Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Poll results Alabama
Not to point out the obvious but to all those who say that Red states actually count in this Nomination process please have a look at the results from Alabama polls for President. Both Obama and Clinton are being punked by a good solid margin. I am sorry but I will repeat again. You cannot pull your nominee based on States that you have no earthly chance of winning in the fall. Alabama is one such state.
Advertisement
Comments (28)
Missouri, Iowa, Kansas and Colorado aren't Alabama.
That is all.
April 8, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
No and they aren't demcratic states either.....
April 8, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
They also could easily be in play this election cycle.
According to the polls at any given time, Obama leads McCain in each of the ones I've listed.
Regardless, either Clinton or Obama needs to beat McCain. The country's future is more important than this tiff between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters.
Whichever Democrat wins is light years better than the Warmonger.
April 8, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find no reason to vigorously argue, but Iowa is sort of a purple state and Colorado has had a long history of electing Democrats. Just off the top of my head, I'd say Gary Hart, Pat Schroder and Roy Romer...
Also, Kansas would most likely only be in play if Obama names their governor and that's not really something that I'd expect him to do.
April 8, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
obama won alabama 27-25.
And you are saying that the 2 delegate difference alabama makes to the total is too heavily weighted?
April 8, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to point out the obvious, but the question of whether or not Red States matter in the general election has absolutely no bearing on the process of nominating a Democratic candidate.
ALL Democrats have the desire and the right to be counted in the nominating process (subject to their representatives adhering to the rules of the primaries, of course - and one hopes that they will take the matter up with said representatives in the fall).
Or would you forbid a Democratic candidate from accepting campaign contributions from any citizen of any Red State?
Further, your thinking assumes there is no possibility of change in our country.
Once upon a time, Texas was as reliable a Democratic state as California is today. Is that written in stone for you, forever? Not for me. In fact, I see Texas as a Democratic possibility in the upcoming general election.
Obama looks pretty damn fine in a cowboy hat.
Even Clinton doesn't look that bad, if you fancied Dale Evans when (if) you were a lad of such distinction in the fifties...
April 8, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not understand why the same supporters why cry "FL/MI have been disenfranchised" then turn around and say Red States don't matter.
Do those democrats not matter?
And Why?
April 8, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That wouldn't be me. For Florida and Michigan they had legitimate elections. Seat the delegates or go the Credentials Committee and fight it out.
April 8, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's that little matter that all candidates signed a pledge with the understanding that those delegates didn't count.
Credentials committee or not, it's a lost cause. Those states will not decide this election.
April 8, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough - but you did not answer the subsequent question - why do the democrats not matter in the red states?
Why do they not matter?
April 8, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought one of my other answers covered that. For the purposes of the Nomination process they don't. Actually, I am old school. The process should be to decide who the best Nominee will be not who wins psuedo-elections in the states that are run at different times and under different conditions. So in essence if your not willing to take the time to get yourself into the party and into the process then you don't have a lot of say in the nominee. I know it sounds like it is taking things out the "hands" of the people but what part of having Iowa and NH be such a large part of the process makes sense? I have more in common with the folks in Michigan and Florida and OHio and NY and Cali and NJ that think they should have more to say on the nominee and potential nominees than Iowa and NH.
I ask you, if we had started with Primaries in NY/Cali/NJ/Ohio/IL/Wisc. what are the chances we have someone else involved in the process?
I think we are all frustrated by the process.
April 8, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Help me understand: who should have a say, and who then gets to pick the people who have a say?
My reason for staying independent is precisely because each party seems to want to tell me which way the wind blows.
As a voter, and a citizen, my vote will go to the one who makes the best sales pitch, not the one with the blessing of the elite.
I am not sure what you are actually trying to say, but I am from WI and IL, now CO. Who do I have more in common with? Not really sure. At the same time, I do not see any value in marginalizing any particular group or state because the majority may vote one way or another. If you only listen to the true believers, then you only hear what you want to hear.
Next time, I will register in time for my caucus (Rep or Dem) so that I can actually vote. After this election, I will participate more fully in the infrastructure building, but picking sides before meeting the candidate is a bit asinine.
To drift off, I am a business owner - I understand the perspective of the Republicans. I also see that the only way I can have my business is by having people, so I appreciate the sensibilities of the Democrats. To say I feel one way or the other is to overlook the fact that both parties bring something to the table. An unfettered Democratic party is as scary as an unfettered Republican party.
I would like to see an increase in proportional participation, and the stranglehold both parties have on the system is truly part of the problem.
In short: self fulfilling echo chamber = bad.
April 8, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is ultimately one of our differences. Where you think there is room for both parties....I'd just be happy to have the Democratic Party dominate the whole scene. When I hear someone say "I'd like a Republican President with a Democratic Congress I become bumfukled.
The Party Nominee should be chosen by the members of the Party. I am not trying to be cute. Specifically there shouldn't be open primaries. If your not registered, then, sorry your not a part of the Nomination process.
Its like a primary for say....A local councilman. Its up to the party members to decide who to put forward. Its not different on the National level. However, because the candidates need greater and greater amounts of cash this "National" Primiary thing becomes in vogue. Its designed in my mind to show who can raise more money than anything else(Ok, McCain is the exception to that rule).
Just to drift as well. I am a business owner too and I always have the most arguments with business people over politics. I do not get busines's attraction to the Republicans. Exactly what has any republican admiinistration ever done t help the small businessman? Nothing. Take any issue....most of the democratic positions actually help business not hurt.
