parent

The popular vote? (none / 0) (#165)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST

When we created how we elect nominees in the Democratic party. BTW, newsflash, the President is also NOT elected by popular vote.

Sure, you can change the rules for the next election, but don't you think it would be a little odd to change the rules at the end of the game?

Parent

the "rules" (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:03:35 PM EST

say the supers cast their vote for the person they think will be the strongest candidate.
they DO NOT say that the person with the most elected delegates has to be that person.
it is hard to see why they would not consider the popular vote in making that decision.

Parent

: I thought the rules left it to the Supers to (5.00 / 1) (#187)
by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:05:42 PM EST

excercise their discretion as they see fit.

Parent

I'm all for ugly (none / 0) (#257)
by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:38:25 PM EST

I can vote for Clinton. I can not vote for Obama, hence the large numbers of Clinton supporters that will never vote for Obama. He's weak on policy, he's weak on connecting with voters, and that means his chances of achieving the White House are weak.

Quit it with the pledged delegate schpiel. It is only one metric, has only ever been one metric. If you want to dance to Obama and MSNBCs tune, go ahead, you'll be dancing alone.

The rest of us will be busy voting for Clinton.

Parent

The merits of campaigning (none / 0) (#316)
by christinep on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:33:50 PM EST

"pushing to overturn...is ugly." No, its campaigning. Until someone drops out and/or the roll of states shows the required number of delegates, noone is acting ugly by strongly pointing out their winning argument and their opponent's weak areas. Noone can steal that which was never had; we will know that at the convention. Check your political history. (I'm particularly fond of Ted Kennedy's 1980 cry to "free the delegates"--he wanted to poach delegates in the summer who could then vote for him. All's fair.)

Parent

These comments assume a lot (none / 0) (#111)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM EST

Most all they assume that McCain and the Republicans campaign against Clinton like Obama did. I know many here would deny it, but Obama pretty much took the high road against Hillary. He didn't dirty her up much. I'm sure each of us could name about a dozen items that you know McCain will bring up that Obama never would. You can't say the same for McCain vs Obama.

The race between two differing political parties is very different than a race in a party. At the end of the day, I think this notion of electability makes no sense -- at least not until October.

At this point the super delegates make their call, who ever it is, and we support them. Roe v Wade is on the line, period.

"many would deny" (5.00 / 3) (#125)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST

cause it's true. You think all his double messages, his for it or against it are gonna hold up during the GE.

I want to see Obama attack grandpa war hero and not get clobbered. How do you think that will play in Peoria?

Parent

What are you referring to? (none / 0) (#131)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST

I know I'm a little weird, but specifics help me out :-) Can you let me know what specific instances you're referring to?

Parent

: Look up my past comments (none / 0) (#167)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:58:50 PM EST

Parent

Electability Make No Sense Until October? (5.00 / 2) (#164)
by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST

If the nominee has electability problems, October will be much too late. We can agree to disagree about the "high road."

Parent

October? (none / 0) (#172)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST

My point was that for any reasonable candidate, one can't determine electability, based on looking at the electoral map, this far out. The map for both Reagan and Clinton (on their first wins) looked somewhat different than how they turned out.

It's like trying to pick who is going to win the SuperBowl for 2015, this year. You can make some good guesses, but you're a lot better off waiting until 2014.

Parent

: You don't have to determine it yet (5.00 / 1) (#219)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:20:54 PM EST

but super-delegates do, if they do their jobs.
Now, that has been stated to you over and over, so stop using up bandwidth, which is limited here.

Parent

Obama Hype (none / 0) (#121)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:42:22 PM EST

Ok, I know that this may be controversial. But truth be told the so called "Bradley effect" did not happen in the primaries, it happened in the General Election. I am not talking Bradley effect just about race, I am talking about the Obama aura, will it hold up in a GE, I think it's starting weak and will collapse. Electability is not just polling, it's also seeing where are the campaigns going. The message does not have a GE caliber. (not that the caliber is that high). All the double messages Obama has been giving through the years are gonna come and bite him.

