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

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama: almost as electable as John Kerry! (5.00 / 15) (#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
    Actually, given that I worked (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    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.

    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

    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.



    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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?  

    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.


    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.

    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?

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

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


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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

    It all depends on how much he panders.... (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    He's talking to Wollf Blitzer right now (5.00 / 1) (#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?


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

    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.

    Latinos (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.


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


    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.


    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.

    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.



    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.


    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


    Experienced White Dude vs. Experienced Black Dude


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

    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!


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

    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.


    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.

    Death grip (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 11) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 2) (#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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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
    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    It looks like (5.00 / 4) (#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 / 2) (#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."

    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.

    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 / 6) (#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?

    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."


    Well, it's always good to give up (5.00 / 2) (#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!


    The Creative Class likes Obama's sculptures better (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 5) (#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.


    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


    Obama's platform (1.00 / 0) (#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.


    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?

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

    For What It's Worth (5.00 / 1) (#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 / 1) (#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.

    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.  

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

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

    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.


    Should be 56% disapproval rating (none / 0) (#169)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    Give (none / 0) (#183)
    by hornhorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    me what you're smoking. Please.

    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.

    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.  


    I posted here before (5.00 / 3) (#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.  


    Today in unity with the new downtrodden (5.00 / 4) (#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!



    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.

    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!


    a great misunderstanding about the non obama vote (5.00 / 2) (#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
    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.  

    Hello everyone! I've made my decision (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    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 / 3) (#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 / 1) (#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."


    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!

    To Obama supporters (5.00 / 0) (#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."

    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.

    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.

    The thing (5.00 / 0) (#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 TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    Democrats certainly didn't hate McCain when Kerry asked him several times to be his running-mate.  Democrats would have delighted at the proposition.

    Here's one (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:53:40 PM EST
    He's presented himself as a post-racial post-radical candidate: the media and party went along with that narrative.  In the same way that Kerry hammishly presented himself as a War Hero.

    What Kerry forgot to emphasize was that on returning home to the states he became a radical antiwar protester.  As a leftie I see that Hero and subsequent Protester biography to be noble and human, even epic.

    Centrists  found  that contradiction in persona confusing and hypocritical.

    Conservatives saw it as apostate malevolence.  

    Teh post racial Obama identity is self contradicted Obama's probably agrees/d with a lot of what Wright had to say at the time of the sermons. In his first book Obama shows that he's creating a black racial identity for himself in an obsessive manner.  It seems that Obama also had a penchant for radicals, militants and terrorists--  Alinski, Kalidi and Ayers respectively.

    The GOP can drive a truck through the gap between Obama's presentation of himself and his biography.

    For me it's a matter of form.

    OTOH, not that I support Clinton, she simply proposed that  she'd restore the 1990s as her narrative.

    How about the following facts (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by RussTC3 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:31:42 PM EST
    What about the fact that McCain is performing six points weaker among men and five points weaker among women compared to Bush 04, whereas Obama is holding his own compared to what Kerry got?

    I guess it's okay to ignore that stuff huh?

    I'm way over (2.00 / 0) (#115)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:22:54 PM EST
    my daily limit of comments.

    But, I think I'll get a pass here, because I'm in (partial) agreement with the HRC folks.  I saw that at dKos and I had a reaction similar as BTD, i.e. this isn't the greatest news for BO.

    But, I realize that polling is completely useless this far out.  So, I'm not worried.  BO will win because he's the right messenger for a time when fear politics has been seen and will increasingly be seen as political trickery that allows the government to quietly focus on the needs of the powerful, while diverting attention from government's failures to be answerable to the concerns of most citizens.

    And, as I've stated before, all this talk about HRC's claimed lock on white voters in a GE isn't based on rigorous evaluations.  Even beyond the fact that polling this early is useless for the GE, I know that this exit poll based white voter conversation is completely frivolous: there is never any attempt to calculate GE correlations or (most importantly) 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 standard political 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.

    OMG...this is why were going to lose.... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by cosbo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:32 PM EST
    BO will win because he's the right messenger for a time when fear politics has been seen and will increasingly be seen as political trickery that allows the government to quietly focus on the needs of the powerful, while diverting attention from government's failures to be answerable to the concerns of most citizens.

    Badly too. You think regular voters are actually thinking like that!! Sigh.


    They've been well schooled (none / 0) (#210)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    about the failures of government under the policies promoted by McCain.

    Don't worry, Bush is an excellent teacher in this respect.  BO wouldn't even need to be a great politician to connect Bush's approval to Bush's policies, which happen to be McCain's policies.  Then, he needs to stick to his vision with some pragmatism that doesn't look to tax the middle class or create policies that could fit the inevitable accusation of Marxism or Communism or whatever the wingnut name calling machine comes up with.

    This year, more than most, it's not rocket science.  School is dismissed and everyone knows that eight years of McCain's inherited policies failed.  Not much convincing needed--it's about framing issues, and finding the language that results in the visceral connection to the reality that so many people are sensing.  You say McCain, I say: Not This Time.


    Look at the voters she is getting (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    it's not all about them being white. It's about them being seniors, women, working folks (not just working class), folks looking for experience, practical folks looking for answers not "Change in Washington and New Politics" blah, blah, blah.

    When I think I 'need' to hold my nose and vote for Obama, I realize he doesn't offer me much of a difference than McCain. Health care, nope not gonna happen. Women's issues, nope not gonna happen unless by default because of race issues, economy? heh, neither suits me there. Trade? both fail for me on that account. Food safety and production, haven't checked McCain on that, but I've searched up and down and can't find anything to make Obama get a plus in that column. You get the picture :)

    I will write in Hillary, I'm in a 'blue' state after all  ;)


    Bangs head on desk (ouch!) (none / 0) (#199)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:43:46 PM EST
    Man. Obama just ran a campaign based on one of the oldest, most transparent tricks in the book. By playing the race card. Everybody recognizes it, and understands it, but it still gets into the reptile brain and works.

    If that worked so spectacularly for Obama, what makes you think that the classics, like fear-mongering, aren't going to work for the Republicans?


    This argument is (1.00 / 0) (#231)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    insulting to thinking people.

    BO had nothing to gain by making race an issue (after winning with the white sate of Iowa, he already had all the black support he ever needed) and HRC had everything to gain by characterizing him (as she is still doing) as the boutique candidate of black folks.  It's inexcusable for the campaign that benefits from the race talk to be claiming that they're the victims of race-baiting.  This false claim is  attempt to get white folks worried that the "affirmative action candidate" is keeping down the white (wo)man.  Shameful, imo.

    I can't think of BO claiming that he is the victim of reverse-sexism.  And, you never will hear him saying this, even though HRC and her campaign have frequently claimed to be victims of the boys as they attempt to earn votes.  If for no other reason BO wouldn't say this because it would be a political loser, because of the numbers of women.  The numbers are also why talking about race is a loser for him and a winner for HRC, which is why the HRC side is always talking about race.  She wants to have the MSM focus on this white victim of reverse racism story, and how she's the white demographic power candidate, it's a numeric winner for her, but it's unconscionable to me.  Yuck!!!!!!!!!!


    Clinton has been getting less AA votes than Kerry (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    I guess BTD will be starting a post on how unelectable Hillary is now.

    Or all this just partisan read meat for the angry locals?

    Hint: (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    Democrats always win all or almost all black votes. Obama might be brining something new to the table, but the black vote ain't it.

    I think its a valid point that they (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    will likely vote in greater numbers but still.
    90% of 12% is what, 10%?

    not a great base.


    I am amazed... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:14:29 PM EST
    that this has to be pointed out.  The missing link is and has been the  whites, the Clinton coalition.  Oyyyyyyyy.  

    Don't you know? (none / 0) (#90)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    We don't exist anymore.  Read your memos woman! ;-)

    you think the will come out for (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    Hillary after her campaign? Hard working white voters is all Hillary is interested in know. i almost expect her next campaign promise to be introducing creationism in public schools. She certainly could reach for the guns quick enough.

    I don't want republicam lite, even if it is just to get votes.


    She is not Republican Lite (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:25:12 PM EST
    If anyone is, it's Obama.  Which is my biggest concern about him.

    I don't want republicam lite (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    then you dont want Obama

    Hillary won't be the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:13:08 PM EST
    I am very worried about this belief that wishing away this whjite working class voter problem will work.

    We should acknowledge the problem and start thinking about how to deal with it.


    The nominee (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by christinep on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    I'm no dummy, and neither are my friends.  We've all been on this earth about 60 years.  My husband & I have been very involved in politics on the federal and local level at different times. (His background is a doctorate in polsci, teaching ampolsci, running a campaign or two, being a paid Carter staffer when we were young, etc. We've engaged enough tohave been invited to and attend 3 inaugurals.) On Tuesday night late, I even bought the coordinated comments of the "pundits" etc. Then, I woke up and talked to a few people...and, found that they truly wanted to "go for it" "see what happens" "let it play out the way it should." My husband said: Hey, conventions are not supposed to be coronations; let him show the numbers at the convention, etc.  Then, I remembered (as a Denverite) that Obama supporters like Hart and now McGovern (his old boss) really strong-arm numbers because they perfected the caucus-cum-inevitability-of-numbers system. Yoiks! Then, I remembered again that it doesn't always work the way everyone says it must. Yep, it sounds like wishful thinking to lots of people (especially the media-coordinated Obama group) but this year's very strange-ness prompts me to want to see where this goes.  The all-important mood and CW changes with the wind and with every stumble and outside issue.  For me, let him produce the NUMBERS/MATH at the convention. Take a look at political history and see the certainties that weren't.  I won't be surprised either way.

    Donna told you (none / 0) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST
    not to worry.  Cause, see if you keep making the same mistake over and over, they think at some point they will win.  

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:35:03 PM EST
    Donna will go down a six-pack or two with a steel-worker and all will be forgotten.

    one way would be to stop throwing (none / 0) (#99)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    gas on the fire.

    Here's a clue: the fire needs no more fuel (5.00 / 6) (#143)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    to keep burning.

    The gas on the fire, when it all comes down to it, is the Obama's campaign and supporters' tactic of labeling one out of every two Democrats racists, along with a former Democratic President, a female Democratic vice-presidential nominee, and at least two Democratic governors.

    Successful tactic, it would appear.  Bad strategy.

    A good percentage of the base is alienated, and when the real racism starts flowing from the right, Obama's supporters will have cried "wolf" too often.


    I really don't think (none / 0) (#189)
    by onemanrules on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    there is all that much to worry about here. I, as a blue collar white voter, believe it is more a matter of who he is running against here than it is him. Hillary isn't exactly a weak canidate and many blue collar workers remember the Clinton years well. What exactly does McCain offer us blue collar workers other than the same policies. I look for bcw's to vote more on their economic interests this election than any in a while. Please don't argue lower taxes from McCain anybody. What do you call the fact that our dollar is bordering on worthless now. I call it a backdoor tax.

    BTD (none / 0) (#202)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    I just don't accept that Clinton will not be the nominee.  Things change, stuff comes up.  She still has a shot.  You're a lawyer, guy, at least throw in a "likely" here and there.  By your earlier post, it's closer than most folks think.

    it is and that is why (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:21:22 PM EST
    it was a really stupid thing to say.

    right up there with "bitter...cling" (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Fabian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    Politicians do make mistakes.  It's their job to apologize and kiss and make up to those they have offended.

    Anyone on this site who still thinks Obama's (1.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Buckeye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    backers are not using race, consider this post at the DailyKOS:

    In 1958, Wallace ran for AL gov w/ the support of the NAACP.  His opponent, John Patterson, was supported by the KKK.  After losing, Wallace vowed that he would never be "outni****ed" again.

    When we was elected in 1962, Wallace proved to be true to his word, and he took his act nationally 2 years later.  His campaigns were reminiscent of what HRC's campaign has become today.  He pushed anger, anti-elitism, and race while not doing anything substantively for his purported constituents.

    The Crown Royal Kid is doing the same thing this year.  She never challenged Charles Gibson on capital gains taxes, nor did she vigorously challenge much of the other prevailing economic orthodoxies.  Instead, she premised her whole argument around McVain's gas tax gimmick.

    It will only get worse in the coming weeks.  Team Clinton cannot win w/o taking the battle to Denver, and keeping the bloodletting going that long is a nightmare scenario for all of us.  This cancer must be excised soon.

    If Obama matches Kerry in white support (none / 0) (#3)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:55:36 PM EST
    doesn't he, with his 90% AA support, have the election easily in hand?

    IF he move up from 37 to 41 (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    and 41 to 44 among Latinos, and if he gains more than +3 with A-As, which he should, he can win a squeaker if the Electoral college goes our way.

    Boy, the big 60% wins we heard about are no longer on the table I see.

    50 + 1? We'll take it!!!


    Ifs (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by christinep on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    BTD: If there are gains in the Latino community given the complex sociological situation there (and McCain's appeal) AND if we don't lose percentages among some key blue collar segments.... The Ohio and Pennsylvania tip-of-the-iceberg makes me quite pessimistic that Obama can come anywhere near Kerry.  Its the "bitter-cling" plus the "unknown" aspects that can be distorted that are really hanging out there. Again: With Hillary, we have more than a real chance at Ohio (in view of the infrastructure now and her demonstrated vote-getting ability there), a good chance at Arkansas, and a good chance at West Virginia.  Add that to holding the states Kerry won....

    50 state strategy... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    should work.  

    You think Obama himself will run with this poll? (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    Me neither.

    Stupid, stupid leftosphere.


    It's not the argument I make for Obama (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    I talk about the distribution of the white vote vis a vis the electoral college. Kos does too.

    this was not the argument to make for Obama.


    I am pretty sure (none / 0) (#163)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    By the time republicans are done with him we'll be remembering they days when he was almost as good as Kerry 2004 as the good old days...

    Remembeer its not the number of votes (none / 0) (#217)
    by Florida Resident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:51:59 PM EST
    is the number of states.   Who won Michigan in 2004?  Will we be able to win in Ohio in 2008 as we should had in 2004? those are the questions and others like them that need to be addressed by the party.  I am an optimist, but then I am scared as hell of a McCain Presidency, so I will probably will be voting Democrat as I did in 2004.  But am I the norm or the exception?  Again since the Democrats have not been able to win the majority of the white male votes in most states and if God forbid they should loose a substantial amount of the female votes then yes the GE is in peril.

    As for the Latinos in places like Fl, NJ, and some other East Coast states I know that McCain is just as attractive a Candidate as Obama and that is something that makes it iffy to predict.   Midwest and West Coast a lot of them may feel cheated by tactics the same as women I just don't know.

    My position is that if it's true that Donna said that we did not need certain groups of voters then she should committed.  Cause right now we need every state we can get small or large.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    Because 12% of the total population (not VOTING population) will be enough to capitulate Obama to the top.

    great minds . . . (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    what percent of the population (none / 0) (#188)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    do you think uneducated southern whites with democratic views make up? I bet it is a lot less than 12%.

    Either canidate can win this upcomming GE. McCain has little grassroots support, can't raise money to save his life, is extremely old and unhealthy, gaffe prone, loves the war, is tied to Bush, the repubs are in disarry and their brand is in the toilet.

    But here at Talk left we are going to lose? Newt doesn't even think the repubs can win.


    WOW (none / 0) (#207)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    What makes you think all "working class" whites that Hillary got are southern and uneducated?

    I consider myself "working class" coming from blue collar roots and I'm an attorney...I WORK for a living. I can't afford lattes (even if I drank them), I don't drive expensive cars, I wonder how I'm going to pay my bills with rent, credit cards, health insurance, car payment, and student loans. Yup - I'm a proud member of the working class.


    AAs went overwhelmingly for Kerry. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    African-Americans showed up in record numbers to vote for Kerry in 2004.  African-American politicians and organizations did yeoman's work campaigning against BushCo.  Gore '00 outperformed Clinton '92 and '96 in urban areas around the state, and Kerry outperformed Gore.   The difference between winning Ohio in '92 and '96 and losing Ohio in 2000 and 2004 was that Bill Clinton won substantially more support among Ohio's smaller cities and rural areas than either Gore or Kerry.  

    The Democratic party needs working class whites AND working class blacks to put together a winning coalition for the presidency.  


    Kerry had great AA-support too (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    This analysis also presumes the 10% white undecideds break for Obama. I think they are just waiting to see more of McCain before they commit for him. They know what Obama is all about.

    Kerry had a solidly unified Democratic party behind him and got more votes than any Democrat in history and still lost. Obama will have the tepid support of half the party and he won't be running against a reviled incumbent. Try as you like, but McCain doesn't inspire the hatred amongst the Democratic base that Bush did.

    McCain has to get out the conservative vote but I think that is an easier task than what Obama has ahead of him.


    response to ineeda life (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by christinep on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    Your points are well-taken.  To your perspective, I'd repeat a comment from above that someone made about cities and towns.  The more that we look at Bill Clinton's 90s strategy the more apparent it is that success was due in no small part to involving and getting the votes of the small towns and rural populations.  Perhaps, this is the weakest link in the Obama campaign's chain.  I'm not sure that the Dems can afford--in this year and the ramifications for later years--to downplay the downscale populations in favor of the metropolis with upscale close-in suburbs. The historical perspective going back to FDR would suggest that the Democratic party was continually trusted with governing when we were identified with the common person.  The "creative class" stuff parlayed by the Obama campaign appears to fly in the face of that reality.

    How much AA support (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    do you think Bush got?

    More than McCain will (none / 0) (#14)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    What do you base that on? (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    Every exit poll I've ever seen shows him getting either none or next-to-none in 2004.

    And the GOTV? (none / 0) (#28)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    Do you know anything about the 2004 election? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    Hint: John Kerry got about as many, if not slightly more, black votes out of Philly as Obama did last month.

    Obama will do better than Kerry with AAs (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:08:42 PM EST
    He will win 93-7 or so.

    And turnout will be up.

    But will that be good enough to win Ohio, PA and FL?

    Plus the issue is where. this is an electoral college issue.


    One city? (none / 0) (#56)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    That's your argument?

    It's one example (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:11:22 PM EST
    Obama might do better with rural black turnout. but that wins you exactly zero electoral votes, except maybe Florida, if Florida is close (which it will not be).

    This is the point I've been making for weeks: Democrats always win black people, and black turnout tends to be quite good in a presidential election. Show me what else Obama brings to the table.


    He is the only (2.00 / 0) (#154)
    by onemanrules on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    canidate that in my lifetime brought out the young vote like this. This is the only election I can remember where the young people made such a big difference. It's such a great argument that Obama cannot beat McCain and Hillary can. Hillary can't even beat Obama, what does that say about her electibility. Also a little news flash on McCain, here in PA he lost 30% of the republican vote to Paul and Huckabee. His own party can't even stand him.

    Yet another Obama supporter (none / 0) (#168)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    who knows nothing about history.

    John Kerry won Pennsylvania in 2004, having won his essentially uncontested primary there with 74% of the vote.


    McCain and Hillary have the same problem (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    they can win nationally but their party hates them

    Bush Got 11% Of The AA Vote (none / 0) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    AAs comprised 11% of total voters.

    Do we know how much AA support (none / 0) (#12)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    Kerry had?

    Level of AA support (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by christinep on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    My understanding is that the Dem candidate has maintained a 90+ AA support level for years. The issue here may really be the loss (or lowered numbers)of certain white blue-collar support.  For instance, wage earners and Catholics.  Also: The Latino demographic had been trending well in recent years for Dems; so, the ? is whether some of the difficulties Obama has had in that area will cause us to suffer a bit of regression there. (Oh, and that demographic is quite important in Nev, NMex, CO and Fla.)

    Less than Obama will (none / 0) (#16)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    Just found this: (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:04:28 PM EST
    Kerry had 89% AA support in 2004.

    The math doesn't work. Even 11% of AA's will not make up for the Latino and white voters that Obama will lose to McCain.


    Look at GOTV (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    Look at the turnout for the democratic primaries. Do you not think that this is significant?

    You need to read more of the comments. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    There is not much more to squeeze out of the AA community. They turned out in record numbers for Kerry.

    The math simply doesn't work.


    GOTV was huge (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:12:00 PM EST
    in urban areas and on college campuses in 2004.  Some people wanted until three a.m. to vote in Ohio.  Do you not remember that?

    yeah (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    if they had only counted them . . .

    I think Kerry... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:06:17 PM EST
    ... did relatively lackluster numbers among AA voters, compared to Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Obama should exceed all of them, of course, but there isn't much room to improve on how Gore did.

    There is if you increase voter turnout (none / 0) (#49)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    90% of 12% (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:05:14 PM EST

    With a currently divided party (none / 0) (#31)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:04:19 PM EST
    there is nowhere to go but up. That is the point of his post.

    Bad point (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CST on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    But we need some hope to cling too!

    Try a bible (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    I hear guns work pretty good too.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#132)
    by CST on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:17 PM EST
    I was never that into Bibles - too many rules.

    Guns just seem like a bad idea, I might cling too hard and shoot someone.  Accidently of course, Dick Cheney style...


    how so? (none / 0) (#54)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:08:21 PM EST
    and please fill us in on your concerns about Hillary all but completely losing the AA vote.

    Hillary will not be the nominee (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    My points on Obama have been made at this blog. Review my posts on the subject.  

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#35)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:05:27 PM EST
    As I and other here have said before...

    Wait until the October surprise. And John Kerry actually WAS a war hero.  

    as opposed (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:10:35 PM EST
    to a canadite that lies about being under sniper fire? You have to go antiwar to beat McCain on Iraq, and Clinton "I voted for it and don't regret it" can't do that as well as Obama.

    Tough truth, she can't out hawk McCain.


    She could stand up (none / 0) (#112)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:22:21 PM EST
    with foreign policy creds, whereas Obama cannot.  Living abroad when you are 6 does note count.

    He also draws ther demo that kerry did not. (none / 0) (#36)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    which I suspect you know as well BTD.

    which demo would that be? (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    AA's (none / 0) (#71)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    and the youth vote, as well as indies.

    the bulk of indies (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    will belong to McCain

    I don't know why (none / 0) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    Obama's supporters are placing so much weight on indies.  Independents, by definition, are not a reliable demographic.  Primary performance is not a reliable indicator for a variety of reasons. Not to mention the fact that the MSM perpetuates the fairy tale that McCain is an independent himself.

    Obama may be able to win a significant portion of independents, but he can't count on them.


    I'm an Independent (none / 0) (#208)
    by smott on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    As of today.
    And I'm not supporting Obama.

    I agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    He'll run up the score with African Americans. but that is worht an extra 2-3 points. To win a squeaker, he has to hold Kerry's numbers at least.

    An extra 2 or 3 points (none / 0) (#174)
    by christinep on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:34:24 PM EST
    I'm not sure running up the numbers of AA votes really ups the electoral votes.  Which particular state would change from Republican to Democrat based on a change in that percentage.  Realistically?  (Given the difficult situation in Florida, I would consider that state as a goner with Obama heading the ticket.)

    When Obama clinches the nomination... (none / 0) (#109)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    ...I do wonder what the raison d'etre for this blog will be.

    Will there continue to be 2-6 Obama-bashing threads per diem, or will there be a transition to McCain-bashing?

    Just wondering.

    ask us when he (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST
    clinches the nomination.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:01 PM EST
    If people here are actually concerned for the future of the party and the future of the country.

    "I'm tired of year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of who cares." - Leo, The West Wing

    Or in this case - who would do less damage.


    Well..my question is (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    what will "your sites" do if Obama wins the presidency?  The official apologists by the embedded bloggers.  

    Don't you worry your pretty little head, we will find something to do.  Lots of us here are of that certain age, gardening and pinnacle may really do us fine.  


    Heh, in the fall, I suspect (none / 0) (#194)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:41:24 PM EST
    I'll be doing plenty of canning/freezing for winter, watching the end of the baseball season and the start of football  ;) Doubtful I'll be stressing about politics!

    "Pinochle"? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Fabian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:42:01 PM EST
    I'm down with the gardening.  Been ages since I've played pinochle though.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by eric on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    it will be both...

    BTW, I can tell you were an elitist Obama voter, you used both latin and french in your comment!  ;)


    good question (none / 0) (#151)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:01 PM EST
    This site used to be a lot less hostile a few months ago.

    John Kerry & Obama comparison are irrelavant (none / 0) (#113)
    by Oldman Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    Nobody knows what is going to happen in the fall based on the primaries today or the GE in 2004. These things are interesting talking points and have to be studied to see what lessons can be learned. If you remember at this juncture in the 2004 election John Kerry was beating George Bush in the polls. Electability was John Kerry's argument in the primaries not unlike Hillary Clinton's argument except with more compelling margins in the polls head to head with George Bush than the almost 50-50 split the two Dems have with McCain.
    If the democrats unite the republicans are toast and with this bitter battle between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters we are giving hope (how ironic) to the repubs that were very disheartened.
    The problem I see is that the supporters of either candidate think the other side should be happy with swallowing their pride and line up in the GE to support their candidate. We must come back together on common ground and see that the differences are personalities not policy. No Democrat has won the WH without a 80% plus margin of the black vote nor has any won without a significant amount of the woman vote. Traditionally white males go to the repubs in large numbers. The key to Democratic success for the White House has always been about keeping the coalition together. This election will not be about gays getting married and national security concerns to the degree they were in 2004.
    In fact if we can keep the coalition strong, the republican position John McCain must take on immigration should push the Latino vote to go Democrat as well. If dems lose the GE we have only ourselves to blame. Remember how the Nader vote put Florida in the Bush column? I hope that election day feel good was worth eight years of W.

    If the democrats unite (none / 0) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:24:07 PM EST
    big if you got there

    My point is (none / 0) (#213)
    by Oldman Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    That only Democrats can defeat Democrats in the fall if we don't find a way to come together. Why don't we let the primaries play out and see who actually wins this thing, including the decisions made on Florida and Michigan and then support the nominee instead of tearing down the two candidates. Both sides have made mistakes and have contributed to the harsh debate. What happens if there is a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket do we who are their supporters second guess their decision to work together for the good of the country.

    Obama as electable as Kerry? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Left of center on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    I was wrong. (none / 0) (#152)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    I thought it was going to be wind surfing Kerry.

    But that one is still better than hunter Kerry.


    are we ready for the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:37:50 PM EST
    riding around in a tank with his big brothers helmet on?

    clinton supporters- help me out (none / 0) (#141)
    by tonedef on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST

    Polls indicate that upwards of 40% of clinton's supporters will vote for McCain, though he is anti-choice, etc.

    I'm asking this sincerely- what has Obama done that has been so antagonizing and alienating to Clinton's supporters?

    If anyone has a moment to answer, I'd really appreciate it.

    Here is my list (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:38:10 PM EST
    • He put down constantly the only successful democratic president of my life time,

    • He accused two of the most progressive people as being racist,

    • He split the democratic party to secure a nomination with no regard for what it does to possibility of winning the GE,

    • He has shown shades of misogyny and real mean spiritedness in his campaign,

    • He allowed a anti-gay supporter to campaign for him in SC because it suited his strategy,

    • Showed condescension a few times, including "likeable enough"

    • Attacked one of the most important issues facing our country (universal health care) for his own gains, why be a democrat if you don't care about democratic issues.

    I can give you more, but I gotta get back to work.

    One part of the reason is the way she was treated (none / 0) (#148)
    by Buckeye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    by Obama's backers (I realize that is not his fault but he has done quite a lot himself).  One example I posted above.

    Two things: (none / 0) (#218)
    by eric on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    First, I think that the 40% figure is high.  If it comes down to it, a lot more will vote for Obama, especially if Clinton encourages them to.

    Second, it is far too complicated to get into every reason that people have a dislike for Obama, but I think there are a couple of issues that stand out for me.

    1.  People are turned off both by his personality and the cult of personality that surrounds him.  It has been described as a "fan club" or a "cult".  Some people are very turned off by group-think and this pack behavior.

    2.  People are angry about the tactics and arguments employed by Obama's campaign and especially, some of his more vigorous fan club members.

    There are lots of other reasons, as well.  But that sums it up for me.  And of course, for many people it isn't really about disliking Obama as much as it is liking Clinton more.

    Many Clinton supporters are centrist/moderates (none / 0) (#230)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    that's part of the explanation, imo.

    This Must Be Good News (none / 0) (#142)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    Jonathan Singer is trumpeting it, too, at mydd.

    He's lost all objectivity (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:29:49 PM EST
    in the last month or two.

    Your analysis assumes a static environment (none / 0) (#177)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:36:40 PM EST
    This polling argues that Obama is beginning his campaign in a roughly similar position to where Kerry ended his.

    Obama has an entire election cycle to grow from here.  Certainly any candidate withiin the ranges described in this poll is electable.

    I'm confused BTD - I always thought you argued for a more partisan Democratic party.  Why then would you want to argue that either of our potential candidates is unelectable at this juncture?  

    Kerry ended lower than where he began (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by davnee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:00:29 PM EST
    If BO is the nominee, he'll get a unity bounce, but my guess is it will be somewhat blunted due to hard feelings.  If he isn't polling ahead of McCain in late August by at least the same margins Kerry was ahead of Bush, then Dems have a big problem.  BO has lost electoral support as primary voters have gotten to know him better.  That is not an encouraging harbinger for the GE, when the majority of voters finally tune in.  I predict he'll bleed support not consolidate it as he goes.  So he better start with one helluva lead.

    I think that the question is... (none / 0) (#200)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:43:48 PM EST
    What can be done to make Obama more electable. In order to discuss that, you have to start with the recognition that he is currently in a very bad position in terms of the general election. He has been running a solid campaign against Clinton, but has not communicated his message to the voter's.

    Obama is starting his campaign 50% back (none / 0) (#201)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    from Kerry as far as I can tell . . .

    Remember, he's running under the "New" Dem party, not the old . . .


    Well, (none / 0) (#181)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    Shouldn't that be "White DEMOCRATS"? (none / 0) (#212)
    by getagrip on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    The analysis seems to forget that this was a DEMOCRATIC primary.  If he loses DEMOCRATIC white voters by that margin, it will be MUCH WORSE in the general, since he won't get a large percent of REPUBLICAN white voters.

    The numbers posted for Kerry were general election numbers, which INCLUDE republicans.

    Two big issues for me (none / 0) (#219)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    1. Race Baiting. Obama's people have damaged the reputations of the Clinton's and many of their supporter's by claiming that they were manipulating racist sentiment in order to win the campaign. This is hateful and divisive.  I can't in good conscience vote for a candidate who has refused to denounce this technique. Clinton, imo, has run a clean campaign based on her experience relative to Obama's. S. Carolina, Ferraro, "Shuck and Jive", and the MLK comments were not racist and did not deserve to be attacked any more than Clinton's recent comments about Obama not getting white votes. They were inserted into the conversation to gain Obama support among people who hate racism.  

    2. Inexperience. Obama has two freaking years in Congress and has not shown that he has the intellectual curiosity necessary to overcome that deficit.

    The immigration issue is more complex (none / 0) (#234)
    by gandy007 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:43:21 AM EST
    than the media explanation.  They tend to greatly overplay the marches, the protests and the rallies.

    Believe it or not, illegal aliens don't vote and among the Hispanics that do, there is a significant number that are not all that excited about having illegal aliens flooding this country.
    This is especially true of Mexican Americans in nonunion states who can't get a decent wage because the market is suppressed by illegals and they are competing for many of the same jobs.

    Having said that, the main problem is not USA policy, but Mexican policy over which we have no control.  They will keep coming, by hook or crook, given their plight in Mexico.

    We may empathize with them to a great degree, but the biggest gripe a lot of us have is that building walls is just a huge waste of money.  And the idea of sending them all back to Mexico is a pipe dream concocted by idiots that don't live on the border. Enforcement is a farce on every level and absent putting up barbed wire and machine gun nests, it ain't gonna work.

    BTW, it might be instructive to go see the movie, I believe titled "A Day Without the Mexicans".

    To make a long story short and not even considering the racial animus at a visceral level that is hard to call racism as it is commonly thought of, in my estimation McCain will do very well among the Hispanics, better than Obama.  This is especially so because of Hispanics' self concept as super patriots.