Latinos to Obama: Put Hillary on the Ticket or Help the Undocumented

Also via the Hill today:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning.

If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over Hispanic supporters of his erstwhile rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), may be to pick her as his running mate.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is meeting with Obama's campaign this week. One member says:[ More....]

“Hillary holds the entire Latino community in the palm of her hand,” said. Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.), whose district went heavily for Clinton.

A vice president for the National Council of La Raza says:

...whether McCain can win over large enough numbers of Latino voters is “still an open question.” “But Latinos are brand-loyal, and after the Clinton brand, the McCain brand is the second-strongest among Latinos because of his military service and his immigration record,” Munoz said.

The clout of Latino/Hispanic voters is increasing. In California, they are 30% of all voters and in Texas, 32%.

While McCain beat Romney by only 4 points in Florida, he got 54% of the Latino vote in the Republican primary compared to Romney's 14%.

And many Republicans remember that it was in 2004 when 40 percent of Latino voters abandoned the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), to vote for President Bush, Munoz said.

Munoz called 2004 the Democrats’ “low-water mark” in pulling in Latino support. The “high-water mark,” she said, came in 1996, the last time a Clinton was on the ticket.

Even Obama supporters in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus say Obama needs to step up his outreach:

And even longtime Obama backers in the CHC — including Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) — said that Obama has a lot of work to do in drumming up support among Latinos who are still fiercely loyal to Clinton.

“I have encouraged the [Obama] campaign for a year now that retail politics is very important to us, but they don’t yet seem to have gotten the message,” Gutierrez said. “We really need to see more of that from him.”

Turnout is key.

“We have a tendency to not go to the polls to vote,” Baca said. “[The CHC] can help get them out to vote, and it’ll make a big difference. But in the end it’s up to him.”

The group wants Obama to commit to putting immigration reform on his agenda for his first 100 days. Sounds pretty easy to me, but apparently Obama doesn't yet have such a plan:

Obama’s campaign coordinator for Spanish-language media, Vince Casillas, said that while Obama has promised to take up immigration reform in his first year in office, he has not yet laid out his detailed plan for comprehensive reform. “As soon as he’s ready and has a plan in place, he’ll announce it,” Casillas said.

< 14 Republicans Who Haven't Endorsed or Backed McCain | Dying in Detention Must End, Support the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Florida latino vote in the R primary (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:38:59 PM EST
    was almost certainly majority Cuban. I doubt if latinos made up a measurable component of the Republican primary in any other state.  

    Actually, it was in California (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:42:08 PM EST
    That's because Romney is (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:50:33 PM EST
    an "anchor baby" and we Mexicans stick up for our own.*


    * Unless your last name ends in Richardson and you stab your friends in the back.


    Richardson doesn't sound like (none / 0) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:39:24 PM EST
    a Latino name, come to think of it.

    wow, I guess Romney for VP then n/t (none / 0) (#32)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    andgarden (none / 0) (#141)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:26:48 PM EST
    Andgarden, I can see that the latino votes were for Romney.  Cubans specifically like Romney better.  I just moved from there in Aug 2007.  I was about 20 miles south of Orlando and from the south near Miami, most latin folks do vote Republican.

    I agree!


    Romney's father (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:34:01 PM EST
    the popular Michigan governor was BORN in Mexico (albeit on a Mormon missionary/ranch) but gives Romney some Mexican street cred.  Spanish radio has mentioned this on more than one occasion.



    Not going to bed (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:44:36 PM EST
    and being loyal, makes political sense.  Now they can negotiate.  Everyone else, is just letting Obama be Obama, whatever that is.  
    Go Latino voters.  This is politics.  

    Interesting turn of events and verifies all (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST
    we have been saying about the latino vote....doesn't sound like Richardson is going to be much help.  CA latinos were definitely for Clinton...FLA has alot of Cubans (older ones more likely to support Repubs), but younger ones are a little more flexible, and there is a growing Puerto Rican community there.  Now this is getting interesting!

    NY Puerto Rican vote (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:54:10 PM EST
    he may also have to work for. Remember, these ARE Hillary's voters.

    Her campaign may not have been run perfectly, but she knew who her voters were (and who the Dems need to win). Her Hispanic ad from PA was spot on. It just "felt" right.


    Florida has very large Dominican population (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:41 PM EST
    I have read fl has second largest Dominican populaiton outside of DR.  So, FL Latino pop. not just Cuban any longer.

    I knew that didn't sound right. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Iphie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:30:11 PM EST
    The largest Dominican community in the U.S. is in NYC -- specifically Washington Heights and the Bronx. I live not too far from Washington Heights and the Dominican presence in Upper Manhattan is large and growing.

    When It Comes Obama Winning Over Latinos (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by talex on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:25:49 PM EST
    No Se Puede

    Just put (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    Hillary on the ticket.

    Ot risk pissing off a lot of sem voters.

    Dem voters.  Not republican morons who have come to Obama's light.

    Arrrghh. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:49 PM EST
    or, dem.

    Do you (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:51:55 PM EST
    think Obama would deem to do such a thing? Frankly, I'm tired of hearing how she's supposed to solve all his problems. I keep getting back to the fact that if he has so many problems then we are beyond stupid to nominate him.

    Believe me, (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:53:03 PM EST
    that's where I am right now.

    The real remedy is right in front of him. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:01:34 PM EST
    He needs to give another historic speech on race, this time on Hispanics.  

    (Do you think that will work?)  ;-)


    I prefer a national conversation, myself n/t (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:52:47 PM EST
    Well, his last speech on race got his (4.00 / 1) (#173)
    by magnetics on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:39:28 PM EST
    picture on the cover of teh New York Review of Books, face to face with a picture of Abe Lincoln, and an article inside (passing credulity) by the otherwise sane Gary Wills, conflating Obama's speech on race with Lincoln's Cooper Union Address.

    (I did not cancel my subscription, but I no longer feel any compunction about throwing out back issues. Snark?  I can't tell any more.)


    Wait -- (none / 0) (#171)
    by Iphie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:31:47 PM EST
    did I miss the historic speech about women?

    I don't want Hillary as the VP nominee (4.80 / 5) (#63)
    by mexboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:00:49 PM EST
    because she WILL deliver the Latino vote and the presidency to Barak and I don't want that to happen.

    If the country is going to continue to be taken back to the dark ages and to a disastrous economy, I want it to be a Republican, not a Democrat who steers in down that road to h*ll.

    If Hillary were to accept the VP nomination, then I'd respect her decision.


    Obama's got all kinds (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:48:27 PM EST
    of voter problems. I am still voting NAIP, my new party for working, middle class Americans.

    then you take the (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:52:59 PM EST
    opposing view of TalkLeft.

    I know this is your site...and I respect that, (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Mrwirez on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:21:36 PM EST
    but you have systematically wiped out my last 4 or 5 posts.
    My only question is, does falling in line for someone who has a "D" in front of their name make them the candidate of choice? This is the same person that was NOT your candidate from the very start? THAT does not make sense. I refuse to be stuck with either the D or the R... someone needs to take a stand at some point. I receive consistent 5 ratings for my posts, so someone at TL agrees with me. Also, I stand for organized labor where Mr Obama nor Mr. McCain show any interest.

    Maybe I should move on to the PUMA site or somewhere where my views are more acceptable. I cannot and will not support Barack Obama. He is the DNC choice not mine or yours, from your previous posts anyway...


    I think the point here is (4.00 / 1) (#145)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:32:06 PM EST
    that if your view opposes this site, which is unabashedly partisan and for the dem noimnee, then that's fine, but you just need to argue your points on topic and constructively. I know I'll slip on occasion I'm sure, but it's a reasonable requirement.

    Another thing (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:42:56 PM EST
    Jeralyn doesn't want this site used to organize votes against the (presumed?) Democratic nominee. Stating that you won't vote for him and why is fine, but she doesn't want to make her blog a platform for organizing against him since that's not her position. [I hope I'm correctly stating your position, Jeralyn!]

    I find that very reasonable. It's her blog. There are other places people can go if they want to do things that don't fit inside those boundaries.

    Jeralyn and BTD have allowed and continue to allow a very vigorous discussion and there are certainly a lot of people who post regularly here who have stated that they do not intend to vote for Obama or who (like me) are reserving judgment.


    I totally respect that. I will not work against (4.50 / 2) (#175)
    by magnetics on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:43:40 PM EST
    Obama; neither will I vote for him, unless Hillary winds up on the ticket.  I surely will not vote for McCain.

    I consider myself a 'Hillary dead ender lite', but when I want to hang out a bit with the real hard core, I visit other sites.


    You know, (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:49:56 PM EST
    he doesn't go into Latinos' homes and beg for votes.  That's just not how he is.  Identity politics are so over.  See you outside...

    Really, that comment defined Obama's campaign for me.  

    New NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:50:58 PM EST
    has Obama crushing McCain among Latinos, winning by 30 or more points.  That might hurt what these lawmakers are trying to push Obama to do.  Thing is, Obama shouldn't have to be pushed to do it regardless.

    NBC/WSJ poll. (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:54:47 PM EST
    My favorite media outlets!!


    No, I mean it!


    Those numbers don't sound right (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by stxabuela on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:37:23 PM EST
    Even in the best of times for Democrats, they aren't likely to do better than 30 points among Latinos.  Latinos tend not to vote strictly by party on the national level.  We call ourselves Democrats based on the ties we have to the local party (at least here in TX.)  It's easy to understand--95% of the time, the Latinos on the ballot have Ds behind their names.  On the national level, we consider the person as well as the party.  Latinos have a great deal of respect for veterans.  Some of my relatives said, almost apologetically, that they knew McCain was a veteran but they thought Hillary would be a better choice.  We don't feel the same connection to Obama, so McCain's veteran status is helping him, particularly with older Latinos.  Pushing us to the back burner isn't helping.    

    I think (4.50 / 2) (#45)
    by Makarov on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:45:08 PM EST
    we'll see the polls change once Obama picks a VP that isn't Hillary Clinton. Like some others, I believe picking Clinton for VP is something that will guarantee a Democratic win in the fall.

    In spite of that, I believe Obama will pick someone else. Given the VP-vetter story today, I have to wonder if Obama won't, in fact, have a Thomas Eagleton event in the future. That's the only thing missing to make the McGovern analogy complete at this point.


    No, I think it is going to be the other way (none / 0) (#20)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    around...bet that poll was taken before this little tidbit came out.

    It just sounds like a faulty poll to me (4.33 / 6) (#24)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:20:40 PM EST
    I've been saying the Hispanics in CA are going to be a problem for Obama.  Regardless of what any poll says.  

    La Opinion endorsed Obama in the primary.  So guess who won?  


    Pew Hispanic's Research Shows (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:59:03 PM EST
    that Latinos went 2:1 for Hillary in the Democratic primaries this year, and she took every demographic -- age group, gender.  

    I agree...that NBC/WSJ poll I think is crap! (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:44:23 PM EST
    And the primary race is over (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by tribe643 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:26:37 PM EST
    It's very presumptious that many Hispanics won't support Obama in the general election because a strong majority of them voted for Hillary in the primary.

    Here's a report from Gallup, as reported by the LA Times. It has Obama up 33% among Hispanics against McCain.


    The numbers definitely seem to coroborate the findings of the NBC poll mentioned in this discussion.


    Haven't you already posted this (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:47:17 PM EST
    entire thing above?

    The WSJ poll you cite to does not make sense to many of us. McCain has been popular among Latinos.  Barack was not popular among them during the primary Although this can certainly change, I'm not convinced by this poll, as it claims Obama leads McCain among Latinos 62-29, but that McCain leads Obama among both Protestants and Catholics.  


    Whether it make sense to you or not (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:58:41 PM EST
    the numbers are the numbers, right now; I trust data way more than I trust anonymous anecdotal accounts.

    I definitely agree that Obama has a lot of outreach work to do in the Hispanic community, but it does seem like some of this hand-wringing is overblown.


    It's also very presumptious (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by stxabuela on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:00:48 PM EST
    to assume that Latinos will automatically gravitate toward Obama, simply because of the D behind his name.  

    Sigh--we Latinos are telling you there is a serious problem, yet you persist in pointing to polls.  Here's my prediction:  Obama by 14 points among Latinos nationwide.  Let's see who's closer in November.  


    Do you have (none / 0) (#90)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:39:44 PM EST
    link to that poll?  For some reason I'm having trouble finding it & I'd like to look at the internals; the poll seems way off to me.

    If it's the 62-29 poll (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:07:44 PM EST
    it's not actually an NBC/WSJ poll.  It's a summary of polls by Gallup.  The summary of polls in May have lots of results besides just the Hispanic vote.  There's discussion of it downthread.  Here's the link again.  I think there's been some confusion because for some reason a zillion MSM outlets are reporting on it today, and emphasizing the Hispanic results, although the report came out a week ago.  Other results show much closer numbers for the two on a large number of breakdowns.

    Try this (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:20:09 PM EST
    The article in the WSJ and the 33 pg PDF with internals.

    Oops sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:55:12 PM EST
    I assumed it was Gallup bc the numbers were the same.  Thanks, esp for posting link to internals.

    I think it was bjorn who posted that info. (none / 0) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:50:02 PM EST
    they discussed it on Race08 today (none / 0) (#147)
    by bjorn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:34:50 PM EST
    but I don't have a link, sorry.

    Seems like everyone is having a hard (none / 0) (#168)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:25:43 PM EST
    time finding the link.

    I posted the link (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:48:39 PM EST
    in a comment below - #166 for a link to the PDF with the internals.  

    I am so mad at all the Dem women in Congress (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by honora on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:52:51 PM EST
    If the Congressional Hispanic Caucus can come out this strongly, why are the women representatives so timid?  I am sure that women are contracting them  and they have to know the anger of women out there.  As a feminist woman Democrat that has gone out of her way to support these women, I am at my wits end.

    with all this work, why the fundies, etc. (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:05:09 PM EST
    With all the work he needs to do to get women, seniors, latinos, blue collar workers, etc., why is he spending so much time on fundies and red states. I keep hearing about all the work he needs to do, even from Obama supporters, but then I see the time on the faith stuff, etc. Perhaps there's time for everything, and perhaps their polls are showing there is no work to do, and maybe their right. Just seems like there are some gapping holes in the electoral map that quite vulnerable.

    He assumes that (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by stillife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:21:16 PM EST
    the women, seniors, blue collar voters, Latinos - all the under-the-bus people - will just fall in line b/c they've got nowhere else to go.  Perhaps he sees an opening with fundies b/c they're not fond of McCain. Time will tell if this proves to be a smart strategy, but in the meantime, I find it amusing that McCain is making overtures to Clinton voters while Obama is wooing Republicans.  It's like walking through the looking-glass.

    yea, it is quite freaky isn't it (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:26:58 PM EST
    It sort of reminds me of the Rudy strategy of going only to FL. Given the result, you'd think Obama wouldn't go for that sort of crazy strategy. But who knows, maybe he and Donna know what they're talking about with their new party and new coalition that doesn't support women or blue collar workers, et al. and doesn't want them. If they pull it off and have redefined the dem party, they'll be geniuses.

    They'll be geniuses (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by stillife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:38:48 PM EST
    and I'll be an Independent.

    I'm already one (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:50:13 PM EST
    and boy, I can't tell you how good it felt mailing in my voter registration change.

    Hooray (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:15:18 PM EST
    for the unaffiliated! Woo hoo!

    Wyl E. Coyote considers himself a (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    genius also.

    Different Perspective (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    The Obama Campaign reminds me of the movie, "The Candidate."  There, the campaign to elect Robert Redford was so focused on the election, that once he won, no one had a clue what to do.  THe analogy here (to me anyway) is that the Obama campaign was so focused on winning the primaries and the strategy mapped out there, that since Obama was decreed the winner of the primaries, the campaign is sticking to its strategy for the primaries.  I personally believe this is a strategic mistake, and the campaign, to be successful, has to switch gears and devise a strategy basic on election fundamentals rather than primaries.

    Is he gaming the polls? (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:23:15 PM EST
    Reminds me of some stories about No Child Left Behind.  In order to game the test scores, schools pigeon hole the students into various groups.  

    One group will pass the tests without a problem.  No need to devote resources to them.

    One group will be able to pass the tests with some coaching.  They get extra help to do that.

    One group is unlikely to pass the tests unless the school devotes a LOT of resources for that.  They get almost no help.  Poor return on investment, you see.

    So the groups that get the majority of the resources are the ones that are close, borderline.  Max return on investment.  

    So where are these religious voters?  Which states do they live in?  Which states could be shifted blue for the presidential election by this strategy?

    Rust Belt?  Don't think so.  The South?

    Or maybe, Mike Huckabee for VP?


    For Obama's VP? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by stillife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    That's the ticket!  

    Yeah. (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:30:37 PM EST
    Almost as many exploding heads as putting Bill Clinton on the ticket.  But Huckabee does well in some of Obama's weakest demos.

    I'd never vote for that ticket.  Ever.


    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by stillife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:40:33 PM EST
    my mother would definitely vote for that ticket.  She's a huge Obama supporter who thinks that Huckabee is likable.  So that's one vote right there!

    Stilllife...I think it is time for an intervention (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:53:10 PM EST
    for your mom... :)

    They just expect everyone else to (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:28:55 PM EST
    show up and vote for the Democrat.  We've been voting Democrat for so long, they think it's just in our blood to vote Democrat.  

    So, they'll work hard to attract Fundies and religious types while the rest of us bleed out...  

    It ticks me off too.  Way to take your base for granted.    


    On the bright side (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by roadburdened on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:47:56 PM EST
    According to Gallup, Obama leads McCain 62% to 29% among Latinos nationwide.


    dang, i'm getting my bridge contracts (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:57:47 PM EST
    for the brooklyn bridge back out. gallup you say? i'll give the gent a call. i'll have that contract signed before the sun sets tomorrow. hehehe (snark)

    Obama needs Hispanic votes but I never (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by thereyougo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    even heard him speak even broken spanish. Its not much, but as awful a presiden as GWB was, he at least garbled a few words in Spanish. It means a lot to them.

    But Obama has more bridges to build and time is running out, he's got so many fences to mend, he really has no time to hem and haw like he's good for.

    He needs to work on the women's vote. I haven't heard anything from his sweetieness.

    Drudge also said he's got an army of bloggers or Obots who are going to flood the internet like in the primary and talk down any negativity that the opposition is planning. I think we saw one already here on TL on another thread talking about lies.

    Oh the ironies that are now playing out. In a way I'm glad Hillary is not the Pnominee. To have to put up with all the BS from the  gen X and Y ners. Its not worth it to save them from themselves. Lets see what an inexperienced newbie in th e oval office does about the huge pile of steaming manure left by the current occupant in the WH.

    I'm still stung by the process that took it away from Hillary. Its sure going to be an interesting summer.

    Actually he did. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:26:27 PM EST
    I don't have the link, but he spoke pretty fluently in spanish in an ad that ran in Puerto Rico before that primary. I don't think he actually speaks spanish--I just think he did a very good job at pronunciation of the words in the spot. I'm sure it's on his website and elswhere on the internets.

    That would be the ad that (3.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:28:56 PM EST
    called Clinton a colloqualism that means f*cking whore.  It was not a wise ad by Obama. . . .

    I thought that was the Nevada ad? (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Esme on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:46:25 PM EST
    Anytime I am reminded of that ad, any inclination I had to vote for him promptly flies out the window.

    He said (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:26:37 PM EST
    Si se puede a few time when he was campaigning in the Southwest. I want to say Nevada but it might've been somewhere else like Arizona or New Mexico or California...where he didn't win.

    "Si se puede" (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:41:57 PM EST
    I wonder how that "flys" in the west since it's from the farm workers, who supported Hillary? Aside from the fact she did much better than him, I just wonder what folks were thinking when they heard him using it.

    They were probably thinking...first he (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:58:20 PM EST
    copies her policies, and now her tagline...

    Heh heh (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:10:05 PM EST
    I just thought it was ridiculous -- it wasn't quite as bad as Dubya's Very Bad Spanish.

    I also remember there was some kind of bizarre parsing of whether he'd written "Sí, se puede" (yes, we can) or "Si se puede" (if we can) on his signs.

    Didn't the original slogan come from Caesar Chavez, whose son endorsed Hillary?


    I believe you are correct (none / 0) (#167)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:24:40 PM EST
    Hill staffer told me Delores Huerta furious (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:13:40 PM EST
    about si, se puede.

    Seriously....obama is not the nominee, (none / 0) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:55:51 PM EST
    which is based on pledged delegates, not SD's who might vote for you, if necessary.  He could be considered the selectee that was foisted upon the democratic party.

    Hillary did! (none / 0) (#151)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:42:47 PM EST
    She said  te quiero puerto rico.

    Hispanic Gallup poll (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:10:47 PM EST
    Does anyone have a link to the actual poll?  I just googled the heck out of and checked Gallup's site but can't find the poll itself.  A million articles, no links to the poll.

    Although, as I was googling, I did come across a 2004 CNN poll showing Kerry up by 30% with 'minority voters'.  Maybe Obama should put him on the ticket.

    Link to Gallup Poll (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    I think this is the Gallup poll they're talking about.  It is from last week, has a breakdown by race, gender, etc. and it has the 62-29 number within it.

    Gallup McCain v Obama June 5


    joanneleon (none / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:45:11 PM EST
    Thanks thanks thanks!

    So the poll is registered Democrats (not likely voters) and is dated June 5.  Funny that the MSM is just now noticing it, but whatever.

    The really interesting thing is that while yes, it does report the 62-29% among Hispanic voters, it also has McCain up 53-38% among non-Hispanic white voters.  Was that little bit of data featured on MSNBC, I wonder?  Braver souls than I will have to answer that question, bc I can't stand to watch.

    It also has the two of them tied overall, and tied among independents.

    There's lots more at Gallup.


    Most interesting thing about Gallup poll (none / 0) (#121)
    by tree on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    is that it was taken over the whole month of May.(1-31 according to Gallup). Before the FL/Mi decision, before the Obama "victory" speech as the presumptive nominee, before Clinton's suspension and endorsement. I would think that things might have changed one way or the other a bit since then. Why is this the big news now, nearly two weeks after the last day of the survey, and 6 weeks from the start of it. It would be interesting to see if there were any trends one way or the other.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#137)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25:49 PM EST
    I somehow missed your comment before making my own comment on this poll. But I do agree that there is a question how these responses might be different now that the situation has changed. And it's by no means clear to me whether that would mean a better or a worse showing for Obama in the various subgroups.

    And I agree with you... (none / 0) (#149)
    by tree on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
    I'm not sure which way it would trend now. All I've got is anecdotal evidence and I wouldn't bet anything on that at this point in the campaign.

    Don't just look at the bars (none / 0) (#135)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22:24 PM EST
    They have not given a bar for the undecided (or whatever) voters.

    For example, among women, the bars show 42%/48%. That leaves out 10% not represented.

    Only non-Hispanic blacks seem to have less than about a 10% undecided (or whatever) rate in my quick skimming of the poll.

    Some technical points:

    The 1% margin of error reported is due to the extremely large sample size. The margin of error will be smaller in subgroups because the margin of error is inversely proportional to the (square root of the) size of the sample.

    They apparently got such a huge sample by combining the results of daily tracking polls over the month of May. Recall that during that month, the primaries were still ongoing and Clinton had not yet suspended her campaign. So the questions were asked in that context. (We're also combining a lot of presumably changing, over time, group opinions.) I wonder how or if the answers would be different now, given how things have played out. [Noting that I, for one, am much more angry at Obama now than I was on 1 May, for example. I'm not sure how I think the overall mood may have changed.]


    CNN story (none / 0) (#69)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    Pundits, columnists and bloggers agreed and offered outlandish explanations mentioning everything from the turf wars between Latino and African-American gangs in U.S. cities to the fact that Latin America is full of countries where race and skin color can determine social mobility.

    Well, what do you know? Now, it seems Latinos will support Obama after all -- meaning that everything you've heard to the contrary up to now is rubbish.

    A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62 percent of Latino voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for McCain. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Los Angeles Times poll last month showed Obama leading McCain by 14 points among Latinos in California.

    On MSNBC tonight they were crowing about how Obama doesn't have to worry about women or Latinos, based on polls just released.


    Who reported it? Olbermann? AKA (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:23:32 PM EST
    The Greatest Propagandist Of Our Time (as per Somersby!)

    Several shows (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:31:56 PM EST
    I watched MSNBC tonight (unusual of late) and I think it was mentioned by Matthews, Olbermann and Abrams.  Olbermann was the most obnoxious though.  He also went on about how Katie Couric's assertion that there was misogyny toward Hillary during the primary was a ridiculous claim.

    He's become like a caricature.  I can't believe I ever had any respect for him.  I should have trusted my very first instinct about him, years ago, when I first watched him and he was bragging about some award he won (beating Anderson Cooper) for being the best looking newsman, or something like that.  


    Thanks (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    But since it's a summary of polls, I'm just not getting the math here.

    The two polls they quoted are 14 points up and 19 points up, which doesn't = 62 to 29%.

    Sigh.  This is why I like to look at the polls themselves.  I think the LA Times polling of Hispanics ended up being badly off in the Ca. primary, SUSA was obviously way off in PR, and I remember an extensive discussion from BTD a few weeks back on the flaws of minority polling (sample sizes too small, usually).


    Polling of Latinos (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:52:09 PM EST
    One of the major reasons the polls were off as to the California primary was they underrepresented Latinos & Asians.

    The WSJ/NBC poll makes no sense to me; it has Obama leading McCain among Latinos 62% to 29%, but has McCain ahead among both Protestants and Catholics.  There seems to be a disconnect here.


    The bar chart (none / 0) (#113)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:57:16 PM EST
    under the "Race" subtitle shows the 62-29 numbers.

    I'm not sure about the underlying data though, or how to get it.


    I couldn't figure that out either (none / 0) (#122)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:08:40 PM EST
    There's a blurb on the bottom of the second page which says that the margin of error is +/-1%, but goes on to say that the margin in subgroups might be larger.  But not how much larger.

    Overall except for the Hispanic, McCain is shown as close, tied or ahead in almost all their breakdowns.  Which I'm fairly skeptical of.

    I'm no polling or stats expert, so I can't say anything productive about the quality, but I do find it interesting that the Hispanic numbers were all over MSM but not any others.  Not surprising, mind, but interesting.


    See my comment (none / 0) (#158)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:52:00 PM EST

    In order to know how much larger the margin of error would be, we'd need to know the sizes of the subgroups in their sample, which is not in the report as far as I could see.

    If a subgroup were 1/4 of the total sample, its margin of error would be twice as big (i.e. about 2%): if it were 1/16 of the sample its margin of error would be 4 times as big (about 4%).


    A little night music (none / 0) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:10:30 PM EST
    thank you very much for that info, that's good stuff to know.

    I've been trying (none / 0) (#76)
    by roadburdened on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:25:46 PM EST
    to find it myself. The Gallup search engine is awful. Apparently, it can't handle 'Obama' and 'hispanic.'

    Search engine (none / 0) (#82)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:30:15 PM EST
    yeeks, it couldn't even handle 'hispanics' plural.

    He's pretty much said (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:31:31 PM EST
    he finds any group that asks something of him to be inconsequential to his success.

    He'll be capturing people through religion. Plenty of seniors, working class, Latinos, and women there.

    Don't you guys know? (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Monda on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:39:27 PM EST
    Nobody has done more for the Hispanic community than Obama.
    Who's next?  On the "nobody has done more" list?  

    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:50:11 PM EST
    And of course add, Florida, counting votes, etc. on that list.

    My new favorite Rachel Maddow quote was from a couple of days ago where she said Obama should be out in Florida reminding those voters about 2000 and how he's for counting all the votes. And then she said she doesn't understand why he isn't doing that. She's my favorite. Every time I see her I end up rolling on the floor laughing. She is single handedly making me healthier. Thank you Rachel.


    God good (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:11:56 PM EST
    I used to think Rachel was intelligent. Apparently I was completely duped until about 6 months ago.

    Oops (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM EST
    and I'm clearly not very smart either. I meant "Good god!" ::headdesk::

    She really has become a (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:06:08 AM EST
    nannering twit.

    Rachel was part of MSNBC's Hillary bashing (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by sallywally on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    straight through. Has she now developed a sense of humor about Obama that wasn't there a week ago? How could she fit in with the others if she did that?

    OK, duh (none / 0) (#143)
    by sallywally on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:27:19 PM EST
    I think I missed the funny there.

    Oh well....


    Women?! (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:54:39 PM EST
    The polls suggest that Obama is gaining support (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Rigelian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:43:22 PM EST
    It seems that recent polling suggests that Obama is ahead of McCain among blue collar voters, women, and latinos...all groups that many in here have doubted he could capture.  It appears that he's capturing these voters effectively at this point.  Things can of course change, but right now the prediction that Obama can not count on these types of voters in the General Election is being diminished.  

    Part of it I believe is due to the fact that McCain is a rather unappealing candidate and the GOP is a extremely unappealing party at this point in time.

    Hillary's heartful endorsement Saturday (4.00 / 1) (#133)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:21:35 PM EST
    has to be a big part of this uptick. A big part. I was even thinking of voting Obama myself for a couple days.

    And while I hate to quote Karl Rove (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:27:16 PM EST
    since the number went up so quickly in certain demographics (i.e. white women), that means it's pretty much static. He just got the people who defected from HRC now that she's not in the race, but he's not really gaining anyone new.

    I also personally wonder how long he'll keep them.


    Actually it's not a big uptick, McCain was never (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Rigelian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:46:43 AM EST
    close.  Obama has always had a more favorable rating than McCain with Latino voters.  Way back in February the numbers looked like this...

    Opinions of Obama, Clinton

    Some pundits claim that the Democratic candidates, particularly Barack Obama, have not made a real connection with Latino voters, but the data suggest that Latino voters are supportive of both Hillary Clinton and Obama.

    Among all Latino voters, 76 percent have a favorable view of Clinton, and 66 percent have a favorable view of Obama, compared with 48 percent for McCain.


    Now the lead has expanded by quite a bit recently, but an 18 point advantage earlier was nothing to sneeze at.  


    Actually it's not a big uptick, McCain was never (none / 0) (#190)
    by Rigelian on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:58:19 AM EST
    close.  Obama has always had a more favorable rating than McCain with Latino voters.  Way back in February the numbers looked like this...

    Opinions of Obama, Clinton

    Some pundits claim that the Democratic candidates, particularly Barack Obama, have not made a real connection with Latino voters, but the data suggest that Latino voters are supportive of both Hillary Clinton and Obama.

    Among all Latino voters, 76 percent have a favorable view of Clinton, and 66 percent have a favorable view of Obama, compared with 48 percent for McCain.


    Now the lead has expanded by quite a bit recently, but an 18 point advantage earlier was nothing to sneeze at.  


    WTF? (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:44:05 PM EST
    You mean they'd trade helping the undocumented for putting Ms. Clinton on the ticket?

    If people succeed in pressuring Barack Obama against his wishes and better judgment to put Senator Clinton on the ticket, and if he gets elected, does anyone think Obama would give her serious responsibility or anything approaching the portfolio given to Cheney or Gore?

    Forcing Obama to put Clinton on the ticket would give Clinton some face but it wouldn't give her any real influence of power.  Certainly nothing like she already has in the Senate.

    So why would anyone who cares about the undocumented be willing to trade helping those poor desperate oppressed people for a meaningless job "on the ticket" for Hillary Clinton?

    Are these Latino leaders simply responding to pressure put on them from someone else?  Why would they do something like that?

    Maybe they think (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:50:32 PM EST
    there's no way she goes on the ticket so the real warning is to pony up (no pun intended, well, ok, a little bit intended) on immigration reform.  With more than just a promise to come up with a plan when Obama can get around to it.

    promises are made to be broken! (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:48 PM EST
    Since you're an Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:41:17 PM EST
    allow me to try to help you realize the rationale behind all this.

    1. Culturally a lot of us value loyalty and I see that as a big reason for their push to put her on the ticket.

    2. In an Obama administration all "those poor desperate oppressed people for a meaningless job" are going to need someone who is their voice and lord knows we can't count on Barack to go to the mat for any us. Any other VP choice other than Hillary would be a loss for us. See #1.

    Hope that clears it up for you.

    excellent point (none / 0) (#130)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:18:16 PM EST
    this whole story seems very bizarre - some real ham-handed political posturing.

    Either give us what is really important to our constituents, or if not that, then we'll take having Hillary on the ticket.


    And you are right about the postion. Having Hillary as VP is the least influential place for her over the next 8 years. i really dont understand what they think they are accomplishing with this.


    Oh, he'll do it (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by denise on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:05:25 PM EST
    He'll do what it takes to get the votes. If we know anything about him, we know that.

    That is, come up with a reform plan (none / 0) (#120)
    by denise on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    I didn't mean he'll put Hillary on the ticket.

    That article states that (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:20:53 PM EST
    he won our voting block in IL. I've heard that elsewhere but it doesn't make sense.

    The exit polling must have been off, way off.

    How did Hillary win key city wards? is an article that covers the results of the primary in Chicago. Hillary won the Hispanic/Latino wards in the city.

    I heard so much about his Hispanic/Latino support here in Chicago but Hillary won the Hispanic/Latino vote in his very own back yard.

    If Hispanics/Latinos in the burbs and further away from the city were as unfamiliar with our Senator and or Clinton loyal how did he win our voting block in IL?

    THIS is really stupid IMO (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25:59 PM EST
    Being latino I for one do NOT want Hillary running as VP to Obama.  Not good enough for me.

    The immigration angle just seems likes a form of political blackmail.  Now I am NO fan of the Obama campaign and he should stand up to ANY constituency that threatens their interests by vote-baiting.

    It's wrong and it makes them no better than the RBC IMO.  Let's let Obama pick HIS running mate on HIS terms and at HIS moment and the person HE most wants.

    I will speak for a lot of family and friends who do NOT want HRC as BHO's vice-president.  Let him go down on his own.  Him being @ the top of the ticket is dishonest and does a dis-service to Hillary's mastery of policy and her YEARS of public service experience.

    Aye por favor!

    See, I think there is so much hype (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:47:10 PM EST
    on these polls but I think he is losing it.  

    He just announced his economic advisor on Tuesday and the phones were flooded with dissent from his supporters.  It's going to be a wake up call.  He echos every other candidates stances, yet to prove anything is of his own ideas.

    Here are excerpt of the article:

    by: Tom Hamburger, The Los Angeles Times

    Labor union officials and some liberal activists say Furman is too enamored of globalization and too easy on Wal-Mart.

        Washington - Labor union officials and some liberal activists were seething Tuesday over Barack Obama's choice of centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign. The critics say Furman, who was appointed to the post Monday, has overstated the potential benefits of globalization, Social Security private accounts and the low prices offered by Wal-Mart - considered a corporate pariah by the labor movement.

        Officials from several labor organizations phoned the Obama campaign to complain about the appointment and circulated e-mail messages containing quotes from some of Furman's work. Campaign officials responded that some of the quotes were inaccurate or out of context. They expressed confidence in Furman's abilities and said that Obama would be listening to an array of advisors.

        The dispute is a fresh reminder that sharp divisions on economic policy remain in the Democratic Party, even though the bruising fight for its presidential nomination has ended. Those divisions are likely to present a recurring problem for Obama, especially as he tries to ward off GOP accusations that he is too liberal.

    Hillary had gotten so much flak over (none / 0) (#157)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:49:04 PM EST
    taking contributions from Walmart and sitting on their board.  Yet, the man for change just slapped his voters in the face again.  

    See, Hillary did this what, decades ago.  This young Senatory is repeating other's mistakes.

    I believe this shows he is pro-NAFTA.


    She also SENT BACK donations from (4.00 / 1) (#178)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:53:13 PM EST
    February 4, 2006

    WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won't touch Wal-Mart's money - but Jerry Springer's checks are money in the bank.

    Clinton, who served as a paid member of Arkansas-based Wal-Mart's board in the 1980s, last week blasted the company for failing to provide health benefits to workers. But Clinton's most recent federal campaign filings - 3,000 pages worth - show that she began distancing herself from the company months earlier, returning $5,000 in political action committee cash from the world's largest retailer Nov. 4.

    The senator returned the money because of "serious differences with current company practices," Clinton campaign guru Ann Lewis said on Friday.


    NAFTA (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:54:15 PM EST
    Speaking of NAFTA, some folks don't know that NAFTA had the backing from Union Leaders.  Plus all those Presidents, from Gerald Ford, Carter, Bush SR to Bill were all for NAFTA.. They were all present when Bill implemented what they fought for while they were president.  Actually, NAFTA looked promising which had shown great growth up until the big corporations found the loop hole to use the ppl of America.  Hillary didn't vote to expand it, which is called CAFTA.  Obama , of course voted like Hillary because you know, he doesn't have ideas of his own and he knew she was going to run.

    I guess it must be true then (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:43:09 AM EST
    Obama is winning across all groups!  It's going to be a landslide in November!  

    Did the polls say he was winning with the elderly too?  

    Well (4.69 / 13) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:49:45 PM EST
    it seems that latinos are a group Obama really isn't that interested in along with all other Clinton supporters. They're just expected to show up and vote for Obama because he has a D by his name.

    The freakishly stupid GOP manages to nominate the ONE candidate that could win in Nov and we nominate the weakest candidate in our entire field. Just genius.

    I think it's unlikely that Obama does any better than Kerry with Hispanics and likely will do worse.

    Latinos are loyal to the Clintons (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by hairspray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:57:18 PM EST
    and it goes back to the days when they were young and did a lot of empowerment/organizing  work in their communities in the southwest back in the 1970's.  Then when Bill became prez the outreach and attention continued.  I wonder if a few nice words and promises can bring that community on board.  Sort of like Jeffrey Toobin saying that Obama needs to do a little work with the older white women.

    This is a Non-Issue (3.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Mouthful of Politics on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    As stated above, Obama is currently leading by more than 30 points among latinos. According to one poll, McCain is only getting 28% of latino support.

    That's huge.

    Obama should just continue being Obama. I think he's done a fine job of addressing latino issues to date, and I expect he will continue to do well in getting his message out there.

    Viva Obama! Loved that video...

    Um. (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:28:21 PM EST
    I don't need a message.

    I need experience and leadership.


    Did I miss a major (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:32:56 PM EST
    immigration reform this year, sponsored by Obama?

    you are picky (snark) (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:33:52 PM EST
    What, you actually care about how the person will perform as president. Jeeez, what's your problem. Come on vote your party no matter what the person is really like. snark.

    I love comments like this (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by miguelito on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:32:43 PM EST
    Beautiful (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    He's polling well among Latinos, therefore, no need to worry about their needs!

    yep! (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by miguelito on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:47:45 PM EST
    if NBC polling says it, it MUST be true!  Problem solved.

    My Midwestern GOP-leaning Mom in Miami (none / 0) (#192)
    by Mark Woods on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:29:10 AM EST
    Might have voted for Hillary but yesterday she said, 'This Obama man has problems -- he'll NEVER be president!'

    So my anecdotal take on Latino neighbors, Evangelical relatives and my Jewish, gay and college-educated family is NOBODY wants Obama from Ohio to Boca Raton -- just who are these people polling?

    I see Wexler is preaching impeachment because the Florida condo Jewish crowd and Boynton Beach Latinos want to string him up for betraying Hillary.  Another neighbor called this a 'not-so-clever-smokescreen' by Wexler, who ignored constituents to represent Obama.

    I will ignore all polls until we get past Denver, for myself.


    Yes sir! Non-issue if you tell us it's not. (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:40:08 PM EST
    LOL.  Yes. All that outreach Obama has done for the Latino vote. Like not addressing immigration reform--don't worry though, eventually he'll have a plan.  And did they not fall into the racist Hillary voters?? Personally I found it offensive that during all the demographic olympics that were the primaries   Hispanics were hardly mentioned.  

    Get this into your head: Hispanics ARE NOT party loyal. They never have been. They helped George Bush win TWO times.  We are a larger voting bloc than African-Americans.  Hispanics tend to be socially very conservative. McCain is very appealing to them because he sponsored immigration reform AND he's socially conservative. Almost perfect for a traditional Hispanic voter.

    But yes. Assume he'll just get us like he'll get the women and the working class and everyone else that he couldn't get to vote for him because they backed Clinton. It's a dangerous game he's playing and he seems completely uninterested in actually you know WINNING this thing.


    this voting bloc (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by miguelito on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:46:25 PM EST
    is one of the bigger reasons why Cali and NY will not be a cakewalk for Obama in November.  He will have to spend a lot of resources in those states that should be a Democratic gimme.  

    No way (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:37:58 PM EST
    There is no way CA is competitive.  McCain is not going to spend money in CA.  He will probably do better than Bush, but only marginally so.  

     CA has not been competitive for a long time.  They need more than a face lift candidate.  Our current governor is way more liberal than the Republican voters in California.  He wouldn't win a primary race.  But CA voters are way too left-wing to support McCain.  


    CA - McCain has a Western appeal (none / 0) (#128)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    Obama's cultural conservative side might be a turnoff to Californians.

    Also Dukakis lost California. And we elected Arnold as gov.


    Didn't Ford, Reagan and Bush1 win CA? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:24:11 PM EST
    Plus, I think McCain is going to spend money in CA.

    Hahaha (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:20:36 AM EST
    Okay, in 19*88 CA voters might vote for someone like Senator McCain.  This is *20*08, however, and currently CA voters have voted down attempts to impose parental consent law for abortions *twice.  

     Look at our governor.  He is not remotely conservative by national standards, and he only won reelection by running to the left on a lot of issues (chief among them the greenhouse gases initiative).  

     You are fooling yourself if you think CA is a battleground.  Or maybe it is just a fantasy hope because you want McCain to win in a wipe out (a hope that disgusts me, but luckily is belied by every CA poll out there).  


    How am I fooling myself? (none / 0) (#194)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:43:04 AM EST
    I asked if those presidents won CA and stated that McCain was going to try and play CA, which to me means he's gonna budget for it.

    So, what's so funny? BTW, I know how they vote there. I used to and my family still does. I lived through Reagan as Gov AND Pres.


    Because... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:01:39 AM EST
    ...it is CA, not even NY.

     The Democratic majority in the state legislature is permanent, even with term limits, and few Republicans have even a fighting chance of being remotely electable statewide.

     The only issue where McCain might have a shot with independent voters is balanced budgets (we have a notorious, irrational inability to balance our state budget, but there you have it).  

     If CA is a swing state, every state, including IL, is a swing state.  The proposition is flat out ridiculous.  McCain has as much of a shot at winning CA as Obama does TX.  


    Actually, I've found the 2 states have many (none / 0) (#198)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:46:46 AM EST
    things in common, especially in the area of our repubs and dems vs other states. Our repubs prob more so. I think McCain has a chance in both states of doing decent/well in the mod area with dems, repubs and indies. I thnk his VP choice will matter just like Obama's will. It will send a signal on both fronts. But heck, it doesn't really matter what I think, because I never said any of this in my original comment. I was just sayin that McCain was going to make a play per his campaigns words and asked if the 3 presidents won CA. And you said something about me foolin' myself. I still ask how so based on my ORIGINAL comment?

    For the record wih you, I grew up there in a Rep household. Pretty mod though. Mostly fiscal conservative with mom being socially liberal and dad checked out on social issues, lol!~ He used to tease me when I moved here about being surrounded by bleeding heart liberals. I had the fun time of telling him he was surrounded by more  ;) But in reality, our states have much in common on the state level. We may have more repubs in office (for the moment) but many of the things I care about are pretty equal state wise. And yes, we are going to recognize your state's marriages  ;)


    Something to think about (none / 0) (#200)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:22:32 AM EST
    There is a "gay marriage" amendment that is supposed to be on the California ballot in November.  This will bring the Conservatives out.  

    If the Latinos stay home and the Conservatives come out, this could sway the election returns.  


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:32:29 AM EST
    ...because Hispanic voters in CA are oh so receptive to gay rights, as a rule...despite virtually every single survey of their voting and ideological preferences.  That analysis may fly for some people, but not me.  Unless Hispanic voters overwhelmingly shifted gears in the last few years and became gay marriage supporting left wingers, as a rule.  And I somehow doubt it.

     Wait...I thought Clinton supporters were busy arguing Obama's black supporters were homophobic anti-abortion sexists? Cracks in the armor?



    I don't believe that (none / 0) (#202)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:37:44 AM EST
    gay marriage is as big of an issue with Latino voters as it is with Religious Conservatives.  

    Religious Conservatives are likely to stay home now because they aren't crazy about McCain, but with gay marriage on the ballot, you know they'll come out.  


    But there is every indication... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:51:30 AM EST
    ...that Hispanic voters make up the social conservative wing (the so-called "traditionalists") who support these amendments.  What do you take from that?

     If I believe your post, you think that they will not show up and/or vote McCain.  But you say nothing about the marriage issue.

     Why would religious voters come out more in 2008 over gay marriage than, say, they did in the off-year of 2005, when voting on abortion restrictions (parental consent, in point of fact)? Because they care more about restricting gay rights than abortion ?

     I don't think you understand CA.  Gay marriage will be a close vote, the presidential election not so much.  



    Ha! I live in LA (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:16:40 AM EST
    and I've been here for 20+ years.

    I believe you and I are talking about two different demographics of people.  I am thinking of the "traditional red counties" many of which are in the Central Valley, not the cities.  Those are the religious conservatives I am talking about.  Well, that and Orange County.  ;-)

    I think you are referring more to the conservative Latinos (frequently Catholic) who live in the cities.  

    Let's face it:  California is so huge, it defies simple answers.  There is a lot of differences between regions, let alone between ethnic groups within regions.  (Latinos who live in West Hollywood and San Francisco are liable to vote FOR gay marriage.  Latinos from East LA, probably not so much.)  

    I am Catholic but a lot of Catholic voters are "values" voters -- I care more about solving poverty than I do about social conservatism.  That's why Democrats in general appeal to me.  

    I live in an area with demographics that do not represent the rest of the United States:  Lots of Asians (20%), maybe 20% Hispanic, less than 5% black, lots of whites but many are middle eastern and Russian.  

    Many people who lived in LA over 4 years ago (pre-housing boom) do not realize how much the demographics in LA have changed.  They have changed tremendously in areas.  

    Anyway, I'm not trying to argue with you.  I'm just trying to figure out how this will all play out and I honestly feel that McCain does have a chance to take California.  


    I respect that (none / 0) (#205)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:35:04 AM EST
    But I honestly think he has no chance.  It has less to do with my estimation of his swing state chances than it does with my evaluation of CA. MI, for example, where I am from, will be close.  As will OH.  I doubt that about CA.

     I live in Sacramento, which is one of the more demographically diverse cities in the state.  I firmly believe voters here could check off Obama while voting gay marriage down.  And, by and large, I suspect those will be Hispanic, black and Eastern European voters.  Time will tell.    


    I got into a discussion with another (none / 0) (#206)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:07:06 AM EST
    semi-political person (not over Obama or any presidential candidate).  He had lived in LA in 2001 and thought LA still had "black hoods."  

    Every single area he named is now predominately Hispanic or completely mixed liked Compton, Inglewood, etc.  It was really kind of funny.  (I wasn't the only one participating in the discussion.)  Compton has a Starbucks now.  It's something like 38% black.  There is no more such thing as a "black hood" in LA.  

    When the housing bubble hit, all those houses in places like Compton and Watts were selling for $500K and $600K so those people sold out!  They packed up and moved to better neighborhoods so LA ended up being really very integrated.  There are a lot of areas now that are like:  30% black, 30% Hispanic, 20% white, 20% Asian.  There is economic segregation, but not ethnic segregation.

    Anyway, I'm basing what I think on what I see.  I see no Obama lawn signs around me.  There is ONE maybe 2 to 4 miles away.  That's the only one I've seen.  I've seen Clinton signs in the past (haven't gone through that neighborhood lately) and some McCain signs -- but I've only seen one Obama sign.  

    If Obama intends to win around here, he's gonna have to get on the ground and court the voters.  Hillary came out here and she went to some little Taco Shack in East LA where everyone went gaga over her.  

    Voters here have other things to do and the stadium/big crowd type things Obama loves to do -- well, I don't see them going over very well.  As you know, LA has an excess of things to do and most of them are free.  Listening to a politician speak doesn't rank that high on most people's lists of fun things to do.  Obama would do well to find himself a Taco Shack and court the voters that way too.  

    Latinos have a lot of pride and the best way to appeal to them is to show that you value them.  True?        


    Eh, dunno (none / 0) (#209)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:26:24 AM EST
    I spent most of my (relatively young) life in a state with fewer Latino voters than black voters.  To me, that state (MI) is much more likely to be a swing state than CA.

     In CA it has nothing to do with the percentage of black voters (relatively low, compared to the national average) and everything to do with ideology.  The pretense of CA libertarianism (read: political independence) is just that...pretense.  Midwesterners would never tolerate this level of government interference, but CA voters almost take it for granted.  When all is said and done, Obama is more of a CA pick than McCain.  

     Like I said, McCain will do better than Bush...but that's about it.  

     Gay marriage...in CA (and almost nowhere else outside the far east and west) a close call.  Democratic nominee? Shoe in.  

     But it isn't just demographics.  That should make FL and TX rich swing states, but they are not.  It is also ideology, voter preference and self-identification.  



    I'm originally from Florida (none / 0) (#207)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:18:14 AM EST
    And Florida won't be close at all.  

    They would have gone for Clinton.  Now they'll go for McCain.  

    I realize that the demographics have changed a lot since I've lived in Florida but the main groups (Jews, Cubans) are still there.  The "redneck" majority in the north hasn't changed much over the years either.  

    Something funny about the Clinton vote:  She managed to convert a lot of Republicans who absolutely hated her into people who would vote for her.  It happened when she wouldn't quit fighting Obama for the nomination.  They totally admired that -- just that "Never Say Die" spirit.    

    As they say, "there's a thin line between love and hate" and I guess Hillary managed to help some of them cross the line.    

    Anyway, I thought that was fascinating.  


    Totally! He's from AZ, he's independent (none / 0) (#148)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:36:07 PM EST
    lots of independent-minded voters in CA. He has a regional office somewhere near or in Orange County.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#48)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:47:07 PM EST
    En punto (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by stxabuela on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    rooge4. y gracias.  (Exactly, and thank you.)

    ya gotta admit though (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by tben on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
    beating the vaunted Clinton machine, winning the Democratic nomination, sitting a half dozen or so points ahead of the Republican candidate, and out-fundraising him by obscene amounts - all that is a pretty interesting set of accomplishments for a guy who is "uninterested in actually you know WINNING this thing."

    Think of where he could be if he had been taking your advice all along!


    That's why so many voted for him... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    ...over Clinton. Because they felt that he did a great job of addressing their issues. Right now, Obama's relationship with Latino's is fragile. They are supporting him because 1) they tend to support Democrats and 2) Hillary Clinton, whom they respect, asked them to. If Obama doesn't choose Clinton as VP, his numbers will drop.  Right now a lot of people don't think he can pick anybody else, since she is supporting him and she came so close in the primary. But when he does pick somebody else, a lot of Hispanic Clinton loyalists will drop out of the election.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#60)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:32 PM EST
    That's why so many voted for him... over Clinton.

    Is this snark? It must be snark.


    Sorry, didn't think it necessary... (none / 0) (#129)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    ...to point it out.  Not here, anyway. Definitely Snark.

    OK, sorry I had to ask (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:30:36 AM EST
    But I've seen too many black=white, up=down posts from Obama followers here and elsewhere.

    Like, did you know that the Clintons are really seriously racists and that was a key tactic in her campaign? No kidding. Many Obama supporters really believe that.


    Then why did Hillary win (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    the Latino vote in the primaries 2:1?

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by mexboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:24:39 PM EST
    As a Latino voter I resent your statement that Obama has done enough to address the issues I care about. Let me be very clear with you, HE HAS NOT!

    We are past the time where pols could say a few phrases in Spanish, hire a mariachi and we'd vote for them. Those days are over, and I don't know who they polled, because every Latino I know here in California will NOT be voting for Obama.

    It is that attitude of shut up and vote for Barak that irks me. I do not owe him anything. If he wants my vote, then he needs to prove to me he will fight for my interests. He has not, and therefore he does not get my vote.

    By the way, I have a huge family, all Democrats, and none of us are voting for him.


    I think that California will not (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:51:06 PM EST
    be such a cakewalk for the nominee Obama.  :(

    Not only Hispanics, but Asian voters too.  Asians went 3:1 for Hillary.  Why Asian Voters Prefer Clinton.

    I'm going to buy a whole lot of popcorn because this is starting to look like it is going to be a very interesting Summer/Fall!  


    Mexboy...I think that is why he is dragging (none / 0) (#118)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:04:04 PM EST
    his feet on a VP nominee.  If it still appears he could have Hillary as that nominee, his numbers may stay up...if he picks someone else, then let the free-fall begin.

    Well, he's not the nominee yet. (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by mexboy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:00:31 AM EST
    This has been a weird election so far, I think there are more surprises coming from him yet.

    Things could still change in Denver. I know I'm a helpless optimist.


    Shut up and vote for Barack - I hear ya (none / 0) (#131)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:19:55 PM EST
    lot of voting blocs feeling the same way!

    no es puede! that poll is awful! (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:59:00 PM EST
    saying it is so doesn't make it so. the polls this year are as big a joke as the media.

    I have not seen (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:45:15 PM EST
    one thing where this man has specifically addressed Hispanic issues.

    Far be it from Obama to do this.  He's too busy "praying" with the radical-right-leftover Fundies from Ted Haggard.

    Gimme a freakin BREAK!


    You must not be Latino. (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:06:25 PM EST
    As a Latino that lives a few miles from my star senator's home I find your comment laughable.

    Barack held his first town hall in IL to address Hispanic/Latino issues in 2005. He became a senator in '97 and didn't deem us worthy of his time until '05 when he figured he'd need our votes to run for prez.

    I'm hoping for a Hillary run in 2012 so I hope Barack shares your sentiments about Latino voters.


    That same report (it's not a poll) (none / 0) (#165)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:18:33 PM EST
    says that McCain has a 53-38% advantage over Obama among non-Hispanic white voters.

    The Gallup summary is discussed elsewhere on this thread.


    Latinos watch out for Obama's Fake Words and Promi (1.00 / 1) (#183)
    by SShelton on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:07:24 AM EST
    I hope the Latino community knows that Obama will lie to them and just tell them what they want to hear until after the Nov election.  Be smart!  Vote Mc Cain unless the DNC changes nomination to Hillary and removes Obama.

    Please visit:  pumaparty.com

    That's how we all are feeling, not just the women!

    So, let's sink the party in November (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by tribe643 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:40:08 AM EST
    because your chosen candidate in the primary happened to lose? Who cares that it would elect a pro life, pro war, pro big business, pro torture, and a pro George W. Bush 72 year old President?

    I seriously hope you don't ignore everything at stake in this election because of anger over this primary.


    The Dems didn't give a cr@p about this in Congress (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:18:39 AM EST
    They didn't care about it during the primary while propping up Obama.

    Obama's been more focused on UNITING with the Repug concerns you mentioned and FIGHTING the base of the Dems that do care.

    Stomp all you want; you seem to be the one with the anger problem. Dressing down HRC supporters or reducing our myriad concerns with Obama to anger is a bad call. Your energy might be put to better use sounding a warning to the braintrust at Club Obama's HQ.

    No party is entitled to any particular group's automatic support. No individual is entitled to micro-manage the votes of others in this fashion.

    Please use your franchise however you see fit and stay the he!l off mine.

    In closing, bl0w me and help yourself to a complimentary mint.


    Small correction (none / 0) (#5)
    by Shawn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:15 PM EST
    McCain beat Romney in Florida.

    thanks, I fixed that (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    I read it wrong and have corrected it.

    I think he will do what he needs to here (none / 0) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    with no downside in the GE. Mostly because McCain has the same policies as the dems in this regard. And actually, I think this is key issue that might save the dems this time around. I was worried that this would be a wedge issue, but since the repubs nominated someone with the same Bush/Kennedy approach, it all becomes a non issue. So he will mostly likely do all the courting and promising the moon he needs to do.

    Question becomes (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by pie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    So he will mostly likely do all the courting and promising the moon he needs to do.

    What states will he win as a result of that?  And how important are those states?


    Chasing his primary wins? (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    If he manages to win his primary states, he could lose a couple swing states.  But I think that's a terrible strategy.  Swing states are more than electoral votes.  Swing states are also the sum of their demographics and some of those demos are critical to a solid win, not a weak win.

    weak win = president (none / 0) (#35)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:31:22 PM EST
    So I think if it's a tight race, and they have really good polling and know where to spend time, then very slight wins means they spent exactly the right amount of time/money in a location. Of course it means ulcers  and the like.

    But if their calculations or polling (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:54:46 PM EST
    is off by just a bit, then a weak win becomes a weak lose.  Or maybe a strong lose.  It's a much riskier strategy.  But then, it's in line with the 'New Coalition' which would rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton.

    And for polling -- how wacky have the polls been this campaign?  And how many have been off in his favor?


    agree (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:35:01 PM EST
    I said a big if there. Personally I don't think they have much accuracy in their polling given what we heard during the primaries (how they would win IN, only slight losses in KY, etc.).

    And as an aside, I personally think they're heads are in the sand in this. I'm just mentioning possibilities here.


    Totally agree (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:48:26 PM EST
    and didn't mean to seem like I missed your 'if'.

    I just remember being soooo not worried in both 2000 and 2004, and then boom!


    same. but I've learned, now I'm worried :-) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:52:55 PM EST
    Bush/Kennedy approach? (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    What on earth is that?  Serious question.  I have no idea what you mean.

    the senate bill from last year (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:37:27 PM EST
    about immigration reform which I think was the McCain/Kennedy sponsored bill that was supported by Bush. It of course was defeated by other Republicans. But the big issue here is that McCain is on board with such reforms. And that means two things. 1) it probably won't be the wedge issue I feared. and 2) but it also means McCain may get a good percentage of latinos for a repub.

    I'm not sure about this (none / 0) (#44)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:43:44 PM EST
    The raw numbers of latinos in America are impressive, but I'm not sure if losing part of the latino/Hispanic vote would dramatically effect the results. I don't think that California is going to go to McCain, nor is New York. Texas isn't going Dem, no matter what. Other high Hispanic states? Arizona - not switching from GOP. Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico - Might make a difference, especially since most of the Hispanics are Mexican as opposed to Puerto Rican or Cuban. That's 19 EV's. I don't think many hispanics will vote McCain, but a lot might just stay home.

    BTW, sources for reference for this are the electoral vote map, here and a map of Hispanic population,  here

    Well I think Florida is definitely McCain (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:46:46 PM EST
    territory after what the DNC pulled there. Not to mention the general loyalty they have for Clinton and NOT the Dem party in general.  I believe the fact that 40% of Latinos voted for Bush in 2004 (up from around 30% in 2000) actually IS what put him over the edge.

    Not to mention...I think CA definitely is a toss up. They have a Republican governor and have had no trouble voting for "moderate" Republicans before.

    As for NY? We're a big state. New York City is liberal. The other 96%? Not so much.  We're a blue city surrounded by red.


    and the city isn't so "blue" (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by miguelito on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:50:16 PM EST
    from the working-class Clinton Dems to the Republican enclaves of Staten Island and Brooklyn, along with the latino bloc... this could spell trouble for Obama.

    True dat (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by stillife on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:57:58 PM EST
    I think NY will probably go blue, but it's not a dead cert. He's certainly got problems with the Jewish vote, particularly the Orthodox (who will be voting for McCain) and older Jewish voters.  Put together with Latinos, Italians and the voters in upstate NY, which is pretty red, as are Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and NY could be a swing state this November!

    New York (none / 0) (#174)
    by miriam on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:39:43 PM EST
    is by no means in Obama's win column yet--for the reasons you mentioned.  Polls early this week show NY Independents going for McCain and women are still furious.  New York State is the historic home of Women's Rights activism and the anger is full-blown here.

    Did anyone see todays' AOL straw poll?.  It has Obama winning Washington, Oregon, CA, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Hawaii.  Period.  I don't think those add up to  an Electoral College bonanza.


    1.3 million Catholics ;) (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    then we have the Senior, Jews and us Girls :-D

    But NYC is a BIG Island (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    Huge. Nearly half of the population of New York state. If NY isn't solidly Dem this fall, then we might as well just cede the election to McCain and save the money to pay off the national debt. Same for California. There are a lot of conservatives, and we often vote for Republican governors, but, overall, we lean left. If Obama can't pull of a solid win in CA, then we don't need to worry about other states. It's over.

    NYC isn't even as blue as everyone thinks. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    We keep electing Republicans!  And Spitzer certainly didn't help to put voters at ease about Dems.

    NY stats (2006) (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:57:25 PM EST
    here and NYC stats here

    Big couple of islands (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:20:21 PM EST
    and part of a third. Plus some "mainland."

    (Just trying to make sure that Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx don't get mad!)

    And I know my heavily-Latino (heavily-Dominican) neighborhood went strongly for Clinton. Amusingly, Obama's people had to try and scrape up some Latino faces on election day, and had trouble - almost all of the people handing out his palm cards were young white people, which came across as "the gentrifiers" to at least one of my Latino neighbors. Unfortunate interpretations were certainly possible.


    "the gentrifiers" (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:26:47 PM EST
    lol!~ yeah, got those in my 'hood also. I don't think their numbers are large enough yet to overcome the latino, italian, jewish, senior, catholic, working class and women's vote  ;) I'm not sure how much of my 'hood is an auto D now.

    gentrifiers - the (never been) 'Creative' Class (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:28:35 AM EST
    In the fluent Spanglish and FreTalian that I grew up on, they're also known as The Lattini: the wandering cultural nomads that stumbled on coffee, world fusion and irony within the last decade at their local corporate java chain, but act as though they invented all three.

    They also have an irritating habit refer to your grandma's gold-trimmed requiem prayer cards as "religious kitsch".

    (In short, they don't know who they're f*cking with, because devout dead grannies will come back and haunt with extreme prejudice, and athiests are her favorite.)


    I just remembered this article (none / 0) (#185)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:25:52 AM EST
    Insiders tell me that Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Howard Dean has been meeting with Latino DNC members asking them to make a call for Democratic unity to Latino voters....

    Howard Dean has clumsily framed the issue as concern for Black/Brown unity but observers have told me that his pitch quickly degenerates from broad-based concerns to electoral politics. The doubling of the Latino Democratic voter turnout has been largely ignored by pundits who have focused on the amazing strength of Barack Obama's appeal to young voters. Pundits notwithstanding, the overall voter surge has also been enabled by a Latino wave that has been largely attributable to both Clinton's focus on this community and a backlash against Republican immigrant-bashing. While ignored by pundits, the penchant of Latinos to swing mid-election is of great concern to those that are attempting to objectively forecast the general election. Obama's self-described inadequate attempts to reach Latino voters has been a boon to Clinton who has the bulk of Latino community leadership, the majority of declared Latino super delegates, and voters behind her candidacy...


    I guess Unity Pony didn't translate well.

    The WSJ poll (none / 0) (#193)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:39:03 AM EST
    Surveyed 150 Latino voters.

    For blue collar workers, it's 47-42 Obama, just outside the margin of error.

    If that's trouncing, then Obama's being supertrounced among men.  That's 49-41 McCain.  And over 65s, 48-41.  And suburban dwellers, 48-38.  (I guess the 'burbs are part of Appalachia now).

    And McCain wins 19% of Clinton primary voters.  Which is a pretty hefty amount. 20% more are unaccounted for in the poll, not clear whether they're staying home or undecided.  But I note that a recent Pew poll showed 17% of Clinton supporters going to McCain and 22% staying home.

    And all or most of his lead may very well be a bounce from 'winning' the nomination.

    I wouldn't start breaking out the champagne just yet.

    were these just dems? (none / 0) (#196)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:48:47 AM EST
    But I note that a recent Pew poll showed 17% of Clinton supporters going to McCain and 22% staying home.

    I've seen that also, but can't remember if it's just dems or all her voters.


    Home Land Security (none / 0) (#210)
    by untouchable on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:21:42 PM EST
    The first thing that needs to be done is label Homeland Security a terrorist organization. Any group that inflicts that much pain in immigrants and their american children should be consider a terrorist organization by definition. I was kidnapped from my family and treated like a dog while being held hostage by ICE for a period of 4 months. This took place nearly two years ago, to this day my youngest child still asks every single night if I am going to be here in the morning when he wakes up, he begs me not to leave the house, not to go anywhere because he fears I will go missing again. In my case the parasites from ICE tried to deport me for  for a guilty plead on a fight that took place in 1991, fifteen years earlier, I was still a kid when this took place, not even old enough to buy a beer at the time. Homeland Security and ICE needs to go away for the safety of all of us Americans and our children.