"Bradley effect" (none / 0) (#128)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:46:04 PM EST

yeah
also the contradictions. I saw a website that had compiled a list of his contradictory statements.
it was REALLLY long.
the republicans are so going to run with those.

Parent

: All the pandering (none / 0) (#135)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:48:02 PM EST

is gonna look like pandering. His alleged bipartisanship is not believable.

Parent

Dems could lose in Nov (none / 0) (#130)
by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:46:54 PM EST

Oh so now Cokie Roberts wakes up?

http://tinyurl.com/3epeoo

Wow, usually don't agree with her (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:52:10 PM EST

but she lays it out. It really is that baffling.

Parent

: It's (5.00 / 1) (#161)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM EST

because they want McCain to be president.

Parent

Datsa good piece (none / 0) (#317)
by rghojai on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:37:46 PM EST

Obviously people can and will share opinions, but the facts about delegate allocations, how various states have played out, are... facts. From here, they're also good reminders that it's mighty hard to see the current approach as one that's good.

Parent

Counter arguement from NYT (none / 0) (#144)
by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST

Worth reading for a perspective of the potential Obama brings to the GE:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/16south.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Only the NYT (5.00 / 2) (#152)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:55:07 PM EST

would write an article that stupid. Whatever the black vote is in a southern state is about all he is going to get. And that's dependent on lots of Republicans just sitting home in 2008.

Parent

Respectfully, I disagree. (none / 0) (#220)
by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST

Obama is going to put a whole bunch of states in play...and do it with a huge money advantage over the GOP. He will force the GOPers to fight for every square inch of turf and will likely flip one or two purple states along the way. And don't forget, the findies realy dislike McCain and aren't going to come out in the numbers we have seen in the past, while the African American communitees in many states will be voting in FAR larger numbers than we have ever seen before.

Not convinced? Consider the three recent special elections in districts considered to be "safe" GOPer areas. In each one, the tried to nationalize the race and tie the candidate to Obama...and each case the Dem WON. This is the best kind of data because it is actual results, not some poll.

Once we stop this intra-party bickering and get focused on electing the nominee (likely to be Obama) people are going to see the clear difference between what the GOPers are offereing and what the Dems are offering.

And by the way, Obama is not getting weaker as has been suggested here. What we are seeing is the calendar of contests playing out. Clinton always had a clear advantage in certain states and two of them happen to be WV and KY. And if you do want to consider polls, consider for instance California where polls suggest that if we were to vote today, Obama, not Clinton, would wind the state.

Parent

: Childers had to run an ad distancing himself from (none / 0) (#228)
by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:24:15 PM EST

Obama.

Parent
: He's (none / 0) (#262)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST

not going to put southern states in play. This is pure fantasy on the part of the Obama campaign. The problem is that his money hasn't made him win swing states in a Dem primary and he is losing those states. All the money in the world won't help a candidate the voters don't like with a message they reject. In PA, the amount of money he spent actually backfired on him. Voteres told pollsters all the ads turned them off.

Parent
: are you one of the paid (none / 0) (#308)
by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:13:42 PM EST

Obama operatives?

Parent

All of these articles fail to mention (5.00 / 1) (#193)
by thomphool on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST

The turnout in these special elections has been roughly 40% of the 2004 turnout in those districts. Don't get me wrong, there is activism and excitement on the Democratic side this year, but the results of these races have about the same predictive value as caucus results (which means they have about the predictive strength of a Zogby Poll). There are some wildly optimistic theories going around about what could happen this election year that are disingenuous and what happens when you get people with no background in crunching numbers writing about arguments based on statistical analysis. It COULD be a great year for Democrats, but Obama COULD still lose the general if a few things don't break his way. Contrary to what analysis of some (including Poblano) will tell you, even with record registration and record turnout, if Obama loses significant chunks of the working class vote that have swung in past elections- and we're talking Dukakis level losses, not Kerry level, spikes in African American and Youth turnout will not carry the day. They just won't.

Cautious optimism should be the phrase for Dems this year, but that means we should be working harder than ever, not getting complacent.

