home

Ignoring "The Problem"

In the Left blogs today, it is considered a mortal sin to point out that Barack Obama has trouble connecting with white working class voters. It is a mortal sin to point out that in the South Carolina campaign, the Obama campaign fed the narrative that the Clinton campaign was race baiting. Indeed, the Left blogs themselves led the charge with this smear, notwithstanding the fact that it was utterly illogical. In South Carolina, the last thing the Clinton campaign would have wanted was African American voters rallying to Barack Obama.

In February, Obama was able to nimbly straddle appealing to African American voters while maintaining a broader appeal. Wisconsin and Virginia appeared to be watersheds, where Obama won both the white and African American voters (he has consistently lost Latino voters.) But from Ohio on, it became clear that Obama would not be able to sustain that. Jeremiah Wright was the biggest reason why. More . . .

The Problem remains unresolved and a deep concern for November. Discussing that concern is a mortal sin according to the Left blogs. I for one will not play the ostrich. I will consider the problem and ways Obama can solve it.

Atrios writes:

What the Clinton campaign is doing is saying that Obama has electability problems, and using their support from white voters as evidence of that. That's a wee bit problematic, and not just because it doesn't follow logically any more than the other electability arguments such as Obama can't win the election because he can't win the primary in big states.

Why is it problematic? Why does it not follow logically? Atrios does not explain. On the contrary, it make perfect logical sense. African American voters have been a staple of the Democratic coalition. While no constituency should ever be taken for granted, there seems to me no doubt, all things being equal, that holding white Democrats is more of a problem than holding African American Democrats. There is a long history on this issue.

What was exciting about Obama was he really appeared to be one of the first African American candidates where this would not be an issue. Since Ohio and especially since Jeremiah Wright, that was not so clear. Indeed, it remains a major concern.

That is a reality. And pretending it is not one will not make it disappear. The reality based community, if it ever existed, exists no longer.

Barack Obama will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee. I hope the professionals in his campaign are not going to be as silly as the Left blogs have proven to be on this issue.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Now That It Is "Over," About FL And MI | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    First off (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    He can and should duct tape Donna Brazile's mouth shut. Either that, or say that she is part of the McCain campaign since her comments only drive folks over to McCain.

    Donna Brazille conflict of interest (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    Flagrant same old politics.  Her self interest above the party as a whole.  She needs to either quit from the DNC position or CNN.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hear hear (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    Last night, before I went to bed exhausted from a long day that had started at 5 am, I posted on another blog that as disappointed as I am in the party's treatment of Clinton, I would vote for Obama in the fall (assuming he's the nominee) because McCain scared the cr*p out of me.

    I missed Donna Brazile's performance last night, but watched the clips and read the transcript this morning, and was appalled.  Brazile is a one-woman vote destroyer. She had me reconsidering my position and wondering whether to simply abstain or write-in in the fall.

    She is a menace. Yeah, Donna, "words matter." And your words lose Obama votes every time you let them pass your lips.

    Once he shuts Donna up, Obama needs to do more than talk the Unity talk.  He needs to actually do the hard work of making the demographics that Brazile so smugly dismisses feel that their votes are valued. Which means he has to stop talking unity and actually address the issues that working people of all colors care about, and not just refer people to his website. He needs to reassure people that he really believes in universal healthcare, and not just a simulcram of universal healthcare.  He needs to reassure working people that he's not going to go all Bush on us and privatize Social Security.  He needs to get his thinking straight on foreign policy, and talk about exactly how he's going to get us out of Iraq. He's got to stop clothing himself with the vaporous cloak of post-partisanship, and take actual positions.

    And he's got to stop his supporters from hectoring, lecturing and condescending to the rest of us.

    That would make a start.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah people have said he needs a.... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    ...sista soulja moment. Well he can start with the nasty fanboys and Donna Brazile.

    [ Parent ]
    that would go a long long way with me (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    I am not holding my breath.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    I couldn't believe she mentioned Hispanics as one of the groups that we need to move past obsessing over.  How do we keep putting these people on TV as our spokespeople?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, she is the idiot (none / 0) (#250)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    that ran Al Gore's campaign.  I know Al won the popular vote in 2000, but maybe it wouldn't have been that close were Ms. Brazille as smart as she thinks she is.  Or perhaps she had already started re-inventing the Democratic party and didn't tell us.

    [ Parent ]
    A threshold issue (5.00 / 10) (#67)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:37 PM EST
    How could I forget? {{slaps head}} Obama has to stop screwing around with the disenfranchisement of MI and FLA, and stop trying to take advantage of it.

    Last night he proclaimed he was within 200 delegates of clinching the nomination.  That is, he is within 200 delegates of the so-called "magic number" of 2025.

    But that number is not magic. That number, 2025, is only a majority of the delegates if you assume that no delegates are seated from FLA and MI.  None. Not one. Obama has to get off his arse and agree to seat the FLA and MI delegations according to the primary results (with the uncommitted votes in MI going to a bona fide uncommitted slate), or at the very least, he has to agree that he needs 2209 votes to clinch the nomination.  What he cannot do is use the exclusion of MI and FLA to his advantage by lowering the number of delegates he needs to be nominated.

    [ Parent ]

    He can't address issues (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    The only thing holding his coaltion together is the fact that he is not saying anything that offends any of them. These are people who disagree about everything. Obama has become the golden child because his message is so vague that everybody thinks he is on their side. If he actually breaks down and makes committments, then he is going to alienate a big chunk of his voter's.

    [ Parent ]
    the "only thing?" (none / 0) (#304)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    They said that about Reagan and JFK, that they just talked about nothing.  Most voters don't want to hear detailed policy proposals.  

    You are making all kinds of assumptions about Obama's coalition, and I think all of them are untrue.  

    His message isn't vague to me at all.  It's crystal clear.  It's just not what you specifically want, that's all.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#320)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    What do you think his message is?  

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    She told the truth. That's their model of what the party should be.

    "Get over it!"

    [ Parent ]

    I think "Get Over It" (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    is quite anathama to my own personal principles.  I have no problem with inviting in new voters.  I have no problem with hoping to persuade Independent voters.

    I have a big problem with doing so at the expense of core Democrats.

    And that's what's happened this year.

    Like it or not, the truth is out there because we have voters and information.

    Traditional Democrats asked for Hillary.

    Obama wins.

    That means, the problem BTD poses is very legitimate.

    The candidate who won isn't the choice of the party.

    [ Parent ]

    Irony, AnninCA... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    Check the link?

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:30 PM EST
    holding white Democrats is more of a problem than holding African American Democrats. There is a long history on this issue.
    Bingo!

    I don't know what Obama is going to do about this. . .

    BTW (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    one of the most nefarious things the left blogs have done is to argue that all things are not equal because black people now hate HIllary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    The smearing is beyond Rovian (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:41 PM EST
    Axelrod and the blogs created one of the most disgusting campaigns, concluding with the Kantor video.  I really hope they are taken to court for this.  The Kantor sham played big on radio and flew in the AA rumor mill.  That is why the dramatic drop.  

    [ Parent ]
    That is one of the many reasons (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    Obama quickly lost whatever credibility he had with me a while ago. Proclaiming himself above the "old politics" and then engaging zestfully in the oldest political strategem in the book: demonizing his opponent by mischaracterized her words.

    Admit it, Barack. You're an old school Chicago pol. You're pretty good at it.  Embrace it, and then do what pols have always done: build a real coalition, not a faux unity pony personality cult masquerading as a political movement.

    [ Parent ]

    Who Matters?? (5.00 / 8) (#152)
    by Athena on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    Only certain voters count now - and even if they comprise electoral minorities!  And no group is "entitled" to the nomination.  

    Why is no one offended that the first female candidate to come this close to the Presidency is now treated as a bystander in our democracy?

    Look, boys, using a bizarre combination of race-baiting and grievance politis, you've managed to get yourself one more male nominee.  What a breakthrough!

    [ Parent ]

    Preach It Athena....The Tactics Of The obama (5.00 / 5) (#220)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    camp are loathsome; and that coupled with the dumbbells at the DNC is creating a catastrophe waiting to happen in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    He's (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    going to try to suck up to Hillary supporters, and hope they will forgive his racist, vile campaign.

    Some will, some won't.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing he can do... (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    with the Wright/Ayers/Bitter/Inexperience definition out there waiting for him, he'll spend all his time defending his patriotism against a war hero.

    [ Parent ]
    Not so simple (none / 0) (#194)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    A war hero who is 71, who is "off position" on the war compared to Obama, a war that is increasingly unpopular.

    If Wright were as deadly as the posters here claim, why didn't Obama get crushed yesterday?

    It's normal to exaggerate your nonfavored candidate's weaknesses, but there is evidence aplenty that this is not as big a deal as many posters here seem to think.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think they'll use Ayers more than Wright ... (5.00 / 3) (#284)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:49:16 PM EST
    If Wright were as deadly as the posters here claim, why didn't Obama get crushed yesterday?

    Well, if you take AAs out of the equation, he did.

    Just wait til the Republican ad machine gets warmed up, and social conservatives are added to the mix.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#290)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    Wright will be "old news", but Ayers will be fresh meat.

    [ Parent ]
    It will be about increasing the distrust of (none / 0) (#221)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    Obama's intentions in the WH. They'll pick an unpatriotic narrative that works and gives evidence is unpatrioticness with evidence of his associations. Whatev. The whole point is to keep him on the defensive and they have the ammo to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    The opposite is also true (none / 0) (#235)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:39 PM EST
    Sure. And Obama has the ammo to keep McCain on the defensive.  Economy, Iraq, etc.

    I'll take that combo platter any day.   The "flag" is a good issue for GOPers in a year when the economy is strong and there's no widespread anti incumbency sentiment.


    [ Parent ]

    You (none / 0) (#239)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    are forgetting that there's a war going on.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope. (none / 0) (#255)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    Have you looked at the polling on the war?  It's pretty bad, and it won't get better.  Iraq is a loser for Republicans.  Look at the recent primary races.

    [ Parent ]
    You (none / 0) (#269)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    are forgetting the rest of the war. What about Afghanistan? The one that Obama couldn't even be bothered to hold a meeting over?

    History has shown that "strong and wrong" beat "weak and right" every time. in 1972 only 20% of the populace approved of the war in VN. the candidate against the war lost in a landslide. And that's with a draft going on too. Obama has no economic appeal hence if it's him vs. McCain the election is going to be framed around patriotism.

    [ Parent ]

    You are also not factoring (none / 0) (#261)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    an "October Surprise" in Iran

    [ Parent ]
    the past doesn't always repeat (none / 0) (#274)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    You are assuming that such a surprise will play exactly as Sept 11 did.  You are assuming that no Dem ever can properly "play" such an event.

    People have become very cynical about Iraq, about 9-11, since early 2005.  Otherwise, Giuliani would have been a much stronger candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (none / 0) (#285)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    We've already moved 4 fleets into the Persian Gulf and the saber rattling has begun.

    If you don't think something to do with national security will happen in the fall to make news, you have not been paying attention. (Remember all the "orange alerts" during the 2004 election season that took bad news off the front page for Bush and raised his popularity ratings).

    [ Parent ]

    We haven't yet (none / 0) (#334)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:40 PM EST
    If we end up at war in Iran, it will be after Bushco has convinced (with the help of the media)a healthy segment of the population that Iran poses an immediate risk. The Dems will not resist the charge, because they will be too afraid of looking like they are weak on terrorism.

    I'm expecting an attack sometime during the next President's first term, but the terrorists might do it a bit earlier in order to ensure that Republicans win the election.

    How's that for cynical? <sigh>

    [ Parent ]

    Because a third of the voter's were black... (none / 0) (#293)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
    ...and they went 93% for Obama? Because the mayor of Gary Indiana bused in students from high schools to vote for Obama? Most of those students won't be in high school in November. And blacks won't represent a third of the electorate.

    [ Parent ]
    DK diary on Rec list - linked from TPM (5.00 / 2) (#328)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    The Clintons are RACISTS!!  simply because Hillary's campaign mentioned her white vote in NC last night re electability.
    Obamamites charges of racism have been so successful - they'll probably use it against GOP/McCain in the general.


    [ Parent ]
    think Republicans care about being called racist? (5.00 / 2) (#337)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    Obamamites charges of racism have been so successful - they'll probably use it against GOP/McCain in the general.

    umm, aren't the AAs already voting for him?

    who else is there? He has already gotten all the mileage he is going to get out of that tactic.

    [ Parent ]

    He's going to have to work extra hard (none / 0) (#18)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    in the traditional so-called border states (OH, PA) to win the poor white vote. But I really don't see him having any problems in the Mountain West, Midwest, or PNW with the white vote. He cleaned up with whites in WI, IA, NE, CO, WA, AZ, NM (latter two he lost because of the latino vote - he won the white vote)

    [ Parent ]
    PA and OH are crucial to winning now (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    especially because FL is probably out of the picture.

    I think we need to recognize that the idea that Obama was going to fundamentally change the November map is dead. Obama has to win with the 2000/2004 map, and he's going to have a hard time doing it.

    [ Parent ]

    I know (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    PA - the voters in most of the state will not go to him, no matter what.  (Maybe some in the Southeast, but beyond that the story is written.)  
    We cling to religion, guns, and those without jobs have lost their dignity, you know.

    But we know who we don't like.

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly true (none / 0) (#206)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And who doesn't like you n/t (none / 0) (#231)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#56)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    But on the other hand, Obama wins big among whites out west that Clinton doesn't win. CO, NV, WA, etc. I'm not saying that PA and OH aren't issues, but let's consider the problem in the proper context:

    He has trouble with poor white voters in states that have >10% black populations.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you draw an electoal map for me (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    that does not include either PA, OH, or FL, where the Democrat still wins? I can't picture one, frankly.

    [ Parent ]
    Add in VA (none / 0) (#100)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    CO, NM, and NV. If  you check out the electoral projections of OpenLeft, etc. they build strikingly different coalitions but end up with about the same number of EVs.

    [ Parent ]
    You think he's going to win VA? (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    I don't. There was a time when that was possible, but it was pre Rev. Wright.

    NV and NM are McCain's SW neighbors, and will be very difficult to pickup IMO.

    It's time to remember that we're not running against Mike Huckabee.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, I'm just going (none / 0) (#146)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    by the latest H2H polling. If you've got better information, let's see it.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm looking (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    at this. I tend to compare it to this.

    The differences mean something.

    [ Parent ]

    That is just not realistic. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    You are counting states that will not go for Obama against McCain.

    This is what I mean.

    [ Parent ]

    This is McCain's home territory (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by esmense on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:27 PM EST
    Plus, CO, NV and NM are all states that have only begun to "swing" Democratic very recently and in large part because of the Hispanic vote. No Democrat can consider these states a sure win against a traditional Western conservative, with stronger than usual support among Hispanics, based on how he performed in the Democratic primary.

    In 1972 McGovern won every Democratic primary in every state West of the Mississippi. He didn't win one of those states in the general.

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama takes CO, NV, and WA (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    in the GE, I will eat my old mittens that I wore in CO.

    Obama wins big among white Democrats out west.  Not the same demographic at all as white Republicans.

    Even if he does, those 3 states total 25 electoral votes.  OH alone is 20. PA another 21.

    [ Parent ]

    He does much better than Clinton (2.50 / 2) (#109)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    in head to head polling against McCain out West. I think he's got a very strong shot there, just as strong a shot as she's got in OH and PA...

    [ Parent ]
    so now the working joes/janes in (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:35:58 PM EST
    the states that voted for hillary are just "not important". i mean really obama has the latte gulpers, the unreliable young vote and the aa vote. you are kissing the catholic, hispanic, older, blue collar voters goodbye. and yet you insist obama is in "fine" shape. dang it, where is that koolaid? i could use a gulp today myself.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe in polls so far (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    But we'll agree to disagree about your conclusions.

    Anyway, we will find out soon enough for sure.

    [ Parent ]

    In case you haven't noticed (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    NV, CO and WA don't have a lot of electoral votes. PA, MI and FLA -- THEY have a lot of electoral votes. It's all well and good to expand the electoral map. But trading in big states for small states is not, IMO, a winning strategy.

    Nor is trading in traditional Democratic voters for an undefined mass of "new, younger" voters who may well have registered in places like PA for the first time to vote for Hillary, not Obama.  A voter in the hand is worth two in the bush.

    We can't give up any part of the Gore/Kerry map. We have to keep it, and expand from there. The stupidity of the DNC in putting MI up for grabs, and keeping FLA in the red column when it had a real chance to go blue, is nothing short of staggering.

    [ Parent ]

    making it all about racism is already backfiring (5.00 / 2) (#307)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    He has trouble with poor white voters in states that have >10% black populations.

    Just keep trying. You can make it about racism if you try hard enough. Because we all know that making unproven but insulting generalizations about white people isn't really bigotry because, well, they're white, so it's ok.

    But we know who does and doesn't really have issues with skin color.

    Obama loses Ohio because he is an affront to our values. Unlike him, we have some.

    [ Parent ]

    Western votes (none / 0) (#298)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    Caution about counting on the emergent Democratic west.  Remember that McCain runs well with Latinos...and, that means that the Nevada, Colorado wish may not come true. That is especially so when you count in McCain's ties with the West.  Being a Coloradan, I'd like to believe in the western map--and, I've championed it before--but the Western likable McCain can be quite strong in those states.

    [ Parent ]
    But all of his white vote winsq (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Just another person on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    were before Rev. Wright. That's what BTD is pointing to.

    [ Parent ]
    And? (none / 0) (#48)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    After the Wright controversy he's still way up in the polls in Oregon. And in Oregon, he actually wins the poor white votes, with Clinton doing better among rich whites. And he's ahead in the lone SD poll too. So I don't think Wright hurt him at all out west.

    If you've got some contrary evidence, I'd love to see it.

    [ Parent ]

    contrary evidence (5.00 / 7) (#147)
    by kempis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    ....is at just about any recently-updated polling/electoral map site.

    But I've given up trying to present contrary evidence. In Obamaland, Wright and Ayers are not problems, Michelle is an asset, no one perceives Obama as an elitist, and those purple states are all going to turn a lovely shade of blue in November.

    Stay tuned for contrary evidence in November.

    I'd be priming myself for nyah-nyah-nyah, but I can't take much delight in thinking of President McCain appointing more "Scalitos." This country is hanging by a thread after Bush, and Nominee Obama will just hand the shears to the GOP.

    I'm as disgusted as I was the morning after election day, 2004.

    [ Parent ]

    Come on now... (none / 0) (#87)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    that's without the 527s playing up ALL and I do mean all his  negatives. The GOP knows how to wins elections. They are very very very good at using words and phrases against us. Obama will be a cakewalk to them.

    [ Parent ]
    he's disengenuous. (5.00 / 1) (#347)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:20:49 PM EST
    He knows that Obama's performances in the cuacuses were based on core activists---and that was pre-Wright.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    So you think he could win those states?

    A) You left out Michigan and Florida

    B) WI can just as easily go for McCain

    C) AZ?  Seriously?  McCain will clean up there

    D) NM?  Might get some white vote, but will lose the Hispanic vote.

    E) CO?  Maybe - but there's also an anti-affirmative action measure on the ballot.  Have to see how that would play out

    [ Parent ]

    Responses (3.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:17 PM EST
    A) Florida is gone for Obama, but Kerry could have won without it. Clinton might have an outside shot there, but I think FL is definitely lean R no matter who the nominee is.

    B) Obama's way up in head-to-head polling there. Granted, it's early, but the upper midwest just seems nuts about Obama.

    C) Obama won the white vote there, that was the only point I was making

    D) I don't know if he'll lose the hispanic vote, but he'll certainly be in danger of bleeding some of that to McCain. Whether that makes up for the larger number of whites he wins there relative to Clinton is hard to say

    E) Head to head polling shows CO is basically a lock for him while Clinton's got no chance. It's one of the biggest swings in H2H matchups that favor Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    But how do you account for the very real possibility of losing CA, MA, NJ, NY, MI, FL, OH, PA, MO,etc?

    Sorry, CO, VA, and WA aren't going to make those up.

    [ Parent ]

    Have you checked the latest H2H polling? (2.00 / 2) (#141)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    He's doing better than Clinton in most of those. He does much worse than her in the fringes of the border states, the border states, and the deep south (except where the black vote is 30-40+, and VA).

    [ Parent ]
    But according to everyone (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:28 PM EST
    He's not running against Clinton - he's running against McCain in those states.  How do the H2H's look with that matchup?

    [ Parent ]
    where on earth (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by kempis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    are you getting these numbers? Hillary's been beating McCain, who's been beating Obama in OH and MO. Kerry barely won PA in 2004, and I don't think Obama can win it against McCain. And some of the polling out of New Jersey has been pretty scary for Dems, too.

    And whenever people argue that Obama can win VA and NC, I wonder which VA and NC they're talking about because the ones in the USA are pretty reliably red. Ask Jim Webb, who barely beat George "Macaca" Allen in the VA Senate race in 06.

    Picking up low-electoral-vote states in the West is in no way going to compensate for the loss of the electoral-rich border states. There is no way that Barack Obama can win the red states and the border states.

    While folks are celebrating his nomination, they might as well go ahead and start getting some practice saying this: President McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Skex on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:30 PM EST
    Loosing CA MA NJ NY MI and OH are not real posibilities. however he has a very real chance at pulling out Texas compared to Hillary which is a hell of alot more electoral votes that you are showing at risk.

    Give it up already Clinton's lost and Obama does better with whites than Bill Clinton did.


    [ Parent ]

    Texas? Get real, please. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    You think he'll pull Texas to blue? Really?  I lived there for 6 years and I can tell you - NO WAY.

    And yes, losing CA, MA. NJ, NY, MI, and OH ARE very real possibilities - those are states that have lots of McCain support - they like him there.

    [ Parent ]

    This native Texan (none / 0) (#278)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:46:52 PM EST
    says there no way Obama wins the Lone Star.  This transplanted Pennsylvanian also says Obama won't win PA.  It ain't going to happen.  Throw in the combination of the Jewish vote (an Obaman problem) and his stance on seating the Florida delegation and oops, there goes Florida.  And Ohio?  Not bloody likely.  What states out west are going to make up that many electoral votes?

    [ Parent ]
    I live here today (none / 0) (#341)
    by Skex on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:17:02 PM EST
    and I say he can. Republican's here are pretty pissed and Bush and never much trusted McCain to start with. Their racism is for the most part focused towards latinos and I don't really see the latinos going with McCain after the way the GOP treated them through the Bush years.

    The GOP just isn't motivated this year and Obama doesn't really raise their ire that much.

    SO yes Obama puts Texas in play he may not win but it will be close one way or the other and it will force McCain to use resources to defend it.

    Listen I get ya'll love Clinton and all but that boats left the Harbor and it ain't coming back. Hillary will not be the nominee and if she continues down this destructive path I fully expect the SD's to step in and shut her down.

    [ Parent ]

    CA is not a sure thing considering (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by CE415 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:46 PM EST
    about 20 % of the electorate is Latino. He'll do well in SF, very poorly in the central valley and LA is a problem with the large Latino population. Maybe they will just stay home and not crossover. There''s also a lot of seniors here, and a lot of  not so well off white worker types.

    [ Parent ]
    The Latino vote (none / 0) (#315)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    Please do some research on the Latino vote.  McCain does surprisingly well in that area. Of course, Clinton does the best with that demographic; and, Obama still comes up short.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, seriously... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    ...CA and MA are not going to vote in McCain.  Nor NY and I doubt he has a shot in hell in NJ.  MI is a real possibility, but I doubt it, given the state of the economy.  MI is always a squeaker, though, and he did win the primary in 2000.  

     I do think that Senator Obama needs to reach out to white working class voters, but I think that can be done.  I'm less concerned with them than I am the elderly white voters and Hispanic voters, particularly the latter, who are not reliably Democratic and who appreciate McCain's stand on immigration.  But those voters were always going to be a problem, whether it was McCain or Clinton.  

    [ Parent ]

    think again (4.00 / 3) (#329)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    I do think that Senator Obama needs to reach out to white working class voters, but I think that can be done.

    I am a white working class voter, and my family originally split 50-50 Clinton-Obama, with me the oddball going for Edwards.

    So just keep talking about how racist Ohio is. Please.

    Obama has nothing to offer the working class in Ohio or Pennsylvania. I don't believe he'll get us out of the war, and I believe he'll be an even bigger disaster economically than McCain would be. Those are the only two issues that could move us. He's offensive culturally, sneering at our bowling and mocking us for being poor enough to care about $30.

    It isn't going to happen. I know the working class and anyone who believes Obama can win them over, just doesn't.

    And anyway, it has become obvious that "Obama can win them over" is just a mantra used to justify ignoring our feelings. You think people are going to let the DNC get away with that? We make our feelings known and you dismiss us by saying "oh they'll come around" - as a way to get out of actually treating us with, you know, respect, which quite obviously Obama's people feel we most emphatically do not deserve. How dare we assume that just because there's more of us than there are AAs, our votes matter as much as AA votes do?

    But surely you don't believe that is really true?!!?

    [ Parent ]

    It will undoubtedly happen (2.00 / 1) (#207)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    His campaign has certainly proven that it is very, very strategically capable.  

    My view on the Clinton campaign is that the candidate performed very well, surprisingly well - I say that as a Bill Clinton fan - but the HRC 08 leadership team was far weaker.  They underestimated Obama.  Penn was a disaster.

    [ Parent ]

    CA (none / 0) (#254)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:38:33 PM EST
    has a very popular governor there who backs McCain (what is his name again? I can't remember...) McCain is also popular with Hispanics (you know, some of the people that Dems don't need to worry about?)

    Last I saw, McCain was within 2 of Obama in MA. Obama is a clone of the governor, Deval Patrick, who is extremely unpopular there (and another creation of Axelrod).  See herefor a good analysis of what the country might have to look forward to with President Obama.

    NY is mostly red outside of NYC (and Sen Clinton is very popular there, so there could be some residual hangover)

    I'm from Michigan and know how McCain is seen (and if he puts Romney on the ticket, that's the ballgame).

    Rasmussen today still has Hillary leading McCain in a nationwide poll, while Obama is statistically tied, even AFTER expectations were high of him winning in NC last night. LINK

    [ Parent ]

    reply (none / 0) (#266)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:55 PM EST
    Arnold is not very popular here.  You're mistaken - CA voters are cynical, not conservative, except in the central valley and rural areas.

    Patrick is not as unpopular as you may think - what do you think his approvals are? Just curious.  What do you think Arnold's approvals are?  

    No way Obama won't win MA.  MI will be challenging, however.

    And there are other polls on GE matchups that contradict the ones you cited.

    [ Parent ]

    Patricks (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    latest approvals are 56% disapprove, 41% approve. he's been a disaster as the gov. of Mass. Ask posters who live there. Some of them say he's going to have a primary opponent or the GOP will take back the governorship.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks (none / 0) (#297)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    Hmm. Interesting.  Not remotely convinced that's going to cost us the state in November, however.

    Will Spitzer's hooker cost us NY?  Not realistic.

    It's like CA - voters are cynical, and saw through an unlikeable candidate like Angelides who made pander-ous promises.  

    [ Parent ]

    Spitzer (none / 0) (#312)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    didn't have the same campaign manager, nor used the exact same words and plan as Obama.  Patrick and Obama are pretty much the same candidate. And if it isn't playing in deep blue MA, my guess is they won't want to see the sequel.

    [ Parent ]
    Well the problem (none / 0) (#332)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:02 PM EST
    is that Spitzer got in trouble with a prostitute. Deval got in trouble because of incompetence. Perhaps the voters of MA really don't want the same incompetence in the WH?

    [ Parent ]
    California.... (none / 0) (#292)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    ...is unwinnable for Republicans.  Just can't be done.  Unless they dramatically change their policy positions.  

     We are talking about the same governor who has vowed to fight against a marriage amendment initiative, right?  Of course he endorsed Senator McCain, there's no one else in the primary he could endorse without inviting the ire of the independents who put him in power.  And let's not forget who his wife endorsed.  

     I'm originally from MI as well, and I doubt that Romney as VP could salvage his chances there.  Certainly not as worthwhile strategically as selecting Crist, although there are problems there as well

     California is simply not in play.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    I can't trust... (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    ... the results of caucus states. They're not a good predictor of what the larger voting population is like.

    I don't particularly like the idea of flattering one group of voters because they're less loyal than others. But Democrats need a message pitched to the working/middle class of all colors. That's what the party is about, isn't it?

    It was one thing when we simply lost the white working class vote through indifference. These days it seems as if we're actively trying to alienate them.

    [ Parent ]

    He won the white vote before (5.00 / 2) (#276)
    by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    those white voters knew anything about racist Rev. Wright, Ayers, Auchi, Bitter people who cling to guns and religion and are racists, typical white people.

    This typical white Midwesterner isn't voting for him. I'm not the only one who has seen the light.  Trust me.

    [ Parent ]

    Atrios's posts on this were depressing to read and (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    see there. He seems to no recognition of what was done to the Clintons by the Obama race-baiting charges, based on no to thinnest pretenses.

    As is written, sheesh.

    The comments, as far as I read, are running amok against Hillary and her supporters.

    Not fun.

    What he needs to do (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    Is find an issue--a broad appealing issue--and make it his own, part of his identity. Hillary has done that with the economy, and attempted to do it with health care. Edwards had poverty. Biden had foreign policy.

    If he can take an issue, like senior care, or veterans care, or any sort of issue like that that not only has broad appeal, but will appeal to the other side's base, then he can perhaps finally start to bridge the gap he has with white working class voters. If he cannot--if he does not change his idnetity in some substantial way--there will be no way for him to get people back that he has already lost.

    I believe he can do it. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.

    He's not good (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    With issues.

    Not his forte.

    [ Parent ]

    He's fine on issues. (2.00 / 1) (#226)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:08 PM EST
    He knows that "issues" don't win campaigns upfront - narratives do.

    A subsegment of Dem voters are always focused on issues as the center of their desired communications from candidates.  Most voters out there, however, are not.

    Obama communicates more like Reagan or JFK.  Both were effective, and spoke in broad themes.

    Lakoff was the most popular explainer of this phenomenon.  Liberals are too often policy literalists.  

    [ Parent ]

    JFK knew the issues too (none / 0) (#268)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    Obama does not.


    [ Parent ]
    disagree (none / 0) (#281)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    I'm genuinely curious as to what you think.

    If you can, please cite specific examples of
    a) how you "know" what Obama knows
    b) precisely what you are asserting he knows

    [ Parent ]

    Meetings without Preconditions (none / 0) (#301)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    When JFK was asked if he'd be willing to meet with Kruschev without preconditions what do you think he said?

    [ Parent ]
    The point is (none / 0) (#302)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    Obama has not done anything that would lead one to believe that he can talk about issues. I certainly think he CAN, but it has been an image campaign as opposed to an issues campaign thus far. If he wants to make inroads into the white voting bloc, then he'll have to change it into an issues campaign to devoid it of the racial polarization it currently has.

    [ Parent ]
    reoly (none / 0) (#313)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:02:49 PM EST
    I have no idea what any human being other than me "can" do.  

    I would expect that he will

    But voters don't clamor to hear about issues; they want empathy, ,they want themes.  Reagan, JFK, Bill Clinton all proved this.

    Obama's campaign - I expect - will pivot and handle this balance very well.  They'll feed issue communication to those audiences that need it.  They'll give narratives to the audience that needs that.

    This is all about tactics....so many critics are campaign rhetoric literalists.  

    [ Parent ]

    He should endorse Hillary's heath care plan... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    ...it should be incorporated into the Democratic platform. But I won't hold my breath.

    [ Parent ]
    It's like Krugman said - he can't (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:38 PM EST
    because he has no credibility on it after his Harry and Louise ads.

    McCain - whether he is a maverick or moderate or not is defined. It is very hard to knock down that definition. Half (an exageration-Iknow) the creative class in 2004 were calling for Kerry to pick McCain as VP.

    Anybody here is free to tell me, honestly how you overcome that. McCain spoke to the press when he had no funds, was being written off as a joke and polling next to last. Obama is out front and can't do a press conference.

    [ Parent ]

    All these people built up these issues (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    They didn't just pick it up one day. They had credentials on it to back it up. Obama has flip -flopped on every issue publicly with sound bites and you-tube videos.

    It's not that easy. He had at least two years to build a good platform. Now he's the unity candidate against Mr. I-have-worked-with-Dems-on bills-that-have-passed-and-I-am-known-as-the-maverick-for-making-the-tough-calls-and-going-against-m y-own-party-ps-I-spent-5-years-as-a-POW. This comment seems to be more head in the sand, not facing up to reality.

    Look at the current race, at what Obama, Clinton, the Dems, have all done and said then look at me and tell me that Obama can re-brand and run with senior care, or immigration, or veterans issues against John McCain who holds the either the same views or is a senior and a veteran.

    [ Parent ]

    It is not about issues, it is about respect (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    Hillary supporters feel strongly that they are being disrespected by Obama, his supporters, and the Democratic establishment.

    His "cling" comments, Michelle Obama's lectures on "mean" America, Wright's sermons, Donna Brazille's remarks yesterday on CNN about Hillary's supporters being part of the "old coalition" all add to this feeling.

    I for one have long believed that Obama's online supporters and AA supporters have caused him enormous damage and contributed to the split in the party.

    There are Obama supporters on this blog now who continue to be condescending and insulting towards Hillary and her supporters.

    Stopping this nonsense will be a very good place to start.

    [ Parent ]

    Very true (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    And as soon as I figure out how to write a diary, I want to write about that. I am personally ashamed of many of my fellow supporters on the blogosphere, and you're right, they are at the brink (if not already fallen off the cliff) of making irreparable damages.

    [ Parent ]
    The damage (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    is done.

    That's a given.

    The new Democratic Party has booted out Clinton Democrats.

    No question about it.

    Frankly, I'd still like to see her concede because I do not want to watch the bashing.

    There's nothing to be gained by any more of that behavior except deeper hurt feelings.

    I'm not at all into pain.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Cheesy coming - Sorry - Hillary Clinton in PA (none / 0) (#222)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    said something to the effect that - in the coming weeks she may stumble and fall, but as long as we don't give up on her, she'll get up and she'll continue fighting - Let's just take her at her word. I'd hate for us to be treating her like she needs to do twice as much. The goal posts keep moving and we keep moving too, I think the trick is to go towards the goal posts, not have her have to make up ground with us too.

    IN was the tie-breaker - she got it. Now it's either OR or that she should quit outright now.

    Is it the media that's defeating us or us? When do we fight for our convictions? If there is no fight now - the media wins - and they do the same everytime.

    Its great to have a hero, a leader but we should put up a fight as well.

    So can we quit the defeatist jazz now? Don't get me wrong - I know how you feel. But I personally need to believe in her.

    Like I said sorry for being cheesy but it's been bugging me all day.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary isn't my God (none / 0) (#230)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    and never has been.

    I repeat:  Her ideals are mine.

    I can find another path to those.

    Obama doesn't offer them.  That's clear.

    But I'm not about to abandon my own beliefs because of this primary season.

    That would be way goofy.

    [ Parent ]

    They're not so different on substance (none / 0) (#251)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    Obama is very, very much like Hillary on most policy proposals, with a few minor difference here and there. McCain on the other hand, is colossally different from both.

    And remember, campaign proposals are gone on january 21.  The slate is clear.  Campaigns are about tactical positioning.

    Both Obama and Clinton are liberals.  Both believe in using government to improve the lot of broadest range of people possible.  If you think Hillary won't enthusiastically endorse Obama when this is over, you'ree mistaken.

    I think you're mistaken as to how "different" you seem to think Obama is.  

    [ Parent ]

    Another brand new poster (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    today.  Interesting tone of the new people.

    [ Parent ]