home

On Electability and How the Presidential Race Has Changed

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:56:10 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

From Only in America, Newsweek's cover story today (page 4):

Eyeing those Reagan Democrats, the McCain camp believes that if Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans might have a shot at some states considered to be safe Clinton territory, like New York and New Jersey. Those big former industrial states—Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan—could all go Republican if the Democrats pick Obama. On the other hand, the Obama advisers argue that by appealing to independents and registering new young voters, Obama could take states in the West like Colorado and Nevada that seem unreachable to Clinton. By energizing his black base, Obama could even take away two or three Southern states—Virginia and the Carolinas, perhaps—from the GOP. The Obama-ites also predict that once the hard fighting of the primaries finally ends, the Democratic Party will come together, and Democrats alienated by all the feuding will come home.

More...

Obama's promise of success depends on more than soothing the Democratic base, however. He will not be able to re-create the magic of those huge, idolatrous rallies in January and February by drinking beer chasers and eating more waffles. What he had—and what he has lost, at least for the time being—is something more ineffable, a hope of changing politics as commonly understood, and disdained, by voters of all classes and races.

The article concludes:

To get the Democratic nomination, and to win the presidency, Obama has to show that he is not just a rock-star speechifier—or a worn-down pol trying to limp over the goal line without saying something that could possibly be used against him. He has to show voters who he really is. Most of them still don't know.

My thought on the electability part: No matter how many new and black voters Obama brings to the polls, there are only so many electoral votes in the southern and western states conceivably at play: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, the Carolinas.

The votes in those states don't compare to Ohio, PA, Florida and Michigan. And if Obama might also put New York and New Jersey at risk, how can superdelegates possibly view him as the better candidate? He seems to me to be the riskier candidate in November by miles.

[Comments now closed.]

< SD Shuler To Follow Voters In His District (to Clinton) | What The Anti-Kelos Want >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On Electability and How the Presidential Race Has Changed | 206 comments (206 topical)
    His Electability (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    argument in Nevada and NM make absolutely no sense to me.  She won.  She won through the Latino vote, which is the "swing vote" portion in those states.

    So I'm not following his campaign's thinking.  He did win Colorado.

    But he performed very poorly in the Latino community.  Is he assuming he'd win those votes?

    I'm not so sure that's true.  That voter group is very socially conservative in many ways.  Good strong Catholic families there.

    He doesn't do well with that group.

    From everything I've seen (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:06:18 PM EST
    the Latino vote will swing more towards McCain. I don't understand the Obama Camps analysis on some of these states looking at the states that have already voted. I'm beginning to think it's another "If we say it enough . . . "

    Looking at the demographics of who's voting for who, I see more of Hillary's going McCain than his. But what do I know?

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:15:45 PM EST
    My problem with Obama isn't any of the controversial stuff.

    It's my pocketbook.

    He's talked about privatization of SS.  Well, as I explained to my Gen-Xer today, that hits me hard.  I'm not old enough to be grandfathered, but just at the age that I could be truly harmed in retirement with that plan.  I'm a bit sick of that trend, btw.

    Then, there's his tax plan.  Hits me a lot more directly than Hillary's does.  I'm not in a dual-income high income bracket that her plans hit.  I'm right in his bulls-eye group.  And I'm sorry, his waffling on the last debate sure didn't reassure me.  He's deadly on capital gains.  And don't try to tell me, small fish in that big pond, that it's good to sacrifice so the fat cats don't get fatter.  They will get fatter anyway.  Me?  I'll get killed.

    Then there's his health care plan, which will do NOTHING for CA but make our problem worse.  Phooey on that one.  CA voters are idiots if they go for that.  We'll have the worst of both worlds.  More uninsured killing off more of our health emergency rooms and hospitals from the group he isn't going to "mandate."  They are our problem now.  We've watch 11 medical centers close due to this problem.  It's a make-or-break deal for our state.  

    Then, there's his energy votes/plans, which I think hurt the entire country and the world.  Not good.

    So for a lot of practical reasons, I'm having a hard time thinking about voting for him.

    But frankly, it's mostly due to my pocketbook.

    [ Parent ]

    His nuclear power positions are what frightens me! (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by hairspray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:55:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Mine is just what the article said (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    he refuses to tell us who he is. He wants us to read his books to find out, despite how many disputes over the truthfulness of those books appear in all forms of media.  

    To be so secretive that he creates a childhood image of himself that makes it impossible to relate to him, says he's either hiding something really big, or his entire identity is wrapped in confusion.

    He wants the keys to the Whitehouse. He wants use of Air Force One to go talk to our allies and enemies. He wants control over our military. He wants to select Supreme Court Judges. He wants a major say in our economy.  I, and I think I'm justified here, want to know who he is.

    Right now I don't like what I see.


