The Math vs. The Problem

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I disagree. I would say that tonight (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:43 PM EST
    answers the questions about Obama's electability, definitively.

    Well, that settles it then (none / 0) (#13)
    by doyenne49 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:33 PM EST
    Who cares about facts when you FEEL so strongly?

    Actually it' not about feelings; it's (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:01 PM EST
    the MATH.. very simple too. Obama's campaign to win the Democratic nomination has been predicated on alienating white voters to score crushing victories in states with large AA populations. There is no marching back of this strategy. The "bitter" people are not stupid.

    It's just about as relevant as BTD's concerns (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by debrazza on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:08 PM EST
    I think Obama did well considering everything.  I liked Hill's speech, but Obama is presumptive at the moment unless he is caught with a dead hooker or a live boy.

    Do you know what "electability" means? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cymro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:58 PM EST
    We're discussing whether Obama can get elected President in November, not whether he is currently leading in the Democratic primary. OK?

    Was waiting for your opinion and I (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 3) (#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.

    I suppose 10th time is the charm? (5.00 / 1) (#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.


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

    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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.  


    Orwell decried the elites - saw that (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by catfish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:46:14 PM EST
    Catfish (none / 0) (#184)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:50:30 PM EST
    thanks for the link.

    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.


    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.

    Don't Be Depressed (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    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 ;) )

    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.

    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.

    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. . .)

    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.

    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.

    NPR sd. the same thing. (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:45:01 PM EST
    I disagree (none / 0) (#206)
    by sas on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:16 PM EST
    she can still get the nomination

    obama will be the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#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.  

    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.

    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.

    They already HAVE said that (5.00 / 0) (#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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


    not with my vote. (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:17 PM EST
    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.


    reason vs. fantasy (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    I hate to say this, (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Good For You Boston (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    You're right... (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    Sar75 (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.


    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.


    Dream on. Smokers promise to quit all (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:53:11 PM EST
    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.


    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.


    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.  


    you need serious (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    Again, not borne out by the polls... (1.00 / 0) (#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.  


    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.


    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).


    According to CNN (5.00 / 2) (#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).  


    Donna is that you? (5.00 / 1) (#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.  


    You know what buddy? (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.


    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.


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

    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?

    To be paranoid - (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.


    Well (5.00 / 13) (#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.

    Ironic I assume.

    Indiana was a bad result for Obama.


    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."

    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.


    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.  



    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.


    I'm callling shenanigans right now (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?  


    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$... or at 15$?


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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...


    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.

    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 / 5) (#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 / 5) (#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.

    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.

    Too late. . . (none / 0) (#233)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:07:05 PM EST
    why do you want it over with? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:55 PM EST
    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.

    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.

    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!


    No, it's a duck alright. n/t (none / 0) (#139)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:25 PM EST
    Well, as an academic myself, I (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:58 PM EST
    believe they think us to be elitist, arrogant and out of touch.  But how could that be just because we think that they are a different species and not too bright?  I had an argument with a colleague the other day, who is a big Obama supporter. He saw nothing wrong with what Obama said to the rich crowd in SF about Pennsylvania voters. Said it was perfectly true.

    There you go.

    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. . .

    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.


    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!

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

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

    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.

    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 / 0) (#192)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:00 PM EST
    there is only about 6 contests left.
    She will win WV and KY BIG, not win OR and SD and I don't know about MO.

    Either way, the so-called party leaders need to know that Obama is NOT a uniter and throwing away the support of your core will mean another 12 years of Republican control of the White House.


    I like that idea (none / 0) (#189)
    by sarissa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:23 PM EST
    Keep Hilary in reserve.  Presumably she suspends immediately after the last primary.

    Can I say just one thing (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:44:16 PM EST
    I feel betrayed by the AA vote especially in NC.  The Clintons have worked their entire lives for these people.  I completely understand the desire to have someone like yourself but even the AA women turned their back on Hillary.  I have fought my entire life to speak up when I see racism.  Why didn't any of the AA voters stand up?

    I'm wondering about this too.. (none / 0) (#232)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    Perhaps we can hear from AA's, esp. if any of them read TL.

    I am laying this directly at the feet of (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST
    Barack Obama, who decided to use race and class as a wedge for the sole purpose of knocking Hillary out of the race, never seeing that in the process, he was alienating people who, if treated as if they actually mattered to him, would have given him more than a fair chance to be persuaded.

    I'm one of those 50+ white women, with education and a white-collar job, married and living a pretty good life.  Someone who raised her children to be tolerant and open-minded and compassionate.  Someone who has seen enough to be able to appreciate what an unbelievable opportunity we had to not just make history with a female or black candidate, but to change the path for so many people.

    What angers and saddens me is knowing that people like me didn't kill that dream, and Hillary didn't kill that dream - people like Barack Obama, who can't figure out who the heck he is, and people like Howard Dean and Donna Brazile and DAvid Axelrod killed it.  People who can't see the forest for the trees killed it.

    Oh, sure, Barack Obama may, if he's the nominee, realize his own personal dream - but he will have done it at my expense and your expense, at the expense of the Democratic party, and I am not going to forgive him for it.  

    The only thing, as I see it, that saves the dream is for Hillary to prevail - because she cares about something that is so much bigger than herself or any other candidate: her country.

    Why won't the working class... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:48:30 PM EST
    ... vote for Obama? It's not racism.

    Same reason they didn't vote for Kerry, Mondale, and all the rest. They don't think the Dem candidates understand and address their concerns.

    This time, it's worse. They think, correctly, that the candidate looks down on them. Case in point: they might vote for someone else, so it must be that they're racist.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#215)
    by phat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:57:09 PM EST
    I just hope Obama's got something in his bag of tricks to handle this problem.

    I'm afraid he doesn't.


    Lake County Screwjob!? (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by sarissa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:49:09 PM EST
    What the hell?

    It's Certainly Starting to Look that Way (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:53:38 PM EST
    The one deal breaker for me with Obama is if I think he stole this election, I will not vote for him.  Period.

    Obama Has To Do Two Things (5.00 / 0) (#246)
    by dugan49 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST
    for me to consider voting for him. (I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every Presidential election since 1972)

    He has to leave the racially divisive and racially separatist Trinity United Church Of Christ, because there is no way in hell the President Of The United States should be an active member of a place like that. and

    He has to apologize to Hillary Clinton for allowing her to be demonized as a racist by his followers and surrogates.

    Let's just say, I won't be holding my breath waiting for these things to happen. But if they don't, I will stay home on election day.

    I agree with you, but other blogs are (none / 0) (#2)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:06:05 PM EST
    implying that she'll have to drop out now. Also, there seems to be something fishy going on in Gary, Indiana and CNN, at least, still hasn't called it.

    What is your take on all of this?  I'm depressed. Tell me not to be.

    It was a ploy to deny her the victory speech (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:37 PM EST
    how low can the Obama supporters go.

    ok CNN calls it disgrace (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:50 PM EST
    holding vote counting like this is disgrace and not appropriate and should be called out.

    more discussion on this on CNN (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30:07 PM EST
    Chicago style politics..

    Are we insinuating (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarissa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:07:32 PM EST
    that these same white, Hilary voters will simply not vote for an AA?  

    Give us lower class whites some credit :)

    No (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM EST
    I'm insinuating that working class whites won't vote for this African American.  His campaign regularly dismisses them as unimportant.  He has done nothing to really reach out to them and Unity doesn't mean much when you're worried about losing your home and job.

    This isn't about any African American candidate, this is about one African American candidate.  


    He has done nothing (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:34:05 PM EST

    to publically reach out towards the black community, either.  But he gets their votes.  Why?

    They Want A Black President (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:57:21 PM EST
    I have been reading some of the top AA blogs. Many of the bloggers and the commenters know that Obama is not doing anything to reach out to them and they expect little from him on AA issues if he becomes president. If in their opinion both candidates are the same,  they will vote for him because they want a black president.  

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#52)
    by debrazza on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:31 PM EST
    He made the "bittergate" flub that hurts a lot and it probably hurts even more that Hills kept calling him elitist, but it looks to me that he can still win Clinton's Dem coalition.  He didn't win white working class voters either.

    No but there are some white voters (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:51 PM EST
    out there that may or may not vote for a Democrat that will not vote for an AA and that is all around the Nation not just in the south.

    Not any A-A (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:59 PM EST

    Give ME some credit please.


    I agree that was not your intent but (none / 0) (#209)
    by sarissa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:52 PM EST
    Hilary supporters need to be careful with the Obama can't win argument.  I've noticed a lot of commentary that walks right up to and flirts with the "an AA can't win in a general" argument.

    I won't vote for Obama. (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by lansing quaker on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:35:37 PM EST
    Michigan Primary voter.

    Strongly behind my FEMALE governor.

    Also gay.

    Also fervently middle class.

    I was dazzled by "hope" from 16-21.  Now I'm a pragmatist, and there is nothing Obama and especially Michelle Obama can do to make me like them even on a personal level.

    Hillary is out?  Then my "Democratic" vote goes to downticket Michigan races.  Nothing more.


    You pragmatism should lead you to vote for him (none / 0) (#130)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:17 PM EST
    no matter what.

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by lansing quaker on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:45 PM EST
    I'm tired of it.  I've talked personally with high ranking Democrats who were totally for gay marriage but had to say they were against it and "pro civil unions" for the political benefit and to make it work.

    I've made sacrifices on my social liberties, and I damn well won't on my economics.  Obama has not demonstrated one iota that he has any gravitas regarding national policy.

    What good will he be for?  To sign a bill if it passes Congress?  What if the Obama Presidency RUINS a Democratic Congress?

    As if.  I've always believed in Legislative over Executive power (which is why I love State politics) and will continue to support turning the Michigan representatives Blue but I will not support Obama just because there is a (D).

    The Congress has made me irate over the last two years.  If they have a majority and a Republican President drumbeats for war and they faint at the thought, I'd be glad.  Glad to know the Democratic Representatives cannot stand up Legislatively and just talk a good game.  It would be in line with how I feel about this Clinton/Obama debacle.

    I don't want a signature in the Oval Office.
    I want action in the Oval Office.

    And Obama has not demonstrated the latter to me.  Pragmatism isn't voting for a (D).  It's voting for integrity and sound policy.

    And again.  I'm a Michigan Primary voter.  Obama has continually said I should get lost.  And I will be in the GE.  I need no futher explanation than that.


    There are plenty of other reasons (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by ricosuave on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:43:26 PM EST
    I find your conclusion here offensive.  Hillary's remaining argument now is that the country as a whole will not elect Barack Obama.  Why do you have to assume that the only reason people vote against him is because he is black.  I voted against him because he is little more than marketing hype and his actions rarely meet the loftiness of his words.

    I have generally seen people on this blog compare him to Mondale and Dukakis.  People who would be willing to vote Democratic aren't going to vote against him because he is black any more (or, at least, much more) than people voted against Dukakis because he is Greek.  Nobody is calling him a Black Panther--they are comparing him to failed Democratic whitebread candidates like Kerry and the guys above.

    Hillary's best (but not only) remaining arguments are that she would be a better president and that she will be a better general election candidate.  Obama may get a media bump for only doing slightly worse than expectations tonight (Clinton double standard in effect), but in the next few days we will again be deluged with Wright, Rezko, and waffle-based electability questions.


    Eyes wide open (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:15 PM EST
    what the? don't project, please. (none / 0) (#141)
    by kangeroo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:30 PM EST
    The problem with using primaries (none / 0) (#5)
    by rangerkeeper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:02 PM EST
    is that you're comparing apples to oranges.  I think Hillary would get 80%+ of the black vote against McCain (more or less the same as Obama), just like I think that Obama will get about 40% of the white vote against McCain (more or less the same as Hillary).  Whites are choosing Hillary over Obama and blacks are choosing Obama over Hillary doesn't mean anything when comparing either to McCain.

    Do you expect Hillary to beat McCain with whites by 61-37 or 60-40?

    Of course not, and the logic is exactly the same.

    I expect McCain to beat Obama (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:12 PM EST
    70-30 or more among white males---at least the working class white males. Since he is a REpublica, he will do BETTER than Hillary with that group. The problem you have is that you fail to distinguish between the relative importance of swing voters versus bloc voters.

    asdf (none / 0) (#59)
    by rangerkeeper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:11 PM EST
    No, I'm just saying that using primary results to argue against McCain doesn't make any sense.  I'm a swing voter by demographic in both the primary and the general, but I'm not going to vote against McCain if Clinton wins or if Obama wins.  I'm just saying that BTD's using the wrong metric.  He may be right, but his argument doesn't make any sense at all.

    You think wrong (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM EST
    The polling shows Obama does much worse with white working class voters than does Hillary Clinton.

    Fine (none / 0) (#40)
    by rangerkeeper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:30 PM EST
    Okay, then use that polling to make your argument.  Using the HC v. BO results proves nothing.

    PAY ATTENTION! (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:19:38 PM EST
    McCain will at teh very least replicate the pattern.

    He's more than likely to improve on it--In states that we must win to carry the nation.


    I have used it (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:34 PM EST
    Most TL readers are familiar with the polling I am referring to.

    What can we do? (none / 0) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    So what is the solution, BTD?  

    We can talk about electability all night long.  But when we have the party split between 2 distinct groups it is pretty easy to argue that the other is unelectable without the other candidate's demographic groups.

    No Democrat can win without blue collar whites.  No Democrat can win without African-Americans.  

    So tell me how to solve this problem other than simply allow the process to go the way it is supposed.

    Use your brain: in the worst case scenario, (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:24 PM EST
    blacks will simply stay home if Hillary is the  nominee---they will not vote for McCain. In reality, they will vote for Hillary in large numbers. But white working class males? Obama will not get them.

    My Hope (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:33:59 PM EST
    I don't think the SD will give Hillary the nomination even if she eclipsed Obama in the pledged delegate count. It won't happen but I think they will deny her out of hate and fund raising.

    So, if she must step aside, she should make a deal for majority leader in return for public support. I do not think they can work together and frankly I won't vote for him even if Hillary is VP.

    Obama will probably lose and Hillary is the best person to stop horrible mccain legislation and judges. Plus she won't get tagged with the Nov defeat. I think we can make gains in the congress and that would give her another platform for the next four years.


    Why? (3.00 / 0) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    Because they won't vote for a black man?  

    I'm not quite so cynical about Americans.


    God (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:19:34 PM EST
    Can it ever be anything other than racism with you people?  The problem of getting white working-class voters to support Democrats is not new, for the love of Christ.  Think about why we've struggled with those voters in past elections that we've lost, and realize that Obama has the exact same problems.  

    This is why we not only lose but keep losing - people like you demonstrate an utter inability to analyze why we're failing to connect with enough voters.  "Because they won't vote for a black man?"  Jesus Christ.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    You are the ones acting as if Hillary has some sort of secret stranglehold on white blue collar workers.

    If you don't think that race matters then STOP USING RACE AS AN ADJECTIVE.

    What I find ironic about this is that I DON'T think this race is about race and I just said so.

    Yet Hillary supporters ALWAYS refer to the demographic that Obama can't win as the white blue collar.  But of course it's not because of race.  Simply an easy way to describe the group, right?

    Jesus Christ indeed.  


    okay (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:29 PM EST
    he can't win Latino working class voters either.

    Why? (none / 0) (#162)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:44:19 PM EST
    Why can't he win either group?  Because they favored Hillary in the primary?

    Give me a break (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:43:55 PM EST
    You act as though "white working class" is a formulation that we just now invented for purposes of this election.

    Winning enough of the white working class has ALWAYS been a challenge for Democrats.  And last time I checked, we haven't nominated a whole lot of black candidates.

    Ignoring this history that everyone knows, and pretending like the only reason Obama would have a problem with the white working class would be racism, is just obnoxious.


    No Steve (none / 0) (#180)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:49:12 PM EST
    What's obnoxious is your attempt to suggest that Hillary, a Democrat, somehow does great with white blue collar voters while Obama, a Democrat, can't win them.  Why?  When did Hillary become a great beacon to the middle class workers, particularly men?

    I have absolutely no reason to believe that Hillary would do well with white blue collar workers against McCain.  This was a group that generally dislikes her.  Yet because she did well against McCain with that group I should believe she will do well with them in the general.

    Instead of saying, over and over again, that Obama can't win the white working class explain how Hillary will win the white working class?


    Clinton will win the white working class (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:04:39 PM EST
    because of the winning Clinton formula: she appeals to them on every level, she connects with them, and she feels to them like someone who will fight for their values, their pay check and their children.

    Obama--like Kerry--seems too aloof.  He stares down his nose at them.  He comes across as elitist.  He insults them.  He has associations that don't jibe with their personal values.

    This is not rocket science.  Obama is a freakin' KID in comparison to Clinton.  He has ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE.

    Stop playing this game where Hope and Change mean he can do this job.  People are DYING.  Our economy is in the toilet.  Torture is being committed in our names.  Our nation is being LIED TO.

    It's about trust, and they didn't trust Kerry to understand what they need and they sure as heck don't trust Barack Obama.


    Because (5.00 / 0) (#235)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:07:44 PM EST
    she has learned how to build an affinity with them on an emotional level, like her husband did.  She has convinced them that she understands their problems and would do something about them.

    Liberals never understand this, because for them everything has to be reducible to a rational, issue-based approach for supporting a candidate.  "But WHY do these voters believe that about Hillary," these liberals would insist.  "Name me the bills she's sponsored in the Senate that would lead them to conclude that she understands their problems!"

    I don't think you even realize that you've just helped make my argument.  If you don't think Hillary has any particular affinity with these white working-class voters, and I agree she isn't exactly the son of a mill worker, then his failure to connect with them in greater numbers is that much more troubling.  You seem to be making the David Axelrod argument - "no Democrat is going to win these voters anyway, so who cares" - which I'm not a fan of.


    The difference (none / 0) (#254)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:27:52 PM EST
    is I am not trying to draw general election conclusions based on primary voting results.

    The denizens of this site continue to claim that Obama is unelectable whereas Hillary, presumably, is electable.  This is based on nothing more than desired results.  

    Hillary is not Bill.  She has nowhere near the charisma that he does and I see no reason to believe that she identifies with middle class workers like he did.

    You wish to make an appeal to SDs that Hillary CLEARLY has these voters whereas Obama does not.


    Don't pretend to be stupid! (5.00 / 0) (#245)
    by ghost2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM EST
    Hillary has the working class vote, PERIOD.  Now, we understand that AA want one of their own to win, and vote for Obama 90-10 in all primaries.  The REST of the working class goes with Hillary because she CARES about them.

    Barack Obama has the Dukakis problem.  It has NOTHING to do with racism.  You try to make it like that and avoid the fact that yes, his candidacy at the moment is really nothing more than a coalition of AA and eggheads.

    Bill Clinton understood working class. Hillary does too.  They are the ultimate swing voters and I dare say economy matters a lot to them.  Having a competent government matters to them.

    As I said above, without the working class, you get the Mondale and Dukakis coalition.  Even Kerry and Gore didn't do well with the working class in OHIO (where Bill Clinton won) and we know what happened there.  I put Kerry in the same Dukakis category, and I think he came closer than Dukakis, because the country was so sick of Bush.  Perhaps, that would help Obama. This is a landslide year for Democrats.  

    When Bill or Hillary Clinton talk about economic issues, you feel they get it.  When Kerry or Daschle talked about it, I cringed.  Daschle himself had humble beginning. But he couldn't frame an argument against Bush's tax cuts.  He would lose each time.

    Compare it with Hillary going against O'Reilly and handing him his you-know-what to him (including on the tax issue).


    I agree with that (none / 0) (#67)
    by debrazza on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:18:16 PM EST
    Plus, Obama still gets to pick a VP, could be Hills or could be someone else that could appeal to that demographic.

    People don't vote for vice-presidents (n/t) (none / 0) (#108)
    by zyx on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:28 PM EST
    There would be no one (none / 0) (#167)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST

    else more qualified that Hills, no one else who carries what she has carried.  Either Obama or Clinton would have to swallow a giant bitter pill and take the Unity Pony.

    Some % of blacks will stay home. (none / 0) (#226)
    by alexei on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    Agree the working class whites will vote for McCain.

    You're confused (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:09 PM EST
    They don't count more, they're just harder to keep in the tent, so more attention has to be lavished on them.

    McGovern (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:32 PM EST
    A lot of older folks look at Obama's coalition and see George McGovern.  Don't take it personally.  It's just the last time young voters chose the nominee, Richard Nixon won in a landslide.  

    {twitch} you had to go there . . . . n/t (none / 0) (#148)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:40:18 PM EST
    She has some wisdom in her years (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:32 PM EST
    Hillary is clearly more electable. She could have been more polite, but as I'm sure you know, people can be pretty passionate about their politics.

    Yeah, okay. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:32:30 PM EST

    Try living in Oakland and having black women scream in your face (and black boys muttering) "OBAMA!" when you're wearing your Clinton pins.

    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. . . (none / 0) (#128)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:35:45 PM EST
    We're screwed (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:35 PM EST
    We really are.

    Obama apparently increased (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:36 PM EST
    his votes from white women in IN.  

    You are assuming (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:53 PM EST
    that there is a solution.  I don't know that there is.

    I've been a Democrat for 30 years.  With the exception of the 1980 election, where I stupidly voted for John Anderson, I've voted straight Dem all that time.  I will not vote for Obama.  I have no idea how many other Dems are like me - if the Dems are lucky, not many.  But I don't think anyone really knows right now.  Maybe once the primary is over we'll see just how much unification is possible.


    Lots of people (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:32:30 PM EST
    are emotionally tied to their candidate right now and find it impossible to even consider voting for the other candidate.  

    Those feelings will change within a couple of months as the reality of a John McCain presidency starts to sink in.


    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    I think is a lot of people won't vote for Obama because they don't like his tactics and they don't really believe him to be a dem. That is where I get off the bus. I just don't like him and I think he will be a disaster. So will McCain but four more years of a disaster could wipe the republicans out for a generation. I'm thinking long term.

    Yep (none / 0) (#255)
    by Mari on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:31:49 PM EST
    I'd rather have a republican as Prez than have Obama who officially would represent the Democratic Party, but advocates Republican policies such as social security privatization. Frankly, why pretend that Obama would promote Democratic Party/FDR planks and delude oneself into thinking he would act as a Democrat when he continually promotes Republican-lite policies.

    Mine won't (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:22 PM EST
    and frankly, what I hear you saying is, "There, there, dear, don't cry.  I brought you flowers, so everything's all right now."

    Maybe that's not what you meant.  Maybe it is.


    You can infer (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST
    what you want to.  Not sure why you wanted to make this a gender framed discussion but to each their own.

    My point is that at the end of the day we are all looking for the same thing.  

    There are things that Hillary has done that really bothered me.  But that doesn't mean I would even consider voting for McCain.

    Hopefully you guys will stop viewing Obama and his supporters as the enemy.   Some of you won't but most of you will just as most Obama supporters would wind up support Hillary come November.


    Maybe (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM EST
    because this entire primary season has been awash with misogyny?  Maybe because I haven't gone a single day of my life without having to deal with sexism of one sort or another, some petty and some decidedly not, and this primary has ramped all that up to 11, even on so-called "progressive" blogs?  Maybe because I don't have the luxury of not seeing things through a gendered frame?

    Stripping away my emotions . . . (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:43:04 PM EST
    and I still can't support Obama. He's not 'there' on several issues for me. I have ZERO faith in him. In getting to the WH and if he does, his performance. If he gets in, I see the House and Senate start flipping towards red in 2010. 2012 will be ugly.

    same here.. (none / 0) (#147)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:39:49 PM EST
    Over on Rush's site there's a long column where he's saying how AA voters have been reliably democractive even through Bull Connor's sixties..

    And they have given every indication of voting as a bloc .. this year -- which fits his argument to a T.

    So I say lose the egg-heads and the college kids -- nominate Clinton via a back room deal and take our chances w/ the AA-vote.

    I doubt that will happen since Obama has been smart enough to buy the supers who are now going to as another up-threader noted - die w/ Obama than win.


    The real question in my mind is whether McCain loses "his" solid Republican base battling for us Indies.. we sure do live in interesting times. Clearly the democratic party doesn't care for us, but are we going to win w/ the red devils?


    Wow (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    So I say lose the egg-heads and the college kids -- nominate Clinton via a back room deal and take our chances w/ the AA-vote.

    Not sure what to say about that.  


    If the supers really believe (none / 0) (#170)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:47:33 PM EST
    that Obama can't win, and I think that's probably a correct assessment, it's the pragmatic move.

    If the supers (none / 0) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:12 PM EST
    really believe that then they wouldn't continue to endorse Obama.

    You guys have really convinced yourself that Wright is an albatross that can never be cast off, haven't you?


    I don't think it's about Wright (none / 0) (#213)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    But I don't care what it's about. The polls tell me that Obama is unelectable.

    my vote (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarissa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:24 PM EST
    UNITY TICKET (Clinto agrees not to run in 2012)

    flyer, more Obama supporters like you (none / 0) (#23)
    by Teresa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:43 PM EST
    admitting we need both groups helps a lot.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:30 PM EST
    While many here may think otherwise my primary objective is for the Democrats to win in November and for the Democrats to take control of the national message.

    We all need to remember that the most important thing is to prevent McCain and the Republicans from winning in November.  


    I think it was more saying that not only highly (none / 0) (#64)
    by jawbone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    educated lib type Dems are important to the party, that Dems need to remember their roots of New Deal programs to try to, essentially, redistribute wealth. To reach out to voters of all the range in the Dem Party's Big Tent.  Even the Reagan Dems.

    Halperin said it's bad that Hillary hasn't been able to reach out to and win Obama's voters!

    He's saying her electability problems are the same as Obama's, but Obama has the delegates.


    Ride the Unity Pony (none / 0) (#157)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:43:26 PM EST

    Clinton on top, Obama Prez in 8 years.

    I hate horses, but it's a horse I'll have to take.  Makes history twofold and everyone can look at the bright side of things.


    Call the ACLU (none / 0) (#229)
    by catfish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:04:01 PM EST
    Start an elitists rights movement. What can I say? I have a college degree in math but am on a tight budget. My friends, family drive priuses but I do not.

    The "elitist" faction tag sticks because it's a clear-cut one.


    Thanks BTD (none / 0) (#11)
    by bjorn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    I hope the SDs read TL! You are making a sound argument about electability based on facts, not one other person said anything like this tonight.  I think it is sad, but I don't think SDs will make their decision based on electability like they should.  They are going to go with the media hype and the wave of "it's all but over now."  And if Donna B has her way MI and FL will never see the light of day in a way that counts.

    Regarding the 200,00 makeup (none / 0) (#20)
    by jcsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:59 PM EST
    It looks like it will be close - over 180K, probably more like 190K.  So Chuck Todd is going to be pretty accurate, if not the full 200K

    minus (none / 0) (#29)
    by Turkana on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:18 PM EST
    indiana, so maybe 60% of the pa vote.

    No, combined IN and NC (none / 0) (#46)
    by jcsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:14:22 PM EST
    will net Obama over 180K in pop vote

    170, right now (none / 0) (#88)
    by Turkana on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:13 PM EST
    so 68%.

    Lake county (none / 0) (#132)
    by jcsf on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:51 PM EST
    Will come in.  

    Nah, just wait until KY and WV. (none / 0) (#103)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30:07 PM EST
    Haperin on Rose - says some big Hillary supporter, (none / 0) (#21)
    by jawbone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:19 PM EST
    big Dem, is deciding tonight whether to tell her to drop out.

    BTD, you speak for me also (none / 0) (#31)
    by chancellor on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    I mentioned in another thread that, regardless of what alternate coalitions might form if Obama is the nominee, I simply don't see him winning either PA or OH in the GE. Without those two states, Dems lose.

    Disagree. (none / 0) (#49)
    by daveUSA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:10 PM EST
    We don't have any basis for saying that white working-class voters who vote for Clinton in the primary will not vote for Obama in the general.  By the same logic, you would have to say that over 90% of black people would not vote for Clinton if she were the nominee.  When the real game is on, people will rally behind their team.  Polls that say otherwise right now are meaningless.  It's the heat of the moment.  McCain and Bush supporters said the same thing about the other candidate in the 2000 primary, and McCain's supporters ended up coming home.

    Obama will look a lot better to white working-class folks when he is no longer being race baited by Republicans AND Democrats.

    Um...it's going to get worse.... (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by cosbo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:23:30 PM EST
    don't you understand? The 50 or so million people who voted in the primaries only get to select the candidates. It's the 100 million voters waiting for the primary process to be over that actually select the president. It's not us. It's who those people are comfortable with.

    Edwards supporters knew that.
    Clinton supporters know that also.
    It's the Obama supporters who haven't figured that out as yet.

    For me...it starts and ends with the names.

    McCain vs. Obama

    Who will they go to sleep at night feeling safe with?


    McCain is going to win in a landslide, because (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:57 PM EST
    there are many many women who will not support Obama because of the misogyny of his supporters, including the MSM.  I'm one of them.  I also have a lot of serious misgivings about his connections to Rezko and Hoffa in Chicago.  I think he's already sold universal health care down the river, with his Harry and Louise ads. I don't like him, don't trust him and I think he's a thin-skinned, arrogant man who reminds me way too much of GW Bush (only smarter).

    I won't vote for him in the GE and I won't work for him or give him money or make phone calls or canvass (which is something I always do).  I'll vote down ticket but not for President and I've been a loyal Democrat for over 30 years.  I know I'm not alone.


    The Republicans have the real dirt on Obama (none / 0) (#154)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:47 PM EST
    and they are just waiting...

    I was listening to MSNBC on the radio last night (couldn't help it- it was being simulcast on AirAmerica Radio) and they said that McCain's camp WANTS to run against Obama, not Hillary.

    The McCain camp feels they have more ammo against Obama and that Hillary is much stronger than Obama to fight against.

    You are right.  McCain may be this generation's Nixon Landslide of '72.  Obama doesn't appeal to as many people as the press would like you to believe.  It's all about myth making.  Bill Clinton was right-  Obama's rise to "power" is a "fairy tale" and I stopped believing in those a long time ago when I grew up.


    Actually we do (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:25 PM EST
    If you are familiar with the polling, you would know this.

    Obama will continue to look like what he is (none / 0) (#87)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:08 PM EST
    inexperienced and not qualified.

    I think your math is wrong on pop.vote (none / 0) (#58)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:08 PM EST
    Obama's lead is 218,000ish in NC.

    Indiana will be Hillary by 40k (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    Wrong (none / 0) (#84)
    by Garmonbozia on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:25:17 PM EST
    The margin without Lake County is 40,000. No way it splits 50/50.

    I think you meant 4k (none / 0) (#253)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:26:18 PM EST
    I just love the confident predictions that people still make in an election year that has been so unpredictable.

    The Math? (none / 0) (#62)
    by uncledad on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:38 PM EST
    "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."

    You seem to be forwarding the aurgument that whites in Indiana and N.C. will never vote for Obama. And it seems you think they won't vote for him because he is black. I disagree, I will vote for whoever wins the D. nomination. If someone won't vote for a minority or a women than they are not a real Liberal or Moderate for that matter. And without liberals and moderates the democratic party don't work, or vote.

    They won't vote for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:19:08 PM EST
    not for any A-A.

    The polling says so.

    Clinton wins white working class against McCain and he does not. It is simple as that.


    It Should Be Particularly Worrying (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:32:19 PM EST
    because there were polls where Obama topped 50%.  So it was winnable for him.  He's supposedly locked this up and he couldn't win a State where not that long ago he had a 7% lead in the average polls.  

    The party may decide that his win in NC and coming close in Indiana proves he's fixed his problem.  But as you have made clear, it will have to ignore reality to do that.  Although this election season, it seems as if many democrats have given up being part of the reality based community.  


    I don't think its that cut and dried. (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:59:25 PM EST
    Colin Powell would get white working class votes.

    But Obama is no Colin Powell.


    Probably won't vote for him (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by DaleA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:21:36 PM EST
    Voted for Harold Washington. A great man, had he lived longer I would have voted for him again and again. I voted for Jessie Jackson in the primaries. So, perhaps it is just that Obama is the wrong candidate for my issues. I won't for white people who have his outlook and problems either.

    It's only a problem if all whites flock to McCain (none / 0) (#63)
    by lawstudent on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:39 PM EST
    BTD...while your math makes sense on one level (i.e., who is supporting Hillary vs. Obama in the primaries), it means nothing unless you are suggesting that those who vote for Hillary will vote for McCain in a general election.  I realize that there have been polls on this issue, but I'm just not buying it.  How many white Hillary supporters do you really think will flock to McCain if Obama gets the nomination?  I'd imagine most will stick with the party.  Your post, therefore, seems to be much ado about nothing.

    Many white Clinton supporters will go to McCain (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:41 PM EST
    because they don't support Obama and those working class Americans tend to be more conservative than progressive liberals.  

    But many more, like myself, will just sit out.  Even my 68 year old mother who has voted since she was allowed in the South said she would not vote for Obama in November.  For the first time in 40 years, she's sitting this one out.


    Just tired of the BS candidates the Dems throw up as the "savior" of the party.  Obama is no savior.  If anything, he will be the downfall of the Democratic Party.  The exodus that started with Johnson will be complete by November 2008.


    Read the polling on the issue (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:18:08 PM EST
    read my post... (none / 0) (#140)
    by lawstudent on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:26 PM EST
    where i wrote that i realize there are polls on this, but i don't buy it.  do you really think that significant of an amount of hillary supporters are going to flock to mccain???

    Duh (none / 0) (#149)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:40:42 PM EST
    You have some evidence to the contrary? Chanting "yes we can" will not win the election.

    We don't have to vote McCain (none / 0) (#227)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:02:00 PM EST
    we have options . . . .

    I will absolutely (none / 0) (#136)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:37:30 PM EST
    consider McCain in the GE.   He is the only Republican I would consider voting for and guess what..he is their nominee.  Without meaning to they probably nominated the only republican who could sway voters...And it looks like the Democratic party is nominating the only dem who could lose.  

    Seems Americans (none / 0) (#68)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:18:17 PM EST
    don't like experts of any kind, educated people who make them feel bad for not knowing as much, four-eyes, elitists.

    Next to judges though, academics do seem to get the most crap. Like in Cambodia when they killed everyone who wore glasses first.

    A good example is that a president has to be someone you could have a beer with, not wine, unless it comes in a box. Can you imagine if Obama visits a vinyeard in CA or something like that?

    Actually I have not seen too many people (none / 0) (#83)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:24:55 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.

    Hillary said (none / 0) (#106)
    by Natal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:04 PM EST
    tonight that she'll work for Obama if he's the nominee. She'll bring in the working whites into the fold. No need to worry about her not being able to deliver as she's shown thus far.

    They aren't hers to deliver (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST
    Though if she could I'm sure she would.

    It may be un-PC to say this ... (none / 0) (#202)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST
    But delivery tactics seem to work very well with AA voters but not w/ the coalition HRC has assembled which is a typically Clintonian, so I agree w/ you.

    The next few months should be interesting -- Obama's campaign / team execution seems brilliant .. and may take down McCain.

    In fact strategically, he may be counting on the working class yellow-dog Democrat staying home rather than voting Republican. That may be what Brazile meant today when she got into the food-fight w/ Begala.

    I personally think he's making a mistake. But what do I know :-)


    I don't care what Hillary says (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:33:19 PM EST
    working class whites in the states where Obama has won will vote Republican.  States that Hillary won will go for McCain.

    Obama as nominee, McCain as President.

    You read it here first.


    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:56:28 PM EST
    these are not natural Democrats, they are swing voters.  It's not like Bill Clinton was able to deliver them for John Kerry just by saying so.

    I love her (none / 0) (#146)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:39:20 PM EST
    but I can't do this for even her.

    I think it's time to unite as a party (none / 0) (#114)
    by maritza on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:32:05 PM EST
    I am tired of talking about divisions in terms of race, age, education, income, etc.

    Go unite on your own (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:34:23 PM EST
    I'm going independent.  Brazille says she doesn't need my vote anyway.  So screw ya!

    With Wright on loop 24/7 (none / 0) (#178)
    by halstoon on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    and Clinton promising everbody a tank of gas this summer, he blew her out in NC and made Indiana an essential draw (right now it's not even called).

    He improved his #s among white women, while she lost even more AA votes.

    Her electability is really in question. Her opponent faced a crushing personal scandal and she still could not put him down for the count. You guys really should start admitting that along with his problems.

    Why would a candidate that can win states (none / 0) (#194)
    by nellre on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:15 PM EST
    like Indiana drop out?  It's absurd.
    Obama still can't "put her away".
    The DNC has to face the FL and MI issue.

    Absolutely right, BTD (none / 0) (#204)
    by jen on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    Read your post to dad -- well, yelled it to dad 'cuz he can't hear too well -- and he yelled back "He's RIGHT! Who is that guy? A blogger? " LOL!  Said yeah, and he was a Clarkie last time. Dad yelled, "I still wish that guy (Clark) would have run!" Me too, dad, me too...

    I haven't looked at the numbers closely. (none / 0) (#212)
    by phat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:55:29 PM EST
    I'll have to do some crunching later this week. But I'm not especially excited about this outcome.

    What are the numbers of new Democrats in swing states that voted for Obama vs. Clinton? My guess is that those numbers are people who have been Independents who have voted Democrat and the few "liberal" Republican hold-outs who have voted Democrat.

    If that's the case, then I think we're in some trouble.

    I have some serious 1972 nightmares in my future. I turned 2 in November of 1972.

    The rat-you-know-what has only just begun.

    I want Hillary to stick it out because you've got to have somebody in there to catch the fumble.

    That's what super-delegates are for, I suppose.

    Obama/Clinton ticket? (none / 0) (#216)
    by Korha on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:57:20 PM EST
    BTD I'm coming around to your point of view.

    Electability. (none / 0) (#247)
    by mmmmep on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:51 PM EST
    BTD- I know you've lost respect for many of the progressive blogs this cycle, but this post at Kos quelled a lot of the worries I shared with you. John McCain is a terminally flawed candidate. Barack Obama is more than capable of beating him in November.


    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#252)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:25:51 PM EST