Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Who is the bigger gamble, Obama or Clinton?
Well, everyone knows how I will answer this question. I am a Kool-Aid drunk Obamabot. Of course I
think that Clinton is the bigger gamble. It seems to me, however,
that the "Obama cannot win" line is only half the story. What
about Clinton's prospects.
Recent poll results serve to confirm the anecdotal storyline that
Clinton's support among black voters is soft and getting softer.
First came the Quinnipac study
from last week which showed her favorable ratings among black voters
down to 52% and her unfavorables up at 42%. Now today brings us
tidings from Rasmussen that Clinton only wins 59% of black voter support in a hypothetical match-up against McCain.
In other words, two independant lines of evidence suggest that Clinton
can only expect to bring in about half as many black votes as democrats
count on to win. So, imagining that to be the case, what are the
implications of such a hypothetical development.
According to CNN's results and exit polls from 2004, Kerry lost OH by ~119K votes. Black voters are estimated to have cast
~484K votes for Kerry in that election. In other words, Clinton would
have enough trouble coming up with the 120K necessary to turn OH around
if one assumes that every last Kerry voter
shows up to vote for
her. Assume, however, that only 60% of Kerry's black voters are
inclined vote for Clinton. Suddenly she needs not ~119K, but 409K to flip this state blue.
Kerry won PA by only ~144K votes. Black voters are estimated to
have cast ~630K votes for Kerry in that election. Once again, imagine
that just 40% of those voter decide to sit this one out and all of a
sudden Clinton needs to replace ~108K voters in order to hang on to
that which Kerry carried in 2004.
Kerry lost FL to Bush by ~381K votes. Black voters are estimated
to have cast ~785K ballots for Kerry in that election. If only
60% of those voters show up this time around she needs 695K more voters than Kerry was able to dig up in order to flip this state into the blue column.
Even IL, a solid blue state, went for Kerry by only ~546K votes.
Black voters are estimated to have cast ~469K of those Kerry
votes. If 60% of those voters (and remember, IL is Obama's home
state, so the folks in IL are disproportionately more likely than the
national average to be upset by a hypothetical Obama primary loss) that
would put McCain theoretically within ~734K of stealing IL from us, far
closer a margin than any democrat ought to feel smug about.
With that in mind, does Clinton really look like more of a sure thing than Obama?
Comments (111)
It really hurts her in the close states where the white folk don't like her much, like Washington and Oregon. Good luck winning Michigan, it polls even for her as well. Florida? Buh-bye.
The party can't weather a fracture like this, either way.
April 28, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a white Oregonian, I take umbrage to your allegation that many white folk don't support Obama. While this is naturally true of some, he enjoys significant support in our urban areas, where the majority of our population is to be found.
April 29, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops. I was too quick to comment here. My apologies.
I would say you're generally correct, although she definitely has the support of more rural Democrats, who are thankfully not the majority.
April 29, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, as a rural, white Oregon dem in my fifties, I must point out that Obama has a huge following in my area here on the coast, which is mainly a working class area. Most of my friends, women in their 40's through mid-60's, back Obama over Clinton because they want a fresh outlook and don't want a return to 90's political psychodrama. Being from a small town means having friendships with people of diverse beliefs because we're all swimming in the same fishbowl. Most men I know harbor a primal aversion to Hillary, so are for Obama or McCain.
April 29, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trial heats have shown that Obama outperforms Clinton against McCain in Washington and Oregon. Washington is one of those states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire where Barack wins and she loses.
Oregon rules. 'Tis Obama country.
April 29, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Oregonian I would add that this poster is right. Obama's support is lower than predicted, and falling in the wake of the Wright issue. Hillary will keep it very close, and has a real chance to win it.
April 29, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Greg... You can do a more honest assessment of those numbers than that. Let's be frank here. There is an ongoing narrative that Hillary is this bitch that is taking away the black guy's chance of the presidency.
I understand that anger, and it will settle down should she get the nomination.
April 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Greg's making an actual prediction for PA and OH. His point is to show that the black vote is sizable and can have an impact in swing states. It's not as if every black voter would stay home of course, but Clinton would have a heck of a lot of bridges to rebuild if she were to win the nomination.
I should really stop commenting on counterfactual Clinton-win threads though because I really believe that they're counterfactual.
April 28, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. And I'd add to that saying that there is an equal narrative on the Obama side of the equation that skews his vote and will die down over time. IMHO, the two stories cancel each other out, so we're back where we started. Pick your favorite.
April 28, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not as far as my vote as well as most people I know.
April 28, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Left,
I am sure that you are right and that some of the alienation will heal with time. On the other hand, Clinton is not yet out of her free-fall phase. Her support among Obama's segments of the base is still declining (unlike Obama, who did better in PA than in OH among most of his less favorable demographics). In other words, I postulated a drop of 40% in her support and you pooh-poohed this, claiming that this 40% (or most of it) will be reconciled before November. Very well. Still and all, 40% is a big chunk of people to reconcile and not all of them will be reachable. Imagine, then, that 40% represents an attainable degree of reconciliation. What then, when her numbers drop not 40% but 80% among his demographics. She is, after all, threatening to take this all the way through August, which allows an awful lot of time for her and her husband to make themselves even less popular.
April 29, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're ignoring the obvious, which is that if Hillary amicably picks Obama as VP, the vast majority of the black voting bloc will swing in behind her.
Even if Obama weren't the VP, he'd unquestionably endorse and go campaign for her, again winning back the black vote.
Much harder to win over will be the blue collar voters currently shunning Barack for Hillary.
Finally, if either Hillary or Barack are anywhere near as bad as Kerry, we've got a big problem.
April 29, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
O I couldn't disagree with you more.
You cannot take the nomination away from the first African American presidential candidate once he has a decisive lead and turn around and tell him he's going to be vice president.
Are you kidding? That is more insulting than just handing her the nomination.
I can't believe more people can't see that - boss.
(that was irony - try to figure it out. You can't do that - take the front runner and make him the also-ran - especially not this front runner.
April 29, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that his lead is not yet decisive - that will happen if he gets sufficient numbers of delegates to take the convention.
Thankfully, very few Democrats hold your rather extreme views on either Hillary or Barack.
