home

Demographics

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:26:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I am watching Hardball and the total nonsense is amazing. They are discussing how the white working class issue disappeared. Specifically, Chris Matthews, with the once respected Chuck Todd nodding vigorously, said Pennsylvania was the past and North Carolina was the future on race relations. This is simply counterfactual. Let's review the data.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton won whites 18-29 (52-48), 30-44 (58-42), 45-59 (63-37), 60+ (68-32). In North Carolina, whites 18-29, just 8% of the vote, went for Obama 57-41. But whites 30-44 went for Clinton (52-45), 45-59 (64-33), 60+ (69-29).

Barack Obama is almost certain to be the nominee, and Tweety is ebulliant about his guy looking like the nominee. But let's stick to the facts please. On the demographics, nothing got better for Obama. The difference between North Carolina and Pennsylvania is there are a lot more African American voters in North Carolina. She never had a chance to win it. Ever.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments now closed.

< Hillary Picks Up N.C. Superdelegate, Will Stay Until There's a Nominee | Why Did Obama Do Worse in N.C. Than Virginia? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Demographics | 312 comments (312 topical)
    From Matthews one expects this (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:28:50 PM EST
    but typically Todd does his homework. Too bad.

    I can tell you how it dissapeared. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:37 PM EST
    Right into McCain's back pocket.

    I can't tell you how we get it back.

    [ Parent ]

    Washington Post reporter (none / 0) (#245)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:46:11 PM EST
    wants feedback from Dems who won't vote for Obama.

    williamsk@washpost.com


    [ Parent ]

    Matthews. (none / 0) (#275)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:07:40 PM EST
    Redstate just put up an article that tips Matthews hand about his guest list--particularly Michelle Bernard's role as an unidentified conservative who happens to run a Lynn Cheney foundation.  Something about how much of a sucker the ProObama netroots have been played for.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, Netroots (none / 0) (#284)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:11:35 PM EST
    using this to diminish Obama's loss.  

    [ Parent ]
    They want Obama v. McCain (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    so they can see the old warmonger as President.

    They will never give HRC a fair shake. They do not want her to be the nominee.

    Thanks for showing that your feet are firmly on the ground, however. :-)

    Oh, yeah. The Village Punditry Loves Them A Killer (3.00 / 2) (#68)
    by tokin librul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    a real one. They're all desperate for a brutally loving father to please...
    McStain, for the likes of Matthews, et al, is the living embodiment of a TV patriot's wet-dream, the fell off-spring of the horrific union of Ronald Reagan adn Jlohn Wayne: Ron-jon McWayne.

    The real plus in all this for these fatuous 4-fs is that Bombin' Johnnie's actually pulled the trigger (though it must be said, until they dragged him up from certain drowning in the wreck of his A-4, Bombin' John had never looked into the eyes of any of those he was so assiduously slaughtering).

    [ Parent ]

    Questions (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by stevenb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    Questions surround Obama's candidacy:

    http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com

    To bad no one wants answers.

    I'm Convinced (none / 0) (#142)
    by flashman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:10:12 PM EST
    That Roger Simon is a dumb toad-man.

    [ Parent ]
    a little bit of mischevious fun! (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    if the vote had been conducted as if it were an winner take all electoral college she'd likely end up with 312 v Obama's 226.

     

    If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    we'd all have merry primary.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd prefer a Merry November. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:40 PM EST
    There's numerical defeat staring you in tha face.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    that Obama will have an awful hard go at it now that Wright is in play and that Hillary would be the better GE candidate.

    Still, it's just plain embarassing to keep grasping for new metrics as old ones pass away.  She lost or will soon lose - fair and square.  We should rally around the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair and square? (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:43:11 PM EST
    Without FL and MI voters having their say? Nonsense.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not wonky enough to work the calculators, so (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    answer me this:

    Would Hillary be ahead in delegates or popular vote if both MI and FL were included as is?

    [ Parent ]

    I think she would be within 14 (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    delegates, and after WV and KY she would be ahead, so yes, it would have changed everything had those states counted.  It would have had a measurable impact on his momentum after those states primaries, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    He wasn't on the ballot in MI (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:54:24 PM EST
    How close she'd be if both had actually campaigned an been on the ballot in all states is an open question.

    She agreed to these rules until she decided that she didn't.

    [ Parent ]

    The RULES allow for a revote (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    that is what you keep leaving out.  And by the way, if you read the pledge all she agreed to was not to campaign. She did not agree the votes would never count.

    [ Parent ]
    I keep leaving out? (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:03:34 PM EST
    Show me anothe rcomment where I left it out.

    I fully supported a re-vote.  Tough for a good portion of the time, Hillary Clinton opposed one.  In fact back in the early part of thsi year I used to find it curious how most of the Hillary supporters on the blogsphere ignored the suggestion.

    [ Parent ]

    Chorus: he asked to have his name (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    taken off the ballot in MI.  He did campaign in FL.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong wrong wrong (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by Trickster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM EST
    Clinton fully honored every agreement she entered into regarding the campaign.  She NEVER agreed that the Michigan and Florida delegations should not be seated, (nor did any other candidate, by the way, even to this day).

    [ Parent ]
    IIRC, Hillary was ahead in the popular vote (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    before last night if you counted Michigan and Florida.  The delegates are uncertain, I believe, because Florida and Michigan would have to apportion them.

    As I understand it, the argument about Florida and Michigan is all about the popular vote.  It's unclear to me if WV and KY, etc., could make up for Hillary's lost ground in NC.

    I think both states need to be seated and counted, and the decision must be made pronto.  

    Otherwise, we'll lose any chance in both states, because Obama slow-walked and blocked the revotes.

    [ Parent ]

    Not quite (none / 0) (#273)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST
    But she would be very close, and the whole narrative that was built against her would not have been in the media every day of this campaign.  And once these last 6 contests were done, they would probably be about even, thus ensuring that the SD's could just make decisions based on their own electability assessments rather than the media calling this whole thing for us.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not grasping (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST
    I'm pointing out that obama has riden a series of close seconds and provinicial blowouts to the nomination.

    A Beat tester for a video game would get a pay raise for pointing out the system flaw--not the chairmanship of the company.

    Break this electoral architecture!

    [ Parent ]

    yes please :) (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    Winner take all Republican style, no supers, wrap the next one up on Super Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't that counter to... (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:58 PM EST
    ...Clinton's current "all voters must have their say" position?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't be absurd (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Trickster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:08:45 PM EST
    Isn't that counter to... (none / 0) (#81)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:58 PM EST

    ...Clinton's current "all voters must have their say" position?

    You couldn't have spent two seconds thinking this through.  No one is taking the utterly ridiculous position that it's wrong for the early states to settle the nomination by near-acclamation.  That's all for the best; everybody recognizes that.

    Clinton's position is that you can't go all the way through the roster of states, and at the end when everybody else has voted and the outcome remains razor-edge close, intentionally tell two states that their voters and their voters alone will not be allowed to vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Not her positon at all (none / 0) (#225)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST
    She has been arguing in recent weeks that we need to finish the primary calendar to give every voter a voice.

    That does run counter to winner take all.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not a Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#102)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:00:28 PM EST
    Might seem like but i'm not.

    [ Parent ]
    If I remember correctly - you were strong Edwards (none / 0) (#117)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:05:34 PM EST
    The point remains - winner take all is counter to "everybody must be heard".

    [ Parent ]
    After this? (none / 0) (#113)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:03:55 PM EST
    Try undoing this system.

    His win guarantees the power in charge will now manipulate this for their own purpose for decades.

    Mark my words.

    Trying to renegotiate this sytstem will be as fruitless as Hillary trying to get a win in NC.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Ugh (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:07:08 PM EST
    I don't see any basis for that assertion other than your obvious distaste for the guy.  

    [ Parent ]
    nah (none / 0) (#187)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM EST
    It's got to have all sorts of interesting characters salivating about the means of manipulation.

    [ Parent ]
    As BTD (none / 0) (#262)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    points out.....demographics.

    I could cook up a similar plan right now, after watching this.

    [ Parent ]

    Not fair and square (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    but by the rules in place that favored him (see Donna Brazile)...I am sorry, I will vote for him and in time even get excited, but he only has himself to blame for not letting MI and FL revote...it will never be fair and square in my mind.

    [ Parent ]
    No Way (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by alforhil on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:47:14 PM EST
    Is this democrate going to rally behind BO. I hate his arrogance and the way he shrugged of white working women and how he thinks he can win this election based on "AA's and eggheads". I am frankly tired of democratic party too - since my vote is not needed nor counted ( I am in FL).

    [ Parent ]
    New metrics? (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:47:55 PM EST
    We'd like a victory in November.

    Obama can't deliver, IMO.

    Were some of you sleeping in 2000 and 2004, or just too young to know what was going on?

    [ Parent ]

    Take the nomination away from Obama (2.00 / 2) (#65)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    while he has a pledged delegate and popular vote lead and there will be hell to pay with AA's and to a lesser extent, the youth vote.

    It will be the Democratic Party itself that will be impotent for years in that situation.

    Yes, voters made a bad call.  Yes, Obama is wanting too much too soon.  But Obama won and that's the hand that has to be played.

    [ Parent ]

    What. (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:56:21 PM EST
    About.

    Florida.

    And.

    Michigan?

    [cricket cricket cricket]


    [ Parent ]

    Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#119)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    has 55 delegates and they have been allowed to vote as a block.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#300)
    by Just another person on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:29:43 PM EST
    as long as the AA vote and the youth vote are appeased. /snark

    [ Parent ]
    Do you really think (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    that the Democratic party is going to be potent because they pandered solely to the African American community and the fickle youth vote? They're losing everyone else by this move and also proving they're so spineless that they'll cave as soon as someone throws a tantrum. Sorry but I don't want to be a member of a party that's held hostage by Those Who Yell Loudest. No amount of liberal guilt or name calling's going to win me back.

    [ Parent ]
    Meh, (1.00 / 2) (#92)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    I would rather not have grandchildren being shot at in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    well you will (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:06:37 PM EST
    if McCain wins

    GO HILLARY

    [ Parent ]

    As of last night, (1.00 / 2) (#171)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    there is no plausible, non-Obama meltdown, scenario for Clinton to win the nomination.

    Check please.

    [ Parent ]

    Before the check can I order (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    One Obama meltdown special please? With an order of ex-friends on the side. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Does that come (5.00 / 3) (#234)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:40:45 PM EST
    with or without the waffles?

    [ Parent ]
    Lol (none / 0) (#248)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:47:14 PM EST
    :)

    [ Parent ]
    Sarissa...even when obama followers have a (none / 0) (#246)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    win under their belt, they still have to act like d!cks.

    [ Parent ]
    This is the stupidest reason (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    to vote for Obama.

    Just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama hasn't won yet. (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:38:29 PM EST
    Also, let's be a bit realistic here about the AA vote. African-Americans WILL NOT vote for McCain. Some of them might sit out, but a large block will still vote Democratic.

    But I turn your thought back to you: what about working class voters? Can Democrats win without them? They are far more likely to vote McCain; they'll likely break Republican.

    It's absurd to play this game: Vote Obama or the African American community will be angry; Vote Hillary or the working class voters are gone.

    Is this productive AT ALL?

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has to cross the finish line (5.00 / 2) (#276)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:07:40 PM EST
    Bring it on.

    He can't keep pausing and doing victory dances, only to have HRC pass him again.

    Superdeez aren't in his pocket, as his whispering astro-trolls keep feeding the rumor mill.

    Let him call a press conference and put all of them on the record tomorrow, standing with Dem leadership, and declare the nomination race over.

    Can't do it? Then voters, not redoing the Math and the Roolz. Incidentally, explaining why Democratic arcana justifies purging millions of voters off the books is pure Bush League.

    Explain that for the media and see how Obama's support holds.

    [ Parent ]

    This may or may not be true (1.50 / 2) (#101)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:59:53 PM EST
    But frankly we have no evidence that our party ever had a stronger nominee.

    Obama's got a tough road ahead.  So would Hillary if she were the nominee.  I guarantee you the GOP was fully prepared to use her gender against her effectively.

    If we beleive the things we espouse as progressives, time to stand against glass ceilings of any kind.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Blech. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    But frankly we have no evidence that our party ever had a stronger nominee.

    Stronger?  

    No way.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe not (none / 0) (#312)
    by vigkat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM EST
    And certainly not yet.

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC will continue to prop him (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:30 PM EST
    up until it is official in August.  I am disappointed in Todd though, he usually knows his stuff.  Chris is a different story, he is all over the map from one day to the next, heck from one mintue to the next.

    they always pull this crap... (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    what I want to know is why nobody is asking why Obama did so poorly in NC, considering his 29 point margin in Virginia.  These are Obama's two supposed "expand the map" states, and in both states Bush beat Kerry by the same 54-46% margin...

    and in less than two months, Obama's margin is cut in half?  Even though NC had a higher percentage of AA voters?

    Obama did so well in Virginia (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Left of center on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:42:25 PM EST
    because they had an open primary where Obama got 72% of republican crossover votes to Clinton's 22%.

    [ Parent ]
    Republicans voting for Obama - (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:45:51 PM EST
    That means they will vote for him in the fall.

    Republicans voting for HRC -

    That means they are trying to mess with our primary and deny Obama his crown!!!111!!!

    The double standard rides again.

    [ Parent ]

    Chaos 1.0 in Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:46:14 PM EST
    shall never be mentioned.

    Choas 2.0 Indiana shall never be forgotten.

    [ Parent ]

    A technicality, I suppose, but (none / 0) (#296)
    by alsace on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:26:18 PM EST
    those times I've opted to vote in the Republican primary, I've not considered myself a "crossover," since we don't register by party in Virginia.

    [ Parent ]
    correction (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:48:52 PM EST
    VA was 54-46, NC 56-44.

    damned dislexia!

    [ Parent ]

    He won whites in Virginia (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:59:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't Virginia favor McCain? n/t (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:09:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's not just Virginia (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by RalphB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:32:00 PM EST
    that favors McCain, Colorado will also go McCain.  The other day, I saw someone say that Obama puts Texas in play.  These people are totally delusional.  This race may well be 1972 all over again, hopefully with the same result.


    [ Parent ]
    Nobody has to ask (none / 0) (#106)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    We all watched the news.

    [ Parent ]
    It's easier to be a pundit - (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    - when you can just make crap up, without respect for pesky things like facts.  Bush got away with it for what - four and a half, to maybe five years?  The housing industry got away with it for about the same amount of time.  Pundits, though, have the chance to get away with it permanently.

    Here is a snippet from Mike Barnicle: (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:28 PM EST
    Now, faced with a mathematical mountain climb that even Stephen Hawking could not ascend, the Clintons -- and it is indeed both of them -- are just about to paste a bumper sticker on the rear of the collapsing vehicle that carries her campaign. It reads: VOTE WHITE.

    Once again, it is all Hillary (and Bill's) fault.

    Oh. My. G! (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:39:36 PM EST
    That is incredibly, insanely racist.

    What is wrong with these people?

    [ Parent ]

    Barnacle is a racist himself (none / 0) (#21)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Geee-ross. (none / 0) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:41:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Barnacle is a racist himself (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    you should have seen him on that NBC race forum.

    he's an ethnic Irish  New Englander Republican in the mould of Peter King.

    I do not know why he's on there calling the Dem primary. he'll vote mccain without much fanfare.

    [ Parent ]

    What a L O S E R (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:44:08 PM EST
    I wonder if he projects much?

    [ Parent ]
    Who did he plagiarize that from? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:49:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Should Spell It Barnacle....A Nasty Lump (5.00 / 2) (#250)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:48:55 PM EST
    clinging to the a$$ end of the boat.  He is as disgusting as his buddy Tweety.

    [ Parent ]
    Ever More of Barnicle's Autobiographical Punditry (none / 0) (#27)
    by tokin librul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:43:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Woody - is that you? (none / 0) (#29)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:43:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Jepp! Tis I... (none / 0) (#85)
    by tokin librul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:56:32 PM EST
    how ya doin,' dahlin

    [ Parent ]
    Slowly becoming bitter (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:58:59 PM EST
    and clinging to HRC!

    How about you?

    [ Parent ]

    been bitter a LONG time... (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by tokin librul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:46:40 PM EST
    i have never thought BHO was electable in the GE. Not this year, at any rate, and withal, now, likely ever. I have stated in many a forum that, from my observations, Mid-dull Murka (as I fondly address that seething mass of thwarted expectation and racial choler) is not ready for ITS Prezanen to be any kind of black guy with Hussein for a middle name. Not in the midst of the furor over the GWOT.

    I am not thrilled with Hillary, either. With her gas-tax fizsco she demonstrated to me she'll toss the planet under the bus if it gains her an inch of political expediency. This is not the way to this old DFH's heart, you know?

    Another opinion i have held for sometime now is that the fix is in, the deck is stacked, the cards are marked, the dice are shaved, the table's rigged, the drinks are drugged (and short), the beef isn't, the dealers cheat, and the boss trains the dealers: that is, Bombin' Johnnie McShame's gonna be #44...

    [ Parent ]

    this is the new meme (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    check out this headline at Ablog:

    Clinton disses black voters, three times, in the past 24 hours. Anyone else smell a trend?

    of course there is no actual "dissing" in the post. just a reference to the fact that Obama is not winning whites.

    oh, I like this one too:

    Hating Hillary
    by John Aravosis (DC)

    I'm amazed at how many Democrats I talk to who now "hate" Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too. (none / 0) (#218)
    by 1jpb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    Barnicle pile on!

    I cringe when I see anything related to him.  I can't forget his firing from the Globe.  And, I did see a little of that weird MSNBC race thing, where he stood out as especially unilluminating.

    That said, to my reading, his comments about HRC's dependence on white voters isn't any worse than pundits and bloggers that relentlessly focus on HRC's white demographic power.  I think this conversation is frivolous: there is never any attempt to calculate GE correlations or causations.  Instead primary exit polls are combined with technical ignorance resulting in baseless assertions turned into deeply felt conclusions.  I'm constantly amazed by how few people understand the limitations of polling.  But, the worst polling ignorance is still ten times better informed than the Willy-nilly conclusions that result when primary exit polling is extrapolated to the context of a GE.

    But, whatever; different strokes for different folks.

     

    [ Parent ]

    you know... (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Turkana on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:59 PM EST
    if you continue to make these scary factual posts you'll never get to ride the unity pony. or get invited onto msnbc.

    ha, really (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:42:15 PM EST
    facts have a well known anti MSNBC bias

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe BTD will get to ride the (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    unity ass, he's always bringing up some inconvenient truth of some kind ;)

    [ Parent ]
    An inconvenient truth (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    that people don't want to hear, as usual.

    There's a lesson in here somewhere.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    BTD=Al Gore? (none / 0) (#76)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:54:46 PM EST
    Kewl!!!

    [ Parent ]
    You've been slippin into the koolaid (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    I can tell because you are losing your logic ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Gore Was Screwed Royally, And I Know He Is (none / 0) (#253)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    not what you would call friendly with the Clintons, but for the good of the party, he should step in and tell the DNC they are f'n up big time.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish he would. (none / 0) (#261)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    But I think he is staying out of it for now.

    [ Parent ]
    Unity Pony? It's Bush's old Mechanical Bull (5.00 / 1) (#292)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    Hop and and within moments, you realize it's just the same old pain in the ass.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by david mizner on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    To say that Obama has trouble with working class whites (and old people) is not to say that blacks are less important. Nor is to fetishize the white working class. To say that Obama has trouble with working class whites is to state the obvious.

    The longer progressives deny this problem the greater it will become.

    he has more trouble than that. (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:49:05 PM EST
    the crossover trouble making repubs won't vote for him in the general. let's see who is not in the inner group? hmmm! well: boomers, hispanics, catholics, conserative religeous groups, older women(subgroup), independents, military(don't forget them), blue collar workers. if i were to really sit down and think about it,i could come up with more. oh yeah, reagan democrats, many from the south. that's enough to deep six barrack in november i think, don't you.

    [ Parent ]
    Cheers. (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:00:44 PM EST
    Note: I think that the explicit economic interests of working class whites and virtually identical to the explicit economic interests of working class African-Americans.  Obama's appeal to working class African-Americans is has been largerly cultural, much like Bush's appeal to working class whites in 2000 and 2004 (NASCAR dads, anyone?).  Note before anyone goes crazy on me: I'm not comparing Obama to Bush under any circumstances, except in that they are inspiring loyalty from a particular economic group based on cultural rather than economic factors.  Moreover, er, I think that Bush's persona as presented to working class whites was a big fat lie (albeit one he believed), while Obama's image with AA's is not a big fat lie.

    Okay: so - my point is that since he's earned working class AA support with an explicitly cultural appeal, he doesn't have the same sort of direct stake in the sort of progressive/liberal/Democratic economic policies that will genuinely stabilized big portions of the working class, white and African American.

    I don't actually think that he's going to lose in November; IMO, this is a Democratic year.  However, I worry  that the party will mistake "Democratic year" for "New Obama Coalition" and miss the chance that I see for a New New Deal Coaliation, and that disappoints me.  I hope the Obama inner circle genuinely understands their problem with working class Americans because I want the Democratic party to make a new and genuine committment to economic prosperity for all, but I worry that they have swallowed their own rhetoric and may actually believe that HRC wins this demographic because of white racism.

    [ Parent ]

    they don't understand. (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:10:34 PM EST
    please don't wait around hoping against hope they will. it isn't going to happen. new deal? naw same as the old deal. i know the rest of us are just bitter.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for this thoughtful post (none / 0) (#151)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:13:14 PM EST
    I agree heartily with you about your analogy between Bush and Obama.  I'm much more skeptical than you are about Obama's November prospects, but I wholeheartedly agree that if he does win it will be in spite of his candidacy and not because of it.  It didn't always have to be that way, but it is now.  Like you said, I hope the Dems are not stupid enough to believe like Donna Brazille that there is a new winning coalition that does not include the majority of people living today (and only growing in numbers) in America.  Even if Obama does somehow win, I believe he will be a one-termer that ultimately damages the Democratic brand a la Carter.

    [ Parent ]
    Guess what? (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    Any AA is going to have problems with working class whites - particularly older working class whites.  It's a generational thing.  But I don't think that we should shy away from an AA candidate who has a pledged delegate and popular vote lead just because of that.

    [ Parent ]
    He would have a lot less of a problem (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:49:12 PM EST
    if he hadn't called them bitter, racist, gun-toting bible thumpers.

    AND if he didn't have all of these radioactive personal associations.

    AND if he didn't constantly belittle and smear the accomplishments of one of the most popular Democratic Presidents in history, for whom MOST OF THEM VOTED.

    AND if he didn't pretend he thought Bill and Hillary were racists.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not us. We bloggers don't mean (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    shit when it comes right down to it. It's the 100 MILLION or more voters, who were probably watching, American Idol, Lost, or some other DISTRACTION, that ultimately decides the presidency. The 50 million primary voters only had privilege of selecting the candidates.

    Once that's done, the GE is out of our hands. It's a whole different ball game and Obama is looking like another Dukakis right about now.

    [ Parent ]

    A primary win (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    does not even in the slightest guarantee a win in November.  It's a percentage of the total votes.  It may have been larger this time, but it doesn't tell the whole story.  And when the media start in on Obama, in their "Oh, we hate to tell you this, but..." way, look out below.

    What is it about that that you don't get?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not saying (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by david mizner on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:19 PM EST
    we should shy away from him; i voted for him. But he needs to do merely not very well among working class whites, as opposed to terribly, in order to win.

    It's a problem too deep to be handled by cosmetic changes and paeans to his hardworking single mother and father-in-law.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:58:27 PM EST
    We all know what a natural affinity that white working class voters have for upper-middle class, suburban, female graduates of Wellesley and Yale Law.

    I mean its a perfect fit!  How could anyone, let alone an African American, compete with that?

    sheesh....

    Clinton won the working class white vote because she busted her butt for years earning their trust.  So don't give me this "Obama was at a disadvantage" nonsense -- some voters actually want to know who you are before they will give you their vote.

    [ Parent ]

    This I Resent, Bigtime!!! (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    I'm for Clinton because she knows her stuff and, I believe, has a vision for improving the lot of ALL Americans.

    I'm against Obama because he doesn't seem to have a grasp of even the most elementary issues (Health Care and Social Security).

    How does that make mine a vote based on race identity?

    [ Parent ]

    excuse me don't demean older workers. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    it is economics and basic common sense. obama will not move heaven and earth to protect that which fdr brought to this country. he is a face and few really know what is there. i don't like the red flags i see at all and mam that is not generational.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama supporter (none / 0) (#61)
    by alforhil on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    Dear supporter why does any question on Obama's eligibility is immediatly turned into a racist statment? I WILL not vote for Obama because I see no sense of patriotism or pride for this country in Obama..he has no experience and nothing to lead me to believe that he deserves to be president of this country- that is why I can never vote for him

    [ Parent ]
    why (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by DFLer on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:25:25 PM EST
    why is it that whites voting for the white candidate is called racist, but blacks voting for the black candidate not called racist?

    [ Parent ]
    When I asked this question (none / 0) (#227)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    at another site, I was told that only the group that had all of the power could be called racist.  However, the group that was being oppressed could be called bigots if they behaved the same way. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but it works for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Chris Matthews is a professional cheerleader (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    His job is to look good while jumping up and down and what the rules of the real game being played  on the field are (ummmm let's see, where's the ball now)..........not as important as cheering because his job is cheerleader.  Rules and field conditions...that stuff is for refs and coaches and the people having to actually play the game.....Sheesh BTD.

    Obama supporters should be thanking Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Left of center on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    for hanging in there longer because once she drops out it's going to be reverend Wright and Rezko 24/7 till the general election.

    Props to BTD (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:46:32 PM EST
    I know it's been said before, but I truly appreciate your objectivity. I may be a fanatical Hillbot, but I don't like sites that are echo chambers.  

    Obama's race problem is a legitimate issue, and I see no coverage of it in the MSM.

    race (none / 0) (#78)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:18 PM EST
    I disagree with the whole frame of this post.

    Racists won't vote for Obama for obvious reasons.  A number of non racist D's won't either.  Kerry and Gore didn't get 100 percent of D votes in their years. Obama wont' either.  Neither would Hillary.

    You can't deny his campaign has been canny and well strategized and run.   I'd say that means they'll figure out how to stitch together a coalition.  It's a slightly different coaltion than Hillary's.  Edwards would also be slightly different.

    They used to say Bill Clinton's female eruptions would destroy his campaign with all religious voters.  It didn't.  All these "silver bullets" are just talk.

    [ Parent ]

    If you mean he had the best slime machine (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    I agree with that...

    [ Parent ]
    Naive. (none / 0) (#108)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    Just naive.

    God luck though.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the same of you. (none / 0) (#209)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:34:13 PM EST
    Coincidence. I think you're naive.

    [ Parent ]
    Is this the argument? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    (Block of voters X) didn't vote for Obama in large enough numbers in the primary against Hillary.

    Therefore, (block of voters X) won't vote for Obama in large enough numbers in the general, because they didn't in the primary.

    (Block of voters X) won't change their minds and can't be changed, because Obama has failed to do Y.

    We have proof that Obama has failed to do Y and won't do Y.

    I think this is specious, candidate-partisan reasoning.  But it's everywhere here.  Assertions assertions assertions.

    If Obama were a sham, he wouldn't be doing as well as he is.  If he weren't a liberal, he wouldn't be a Democrat.  

    Look, he needs to do stuff.  So would Hillary were she to be the nominee.  What candidate is flawless?  Jeez.  

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:50:43 PM EST
    That's telling me.

    [ Parent ]
    So you backed down! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:53:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Speechless. (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    If Obama were a sham, he wouldn't be doing as well as he is.  If he weren't a liberal, he wouldn't be a Democrat.

    OMG.

    This after eight years of Bush.

    Oy.


    [ Parent ]

    Oy? (none / 0) (#97)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    be more specific. Take me on. Come on. I'm ready.

    What specifically do you want to say to me? or is "Oy" your argument?

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has been (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:07:33 PM EST
    A US senator for 3-plus years years.  He's accomplished little or nothing for the people.  But he's managed to write books and run for president.

    What is a liberal, little man?  Tell me.

    [ Parent ]

    So I'm "little" (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:13:36 PM EST
    How do you know how "little" I am?  Is that one of your criteria?

    I don't think much personally of spouses riding on their spouses coattails, nor do I like the same names popping up as Presidents over and over again.

    I also don't think the other candidate in question has accomplished much.

    I don't think JFK or Truman accomplished much prior to their Presidencies either.

    You seem to be saying Obama is all ego and show and Hillary is not.  I say, they both are. They're politicians.  You're playing a schoolyard, "My dog's better than your dog" game.  

    I'm 5-11, by the way.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, an anti-dynasty advocate. I get it. (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:24:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wow. (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:25:07 PM EST
    I don't think much personally of spouses riding on their spouses coattails,

    Just wow.

    OMG.  Tweety is commenting here?

    Tweety, you're an a**, by the way.

    [ Parent ]

    try actually communicating with me (1.00 / 1) (#220)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:37:07 PM EST
    You really don't like actual argument, do you?

    [ Parent ]
    <