Parent

: Cautious optimism indeed... (none / 0) (#234)
by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST

I completely agree. Nothing is a given...ever. To me, working harder starts with not tearing down a fellow Dem. No candidate ever has thrilled everyone in their party--Dem or GOP--and this year was even harder due to the historic nature of these two Dems. I have said it before that in some respects it is not surprising the way things have split, but the time is now to begin healing.

Parent
: Agreed (none / 0) (#313)
by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:18:37 PM EST

also notice how the bar has been lowered from the Dem candidate having positive coattails to Obama 'not being a problem'? I don't relish the prospect of downticket candidates having to run from our nominee.

Parent

Media in NOW paying attention (none / 0) (#185)
by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST

to electability... sheesh

Where would Obama be without caucuses

and

How will Obama get to 270

[Many Democrats -- notably, this year,
Obama backers -- would like their party to stop thinking in terms of three yards and a cloud of purple-state dust and instead embrace the beauty of a 50-state strategy. Somehow, they say, 2008 can and must be different.

OK, I'm listening. Different how? In that the Democrats win?

Certain cold realities haven't changed.]

........................................
how about

The elusive White-Male Vote (women are being completely ignored, sit down, shut-up and tow the line you are no longer relevant but then again, Eleanor Clift be lovin' Obama)

[Dine doesn't see how Obama comfortably absorbs Edwards's economic populism without compromising his own message. Obama talks about change and unity, lofty principles that don't speak to the challenges of everyday lives. "Working people don't give a damn about unity," says Dine. "They want somebody who'll fight for them.]

Unity? (none / 0) (#190)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM EST

If working people, don't get unity, then they're short-sighted. And I'm not running for office, so I can say offensive stuff like that :-)

I think most working people are actually more visionary than that. They realize that in order to get government to work for them, there needs to be unity. Otherwise, they will ALWAYS lose to corporate interests. I don't care if you have Rocky Balboa fighting for you or not, you can't compete against big money in this country, if it's a dog fight. Big money owns most politicians, owns the media, owns their jobs, owns their mortgage, owns food and drug safety, owns their education.

We need to stop being so naive.

Parent

Big money owns Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#209)
by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:15:51 PM EST

Link

And by the way - working-class people don't have time for high-flown baloney. They are too busy working their "uniquely American" three jobs to pay for their gas, which has quadrupled in price since our Dear Leader stole the White House in 2000.

Meanwhile, Obama wants to "unify" with the people who are destroying our country, while deliberately alienating the Democratic base and pursuing his mad dream of Republicans and Independents yelling "Yes we can!" and pulling the lever for him in November.

Golly gee, I wonder why we don't think he can win?

Parent

: Wrong (none / 0) (#231)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:25:33 PM EST

I think the article by Martens is inaccurate. But of course an actual link to the data would be nice (who doesn't post a link to a website that they're citing, nowadays?).
And you think Hillary can win and she's not financially connected? Hehe, I guess we all have our fantasies.

Parent

Are you really naive enough (none / 0) (#222)
by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:22:23 PM EST

to believe Obama would do anything about Corp control of our govt or big money? That is one of the most laughable things I have heard credited to Obama to date. Enough with the unity Code Blue. It means nothing, it is nothing, it's a garbage campaign slogan. Why don't you hit a Code Orange and trot out the Supreme Court. Obama is ridiculously unbelievable on that issue also. Obama is unbelievable on every issue to date.

Parent

What's Hillary's plan... (1.00 / 1) (#250)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:33:52 PM EST

It's your call really. If you don't believe in Code Orange, that's your choice. It's fine to me. It's mostly Hillary supporters who care about Roe v Wade. America is largely indifferent. You can cut off your nose to spite your face. Obama will be the nominee whether you vote for him or not.

The thing is with Obama supporters, we don't mind losing this election as much. For example, I'd actually make money if McCain was elected. I'm one of those latte sipping liberals who should be voting Republican anyway. Blacks will have no favors done for them by Hillary now. They're just as well as off w/ McCain (as you know Hillary is vindictive). And frankly, Republicans haven't been so bad for Blacks anyways.

The only ones who have something to lose are feminists. Now if feminists don't care about Roe v Wade, well then I think we're all in the same boat. Roll the die, let it end up where it ends up, and we wake up tomorrow, exercise some options, play some golf, and do some more postings on websites that no one else reads :-)

Parent

We agree..... (none / 0) (#263)
by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:44:02 PM EST

The thing is with Obama supporters, we don't mind losing this election as much.

pffft, everyone knows that. Apparently Clinton supporters dislike Obama so much they will vote McCain or stay home. I know I could care less if McCain wins. I think the party will be better off if it implodes. Both parties need to start representing the people who vote them in to office, but let's be real... that is not going to happen.

For example, I'd actually make money if McCain was elected. I'm one of those latte sipping liberals who should be voting Republican anyway.

Ditto. :)

Parent

Riiiiight.... (none / 0) (#265)
by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:44:27 PM EST

as you know Hillary is vindictive

Puhleeze. If she's the nominee, and the next president, there is no way Hillary Clinton would ever ever seek revenge on AAs who didn't vote for her. That is just ludicrous.

Obama will be the nominee whether you vote for him or not.

This is correct. The real question is will be be the next president if I, or people like me, don't vote for him.

Financially, I'm also better off under McCain. Like you, and many other Dems, both HRC and BO supporters, we often vote against our economic self-interest because we believe that the country is better off with Democratic leaders. For me, personally, not so much, this time. I will not vote in the presidential race. I will vote down-ticket, straight D.

Parent

Vindictive (1.00 / 0) (#275)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST

Puhleeze. If she's the nominee, and the next president, there is no way Hillary Clinton would ever ever seek revenge on AAs who didn't vote for her. That is just ludicrous.

She will. Mark my words. She will begin in NY if she loses the presidency. You don't want to be Black in any region where she has authority. Hillary is very much on record as being one who holds grudges.

For me, personally, not so much, this time. I will not vote in the presidential race. I will vote down-ticket, straight D.

Why not vote straight-R down the ticket? If you're going to send a message, send a real one. And I know for YOU, race plays no role, but you have to admit that voting the way you described at least looks bad. I'm sure you don't care about the superficiality of looks, but vote straight-R, and be consistent. Then you're taking a principled stand. Because if Barack is the nominee, is it really Barack you're mad at, or the party that never supported your candidate?

Parent

: Because.. (5.00 / 1) (#300)
by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:04:42 PM EST

I won't vote R because I do not think that Republicans in congress or locally will do the best for people. Unfortunately, a) I don't think Obama will, b) I will not condone what I see as misogyny. I'm not a Republican and never will be. I won't vote for McCain. I will withhold my vote from a Dem candidate I don't see as upholding the ideals that I associate with being a Democrat.
Oh so it looks bad, huh? BWAH! Like I care.

Parent
: She holds grudges (none / 0) (#298)
by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:03:21 PM EST

against individual people...not whole groups of voters.

Parent

Perhaps (none / 0) (#288)
by LoisInCo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:56:47 PM EST

losing RvW is what feminists need to fight for a real constitutional protection that isn't used as a cudgel by self serving politicians every single election. Me personally, I too am not directly affected by a McCain victory and am within an inch of actually aiding it. My biggest hope is that Obama will lose and all those people who finally realized that the Democratic Party process is set against them rise up and retake their party. THAT would be change I could believe in.

Parent

Those are useful analyses, thanks (none / 0) (#237)
by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:28:29 PM EST

even though I don't agree in some of the particulars, but some of the info adds to the great Arnone breakdowns by state that Jeralyn shares.

Parent

BTD, What Do You Think (none / 0) (#211)
by daring grace on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST

of Dem pollster Paul Maslin's assessment of the GE states at salon.com?

Of course, his take is subjective since he's looking at it from his interpretation of voting trends and demographics.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/

BO's problems with NM and NV (none / 0) (#271)
by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:46:42 PM EST

McCain has a lot of strength with the Hispanic vote, a group Obama (and Donna Brazile) seem to dismiss.

I'm not really sure he can flip CO either, although he is the stronger candidate there.

Moreover, all those state combined barely have the electoral votes of PA.

a bit premature (none / 0) (#278)
by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:52:29 PM EST

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/may/may25.html

look at Kerry v Bush on May 25, 2004

: Given that Obama has many of the same (4.00 / 3) (#299)
by tigercourse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:03:44 PM EST

electoral problems as Kerry (plus a whole host of unique ones) and that McCain is a stronger opponent then Buch, it should scare the hell out of you that Oama is doing so much worse then Kerry at this point.

Parent
: Electability (none / 0) (#286)
by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM EST

As I said before, this notion of electability, by looking at the map makes no sense today. It's simply a game that wonks play when they think they're making a point.

Parent
: Perhaps it is too early to make predictions (none / 0) (#309)
by Elporton on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:13:59 PM EST

but the only real difference between the final results of Bush v. Kerry and the estimates as of 5/24/04 was that Kerry lost OH, FL, MI and NV, all of which were longhshots, even then. And the public didn't know Kerry well at that point and the Republicans did a good job, in their own special way, of educating the voters.

Parent

Obama is NOT getting (none / 0) (#318)
by Mrwirez on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:44:34 PM EST

the white union building tradesman. I have been hearing it since the PA primary. It is getting louder, some of it racial, but most of it is a lack of respect for the Clintons, and mostly HILLARY. The guy's are funny when they think someone has gotten a crappy deal, and Hillary got one. I am telling you, Hillary Clinton could carry PA, WV OH and probably FL, AR, along with the regular BLUE states. What exactly has Obama got?? McCain owns AZ, NM, and probably CO. I am sure McCain will carry PA, OH and FL

WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING ????

You know... (none / 0) (#320)
by Siguy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:56:09 PM EST

Maybe everyone accusing Obama of misogyny should think about something for a second.

Doesn't it drive you crazy when you hear your preferred candidate accused of racism just because every racial issue was magnified by Obama being black?

Well, think about how you feel about that, how ridiculous it seems to you that the Clinton's played the race car and how unfair that coverage was. Now think about what you're saying, accusing Obama of sexism and misogyny and saying you won't vote for a man who doesn't respect women or the Democratic party.

My argument is not that there is no sexism or no racism, or even that there's been none in this campaign, but in an election like this one, with two truly pathbreaking candidates, truly groundbreaking individuals, isn't the most likely answer that neither of them is a racist or a misogynist, little things are just being horribly magnified by the high stakes and the unique natures of their candidacies?

Honestly, I don't know what to say here. I'm an Obama fan and I want the party to unite after the nomination is officially decided, and I'm shocked and upset to see so many fans of Hillary they'll never vote for him because he's somehow beyond the pale, somehow a repudiation of the democratic party. So just try to think, when you feel this anger against him, think about how ridiculous the racism charges seemed to you, and think about if maybe the misogyny charges should be put in the same category.

May electoral maps (none / 0) (#321)
by diogenes on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:20:10 PM EST

Weren't there polls in April to May 1992 that showed Bill Clinton running THIRD to both George Bush and Ross Perot?

AR has flipped for Clinton (none / 0) (#322)
by Prabhata on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM EST

A March Ras poll had McCain 50 Clinton 43. It appears Clinton has become stronger in in some red states. I think it's her "testicular fortitude" that those conservative like.

actually, the president is (none / 0) (#323)
by cpinva on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:25:00 PM EST

elected by the popular vote, which translates to the electoral vote. and the electoral vote is "winner takes all", not a pro-rata allocation. technically the electors don't have to vote the same way as the popular vote, but i don't think that's ever happened. at least, not enough to change the final outcome.

it's very similar to the primaries, with the exception of the "winner takes all" aspect. when i voted for sen. clinton in the va primary, i wasn't actually voting directly for her, i was voting on how to allocate the pledged delegates of the va dem. party, much like voting for electors.

jim j, has the convention happened, and i missed it? you keep saying sen. obama is the dem. nominee, but i've yet to see that announced officially. have you some insider knowledge you wish to share with the rest of the class?

Electability | 321 comments (321 topical)

Electability

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

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal