home

In Oregon, Obama Lost Working Class Voters

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:04:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is a lesson in reading an exit poll. Even in Oregon, Barack Obama lost working class voters to Hillary Clinton. You will read otherwise at Obama sites (Greg Sargent is a terrific and fair journalist, I was wrong to refer to him in that manner), but they will be disingenuous when they do so.

There are two basic characteristics that are used to define working class voters - income and education. In Oregon, a state as favorable as you can find for Obama on this score, Clinton won voters with a HS degree and no college 53-46. In Oregon, Clinton won voters earning less than $30,000 a year by 54-45.

If your intent is to bury your head in the sand, you will include the "some college" group (read COLLEGE STUDENTS) into the working class. Some Obama supporting observers will play that game. But that will not make the problem go away.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< The Day After: Florida And Michigan | U.S. Allowed Chinese to Interrogate and Abuse Gitmo Prisoners >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    In Oregon, Obama Lost Working Class Voters | 245 comments (245 topical)
    Kinda kills the "racist hillbilly" meme, (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    now doesn't it?

    My dad was actually arguing with me last night that racists only live in certain parts of the country. All the people who voted for Hillary in WV and KY did so out of racism. In Iowa and WI, there are no racists because there aren't as many AA's. That's why Obama won. Also, that's why Obama won Oregon.

    I couldn't believe these idiotic arguments were coming out of my own father's mouth. :-(

    Your dad is wrong (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    There are racists ALL OVER the country.

    I don't think that's why Obama is losing KY.  Also, in my experience, I have found that people who are likely to be racist are also likely to be sexist.  So I don't know how that translates into Hillary winning.

    On a more positive note, Obama doesn't seem to think most Americans will vote on race or Gender.

    [ Parent ]

    I know he's wrong, CST. (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:23 AM EST
    Sigh.

    It's amazing how these racist redneck hillbillies always somehow become enlightened when it comes to sexism. /snark

    Another big factor in the KY vote was the economy. 69% of the voters thought it was the most important issue. Obviously the economy is a very strong plus for Clinton.

    Personally, I think elitism is a large part of what is causing Obama's working-class problem. I don't believe that there are 17 million racists who have no problems with women in the Democratic Party.

    Call me crazy.


    [ Parent ]

    Hey Crazy....you're right. What Can We Do (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    with the likes of Dowd who continues to try to drag down Hillary in all her columns, not to mention the talking heads.  Too many ill-informed people just go along with whatever they say.  It is very evident on the blogs where many just parrot the talking points they have heard.

    [ Parent ]
    The long-term solution IMHO (5.00 / 9) (#76)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM EST
    is to break up the corporate stranglehold on the media by reinstituting the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Fairness Doctrine. I believe this type of legislation is already pending in the House somewhere. (More and Better Dems.) The corporate media has been trashing Dems for decades now and it's not going to end any time soon if we don't break up the news monopoly.

    The short-term solution? Set phasers on "ignore". Hillary's voters seem to be doing so quite nicely. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Seems solid to me....people laugh when one (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    talks about the "good old days", but those days were better, in many respects.

    [ Parent ]
    It is the "chattering class" (5.00 / 5) (#197)
    by 1040su on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:56:54 PM EST
    that is promoting this meme & otherwise intelligent people are falling for it hook, line and sinker.  I think KO has a lot to answer for on this front. Progessives were so happy that someone was finally telling their side of the story that they came to trust him implicitly and that has continued on into the primary season.  If he says the Clintons and their supporters are racists, well, they must be!  Then add to the mix Chris Matthews who has always hated the Clintons and a few others with axes to grind & VIOLA there you have it.  I couldn't believe my ears last night when CM actually pointed out that there were no black people in her crowd of supporters - that usually they sprinkle a few around for appearances.

    They are those that have correctly identified what makes these voters tick.  The Republicans have been very successful in painting the insulting caricature of Democrats as "Latte drinking, limp wristed liberals."  EJ Dionne wrote an op-ed recently that pointed out how both Gore & Kerry had "underperformed with these voters, particularly among men." EJ Dionne.  Last time I checked they were both very white.  Jim Webb has been talking about the Scots-Irish and their rugged individualism and how they admire toughness etc...  You see, the problem for these voters isn't that he is black, it's that he fits the sterotype they've come to believe about Democrats and Hillary doesn't.  But that line of reasoning will never be seriously broached by the new kewl kids at MSNBC.  As a side note, I saw an interview with Alec Baldwin the other night and they asked him about his political aspirations and why did he think the right hated him so much.  His best line of the night was "because they hate liberals who can throw a punch."

    [ Parent ]

    Racists of the World, Unite! (1.00 / 9) (#73)
    by Sawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM EST
    There are racists all over our country and we are not going away.  We are a factor to be reckoned with and we will not be ignored!

    [ Parent ]
    madamab, you're crazy (none / 0) (#39)
    by BGP on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    like a fox

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#49)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:23 AM EST
    Thanks. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Health care is a big issue (none / 0) (#213)
    by splashy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    I'm sure that is integrated with the economy. They knew that when they had "good jobs" health care was included. The bad jobs they get now do not.

    College students don't care about that. They have health care. Same with those with higher education.

    [ Parent ]

    LOLOL (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:58:05 AM EST
    How can he believe that when AA's repeatedly vote for him in the upper 80's to low 90's percentages?

    He doesn't believe it; It's all smoke.

    [ Parent ]

    obama should get a pry bar and let somebody (none / 0) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:26:04 AM EST
    remove his head from his butt.  He knows better, I would hope; but it keeps him from not having to face the truth.  

    [ Parent ]
    I really don't think (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    Obama does know better.  For the gazillionth time just examine the Roberts confirmation story.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:28:13 AM EST
    So you think most Americans WILL base their vote on race or gender????

    I have more faith in my country than that.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    I think racism and sexism are big problems in America, but I think that the Republican brand is so horribly damaged that people don't care. They were ready to vote for one of the two historic Dem candidates when this process narrowed down.

    Now I think HRC would kick McCain's butt, and Obama has a much smaller chance (he MIGHT be able to squeak out a win).

    I just want to nominate the butt-kicking candidate so I don't have to bite my nails like a lunatic till the Morning After in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    I would be lying if I said I wasn't excited to vote for the first black or female president.  It's definitely in the plus column for me, and I imagine there are many others that share that sentiment.  So I kinda think it might help either one of them in that regard.

    I am hopeful that either can win, and I would be happy with either, although I clearly have my preference.  I used to think Obama more electable (not why I support him though), not so sure now, but I think he can pull it out.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for your politeness... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    despite our different preferences for President, we can agree on a lot. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#205)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    I enjoy the banter too :)

    [ Parent ]
    Well there's a whole lotta difference.... (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    ...between the real reason people cast a vote and the motivations assigned to them by the media and creative class narrative. Well I've done my bit. My children are well educated and equipped to function in this brave new world. I thought the point of being a Democrat, though, was to care about other people's children too. And other people's problems. That's the elephant in the room for me with this new movement. Since so many people are being written off, just who exactly will benefit?

    [ Parent ]
    Let's say it's true (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    I totally disagree, I for one am sick of hearing Americans slandered; but if it were, then how is O planning to change their minds for the GE?

    [ Parent ]
    That's what I asked him. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    He seems to think the Clintons have a magic racism eraser that they will apply to Obama's campaign.

    Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    lol (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    Clinton's gonna save his ass lol.

    Well well, even Obama supporters don't think he can do it.

    [ Parent ]

    Yet he saw (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    nothing wrong with that argument. It's not Obama's fault he can't connect with working-class voters, it's just that they're all racists.

    Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    Not to mention (5.00 / 6) (#149)
    by Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    that Bill won't be feeling all lovey dovey. Obama trashed him.

    The only 2 term Dem in living memory. I just hated that.

    [ Parent ]

    You Have To Wonder How Long He Can Keep (5.00 / 6) (#171)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    losing these large blocs of voters before the sd's, the DNC and his followers notice he cannot win the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    My Guess Would Be (5.00 / 6) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    the day after the election. The DNC and party leadership wants his donor list and the money more than they want the WH.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's #1 job was to STOP HILLARY (5.00 / 5) (#187)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    that's all the DNC of Washington elites required of him. He didn't need to focus on issues and solutions - just "beat the B---h!"
    They backed and condoned a newbie senator repeatedly trashing the Clinton admin and praising the Reagan admin! Obama could even engage in mocking Hillary with sexist remarks - along with race-baiting and falsely accusing the Clintons of racism. Blacks would then vote along racial lines and the Kidz would be pushovers with their video game mentality targeting the "evil" Clintons.
    Whatever it took to prevent those Clinton hicks from the sticks returning to the White House again - without the blessing of the elite Establishment.
    And damn the loyal Democrats and Reagan Democrats returning to the party and voting for Hillary!
    The Elites are in charge now!

    [ Parent ]
    Josey (5.00 / 5) (#236)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    hits a bases loaded home run.  A perfect description of what this primary campaign is all about.

    And this part:
    the Kidz would be pushovers ..."

    Kids who aren't old enough to remember the Clinton Administration. So Obama trashes away to tar Hillary. Just sickening.

    Wish I could give you several dozen 5s.

    [ Parent ]

    It has been talked about (by (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by zfran on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:40:23 AM EST
    Donna B. and the like)that the goal is to get Republican lites into the party, the party doesn't need those poor, white voters..I guess us older voters will die off soon and so they don't matter,women don't matter at all (except Michelle and his daughters) and what will be interesting is when people like D.B. and Dean, who aren't exactly youngsters, are pushed out by the newby members of the party.

    [ Parent ]
    "then how is O planning . . (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST

    . . . to change their minds?"

    guilt and insults apparently.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (4.00 / 6) (#55)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    the theory is that the racists will go back to their true home and vote McCain while the good but erroneous Clintonistas will see the light and come home to Obama.  New registrations/increased turnout among the 'approved' voting groups will offset any losses.

    [ Parent ]
    This (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    is the most offensive post I have ever read at Talkleft.  Why isn't this poster banned, and who th f*** is uprating her racist rants?

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    Chrisvee is saying what he/she thinks Obama's campaign strategy is.

    It's not the poster's opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    I am so sorry! (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    Thank you, MadamB.

    My sincere apologies, ChrisVee.  My snark radar was off :( but that is no excuse for not checking it out more thoroughly.

    [ Parent ]

    Easy to do online, I think. :-) (none / 0) (#200)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oops, sorry (none / 0) (#195)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:56:41 PM EST
    Jane, calling someone racist isn't the same thing as proving it. You'll have to do better than that.

    [ Parent ]
    Mea Culpa, Madam (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:07:10 PM EST
    Yes, I should have recognized Chrisvee's posting name.  When I checked his/her past comments, I realized I've uprated most of his/her excellent posts myself. And, yes, I should have checked CV's past posts BEFORE I responded.

    Chris, please accept my apologies; if I could delete the post, I would do so immediately.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks Madam and Blog (none / 0) (#217)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:14:43 PM EST
    for the kind words.  Not to beat a dead horse, but I really do feel awful about my comment.  Is there no way to delete comments on this board?  Can I ask Jeralyn or BTD to do so, or is that kind of a misuse of their (no snark!) valuable time and resources?

    [ Parent ]
    Ok it's all good (none / 0) (#202)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    Jane, I've done that too. My snark radar is horribly off sometimes, along with my gadar. I should check into it.

    Glad it was a misunderstanding. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Hes not. (none / 0) (#46)
    by MichaelL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    Both democratic candidates has some states they can compete in that their opponent cant.

    [ Parent ]
    perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Josey on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    but it'll take much more money for Obama to win - and it's not a given that money will help.
    And he has to rely on white people he's dissed to clean up his racist mess.
    Even Jesse Jackson wasn't offended by Bill Clinton's remark.
    And it's doubtful historians were offended by Hillary's LBJ/MLK remark.

    Obama engaged in race-baiting and falsely accused the Clintons of racism, but sees no hypocrisy in attending a church for 20 years that espoused anti-white ideology.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    It just means that Appalachia DID extend to the west coast! </snark!>

    [ Parent ]
    No racism in Iowa ... (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Inky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:25:51 AM EST
    The Black Agenda Report has a good article on the pervasive institutional racism in the supposedly post-racist Iowa, pointing out the following salient fact:

    Blacks would seem to be under special surveillance in Iowa.  The state might have been the first in the nation to support Obama on the road to the White House but it is also first in the rate of racially disparate mass incarceration.  According to a recent Sentencing Project report, Iowa locks up African Americans at 13.6 times the frequency that it imprisons whites, the worst record in the nation.

    This is more than twice the terrible national black-white race disparity (5.6) in incarceration rates. Mississippi and Alabama both lock up blacks at 3.5 times the rate at which they imprison whites, making them look like bastions of progressivism compared  to relatively lily-white northern states like Iowa (13.6), Wisconsin (10.6), and South Dakota (10.0).

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    And note Wisconsin is second (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    in that.  I say again, as a lifelong resident of Wisconsin but a visitor to West Virginia with residents who are lifelong residents there, where I have met hundreds of people, that I have heard and seen far worse incidences -- though that word doesn't really capture the relentlessness nature of it -- of racism in Wisconsin.  

    And again, anyone who thinks that there is not racism in Wisconsin because of the primary results is not reading up on the reasons for it in the primary here, nor on the results of the vote only a few weeks on our first AA state supreme Court justice, etc., etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Oops! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Inky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    I screwed up the link. Here it is (I hope).

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    I live in WI (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    and our percentage of overt racism is disgusting in some areas. WI not racist? What a joke?

    [ Parent ]
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    I live in MA and there is DEFINITELY racism alive and well here, yet we have a black governer.  I think the way people treat people in everyday life is very different from how they look at politicians.

    [ Parent ]
    I think people look at politicians (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:56:18 AM EST
    and ask, "So, what are you going to do for me? Why should I let you run my city/state/country?"

    If they like a person's platform, they don't care if that person has extra melanin in their skin, or wears a pantsuit instead of pants.

    That's how I vote, anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    You are clearly MISSING (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:18:01 PM EST
    the entire point here.

    It goes something like this:

    If Obama wins a state, it is not racist.

    If Clinton wins a state, it is racist.

    This is very simple, yet I marvel at how many intelligent TL posters cannot follow the logic of the Big Boi Blogs.

    (/snark)

    [ Parent ]

    This new definition of racism.... (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    ...i.e, you are only a racist if you don't vote for Obama....is going to come back and bite people in the butt one day, that's all I going to say.

    [ Parent ]
    It seems to me (4.50 / 2) (#88)
    by Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    that we need to know if the extra AAs brought on line by Obama (remember Kerry brought them out to vote in huge numbers which is why everyone thought he had won, so how big is that constituency really?) will out number the lost Hill Dems to McCain (which I believe will be quite large, Mc Cain is actually closer to my values than Obama, who is too liberal for me).

    After that can anyone tell me what Bush's coalition was? What part of that will McCain lose and and can Obama win?

    Where are the mythical independents we hear about, are they really new voters or what did they vote last time? I don't really buy the independent thing, I know lots of so-called independents who are actually rabid liberals and actually vote Dem anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    When I read (4.00 / 4) (#37)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    some of the blogs and listen to the MSM, apparently I'm supposed to believe that all of the non-racist whites lives in states with low AA populations.  Isn't it odd that a less diverse state would be more tolerant?

    [ Parent ]
    Perfectly put (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    and again, it reminds me of anywhere in Wisconsin but Milwaukee, where 98%-plus of all AAs in the state live.  Traveling around the state, as I often have done to give talks, I frequently have dealt with people who point to Milwaukee as having a problem with racism but pride themselves on their towns not being racist at all.

    Of course, some of those areas still have a high percentage of the first Wisconsin people, Native Americans, who face great discrimination there -- but the locals tell me that's not from racism.

    Right.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, your dad might have a point. (2.00 / 1) (#244)
    by Newt on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    Oregon's blue-collar and white rural voters are very different from white blue collar folks in Appalachia.  Oregon has a strong libertarian streak and our rural voters are more likely to be Independent than Republican.  Our population is only about 2% black, and we don't have intergenerational ethnic conflict.  Racism really may be less of an issue here.   We don't have local school boards, so state-wide hate-free curriculum has been in place in the schools for years.  Tolerance and respect are core teachings in our schools.  Racism still exists, of course, it's just not as acceptable as in other places in the country.

    However, the Limbaugh effect is in full force in Oregon.  Thousands of Republicans switched parties to vote for Clinton, the candidate they most want to run against.  The talk show hosts are having a great time with encouraging their followers to undermine our Democratic primaries.  Without anti-Hillary motivation, they really can't inspire their side to vote, and we're on the fast track to fire our one and only Republican in the US Congress, Sen. Gordon Smith.  

    [ Parent ]

    is he an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#5)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    then it is not his fault.. its Obama Kool-Aid.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes he is... (none / 0) (#7)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    and I think my stepmother has been slipping the Kool-Aid into his morning OJ. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    It's obvious (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    that Obama's electoral problems are unsolvable.

    Maybe, maybe not (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    I think he can keep the Kerry states minus NH and win NM, CO, and IA. That gets us to an Electoral College tie. Dems are very likely to control most delegations in the 111th, and they'll make Obama President. Yes, I really think that's likely.

    [ Parent ]
    Do we (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    want to do that? It gives me a headache to think that the best Obama can do is 269 ev's. He will be seen as a completely illegitimate president if the house has to decide. And what of those districts that have dem representatives but voted for McCain? What are they to do? Should they vote the will of the people or the party line. A tie is horrible.

    I don't think he can win CO. Kerry was leading there in 2004 too.

    [ Parent ]

    Not only do I think it's possible (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:27:43 AM EST
    I think it's probably his best shot. The alternative is winning Ohio, Florida, or Missouri, or even pulling out a win in New Hampshire. Those are all long shots for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:41 AM EST
    I agree that it might be his best shot. However, if that's his best shot it's certainly not good a positive for his chances in Nov. Losing one small state would be the difference between a tie and a loss.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree, Missouri Is A Real Long Shot n/t (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    For me, it is not about whether obama can get (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    voted into office.  It is about letting another inexperienced, inept, victim playing, lazy person in the WH.  obama continues to show his true colors and to my mind, it is about him, not about us.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes it is (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    I agree with Hillary Clinton that the ultimate goal must be to get a Democrat into the White House next year. Full stop.

    [ Parent ]
    And, I hold my ground (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    that a bad democratic term will kick us back out of the WH in 4 years and it will take us 20 more to get back in.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, 100% agreed. (none / 0) (#124)
    by kelsweet on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:09:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He will not win all the Kerry (none / 0) (#58)
    by chancellor on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    states, IMO. He will lose PA. Therefore, he will lose the election.

    [ Parent ]
    I've changed my mind on PA (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    I believe he's slightly favored there. At least, that's what the polls now say.

    but you're right that if he loses PA, he loses the election.

    [ Parent ]

    PA (none / 0) (#89)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    Two things strike me about PA.  First, we have the Rendell, Casey, and Clinton machines to drive up the vote in Erie, Pittsburgh, and Philly.  That will be critical as usual to offset other parts of the state.  Second, I don't think that PA Republicans are that thrilled with John McCain.  I don't think he's viewed as conservative enough for them.  My fanatical Republican friends didn't have much good to say about him during the primary.  And Catholics are not very happy with McCain's position on the war.  So will they all come out for McCain?

    [ Parent ]
    re: It's obvious (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Artoo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    Unsolvable? What makes you say that? He's only been on the national scene for a few years, and he's only been relevant for 6 months or so. There are still people who don't really know him or know who he is. He's still got potential as a candidate and he's still got plenty of time to connect with those voters against McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Forget it. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:20:54 AM EST
    Obama has had the press fawning over him for months and he still can't close the sale in a democratic primary. The fact of the matter is that Obama's problems are only going to get worse once the GOP starts with the 527's.

    [ Parent ]
    The sale! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:28:04 AM EST
    Hillary can't close the sale either.  That's been proven.  We need someone who can close the sale!  This is proven!

    We've got such a problem, two candidates who have competed and can't close the sale.  

    Nobody likes the other candidate, and everybody likes my candidate.  That is certain.

    (Note: this posting is satire.)

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#70)
    by Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    One has closed with the Dems, but not with a  winning coalition, the other has not closed with the Dems, but has a better winning coalition with the country.

    Actually I'm beginning to feel sorry for the DNC,what's a power broker to do?

    [ Parent ]

    i respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#130)
    by kelsweet on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:16:13 PM EST
    I think that it is GLARINGLY obvious that the race took a turn after J.A.W. GD Americkkka etc etc. and no one is allowed to make this obvseration (i heard on the news)per BO. And this will block him in the GE, whether it is admitted or not, it is just fact. Plus the race card is OLD. I am sure there are some who weren't racist who will wind up being racist for being called racist for so long now. It is grating.
                                 I'm just saying

    [ Parent ]
    OOPS sorry i replied to (none / 0) (#133)
    by kelsweet on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:17:38 PM EST
    the wrong entry, but my opinion stands.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it? (4.00 / 4) (#40)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    I don't think so.  Many said that he didn't have a chance when he announced his bid for the nomination. Yet he is close to clinching it.  

    Obama was able to connect with a variety of voters during his time in Illinois politics. He may be able to do it again.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:32:48 AM EST
    has two demographic groups
    Latte liberals and AA's.

    He has not shown an ability to connect with any group outside those two so far (outside WI). His race against Keyes was a joke. You can't glean any information from that.

    [ Parent ]

    Indiana is full of (none / 0) (#129)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    latte liberals and AAs?

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:22:35 PM EST
    But that is who voted for Obama in large numbers. You do recall that HRC won Indiana?

    [ Parent ]
    He has shown abilities to connect (none / 0) (#146)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    with other groups during his Illinois career including his time as state senator and his Dem primary win to be the Dem Senate nominee.  I can also glean info from him winning East Chicago Indiana - a town with a majority Latino population - almost 2 to 1.  

    [ Parent ]
    You're (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    kidding? Obama has shown no such ability. His district was mostly upper income whites and AA's. In the Dem primary his main competition disentegrated. He had no GOP opposition to speak of in the senate race.

    The only time he has had a tough race he lost.

    [ Parent ]

    He has had many tough races in this very (none / 0) (#234)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    primary.  He seems to have done ok, at least better than HRC.  

    [ Parent ]
    What "variety" of voters in Illinois? (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    Seriously, do you have a source that says so?  I've read so many stories in Illinois media and haven't seen good evidence of that.  From what I can see, his state senate district combined mostly AAs with some college-town-type liberals -- the same two groups we see with him now.  I didn't see that his district had, for example, white working-class.  Did you see something different?  I'd like to read it, if so, to be reassured that he can reach others.

    [ Parent ]
    If he was running for President of Illinois... (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    I might be convinced. Except for the fact that he lost this demographic to Hillary in IL too. Oh, snap!

    Pennsylvania told the tale. He had six weeks of undivided attention, spent 30 million dollars, and did not make a dent. In many of these states he outspends Clinton 3 or 4 to 1, and has twice the field offices and twice the boots on the ground. And he still loses.

    After the convention he will be spread out nationally, have only about 12 weeks, will not be able to spend nearly as much per voter, and will have to deal with a critical media. I just don't see it happening for him.

    [ Parent ]

    The press (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Dave B on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:11:35 AM EST
    Actually tries to demean Clinton because she gets the working class uneducated vote.

    Who was it that Democrats were supposed to have a history of standing up for again?

    Seems like we are moving toward two parties for the rich...

    Yes (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    Suddenly we're now supposed to be ashamed of getting votes from people without college educations and who make less than $50,000/yr.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama won those making 50,000 a year in OR (2.00 / 1) (#54)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    He lost those making less than 30,000.

    [ Parent ]
    My remark (none / 0) (#69)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    is not specific to OR. Isn't the definition of working class usually set at under $50,000?

    [ Parent ]
    lol (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    Yes, the Repubs for the rich and happy and the Dems for the rich and guilt tripped lol

    [ Parent ]
    Seems like we have two parties for the rich (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    Spot on comment, sadly! As I did think the Democrats used to stand for the working person.  That is so discouraging.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by ruffian on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:11:15 PM EST
    That is certainly the way it was portrayed last night.  John King caught himself doing it and made a half apology for insulting anyone.

    So what is Obama's argument to working class Americans (since they are not as conveniently confined to Appalachia as he wants to pretend)?  Trust me, even though I have written you off at best and insulted you at worst? I have your best interests at heart, even though the vast majority of my donors and supporters are upper class elites and their college student offspring. Sorry you still won't get health care.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's coalition continues (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    Plus, Oregon isn't the problem; no one ever said that Obama couldn't win oregon.

    The problem is with working class whites in the northeast, and you can't win a Presidential election if they really don't like you.

    The Wright factor (4.25 / 4) (#15)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    was huge in KY, IMHO.

    78% of the KY voters thought Obama shared Wright's values in some way.

    The 22% who said he didn't share Wright's values at all voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it's hard to say (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    whether thats a cause or a symptom.

    [ Parent ]
    The Wright Factor Extends Beyond KY (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by BDB on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    For an issue that he's supposedly put behind him, it's hurting him everywhere, even Oregon.

    Here's my summary of exit polls from IN, NC, WVA, KY and OR on the issue.  I think it didn't register as much in Oregon because it's not a particularly religious state.  Similarly, it was somewhat under the radar in NC because of the number of AA voters.  But if you want to know why Hillary is running there more strongly than Obama is against McCain, it's because the non-Dem voters are going to look and be a lot more like her primary voters in NC and other states than Obama's.  He's pretty much maxed out urban liberals and AAs.

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder what % thought he was muslim? (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimotto on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:30:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, I think that pollsters may muddle (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM EST
    that question a bit in people's minds as to whether that means religion or origing (just as Jewish can mean one, another, or both in people's minds).

    Obama is of Arab origin, not African, after all -- as his name indicates.  (Kenyans of African origin tend to have Christian names.)  It's the result of ignorance about Arabs, Muslims, etc., in this country.  And I've been polled several times (in a swing state), and questions relating to this are really poorly worded.

    [ Parent ]

    He could have come here (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by BGP on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:05:59 PM EST
    and tried to persuade them otherwise.

    [ Parent ]
    Is $30,000 the standard for determining (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    "working class?" Aren't those making $50,000 traditionally defined as working class also?  What were the stats for that group?

    This is not to argue with the obvious fact that he hasn't connected with a segment of voters.  

    You can make that argument (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    but even if you do, what of the education issue?

    [ Parent ]
    education and Clinton voters (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by noholib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    Yes people without higher education have been voting for Senator Clinton rather than Senator Obama.  However, I can assure you that are many highly educated people who support Senator Clinton enthusiastically. Yes, dear Obama-supporters, there are even professors with PhDs who find Senator Clinton more true to their liberal Democratic values.  Imagine that!

    [ Parent ]
    A male die-hard Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    who is one of my best friends, supports Hillary.

    Did I mention he has two Masters' Degrees and a Ph.D?

    Oh, and did I mention I've got a Masters' Degree too?

    The stereotyping, it burnnnnnssssss!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, my (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    wife for one, a Medievalist at an eastern PA. university.  And I have advanced degrees in history as well.  And, come to think of it, neither of us is a racist.  Imahine that!

    [ Parent ]
    That's what I hate about generalizing (none / 0) (#204)
    by CST on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    We make assumptions about people based on polls, whatever, that say 5x% of people w/ degrees voted for so-and-so.  Well, that also tells me that 4x% of those people voted for the other person.  So obviously there is gonna be some people who "defy demographics".  And 4x% is not that small of a number.  (btw, I am using x cuz i don't know the percentages, and frankly don't care enough to find out).

    [ Parent ]
    It is a problem for him. (none / 0) (#102)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    How much of one we won't really know until the GE campaign really begins.

    [ Parent ]
    so... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    would we be better off nominating someone who does not have this potential problem, rather than wait till it is too late?

    [ Parent ]
    She has her own problems (none / 0) (#180)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    as does every candidate who wins a primary with less than 100 % of the votes.  That's what the GE campaign is for.

    [ Parent ]
    I just realised (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:17:20 AM EST
    They're workists, people who judge others solely by the quality of their work or lack thereof.

    How about blogists? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:23:11 AM EST
    Blogists are people who judge the character of candidates and the minds of their supporters, and generalize from these judgments, even though they have no personal relationships whatsoever with either.  

    Blogists also take campaign rhetoric literally, and believe that once a trend is visible in a campaign, it continues forever....and therefore judgments made early in a campaign are as good as final.

    Blogism is a big problem on blog comment threads.

    [ Parent ]

    Shouldn't that (none / 0) (#38)
    by Hope on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST
    be "bloggism"?

    [ Parent ]
    I love it (none / 0) (#93)
    by thentro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:49:14 AM EST
    comment culture can be a beast.

    [ Parent ]
    So I take it (none / 0) (#223)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    that you see yourself as part of the problem?

    [ Parent ]
    I read (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:40:58 AM EST
    a comment last night at the Orange Place That Shall Not Be Named that blamed people for being poor.

    I'm thinking FDR is turning over in his grave but maybe that's just me.

    [ Parent ]

    Their Libertarian, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:45:50 AM EST
    Social Darwinist roots are showing.

    Nothing annoys me more than that type of idiocy coming from supposed Democrats.

    Yes, 47 million in poverty and there's nothing we can or should do to help them.

    [gritting teeth]

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't Obama promise, immed. after the (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    Edwards endors., to solve poverty w/i a given no. of years?

    [ Parent ]
    I guess the Obamans (none / 0) (#107)
    by madamab on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:57:31 AM EST
    at the Daily Kos didn't get that memo...

    [ Parent ]
    10years? i'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#165)
    by kelsweet on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:38:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Remember when (