Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Wavering on Obama
I've been supporting Obama since the campaign began, but of late I'm getting nervous. What matters most is winning an election and stopping four more years of Bush policies in Iraq and securing health care, among many other issues.
Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice. After all, what does matter mathematically is not a nationwide poll of democrats but polls and results from states considering the weight they bring in electoral counting.
I know one thing for sure. It's time to stop supporters in each camp from constant attacks. It seems that many posters on various sites enjoy these attacks far more than discussing issues. Where, for example, are the detailed posts about health care or the mortgage crisis.
I have to say that it was the nastiness and silly stuff of the Obama supporters on this site that made stop and think about my choice. I still may go for Obama in my upcoming primary, but unless I see more detailed offerings from Obama's people and supporters on issues and how he can win the general, I may go for Hillary.
Comments (342)
"I have to say that it was the nastiness and silly stuff of the Obama supporters on this site that made stop and think about my choice."
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Three months ago, I and almost everyone I know supported Hillary and Barack equally. Now, I and everyone I know no longer support Hillary, BECAUSE OF HER NASTINESS AND DISHONESTY.
April 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if she is the nominee? Will you vote for her?
April 9, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Begrudgingly.
April 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In direct response to your question, no.
Clinton's refusal to admit even a slight flaw in judgement over her war vote(s), coupled with the emphasis on rewarding "loyalty" within her staff, reminds me too much of the current White House occupant.
I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for her, so if she's the nominee, that portion of my ballot will remain blank or become a write-in.
April 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lame.
April 9, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ask you a question with respect. Do you have health care? Are you worried (perhaps) about older family who will need health care insurance because of catastrophic illness?
April 9, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has that got to do with the Clinton v Obama debate? Their positions on healthcare are indistinguishable except for minutia.
April 9, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It obviously does matter. Rallyround was not asking you about healthcare to distinguish between Obama and Hillary (where, I agree, the differences are truly negligible), but between either one and McCain. I pretty much hate Hillary's guts, but you bet I'm going to pull the lever for her to save the Supreme Court and the Labor Board from any further damage. And maybe get out the war and get healthcare, though I'm not counting on either of those even if HRC or O is in charge.
I mean no disrespect. I just think that the poster was correct in suggesting that we should not be reflexively laying into anyone who questions Obama.
April 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I missed the context that she was replying to. I agree that it is self destructive to withold ones vote or vote for McCain in the event that your prefered candidate loses.
April 9, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the positions are close. Again, my point is that I want one of them to win. I have found that many Obama people who won't vote for Hillary have health insurance or are not worried about it. This is especially true of the many well of dems I know going for Obama. They have the luxury of withholding their vote from Hillary. i don not.
April 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must admit that I posted and said many times that I would not vote for Hillary. But since she has lost the anger just drained out of me. It is hard to stay angry at the candidate who lost.
April 9, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Clinton hasn't been campaigning in such a destructive manner lately helps too...
but yeah it has gotten easier to not hate on her since she seems to have lost.
April 9, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will not vote for Hillary. She and Bill did not go to the mat for health care when they had two terms in the White House and I don't expect them to do it if they get two more terms. Ask yourself if we were any closer to universal healthcare in 2000 than we had been in 1992?
I also do not believe she will end the $3 trillion war and she's already voted to enable war with Iran.
April 9, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You won't vote for Hilary....are you referring to a primary election or to the general election? I don't think she'll be the candidate - nor am I an active supporter - but I hope your implication isn't that you'll vote Republican, or be a de facto Republican voter by staying home. There's just too much at stake....
April 9, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't vote for her in the general either. I don't believe she'll get of Iraq or stay out of war with Iran.
April 9, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment about dems who have the "luxury" to vote for Obama, seems very, sorry to say, white. Are you really arguing that all the support that Senator Obama has gotten from the black community should be taken as evidence that African Americans are so well-off as a group to have the "luxury" to support Obama? TWould you argue that African Americans are not supporting Obama because he represents the best hope for justice, including economic justice, but because....?
Some white folks seem to believe that the only real working class or poor people in America are white, and then make ill considered comments like your's which run in the face of the inconvenient truths. Whites, blacks, latinos, asians, native americans share the burdens of economic inequity in our nation, and the working class and the poor in each of these communities have voted in different ways to support different candidates.
