home

Obama As Electable As Kerry? And That's A Good Thing?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

So writes our friend SusanG (and TalkLeft does think of her as a friend) at the Great Orange Satan's place (also our friend Singer at MYDD), citing Gallup:

Obama stacks up against McCain at this point is similar to the way in which Kerry performed against Bush in 2004 within several key racial, educational, religious, and gender subgroups. That is, the basic underlying structure of the general-election campaign this year does not appear to be markedly different from that of the 2004 election.

Assuming that is true, and I do have quibbles with that, it is important to remember John Kerry LOST to Bush in 2004. This is not exactly the electability argument I think I would want to make. More . . .

Now my quibble - Gallup says losing whites 37-53 (10% undecided) is equal to losing 41-58 in November. I submit that that is a questionable assumption. Obama has not been particularly adept at winning undecided white voters.

Further, in each of the groups Gallup identifies, Obama polls lower than Kerry, but McCain polls lower than Bush. In short, there is a much larger undecided component in the McCain-Obama numbers. How will these undecideds break in a McCain-Obama race is the issue here. How confident can we be that whites and Latinos will break for Obama over McCain? That is the issue.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< Hoyer Still Desperate To Capitulate On Telco Immunity | How To Solve The Problem >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama As Electable As Kerry? And That's A Good Thing? | 232 comments (232 topical)
    Obama: almost as electable as John Kerry! (5.00 / 16) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:54:54 PM EST


    What a bumper sticker! LOL (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:57:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Actually, given that I worked (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    my behind off to make John Kerry president and wouldn't lift a toothpick to make Obama president, I would say that Obama is no where near as electable as John Kerry.

    That being said, if the Party throws itself off a cliff again this year, far be it from me not to want to join a free Joy Ride.

    Weeeeeeeeeeeeee.  I'm falling.

    McGovern. Mondale. Dukakis.  Kerry.  Obama.  I've lived an exciting political life.

    [ Parent ]

    I absolutely agree. (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    And, I much prefer the 2004 John Kerry to the 2008 John Kerry.

    [ Parent ]
    yes (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    and I didnt like the 2004 Kerry all that much

    [ Parent ]
    Me either (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    but he would have been a vast improvement over GWB.

    Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    Kerry was actually my very last choice in 2004 (4.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    and guess who my last choice is in 2008?


    [ Parent ]
    Kerry was not a choice (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    Kerry was the nominee so early that by the time CA voted in June there was not choice.  But the Democratic Party does not get it.  The selection process is rigged to give the Volvo (hey I drive one) driving, latte (I drink lattes) drinkers the upper hand in selecting nominees, Dukakis, Kerry, and now BO.  I've join those who feel that the party does not care about my views and may not vote in the presidential election.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (none / 0) (#158)
    by hornhorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    You're characterizing BO as an elitist, yet you support HRC? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama acts like a Princeling (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    It's subjective to be sure, but a lot of Democrats share that subjective opinion of him.

    Clinton is widely seen as a vulgarian by the press and public. Sally Quinn and David Broder typify the way Washington snobs looked down on him and her.

    One of the reasons the GOP went so hard after her and Bill was that ability to be vulgar and win elections.  It was a formidable coincidence of character, charm and ability.

    [ Parent ]

    look up cognitive dissonance (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    it doesn't mean what you think it means.  Look up elite while you are at it. For the 5,675th time -- having money doesn't make you an elitist -- FDR was  as rich as Croesus, for crying out loud.
    What has become of our educational system in this country?  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama was just above Gravel (4.85 / 7) (#104)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:20:23 PM EST
    for me. Still, I liked him a lot better before I got to know him.

    Sigh again.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:12:58 PM EST
    I would have crawled over cut glass to vote for Kerry in 2004. I got my husband to vote for a Dem for president for the first time ever. Holding my nose might be too much to ask for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Could be worse! (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    Are these fools on the blogs getting paid off by now?

    [ Parent ]
    At least Kerry didn't get beat in Massachusetts (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Barack Obama: (4.85 / 7) (#51)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    Now Without Michigan!

    [ Parent ]
    facepalm! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Faust on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:08:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Latino vote (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by hornhorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:55:23 PM EST
    I just don't see undecided latinos going out en masse to vote for a GOP candidate--ya know, that wall building, GTFO of our country-minded party.

    McCain doesn't follow his party on that issue. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:57:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't follow the GOP line (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    on immigration, as far as the MSM reports.  But in fact, he's backed down from his position of "immigration reform first" and now agrees that "we must secure our borders first."  Which means, "Wall Now, Reform Later (Maybe)."

    It's kind of like his stance on torture. He's against torture, unless Bush thinks it's really really necessary, and unless the CIA wants to do it.

    [ Parent ]

    Nah, McCain means it (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:58:32 PM EST
    He has a man named Juan Hernandez on his staff that is unabashedly open borders and calls immigrants the "New American Pioneers"

    Yes from time to time McCain sounds like he's waffling a little on the fence/border stuff but it's nothing unreasonable.  We do need to secure the border and make the process of immigration much better.  The key is that McCain never addresses these issues from a xenophobic perspective.  He is very fair and I believe his intentions on the matter are honest.

    [ Parent ]

    Perception Wins Over Facts (none / 0) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    on a regular basis especially when the MSM pushes the meme.

    [ Parent ]
    I am a well informed voter (none / 0) (#227)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    and in the case of McCain I think the perception is accurate on this issue.

    If anything, it is the perception among the left blogosphere that he is just pandering or waffling on the issue that is inaccurate.  The consistency is there.  He kept saying what he believed even after his campaign seemed dead in the water.  He is now starting to make a major effort for Hispanic outreach because he knows it will be his path to the Presidency.

    [ Parent ]

    Ostensibly (none / 0) (#32)
    by hornhorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:04:20 PM EST
    but I doubt that will ease any minds

    [ Parent ]
    It all depends on how much he panders.... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    ...to the right wing. He did co-sponsor amnesty legislation. He's a war hero. Trust me, he's not hated. Obama is not known. How he presents himself to the Latino community will make all the difference. And Richardson alone isn't going to cut it.

    [ Parent ]
    He's talking to Wollf Blitzer right now (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    saying he is going to bring the tax structure back to what we had in the 90's!!!!

    So, his claiming he admires Reagan and carefully avoids saying anything good about the Bill Clinton era, is only because he needs to trash the Clinton way before he adopts it.

    How DARE he?

    [ Parent ]

    who dares wins (none / 0) (#164)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:32:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not surprising to me at all. I long thought.... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    ...He wants to be Bill Clinton, which is why he wants to rewrite the Clinton legacy...so that people will think its "fresh and new" when he does it.

    [ Parent ]
    Me, too.. (none / 0) (#195)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    I've thought since the beginning that Bill Clinton is the man he wants to be...and he wants to get to those $50M book deals sooner rather than later, which is why he couldn't wait until he had enough experience to run.

    [ Parent ]
    Latinos (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by christinep on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    My understanding is that Lstinos are much more receptive to McCain than one would at first imagine. Frankly, while Hillary would do better vis-a-vis that demographic, it may be questionable whether Barack could retain the Dems natural advantage at this point. Despite Brazile's comments, ironically, Barack may be more dependent on the Latino vote because his strategy focuses on the West (NMex, CO, Nev.) So, think about that and Arizona and Florida.  Then, think about Hillary's potential in all but Ariz.

    [ Parent ]
    As McCain said a few days ago: (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:14:04 PM EST
    The Arizona senator's campaign launched a Spanish language Web site to mark the Mexican Cinco de Mayo festival and McCain told reporters that "everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message."

    "I am confident that I will do very well," he said. "I know their patriotism, I know the respect for the family, the advocacy for pro-life, I know the small business aspect of our Hispanic voters."

    Hispanic support for the Republican Party has ebbed in recent months, following a bruising battle over illegal immigration.

    Translation: ALL UR HISPANICS IS MADE FOR US.

    Because, you know, you design voters, not policies.


    [ Parent ]

    People forget (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    that a lot of the Hispanic community is Catholic and conservative. Just look at the Cubans in Florida.

    McCain will beat Obama in this demographic, I have a feeling.

    [ Parent ]

    Most Hispanics are Catholic (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    But most of them are socially moderate or progressive.  Cubans are conservative when it comes to certain foreign policy issues. I wouldn't write off Hispanics based on the FLA Cuban community, that's for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not writing them off at all... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    but I'm not counting them automatically in Obama's column, either.

    I think HRC would win that demographic handily, whereas Obama would have to struggle for it against McCain.

    Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    What you said (none / 0) (#205)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    is all correct.

    McCain turned to the right in the primaries on immigration, but everyone knows he was the author of the McCAIN- Kennedy bill, which had a lot of support.  

    A question for someone in CA - how popular is Gov. Ahnold with Latino voters?  My guess is he does pretty well, and he is one of McCain's strongest supporters.

    How confident can we be that whites and Latinos will break for Obama over McCain? That is the issue.

    That is indeed the issue, and I am not at all optimsitic.

    [ Parent ]

    Latinos will not vote for BO (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    Latinos will vote for McCain, if not en masse, it will be enough to make a difference.  It won't be like HRC.

    [ Parent ]
    It may be too late (none / 0) (#123)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM EST
    They've already received a healthy dose of "your either with me or your a racist" unity mantra.

    [ Parent ]
    well I am Puerto Rican and voting for him (none / 0) (#193)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    Immigration issue doesn't even affect me personally but I admired how McCain went out of his way to stand up for the dignity and respect of Hispanics and latino immigrants and was the only one to agree to the first debate on Univision that every other Repug cancelled on, etc, etc.

    Besides that McCain is a true patriot and can be trusted with the highest office in the land.  It's very very easy for me and others in my family to vote for McCain.  Just you wait.

    [ Parent ]

    just saw this (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:55:51 PM EST
    unbelievable

    We shouldn't be confident at all... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by cosbo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    especially if they decide to break along the...experienced vs. inexperienced line. That'll be the real metric with a likely decision against Obama.

    Now if it was let's say a McCain v. Powell matchup...then we could be a little bit more confident.

    Powell? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    Not since the torture talks.

    [ Parent ]
    Powell (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    "This is not conjecture or speculation. These are facts, based on solid intelligence."

    Umm, no.

    [ Parent ]

    Well everybody screws up... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by cosbo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:26 PM EST
    I'm speculating on how white voters would possibly chose to vote between an

    Experienced White Dude vs. Inexperienced Black Dude

    over

    Experienced White Dude vs. Experienced Black Dude

    [ Parent ]

    next headline (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    He No More Elitist Than Michael Dukakis

    Or Windsurfin' Billionaire John Kerry n/t (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:00:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Slightly more electable than George McGovern! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:01:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    McGovern won Massachussetts (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM EST
    Polls show him losing there

    [ Parent ]
    Stop depressing me. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM EST
    More bumper stickers (for McCain):

    McCain '08. What's 100 years of war between friends?

    McCain '08. Less drunk than Bush, angrier than Cheney!

    McCain '08. Islamofascists better stay off his lawn!

    McCain '08. Bombing Iran with a song in is heart!


    [ Parent ]

    New polls show improvement in MA for BO (none / 0) (#144)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:27:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Barack Obama (3.66 / 3) (#89)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    "He'll win more states than Dukakis."

    [ Parent ]
    and, more than McGovern (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:58 PM EST
    How many presidential races are won by more than low single digit margins in popular vote?

    Obama's new party is top heavy with demographics that aren't reliable voters when it comes to standing in line at the polls. And, he has more or less escorted the foundation of the party out of the room.  

    How does he think he can win this? He told Wolf Blitzer that he doesn't believe there's anyone in the country who thinks we should continue on with another Republican administration...polls disagree with him.

    [ Parent ]

    This is (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    his problem. He has no issues. He's just anti republican. this is one of the things that killed kerry. go to my website, read my book etc. no one wants to hear that. you have to tell them yourself.

    [ Parent ]
    Death grip (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    The willing to lose contingent of the Dem party has a death grip.  They convinced themselves that all they had to do is change the language and who delivers it and they will win the GE.  

    Well it is the best argument they have (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    It is not a good one, but you go into the election with the argument you have, not the electable candidate you kicked to the curb.

    The key question for me is whether (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:00:01 PM EST
    a great part of the Democratic base, namely Hillary supporters, will be alienated by Obama's campaign tactics, in combination with Rev. Wright's words.  

    The combination of calling every other Democrat a racist, with Obama's lack of judgment in continuing to associate with Wright, will be tough to overcome.  

    Here's the logic: (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Fabian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    If I disagree with Wright, I am labeled a racist.
    If I vote for Clinton, I am labeled a racist.

    If I vote for Obama, I could be the nastiest, most vicious and unrepentant bigot in the US of A, but at least I wouldn't be one-a-them racists.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't personally mind Wright* (none / 0) (#73)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    and I tend to think Obama handled that all wrong (unless it was a set-up).  But the campaign tactics PLUS the empty-suit syndrome mean I will not go for Obama.  (And don't anyone bother to throw SCOTUS at me--my state is totally red.  Or should I say red and black, but red prevails.)

    *that is, black is ok, but I do think Wright's views on AIDs are either rabble-rousing or a sign of an unsound mind.

    [ Parent ]

    I personally find only Wright's remarks on (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:21:11 PM EST
    AIDS to be offensive; the rest I do not agree with, that's all.  The issue is Obama's judgment where Wright is concerned.  Whether or not Wright's words, aside from the AIDs stuff, are wrong, it is politically stupid to cozy up to someone like this.

    [ Parent ]
    Molly (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    if a white person were making the exact same speeches that Wright did, wouldn't you just shake your head and think they were a little crazy?

    Same with Obama--if a white woman was doing his hope and change crap, you wouldn't even know her name.

    [ Parent ]

    Are they talking up the indie and Republican (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    crossovers?  I thought that was their argument.  What happened to them??

    They started voting for Hillary? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:03:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    McCain got nominated (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    instead of Guiliani or Huckabee.  So much for Independent crossovers.

    Republican crossovers were always a pipe dream, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    That's just peachy. Just about my only (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    hope right now is that John McCain does a header off the stage like Dole or just lets loose and shows what a mean guy he can be.

    That ship has sailed. (none / 0) (#137)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    [...] or just lets loose and shows what a mean guy he can be.

    No one cares that he called his wife a c*nt or that he physically attacked a fellow Congressman.

    [ Parent ]

    I do believe (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:48:27 PM EST
    the person who accused McCain of saying that to his wife has since admitted he lied. I won't defend McCain for anything true, but none of the candidates should have to endure the trash.

    There are plenty of really good reasons to not support McCain that aren't falsified.


    [ Parent ]

    You Should Be Hoping obama Gets Found Out (none / 0) (#157)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    for the low-down, slimy pol he is and that all his underhanded tactics come to light and the ill-informed easily manipulated obama followers have an epiphany saying....what the hell was I thinking?

    [ Parent ]
    Like it or not (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    There is a hidden racial vote in this country. I'd say 20-25 percent, Reps. and Dems. won't vote for a minority. It isn't good but that's the way it is.

    at this point I am honestly (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    mroe worried about his elitist streak.
    and the clinging bitter comments.  I think they will hurt him more with the same group of people than his race.
    but you are correct.

    [ Parent ]
    you could make... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by hornhorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:10:18 PM EST
    the same supposition re: those that wouldn't vote for a woman

    [ Parent ]
    Chuckie...It's Not Hidden, They Just Refuse (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    to acknowledge that fact.  I say Bradley Effect in November if obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes but they need cover (none / 0) (#97)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:18:26 PM EST
    The experience factor gives them cover. The elitist factor gives them cover.

    [ Parent ]
    It looks like (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Buckeye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    the repugnant party will hold the White House with the dems holding the house and senate.  They are dreaming if they think BO will beat McCain.  The Demo party talked itself out of the original front runner that would have won the White House and gave the party Adlai Stevenson II.

    From wikipedia I learned (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by eric on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:28 PM EST
    During one of Stevenson's presidential campaigns, allegedly, a supporter told him that he was sure to "get the vote of every thinking man" in the U.S., to which Stevenson is said to have replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win."

    [ Parent ]
    We should (none / 0) (#77)
    by hornhorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    stay away from the sky is falling rhetoric.

    [ Parent ]
    but it was the women's vote that mattered (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by esmense on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    in 2004, as well as 2000. That is, the women who split their vote pretty evenly between the two parties rather than give a majority of their vote to the Democrat. Democratic presidential candidates haven't got the white male vote in decades and they won't get it this time around, with Obama or Clinton. For any Democrat to win, women must vote disproportionately for the Democratic candidate, in large enough numbers to make up for the male gender gap.

    Can a more energized than usual minority group of voters, who vote have consistently voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the past, make up the difference if women once again spit their vote? In other words, with a gender gap working in their favor, is it possible for a Democrat to win at all? That's the real question people should be asking and worrying over.

    pssst! We women are supposed to be invisible (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    When was the last time you heard anyone discuss us in regards to this race and our voting block in the GE?

    [ Parent ]
    when was the last time (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    they talked about women?

    Bill Kristol, with his white man chuckle and, "we can't do anything about the women."

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it's always good to give up (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    a majority of the population (women) for a minority (an extra few percentage points of AA's).

    It's the New Democratic Strategy. Losing is winning!

    [ Parent ]

    The Creative Class likes Obama's sculptures better (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:08:16 PM EST
    If the Repugs were super-impressed with "electable" Kerry's war record last time, wait till they get a load of Obama's latest best speech ever, combining the Hillary hatred they've grown to love and the pasted in Gandhi bytes they've probably never heard!

    And with all that optimism spilling out of him and flattering the GOP ideas and Reagan to boot? How can they NOT Unite behind such a man?

    Hillary hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by dem08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    when she pointed out:

    "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again...whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." Hillary Clinton, May 7, 2008.

    Obama cannot win without these Clinton supporters. I think Hillary will get Obama voters much easier and in much greater numbers than Obama will get her voters.

    I favor Obama, but I haven't seen any answer to Obama's problem among white voters from any of Obama's backers.

    People are underestimating Hillary's appeal and her argument for why it is her on the top of the ticket or a Kerry election re-run.

    myopia (none / 0) (#228)
    by VicAjax on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:04:27 PM EST
    and you don't recognize what it sounds like when she says "hard-working Americans, white Americans?"

    i'm speechless.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, that should have read (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by esmense on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:10:20 PM EST
    "without a gender gap working in their favor, is it possible for a Democrat to win at all? And, of course, I meant "women once again split their vote" not "spit."

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    we DO spit our vote ;-).  Didn't you know that? ;-) Pfut!

    "They say we're b**ches as if that were bad thing"  --(paraphrasing) Anglachel

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's platform (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    should appeal to liberal women, far more than McCain's.

    Lets be real, McCain called his wife a c*nt in front of the press when she mentioned he was losing his hair. He wants to double down on Iraq, knows nothing of economics other than cut taxes for the rich.

    Can obama win as many middle aged and older women as Clinton in a GE? Likely not, but he sure as hell can win a lot more than McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, but unfortunately (none / 0) (#221)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:54:09 PM EST
    The nasty, b-word type things said about Hillary (including the awful c word) by O'Bloggers, O'MSM, O'Pressfans, etc...really chafe and his campaign needs to make nice about womens issues and women themselves, in order to court their vote, doncha think?

    [ Parent ]
    Doubtful (none / 0) (#224)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    Security moms won't vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    For What It's Worth (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    Got a call from the California democratic party last night asking for money.  I would normally be amenable, I'm all for state party building. Except that wasn't why they wanted the money.  They said they were raising money for the presidential election in California because McCain has said he would contest the state.

    I told the woman that I wasn't very happy with the democratic party and to try back later in the election cycle.  You know how fundraisers keep making their pitch after you say no?  This woman didn't.  She seemed completely unsurprised and simply thanked me. I got the feeling I wasn't the first person to hear from her.

    If the party wouldn't race to nominate someone who only leads California by 7 in the last SUSA poll, then maybe it could be raising money for state and local candidates.  And before everyone tells me that Obama will win California, his lead is less there than McCain's is in Virginia one of those states Obama is supposed to turn blue.

    BTW, Obama led McCain by 14 in the March California poll, but then Obama won the white vote 48-46, he's now losing it 53-42, he's also gone from winning Asian voters 57-38 to 48-37, and he's bled a little bit of hispanic support, but as with Asians they've moved to undecided instead of to McCain, Obama is down from 62-33 to 59-32.  The only group he has improved his support is African Americans.

    What I Heard (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    on an NPR interview that occurred locally when McCain swung through California is that McCain would be looking to contest the state if Obama were the nominee.  The GOP person said he would most likely not contest it if Clinton were the nominee.  This was a local interview after the primary so there was no reason to spin to try to favor one Dem. candidate over the other.

    [ Parent ]
    100% sure (none / 0) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    they will lose California.  California will not go for Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    that alone kills any hope
    IMO

    [ Parent ]
    California is not blue, blue (none / 0) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:31:50 PM EST
    it's aquamarine.  

    [ Parent ]
    I Think He'll Win California (none / 0) (#166)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    but it will not be without working for it.  And that will take resources away from other states.

    Believe it or not the bright blue state I'm most worried about is Massachusetts.  I fear they're going to hang Duval Patrick with his 56% approval rating around his neck.  Obama has repeatedly had abysmal polling there.  I can see the ad already Deval Patrick saying "just words" followed by Barack Obama - if you like Deval Patrick, you'll love Barack Obama.

    BTW, I like Deval Patrick, but he is not a popular person in Massachusetts and he ran the same campaign there that Obama is running now.

    [ Parent ]

    Should be 56% disapproval rating (none / 0) (#169)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:33:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Give (none / 0) (#183)
    by hornhorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    me what you're smoking. Please.

    [ Parent ]
    how about if I give you a clue instead (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    democrats only win statewide in CA because of Hispanics.


    [ Parent ]
    Reality? (none / 0) (#223)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    Look, Obama's numbers are down in California. He has less of a lead here than McCain does in Virginia (albeit only by one point).  More troublesome is that his numbers are way down from March.  I didn't make that up.

    You can ignore that there's a problem.  But since I presume you want Obama to be the next president of the United States, I would think you'd be more concerned about how to fix it.  Simply proclaiming Obama will win certain states doesn't make it true.  It was only a few years ago that California voters recalled a democratic governor and replaced him with a Republican.  The previous mayor of Los Angeles was a Republican.  The reason California is as blue as it is isn't because it's chock full of liberals, it's because the California Republican Party lost latin@s over immigration and lost a lot of others due to their slide to the far right.  If they ran more Republican moderates like Schwartzenegger, California would be purple and not blue. Many people wrongly believe McCain is a moderate, he's also from a neighboring state.  Like I said, Obama will win California but it won't be done by simply declaring it so.

    The good news is that among hispanics and Asians, the voters he's lost have not gone to McCain, they've gone back to undecided.  

    [ Parent ]

    I posted here before (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    when I was calling for Hillary in February in California.  I got so many people that said:  I am voting for Hillary but will not stay as a Democrat, they are destroying the party.  

    These goobers, the DNC don't get what their bullying has done.  They are clueless.  

    [ Parent ]

    Today in unity with the new downtrodden (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:17:31 PM EST
    I made for lunch a bologna and white bread sandwich.  Granted the bologna was made with organic grass fed meat, the bread was from a small baker, the mustard was French and I did put arugala.  

    Ok, I know off topic but we need to have some solidarity here.  

    That made me laugh (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    since I had organic turkey, Grey Poupon and organic lettuce on all-natural bread!

    LOL

    [ Parent ]

    unity w/ downtrodden (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by noholib on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:36:48 PM EST
    Stellaaa, You are really funny! I hope you enjoyed your lunch. What kind of solidarity dinner do you plan?
    P.S. If you use French's French mustard, then you join forces with everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    You need some oil. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM EST
    We fry our bologna here in the sticks.  I think it's the special in the sandwich shop on the first floor of my office building today - fried, thick-cut bologna.

    Not grass fed.  Not organic.  And, while they are pretty good about having lots of veggies available for sandwiches, they don't carry arugula.  You could try spinach, though!

    [ Parent ]

    a great misunderstanding about the non obama vote (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by neilario on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    people really underestimate  the degree that a serious chunk of the dem electorate does not like [ perhaps even hates] obama. the misogynist  arrogant and entitled manner he assumes he is the nom - it is not the saem as it always is and everyone will just jump grudgingly into the dem fold. 2 states were disenfranchised. BO is not the legitamate nominee those votes dont have a say in the result.

    i think it is niave to minimize the unwillingness of alot of hrc supporters to suck it up and come out for him given this primary. a large portion of people will becaome mccain dems  a large portion will just stay away. he continues to take those votes forgranted and the dems will lose. and they deserve it.

    all true (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They will not get it till it's over (none / 0) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    Look at Brazille's comments, they have no political acumen.  They are a collective basket case.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hello everyone! I've made my decision (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    Just wanted to let everyone know...

    I am now on the McCain express as an independent.  He is actually the most qualified to lead this country.

    McCain stood up for Hispanics.  I feel I can trust him.  He has the experience.  Likeable enough.

    Now that the Democratic Party has found its new  "John Kerry" it is truly a trainwreck. Too much hypocrisy, double standards, backstabbing, disenfranchisement, and lack of spine.

    Enough is enough.

    Buhbye Dems.

    Diplomatic

    you are making a path (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:25:16 PM EST
    that I suspect will be heavily trodden.
    and I understand.  not there yet.  but I understand.

    [ Parent ]
    Why did Kerry lose? (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    Gosh, I think a bit part of it was his failure to win enough working-class white votes in places like Ohio!  This in spite of his hunting trip, that went over about as well as Obama's bowling night.

    Here is an argument that the sports fans may understand.  Everyone always thinks their favorite team will be better than last year.  And the reason is that their thinking always goes like "okay, we've got last year's team, and we've added player X, and player Y has more experience, etc..."

    But in fact, half the teams are better and half the teams are worse.  And the reason is that you don't simply get to start with last year's record as a baseline, and then add positive things to it.  Some changes are good and some changes are bad.

    There is little doubt that Obama will bring additional voters to the table that Kerry didn't have in 2004.  But you don't get to assume "oh, everyone Kerry got, Obama will surely get as well!"  That's not how it works.  And we hardly want to set Kerry's coalition up as the goal we all aspire to.

    Funny story, True story: I busted m'hump for Kerry (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    I got out the vote and spent every spare moment helping out in fund raisers. Like an idiot, I even got up 2-hrs earlier on busy days cause getting Bush out of the WH mattered that much.

    I won't be there for Obama, and won't be fearmongered, pre-blamed or thugged about SCOTUS, McCain or Roe. Dems spat on me for caring about all of the above when it was inconvenient for them to get their asses out of their seats and some of that spit got their dry powder wet.

    Will vote downtick for actual Dems and write in HRC or other for Prez.

    My new favorite argument (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    for those who fear-monger me with Roe is:

    "Gee, if women's rights is your cardinal issue, why didn't you simply vote for the woman!  Instead, you voted for the man who is wishy-washy on the issue.  Makes no sense."

    [ Parent ]

    Don't worry (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by swiss473 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    Clinton will take the popular vote lead after Puerto Rico on June 1st.

    The media hasn't mentioned it at all, but she stands to pick up at least 400K in net votes.

    That's why Obama and the media want him to declare victory on the 20th, to prevent Hillary from winning Puerto Rico and overtaking him in the popular vote.

    How Obama declares victory on the 20th after getting blown out by 30 in WV and KY in successive weeks will be interesting to see.

    The key will be Hillary's victory speeches in WV next week and in KY the week after.  In WV she'll have the night all to herself.  She will have blown Obama's doors off.  She needs to make it clear in that speech that she's staying in through June, emphasize the vote in KY, and emphasize the popular vote.  Then on the 20th she needs to do the same in KY.  Because of time zones, her speech will be a few hrs before Obama's in Oregon.  She must reiterate that she is staying in through June, that the race isn't over, emphasize FL and MI, and let everyone know that she's not going anywhere.

    Then...On the morning of June 2, she will lead Obama in the popular vote by at least a few hundred thousand votes.

    That will be enough to get her to the convention where anything can happen.

    Possible but very unlikely (none / 0) (#209)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:48:43 PM EST
    It is now clear that a majority of the party establishment wants Obama.  Enough SDs will come out for him between now and mid June to get him to whatever magic number is necessary.  Hillary will soldier on until this happen.  She will do her best for Obama and party unity but he may well lose a close election in the fall.  Ah what might have been!

    [ Parent ]
    To Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:37:03 PM EST
    You can stop running against Hillary.  It is very unlikely she will be the nominee.  Please turn your attention to how best to unify the Democratic party.  Hint. It isn't by arguing with Clinton supporters here or elsewhere.  You could start by supporting a fair resolution for FL and MI.  It won't affect the likely result and it will make Obama look like a statesman.

    As Gary Hart says even with Hillary's best efforts, it will be very difficult to put the party together again.

    For... (none / 0) (#204)
    by hornhorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    the party's sake, FL and MI should not be seated. What sort of precedent would that set? "Sure, you knowingly broke the rules, but that's ok."

    [ Parent ]
    Don't you get it? (none / 0) (#222)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    Not seating FL and MI pokes a thumb in the eye of the voters in those states.  Do you want to win in November or do you want to set a precedent?  Also in case you haven't noticed one of the rules is that the rules can be changed.  As an additional unity item start working to change the rules so that this sorry situation never comes up again.

    [ Parent ]
    As Gary Hart says... (none / 0) (#232)
    by christinep on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:09:38 PM EST
    And, he should know.  G Hart of the "lets organize the caucuses" fame in 1972 and all these years later.  He has certainly contributed to the Dems insiders reverence for the "Creative Class." Unfortunately, I think that type of over-emphasis is what ultimately will lead to the woodshed for us ole Dems...we're forgetting the common person or denigrating him/her as low info "clingers." Yep, Gary Hart ought to know.

    [ Parent ]
    The thing (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    that seems to have gone unnoticed here is that Obama is starting where Kerry ended. Kerry ended with those numbers after the swiftboat attacks and the Osama tape. Obama is starting out low before anything other than Wright has been thrown at him.

    These demographics probably aren't going to get better for Obama they are going to get worse. I predict a McCain/Obama election to be 55 McCain and 45 Obama. Right now all indications are that Obama will lose the general election. I don't see it changing any over the next 7 months. If he ends up being the nominee the best we can hope for is him not killing the downtickets.

    Do people hate McCain as much as Bush? (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    A lot of people have said that we have to vote for Obama because McCain = Bush, but I don't think that argument is going to sway many voter's. First, it is  not a pro-Obama message. It's just a variation of the "A vote for Obama is a vote against Clinton" message that we have already rejected. Second, it is arguably not true. McCain is certainly not a Progressive, but he isn't a neocon and he isn't incompetent. His voting history is centrist relative to most current Republicans - closer to some of the more conservative Democrats. I won't vote for McCain, but there are a lot of moderates and more conservative Dems who will see the McCain a desirable alternative to Obama's inexperience and lack of a clear message - especially older voter's who will be unsympathetic to the "McCain is a doddering old man" argument.

    In 2004 (none / 0) (#214)
    by TeresaInSnow