    [ Parent ]

    McCain would win the Latino vote outright (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Salo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:24:39 PM EST
    He would only need as good a showing as Bush in 2000.

    McCain only has to steal a sliver of the vote here and there and he wins.

    He's also likely to completely win any polling on Patriotism. Something the party had worked on doubly hard to at least neutralize as a factor... Wright brought all that rushing back.

    [ Parent ]

    woundn't win it outright. (Correction) (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:25:38 PM EST
    ...

    [ Parent ]
    Wasn't Nevada (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:35:11 PM EST
    one of the first states where Bill Clinton pointed out there was some caucus bullying going on that was threatening the integrity of the primary?  She "won" Nevada, but Obama got 1 more delegate than she did there, which is how he sells his "I won Nevada" claim.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes it is (none / 0) (#124)
    by delandjim on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    In fact Pres. Clinton was right there at the time.

    [ Parent ]
    Ann...I don't understand that either...latinos (none / 0) (#92)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:19:53 PM EST
    have NOT been big supporters of obama and Clinton did win NV...I think this is just a wrong call.

    [ Parent ]
    Signaling (none / 0) (#102)
    by hlr on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    Richardson for VP.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson would be (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    a hideous choice.  When I look at Richardson, I don't see strength.  He would need someone more hawkish to offset his dove-like demeanor and policies.  I would expect someone more along the lines of Jim Webb.

    [ Parent ]
    VP short list (none / 0) (#148)
    by hlr on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:42:00 PM EST
    What I've seen cited in the media most often for Obama is Richardson, Casey, Bloomberg.

    Richardson -- indicates a West/Hispanic strategy.

    Casey -- shore up Penn, perhaps OH. I think the Dems would be playing w/ fire. Let's not forget all the assurances that Casey wouldn't get anywhere near Judiciary Comm, but now a pro-lifer on the Dem ticket?

    Bloomberg -- shore up moderate Repubs, perhaps Jewish voters.

    I think they're all horrid choices. The real problem is that there's no 'one size fits all' VP to shore up all the areas in which Obama is bleeding.

    Webb only barely won his race and doesn't like to campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    absolutely has no shot at the VP spot.  He's a joke, particularly after his hideous endorsement.

    Obama hasn't touched his endorsements one bit.

    You'll note that Hillary's endorsers......Rendell, Bayh, and what's his face from NC......they actually campaign together.

    Obama?  He has to distance himself from his endorsers.  LOL*

    [ Parent ]

    The problem with all of those choices (none / 0) (#170)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    (with the exception of Richardson, IMO) is that they would all outshine Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I vote D no matter what, (none / 0) (#193)
    by eleanora on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:26:04 PM EST
    but if Bloomberg is on the ticket, I'm out.  He's a traitor to the Democrats, don't care if he's an Independent now. You don't get rewarded for turning Republican with a place on our presidential ticket, not ever. Even if Clinton was at the top, that's a dealbreaker for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Needs To Change The Rulz (none / 0) (#206)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:53:52 PM EST
    He needs to be allowed 10 - 15 VPs on his ticket. <snark>

    Richardson ran a horrible campaign when he was trying for the top spot. It was actually painful to watch. Might be an asset to bring in latino voters but might hurt him in other areas.

    Casey on the ticket ensures  that I will definitely stay home. SCOTUS is the only reason I might even think about voting for Obama. I lack faith in what type of nominees to SCOTUS Obama would pick even now. Casey would reinforce my doubts and set up the possibility that if something tragic happened he would be the one making the picks. No way I would support that.

    Bloomberg would also mean I stay home. So far, Obama has indicated that he might place Republicans in positions of Sec. of Defense and State. Now he is thinking about selecting a Republican VP. If I wanted Republicans, I would vote for McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure that is (none / 0) (#118)
    by 0 politico on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    enough.  Particularly when he bit the hands theat made him.

    [ Parent ]
    How about Napolitano, but overall I agree if Obama (none / 0) (#146)
    by Salt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:38:21 PM EST
    is the nominee then the intent is to throw the race.  But I also believe the landscape of American politics will change and I am hoping it will be for the good.  Both Party's brands have been raked through the mud, the MSM look like total hacks, the American electorate has every reason to ignore these two entities when determining who is a desirable candidate and will govern well in our interest.

    [ Parent ]
    I won't vote for a ticket (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:55:26 PM EST
    with Napolitano. She's just another law and order prosecutor-turned-politician. She's a former U.S. Attorney who also served as Arizona Attorney General.

    The New York Times says she allowed Arizona's enforcement-only, "toughest in the nation" immigration bill to become law there.

    If Obama picks a law and order politician like Napolitano, he's lost my vote.

    [ Parent ]

    I was living in AZ at the time (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM EST
    but, preparing to move back to WA, so didn't pay real close attention. Reports on the news were that emergency services, teachers, anyone who gave an illegal immigrant access to public services could be held criminally responsible.

    Someone from AZ is welcome to dispute that, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe I'm a cynic, but... (none / 0) (#167)
    by diogenes on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:01:06 PM EST
    I'd bet you'd vote for a ticket with Napolitano on it if Hillary headed it.

    [ Parent ]
    No on Napolitano... (none / 0) (#157)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:52:29 PM EST
    turn a Democratic governor into a Republican (this is a 'resign to run state'), little chance of beating McCain, unable to bring other states in for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Not likely (none / 0) (#169)
    by ChrisO on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:01:15 PM EST
    considering that he couldn't even deliver the Latino vote to himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Guaranteed loss (none / 0) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:26:25 PM EST
    two whiners is four times worse than just one.

    [ Parent ]
    Bottomline....Sen. Clinton Is The Most Electable (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:03:01 PM EST
    More and more people are opening their eyes to the blatant pandering by obama and they know he is not going to help them.  You never get any sense of compassion from obama for anyone.  He will not be able to win over enough voters to keep the states dems thought they had in the bag, nor win the majority in red states.

    Not in Guam, though... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Exeter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:00:09 PM EST
    ...of course Guam shouldn't count, because neither candidate campaigned there!

    [ Parent ]
    i'm embarrassed to say (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:30:21 PM EST
    i don't even know where guam is.  also, i had no idea they even got to vote in our elections.  

    i feel like an idiot.

    [ Parent ]

    your honesty (none / 0) (#150)
    by hlr on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    is refreshing!

    [ Parent ]
    they don't get to vote (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:56:26 PM EST
    they just get to be represented by delegates at the party convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Continental airlines stops there (none / 0) (#174)
    by jpete on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    on its way to Australia.  And it was important in the Pacific for WW II.  And now you have all I know.

    O, and the airport is hard to sleep in, just in case you've spent many hours on Continental....

    [ Parent ]

    Don't feel bad (none / 0) (#183)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:14:21 PM EST
    I've been there and still don't know exactly where it sits on the globe!

    [ Parent ]
    We're all Repubs now (none / 0) (#173)
    by diogenes on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:05:33 PM EST
    Hillary's supporters have been saying that Obama has no balls and is a pansy.  Ann Coulter would be proud of that approach.  Not even John McCain sang that he would "obliterate" Iran.  I guess outRepublicanning the Republicans makes you electable.  


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry -- no. (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    This thing about Hillary's campaign tactics being out of a Republican playbook is SO tiresome. Obama's campaign has used equally offensive Rovian tactics - starting in SC, through the pimping Chelsea and the whore/bitch comments through to calling everything the Clinton camp does as being racially motivated.

    Will such tactics affect electability -- I doubt it.

    No one said Obama was a pansy. Get your facts straight. Gov. Easley said "Senator Clinton makes Rocky look like a pansy" -- comparing her to a fictional character. Regardless of how often the Obama camp tries to push the meme, all the recent focus on Wright, Rezko and other scandals to come -- will have been of Obama's own doing. It's better to start owning up to some of it.

    [ Parent ]

    On the divided Dems story, (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by outsider on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    isn't the bottom line this:

    Obama appeals to groups - the young, students, AAs - who are overwhelmingly liberal anyway.  They are likely to go Dem in Nov, or stay at home.  HRC, by contrast, brings on board groups like Latinos, blue collar workers, etc., who may actually vote Republican if she is not the nominee.  So if you are a superdelegate, trying to minimise the damage from an acrimonious split in the party (and, let's face it, this <em>is</em> an acrimonious split), which way would you jump?

    hmm (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by outsider on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    serves me right for trying to use the special fonts buttons for once lol

    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by miguelito on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    like fingernails on a (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by jackyt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:40:11 PM EST
    chalkboard...

    It really grates to hear Obama's supporters referred to as "liberal". Liberal implies openminded. Maybe we could start referring to O's followers as "trendy" or something else that implies jumping for the next shiny toy.

    [ Parent ]

    speaking of nails on a chalkboard (none / 0) (#133)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:15:14 PM EST
    if i hear him use the phrase "her and her husband" one more time, my head might explode.  every time he does it (i've heard it at least three times), i scream "SHE and her husband!" at the tv.  he's a columbia and harvard grad?  

    sorry for the rant, but i'm a bit of a grammar freak.  

    [ Parent ]

    I am, too... (none / 0) (#152)
    by jackyt on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:50:22 PM EST
    Thanks!

    [ Parent ]
    This is what I've been saying straight along (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    He has to show voters who he really is. Most of them still don't know.

    Lost in all the praise that has been showered on Axelrod & Co. has been the fact that they didn't even attempt to showcase the new guy's bio--something that Bill Clinton ("The Man From Hope") did to great effect in '92.  I know there are some political problems with making that effort--time in Indonesia, dad not a citizen,  not a lot of experience--but that's why you call 'em pros.  If you're a real pro, you can take what you have and make it sing, and despite the problems and rough spots, there are enough notes in Obama's bio for a song.  They just didn't write it.

    They thought they could rely on his auto-biography, I guess, but it is admittedly semi-fictionalized and, like any pol's bio, it writes around the hard stuff.

    So, even to somebody like me who watches the politicians really hard, even at this late date Obama is something of a cypher--compared to feeling by May of 1992 that I knew Bill Clinton intimately.  In retrospect, the feeling was not false; I haven't significantly re-done my hit on Bill since Spring of '92.

    Anyway, Obama's a cypher, he's not really famous for any particular accomplishment, he's just that black guy that gives the good speeches about hope, so when something like Wright comes along it doesn't just stick to Obama, it identifies him.  Like it or not, Obama is better-known for Wright than for anything else.

    It makes me a litttle angry (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:54:59 PM EST
    no just angry, that Dodd, Daschle, Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry and Axelrod just threw this guy in there and thought that we would just vote for him.  Like we were all stupid or something or that the entire Democratic Party of voters were all low information voters. I will vote for Obama if he names them as the "old" Washington politics which he contends, has to go.

    They are either very ignorant in their knowledge about voters or were just plain arrogant with their power. They had to know that he had baggage and that he was not yet ready. They had to know..

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    has always bugged them.  No secret.  She's a real threat to the status quo.  Obama is not.

    I'm convinced of this.

    With him?  Things will putt along as usual.  She is far more challenging and will cause the party to work harder.

    They are essentially worried that she'll rock the boat.  And they are right.

    I'm totally convinced Hillary is the true change candidate, and I'm so ready for her......well, but that's me.

    [ Parent ]

    Most of those guys (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    are at the end of their political careers. They want someone who will give them the open door to leaving the legacy they want for themselves behind. Obama is so incredibly dependent on other people's experiences and know-how that they stand a much better chance of getting their self-serving agendas through.


    [ Parent ]
    and me! (none / 0) (#135)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:17:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    and me (none / 0) (#141)
    by DJ on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Has anyone (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    considered the fact that Obama has a collection of losers supporting him? I'm not trying to be mean here but Ted Kennedy has backed every electoral loser the Dems have had for decades.

    The only good thing I can say if Obama is the nominee he will lose the general election. Once that election is lost we can take the party away from these perpetual losers. Pelosi included.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:35:45 PM EST
    Look at the quality of the last major endorsements.  Andrews?  Obviously had pent-up emotions over Hillary.  Good golly, I feel like I need to send him flowers to help him heal.

    Michael Moore?  I LOVE his work.  That endorsement was embarassing.  I'm going to have to plunk him into my "creative but inept" class.  How ugly.  Nothing about Obama.  Everything about his hatred of Hillary.  Way wierd.

    Richardson?  Oh golly, didn't we all get sick of his "hurt" persona.  Nothing about Obama.  All about his hurt feelings.

    Nevermind his blogger groups who have completely made many of us actually declare ourselves Independent.

    Now, I'm one who thinks that his other supporters need a bit of tolerance.  They are screamers at this stage in life.  So they boo.  Big deal.  That's the stage they are in.

    But the rest?  No excuses.

    [ Parent ]

    Valid points (none / 0) (#134)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:17:22 PM EST
    but, do keep in mind there are internet cafe's all over the world where people are sitting there posting on these boards pretending to be Americans for Obama.  

    Our party is taking a huge image hit because of how vile much of the "debating" of candidates has become.  Once I saw the Gaza clip of one of their cafe's and why they were trying to help Obama, I stopped reading anything in all caps on all boards, among other attempts at safe-guarding the integrity of this race.

    [ Parent ]

    i could buy into that (none / 0) (#137)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    theory if the venom wasn't running rampant from the BLOGGERS on those sites (huffpo, dk, tpm, etc).

    delaware is a closed primary state.  we have a great democrat running in a gubernatorial primary on sept 9.  the morning of sept 10th, i will be changing my registration to independent.  

    i'm done with the democratic party.  i no longer feel aligned with the party - from the moronic pols who have endorsed obama to the idiotic bloggers who post such venomous things about bill, hillary and their surrogates (i'm still stinging from the way geraldine ferraro was treated).  i'm sickened by the lot of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Not saying it's 100% (none / 0) (#202)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:41:17 PM EST
    but, it is there.

    I went exploring Obama's own web site (in the comments area) and found links to all kinds of interesting foreign involvement in his campaign.

    On a light note, there's a guy in Australia who is trying to build up his blog site with pro-Obama only information. I found him on Obama's site asking people to be his friend.  I have posted multiple pro-Hillary arguments/defensives to the anti- posts and within a few hours of dawn in Brisbane, he takes my posts down.

    It's very eye-opening to see how passionately some countries want to influence our decision this election.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (none / 0) (#138)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    That so hadn't even occurred to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Even I know our first AA president (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    doesn't have relationships with radical preachers, domestic terrorists and slumlords. He will also run on policy and have accomplishments to back up his words. Who's low info-me or them?

    [ Parent ]
    I was relating to (none / 0) (#200)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    policy being detailed and validated by each candidate.  Many here, I think, are very astute re politics and policy change. We find it interesting and well worth the posts.

    For me only, change about the way Washington works has never been an issue for me, or I should say, that big an issue.  The Bush administration surely went off the track but then they are Republicans gone wild.

    I think change and hopefulness are very good words, but I am more reality based and don't believe that Obama is "the one".

    I don't think Obama is a terrorist.

    To each is own.

    [ Parent ]

    I have no way (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    of knowing so I probably shouldn't say this but it's been rattling around inside for quite awhile and I have to get it off my chest.

    I think that the Ks, Leahy, etc. think they can control him and I think they want firm control of the party.

    Trouble is, they wouldn't have the reach to control him in all circumstances.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    Even Pelosi wants a president in her pocket.

    It's all about power grabbing.

    [ Parent ]

    I think they all bought R-W spin (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by wasabi on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:39:11 PM EST
    I think the Dems all bought the right wing spin about Clinton being too devisive to win.  I am amazed to see some recent write-ups in the newspapers by reporters that are "impressed" with the enthusiasm at the Clinton rallies, and they had no idea that her supporters even cared.

    [ Parent ]
    So, so true (none / 0) (#16)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
    this morning on MTP, Obama complained that people wanted to know who he is...more accurately, that Clinton was bad-mouthing him on the stump because the people wanted to know who he is.  He seemed to think that would help him, I guess.


    [ Parent ]
    Apparently CLinton hardly talks about (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MarkL on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    Obama on the stump---this according to Mayhill Fowler, the Obama supporting journalist who broke the "bitter" story.
    Obama's just lying, as usual.

    [ Parent ]
    And, it's all proveable through the videos (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    of every stump speech they've given in NC and Indiana.  He spends a good share of his time trashing Hillary with his "now, my opponent is out there telling you I'm this, and that while she ignores the issues..."  I'm telling you, it astonishes me that people don't get up and walk out.  He never quite gets to his policies or what he is going to do...instead he tells why he believes Hillary's won't work.

    Mayhill Fowler is actually an Obama supporter.  She's just more aware of who he is than most of them, and dares to publish the truth.

    [ Parent ]

    i read a comment somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    that made a remarkably good point.  obama's campaign is entirely about campaigning.  you could get a stopwatch and time how quickly his speeches become about the way he campaigns vs the way his opponent campaigns and how campaigns have been historically run and he's different because he campaigns differently and blah blah blah. never mind that it's complete bs - he has run a hideously negative campaign...he's just been way more subtle about it.  

    he talks incessantly about how things are and how he thinks they should be but has yet to offer an ounce of substance.  

    why can't they see that the emperor is naked????

    [ Parent ]

    Beats me why people don't see it (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:41:10 PM EST
    because it's right out in the open for all to see.  Even today on CNN he talked about camapigning, talked about problems facing people, and not a whit about any solutions.  It's quite bizarre what people will cheer about today.


    [ Parent ]
    He's actually not subtle about it (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:51:34 PM EST
    he gets away with it by loudly, and constantly declaring it isn't him doing it, it's her.

    It was his campaigns pounding the demands that the Clintons release their tax returns, earmarks,
    Bill's library donors list, etc. that were the primary contributors to her trustworthy ratings plummeting.  No matter how many times her supporters commented that he also hadn't released his, they just kept it up.

    Fortunately, Hillary knows these perceptions are something she can easily reverse once the people see she is going to do everything she can to make their lives better.

    This is a truly historical election. Not only the first woman, but that woman is a former First Lady from the best administration we have enjoyed in decades. She and her husband are having their characters assassinated, their administration discounted as non-existent, and their dignity trashed by the Obama campaign. I can't forget that.

    [ Parent ]

    I just can't figure this out. He really is a (none / 0) (#175)
    by jpete on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:07:47 PM EST
    Pied Piper.

    [ Parent ]
    Whining won't get him elected (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:00:20 PM EST
    and that was time he could have spent on what would get him elected -- what he could do for the voters.  They aren't whining.  They're hiring.

    (Btw, when I was in the business world and picking suppliers, my number-one rule was to not go with the guy who spent my meeting time by dissing his competition.  I wanted to hear what he could do for me and my employer -- and I also knew that whiners always whine, and I didn't want to waste my time again and again in a longterm business relationship that way.)

    [ Parent ]

    hiring (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by sleepingdogs on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    I spent 16 years as a buyer also.  I had the same rule.  What was funny to me was watching a whiner whine about the competition not knowing I already worked with them and knew that he had no idea what he was talking about.

    Now I'm sad all over again thinking Obama may be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama isn't going to lose New York and he (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    won't win Colorado. They ignore the west state of New Mexico where Clinton polls better then Obama (and has the same number of electoral votes as Nevada).

    The Carolinas are likely a pipe dream as well. If we couldn't win them with Edwards, we won't win them without him. Most recent Virginia polls have shown McCain with a healthy lead, no?

    I find it interesting that New Hampshire (at least going by Ras) has moved back into the red column

    He's going to have to work for NY (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    and possibly CA. McCain may also play well in NJ. How is he going to "change the map" when he has to spend time and resources hanging on to Dem states?

    I just don't see it. Clinton worked hard in parts of NY. The red parts that is. And she won re-election with 67%. They aren't going to just accept Obama. Heck, he may not play well in my Brooklyn 'hood and a few other sections of NYC. He may get the reliable dem votes, but what percentage is that? We can be pretty red at times. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    I don't believe he has the fight in him to do (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by thereyougo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    some cold calling campaigning, not after the primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    nycstray (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:23:29 PM EST
    has it right.  Obama would have to spend time and resources trying to hold NY and CA, absolutely  can't win without for any Democratic candidate.

    It's been years since Democrats have had to spend anything in CA and NY for the general election.

    Not saying he'd lose them but would have to expend precious resources making sure.

    [ Parent ]

    .. and for MA (none / 0) (#149)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    My state -- which has been solidly democratic in past Presidential elections (except for Reagan) -- is also in a similar state. I think Obama will have to spend resources here, esp. given
    • McCain may still pick Romney for VP
    • Deval Patrick (a candidate very similar to Obama) has done terrible here once elected as Governor
    • MA is an expensive place to live in, and it will get even more so given his policies on SS, healthcare, taxes -- esp. capital gains.


    [ Parent ]
    If McCain picks Romney (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    Obama can say goodbye to Colorado. Romney was overwhelmingly the first choice in the Republican primary this year.

    [ Parent ]
    And Michigan. (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I expect Romney to be VP (none / 0) (#176)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:08:30 PM EST
    selection for McCain.  He also shores up the economic portion of the GOP campaign.  

    [ Parent ]
    FWIW (none / 0) (#207)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:05:03 PM EST
    I live in a solidly Republican town -- always get those weird looks when I pick up the Dem. ballots from the ladies in the election halls :-) -- but talk around here has actually been how Romney helps McCain shore up his Republican base because of social issues not economics. I agree w/ your  pt. though - I think Romney has far more business experience w/ his VC background than all the other candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    He could lose NY, big time. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kimsaw on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    The fact we just dumped the Democrat Gov.Spitzer because of scandal and  given the fact that Obama has his own issues of his own clarity he could lose here to McCain, the war hero. How do you think Wright's comment of the 9/11 conspiracy will play in NY. I know Obama denounced them, but 20 yrs of associating with Pastor Wright was about 19 too many. His relationship with Ayers, known home grown terrorist, will be working against the backdrop of the Twin Towers and John McCain. OBama could be in real trouble here. Just writing the contrast makes me cringe at the breadth with which NY Republicans can attack him.

    You have to recognize that upstate is still predominantly Republican. Right now in my area a new Republican candidate is neck and neck with favored Democrat to replace Congressman Walsh. Politics are local is so true. There will be limited down ticket potential with Obama here. Clinton will carry it off far better, as I've said before she will take the McCain demographic. The youth vote and AA vote may help Obama but he'll need more than that.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree and you can say the same for NJ on.. (none / 0) (#75)
    by alexei on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    Wright and 9/11.  He already is in extreme danger of losing MA.  So, solid blue states such as MA go red (very likely). Others such as CA, NY and NJ at the minimum, he will have to work hard for (funds and campaigning), and forget about the purple states, we are looking at a Dukakis and possibly if/when more Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etal to come out, a McGovern type defeat.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know about (none / 0) (#114)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    losing NY, NJ or MA but he would have to defend them and pour resources into these states, he would have to campaign in them not just fund raise (ditto CA that leaves less time and resources for the battleground states because suddenly there are more battleground states. Florida gone, Michigan gone. Ohio highly unlikely. Pennsylvania same. West Virginia forget about it. Colorado and Virginia hardly make up for the above.

    BTD likes to write that demographics are political destiny. Obama loses the most reliable voting group: those over 50. Among women over 50, you're going to see massive defections or stay at home. Hispanics, Clinton can carry them 3:1. Obama will split them. His disconnect with those who earn the median income ($40K) is telling. He thinks economics will bring them back. Some will no doubt but it is not just about economics to this group, it is also about values. Yesterday's special election in LA is telling. The Democrat won by running away from Obama, Pelosi and even Clinton. I'll bet you that McCain wins that district in LA 65% to 35% in November if Clinton is the nominee and 70%-30% if Obama is.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama could lose NY (none / 0) (#196)
    by Makarov on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:31:00 PM EST
    but I give that an outside chance at best.  He's much more likely, in my opinion, to lose NJ and PA.  I give Obama even less of a chance to win OH.  He can't win FL.

    That we're even discussing the chance a prospective nominee could lose NY state, though, says a lot about his electability.  Obama's not a roll of the dice, he's a hard six.

    [ Parent ]

    NY can be very fickle (none / 0) (#197)
    by themomcat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:33:58 PM EST
    We have elected Republicans for NYC mayor and we have had several Republican governors as well as US Senators. Obama will be a tough sell upstate and in one district in NYC, the 13th, which is strongly Republican/Conservative. NY could be areal problem and a drain on resources. I don't think Obama is up to that kind of a tough fight.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    2008 would have played different (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    if he were on the top of the ticket.

    Kerry destroyed any potential southern vibe in 2004 just by being his brahmin self.  He also deprived any effort in NC of any advertizing.

    The VP doesn't nail down hostile territory if he's got no budget to fight in that hostile territory.

    [ Parent ]

    Last SUSA Poll 4/13 On VA (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:50:16 PM EST
    McCain 52% Obama 44%

    SUSA SC

    McCain 48 Obama 45%
    McCain 48 Clinton 42%

    OH, PA and MI definitely at risk with Obama last I looked.

    Also, the polls indicate that Clinton, not Obama, has a chance at MO. I doubt that will occur unless the AA community was fully on board.

    [ Parent ]

    There's (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    no way Obama wins either Carolinas. As far as I know, neither state has even had AA's elected statewide. And I think that the last polling did have Obama losing VA. Why would Obama do any better in VA than Kerry? Have things changed that much in the last few years?

    [ Parent ]
    He absolutely can lose NY (none / 0) (#168)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:01:10 PM EST
    I lived there 47 years and watched it turn republican for no apparent reason.

    Pataki, D'Amato, Guiliani etc. NYC as well as the notorious red NYS and Long Island votes republican way too often to ever call it a dem sure win.

    The 5 boroughs have voted in republicans without any help from the other less dem counties.

    You better believe it, Hillary is a shoe in, she is WELL loved there.  Obama has a steep uphill climb and I totally believe it will become RED for McCain.  Wall Street loves republicans.

    It is NOT liberal overall.  It is very much lunch bucket old fashioned blue collar neighborhoods.  Queens and Brooklyn would by and large tell obama fergetaboutit.

     

    [ Parent ]

    MI and FL (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nellre on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    Could we win in November without FL and/or MI?
    Has anybody bothered to poll these states since Obama failed to support re-votes in these states?

    They have (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by dianem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:48:40 PM EST
    And almost nobody believes that Obama could win Florida. Some think that he might pull off Michigan, but it's a longshot.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain is already working on... (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:08:59 PM EST
    the white working class voters, that was the point of his proposal on the federal gasoline tax rollbacks, his own version of the poverty tour and has been the focus of all of his appearances the last few weeks.

    Obama has in essence written them off...witness his 'bitter/cling' remarks and Axelrod's interview on NPR.

    The fact is that the reason McCain the Republican nomination is because he was the only one who could have reached these voters whatever you want to call them (Reagan Democrats, bitter/clingy, etc.). McCain also completely marginalizes much of Obama's appeal to the Republican's and Independents and of course, there's the media.

    I think that even the notions of Obama putting Colorado and Virginia into play ignore the fact that if he is the nominee, then MA and PA are also in play and FL and OH are gone.

    In terms of electability, you would have to go back to pre-Wright, pre-bitter (prior to March 15) to find where Obama might be considered a viable candidate in the general election.

    Newsweek has been in the bag for Obama this primary season and they simply overlook the larger picture and have for quite some time.

    Good to know that Richard Wolfe took some time off from the grueling schedule of slamming Hillary daily on Countdown.

    I believe he's (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:19:36 PM EST
    touring with Obama.  I would say he's covering Obama's campaign, but we know that would be an incorrect description.

    [ Parent ]
    so you're suggesting... (none / 0) (#163)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:58:54 PM EST
    that he has the added burden of having to lay down his pompoms so he can do his official lekking for Newsweek?

    [ Parent ]
    And he's not even CLOSE to being (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by miguelito on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:10:50 PM EST
    vetted in political terms. He's about due 4-5 more scandals (imagined or not) before he has the same amount of skin built up that Hillary had by 1992.  

    He's falling apart and he's got about 2 scratches.

    He has a glass jaw (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by dianem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    Every time he gets hit his popularity crashes for a couple of weeks. All it's going to take for the right wing to win is one nicely timed "scandal". Maybe a week before the election or so.

    [ Parent ]
    Combine that with an October surprise (none / 0) (#73)
    by lambert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:01:59 PM EST
    And he's toast.

    [ Parent ]
    And McCain? (none / 0) (#178)
    by diogenes on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:10:02 PM EST
    If you netbloggers and MSM people give one tenth of the attention to McCain's idiocies as you do to Obama's during the general election campaign, McCain will knock himself out.  The last time he was the frontrunner in 2007 he did just that, only to be resurrected by odd events (several bad repub candidates dividing the vote, Giuliani delaying his run).  

    [ Parent ]
    The McCain campaign (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by stillife on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    is right.  My state (NY) is basically a conservative state, once you get outside the five boroughs.  Suburban counties like Nassau and Suffolk have been Republican for years.  Upstate is pretty red.  Hillary had to prove herself to those folks, and she did (that's my girl!).  

    Even within the city, we have a lot of Italians, Catholics, Jews, Latinos and Asians who are not necessarily in the tank for Obama.  9/11 is still a big issue to a lot of people here, and McCain will appeal (rightly or wrongly) for that reason alone.  

    If Obama's the nominee, I don't think he can take NYS for granted.

    Completely agree. NY becomes a swing. (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by miguelito on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee, NY is not safely in his column.  NYers are way more conservative than the reputation they currently have. Even within Manhattan it is not hard to find Republicans.  We had a Republican Mayor since 1994, a Republican Governor up until last year.  And how glad are all those voters they gave Spitzer the Democrat a chance? Ripe for the Republican picking.

    [ Parent ]
    add California (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST
    Hispanics and the Valley people will not go over easily.  

    [ Parent ]
    I have a friend in Bay Ridge (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    Republicans there. She calls it the Red Spot in Brooklyn, lol!~ My area is Seniors, Blue Collar, Catholics, Jews, Italians and Hispanic. We do have the Creative Class moving in, but it will be awhile before they change the 'hood. The majority of the 'hood still has a lot of old school Brooklyn.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (none / 0) (#26)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    I'm amazed to hear this.

    [ Parent ]
    California is not just the coast (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but McCain is just so (none / 0) (#38)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:26:34 PM EST
    McCain.  LOL*

    I'm not worried, personally.  The next president will be either Hillary or Obama.

    The entire issue is moot to me.  McCain just makes one blink a bit too often.

    I do think he'll get the older Dem vote.  I think Obama's youth vote will dry up, as it always does.  I don't think he'll pull in nearly what Hillary could in the Independent/Moderate-to-Conservative vote.  I do think he'll still have trouble pulling in working class votes.

    But the rest of us?  I think we'll hold our noses.  

    [ Parent ]

    Heh..hey voted for Arnie. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:29:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    California (none / 0) (#117)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    is SF and LA and Oklahoma in the middle.

    [ Parent ]
    Kudos (none / 0) (#156)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:52:25 PM EST
    for an accurate description of CA.

    Just had to applaude.

    [ Parent ]

    I was going to say that since I left Ca in the (none / 0) (#165)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:00:34 PM EST
    70's I couldn't comment but I guess it has not changed. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Hey! (none / 0) (#179)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    I resemble that remark.

    [ Parent ]
    California is not as liberal as people think (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dianem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    Most of the San Francisco Bay Area is liberal, but the rest of the state ranges from mixed to far right wing. Even "liberal" Los Angeles has a large percentage of Republicans. 3 of our last 4 governors were Republicans, and the Democrat was ridden out of town on a rail. I don't think California would go Republican, but it's not impossible. We tend to be more moderate than anything, and McCain has a reputation for being a moderate. It may be undeserved, but it's going to be hard for the Democratic Party to change the public's perceptions.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, so right (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    I'm from So. Cal.  Obama only won 3 counties in CA.  He was truly obliterated, even as the balloons from his huge Super-Tuesday gala affair were still visible in the sky.  :)

    He was blasted right out.

    But we have real reasons, too, to push him away.  I keep pointint out the old boring stuff, but his health care plan will kill us.

    It's allows the current "must treat uninsured" policies to continue.  That's our issue.  It's killed off 11 major medical centers in So. Cal. alone over the past 5 years.  We can't take more of that nonsense.

    Either it's universal....or forget it.

    [ Parent ]

    <