If you want to argue a class line reasoning for why you support Clinton, that's fine, you may have some good arguments, but the argument you make that only rich dems support Obama is clearly false. Just as an argument that only rich dems support Clinton is also clearly false.
April 9, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"many Obama people who won't vote for Hillary have health insurance or are not worried about it."
You obviously weren't in Iowa for Jefferson/Jackson Days. Are you suggesting that the "class" of people who don't have health insurance are more the DLC than the DNC types?
That's hard for anyone to swallow whole.
And are you also suggesting you will or will not support a candidate based on their supporters' personalities? I mean, I love Elton John's music, but his history of volatility might make some people a bit disagreeable, should they judge Hillary by Elton's antics?
This all sounds to me like you really weren't very convinced in the first place about Obama.
And what with Pennsylvania closing in on Hillary and Obama gaining every day in the polls there, AND the fact she needs HUGE margins in any state she might win, I expect a lot more "concern trolls" to come out of the woodwork with "I was FOR Obama before I was against him" posturing.
Whether this post is representative of that inevitable fact of political life, everyone can decide for themselves.
I have to be quite frank here, as a former Edwards loyalist, so far of all the Obama supporters I have met and spoken to are growing MORE loyal (rabid, in some quarters) every day, you are the first one I have read who is rethinking Barack, so I am guessing you were more of a fencesitter than you will admit.
April 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
In that case, Clinton and McCain are the same, and so you may as well vote for the one who supports your policies (who I can't imagine is McCain).
April 9, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
LIE.
Either that, or outright ignorance. When asked at a debate if there were once action she would have changed, she picked her vote in 2002 to authorize force against Iraq. What the hell do you want her to do? Hang herself on a cross?
Stop lying.
April 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I would vote for Hillary, because McCain is a dangerous half-wit. But I would still despise her and feel sick to the bottom of my soul knowing that she is our President.
April 9, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, and I've said this before:
I no longer support Barack Obama because of HIS "NASTINESS AND DISHONESTY".
Well, that, and his arrogance and overemphasis of tone over problem solving.
April 9, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see arrogance as code here, because he may be many things, but in the debates and in speeches I've seen he is one of the least arrogant pols I've seen.
People may say that he HAS to be polite and avoid negative ads because of X or Y or Z, and I agree that it is expedient, since he's the younger candidate, the blacker candidate, the candidate taking on the first serious female presidential hopeful. For him to be rude or arrogant would be suicidal. But if you look at footage of him back in Illinois, you see the same polite guy -- and realize that he's just not arrogant. Self-confident, yes.
So I just offer that here is this troll-rich environment as a heartfelt observation, sure that it will accrue its share of drive-bys. But I wanted to add, for the diarist, that wavering now is a reasonable thing to do, but that you should take a little while to read this old article I read a long time ago:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/
In the insanity of duelling campaign spin doctors, it is easy to lose sight of what it was that we felt was so compelling about him in the first place. Looking at Bush, I'd say it is important to remember biography often trumps the campaign stuff.
April 9, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I stopped supporting Obama just before the Iowa caucus.
In Daily Kos, I naively asked if a middle name like "Hussein" could be used against him. I was also concerned about his pro nuclear power stance.
I had just heard of both, and was expecting dialog. I was totally for this guy, and just wanted reassurance.
Instead, my posting privileges were promptly removed.
It was like mafia tactics.
It had also seemed strange that all of the recommended diaries had gone overnight to spam. Either narrow focus Clinton hit diaries, or Obama can do no wrong diaries.
And all of the beginning posts went up instantly, and said nothing except praise for the diary.
So I started looking at Hillary Clinton closer. I'd been really prejudiced against her from blog writers.
I was amazed at all of the work she has done that she never mentions. Like the nurses association endorsed her. She got legislation passed to improve nurses work environment, and to get them financial grants.
A few weeks ago, her bill on child safety passed through Congress. Anybody ever hear of it? The media hasn't said a peep.
What won over my spouse, who did not like her at all, was her debate performance. She trounced Edwards and Obama at the NV debate, and the press once again, didn't say a word.
Now, my spouse is convinced that she is solid, more capable than Obama and will make an excellent president.
There is so much being thrown at her by the right wing, and the
left wing, I sure hope she makes it. Because my family needs that good health plan, more than they need a charming personality.
April 9, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You "naively" asked? What a crock. You provoked precisely the response you wanted to so you could go cry about how mean and intolerant DK is.
The fact is that neither candidate provides a truly universal healthcare plan. And one candidate has a record of a failure in passing a plan when she had a chance. You can have the greatest plan in the world, but if you can't enact it into law, it's the same as having no plan. Frankly, for me, both candidates are pandering to the health insurance industries with their plans. But my desire for single payer is about as realistic at this point, as John McCain supporting gay marriage.
April 9, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry that you left Obama because of posting privileges. The other day, I was on an active blog at Talk Left. I used the word "yell" in ref. to Hillary and her "shame on you" to the media---They called me a newbie and told me that they don't use words like "yell" and then they axed me toot sweet. I don't think it's probably wise to base who you vote for on who does what on any given day on a blog. I first started listening to Obama because of his stand on lobbyists. I think they have corrupted our entire government and caused incalculable harm to most Americans. There's a lot more to believe in since then, but if he could just make headway on that, we'd all be better off. Did you know that lobbyists are illegal and can go to prison in all the other countries in Europe?
April 9, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you'll forgive me if I point out that your first blog at this site detracts quite significantly from your argument that you "naively asked" that question.
April 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are some rabid Obama supporters, as well as Hillary, and we're not always concise and mature. However, I do know Obama supporters who are putting their money where their mouths are, so to speak, and donating extraordinary sums of money to PA schools via DonorsChoose.org, knitting NICU hats for preemies via Knitters for Obama, and doing other kind acts of service inspired by him.
Don't let a few nasty folks on the internet cloud your judgment of Obama.
Obama can win the general because he motivates and inspires independents and left-leaning conservatives, which expands on the party base. He can win the general because McCain, while experienced, is a candidate who would like to keep us involved in Iraq for an infinite amount of time and the American people are not happy with the war, overall. Obama can win the general election because BIG STATES that go blue will always go blue. Primaries are different than the general election. Who wins which states in the primary doesn't necessarily reflect on who will win the state in the general election.
April 9, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: That's Ravelry Knitters for Obama, not Knitters for Obama.
April 9, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will you vote for Clinton if she is the nominee?
April 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would, because there's the Supreme Court to consider. Even though I've found many of the things coming from her campaign and surrogates completely distasteful (not to mention her supporters, but I don't hold what supporters say against her; she has no control over them), I would not hold my vote from her because a McCain presidency would be far worse. I firmly believe that liberal/progressive ideals are far more important to me than the actual candidate. If my preferred candidate doesn't win the nomination, issues I hold dear are more important than pouting and staying home or revenge-voting for McCain. That's just dumb.
April 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry no. I wanted to be able to vote for her, but I can't. I hope this doesn't turn you from Obama, but we all have to make our own decisions.
April 9, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no question in my mind that the constant attacks on Clinton are hurting Obama among women. They are starting to turn to Hillary. I would like to see Obama, himself, speak out forcefully against these attacks. Even if the Clintons don't do the same.
April 9, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will never understand supporting a candidate because of their plumbing.
April 9, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will never understand using the term "plumbing" in this context.
April 9, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Q: What does waste watter flow thorugh?
A: Plumbing
April 9, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Rallyround,
I don't like sexism. I don't like people who refer to Senator Clinton with disparaging language, nor do I like those who do the same to Senator Obama. I'm a feminist - and a fairly old one at age 60. I teach women's studies. My students and the other prof's are almost all supporting Barack Obama. I live in NYS. I voted for Senator Clinton when she ran for office here.
We watched very closely when she did not handle the health care issue well. Health care is one of my major concerns - I'm only working as an adjunct faculty person (for $8,000 a year - slave wages) so that I have health coverage.
I do not believe that she has the qualities I want in a President. I've been waiting for a woman who is a feminist to become President for a long time. She is not the one. I'm happy to vote for Barack Obama because he has the qualities I've been looking for - but durn it - he's male. But good feminists know that male does not mean anti-feminist all the time.
I've read all of his position papers, and all of hers. They are similar in many respects. For me it probably boils down to character. That and I'm sure I don't want Bill Clinton back in the White House as co-President, or First Husband.
The final clincher was the war issue, but I have to admit to a subjective preference for someone raised by a mom who was an anthropologist. Because it says something about how his character was shaped as a young person. "Cultural relativism". He is able to look at the world, our citizens and those of other countries and colors with different eyes, not blinded by ethnocentrism.
Just my few cents.
April 9, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
April 9, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update: Hilary's slippage in the polls in Pennsylvania is taking place largely among white women.
April 9, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though I'd like to see your source for this, it would stand to reason that at least some of her losses would have to be in this category since it is one of her strongest demographics.
April 10, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm doing just that in Lafayette, IN tomorrow. I waited in line for ticket to see Obama. I saw a surprisingly large number of 'soccer moms' and 'older women' in the line. Could be the kool-aid, but from what I've been reading online I expected to see almost none of the above demographic. I was happily wrong! I can tell you what the rally was like tomorrow if you want.
April 9, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constant attacks on Clinton by Obama are starting to turn women to Clinton??
rallyroud - I just don't see this and it makes me question your whole premise.
#1- I do not see Obama attacking Clinton in any way other than on fair policy turf (her war vote, etc.), whereas Hillary and team are still trying to dredge up Rev. Wright.
#2- Hillary has carried a majority of women in most contests so far, and I don't see how women are 'defecting' from Obama.
April 10, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's worrying that so many people might be buying Hillary's big state argument but it's understandable since the Obama campaign/surrogates have really not taken it on as much as they should.
I read a terrific demolition of the argument the other day. Here's some of it...
When is 1,252 greater than 1,414? Apparently, when Hillary Clinton has the 1,252 (delegates, that is). Clinton is making a strong push to convince Democratic voters and superdelegates that her big-state wins matter more than Barack Obama's assortment of smaller-state wins.
What good is it, Clinton asks, for Obama to win states like Wyoming, which no Democrat can realistically win in November? So far, Obama has failed to issue the most relevant retort: What good is it for Clinton to win states like Massachusetts, which no Democrat can realistically lose in November?
In emphasizing the importance of her big-state wins, Clinton is actually confounding two claims, each false. The first is that her big states should be given extra weight simply because they're big. But those states have already been given appropriate weight. That's the only reason Clinton is still in the race, despite having won only 14 states out of 40.
Clinton's second claim is that she is winning in crucial states, while Obama's wins in Republican strongholds will prove useless in the fall. This claim misrepresents reality in three important ways.
First, Obama is not the only one winning on Republican turf. George W. Bush won nine of Clinton's 14 states, in either 2000 or 2004, and seven of them both times. Her wins in Texas and Oklahoma will not be repeated.
Second, Democrats don't fully reward wins in Republican territory. For example, Utah has one-eleventh the electoral votes of California, but Democrats give it only one-sixteenth the delegates. Obama is not loading up on delegates from Republican-rich states. His wins there have already been significantly discounted--as have Clinton's.
Third, and most important, while Clinton is right that even FDR probably couldn't win Wyoming or Utah this fall, even George McGovern probably couldn't lose New York or Massachusetts. In fact, five of the seven Clinton states that Bush didn't sweep in 2000 and 2004 are states that Al Gore and John Kerry won by an average of more than 10 percentage points. Thus, most of the states Hillary Clinton has won are ones that, come November, essentially any competitive Democrat can't win or can't lose.
One thing muddling matters is that Democrats dispense delegates to second-place finishers as generously as Little Leagues hand out participation trophies. Obama beat Clinton in the battleground state of Missouri and got 36 delegates to her . . . 36. (One wonders why they bothered.) Clinton beat Obama in Texas and got 94 delegates to his . . . 99. (He won in more heavily weighted "Democratic" districts and the corresponding caucus.) This hyper-egalitarianism says a lot about the Democratic party's worldview, but it doesn't strengthen Clinton's claims.
Clinton recently opined, "I think it is significant that I have won in Ohio and I won Florida." Ohio is, in fact, her sole victory in a state among the top 30 in size that has been competitive in each of the last two presidential elections. As for her thinking it significant that she "won" Florida--a state that wasn't contested--voters will have to wrestle with whether that statement reflects poorly on her veracity or on her judgment.
In the meantime, Obama should emphasize this point: Clinton's wins have either been in big states that won't be competitive or in small ones that won't be worth much, while he has won in decent-sized states that will be competitive in the fall. Clinton and Obama have each won exactly eight states worth double-digit electoral votes. The key difference is, in Clinton's states the average margin of victory in the last two presidential elections has been 14 percentage points, compared to just 8 percentage points in Obama's...
Hanging by a Thread
Hillary Clinton's big-state fallacy.
by Jeffrey H. Anderson
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
April 9, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now if Obama only put his money where his mouth is.
Sorry, could not resist that bit of snark after the coverage of Obama's embarrassing record of charitable giving was covered. Incidentally, during that thread one serious myth was repeated time and again - that richer people give a greater percentage of their income than poorer people. Every study of charitable giving says just the opposite. There is an inverse relationship between charitable giving and income.
April 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you believe that Obama should be held accountable for what every Obama supporter on the internet says?
Conversely, do you think that Hillary should be held accountable for what every Hillary supporter on the internet says?
Because I have news for you...there's a lot of mug being flung around on BOTH sides by ordinary people on the internet; sexist, racist, obnoxious.
April 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what's on TV matters. And the interest in the negatives drive the ratings. The cable channels follow the blogs. Ratings seem to come from the anger. That's all I'm saying. Calm it down so we can discuss things and THINK. The constant personal attacks seem more like kindergarten than democracy.
April 9, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rallyround- I'm completely for Obama. Don't care the least for the Clintons. But discussions on this site will not happen. Your post will sink like a stone. And I don't see anyone answering your main question. Let me. I can't stand Hillary. If she is president I will turn off the TV for years. But I'll vote for her without a doubt.
April 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about other voters whom you know?
April 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to buy a new Magic 8-Ball, dontcha think?
April 9, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you.
Stay tuned there is more to come.
It will be over after Puerto Rico and many more differences on the issues will be exposed.
Health care, like Mrs. Edwards stated is a big one.
Then there is the experience to run a prosperous economy.
She is driving home she will get the troops out of Iraq.
April 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Experience to run a prosperous economy? Please cite examples of her experience with running a prosperous economy.
I'm not saying Clinton doesn't bring some experience to the table, but saying she can run the economy when she can't even run her campaign without racking up unpaid bills for months is laughable.
April 9, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
Over after Puerto Rico?
Don't Montana and South Dakota's votes count anymore?
April 9, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice."
I understand your thought process, and I would respectfully suggest that you have to consider the *huge* negatives that HRC has among non-democrats when you think about electability. I think you also need to consider the way in which HRC as the Democratic candidate will absolutely gavanize the right behind McCain to a degree that (I believe) will not happen if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Finally, I would argue that Obama and everything he has come to represent gives the democrats a far better alternative in a "change election" than HRC does. I think this will come to be important in November.
Both sides have rabid supporters who say stupid and meanspirited things. That has nothing to do with electability, as I see it. And Obama has consistently run a clean and decent campaign. Look at the *candidate's* words and deeds -- not those of the candidate's looniest supporters. After all, the candidate is the one who will be President if he/she takes this thing in November.
April 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rallyround, I am exactly of the demographic that should be supporting Hillary--58, white, and female. I have been an Obama supporter since I signed Senator Durbin's petition in the fall of 2006. And I will not vote in the Presidential race if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.
I'm a lifelong Democrat and an activist. I have never voted for Nader and don't intend to start. I'm not a pacifist although sometimes I wish I could be one. I will vote down-ticket for Democrats but will leave the Prez race blank; no one will get my vote.
I am a Boomer; I agitated against the Vietname War; I never thought we would fall right into another dumb war and we did; I relied on the intelligence of Democratic Party leaders and that should tell you something about me. I had family in the Vietnam War; I had friends in the Vietnam War; I know how long mental problems hang around; I know what it means to go to a military funeral; I know what it means when someone loses a limb.
I held my nose and voted for Kerry/Edwards in 2004 in spite of their damned war votes. I simply will not do it again. There is no reward for begin wrong on something that costs American and Iraqi blood and treasure. No. Reward.
Hillary has no excuse on this. If Nancy Pelosi were running for prez, I would be behind her 150%.
April 9, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not forgiving Clinton for many things. But I want health insurance. There will be no chance at all with McCain. Doesn't caring for people who are really poor trump not forgiving Hillary?
Where's the morality in that?
April 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is clearly the stronger candidate against McCain. He has proved that he is the better candidate by winning two of every three contests so far. How do people get it in their heads that the candidate who is losing is the stronger candidate? Clinton and her supporters sould like the delusional fans of a loosing team arguing that theirs is actualy the strongest team even though they lost.
Have you followed the polls before each primary? Even in the ones that Obama lost he was closing and those are only half as many as he won. What makes you think that she will gain on McCain as the voters focus on the candidates when in the contests so far she fades as people tune in?
April 9, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm worried about the White working class vote. I'm worried also about some of the vote in Florida. I'm not all that good at figuring this out, but Florida seems important.
April 9, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and Obama have different electoral maps. Hillary NEEDS to win Michigan and Florida in the general, which is why she continues to go on and on about them now. Unfortunately, this could have a negative impact on how those states go in the general. But the point is, Hillary is sticking to the 12-state strategy. That strategy involves playing defense in the general to keep those 12 states blue.
Obama does not need MI or FL. He has different states in play, as he's playing on a different electoral map. He's working a 50-state strategy. That strategy will go on the offensive, will force the GOP to spend money in states they normally don't need to, and will put new states in play. This will also help out down-ticket, as it will increase democratic voter turnout and help state and local democrats be elected.
So, there is a bigger picture. But I have to ask, do you really think New York and California will vote for McCain? If not, then why does it matter than Hillary won them on Super Tuesday?
April 9, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm worried about Florida.
April 9, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who would you prefer the candiate who wins FL or the one who gets 270 electoral votes? What makes you think Sen Clinton will be more likely to win FL than Sen Obama?
April 9, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right about Florida. As many others have noted, making predictions about what will happen in November is essentially a crapshoot. And as many others have noted, the electoral maps look entirely different depending on who the nominee is, as far as which states are in play.
Now, this is a little outdated at this point, but it can give us an idea of some of the possibilities and where efforts will probably be centered as "battlegrounds," but if you haven't seen it already, check it out:
Electoral Map of Obama v. McCain
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
Electoral Map of Clinton v. McCain
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/
On Obama's map, both Florida and Pennsylvania go red, and he still wins with by a larger margin of electoral votes. I happen to think that PA will go blue with either Obama or Clinton, but that's just my perspective. The point is, the conventional wisdom that says Florida is the biggest swing state isn't necessarily so in an Obama-McCain matchup.
That said, I'm sure someone will note that the latest polls have some of those states swinging back in McCain's favor, which I realize, but at this point when the general election has yet to begin, those polls don't mean much. I refer you to this more as a possible scenario in which Florida doesn't hold as much weight as it has in the past.
April 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very much.
April 9, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can speak for my experience in Colorado. Hillary will not win here while Obama will. She is not respected in the independent-minded mountain west states. I'd be surprised if she carried more than CA and maybe NM against McCain. Obama, however, could carry CO, NV, NM, OR, WA, and maybe ND and NE.
I believe that the old view of carrying CA and the northeast with some midwestern states and maybe FL thrown in has failed us for the last time. Bringing in new Democrats where it has been a study in futility to vote Democratic for decades is very exciting.
Don't forget that Obama's coattails will be long and wide in these marginal states, electing Dems up and down the ticket. Those new seats will provide him with the legislative backing to actually get some healthcare reform done. Hillary can't do that here.
April 9, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice."
You're right - it is the "Clinton argument" conjured up because they are running out of serious arguments. It also isn't based on any facts - just conjecture. Have you heard any serious non-clinton related commentators making that point? I doubt it.
Who says Obama can't compete? The Clintons, that's who. Do you really think he'll lose democratic strongholds like CA and MA because Clinton won them? Please don't fall so easily for Clinton talking points.
As for OH and PA - look how Obama has closed the gap there - even though, unlike Clinton, he was a complete unknown in those states. Imagine how well He'll do when he has even more money nd the whole Democratic establishment behind him.
April 9, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know working class white voters who will not vote for Obama, even though it's in their interest. I find that maddening. As wrong as this is, and as racist as it is, I'm WORRIED about it. These are voters who will go for McCain if Hillary isn't in the race. I don't want to be right in the abstract, I want a Democrat to win.
April 9, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are people who will not vote for Obama because of his race but there are more that will not vote for Clinton because she is Hillary. Jed did the math -
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/barack-obamas-m.html
April 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you are right. And thanks for the productive post. I'm trying to figure this out, not vent.
April 9, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I have posted about this several times before, but it is utterly ASTONISHING to me that Clinton has so much white working class support. I grew up among such folks and there was nothing but total disgust for both Clintons, but especially Hillary. I guess my family were mostly the sort of Reagan Democrats who never came back to the party. In any case, there are certainly a fair number of so-called hardhats who will never vote for Hillary in a million years, and, in fact, several former Republicans in my family are voting for Obama out of a "Stop Hillary!" feeling more than anything else.
Still, regardless of what the numbers say right now, it remains unclear whether the "Never Will Vote for Obama" crowd is bigger or more significant than the "Never Will Vote for Hillary" constituency. I think that just has to be one of the Known Unknowns.
April 9, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't worry too much about those voters, for one - many will change their tune when push comes to shove. The unions will really come on much stronger with their Tv ads.
Finally, I think if Obama pulls off the nomination, you will see an even greater swell of support going his way from those not yet involved that will make his current 'swell' look like ripples from a stone dropped in a quiet pond.
April 9, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What women are starting to turn from Obama? Not this one, and not any that I know.
This is just the same electability argument that is based purely on speculation and that lost us '04. It's the last argument I expected to see but I'm getting the picture.
I don't care what anyone says, if voters turn to Clinton in some places, I have seen the voters who turn out for Obama down here and it is the most phenomenal thing I've seen in my life. We're talking about forming new coalition here - one that works. The old one that she campaigns to and everyone talks about - if they aren't from the south - was not enough to win us the last two elections.
Keep on doing this the same way - the Southern Strategy will kick in again and same old same old.
I cannot believe the myopia I'm seeing among Democrats. I cannot believe it.
April 9, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think responses to the arguments are regional. Everyone in my age group in Oregon is for Obama and excited. Older dems are not. My parents in Florida are for Clinton. They will vote Obama, but say that many older voters will not. They say that Clinton or McCain can take the Jewish and Hispanic vote in Florida, and Obama can not. I wish people would discuss these perceptions, as these weigh heavily on my decision.
Again, I'm being practical here. I prefer Obama. but I want a dem to win.
April 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was worried about the Jewish vote for a while too. I'm now convinced that most of the Jews we would lose to McCain would have been lost with Clinton as well. Once the Democratic nominee has been chosen, the Democrats will rally around to protect him (or her, no matter how small that chance is) against ridiculous anti-semitic charges that have no basis. In the end, the split will probably fall the same as it would in any other year.
April 9, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton seems stronger on Israel than Obama to many Jewish voters.
April 9, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only top those who think being beligernent is being strong.
April 9, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not according to recent Gallup polling.
April 9, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a total nonsequitor, I love your picture, who is that?
April 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying for months that one of the biggest threats to an Obama victory in the fall are his vocal, online supporters. Now there are other threats and I've been mulling over posting something about one later today, but the one that we can do something about and over which we have dominion is the tone of our argument. And, besides the fact that whole segments of the Democratic Party and almost 50& of those who've voted have been ridiculed and dismissed like it's a game, if the vocal Obama supporters carry this tone into the fall campaign, those who might get alienated at that point will almost certainly have some where else to turn.
April 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not enough people read these blogs to make a difference.
April 9, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
For more information, see my comment below or donnerpass' above.
April 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got to agree with Bill here. National elections are won in the middle by capturing the elusive "swing voter": People who rarely even pick up a newspaper, much less spend time on TPM Cafe.
April 10, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have always thought it better to play in all 50 states. The Democrats have losed two consecutive elections with the "big state" strategy. I will admit that two or three out four states are important: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida. I think it is important that three of the four, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania all have Democratic governors. The political infrastructure is in place for either nominee. I really don't think Democrats have to worry about California, New York, Illinois and they may put Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia in play. This offsets a loss in one of those states.
April 9, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary would put Florida seriously in play, Obama would not. She would carry the other states you mention. Remember, I started out as an Obama supporter and would not be unhappy if he is the nominee. I'm trying to think about the "math" without all this nonsense.
April 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is way to early to say one candidte or the other can or cannot put sosme particular state in play. This is especialy true in MI and FL with the BS the Clinton campaign has been spreading about Obama trying to disenfranchise those voters. Once he has the Nomination locked up and seats their delegations he will get a bump in those states.
April 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama would put Texas seriously in play. Polls using a general base have shown him within one point of McCain. Wouldn't that be more worthwhile, in practical and symbolic value?
April 9, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely Obama would also put Florida "in play" -- such that McCain would have to campain actively there -- even if Obama were not ultimately able to win FL. I think the best feature of a 50 State Strategy in an Obama vs. McCain contest is that Obama will probably have much more money to work with than McCain and a 50 State Strategy will force McCain to spread his resources much more thinly than if McCain were up against HRC's 12 State Strategy.
April 9, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink