home

The Math vs. The Problem

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Another election night proves what I have written too many times to count - demography is political destiny. As Jeralyn's post below demonstrates, Donna Brazile and many Obama supporters (see Chris Bowers for instance) think Democrats can win in November without white working class voters. I believe they are wrong.

Barack Obama's "big night" was not fueled by solving this electability problem. He lost whites in North Carolina by 61-37. He lost whites in Indiana by 60-40. He won African Americans 91-7 in North Carolina. He won African Americans in Indiana by 92-8.

Obama won North Carolina because African Americans were 33% of the vote. Obama kept it close in Indiana because African Americans were 15% of the vote. In terms of the electability problems Obama is facing, nothing changed tonight. And West Virginia next week will confirm that. More . . .

The math favors Obama and tonight made the math favor him even more. The math is clear. Obama leads in the pledged delegates and he gained 150,000 votes in the popular vote. (I will note that Chuck Todd predicted that Clinton's gains in Pennsylvania would be wiped out tonight and that seems unlikely.)

What is not clear is that Barack Obama can win white working class voters. And to pretend this is not a problem is to play ostrich. I will not do that. In the state next door, Obama could not carry more than 40% of the white vote. He will get wiped out in West Virginia next week. And he will lose badly in Kentucky two weeks from now.

Obama is closer to being the Democratic nominee after tonight. But more than ever, his electability is a question mark. Tonight answered none of the questions that surround Barack Obama's electability. That is simply a fact.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed.

< Hillary's Speech | Obama Campaign Says Rush Affected Indiana Vote >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Math vs. The Problem | 253 comments (253 topical)
    Was waiting for your opinion and I (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by athyrio on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    completely agree which is why Bill Clinton won two elections against the GOP and none of the other Democratic nominees did....Craig Crawford said tonite that some of the Super Delegates said that they would rather lose with Obama and define the new party than win with Hillary...Do you believe this is true?

    I think a lot of SD's are concerned about their (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by debrazza on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:14:02 PM EST
    own power in Congress than anything else.  They remember losing majority in the 90's and I think they would rather ceded the White House than cede their committee chairmanships.

    [ Parent ]
    I suppose 10th time is the charm? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by ghost2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:55 PM EST
    The coalition lost with Mondale, lost with Dukakis, even Kerry and Gore couldn't shore up Ohio's working class votes, and would have had a comfortable win if they did.

    Yeah, if you don't succeed with the coalition of AA and eggheads (as Begala put in), keep trying.

    [ Parent ]

    You forgot McGovern (none / 0) (#126)
    by cymro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:34:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, with all the Dems they are throwing (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:39 PM EST
    under the bus for this "new dem party", I say it's time for a true 3rd party. I think I'm to old and white for the "new dem party". My gender doesn't seem to even register on their radar . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by sas on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:43 PM EST
    I'm looking for a third party

    If Obama gets the nod, the next day I'm registering as and Independent

    The Democrats can go to hell - Obama doesn't care about me and I don't care about him

    [ Parent ]

    nycstray, (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    you and this old 'bread and butter' Democrat too.

    We're part of the 2nd largest group of voters in the nation and we've become persona non grata.

    What a hell of a winning strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    There's already a third party (none / 0) (#251)
    by wrkn129 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    My son says it's called the Obama Far Left Wright-wing Arugula Party.

    [ Parent ]
    If it is (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:40 PM EST
    then the Democratic Party is finished and so is the nation.

    [ Parent ]
    SDs are going to be fine. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by liminal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:32 PM EST
     No matter what, the SuperDelegates are going to be fine.  Heck, so are all the various members of the liberal glitterati. Whether the Democrats are in or out of power, they'll make a nice living.  Heck, it's often easier to criticize Republican stupidity than it is to put together a workable plan.   Personally, I was a big fan of Nickled and Dimed, but Ehrenreich always knew she had a fine home and a nice career and a book contract awaiting her at the other end of her downward mobility RPG.

    At the outset, I'm pretty well convinced that this is a Democratic year.  I'm not convinced Obama's problems with working class white and Latino voters mean that he's going to lose this election cycle, but I am concerned that - thanks to his campaign's most tone deaf and rabid followers, on TeeVee and in the blogistan - the party will cement its long standing and completely stupid image as the party of an elite minority rather than a vigorous majority.

    Slate had a great article late last week: Orwell's lessons for Obama and supporters, essentially, discussing George Orwell's analysis of the failure of British socialists in the 1930s and 1940s to  inspire much loyalty among the working classes despite what appeared to be their clear economic interests.  

    [ Parent ]

    Orwell decried the elites - saw that (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by catfish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:46:14 PM EST
    good article. Obama and Orwell: What the master Brit can teach Democrats about Elitism.

    [ Parent ]
    Catfish (none / 0) (#184)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:50:30 PM EST
    thanks for the link.

    [ Parent ]
    And on top of that (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:47:46 PM EST
    the Obama Democratic Party doesn't even come close to the clear economic interests of working people. It goes beyond bitterclinggate, it's also policy.

    It's almost as though today's Democratic northeastern "liberal" office holders have taken the place of yesterday's Republican northeastern "liberal" establishment.

    An interesting exit poll stat from Indiana. The clear majority of those voters who said they weren't hurt by the recession voted for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    That one hurt. Saw in on the crawl. (none / 0) (#239)
    by catfish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:11:27 PM EST
    An interesting exit poll stat from Indiana. The clear majority of those voters who said they weren't hurt by the recession voted for Obama.

    That one really hurt.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe it (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by owenaprhys on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:57 PM EST
    But Brazile and the DNC can KMA now.

    They don't want me? Fine. I don't want them.
    I can vote for who I want as an Independent.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Be Depressed (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:03 PM EST
    Obama was supposed to win Indiana.  And it wasn't that long ago that he was up 20 points in NC.  

    The downside is that there are fewer states left to vote.

    The upside is that Clinton's base has held together and we still have Florida and Michigan.

    Depressed? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:37 PM EST
    I am not depressed.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he was talking to me. I'm the one who's (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:37 PM EST
    depressed. But I'm willing to be talked out of it. Maybe i'll go contribute more $ to Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#85)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:26:54 PM EST
    Hit the wrong reply button.  Sorry for the confusion.

    [ Parent ]
    You pulled an Obama! (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST

    (hitting the wrong button ;) )

    [ Parent ]
    hey now, cheer up, derridog. (none / 0) (#185)
    by kangeroo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:50:44 PM EST
    i just contributed more to her campaign and it felt GREAT.  tomorrow is a new day.  now more than ever, this is the time for us to make our feelings known to the DNC and to the media.  it's not just for us or for hillary that we're fighting--it's for our country and the world.  whether they know it yet or not, the electorate is counting on us.  we cannot give up.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:33 PM EST
    And yet I now think the book is closed for Hillary as far as this nomination is concerned. The media hate her too much to let her win with anything but a pledged delegate victory.

    As for Chris Bowers. . .he thinks Obama won Heath Shuler's district.

    Say what? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:13 PM EST
    Won Heath Shuler's district? Impossible.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:26 PM EST
    Bowers is full of it. (this might be a double post. . .)

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:57 PM EST
    From the map on Heath Shuler's website, his district covers 14 counties in western NC.  According to CNN, Hillary won 13 of those 14 counties, most decisively.  I mean, that district is Tennessee.

    [ Parent ]
    pretty much (none / 0) (#152)
    by tnjen on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:26 PM EST
    Knoxville funded Shuler's campaign even though Knoxville is GOP central -- football trumps party.

    [ Parent ]
    NPR sd. the same thing. (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:45:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (none / 0) (#206)
    by sas on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:16 PM EST
    she can still get the nomination

    [ Parent ]
    obama will be the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Turkana on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:47 PM EST
    and he will lose to mccain. the odds strongly favor both those results. but we'll probably sweep congress.

    And the Democratic Leadership (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:30 PM EST
    will pat themselves on the back for having nominated the "future" and congratulate themselves on their noble loss.   Never mind that losing in November will mean more years in Iraq, no real healthcare reform, and no accountability for the last eight years.   And none of that will matter because they will still have their cushy jobs.  Obama, of course, will go down as another democratic failure, his potential squashed because he over-reached before he was ready.  

    [ Parent ]
    And when he loses, they'll say it's because (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:51 PM EST
    everyone in America is a racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:19:11 PM EST
    And doom the Democratic party for more years in the wilderness.

    [ Parent ]
    They already HAVE said that (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Xeno on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    I have been amazed at the willingness of so many white liberals to demonize and race-bait other white liberals. It truly boggles the mind. Also, it's the perfect trap, because when those so demonized get angry at being portrayed as gun-toting, Jesus-clinging, racist white trash, it just confirms their detractors' prejudices. But having smeared a large swath of the party's base as uneducated racists, how can the Obama camp hope to win in the Fall?

    [ Parent ]
    Except them, derridog, which is what this (none / 0) (#92)
    by lookoverthere on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM EST
    is all about.

    [ Parent ]
    And, (none / 0) (#110)
    by OldCoastie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:48 PM EST
    screw any strong AA presidential candidate for a generation.

    [ Parent ]
    If (when) Obama loses the GE (none / 0) (#223)
    by Makarov on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:59:36 PM EST
    it will be the Clintons' fault.  That's the narrative already written by Kos, Huffington, KO, Tweety, Donna et al. Hillary could've dropped out after TX/OH and they would still say an Obama loss was her fault for attacking him.

    When the kind of people saying Hillary is going to drop out after winning WV and KY are David Gergen, I'm more sure than ever she's going all the way to Denver.

    Denver - we can't lose there.  There's just no way MY party (that's a dig to Donna) is going to nominate a guy because he won a bunch of red state caucuses in February.  The only way Hillary loses is if she quits.

    [ Parent ]

    not with my vote. (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Nonesense... (none / 0) (#97)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM EST
    There is absolutely no reason at this point to believe that Obama has electability issues simply because Democratic voters are splitting their votes in the primary.  Why on earth do you think that many of those Clinton people won't vote for Obama (you all will, I hope - otherwise you really don't care about actual policy or the direction of the country).

    Given everything that's happened over the past two weeks, and the general nastiness of the Democratic primary, why can't McCain currently break 45-46 in any poll?  Just wait: the minute we have a nominee, that person - now almost certainly Obama - will receive a quick bounce and never look back.  The structural conditions favoring any Democratic candidate are just enormous this year, and there's no reason to believe that another five months of high gas prices, rising unemployment, war in Iraq, foreclosures, and countless other things won't just sweep Obama into office.

    Anyway, I was sick of Obama supporters who said Hillary can't win (clearly, she can) and am sick of Hillary supporters who say Obama can't win. Absolutely nonsense. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but compared to McCain, they have enormous advantages.

    So, stop your whining.  Support your candidate until the end, the get unified and positive.  There's absolutely no reason we can't win this.

    [ Parent ]

    reason vs. fantasy (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Turkana on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:35 PM EST
    20-30% of clinton voters say they won't vote for obama. the gop 527s have not even begun to play with wright/ayers/rezko, etc. and while it's true that clinton has her own electability problems, there's absolutely no reason to believe you know what you're talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:20 PM EST
    And wait til the GOP starts running the ads on Obama's payroll tax. It is going shock independents...especially people who are contractors. Their taxes are going to go way up. That plan is not tax the rich. It is sock the middle class.

    [ Parent ]
    I hate to say this, (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:20 PM EST
    But I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama even if Howard Dean and Donna Brazile both held guns to my head.  I'd truly rather die than vote for him.  I simply couldn't live with myself if I did.

    [ Parent ]
    Good For You Boston (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:09:00 PM EST
    I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.  Policy?  This coming from a man who wanted to vote FOR Justice Roberts' confirmation?

    Don't THINK so.

    [ Parent ]

    You're right... (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:11:28 PM EST
    ..the Roberts vote really tells us everything we need to know about Obama.

    If you care about health care, the environment, foreign policy, fairer tax policies, the list is endless - then the choice between Obama and McCain should be a non-brainer.  You can't seriously be a progressive Democrat and be happier with a McCain presidency, which will be four more years of the most disastrous presidency in history.

    [ Parent ]

    Sar75 (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by kmblue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:20:46 PM EST
    I've lost count of how many times
    you've patronized and insulted Clinton
    supporters tonight, told us we HAD to vote for Obama over McCain or we're traitors, told us it's over, etc. etc.
    I suggest you give yourself a little rest.

    [ Parent ]
    Disgusting comment Boston... (none / 0) (#224)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:59:54 PM EST
    ...you'd rather die? You really need help.

    That you would abet a McCain victory shows that you really don't care about actual policy.

    What a shameful comment.  I'm sure Hillary would not be very proud of you for it either.

    [ Parent ]

    They will.... (none / 0) (#174)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:47:58 PM EST
    ...vote for Obama, I have no doubt.  A few won't, but this is said in the heat of the campaign.  20-30% of Obama supporters say the same.

    But do you really think that if Obama wins more pledged delegates, the popular vote, and Hillary then gets the nomination (and McCain puts an African American on the ticket), that she won't lose 20% of the Democratic base.

    The fact that you know, absolutely, that Obama can't win, shows that it is you who have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I don't know for a fact that he will win, but I certainly wouldn't have the confidence (and arrogance) to say that he absolutely can't.

    I expect you're all feeling a little bit bitter tonight - that's understandable.  I also am confident (although not sure) that you will all rally around our nominee, whoever it is (and it's hard to see how it's now Obama) when the time comes and be the good, progressive Democrats I'm sure you are.  If you won't and abet a McCain victory, well, then to hell with you.

    [ Parent ]

    Dream on. Smokers promise to quit all (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:53:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry. I didn't hit preview and this thing (none / 0) (#222)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:59:31 PM EST
    prints some extra words from sold old  post for reasons known only to it.  

    I meant to say, dream on, and leave it at that.

    [ Parent ]

    You're absolutely wrong (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by jen on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:13:32 PM EST
    You want to see what they're going to throw at Obama if he's the nominee. Here.

    This will suddenly become news if Obama is the nominee and there is no way in he** he will win the GE when they're done with him. His political career will be over.

    [ Parent ]

    No, you're wrong... how's that! (none / 0) (#250)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:22:48 PM EST
    All I'm saying is that the confident pronouncements of so many of you who have effectively given up on a Democratic victory are so incredibly misplaced, based on speculation from the results of primaries, results that could, when used differently, be used to make an equally spurious argument against Clinton's nomination (ie. she'll lose the Black vote, which will stay home or, quite possibly, vote for McCain if he put an African American on the ticket).

    I hated it when Obama supporters said Clinton can't win (not true) and I find it equally distasteful when Clinton supporters say Obama has no chance in hell.  Sour grapes is all this is, based on the fact that we have two strong candidates who split the vote according to their natural constituencies.  The fact that white working class men and women are voting more for Hillary doesn't mean that they won't vote for Obama, even if that's what some are telling pollsters.  But, if I remember correctly, Hillary started this campaign with 48% saying they would never ever vote for her, a nearly impossible hurdle.  No one is saying that about Obama, who continues to have higher positives than either Clinton or McCain.

    Just wait - in three weeks, Obama will get his bounce and never look back.  He'll outspend McCain 2 to 1 and enjoy all of the advantages that any Democratic nominee would have in a political year enormously - overwhelmingly - favorable to them.  

    [ Parent ]

    "Whining"? (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Palomino on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:43:29 PM EST
    Analysis and reasoned comment are not "whining," even if you don't like what you're hearing. And if you can't imagine any Democrat not voting for Obama, you have literally no idea how much he and his campaign have alienated many women, not all of them elderly uneducated bigots. In fact, with his absurdly premature campaign, Obama has not only allowed himself to be used in a power play designed to split the party, he has even driven quite a few people out of the party altogether and into independent status. And people in that situation actually owe the Democratic Party nothing in the fall. They don't have to vote for McCain, but they don't have to vote for Obama either. Either way, though, if the worthies of the DNC don't mind electing John McCain, they shouldn't be surprised when current and former Democrats give them a hand with that goal.

    [ Parent ]
    Has he alienated women... (none / 0) (#205)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    ...as much as the Clintons have alienated Blacks?  Will Clinton's nomination not do as much or even more damage to the Democratic coalition.

    You are all crying sour grapes here - you've lost and now you're saying that Obama can't win with a confidence and arrogance that, given the nature of this campaign season, is very misplaced.

    There are just as many reasons why Clinton is "unelectable" - her high negatives and the fact that she may be the only thing that unifies a demoralized Republican Party.  I don't buy them either.  You see, I'm just a better Democrat than you.  I support Obama, but would gladly and enthusiastically vote for Clinton, whom I like and respect.  That you can't bring yourself to feel the same way about the presumptive nominee of your party is the only thing that worries me somewhat, although not so much. I don't think that you are really representative of the majority of Clinton voters, most of whom I suspect are good Democrats who will do the right thing in November.

    [ Parent ]

    How have the Clintons alienated blacks?? (none / 0) (#256)
    by owenaprhys on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST
    Also Blacks make up about 13% of the population, women make up about 51%  If you divide the women in half (generously giving half to the Republicans) that still leaves 25% of the population are democratic women voters. If you further divide the black population bey the same method that leaves about 7% black democratic voters.

    So it is bad to alienate 7% of your voters, but it is disastrous to alienate 25% of your voters.

    [ Parent ]

    you need serious (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by cpinva on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:48:37 PM EST
    help, or stop drinking the hallucinagenic kool-aid. let me break the news to you as gently as i can:

    sen. obama, should he be the dem nominee, will be burned at the stake in the GE. he will not win one state in the deep south. none, nada, zip, zero. not if every single eligible AA voter voted in those states. he will win a few relatively safe dem states in the NE. he won't win FL or MI. he won't win most of the mid-western states. he might win CA, maybe.

    if you're judging his electability in the fall by how he does now, in states with large AA populations, then you haven't been paying attention to BTD's demographics analysis. or, you've just chosen to ignore the self-evident.

    myself, i want a democrat in the white house next january. an obama nomination pretty much guarantees at least 4 more years of failed republican policies.

    i would love nothing better than to be proven horribly, horribly wrong in my analysis. that said, i'm not willing to run the very real probablility that i'm right.

    but hey, if your delusions make you happy, far be it from to deprive you of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Again, not borne out by the polls... (1.00 / 1) (#220)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:57:58 PM EST
    ...Obama may not win deep southern states, but who cares?  He can very easily win Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, and, my God, of course Michigan.

    This kind of defeatism this early is really unbecoming. And it's based on a weak extrapolation from the results of the primaries, which are not good predictors of the general election.  

    [ Parent ]

    There is no way Obama will win MO (none / 0) (#238)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM EST
    27% of Democratic voters in MO will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. These are the small town and working class conservative Dems that Obama and Brazile feel are unnecessary. These are the Dems whose children enlist in the military. The more Wright, Ayers and other of Obama's associates get media attention (and they will), the less likely this demographic will change their minds.  

    We also have a small hispanic population. 70% of them will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. 67% would have voted for Clinton over McCain.

    This data is confirmed by a recent SUSA poll.

    [ Parent ]

    Not if he puts Gebhardt... (none / 0) (#244)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:15:59 PM EST
    ... on the ticket, which is not out of the question. Kerry should have in 2004.

    My God, people, we're five months out. To say Obama can or can't win certain states right now based on a SurveyUSA poll is so incredibly silly!  Again, I would never say Clinton "can't win" in the GE. That you all can so confidently predict an outcome in a season as unpredictable as this - and when Democrats enjoy so many advantages - is also silly (and a bit arrogant, actually).

    [ Parent ]

    According to CNN (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Jane in CA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:49:54 PM EST
    Fully half of the Clinton supporters (read: democratic party base) polled in Indiana and NC stated that they would either vote for McCain, or stay at home in the general election.

    There is a consistent pattern regarding these polls -- with each election, more dems are saying they will actively oppose an Obama presidency.  You may not like it, but you can't ignore it or dismiss it.

    This primary has killed the democratic coalition. The good news is that we will likely see a viable third party emerge from this mess.  Probably not in time for November, but definitely in time for 2012 (I hope).  

    [ Parent ]

    Donna is that you? (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:49:55 PM EST
    stick a fork in him, he is so done.

    go look at a few republican sites and fox news if you don't know why.

    heck go look at some investigative concerned democratic sites.

    it isn't dirt, it is his history that will doom him and he can't make a speech and make it all okay.  

    [ Parent ]

    You know what buddy? (5.00 / 3) (#234)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:07:26 PM EST
    As a gay man, you can take Obama and let him hang out with all those right-wing nut job preachers in South Carolina.

    ANY candidate that has the same person who was on stage with George W Bush flying the anti-gay kite will NEVER, EVER have my vote.  And I will work SUPER hard to let every self-respecting gay and lesbian person know that.

    Obama is the worst panderer ever.  So you think that I will come around for him?  Think again. Think WAY again.

    And I'm not whining. Okay, so if she loses it's the will of the people.  But the will of the people also happened with George W Bush.  And that's what I see in BHO, instead he has a "D" by his name.

    [ Parent ]

    There is every reason to believe ... (none / 0) (#198)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:52 PM EST
    ... Obama will have electability issues.  You can't lose 60 percent of the white vote and win in November.

    However he's the nominee we got and I agree that 2008 version McCain is a horrible candidate.

    First thing Obama has to do is unify the party ... which could be tough when so many of his supporters are Hillary haters.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow -- Charlie Rose's group and MSNBC both (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by jawbone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:34 PM EST
    talking about tonight as being the end of the Clinton campaign.  That she'll go on to some big wins in her next two good states, then drop out!

    Saying that she's lost groung pop vote-wise, that it is over.

    Timmeh said there's a money deal with Obama to pay off her campaign's debts!!! That gagged me.

    David Gergen said the same on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by bjorn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That's creepy (none / 0) (#94)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:39 PM EST
    Then why would I donate?

    [ Parent ]
    Donate (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:48:21 PM EST
    why on earth would you believe anything those losers are saying?

    [ Parent ]
    To be paranoid - (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:08:16 PM EST
    Perhaps they want to start this rumor as a way to dry up Hillary's money.  Use the talk that Obama will pay off her debt, so that people will stop contributiing to her campaign and she'll be forced to leave the race.  No money, no ad buys, no flyers, no payments to workers, no more primary run, (and sorry, no sentence.)
    Another thing, is that the people who contribute feel an ownership in the campaign, so saying this (Obama will pay all money debts) is a way to try and "buy" the ownerahip of the Clinton campaign away from all of us who either gave to it, worked on it, or did stuff for it.

    [ Parent ]
    The campaign debt sickens me (none / 0) (#186)
    by catfish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:02 PM EST
    People who endorse Obama have also had campaign debt paid off by him. Not saying Clinton wouldn't have done the same.

    But what sickens me is people who aren't worried about economy are voting (and donating) to Obama.

    Votes of the rich count more than votes of the poor.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 15) (#28)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    You're the one who told us Obama was more electable because of his Media Darling status.  Live by the electability argument, die by the electability argument.

    I think one fact you failed to take into account is that by and large, the working-class voters we're talking about don't really care what the media has to say.  That's why they supported Bill Clinton through his impeachment even as the media was telling them it was the worst scandal ever.  They're not going to support or not support a candidate just because the media tells them to, which kind of renders the argument null and void.

    What's depressing is that if we end up losing, we can't even learn a lesson from it because it will be the exact same lesson we have failed to learn so many times in the past.  Ah, what a joy it is to be a Democrat.

    Best comment (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:14:10 PM EST
    of the night, week and month.  Well said.

    [ Parent ]
    I am withdrawing the elctability argument tonight (5.00 / 11) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:14:42 PM EST
    Ironic I assume.

    Indiana was a bad result for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. Wow again. Other observers (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Cream City on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:19:26 PM EST
    think this cinched it for him but don't look beyond it.  Would that you could whisper in their earbuds:  "What matters is the general election."

    [ Parent ]
    he hasn't lost yet it seems.. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:59 PM EST
    As the Dem. onsultant to Faux News put it.. he would  phone Lake County and say "what's the vote count" and would get back "how many do you need?"

    In short, the implication was that "the Chicago machine" was doing this deliberately.

    I wouldn't put that sort of tactic past the Obama campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    That's how LBJ did it. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by liminal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    It's an old trick.  Hold back your votes until you know how many you need, then bring them in.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    I'm convinced that it's true. Just yesterday in (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:47:44 PM EST
    the Wall Street Journal they had a front page article on how Obama got the Teamsters to support him.  He's for doing away with a watch-dog commission that was designed in 1992 to keep the mob out of the unions.  This is Hoffa's pet peeve.  Hoffa, Rezko, Blagojevich, Nadhmi Auchi.  If these names don't come out in force from the Republicans against Obama in the GE, I would be very suspicious that Obama is some sort of trojan horse.  

    Sorry to be paranoid.... but oh well.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm callling shenanigans right now (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by angie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    Yeah, I'm saying it again. The fix is in here folks.

    [ Parent ]
    I've been thinking the same thing ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by cymro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:47:53 PM EST
    ... all night. Every time I look at that Indiana map with the strangely blank square next to Chicago, I expect to see a miraculous turnaround for Obama appearing there.

    Maybe I'm overly suspicious. All the same, I just hope Clinton has a big enough lead to eliminate any possibility of her total being overtaken by a late "surge" in Obama votes.

    [ Parent ]

    At least Toobin (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:12 PM EST
    brought up this problem on CNN--that the Chicago machine has a habit of holding back votes until the know how many their candidate needs.  

    Toobin seemed really ticked about it, actually.  I don't think he'll let anyone get away with that kind of crap.

    [ Parent ]

    And as you know, entirely predictable (4.66 / 3) (#55)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:51 PM EST
    He's damn lucky that SUSA screwed up.

    I don't understand how we win in the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    Hugely ironic. Tonight of all nights. (none / 0) (#195)
    by catfish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:31 PM EST
    What are you up to.

    [ Parent ]
    How is beating the expectations... (none / 0) (#228)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:03:51 PM EST
    ...namely a solid, if not huge, Clinton victory, a bad result for Obama in Indiana?  As it is, it's going to be less than a point, something of a surge (that, ironically, Zogby seems to have caught), for Obama at the last minute.

    Maybe Obama's gas-tax argument (clearly superior) gained traction?  

    [ Parent ]

    the gas tax stuff is silly (none / 0) (#243)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:15:28 PM EST
    The economists are incorrect on this. They are using supply/demand and price elasticity models on the wrong commodity -- see bob bank's diary over on mydd.. he has detailed graphs and everything. Economists are coming around to realizing this.

    It would be hard to implement and K-street / oil lobby clearly does NOT like it. No wonder it was DOA. Clinton and McCain get this partly right.. Obam a is not playing -- I suspect because of his donor ties.

    Let me tell you -- and I'm no economist but know behavioural economics.. consider what someone that drives 30M-60M/day will feel about this issue if we were at 6$/gallon.. at 8$, at 10$... or at 15$?

    [ Parent ]

    false premise (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:47 PM EST
    Sure, working class/blue collar/residually racist white dems would prefer Hillary to Obama, but how many of them union folks would really vote for John McCain?  Reagan won them after the catastrophic Democratic Carter.  McCain is running after the catastrophic Republican Bush.

    Read the polls please (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    you can argue on hope. I argue on data.

    [ Parent ]
    polls have significantly (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:55 PM EST
    less accuracy prior to the head to head race.  I think the Obama/Clinton campaign has proved that repeatedly.

    Read the polls from 3-5 months ago and compare them to the actuals.  Polls change dramatically, McCain is a weak candidate and a unified dem party will prove that so.

    [ Parent ]

    Again (none / 0) (#70)
    by rangerkeeper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:19:06 PM EST
    Show them to me when you make the argument.  That's all I'm (and I'm guessing above is) saying.

    [ Parent ]
    Read my posts on the subject (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:22:45 PM EST
    I have been discussing this for some time now.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#98)
    by rangerkeeper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:31 PM EST
    I'm doing that now, and there is some good stuff there...

    But in the future, at least reference them, because your post above is quite misleading...

    [ Parent ]

    Unfair. You entered this conversation late (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:37 PM EST
    -- less than two weeks ago, it looks like.  This has been a long discussion here, going on for months.  It just isn't the sort of blog that reiterates, regurgitates, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    They can't blame the Clintons! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:40 PM EST
    for another Obama surrogate's goof that will surely dominate talk radio. That's why they scream for Hillary to GET OUT NOW! - before the Repubs begin airing ads juxtaposing Wright's and Brazile's racist comments about white people - white people that could easily be led to vote for McCain.

    The media's response to Hillary's gas tax suspension was on full display tonight. Hillary is taking on the oil companies!! - major sponsors of the corporate media.

    If women (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by Foxx on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:28 PM EST
    had feminist consciousness like blacks have race consciousness, Hillary would of course already have won.

    That is what I intend to work on.

    Actually I have not seen too many people (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:23:01 PM EST
    dismissing the AA vote or the College educated vote,  But what I have seen a lot of is the dismissing of the blue collar working class vote.  If anyone has been disrespectful of the AA votes it has been the MSM and some pundits when they keep hinting of some kind of up-in arms attitude if Obama is not the nominee.  Most of us know that most Democrats will vote for the Democratic Nominee its the swing votes that we have to worry about, and lately those have come in large numbers from those blue collar workers of all races.

    I Remain Worried about Gary (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:24:16 PM EST
    The Mayor is reportedly saying that Gary may turn Indiana into a shocker.  And I never thought I'd say this about a fellow democrat, I'm completely suspicious of the hand-counting absentee ballots and what's going on in Gary.  After the Texas caucuses and other Rovian tactics, I do not think Axelrod is above stealing an election.

    I'll make an admission (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:04 PM EST
    I almost hope he just steals it outright so we can get this over with.

    [ Parent ]
    Um (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:55:08 PM EST
    It strikes me that this might not be the narrative point that we really want to end on.

    [ Parent ]
    Too late. . . (none / 0) (#233)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:07:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    why do you want it over with? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Because extending this primary (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST
    isn't going to make losing in the fall feel any better.

    [ Parent ]
    Call me an Optimist but I still think we will (none / 0) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:07 PM EST
    win in November no matter the stupid things the leadership is doing.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, so... (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:06 PM EST

    ...let's address this Big Gorilla sitting in the middle of the room, then.  At the beginning of all of this, you'd be called RACIST!111 for even implying that blacks are voting Obama.  But now that most of the primaries are said and done, it is SO VERY CLEAR that the black vote is almost monolithically voting Obama with an average of 85% and better.  So am I a racist for seeing this average?  This rather LARGE percentage of blacks across the boards voting for Obama?

    I swear to G-d, people are either blind or too politically correct to call a duck a duck.

    Obama made the primary about Racism (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:37:12 PM EST
    either through branding the "first Black president" and his wife as racists or letting it shine through via Bitter/Cling-gate, Wright, and now Brazile!

    Brazile sounds like a disciple of the racist Wright who mentored and counseled Obama for 20 years.
    It's no accident that Hillary supporters feel rejected and demeaned by Obama - either through his sexist and arrogant comments about Hillary or dissing us outright!

    [ Parent ]

    No, it's a duck alright. n/t (none / 0) (#139)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Brazille and the party elite (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:53 PM EST
    just said that the white working class people are no longer necessary because the Black folks are in line for taking over the Democratic Party.

    And for that, I'm leaving the Democratic Party after this primary.  I'm done.  Sick of them to the core.  I will no longer suffer though crappy candidates and over-blown egos of Party officials passing themselves off as righteous proletariats (remember the pigs in "Animal Farm").  

    Here's the math.  If Obama is the nominee, McCain will be President of the United States.  Obama has not won ONE state that will go Democratic in November.  

    Sometimes, a society gets the government it deserves.

    I couldn't believe she said that (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:33:00 PM EST
    Because they will find it very easy to bolt to the GOP and probably even take it over. Get ready for President Huckabee eventually. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Don't blame you at all. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by lansing quaker on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:46:07 PM EST
    I'm re-registering as an Independent tomorrow.

    I'm tired of feeling locked to "D's" over policy.  I've always split my tickets, and from now on the free moneytrain from my pocket to a party coffer is over.

    Maybe the Republicans will get better on "the gay thing."  Lord knows I haven't seen much of anything from my national Democrats in the past 8 years.

    [ Parent ]

    don't forget the young people, it is the (none / 0) (#144)
    by bjorn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:48 PM EST
    young people and AAs who will deliver the presidency to Obama!

    [ Parent ]
    you forgot the... (none / 0) (#190)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:38 PM EST
    "/sarcasm" in your post, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Me too! (none / 0) (#219)
    by alexei on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:57:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Would it kill Lake County... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST
    ... to release the rest of the numbers while they count the absentee votes?

    What kind of poor preparation led them to this scenario, where they've reported no results four hours after the polls closed?

    If I have to vote for Obama, I will (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:32:26 PM EST
    but it will be without any enthusiasm, save perhaps the enthusiasm I have to avoid any more right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court.

    If Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, I plan to take a long vacation until November at which time I will do my patriotic duty and show up to vote for him.

    This is from a life-long Democrat who walked precincts for McGovern and Dukakis and Mondale.  

    McCain would have a Dem congress (none / 0) (#165)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:45:01 PM EST
    to keep him in check.
    We lost the Reagan Dems tonight - that have been voting for Hillary.
    I imagine the Washington establishment that propped up Obama as the next savior of the world, knew Hillary planned to run for president. Perhaps they were only thinking of maintaining the correct gender in the White House? and oblivious to the divisiveness that could be caused by race?

    [ Parent ]
    Dream on... (none / 0) (#241)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:12:12 PM EST
    If you think a Democratic Congress will be worth a shit, you are smoking something pretty strong.

    We MUST have a Democratic president in the White House in 2008!

    [ Parent ]

    I will never vote for Obama. (none / 0) (#211)
    by alexei on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:55:18 PM EST
    He has disenfranchised 2.3 million voters, he has played the race card and he his a Chicago machine dirty politician.  I am officially no longer a Dem if the SDs give this nomination to him.

    [ Parent ]
    There Are Possibilities (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:39:00 PM EST
    We go until the end of voting.  There isn't much difference separating the two candidates.  Democratic elders who have never met an election they couldn't lose, rally around Obama.  As the presumptive nominee, the GOP smear machine takes him apart (since it doesn't have Hillary to kick around anymore).  We get to August and Hillary is still viable (even if she has suspended her campaign).

    Or Hillary kicks butt in WVA and KY.  There's a rumor Obama won't even compete, which I'm guessing will make him look weak to party elders.  She keeps it close in OR.  She kicks butt in PR.   The party decides it really does want to win in November and it puts her over the top (although probably forcing Obama on the ticket as VP).  

    Hillary should keep going until the end (5.00 / 1) (