April 29, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I am ignoring the obvious, maybe I am not. As I said elsewhere on this thread, I am not especially eager to get into a pissing match about who will more completely destroy the party if things do not go their way. From where I am standing, it seems to me that the Obama's demographics are just as invested in him as Clinton's are in her. We are not more likely than working class whites or older women to bolt if we perceive ourselves slighted, but we are not less likely either.
Your position here, like Another Reader's above, betrays loud and clear that you are taking black voters for granted. As I pointed out in response to Another Reader, that is precisely the attitude we used to take with regard to white working class voters, and you can see where it got us. I do not like to sound as if I am making threats, because I do not think such a game of chicken is healthy overall, but I really would exhort you not to take the solidity of the democratic party too much for granted. Ours has always been a fractious coalition and it would be a pity if, in rushing after a voting bloc already at odds with us, we ended up shoving another one out the door.
April 29, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not taking anything for granted, just working with the best evidence currently available. 90% of black democrats are voting as a bloc, and are backing Obama for president. The idea being put forward that a sizeable fraction wouldn't vote for Obama as the first black VP has no basis in any logic I can see.
April 29, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You cannot see how a group of people who have been relegated to second-class status in this country for 400 years would be pissed to have one of their own earn the gold and be awarded the silver instead? You expect that they would all (and as I noted above, Clinton needs all, not just most, of the same folks who voted for Kerry to show up to the polls in OH in order to flip it) slap on a shit-eating grin and get cheerfully in line? Now who is ignoring the obvious?
April 29, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
For a start, Kerry's numbers bear very little resemblance to this race for many reasons detailed elsewhere on this page. Your argument is based on the idea that the anti-clinton sentiment reflected by TPM users is representative of the electorate. It's not.
Come november, black voters would have a choice whether to vote for the first ever black VP, or to vote for a guy who voted against an MLK holiday, or to stay at home. Neither of us can predict the future, so if you really think that black voters will be anti- Clinton/Obama out of spite for something that would be old news by then, I can't prove you wrong. Yet! ;-)
April 29, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have little doubt that the Republicans would not allow it to become old news before November. Count on the fact that if Clinton were to win the nomination, some astroturf 527 called "Brothers for Social Justice" or some equally contrived name would emerge to run ads playing up every perceived slight against the black community to have emerged in the last year. Sen Obama might well be a skilled politician so he would no doubt do his best to counter these efforts, but in the end he is just one man, not a magician. If such 527 efforts could depress black turnout even 20%, it would spell disaster in close swing states like MI, OH, FL, etc.
April 29, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, so now it's OK to vote out of fear for what the republicans may do?
I think they'd have much, much better luck turning white blue collar voters against Obama (clinging,elitism, Wright, Ayers etc) than a subtle argument attempting to sway a few black voters against Hillary - and a black VP! - without the word "Katrina" ringing in black voters' ears.
nb: Am well aware the republicans will also go after Hillary, and though I think they'll be less effective there than against Obama, I think it's a discussion for another thread.
April 29, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even an Obama VP spot (won't happen) or endorsement (will happen but without energy) she can't win back enough of the AA community to carry key states.
Neither can he win enough white voters to carry many states.
April 29, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not yet prepared to endorse this bleak assessment, but I am getting there. I do remember back in late 1991 the conventional wisdom is that the democrats would stand no chance in 1992, with Bush riding so high in the polls on account of his splendid little war in Iraq. Then the economy went south, Perot entered the race and along came a master of figuring out how to appeal to 50%+1 of just enough states to win and the rest is history.
So this year we began with a media narrative that said that the democrats could not lose, but here we are with McCain's numbers going up, up, up and two of the Democratic party's brightest lights doing their level best to dim each other to level of near total darkness. I am still hopeful that the brightness can be rekindled once the fighting ends, but this assumes that the fighting ends soon. If this really does go all the way to the convention then I do not much fancy our chances at reconciliation.
Perhaps I will author a post exploring the question of whom it makes more sense to nominate if we are certain to lose anyway. It is probably a worthwhile question. It might well be that neither can win this time around, in which case we need to think about which candidate will do more to build our base (or at least do less to destroy it) so that we have a live chance in 2012.
April 29, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither of those statements are likely, or even really plausible.
If Hillary wins the nomination, offers Obama the VP spot, and Obama then declines, he'll be held responsible for 4 years of McCain if Hillary loses, and will come out looking unforgiveably arrogant for putting himself ahead of the party. If Hillary beats McCain, Obama could probably look forward to 8 years in the senate giving opponents plenty of ammo, before having another crack against a potentially very popular VP.
If Obama is not offered the VP spot, a lot of people would be pissed. If, however, he didn't go out there and give everything to campaigning for Hillary, again he'll come off as arrogant, putting himself ahead of the needs of the country, which could permanently damage his appeal.
I think it's highly unlikely Obama would reject a VP offer, and I think it's ludicrous to assert that he definitely would reject it.
April 29, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg is probably THE last person who would subscribe to that "ongoing narrative" that Hillary is "this bitch".
It's pretty insulting for you to use those particularly words. Insulting to Greg, and insulting to Clinton to repeat that narrative.
And I'm a koolaid drinking Obamamot.
April 29, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say that Greg subscribed to this, you dolt. In fact, I was saying that he was FAILING to acknowledge that such a narrative exists within certain circles.
April 29, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's where you guys, from Hillary at the top on down to her committed supporters at the bottom, are engaging in a massive, and disastrous act of willful self-deception.
If Hillary goes into the convention behind in pledged delegates and with, at best, a mere argument that she's the popular vote leader and comes out the nominee, the narrative and the perception among Obama's supporters, black and white, will be that she "stole" the nomination. Period. Do you people have a complete case of amnesia about how we all felt about Bush's theft of the election in 2000? Do you have any recollection of any of us ever getting over that? And do you remember how seriously it used to piss you off when some Republican asshole would call you a sore loser and tell you to just get over it? Ringing any bells?
Well if you don't think Hillary's theft of the nomination would result in exactly the same feeling within the party, you have not been paying attention. Has it escaped your attention that this nomination battle is already more rancorous and more passionate than the 2000 general election was prior to election day? Seriously how many of you had any real strong emotional attachment to Al Gore until the post-election battle clarified the stakes and the true character of the men in question?
And regardless of whether she and Bill actually did blow the racist dog whistle, do you not at least acknowledge that that's the perception that's been created? Our endless argument about whether they really did so and who started it is irrelevant; that perception is the reality and they're not going to just settle down and set it aside.
Worse, Team Hillary’s confidence they’ll get the black vote in November belies a dangerously, and I dare say somewhat offensively, patronizing view of the voters. It's like they think that if she succeeds in this plan to steal the nomination from Obama, black Democrats will just say "well, I guess ol' Missie know what best fo us and done saved us from ourselves, so now we just gone go back to de plantation and pick de cotton fo her, cause we still adores Bill and her so." That's harsh, and its ugly, but I swear to God that's what I hear every time I some Hillary supporter expresses his or her serene confidence that blacks will just get over it and rally round Hillary after all that's happened.
And that's the other thing you guys are not getting. The smug way Hillary's supporters take black support for her in November for granted is in itself unhelpful. There is already a strong sense in the black community that the Democratic Party takes them for granted. We’ve been hearing that for years. Is taking them for granted not precisely what you are doing now?
Does the same logic, and the same concern, apply to Hillary's highly committed core of first wave feminists and working class women? To some extent, yes. The difference would be that Obama will actually have won the delegate race and will have at least a strong argument that he won the popular vote. His nomination will have a legitimacy that a Hillary nomination simply would not, and could never, have. Further, the prospect of McCain picking Stephens and Ginsberg's successors represents a real, clear and present danger to women's rights. Between the two, I have hopes they'll support Obama and not defect to McCain.
That's my hope, but at least have the common sense to be very worried about it. And Obama is too. It’s why he’s been pulling his punches on her (and he most definitely has). By contrast, the parallel oblivious unconcern for the black vote in November shown by Hillary, her campaign, and her supporters evidences a catastrophically flawed political judgment that in and of itself is disqualifying for anybody running for President.
April 29, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
April 29, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Do you people have a complete case of amnesia about how we all felt about Bush's theft of the election in 2000"
LOL. Do you not remember how we all then re-elected Bush in 2004 with a larger margin?
Amnesia is one word you could use. Irrelevance is another. You appear to think that millions of voters would vote in November because they think Obama was wronged, rather than out of self-interest for who they think will make a better president. Moreover, many of those who would vote against Hillary out of spite, are those who fear most about the Supreme court, and little things like policies, so would vote for her in spite of themselves.
In my humble opinion, your argument reeks of sanctimonious rubbish.
April 29, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy question. Easier answer: Hillary "Nuke 'Em!" Clinton. If the bee-atch wants to "obliterate Iran" that is to damn crazy-ass for me.
April 28, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you too!
April 29, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ask you a question: Do you think African Americans are going to vote for the Republicans in large numbers? HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. Do you think they're going to not turn out at the polls? Possibly, but doubtful again that it'll be in huge numbers.
Now consider Clinton's constituency - much larger, much more likely to swing Republican.
Now consider the latest national polls. The latest swing state polls. The baggage and crap Obama is going through right now. The GOP's foreshadowing of their general election tactics.
I'm not sure how anyone could look at the facts of the matter and say with a straight face that Obama is less of a liability in the general than Clinton.
April 28, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Brand182,
I am hardly a spokesman for black voters, but neither are you, come to that. I can only go with what the polls tell me, and the polls say that Clinton will face a real problem in turning out black votes. Brush that off if you will.
April 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
See this is why I believe Hillary thinks she can still win even if she angers us AAs. She believes since we won't vote republican, we'll vote for her. I will vote down ticket, but I can't support her and I won't let the democratic party take my vote for granted under ANY circumstance. And I know many who feel the same way.
What people fail to understand is that this more than the Clintons being just politicians, they have left many of us feeling betrayed and used.
I will support a democratic Congress but not Hillary Clinton.
April 28, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think she would get the black vote if she picks one for vice president? I honestly think that's been the plan all along. Richardson was hoping to be her VP, but when the Clinton people said they were going to pick Obama or another African American, he got pissed off and endorsed Obama.
Obama is the obvious choice, but he'll probably refuse. So obviously, Clinton needs an African American male from a swing state who has enough gravitas to be qualified, but is not powerful enough that he doesn't want to give up his committee chairmanship to be VP.
Who do you suggest?
April 29, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
When did anyone say something so definite? "Going to" implies a very strong intention -- nowhere have I seen anything more than speculation about possible running mates from either camp.
And considering how much you belittle Richardson with your accusation regarding his endorsement motives, I think some evidence would be in order.
April 29, 2008 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. My post was pure unadulterated speculation (we're blogging). I am not privy to any inside info. I do, however, think that Richardson was running for the VP slot all along.
April 29, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll vote down ticket but not for Hillary if she takes it away from Barack. I won't vote for McCain but I won't vote for her either. I have left the Democratic Party plantation and I intend to remain outside and independent.
April 29, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's not a gamble, she's a sucker bet.
April 28, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reason the white middle class voters Obama is having a hard time courting is a stronger hurdle than the current "soft" support of the black vote for Hillary is that the white middle class has traditionally been a swing demographic whereas the black vote has been traditionally Democratic. I find it hard to believe that this block of voters would either stay at home or vote Republican, whereas it is entirely plausible that these white middle class voters will vote McCain.
April 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
White working class voters are not "traditionally" a swing vote. Until Reagan came along they were a solid democratic vote. Reagan orchestrated a re-alignment which converted them into a swing vote. A Carter backer might well have voiced your very same confidence in Apr 1976. Do we really wish to rush down the road which leads us to the place where Clinton does to the black vote what Reagan did to the white working-class vote?
April 28, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not really sure what Clinton is "doing" to the black vote. Surely, her and her husband have had strong ties to this community in the past. If you're referring to the perceived race-baiting, while I disagree with the perception, I do acknowledge Clinton will have to counter that perception between now and November. Certainly, if Obama is not the nominee he will campaign on Clinton's behalf to court this demographic.
The reason Reagan was able to court the middle white class wasn't solely because Carter had alienated them but also because Reagan actively sought out their vote. Do you see McCain currently doing this? Do you forsee him doing this? Do you think any grounds he might make would not be countered by an aggressive Democratic push to keep this demographic?
April 28, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is unclear the way I've written it. In the last paragraph, I meant to ask if you see McCain courting the black vote.
April 28, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that I phrased my post rather awkwardly. I do not think that really any of the movement of the white working class from solid-democratic-bloc to swing-bloc was the result of Carter alienating them. I think that it was entirely the result of Reagan courting them.
My point is not that Clinton is going to turn them into a swing voting-bloc. Rather it is that, by running the campaign that she is presently running, she could simply sour a healthy chunk of black voters on the democratic party tout court. Remember, black voter turnout is already lower than white voter turnout. You might regard this as inconceivable, but as I noted above, one might once have thought it inconceivable that white-working class voters would be a swing bloc. Political realities are not static.
The polls tell us that black voters are souring on Sen Clinton. Our own intuitions about how black voters ought to vote based on historic trends mean very little when measured against scientific surveys of what actual black voters are actually saying about their political opinions.
April 28, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things.
The polls related to the general election are almost meaningless at this point.
It's 2008 and Kerry isn't the candidate.
April 28, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, sure. I do not really disagree with you (or Left above) in this respect. That said, the arguments above of folks like Brand or Another Reader are premised on the idea that all of Obama's present troubles in the polls are very real and not merely the ephemeral working out of media trends which will be entirely obsolete by November. As long as they are allowed to premise an argument on the assumption that what is true now is somehow meaningfully suggestive of what will be true in seven months time, I will not scruple to play the same game.
April 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should also point out that the electorate has changed substantially, just since 2004.
Obama and Clinton, to a somewhat lesser degree, have attracted large numbers of registered democrats in state after state, including legions of younger folks. And large numbers of voters are deserting the republican party, apparently having had their fill of the Cheneypaths.
April 28, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any gambler will ask about the sure thing vs. the not so sure thing:
What's the pay out?
I bet I'd get a lot of change out of the Obama slots than the Clinton machines.
April 28, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
:|
April 28, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can say it with a straight face. Hillary has the highest negatives by a huge margin, more Democrats anticipate that Obama will be the nominee, and his favorables are double digits ahead of Hillary's. Plus in GE hypothetical matchups he puts a lot more states in play, according to latest polls, against McCain.
April 28, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary isn't a gamble, she's a sure loser. Of course all the right leaning pundits are slavering to see her run against McCain.
Pretty much all Republicans hate her, and her brilliant campaigning managed to alienate quite a few Dems as well. She would run the country the way she has run her campaign - divisive, chaotic, ineffectual.
April 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an on topic post and fair.
It also parallels the Obama "problem" reaching white women- not men. I would remind also, we shouldnt assume blacks will vote blue; imagine the outrage- well they already have pre-empted outrage so you have an idea- in assuming Democratic registered women would naturally fall behind Obama.
BTW, the comparison is to Kerry, which was a different time and she is a different candidate, different appeals, coalitions. So my question is, along your lines of Ohio, could she pull independents (seniors, women) more than Obama- less the loss of AAs?
I agree she is risky, at least as much as he. And any electability argument is not clear enough for a super to change overturn the delegates the people elected. Werent they created to fight off a sure loser upstart, hasnt BHO passed that test yet? Against a very formidable opponent I think those questions should be answered by now. But my finger will be crossed until they prove me right!
April 28, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, quick correction. My IL numbers close with the line "... would put McCain theoretically within ~734K of stealing IL from us..." That should say ~312K, not ~734K. I hit the wrong button on my calculator and then just absentmindedly copied the misbegotten result into the post.
April 28, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable how nutty people get when you bring up demography in describing voter behavior. All sorts of unfair criticisms ensue.
Very good post.
And if HRC (counterfactual, not gonna happen) snatched the nomination from -120 pledged delegates, she would get 65% of the black vote, max. If McCain then picked Rice, she'd be lucky to get half. Even if he didn't, he could go after black votes, for real. And get many. His visit to Selma was prologue to a Hillary Putsch.
A deeper problem would be getting solid black support for any Dem presidential candidate after such an event.
April 28, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
From an actual Black voter. Greg is correct.
April 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see that African Americans feel that way now.
Hell, I can think of nothing more nauseating than having to pull the lever for Clinton.
But.... right wing Justices for decades? 40m people still uninsured? Nothing - absolutely nada - done for poor schools?
If Clinton's the nominee, how will African Americans feel in November after Obama has worked his butt off to negate the resentment? (Something he's already promised to do) And after they've had months of listening to McCain's right wing blathering?
April 29, 2008 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's impossible to know, of course - just like it is impossible to know that blue collar whites would never consider Obama even if Strickland and Bill Clinton and Dick Gephardt and all the other folks with working-class coat tails got behind him and worked for him. As long as we are obliged to listen to a bunch of passive-agressive Cassandras needle us with the claim that Obama is a gamble, or a dead-weight, or damaged goods, or suchlike, then turn about is fair play. There is every bit as much risk of alienating Obama's share of the base by nominating Clinton at this point as there is of alienating Clinton's share of the base by nominating Obama.
April 29, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talk left has a detailed, state by state, electoral college post on this.
Here is a qualitative post by an Obama supporter
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/28/1328/27604
and here is the detailed post.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/26/21548/1865
Personaly, I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is the winner. He would have the experience and gravitas necessary to win in 2016.
April 29, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody knows how the presidential campaign will actually play out, but Arnone's "analysis" posted on talkleft.com is silly.
Arone's assumes that Obama cannot win any state in the general election where he lost the primary to Clinton. This results in his conclusion that Clinton is in a more favorable position to win Michigan than Obama even though Obama's name was not even on the ballot. And Obama has actually out-performed Clinton in just about every match-up with McCain in Michigan polls.
I don't know whether Arone is biased in favor of Clinton, but his analysis is based on such faulty logic and irrelevant facts that bias is a strong candidate to explain what he has written. What it really looks like is a document prepared for the Clinton campaign to use to distract the superdelegates.
There is neither any logical nor empirical reason to think that the candidate who won the primary election in a state has a better chance to win the general election against a Republican. Right now, of the 9 states with 116 EVs where Clinton beat Obama in the primary election, Clinton leads McCain in only three states, with 47 EVs (AR, OH, & PA). Obama leads McCain (while Clinton trails McCain) in four of the other states with 31 EVs (MI, NH, NM, NV), and McCain leads both Clinton and Obama in the last two states, FL & TN, with 38 EVs. See http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
In TN it is highly unlikely that Clinton can be competitive in a general election, and she matches up so poorly with McCain in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada (16 EVs) that she would have a steep uphill battle in each of those states, whereas Obama would probably win those 16 EVs pretty easily.
In the six states Arone dubbed "battleground" states that Obama won, he leads McCain in four states with 30 EVs (CO, IA, ME, & WI). Clinton only leads in one of these states Maine (4 EVs). In the other two states, McCain is comfortably ahead at this point of both Democratic candidates in both MO & VA (total 24 EVs).
Overall, in addition to the 196 EVs Arone counts as solidly Democratic, Clinton leads in only five states (AR, ME, OH, PA, & WV) with a total of 56 EVs. Obama leads in eight battleground states with a total of 61 EVs (CO, IA, ME, MI, NH, NM, NV, & WI).
To states where he leads now (257 EVs), Obama needs to add only 13 EVs to win in November; any ONE of four states (as well as some other combinations) could give him enough for a majority - PA, OH, VA, or NC. Clinton would need 18 EVs, which could come from FL, or from MI + WI.
Another problem with Arone's analysis is his assumption that both Democrats can could reliably win the 196 EVs he counted from Solid Democratic States. Nominee Clinton puts at risk 18 EVs that Obama will easily defend in the Pacific Northwest - OR (7) & WA (11).
THINK! folks. Linking to garbage wastes a lot of folks' time.
April 29, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
To the poster known as Left, Seriously? You believe it's just a narrative thing here?
Black people have consistently been told to take a back seat. They have been told, "hey, you are really qualified (in this case, hey you won the most votes as long as we don't count Mich. without giving you a single vote in the state, and the most delegates) however we are going with this white person over you.
You think this will go away, "once all these uppety black people realize that it was Clintons turn"?
It is the black people out there spreading this narrative. It is the African Americans out there who are forcing the media to take note.
The last thing the media wants to do right now is focus on any narrative that could bring a quicker end to this gold mine we call a primary. They are making boat loads of money off of keeping this going.
You support Clinton, that's fine. That's your right, but don't sit there and pretend an overturning of this thing and giving it to the white woman in second place would be seen by African Americans as anything but sending them all to the back of the bus again.
It would be no different to them then it would be to women if the two candidates left were Edwards and Clinton and she was in the lead and they gave it to him.
grrr I am frustrated with all the denial on both sides. This is looking bad for us now either way we go. We may be very close to having two losers on our hands now. Good job everyone, have a cookie.
Wake up folks, the treatment Obama is getting right now is going to come down on Clinton ten fold if she takes the nomination.
Anyone want to know why the republicans win? First they choose likable candidates. they realize a huge percentage of voters vote purely on who they would have a beer with.
Second they make sure many Democratic voters don't get to count. Which isn't to hard since they can just target poor neighborhoods and make sure they have a real hard time voting.
Third, the exact moment they see that a candidate looks like they will be the nomination they make it happen. They don't fall in love, they just know one simple thing. To them any republican is better then ANY democrat.
So while we sit here getting all butt hurt over our nomination process they are just going through the ropes and laughing at how easily manipulated we all are.
April 29, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, those are not the reasons Republicans win. All they need is to run against Democrats.
The party which, let's face it, has no leadership, no vision, and a self-destructive streak a mile wide.
The only good thing that might come out of this utter train wreck of a primary is that a loss in November might finally drive a stake through the heart of the party, so that something much better could rise out of its ashes.
April 29, 2008 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Rule of thumb for the future cause it doesn't matter this time.
Whatever Fox news (republicans) wants you to do,.. Do the opposite.
You may not always win,, but your chances will be much better.
April 29, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think half is very generous myself.
She won't get 20% of the African American vote and I suspect that's not the only the group who won't turn out for her cause I'm sure going to have a hard time after everything the Clintons have done and said.
She cannot win. If the SDs took the nomination from Barack Obama at this point - after he has gained a decisive lead - we'd be in the middle of a civil war inside the party. In a big way.
I read that the Clinton people won't vote for him - well, as far as I can tell, that's fewer people.
April 29, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Tena,
I was deliberately being conservative in my estimates so that my point would be made a fortiori. As it happens, my own suspicions tend in the same direction as yours. I am the precinct captain for my neighborhood, which is about 70% black/30% white, and my sense from knocking on doors of late would not augur well for our chances if Obama were to be robbed of the title at this point. Meanwhile, I only treated on the subject of the black vote in this post. Needless to say, black voters are not the only demographic with a lot invested in Obama, so the reality could be even worse than the half-the-black-votes numbers I crunched above.
I do not really want to get into a pissing match with the Clinton folks over who is better positioned to destroy the party if we do not get our way. My point in author this post is not to make a threat, but really just to expose the nonsensical premises at the root of most of "electability" talking points coming out of the Clinton side of late. If we really were to take the assumptions on which they are built seriously, the implications would be just as ruinous for Sen Clinton's chances as they would for Sen Obama's. As such, we had both best hope that they are not true, and work to make them so. "Burn, baby, burn" is not a helpful stance for either side to adopt.
April 29, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's much easier to deal with a visible demographic. It's much harder to know at all who else might not turn out to vote, Greg. I understand that. I'm just speculating my own self and I tend to go higher in my guess about who might not vote.
It's still a guess. I think that it's an educated guess to say that the African American vote won't be going to Hillary than any other besides the gender votes.
It's too difficult to make any assessment about any other group - I understand that.
April 29, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, dear Tena, it appears that our thoughts and intutions run in the same tracks.
April 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a black voter, I can say that there is a great deal of anger at both Clintons. That anger will not go away with a few speeches or visits to black churches. They've lost their credibility and I don't think they can get it back. I've heard black people say that they will not vote for Clinton and will either write-in Obama or just not vote for president. Only my crazy sister has said she will vote for McCain. With the recent Supreme Court decision and the likelihood that it will have an impact on black peoples' attempt to vote, if Clinton's support in the black community is soft, I think she's got a serious problem.
April 29, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good analysis but also painful to see how the politics that were suppose to unite us have divided us. I am for Barack all the way and believe that this election, especially with the race and gender issues has been a drawing salve for how much lip service was given to social equality while under the surface, many were still entrenched in the old injustices.
April 29, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
To redstateleroy 's question - Do you think she would get the black vote if she picks one for vice president?:
Do you think any 'ol black man will do? If we were truly only voting for Obama because he is black we would have voted in large numbers for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. I voted for Obama because I believe he will be the best President. Being from Illinois I already knew about him. Hillary was my second choice, who I believed originally would be the nominee and that I would vote for her on Super Tuesday if Obama were not on the ticket.
So to answer your question, no she would not get my vote by choosing a black man as vice president.
April 29, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Any African American will not do just like Any Vagina will not do.
I don't want the first woman president to be a lousy president and I do believe Hillary would be lousy.
April 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Choosing a VP is not an academic exercise. Kerry lost because he chose Edwards who couldn't even deliver his own state. In 04 all we needed was one more state, any swing state; any ole Floridian or Ohioan with gravitas would have won it for him.
In the era when all candidates were white males VPs were traditionally chosen to give geographic balance (i.e. Kenneday/Johnson). In the modern era we'll probably see more ethnic/gender balance. Mondale chose Ferraro. Even Bush elder chose Quayle because focus groups showed women liked him.
If Obama gets the nomination, he needs to pick any ole white, moderate, elder statesman from a swing state. Dukakis never had a chance because he was too far left, but he was very smart to pick Bentsen as his running mate.
In my opinion Clinton needs to pick an African American--with gravitas--from a swing state if she gets the nomination.
April 29, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't be serious -- Kerry lost because of his running mate? Kerry lost because he ran an awful campaign. He let the swiftboating run on and on for weeks without aggresively responding.
I can't recall any polling that indicates that a candidate's VP pick has a significant impact upon voting decisions. It sure didn't hinder Bush Sr. from getting elected.
April 29, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choosing a popular favorite son candidate can help win that state. If we would have won either Ohio or Florida (or virtually any other state Bush carried), Kerry would be president. For instance, Bob Graham as VP would have given him Florida.
The elder Bush's choice of Quayle versus Dukakis choice of Bentsen hurt Bush. It was a major issue in the debates and in Dukasis's stump speeches.
Why do you think Nelson's name comes up so much? He has little national exposure, but he's a popular democrat in a swing state. And Florida has never had a presidential or vice presidential candidate since Jackson.
April 29, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
These polls showing Clinton gaining strength against McCain are interesting but they're not point out two things we've long discussed here.
The effect of Clinton getting the nomination by superdelegate decree. Will she really poll better after that bruising fight?
Obama is the more likely nominee. Do the people being polled know that? Is it easier for people to say "I'll take Clinton over McCain" when they know how unlikely it is that they'll have to make that choice?
April 29, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's Obama now, huh Greg.
April 29, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should Clinton somehow wind up with the nomnination, she has to offer the VP slot to Obama. Whether he accepts it or not is another issue, but there's no other way for her to mend fences with his supporters, especially those disgusted by her campaign pushing Obama's race as an issue.
The tone of the campaign isn't just a problem for Clinton with African-Americans. Other Obama supporters are also turned off by the perception that Clinton has tried to use Obama's race against him. The best way to assuage that is to offer the VP slot to Obama, and hope he graciously accepts.
April 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should he? Accept gracefully, that is?
April 29, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. Party loyalty, good of the country, need to defeat McCain, etc. Those might be reasons.
And they could well convince Obama; indeed the restraint he has shown in not pushing Tuzla, Colombia, or rehashing other skeletons in the Clinton past (all of which I've no doubt the right will dredge up should Clinton be the nominee) suggests there is a line Obama is not willing to cross in pursuit of the presidency, that he's not willing to tear down Clinton over superficial issues. By contrast, my read of the Philly debate transcript showed she was eagerly jumping at the opportunity to hit Obama over, say, Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers.
Thus if he were offered the VP slot, perhaps he would accept it.
Doing so would cement him as the front-runner in either 2016 or (if Hillary loses) in 2012.
If I were Hillary, I'd actually make another push for a unity ticket this way: I'd offer Obama the VP slot, and also pledge to serve just one term, the support Obama in 2012. Her competitiveness probably never would consider such a thing, but it would allow her to say she's putting the party's future ahead of her personal ambitions. It also gives a concrete concession to Obama's electoral strengths.
The Obama camp did a better job in winning pledged delegates, and their lead there is essentially insurmountable, but Hillary still has a large block of public support, too. It's not stretching things too much to say that this race is essentially a tie.
Now I am firmly in the Obama camp; I've donated money and I'm convinced he would be a better president. His judgment, restraint, and inspirational rhetoric are strong positives. And, ironically, that very restraint and judgment might lead him to conclude it is better for the country to accept a VP slot in the unlikely event that a majority of delegates winds up supporting Senator Clinton. A half-full glass is better than a shattered one.
April 29, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
First the Democratic party is split over Obama. He is not any type of "consensus" candidate. Everybody is wringing their hands over what will happen to the black vote if this thing goes to HRC, but there is a flip side of it as well: what will the future of the Democrats be when they become the party of blacks & liberals? Seriously, how much support will this rump coaltion continue to garner among crossover Republicans & independents? I have been against Obama from the get go for this reason: his candidacy will split the party & a fragmented & rump Democratic coalition will lose to McCain in Nov.
April 29, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come now, be fair. The split emerging is the result of both candidates. Neither can accurately claim all the blame.
Indeed not. I know that I was as surprised as anyone else that he got as far as he got. I voted for Bradley in 2000, even as I expected Gore to win. When I got behind Obama in August of last year, I fully expected the same dynamic of 2000 to play out this time around - a few eager activists like myself backing Obama while the vast mass of the party went with the tried-and-true establishment candidate.
Who doubts what you write? I authored my own post precisely in response to the numerous posts detailing the "flip side" of which you treat here. As far as I can see, there is no doubt but that the constituencies which back Clinton and the constituencies which back Obama are presently at each other's throats and will be for as long as the primary process continues.
April 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I generally agree with you, but I think you fail to appreciate nature of the Democratic divide. I suspect it has little to do with the vitriol & rancor of the current campaign. Pew research did a study early on where they felt like 30+% of the Democrats would defect if Obama won. Exit polls, demographics, MA, OH, TX & PA, blah, blah. We all know it's out there & real. I don't think that come Denver that subset is coming back into the fold if it's Obama. They have said over & over again that they won't. Now, does that mean Obama can't win or we shouldn't put Obama up? No. But it will be real, could be huge & might destroy the Democrats for a long time. I suspect it's something along the lines of that in the party of the blacks & liberals the white working class has no political home.
April 29, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I plead innocent of failing to appreciate the reality of the divide. I am only too conscious of it. I am quite definitely not saying that all will be well with Obama as the nominee. I think that we are past the point where we can hope to end this with no harm done. If I have left you with a different impression, please allow me to make clear that I agree with you in large measure. To the extent that we differ, I would submit that it is only in that you evidently think that more harm would be done to the party if Obama were the nominee, whereas I think that Obama is the choice that will do less harm (albeit a great deal of harm nonetheless).
April 29, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put it this way when was the last time the democrats lost a national election because they failed to secure the black vote? When was the last time the democrats lost a national election beacause they failed to secure the vote of the white working class? The cold hard reality is that the votes of us liberals & blacks are polically expendable, we have no choice. The white working man has a choice.
April 29, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I submit to you that it is exactly that sort of thinking which turned the white working class from a solid democratic bloc into a swing bloc. It would be a great pity if were to repeat the same mistake with regard to the African American bloc.
April 29, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. You know how the Republicans are always saying that black voters are on the "Democratic plantation" because the Democratic party just relies on them for votes and doesn't actually care about their concerns? If the supers take the nomination from Obama and give it to Hillary, black voters just might start believing that. And if Obama accepts the VP under those circumstances he'll be nicknamed "Uncle Barack" before the convention is over.
April 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can argue all day, all week, all month long about the "electability" factors. But in the end it comes down to who wins the nomination. Period. Whose strategy was successfully used to win the most delegates under the current process rules. Thus far, we know the answer to be Obama. Why would we expect a candidate (Clinton)--with almost universal name recognition among Democrats, substantially more money, years of building a base among the party elites, and the obvious advantage of being the wife of a former President who was arguably one of the greatest campaigners of the 20th century--who employed a flaw and probably losing strategy be able to then pivot and figure out how to win in the GE? Why would I, or anyone else, feel confident that candidate could now suddenly; indeed miracously, learn how to win?
In the poltical battlefield HRC has not been nearly as successful as some would like to believe. She failed miserably in the 93 healthcare battle. Had she listened to Senator Moynihan and taken the deal he had worked out with his fellow lawmakers we would be farther down the path to "universal" coverage. Her Senate race? Please. Look who she ran against. Please. She ran against opponents so weak it was laughable. Clinton voted FOR the AUMF. She will not admit that it was a mistake. It is my opinion that she believes it was not a mistake, but cynically chalks it up to betting on the wrong horse in her quest for the White House. Anyone, John McCain and Hillary Clinton among them, and who will not admit to being wrong--who voted to give THIS president the authority to send MY families members to a misbegotten war deserves only our scorn and derision.
Those are but a few things to consider. But, in the end she has to win the nomination in order to make the "electability" argument. That is the first step. I find little to make me believe she could win the GE until she shows us she can win the nomination. THAT is the "electability" argument as I see it. Polls are meaningless with the Republican nomination decided and the two Democrats still battling it out. I pay no attention to them.
April 29, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, well said and I agree. There's so much HRC would need to do and say to secure my vote if by chance she gets the nomination. Both she and Bill need to be vetted first of all and I truly need to have a better understanding of her foreign policy positions because those "obliterate" and "massive retaliation" assertions are reprehensible to me.
April 29, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think another problem is that all the historic turnout is created by a good percentage of young and first time voters. If anyone really thinks they will stick around to vote for the person they did not support in the primary they could just take a look at history to see how turnout amognst young voters has been.
Also by just giving up on red states and not realizing that with this youth turn out that maybe we could win them we automatically default to a 50 + 1 strategy, which hasn't been working for us for god knows how many years now because the Neo Cons cheat.
Really our best hope is that Ron Paul will run independent. In a general he would probably scrape off a good 15-20% of Mcains support and then we win either way. We should all go out and write Ron Paul encouraging him to run.
April 29, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
While there is risk in choosing either Clinton or Obama that the choice will alienate part of the losing faction's voters, I believe the risk is higher for overturning the candidate who has won the most delegates.
Clinton supporters can argue all they want for the merits of their candidate, but there is no doubt in my mind that overturning the voters decision will be perceived by many as backroom political rigging. This will have a larger negative impact in the general election than choosing Obama, who will, after all voting is done, have more pledged delegates.
April 29, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
April 29, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent response. I have read blogs where hrc supporters suggest that the AA vote is not important so long as hrc carries the rural whites, hispanics and asians. I am not arrogant enough to believe that the majority of hrc supporters will fall in line behind obama b/c lets be honest, they do not like obama for reasons beyond his control. on the other hand, do not assume that every single obama supporter, black and white will fall in line behind hrc. there is a reason why hrc has the lowest favorable rating.
we are as devoted to obama as hrc supporters are devoted to her. more so, obama supporters are hooked on the movement itself and that is even greater than just supporting obama the man. we put our money where it counts. we want him to succeed. rev wright is not running for office and obama needs to stay on message. he needs to ignore hrc's request for more debates and get out there and talk to the people about their real concerns.
obama has one good thing on his side and that is the educated mass. no slight towards hrc's rural base, but they are an iffy bunch who tends to cling to republicans anyway. it is great that both dems are struggling to woo them, but if they are the determining factor for either candidate then the dems are in real trouble. the independents will be even more important come november for they are the real tie breakers! they are not married to any particular particular--they care more about the issues and positive changes. i think hrc's train will be missing more than a few wheels if she really thinks that rural america will come out for her in droves against the republican machine. she needs to keep the rural whites at bay but work equally hard to woo AA (solid dem base year after year), educated whites (who tend to go for obama) and independents (who also tend to go for obama).
50 states all matter and she only cares about the big ones.
go obama and do continue to treat each state with respect. at the end, each delegate gets you closer to the prize. a rookie who is beating the established experienced one at the mathematical game.
April 29, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. The last Dem to win the white vote was LBJ. Good luck repeating that, she of the 50%+ negatives.
April 29, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewhere recently that LBJ realized his civil rights legislation would cause the Democratic Party to lose Southern white votes, at least in the near-term. He said it had to be done, nonetheless, and the effects would be worth Democrats losing the next few elections, if that was what it took to correct the country's course on race issues. I wonder what he would say about the current situation?
April 29, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton can't win the nomination without what would most charitably called back-room dealing by unelected party insiders (the more direct of us would just call it stealing the nomination). And that would only come into play AFTER a massive character assassination of a fellow Democrat, who just happens to be part of the party's most reliable demographic group. The Clinton people can be pissed at the RESULT when Obama gets the nomination, but not the PROCESS - unless they are completely delusional.
It blows my mind that ANYBODY could think that could be effectuated without major damage to the Democratic coalition. Even more so to think that a VP offer would calm the waters. Yeah, we spread lies and quasi-racist innuendo about you, then nullified your clear pledged delegate lead by twisting arms, but why don't you take this nice shiny office and be a good, quiet "boy" for the next 8 years. We're still cool, right?
Completely f'ing absurd.
April 29, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Delusional or not, I think many Clinton backers will be alienated by the result if Obama gets the nomination. To say that they are wrong to feel this way is fatuous. By this point, fairness and process issues are at most only half of the story. To be very clear, I want Obama to win, but I cannot imagine that any of the reconciliation which needs to occur in the wake of his victory will be accomplished by lecturing her supporters on the details of such process issues. This argument bakes no bread.
April 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg - not saying we should lecture on that, just saying that there will be a deeper sense of grievance on the behalf of Obama supporters. To use a sports analogy, it would be like losing a heartbreaking game due to great play to your rival, versus losing the game on a clearly blown call (like the famous "5th down" Mizzouri/Colorado game 20 years ago). The first is painful, but you can come to terms with it. The second keeps you writhing in agony ad infinitum.
Obama can reconcile with the Clinton supporters because: (i) he will have clearly won fair and square, by any reasonable definition; and (ii) he hasn't gone nuclear on a fellow Democrat.
I do agree that Obama and Obama supporters must bend over backwards to be generous from the very second Clinton bows out of the race. And despite vociferously expressing our arguments here and at the water cooler, we must be careful not to cross the line (whether Team Hillary does or not). Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and all that.
April 29, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not convinced that Sen Clinton's supporters will see it that way, and this is one of those cases where perception is reality. I think that any strategy for our guy's long term success that depends on a complete healing of the rift is probably neither more nor less realistic than the scenarios for a Clinton victory which depend on her mobilizing the black vote in numbers consistent with the last few election cycles.
April 29, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought that hard-core Clintonites would reconcile more quickly to Obama than hard core Obamaites would reconcile to Clinton (see the 50+ recs the thread about Clinton being behind Wright's narcissistic behavior).
The problem is that he's easier to paint into the Kennedy (Ted), McGovern, Dukakis ultra-liberal corner of the party. So, it's the softer supporters of Clinton that we'll lose, older and working class Dems who swung to Reagan and Nixon (against McGovern), but realize that trickle downism, jingoism and international, export-our-jobs corporatism hasn't worked for anyone but the corporate elite.
April 29, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think that Obama supporters have to open their eyes to the peril they have unleashed. Would it have been better to parade down the streets of DesMoines with Hillary on float to the tune of "happy days are here again"? We'll never know. I sadly suspect it might have been.
April 29, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, the Democratic party picks its nominee based on primary results, not familial succession. That seems to trouble and confuse Hillary supporters but it remains a fact.
April 29, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think that is really fair. Brother Crow is a reasonable fellow, not some troll merely trying to be provocative. His post deserves a better response than this.
April 29, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think Obama is a gamble too. I'm detecting some erosion of confidence.
April 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think that you could really detect an "erosion" of confidence on my part. I was never among those who said that either candidate will win in a cake-walk against McCain. I have always thought that he is a strong candidate and that, therefore, we are taking a chance with either of our candidates. I am simply pointing out that Clinton is no more a sure thing than is Obama. I do not see that this represents any sort of change in my views over time.
April 29, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this much-needed perspective. If Clinton manages to get the nomination, it will be because her negatives and electibility have not been weighed on the same scale as Obama's. When I've commented in earlier posts on the poor prospects for unity behind a Clinton ticket, I wasn't able to articulate why I felt it wouldn't happen - the comments here cumulatively capture what I was trying to say.
April 29, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain to me how speculations that Clinton can get more white votes are racist, but this speculation isn't.
April 29, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speculation that Hillary can get the votes of more white racists than Obama is not racist. It is, however, delusional. Anyone who votes against Obama because he's black is more likely than not to vote for McCain in the fall.
April 29, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got one thing to say to anyone supporting a Dem for POTUS: SCOTUS.
To all Obama and Clinton supporters. SCOTUS appointments must trump our preference of candidate...unless, of course, you want McCain to pick the next couple of Justices. Think about it. 30 years of conservative decisions.
No matter how difficult this primary has been (and continues to be) we must do all we can to unite once all primaries and caucuses are completed.
April 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. However, at some point the Democratic party has to understand that black voters are not theirs to do with as they choose. If I sit back and allow them to just give Hillary the nomination without protest, even though Obama won the most delegates, then I can no longer be a democrat. This popular vote argument is b.s. and I don't think she'll the popular vote anyway.
I see it as a total dismissal of me and my people (who I will inform at every chance I get), as well as the voting public in general. Talk about disenfranchisement! I think she is counting on this and I think the SD's are listening because they believe we will vote for the democrat whoever it is, otherwise, I don't it would have gone on this long and she would have been asked to quit.
As I stated earlier, I will vote for congress but not Hillary.
April 29, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putting Uncle Alan back in control of the economy? Bombing Iran? No movement on torture or civil liberties? Who cares! We have to put a D in the seat just so we can keep Stevens's SCOTUS seat in our hands...
... so the next guy can vote 6-3 in favor of Republican voter ID laws too.
April 29, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!!!!!
April 29, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how Senator Clinton can win my support. It was difficult to put my support behind Senator Obama, not my first choice. Not even my second choice.
I believe the DLC has only hurt the party. I have zero support for the DLC, and the Clintons are the DLC.
She's a warmonger, as far as her two votes, and comments on Iran. She voted against the ban of use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. She's republican lite, and I'm not going there, ever again.
Vote for her because of SCOTUS? Nope. Fear? Nope. I have more faith in Dean widening the margins in Congress. That's where I'll put my hopes and votes.
I find it all disgusting, and not a game. My vote would be approval, and Senator Clinton does not pass the approval test. This primary has become a beautiful model of all that is wrong with the media and politics in our country.
April 29, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The suggestion discussed upthread that Clinton could achieve unity by selecting a black for her VP slot won't fly. Obama is not an interchangeable commodity - his race is not the reason he is the best choice for President. If Clinton actually manages to derail Obama's candidacy, the Party's only hope is for a ticket that does not have Clinton on it in any position.
April 29, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment