They Like Him, But Will They Vote For Him

HuffPo e-mailed me my friend Al Giordano's post that lauds Charles Blow's absurd piece that discusses the fact that white folks like Obama but ignores the fact that, as of now, they will not vote for him in large numbers in key swing states.

Blow's column is incomprehensible yet smear filled. Giordano enjoys the smears but ignores the problems:

Obama's favorable and negative ratings among whites have paired at five point increases. . . . [H]e's more popular today among white voters than he ever was prior to February.

Obama is more popular with whites now says Giordano. Which begs the question - then why does he get less white votes now than he did in February? Obama is poised to lose the white vote in North Carolina and Indiana by 3-2 at least. He lost the white vote by 2-1 in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. He loses white working class voters to McCain while Clinton wins them. He now runs worse than ever in head to heads with McCain while Clinton runs better than she ever has.

I do not doubt that Obama is better liked, but I am not at all sure anymore that he is likely to get more VOTES. And votes are what count in politics.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Rezko: Government to Rest Case Monday, Defense by Wednesday | Unity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If I get kicked out, I'll understand (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    but I'm sorry.  Anything sent to you by Huffington Post is about like recieving e-mail from Viagra sites.

    That site imploded weeks ago.

    I recognize that it's still linked like crazy.  I also recognize that the "Dudge-like" style gives that site lee-way.  

    I sure gave it lee-way for a long time.  I figured the headlines and the bias......big deal.

    But I also want to be on record that Huffington Post crossed a line.

    It's a mysterious line.

    But it definitely crossed a line.

    It has no credibility today.

    That site will die a slow death.  She really did great, until this election.

    But.....it's over.

    I am convinced of this.  She's become a "Greta" of politics.


    Only the crazies will still go there soon.

    That site [Huffington Post] imploded weeks ago. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    That site imploded in January 2008.

    Linked from Talk Left. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    You Should See The Bernstein Hit Piece (none / 0) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    on Hillary over at HuffPo.  Honestly, what is with that guy.  He writes a book about Hillary that is nothing but good, yet every piece he posts is negative about her.  Did Hillary rebuff his advances at one time or what?

    Think she must have spiked his book! (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    It's been a long time... (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    since Carl has been relevant and I'm sure it bothers him that no one really cares about what he writes so if he can hit a home run for the lekking community...he gets 47% of the voting populace.

    Uppity women recall pushy (none / 0) (#143)
    by Salt on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:22:14 PM EST
    and he thinks he advocating on behalf of "People High Up in the Democratic Party" who tell him things about Hillary, I always believed he was referencing Sen. Kennedy.  The guys is a waste and its not his first hit piece a while back on CNN he was advocating that had talk to some Dem Pooh Ba who knew Hillary and that she would know to take her place behind Obama for the good of the party.

    You must be referring to (none / 0) (#142)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    the night of the PA debate and the 24 hours of purging Hillary supporters from their membership that began immediately following the debate.

    Did Huff really purge Hillary supporters? (none / 0) (#189)
    by Newt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:39:25 AM EST
    How did they purge?  Account deletions?

    One thing though (none / 0) (#181)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:34:10 PM EST
    Disgusting behavior by sites like Huffington Post, Kos, TPM, Americablog, Atrios might open the door for other sites.

    lek (none / 0) (#187)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:00:35 AM EST
    see here

    Lexicon is power  ;-)


    I (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    read the first sentence of the article, which is a lie.

    Why go further?

    Being "liked better" (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:28:21 PM EST
    is absolutely the criteria for running for Prom King.  I say let's send Obama a crown. Then let's concentrate on choosing the next President of the United States.  He can still run for that, too, but he has to run on his record, the issues and competence.

    Didn't you know (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    that being better "to have a bear with" makes you a better president?

    Catch up, already!! ;-).


    Before you have a bear. . . (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:34:52 PM EST
    with someone, do you have to be married?

    Result: "Gladly the cross-eyed ." (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:43:13 PM EST
    But it certaily explains their push for abstinence only education ;-).

    (Okay, I admit, I'm a typo doofus! ;-)


    I'm going to laugh about (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by eleanora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:02:27 PM EST
    "having a bear" all day! Actually, if I have to have a bear with someone, I'd go with Hillary, because she'd probably know what we should do. And then we'd go have a beer or five :)

    My recent most favorite tpyo barely lasted a week (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ellie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    I was still enjoying 'Chicken soap' -- thanks, Maria!! -- when I got this correspondence:

    Dear Sir or Madman


    Only if you arm them (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by blogtopus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    and then it's a whole new can of WORMs

    Ha. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    A Crown Of Thorns Since He Is Perceived (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    by his followers as messiah like.

    He needs to promise (none / 0) (#19)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    a gas tax break in every pot

    Probably not (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by vigkat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    But he definitely needs to give us a clue as to what it is he IS promising.  Vague, generalized references to hope and change, with no substantive guidance as to what exactly that means, is not cutting it -- it simply does not sustain.

    Exactly, even the pundits (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:56:02 PM EST
    keep saying that Hillary and Obama have nearly identical policies (since Obama keeps copying hers, it's no wonder).  So, he should be able to talk directly to the difference...that change he plans.  Rev Wright kept saying, "Change, it is a comin'" so, he apparently knows what Obama is planning.

    The gas tax holiday is a stark difference (none / 0) (#190)
    by Newt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:53:58 AM EST
    Why is Hillary, with all her experience, advocating a gas tax holiday that even the experts say would just cause an increase in oil prices?

    For the record, Obama said we need to not let the alternative energy tax breaks expire.  The still powerful Republican Senate Minority is blocking an extension of the alt energy tax breaks.  His direction on this and the pandering gas tax holiday are pretty clear.  Why do you have a hard time understanding the policies Obama proposes?  You could just look them up on his website, they're pretty clear.


    Why does Obama (none / 0) (#200)
    by vigkat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:25:08 PM EST
    have such a difficult time verbalizing what he means by hope and change?  His failure to do so causes me to assume he purposely chooses to leave it vague so that others can read into "hope and change" what they choose.

    Better Liked? (none / 0) (#183)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:40:47 PM EST
    "I do not doubt that Obama is better liked, but I am not at all sure anymore that he is likely to get more VOTES."

    Better liked based on what evidence?

    That claim is as baseless as Charlie Blow's 'absurdity.'


    Nothing But A Hit Piece On Hillary By Blow (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:35:05 PM EST
    No wonder Huff Po is lauding it.

    Did You See The HUGE Graphic & Post (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    regarding early voters going for obama in IN?  The only time Hillary get anything that big is if it is perceived as a negative for her.

    Carl Berstein has a new piece up there (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    also but I can't bear to read it.

    Bernstein Needy of Attention (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    Last summer, I read his entire 560 or so page- biolgraphy of Hillary.  You actually come away from the book with a rather sympathetic picture of her.  He give a fair picture of the healthcare fiasco of the early WJC presidency and Hillary's mistakes, but also puts to bed all sorts of rumors about her personally and praises her senate campaigns, etc.; in short, the book does not hesitate to praise where praise is due. But ever since his book tour, he's been emphasizing negative things that either the book does not or that misrepresent what he says in his own book.  

    He's looking for headlines. Pathetic, I'd say.  


    Negativity sells... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:46:28 PM EST
    Hilarious! Views are votes? No. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    This seems like the Wilder effect corollary. As they withold their votes, they like him better because they feel guilty. "I'm sorry-I like you-but I just don't think you're ready to be president-even though an AA president is a good idea-but just not now."

    you're likable enough Barack. (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by Salo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:52:39 PM EST

    Ha! the best response evah (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    Your Likeable (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:02:39 PM EST
    enough Barack.....

    Just NOT electable enough....


    since i never took (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    ms. huffington as anything more than the sum of her husband's wealth, she's never disappointed me.

    actually BTD, you were kind, absurd is really giving mr. blow's piece far more credibility than it deserves. truth be told, i'm not at all convinced sen. obama is better liked, by anyone, than he was when the campaign first started, surveys notwithstanding.

    i'm sure he's a nice guy, in that "i'm really so much superior to you intellectually, but i'll dain to talk to you anyway" kind of way, and his wife is his equal in that regard.

    the clinton's both come across as genuinely warm and nice people, who you'd be smarter after having dinner with them, as well as having a great time.

    with the obama's, you'd be asking for the check after the appetizers.

    Blow is lying (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:42:10 PM EST
    unless Obama has gotten a LOT less popular among Black people.

    He claims his data is from CBS/NYTimes polls.
    Well here are the overall numbers from February, and now...

    2/20-24/08  Favorable 45%   Unfavorable 23%
    4/25-29/08  Favorable 39%   Unfavorable 34%

    to me, that looks lie a 6 point drop in favorable, and a 9 point rise in unfavorable.

    But Blow is telling us that Obama has a white favorable rating of +5% since February?

    Then Why Aren't More Whites Voting For Him? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    For what it's worth... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    and I don't trust Rasmussen...

    Rasmussen's Favorability Polls

    show Obama at 49% - 49% which is only a small change from Feb 28th, which was 51% - 48% ( down 3 points in favorable and up 1 in unfavorable )

    ALSO a note for the lekkers Term is defined here - perhaps start from the bottom of the comments

    Obama has a 1 point advantage over Hillary in 'unfavorable'

    Let's end that tripe about Hillary's unfavorables here and now.


    If I understand the (none / 0) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    definition... it is no longer called the Great Orange Satan but the Great Orange Lek.

    You're not giving up on Lek are you? Ha!

    Who's the lekliest today?


    I am 100% in favor of 'lek' (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    as for who is 'lekkiest' - My award for yesterday was clearly PushPol who used the Hillary vote for bankruptcy 7 times in one thread to justify Obama being against the gas tax rollback. It was the best evidence of chattering I have ever seen.

    Now if you wish to work the DK angle...it's the Great Orange Cheeto licking lekkers...or for brevity, Cheeto licking lekkers sufficiently gets the point across.


    Lukasiak needs to read more carefully (none / 0) (#53)
    by AF on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    The comparison is to last July.

    of course... (none / 0) (#76)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    him pulling 30% of the white voters per the cross tab in the last SUSA poll in NC suggests that Blow is totally off the mark.

    Yahoo has it as one of their headlines right now (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Saul on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    That whole (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:55:56 PM EST
    article could be summed up as "Obama is unelectable."

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    have you thought about doing a post about the linked article above. I would like to hear your insight. Do you think Obama could possibly win a general election without working class whites? It seems not getting the white working class votes has cost us election after election.

    As one GOP leader said (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by felizarte on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    right after the "bitter/cling" remark to blue collar workers:  "Now you have a good reason not to like him:  he does not like you."

    Took This Off Craigslist...I Wonder What (none / 0) (#136)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:17:09 PM EST
    effect it will have on the vote.  And not to be cynical, but I hope this is all true.

    During the past week, hundreds of ex Obama supporters have signed up to help
    Senator Hillary Clinton and our party win in November against McCain- Bush.

    It's not too late for you to join a HillRod Campaign Team KNOCKING ON DOORS this weekend in Greensboro for Hillary or by sending a donation of any amount
    under $500.00 to hillary clinton for president.

    The other Canddiate is running scared, he i afraid to debate Senator Clinton in North Carolina on the issues we care about.

    The other Candidate has not explained why he refuses to wear a US Flag Pin or even acknowlegde the good in our country.


    Stanley Woodley
    North Carolina Veterans for Hillary Clinton May 6th


    Flag pin (none / 0) (#191)
    by Newt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:01:50 AM EST
    C'mon, don't tell me you haven't heard his response to the rediculous flag pin controversy.  He said he does wear one, he did wear one that a disabled veteran gave him, and he doesn't think a flag pin proves patriotism.  Nor do I.  Do you?  

    "The other Candidate has not explained why he refuses to wear a US Flag Pin or even acknowlegde the good in our country. "

    He also said he loves our country, and how could he not, given that he is a mixed race candidate for the POTUS. Did you even listen to him?

    I'm a disabled veteran, and I sure wouldn't use a flag pin to prove I'm patriotic.


    that was an astounding drop: (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by dotcommodity on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    yahoo says
    The April poll -- conducted before the Pennsylvania contest -- also showed an overwhelming preference for Clinton over Obama among working-class whites. They favored her over him by 39 percentage points, compared to a 10-point Obama lead among white college graduates

    Wow. That was a HUGE drop from the 10 point lead: in the exit polls for PA look at post grads: who went 51% to Clinton!


    Hillary (none / 0) (#170)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:12:11 PM EST
    got the vote out in Pittsburg colleges.  Chelsea also has gotten better and better.

    Philly colleges didn't turn out.

    The "youth" vote is disappear, just as most people predicted.


    I believe it is all working class voters (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by desert dawg on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    not just whites.  If true, let's start framing it that way.  It's not whites that won't vote for him, it's workers.

    "I find it ironic that Hillary is being done in by the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy"--Dennis Miller


    THANK YOU!!! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    This is beginning to annoy me.

    How we talk about this is supposed to matter.

    Longer comment below about this.


    Well, Giordano is almost right about one thing (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    he writes, quoting Blow:

    Wait. The numbers show that the cynical effort to turn the 2008 campaign into a race riot has hurt the popularity of one candidate among an important demographic, and it's not Barack Obama:

    On the other hand, black Democrats' opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

    Giordano is just wrong about who tried to turn the campaign into a "race riot" (exaggerate much?) Yes, Obama's efforts to turn the campaign into a race riot have indeed hurt Clinton among A-As.  I agree with him there.

    The Reason Behind Clyburn, Clay And The (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    Color of Change appearances may have had more to do with driving down her favorable rating among AA's and destroying Clinton's electability argument than forcing her out of the race. Problem is that it also makes him less likely to garner Clinton's demographic groups and makes both candidates unelectable.

    By the way BTD... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    you should doubt that Obama is better liked if you actually study the favorability polls as I indicated futher up thread.

    Like much of what is Obama, there isn't much there, there.

    Here's some good news: (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    "Al" Smith, who helped Clinton win CA and TX, is now on the ground in NC.


    Ahem... (none / 0) (#62)
    by aequitas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    Clinton didn't win Texas.

    She won the democratic primary in TX (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    as for the caucuses, they're disenfranchising everywhere.  Take that argument somewhere it won't be laughed away.

    she won the popular vote. (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:08:49 PM EST
    Due to the dual system, he won 5 more delegates.

    Actually no caucus delegates (none / 0) (#84)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    will be awarded until the state convention in June.

    A done deal on RealClearPolitics (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    and AP, but, hey, you are our person on the ground in TX.

    I have a friend who was elected a Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    delegate to the state convention at her district convention.  She seems to think that during the district conventions, Obama's lead in delegates shrunk from 5 to 2 because of precinct delegates who did not show up for him.  We don't know if that's true or not, but that's what went around.

    I saw it happen at the LD caucuses in WA (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by lookoverthere on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    state. Clinton delegates held the 39th, but she picked up one (and possibly two) in the 40th. Lots and lots of empty seats for the Obama contingent in the 40th.

    It happened in Denver too (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:11:52 PM EST
    It was a beautiful winter day, there was fresh powder in the mountains, and a lot of those gungho Obama caucus kiddies decided it was more important to go skiing than to go to the Denver county Dem convention. I know at least one alternate who got to fill in for an absent Obama delegate and vote for Hillary.

    I expect the same thing to happen on May 10 and May 17 when we have the state conventions to elect delegates to the national convention. I'm an alternate; I'll be there both days.

    Face it, us old broads know what's important - more experience, better insurance, and showing up.


    Tawanda! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by tree on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:21:10 PM EST
    Correct (none / 0) (#171)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:13:09 PM EST
    so she is still the winner by technicality.  :)

    Also, I read he got 3 more delegates than her.


    I have to say (none / 0) (#186)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:53:13 PM EST
    that the results of the caucus should mirror the primary...  Why did that not happen??  

    I have too many words, I was there and it was a sad day for Democracy when Obama and his paid operatives came to town.

    I have posted about these before.  This news may not come out in the MSM until Obama is the nominee.


    Paid operatives (none / 0) (#192)
    by Newt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:04:55 AM EST
    Did Obama pay people to caucus?  Where have you posted this, or where could I get more information? Has it been in the news?

    Look (none / 0) (#201)
    by Leisa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:59:54 PM EST
    at Moveon.org for example...

    Texas (none / 0) (#133)
    by aequitas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    The objective of the Texas primary election was to win delegates - not votes.  Obama won the most delegates.  

    Also, the small difference in the popular vote is less than the number of Ditto-Heads that participated.  


    Yes, I was there.... (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by soccermom on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:36:11 PM EST
    Voted during the day.  Who I didn't see at the caucus later:  single moms with small children, 2nd shift workers (white, black, Latino), single dads with small children, or older voters for whom the lateness of the caucus was a problem with transportation.

    Hardly favored the very voters Sen. Obama needs in the GE.

    Win the battle, lose the war.


    Yes, I was there too (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    and our friend kindly agreed to watch our children but I had to leave after five hours so she could get home.  Our older folks, and parents with children in tow were standing out in the cold (yes it was cold and wet that night even in Texas) for hours..many had to leave.  

    I must say that everyone there handled themselves so well for the most part and worked together. I left there so impressed with the people of my district.  An Obama supporter even drove my husband home.  Everything started to change when the noise for Hillary to drop out started (after Texas and Ohio).  It's a shame for all of us.  


    I think (none / 0) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    he's been there for at least a couple of weeks

    Clinton has a fairly good ground org. here. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    I have been very impressed actually by the coordination of the local offices here in NC.  Additionally, she has more offices than Obama in Indiana (he has 22, she has 28 I think).  They have caught on to the ground game.  

    Something Doesn't Ring True Here (5.00 / 10) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    Everytime we say "Obama's problem with white voters" we are not really being accurate and the most truthful we can be about this.

    And it will only support something that I think will be very bad for America, the idea that if Obama doesn't win here or even in the General Election, it's cause America is still a racist country.  NOT because Obama himself might have been an insufficient candidate, NOT because non-racist Americans looked at him honestly and decided against him.

    His problem isn't with white voters.  Someone above says his problem is with workers.  I think that's a fair way to put it.

    Basically, we have seen at the very least some swing.  Some voters who HAPPEN to be white (given that Obama gets 90% of the black vote and that will never change, it only stands to reason anyone else still on the fence is non-black) were perfectly OK with voting for Barack Obama.

    Now they are second guessing that choice.

    All I can say is Obama is not having a problem with white voters here in this case, he is having a problem with people who are beginning to question his electability, his judgment, his ability to get things done.


    Every time we say "Obama's problem with white voters" we are baiting the issue.  I think we should stop saying it like that.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:41:12 PM EST
    you are right about not saying "white" voters.

    Obama has a problem winning workers, women, Latinos, seniors, etc - essentially a huge chunk of the Democratic base.


    You're right. We shouldn't allow them (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:46:52 PM EST
    to make it a race issue. Though that is hard since that's the way they do polling-by demographics.

    I agree! (none / 0) (#188)
    by Leisa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:01:09 AM EST
    Most us us choose to vote for Hillary because we think she is better qualified to be POTUS.  

    I am  tired of being labeled a racist, uneducated middle aged white woman because I vote for Hillary...

    Obama would have my vote if I felt that he was who he claims to be.  My choice has nothing to do with his name, race or pastor and everything to do with my informed idea of his character.


    It should read "non-black voters" (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by dianem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:18:17 PM EST
    It's not just white people who don't like to vote for Obama. Non-black minorities are not the enthusiastic about him. But "black v. white" fits nicely into the media narrative, while "Obama is only really popular among black voter's" does not.

    Remember, that if they put it that way he (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    would then be seen as the Black Candidate and that is a no-no.

    Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide if (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by bridget on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST
    biased reporters would stop reading the Drudge report and pay attention to the "real" Hillary Clinton as described in the following

    Milissa McEwan (Shakesville) report from a recent Hillary Clinton Indiana townhall-style event (well worth reading). See "Democracy" from 4/30. Sorry I still have to learn how to post a link on this site.

    I also read in another report that Obama talks and complains a lot about Hillary in his speeches these days while Hillary talks only issues.

    btw. I do not believe that Obama is better liked than HC. Plenty of voters (like me) are not moved by him at all re charisma and completely unimpressed re his knowledge of policy and just about any issue discused so far in debates.

    The majority of Dem voters don't read Obama blogs, watch cable TV - and they couldn't tell you the first thing about the "Hillary Clinton/Obama Rules. They also remember Hillary Clinton from  her First Lady days. And AFAIK HC is still the most admired woman in the country.  

    Blow's article (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST
    He starts with the contention that what the Clinton's said was racist in its nature, when the fact is the Obama campaign, "framed" it as racist to the AA community.  It was a systematic twisting of the Clinton statements by the Obama campaign, MSM, surrogates and blogs.  Obama campaign knew full well that without 80 to 90% of the AA vote, they would be nowhere in the primaries.  .

     Hillary's campaign did not conduct a contemptous campaign to ruin Obama's image among whites, Obama's failures as a candidate causes the Wright issue.  Hillary had nothing to do with Wright.  

    Clinton Did Not Have To Conduct (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:24:11 PM EST
    a contemptous campaign to ruin Obama's image among whites. He did a fine job of doing that all by himself with his own words and his associates.

    I agree w/everything you say except to (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:36:47 PM EST
    question your penultimate sentence.  I'm reading Maya Angelou's I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings  Really interesting to me, in light of the Obama/Wright relationship was Angelou's  description of a tent revival meeting and how the poor black attendees interpreted the sermon about charity.  Not that far from the Rev. Wright's philosphy.  The meek shall inherit the earth, to the detriment of the "haves," who are, of course white people.  

    Was looking for the disagreement (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    I agree that "liberation theology" does have an aspect of a crusading christ who will judge and give the earth to the meek.  The churches when they saw that people were going to "revolutionary Marxist anti religion"  politics in the 60's, kicked up the "inheritance by the meek" aspect.  

    I think this is where Obama got caught and where Wright did not let him get away with it.  He thought the speech pacified it and put it away, but alas, he did not realize that Wright and his church were part of that movement and Wright was not about to give it up, even for a Obama.   I think Obama thought that "Obama's mission" was more important than "Wright's" life long mission.  

    I still find this as the ultimate passion play about the culture wars.  It verges on Greek tragedy proportions and yet it gets sort of trivialized.  

    Personally for me, I have a hard time respect Wright's style cause of the Hillary attack at the pulpit.  I have a hard time finding the core "Christian" mercy etc.  


    I was my travel friend's main source of (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    information (yes, I'm a news junkie) on the latest on Obama/Wright.  I told her Obama had finally dissed Wright.  She sd., good.  I sd., but isn't that inconsistent with The Speech?  We talked about Wright's telling his congregation  the U.S. government may be behind HIV/Aids.  She sd., so did the Pres. of South Africa and look at the Tuskegee Project.  I sd., but Wright knows better.  We didn't get into Wright's public comments and actions re Hillary Clinton. My friend, who supports Obama, sees nothing wrong with Obama's possibly choosing a church of 8000 members and in the IL Senate district he coveted for political as opposed to theological affinity reasons.  So, I guess "teflon" is a pretty good description.  

    supporters say. He already has their support.

    What about those who don't support him? You know, the primary voters he's going to need to win the rest of the primaries?

    And if he's the nominee, he's going to have to win the support of people who didn't support him in the primary.

    I don't think Teflon is the word to apply.


    My friend did recently acknowledge (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:02:29 PM EST
    Clinton might win the nomination; this was a first.

    The sermon ofn the mount (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    as the Judean People's Front suggested was a guarentee that the oppressing class shall continue it's social imperialism...brother.

    Heaven is the big rock candy mountain and is not of this earth.  If you want a left wing revolution just say it out loud and grab a machine gun.  if you want to fight get on with it and stop hiding behind piety.


    i (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:21:26 PM EST
    watched Obama on CNN a few minutes ago.

    Basically he just criticized Hillary's gas tax idea.

    Of course he said nothing about ANY IDEA HE MIGHT HAVE - just criticized her idea.

    Once again - Obama is a 'movement', with some similarities to cultist behavior.  What are his own ideas?  I think he is using the Dem party in a cynical way.  I still don't regard him as a true Democrat.  I think he would sell out our party ideas in a moment's notice, and compromise them beyond all recognition.

    Or you could look at the actual argument. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    Giordano rightly points out the flaw in the narrative of Obama not getting white votes. He is dead on in pointing out that "when Clinton wins state primaries that, because of demographics, she was always going to win - last week, Pennsylvania and next week, Indiana - they then wave that event up like a blood-soaked flag as proof of their narrative."

    It has been said here numerous times that this reace is about demographics. Hillary wins the places she should win, Obama wins the places he should win. In PA, he lost by less than 10 (technically) after having trailed by as much as 25, so he clearly picked up some votes that weren't there for him at the beginning of the race.

    Meanwhile, the column you dismisss as absurd points to a very real affect on Hillary Clinton's reputation among black voters. Losing 36 points among blacks while Obama has picked up 5 among whites is not "incomprehensible." It's very clear evidence that Sen. Clinton is alienating voters who are very important to the Democratic party in the fall.

    This is another example of holding up the race card without admitting that it's a race card. When I point out that 162,000 whites citing race as an important factor in PA made a difference in the spread, I get blasted as playing the race card in his loss. But if all I say is that "they will not vote for him in large numbers in key swing states"--casting the net much wider than my analysis did--then I'm only promoting CW.

    The fact is that Sen. Clinton has loyal supporters, just like Obama. They're both fighting hard for the nomination, but it's becoming more and more clear that at the end of the day Obama is going to lead on the scorecard. Hopefully, those big fans of Hillary's will support her party in the fall. If they don't, then did they really support her to begin with?

    wow... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:27:04 PM EST
    I suppose if you throw all reason out the window that makes sense. That of course explains why Hillary has closed from being 19% down in NC to 7% down it's because she was always expected to do 7% because of the demographics?

    I suppose that if you ignore the clear implications of the statements by Rasmussen

    New polling in New Hampshire shows that Clinton has gained ground on McCain in the Granite State while Obama is heading in the opposite direction.

    and this comment...

    In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it's Clinton 47% Obama 44%. That's the third straight day that Clinton has held a slight edge over Obama (see recent Democratic Nomination results). Last Monday, Obama led by eight percentage points.

    which makes it clear that there has been a 10 point shift in just a few days

    The sad fact that Obama's campaign gamed the black public and the media to get their votes was a bitter, divisive and stupid thing that threatens to split the party but yeah, Obama now dominates the black vote but the price has been, the white votes and it is proving to be a heavy price to pay.

    As for proof on how Obama 'gamed' the black public to paint Clinton's as racist...see The Democratic Underground: Putting All The Cards On The Table, The Race Memo

    Was Obama unhappy with putting out this race bait memo?

    Do you really want to have a discussion on candidate movement wrt to race?


    I would love to have a real conversation (none / 0) (#137)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    about the candidates and race.

    It is my contention that those voting on purely racial grounds are now supplying a significant portion of Hillary's support, enough to inflate her win in PA from 2 points to 9.

    I also contend that Obama sold the black community down the river over Wright, but they won't turn their backs on him b/c at this point they see what the Clintons are willing to do to win, and they don't like it.

    I'm not a blind mouse following Obama. I know he's as dirty as she is, but once in office I actually trust him to change things. Hillary straight up says she doesn't want to change how the game is played. Her whole candidacy is based on the notion that she is the best player.

    Do what you want with your own vote. I gave mine to Obama, and in the fall I'll give it to the Democrat, whether that means the game changes or not.


    a conversation on race... (none / 0) (#147)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:30:29 PM EST
    I have actually been doing that here on correntewire

    It is my contention that those voting on purely racial grounds are now supplying a significant portion of Hillary's support, enough to inflate her win in PA from 2 points to 9.

    I don't think so because those voters would have always been in her column but if you want to offer something in the way of support, I'll look at it. She was leading by more than the 9/10 points she won by so there was no magic shift going on there.

    In NC, though, you are seeing some racial blowback now....I don't know if the AA community is going to shift because of last week's events but between calling the working middle class bitter and Wright and Axelrod, like a complete idiot saying on NPR that the working class white people don't vote for Democrats anyway and the general sense that Obama doesn't support the working class is completely tanking his numbers to the point that even with a 35%+ head start in NC, it's now looking to be very competitive.

    Do what you want with your own vote. I gave mine to Obama, and in the fall I'll give it to the Democrat, whether that means the game changes or not.

    So will I and I think that the majority of those on TalkLeft feel that way but there are some whose sense of things have been inflamed.


    It is the fact that those people were in her (none / 0) (#178)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:48:50 PM EST
    column all along. Thanks for making my point for me. She started out up 25 or more; she ended at 9+, with those people providing 7 points. So, of all the people for whom it was possible, ie those who would vote for a black man, to abandon her for Obama, all but about 2-3% did. Take away the 7 points of the white lowest-common-denominator, and Obama did great in PA.

    You can read my PA breakdown here along with my harsh criticism of Obama's handling of the Wright deal. Honestly, aside from me being Obama and you being HRC, I think you and I might get along. A lot of your link was true. A lot of it was just trying to hate on Obama.


    sorry... (none / 0) (#179)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:00:26 PM EST
    I don't patronize the Orange Cheeto

    The race tightened as races typically do.

    Obama had 6 weeks and outspent her 3:1 and he still couldn't get close. If you want to blame it on racists, fine. I haven't seen any proof of that but I will be the first to admit that I haven't spent any energy looking for racist theory/motivations.

    Obama was 20 points ahead in NC and where is he now? I'll leave the polls alone now because in 2 days time, we will have the actual vote but it's clear that it will be in single digits and given Obama's 35+ head start, the take away is that this may be the state that proves that Obama simply is unelectable. Again, just 3 more days and we'll get some answers.

    My point is simple...just as Gallup and other polls have witnessed, just like Rasmussen makes clear with an 11 point drop in the last 10 days, Obama is simply tanking. It's not from one thing but from the myriad of things.

    It's just too easy to blame racism and I think it's rather dishonest to do so. That effectively stops all earnest conversation because you cannot in any genial way, accuse people of racism.

    As for hate on Obama on my diary at Corrente... I am of the opinion that I didn't participate in hate and I didn't see it myself but perhaps I'm numb to some things and don't see things that others might call subtle racist attacks. FWIW...it was by my quick inspection, the most active diary at Corrente today.


    wow (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Josey on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    I can't imagine why Hillary is losing the AA vote after the Obama campaign, surrogates, and supporters have used the Race Card as a weapon against the Clintons.

    "Race Man" - how Obama played the Race Card and blamed Hillary -



    No (4.00 / 0) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    this 'big fan' won't support 'your' party in the fall. Many of us won't and you know that because you read sites that tolerate Clinton supporters.

    I'm not anyone's fan.  The only thing I'm loyal to is legislation.  Govt is what it is.  

    I support Clinton because I want a candidate I believe is most qualified to get movement on legislation that is important to me.  It's that simple.  I'm not voting for a candidate with little accomplishment and who would be no more than a place holder.  I will only vote for candidates that share my goals and who I believe can get it done.

    Some of us (apparently upwards of 30%) just aren't going to vote for your candidate.  Surprisingly, it just doesn't bother some of us.

    Did they really support her to begin with?  Ha! Ha!  


    You claim loyalty to legislation (none / 0) (#134)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:09:29 PM EST
    yet refuse to vote for the candidate who proposes identical legislation to your preferred president 95% of the time.

     I am very glad to not have friends as loyal as you.

     Enjoy four more years of legislation that you support going nowhere. Be sure to thank yourself!!


    Race, and then some (none / 0) (#193)
    by Newt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:19:55 AM EST
    As a middle aged educated woman of Jewish ancestry, I see that Clinton's election day statement in PA about obliterating Iraq if they attack Israel was designed to grab Jewish votes. It may even have helped capture some white male bubba votes, as it presents her as being tough on the bad guys. That may work well with Democrats, but won't work at all with misogynist Republicans and conservatives who scorn her. They'll laugh at her for trying to look tough, especially compared to POW McCain, the real deal tough guy in their eyes. It's clear the right wing knows which of our two candidates they can beat. They're so eager to run against Hillary they're even registering as Democrats to vote for her over Obama. Conservatives don't just dislike Hillary, they despise her with a passion.  If you thought the Howard Dean scream was used effectively against him, wait until the "Hillary cackle" is played over and over in commercials. Even mainstream Democrats won't want to vote after they hear all the anti-Hillary baggage in store for us if she wins the nomination.  

    Remember, whites voting for Clinton in the primaries doesn't necessarily reflect how they'll vote in the GE.  Let's move forward and focus on a win in November.


    spoken like a true republican (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:27:24 AM EST
    We have plenty of time to move forward once we have a nominee. Until then, we are all free to advocate for our personal choice.

    "liking" (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    White people learned a bitter lesson with Bush.  Don't vote for who you like, vote for who can do the job.  Is it so hard to understand?  Why do Americans confusing liking with voting?  The other one that gets confused is the trusting notion.  Yeah, people may not trust Hillary to bake cookies or sing Koombaya, but that is not what they are looking for right now.  They want someone who can kick some butt and clean up the mess.  And they know that "nice" self described outside of Washington guys, cannot do the job.  

    I didn't wretch (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    when I started listening to Hillary.  I became more and more impressed.  My husband said there is something wrong with Americans that we want charming and charismatic instead of competent.  He is right.  I want a president who was the smartest in her class, who is a policy wonk, who knows what she would do if given the chance.  I don't want ideas, everyone has ideas, I want plans that will work.
    And another thing, for every woman that supports Hillary, there is almost another women who hates her for her strength.  But that speaks more to who they are.  If you disagree with Hillary because of her plans for this country, then you have my respect.  But obviously from your rant...

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    I think you are the brainwashed one. I don't like Obama because of Obama. Is in unqualified, naive and I have no clue what kind of insane policies he would inflict on this country. I do know he wants to raise the payroll taxes, thinks small town people are bitter and stupid and he hangs out with former domestic terrorists and a preacher that thinks the US spread AIDS to kill AA.

    And I learned all that from Obama. Not Hillary.

    Unlike his supporters, I can actually think for myself and I have decided that I really don't want him as my president.

    I didn't start out as a Hillary supporter (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by tree on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:42:46 PM EST
    and I would have loved Gore as a candidate had he chosen to run. That said, my dislike of Obama as a candidate has nothing to do with anything that Clinton has said and EVERYTHING to do with what Obama has said, including his divisiveness, his lack of specifics, his embrace of Reagan and his policies, his inexperience, and his inability to understand and respect people who are different from him, unless those people happen to be personal friends of his.  

      "Rich people, god bless us"??? I'm constantly amazed at what people who claim to be all for unity and acceptance(i.e., liberal) think its great to bash on people merely for the amount of money they have. I don't think that its any nobler to bash on people with money than it is to bash on those with little. Attitudes are the problem and they can be changed. I fail to see why one can't say "god bless" to rich people, especially when you are making the point that the American economy has been good to them and that having them pay a bit more in taxes would not only help those less fortunate but also help the rich themselves in helping to preserve whats good about our country.
    Because that was Hillary's point. Do you have a problem with that? Or is it more important to bash people than to get a more progressive tax system? Is it more important to fix the system or find someone that you can blame?


    It's about winning, but also about governing. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by WillBFair on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:29:33 PM EST
    The Clinton's vast knowledge, flawless reasoning, and spectacular governing record blow Obama out of the water. Please. He doesn't have the brains to make policy. His 'new politics' are old liberal cliches, credit he's taken for other's legislation, and Clinton retreads. And he can't even get those right. He adopts healthcare reform without making it universal. He steals Clinton bipartisanship, then insults the red States with Wright's charming commentary and lines about bitter lifestyles and religion. He talks about taking the high road, then throws the good Reverend under a mac truck. And his one word slogans of 'hope', 'change', and 'believe' are more shallow than Bush's 'compassionate conservatism', and possibly Nader's 'proportional representation'.

    We need the Clintons now more than ever, to fix the economy, which they've already done brilliantly, and deal with two wars strategically.

    Despite our mass of political capital, it's starting to look like Obama could actually loose the ge. Even if he did win, his ignorance would show up real quick, and we'd loose the congress, then the presidency. It's not clear that the party could recover in our lifetime. That doesn't matter to his worshippers. The far left live in a dream world and don't care about the damage they do. To this day, Nader's Traiters have not admitted their role in putting Bush in office. If Obama melts down, they'll just find someone else to blame. I'm guessing Hillary's third cousin's butcher's wife, who bought a new watch and betrayed the tinkers union for a loaf of designer bread, which brought the entire party crashing down.

    Beyond all that, if I have to listen to five more years of Obama's shallow rhetoric, and his supporters childish insults, I'll join the Wigs and have done with it.

    yes (2.00 / 0) (#100)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    "And Votes are what count"

    exactly - and Obama has more votes, more states, and more delegates.

    So (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    You're still going to pretend that 2.3 million people didn't go to the polls and vote and that those votes were legally certified by the respective Secretaries of State?

    Ok. Got it.


    You're still going to pretend...... (none / 0) (#135)
    by aequitas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    ....that voters in the caucus states don't count?

    She's still 12,000 votes ahead (none / 0) (#153)
    by eleanora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:50:23 PM EST
    even when you add in the estimates from the four caucus that refuse to release numbers. A razor-thin margin, but still there.

    You grabbed # 100 - You win the math logic (none / 0) (#120)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM EST
    the math logic

    This will help. (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:32:46 PM EST
    So long as Hillary is telling the truth, Obama's numbers should improve among those voters in the fall.

    Hillary is not telling the truth (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:08:51 PM EST
    I don't know why.  I know she isn't, you know she isn't, but you insist on bringing it up so you can call her a name.  The polls show her supporters don't think Obama is ready to be president.  They are going to vote for an experienced McCain or stay home.  So what.

    I watched the typically petulant supporters boo last night, don't need to see it again. For people that have 'won,' they sure were in a pissy mood last night.  It put a smile on my face.

    I hope his demographics completely tank on Tuesday.  They should once others got to see his 'supporters' in their full 'unity' glory.


    Booing supporters don't represent the campaign (none / 0) (#195)
    by Newt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:46:03 AM EST
    Booing Obama supporters don't represent the Obama campaign or their candidate. New young people in OUR Democratic party need to be roped in, tamed, taught, mentored, whatever it takes. No matter how obnoxious Obama supporters are, we can't forget that THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE. They may need to be chastised when they're jerks, or praised when they get it right. What we can't and shouldn't do is the same old same old divisive crap. We can't in-fight and destroy each other over our differences while the Republicans sit back and laugh all the way to the presidency. Repubs understand that to win you have to unite, take control and THEN fight behind closed doors about the things you disagree on. Dems can't seem to grasp this. You're worried about people who would vote for McCain because they don't like Obama?  Forget them. The people we need to concentrate on are the ones on our team who have been thinking we're the enemy. We need those people, and we can't let them stay in that mindset.

    New young Obama (none / 0) (#198)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    supporters that act like thugs are not on MY side.
    I am not worried about Republicans laughing. What drivel! I am worried about being alied with people for whom I have nothing in common except a D after our names. And that is what I see in a great many Obama supporters.

    Quit making excuses for inexcusable behavior.

    You said:

    The people we need to concentrate on are the ones on our team who have been thinking we're the enemy. We need those people, and we can't let them stay in that mindset.

    Well count me in as one of those people. And you can't let me stay in that mindset? Good luck with that. I like arrogance even less than thugishness and bad manners.


    I would submit... (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:31:07 PM EST
    that merely by suggesting that she wouldn't work for the election of the nominee, you already place your low expectations upon her that reflect upon you and not her.

    Whether Obama's numbers improve is hardly the issue...the fact is that even though everything is right for a Dem to win this year, Obama has been on such a complete downward slope, it's silly to expect that his nomination wouldn't result in a total disaster in November.


    I submitted that with her help (none / 0) (#138)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    Obama would do better. Any other suggestion is purely yours, not mine.

    do you... (none / 0) (#144)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:22:23 PM EST
    call everyone a liar and then expect their help?

    Nice way to get people on board. Reminds me of the dialog from "About Last Night"...

    Bernie: I have a deal for you. I have some tall fountain glasses.

    Dan: Where did you find those?

    Bernie: I have matching banana boats. And take a f???ing look at this. A s??t load of Fiestaware. All yours at the low Litko discount.

    Dan: How much?

    Bernie: 100% off.

    Dan: Bernie, I can't do that.

    Bernie: Come on, I can't do better than that. I can't. I stole it.

    Dan: You did not.

    Bernie: I tell you I'm a thief, and you call me a liar.

    Somehow I think you must have missed the Dale Carnegie classes.


    So long as you are telling the truth (none / 0) (#145)
    by tree on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:26:21 PM EST
     about your intentions, one could assume that you weren't making any suggestion that you didn't believe her.

    So Hillary is supposed to help Obama (none / 0) (#182)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:39:45 PM EST
    dig himself out of the hole he dug with his own mouth?? And defend Wright? And explain the policies for him? What else do you expect her to do?? Obama has to do the work himself sometime. He might as well start now.

    So you are disappointed that white voters (1.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    like Obama? You seriously don't think than Obama has fervent, often fanatical support among millions of Caucasians? Sure, race-baiting and racist attacks will drive a lot of whites to Clinton. But it will also drive a lot of fair-minded whites to Obama. People who are repelled by these tactics. You've seen this happen among white superdelegates.  

    By the way, if Obama has such a problem with white voters, how was he able to win all those majority white states?

    Caucuses Moved Him Ahead (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    You mean the same way they moved (none / 0) (#157)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:56:53 PM EST
    Clinton, Gore and Kerry ahead?

    They did... (none / 0) (#158)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:00:14 PM EST
    and, if you go to savagepolitics to see how they managed to do that it's very appalling.

    Well, do your best to change the rules (none / 0) (#165)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:36:40 PM EST
    after this primary.

    Obama won the white vote in primaries as well caucuses. He would not be where he is today without a boundless pool of white supporters. To think otherwise is simply more wishful and delusional thinking, which sadly, has become common here.


    If he had a "boundless" pool (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by tree on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    of white supporters, he'd have already gotten sufficient numbers to lock up the nomination. He hasn't and his problem is that he is presently losing a significant margin of non-black voters.

    sadly, the delusion is your own :-) (none / 0) (#169)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:08:28 PM EST
    before they got to know him a little (n/t) (none / 0) (#177)
    by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:59:30 PM EST
    Blow's editorial struck me as really terrible (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:21:12 PM EST
    Bad enough that I looked the guy up. Apparently he's retired from doing graphics for the Times, or something.

    Do you think it of no consequence (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    that Charles Blow appears to be an African American?

    I have absolutely no idea (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    I try to avoid judging people that way.

    Good. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    Actuall you're wrong. Delegates are what (none / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    count. Votes do not matter.

    When we get to the GE, (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    votes will count.  

    Dont tell Al Gore (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:40:47 PM EST
    I know (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:00:03 PM EST
    but they counted until they stopped counting.  ;^)

    Appendix 1 The 50 state... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    ...refers only to the primary challenge in relationship to scooping up maximum numbers of delegates.  At no point did it ever refer to the general election.

    unless you get 2025 delegates... (none / 0) (#98)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    Delegates are worht nothing.

    those are the rules.

    And Obama supporters should stop lying about the rules -- and Obama himself should make it clear to the liars who support him that such lies will not be tolerated.

    Of course, Obama would only do that if he had any integrity...


    the number I thought... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    was 2209 unless you are willing to concede MI and FL don't count

    Still waiting (none / 0) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:03:32 PM EST
    if they seat the MI and FL delegates at 1/2 delegate level, then the number will be somewhere between 2025-2209.  2024/2025 are simply the numbers that all the media has been putting out there without disclaimer that it's not all-inclusive.

    Such a victim: (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM EST
    Not since Ronald Reagan has an American presidential candidate withstood such an assault in the media and seen his popularity not hurt by it, but, rather, galvanized by it. That's what is meant, in politics, by the term "Teflon."

    Actually I don't think I've ever seen (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by MarkL on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    such delusion about a candidate.
    Even the fawning treatment W. got does not compare.

    Ronnie experienced an assault (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    by the media?



    Obama is assaulted (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:46:13 PM EST
    by the media? Where? I don't recall St. Ronnie being assaulted either.

    One must lift an eyeborw to that (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Salo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    Ronnie was the darling of Hollywood and the press.

    One must... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:54:09 PM EST

    OMG. Thanks for quoting this (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    so I don't have to go read the whole thing. No one who could right that sentence with a straight face deserves a second more of my consideration.

    Ugh. I mean 'write', not right (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    hate it when I wreck my rant.

    HA! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by flashman on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    What a jerk!  Teflon was never meant to be a positive comment.  I refers to how all the scandal in the Regan admin. didn't seem to hurt his approval among the American people.  So, I think the term might be accurate to describe Obama, as he seems to survive politically no matter how many gaffes he makes, or how much of his checkered past becomes common knowledge.

    I resent the idea that he has been victimized by either the media or the Clintons.  Hillary's fall in the graphs seem to me to corralate to the race baiting that she suffered after the SC primary contest.  The real story about what was said is still not being widely reported.  I only found it by accident in the last few days.


    Obama is indebted to the media (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Josey on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM EST
    giving him a free ride and concealing damaging info about him.

    You lost me.... (none / 0) (#160)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:06:28 PM EST
    who are you talking about?  Obama is losing steam fast, admitting boredom is setting in, and his numbers are on the decline. You referenced "his popularity", so it doesn't appear you've connected this to Hillary.

    Time for Beg the question nitpicking... (none / 0) (#17)
    by jerry on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM EST

    Hmm....I wonder what McCain's (none / 0) (#27)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    favorability ratings are?  

    HRC is going after Republican votes (none / 0) (#47)
    by Prabhata on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    I think there must be some poll numbers that gave HRC reason to appear in the O'Reilly Factor.  A friend told me that the Weekly Standard had an article praising HRC toughness.  I think she knows she cannot close the gap in NC with AAs.  In SC Clinton did not cede the AA vote and were smeared with racism.  Bill is staying in smaller town where is is well received.  It was a hard lesson to learn.

    The real news here (none / 0) (#57)
    by AF on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    Is black voters' opinions of Hillary, which have fallen precipitously.  

    If she gets the nomination, she and her supporters are going to have a lot of fence-mending to do.  

    And blaming it all on Obama for playing the race card is not going to work.

    I can't think of any other reason (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    Clinton's support from African American voters might falter in the GE if she is the nominee.

    NC Polling (none / 0) (#71)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    Zogby indicates that Obama is leading in North Carolina among AAs by 73% to 10%; there are obviously many undecideds; it will be interesting to see whether they break for one candidate or another or stay home.  Does anyone know if in prior primaries, AA pre-primary support for Obama was in the 70s?

    Zogby stated their weakness (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    in capturing the AA vote in their polls.  They stated they have been unable to get an accurate result until a day or two before a vote.  AA is 88-90%.  They see no indication that will change.  I agree, I see no reason for that to change.

    So Zogby Underrating BO's Numbers (none / 0) (#92)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    So, if Zogby's projected support for BO among AAs too small, then he is underestimating total by which BO will win North Carolina?

    The poll is goofy (none / 0) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    as are most of zogby's polls which is why everyone ignores them.  The AA% of total was off, the % spread was off, the whole thing was goofy.

    Right, because Obama refuses to (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MarkL on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    accept the blame, and you can't expect him to try to heal the wounds either.

    That's not news. That's the expected (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:53:43 PM EST
    result of her runnning against their favored candidate.

    Would you say the same thing about white voters? (none / 0) (#77)
    by AF on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    Don't really understand. Anybody who (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:23:13 PM EST
    really likes one candidate usually develops dislike of their opponent. Not unique to racial groups or anything.

    Sorry (1.00 / 0) (#96)
    by AF on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    My point is, would you say that Obama's problems among white-working class voters are due to the fact that he is running against their favorite candidate?  

    Very few commenters on this blog take that position.  The general view seems to be that Obama, his campaign, and certainly his supporters bear some of the responsibility for his problems with white-working class voters.  At best, he needs to reach out and mend fences.  At worst, he "can't win."

    The question asked by Blow's article -- and my comment -- is why doesn't the same thinking apply to Clinton's problems with black voters?


    I think his main problem with the voters (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    isn't race or dislike because of love for Clinton.

    It's a 'relating' issue. And practicality (which also ties into relating). These voters are meat and potato issue folks. Having relatives from Kansas isn't going to change his understanding of how they view their life and what's important. He wasn't raised in their environment. Taking a trip to his Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfathers old home isn't going to change that either. He doesn't understand what "pennies a day" might mean. And his problems getting more of her women voters is basically the same. He doesn't understand gender issues.

    This is where Hillary's family background and experience work. Her experience is helping children from all types of backgrounds, environments, etc. Same with the work she does for women. His experience is too South Side Chicago heavy right now to be as national as he would like. imo :) The difference does show up when you look at some of their TV ads etc. There's a different tone even when he's trying to match her tone that reaches those voters.


    I should also add (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    Look at who endorses and goes out on the stump with them and the relationship they have to the states and their people. Michelle sitting in an interview with C Kennedy may bring fond memories to some voters, but it still doesn't address their 'now' like Bayh does out with Clinton. The Kerry's have already been branded as elitist long before Obama was and they also stump for Obama. She had Rendell out there. I think he got Casey too late, but still don't think Casey had the depth with the voters either. Easley may have been booed by Obama supporters last night, but I bet he's helping out on the stump. Who's helping Obama there to attract the working class demo? And he's not helping himself mocking the savings on the gas tax, imo.

    The real comfort supporter... (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:52:34 PM EST
    came in Maya Angelou who has done such a beautiful job of showcasing Hillary for the great lady she is.

    It does (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    When Hillary gets the nomination, she will have to work hard to win back the support she once had from African American voters. It will take hard work to overcome the effects of the race card played by the Obama campaign, but we think she will work very hard, and all of us will do our best to help her. She has some very highly respected members of the African American community already supporting her, and if Senator Obama is true to his word at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner last night, he will be working hard for Senator Clinton as well. It won't be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.

    Did he say he would work (campaign) for her (none / 0) (#128)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:55:20 PM EST
    or just support her? I just watched the first part of his speech and caught the "support" part, but nothing about 'working his heart out'. He just doesn't seem to put forth the same enthusiasm as she does when it comes to this discussion . . .

    He has only started giving it a brief mention. What I saw last night was the most words I've heard from him about it. Methinks he got a directive . . .


    Realistically, if AA voters support Obama (none / 0) (#196)
    by Newt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:05:13 AM EST
    because he's black, it doesn't matter who played the race card. They'll have lost the chance to see the first AA POTUS, a powerful and wonderful event for many people.  More importantly, if Sen. Clinton is seen to wins the nomination by buying off superdelegates with positions in the next Clinton administration, and if super and/or pledged delegates (second round) vote for her in spite of Obama's success with rank and file Democrats, AAs and young voters will defect from the Party. Conservative AAs will go to McCain, young voters will vote Green/Nader and many others will just sit out the vote. Worse, we'll lose a bunch of Senate seats we hope to pick up this fall. Here in Oregon we hope to fire our Bush rubber-stamping Rep Senator Gordon Smith. Sadly, we can't do that without the youth vote.

    Molly Ivins said, "There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times." Personally, I want to see NO REPUBLICANS LEFT BEHIND in 2008.


    Major Different (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by mmc9431 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    is that Hilary had a long standing positive relationship with the AA community. The Obama camp knew they had to use any political trick they could to peal away that support if he was to have any chance at the nomination. To characterize the "Clinton's" as racist was a major mistake. It may well get him the nomination but it will cost him the presidency. IT will alienate too many moderates. They will perceive it as race baiting.

    100% in agreement (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    Obama has not achieved what he has managed to get to through anything honorable.  His pied piper antics to use his voice, not his words, his voice, to lure the children up the mountain has to be analyzed.

    I feel so strongly that he is hiding something from us about his motivation for wanting the Whitehouse.  Not because of who his friends are, but because he keeps changing the subject and pretending he answered our valid questions.

    The Clintons are anything but racist, and Bill deserves to be recognized for the great things he did for this country while he was in office. But, when BO gives applause to presidents of the past, he ALWAYS skips over Bill Clinton.  It wasn't enough to damage the Clinton legacy through the variety of innuendo he's put out there.

    Obama's insideous actions following the PA debate will not be forgotten by me. To use vulgar hand signals against a former first lady, sitting U.S. Senator, and highly moral woman was, in my mind, the act of a ego that is far too immature, and a man who has set the bar for the low level of respect he, himself, deserves.

    I resent the suggestion that not being able to support Obama on the ticket to lead this country is in any fashion, whatsoever, the result of my being white.  And, the person who is suggesting it is really only exposing his/her own methodology for choosing a president.


    If she gets the nomination, it better be (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Anne on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    Barack Obama and his followers/supporters/surrogates who are out there working their butts off to help get her elected, and that will mean doing their own fence-mending - since they were the ones who broke the fence in the first place.

    Hillary Clinton has not done one single thing to break with the African American community - if anything, she has campaigned without regard for race, religion or ethnicity, speaking to needs and concerns of all the people, showing herself to be color-blind and far more tolerant of people's differences than her opponent, who has used race as a wedge.

    Fence-mending, my a$$.


    No news there (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    It has been happening since SC.  Yes, blaming Obama now does not help.  But according to Howard Dean, if Hillary gets the nomination it will be up to Obama to build back her support with his voters.  In this case, he is the only one that can do it.

    Plenty put the blame for that square on Obama... (none / 0) (#152)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:50:12 PM EST
    but, the media refused to give both viewpoints.  

    The only time the media missed letting the race card actually go into play was when he threw it on the table in San Francisco, but the media played the hand as an arrogant elitist, accidently.  That's why Obama has had such a hard time getting past it...he was prepared to play the card he actually dealt.  "...they don't want to hear this from a 46 year old black man named Barack Obama."


    Ahem.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by aequitas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    "but I am not at all sure anymore that he is likely to get more VOTES"

    Would that be based on the fact he has received more votes thus far?

    No it (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
    would not be based on anything like that.  He has not recieved more votes thus far, and will still end up behind in the popular vote.

    Now, admittedly the popular vote might be problamatic to count, given the caucuses, and the omission of two states.

    On the other hand, he is falling now, and does not look likely to win the GE.


    Here's some new polling (none / 0) (#61)
    by 1jane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    A just released Rassmussan poll in Oregon has Obama up by 12 pts. A SurveyUSA has him a bit narrower. Just a lily white state going for Obama. Shucks.

    Oregon, isn't that one of the (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:14:29 PM EST
    states that borders the Great Lakes?  The polls don't mean a thing until the votes are in, and I think people are starting to lie to the pollsters.  I would.  They have way too much influence over the % of undecideds who prefer to just trust the majority has done the research.

    where (none / 0) (#64)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    is this polling

    by (none / 0) (#73)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    SUSA that is

    i have not seen it

    is it an old poll?

    Rasmussen usually includes more reps and indies in their samples

    in Oregon an open or closed primary

    SUSA (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    Oregon Poll

    still a ways to go and there's been little campaigning in OR so far but it showed a 6% Obama lead


    I believe that's down (4.50 / 2) (#83)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:09:14 PM EST
    from where he started.  I think it was at least a 10 point lead before.

    A lot of water will run under the bridge until (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by bridget on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:19:37 PM EST

    down ... down ... down ;-)


    Oregon is a closed primary. (none / 0) (#102)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    Mail-in ballots hit mailboxes yesterday. Must be returned by 8 pm on May 20.

    So, HuffPo needs to share.... (none / 0) (#146)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:28:58 PM EST
    to get people to their site these days? Lovin' Karma.

    Didn't Arianna just get herself banned from NBC/MSNBC/CNBC because of the 7-8 pages in her new book that slammed Tim Russert? Lovin' Karma.

    Nothing will tempt me to give the Huffington Post a hit on her web site.  Too many places to go that are fair and balanced to waste one second supporting bias.

    NBC... (none / 0) (#148)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    is corrupt - bravo I suppose to Arianna but I haven't read what she wrote.

    She is however, CDS afflicted.

    Apparently she didn't get the memo in time because MSNBC is still pumping her guy but ABC...they are now the spawn of satan per the Great Cheeto licking lekkers.


    Your least numerate effort yet (none / 0) (#167)
    by dmk47 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:03:43 PM EST
    [W]hite folks like Obama but ignores the fact that, as of now, they will not vote for him in large numbers in key swing states...

    Obama is more popular with whites now says Giordano. Which begs the question - then why does he get less white votes now than he did in February?

    The set of white Democratic primary voters ≠ the set of white general election voters. No Democratic nominee has won the white vote in 30-40 years (I'm not sure if Carter won it; Johnson did in 64). Obama will lose the white vote in the general election. Hillary Clinton will lose the white vote in the general election.

    As for white Democratic primary voters not supporting him, you have not provided a shred of evidence that their preferences are anything other than Clinton > Obama > McCain. If that pattern holds, as it has held for every party nominee who won the disappointed supporters of his primary opponent, he'll get Hillary Clinton's primary voters, lose the white GE vote, and win the election anyway.

    As for the reduction of Obama's share of the white vote in February vs. March and April, this is not exactly a Sherlock Holmes mystery either. White Democratic primary voters in the February states were comparatively younger, more educated, and more wealthy and those of March and April.

    Also, "beg the question" doesn't mean what you think it means.

    If you (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:20:43 PM EST
    read polls like the AP poll, actually 30% of Dem voters will vote for McCain in the general election. Huge swaths of Hillary voters in PA said they would not vote for Obama and would either chose McCain or sit home. This is the problem Obama has. He assumes that these voters will vote for him when the evidence has shown otherwise.

    It's not about winning the white vote, it's about the fact that Obama doesn't get enough of the white vote to win a general election. He won two demographics in PA: AA's and upper income whites. If you can't put together a better coalition in the Dem primary then you are sunk in the general election.


    The "smear" smear (none / 0) (#168)
    by dmk47 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:08:21 PM EST
    Calling the Blow piece "smear-filled" is preposterous.

    Oh, I so don't agree (none / 0) (#173)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:39:14 PM EST
    Her name was the primary launching point for Obama.  So many people were afraid that she was going to bring out the wolves in the Republican party.

    Many of us, myself included, wondered about the role Bill would play.  It's really not OK for him to get a 3rd term.  I love him....BUT.

    And then there's the 15 years of Republican slime.

    No, I don't agree.  Her name got her foot in the door.

    But she's had to earn every vote.

    actually, to be ruthlessly (none / 0) (#175)
    by cpinva on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:58:07 PM EST
    pragmatic, sen. clinton needs exactly -0- AA votes in nov. to win the GE. how could that be, you ask? the conventional wisdom says she'll need lots of currently disaffected AA's to possibly win the GE!

    as is often the case, the conventional wisdom is wrong, the demographics, as always, tell the brutal truth.

    the brutal truth is that AA's constitute a mere 12.4% of the total population. they are, without exception, concentrated in the states of the former confederacy, states that will vote republican in the fall, despite the average 20% AA population.

    as for the rest of the states, several on the east coast (ny, nj, pa) have a roughly 10% AA population. sen. clinton will win these states even if she gets no AA votes at all. as for the rest, their AA populations are statistically insignificant, and will have no bearing whatever on the outcome of those states votes come the GE.

    this is the primary strategy that will do in sen. obama come the GE, should he be the dem. nominee. by alienating a fair chunk of the non AA voting populace, he's doomed himself beyond the primary.

    not the most brilliant of campaign strategies.

    Campaigning (none / 0) (#197)
    by Newt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:18:01 AM EST
    for votes you DON'T have yet isn't racist, it's smart.

    You have got to be kidding! (none / 0) (#199)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:41:15 AM EST