Anyway....enough....:)
April 8, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, I didn't see where you answered Elliot's question. We discuss the current system like it's something that's been etched in stone like the commandments. The modern primary system is just that, modern. This is only the 10th national election where the preponderance of the decision-making for presidential nominees is in the hands of the people. For the Dems, the system is far from perfect. It's a work in progress and the best we can hope for is to learn from our mistakes and make refinements to the process going forward.
But none of that addresses Elliot's point. The way the Dems have set up the process, every state has a voice. It's not like the Repub system in which some states matter more than others. It may be true that the Dem nominee will have no chance at picking up Alabama's electoral votes, but that's no reason to exclude them from weighing in on who Dem Alabamans would like to elect president. Their choice isn't presumed to be based on who has the best chance to win. It's Alabamans choice for the next president.
With respect to IA and NH, you may want to consult the reasons for choosing those states to go first. They allow for a long season of retail politics in states with a small enough population to ensure that the candidates get out and actually meet the electorate. It could be any small states, but that's the rationale. The parties have made some attempt to broaden the playing field by including SC ans NV, states in two additional geographic areas and with two additional racial compositions.
So, again, why does Alabama count less than any other state in the primaries?
April 8, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point to the nomination process is to Win in the GE. And, I am not sure where anyone got the idea that the Nomination has to be a democratic process. Its not. Having superdelagates certainly isn't a democratic process. Having separate primaries dotted around the country and different times isn't democratic.
Simply put the Party leaders have the job of putting together the best slate of Candidates that they can not satisfy the wants and dreams of voters that could be democrats or independents or even republicans. The whole process is on its head.
As to Texas it and Alabama were only Dem states when there was segregation. The Election of 1968 and George Wallace put the last touches on many Southern whites ever voting Democrat.
April 8, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever? That's a long time.
Do you think that when Strom Thurmond was fighting for the South in the Civil War that he ever thought he'd end up a Republican Senator?
April 8, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe not ever but we will both be buried before it goes any other way.
April 8, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Texas? The whole south was solid Democratic. The general election for state offices was a mere formality; the real contest was the Democratic primary.
Of course, that was because the South was full of racists who wouldn't vote for the party of Lincoln. Most of those Yahoos migrated to the Republican Party after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 and Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in 1968, but that generation is dying out, and the next generation is less racist, and a lot of Northerners have moved south. It's only a matter of time before we can start routinely winning Southern states again.
April 8, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It won't be that long. I expect to pick up a few this election cycle regardless of who our nominee is.
Clinton might pick up Florida or Arkansas
Obama might pick up Virginia or Georgia or maybe even North Carolina.
If the Dems can just win the states that Kerry won and add 1 Southern state, we win.
April 8, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this really good article:
Hanging by a Thread
Hillary Clinton's big-state fallacy.
by Jeffrey H. Anderson
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/948kdced.asp
April 8, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really only think Virginia would be in play, if the VP pick was from that state. I've lived in Virginia a couple of times and if you get away from NoVa and Charlottesville, it's a wickedly conservative state.
April 8, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say that the Republicans kowtowing to the evangelicals has as much, if not more to do with why the South has remained locked-in for Republicans in presidential elections for the past several cycles.
Now some of the South could be put into play this November because McCain doesn't play well with the religious right and because there's already starting to be questions about his beliefs, but I really don't see it going beyond North Carolina, Virginia and maybe Arkansas for reasons similar to those offered by Jaysin. And, as for Florida, I tried to address parts of that "problem" in an earlier post.
April 8, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well...I live in Texas and I'm seein' a change in these here parts.
The Texas Democratic Party is working hard to get more Congressional seats and, yes, put Texas in play for Democrats in the GE for President.
Y'all keep yer fangers crawssed! Yeehaw!
April 8, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not understand the desire to only focus on areas of people that already agree with you (aka blue states) and swing states. You thereby guarantee that your perspective will always be framed by those states.
Seems like a sad state of affairs.
And when you have a candidate (Dean first) who challenges thsoe assumptions - you go with the safe pick.
Kerry was a drag, and the swiftboat maneuver was merely an excuse to not vote for the guy.
America was not built on safe, and it will never be safe. Soccer moms like safe, but then they watch Desperate House Wives, so go figure. (No mothers were harmed in this broad, and meaningless generalization)
April 8, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry nessy, I went to bed. We can concentrate on other states and as a party we should. But, you can't do that starting at the top and go down. That is a short lived phenomenon if it happens. You have to work from the bottom up. Therefore, the party needs to do a better job at the grassroots level in red and purple states. To intice good candidates to become part of the discussion.
Its not that easy. It is difficult to get people to run. Especially in the red states. The best result that we can have out of this Primary season is for the Party to get ahold of the names that voted Democrat and try to get them into the system.
I won't argue that the party doesn't get stale. Doesn't get to be a "club". Thats why its so important to have more people come into the discussion.
April 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth mentioning here that even in the reddest of red states, there are blue senate and legislative districts, blue counties, and blue municipal governments.
The one thing about Obama that makes him a lock in my view is that Clinton's negatives are so high that the Republicans in red states will stand in a pouring rain for hours in order to vote against her. They may not care much for Obama, and I do not doubt the racism that exists in the hearts of many of them. Still, the hatred for Hillary Clinton in those parts of the country (and elsewhere) borders on the pathological, and will do great harm downticket if she is the candidate.
I do not relish the thought of Pyrrhic victories.
April 8, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shhhh.
First you say that there is a difference from district to district.
Next you will want to embrace some idiotic concept of dialog and conversation where the ENTIRE population is involved. Then what will be left?
A thinking electorate? How will the party bosses keep their jobs?
April 8, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democratic: 2,572,333 Republican: 1,934,702 Unaffiliated: 1,217,826 Total: 5,724,861
Those are the current voter registration in NC...
April 8, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment