For reinforcement of your argument, check out the Jed Report - `McCain meddlers and exit polls` where his analysis shows Obama's been steadily picking up support among whites.

I see the trends, but I will quote General Petraeus: "This trend is fragile and reversible." The trends point to a generalized American angst about the Bush years and the desire to rally... but that does not mean that voters will rally behind Obama as the alternative. I believe that will happen, but I am more and more stuck on the concept of a united front... a united Democratic front before the convention so that this spirited contest can bear progressive fruit.

That is why some olive branch must be handed to Hillary... not just a debt buy-out, but something more substantial... the Vice Presidency.

But, articleman, are you sure? I mean, Hillary's just so...CONCERNED....

as an obama supporter, my cash donations are now officially on hold. it is not fair that obama supporters put their money where their mouth is, but HRC's supporters CLING to their cash neglecting to fund her failing bid for the presidency. they are as selfish as she is. they are screaming shrilly for her to stay in, but they are not digging deeply into their pockets to keep her DREAM viable. they intend to use my hard-earned cash to pay off the misses debts and in return her CHEAP supporters will vote against Obama anyway. Each extra day on the campaign trail is increasing the deficit.

My donations for Obama are now on hold. HRC supporters are as mean and as vindictive as they come--remember a women's scorn is the worst and they are largely women. I truly think they mean what they say and I have no intention of rewarding HRC's bad behavior by bailing her out with my hard-eaned cash, especially b/c I am proud of my education and I am middle class, non-white!

All of a sudden, I am getting cynical again.

thank you so much for putting my selfish fear to rest. ok, i will donate again.....:)

I certainly hope Obama takes the fast track to party consolidation by putting Hillary on the ticket. The Gallup poll which says that one-third of voters are less likely to vote for Obama because of Jeremiah Wright is more than alarming.

Hyperventilating? Moi? Have I been carrying forth Hillary's talking points? Boringly? Uncritically? Say it ain't so.

You make a persuasive and well-reasoned case based on the numbers - though it goes without saying numbers at this stage aren't a great predictor. I believe the phenomenon Hillary was asked about in the USA Today interview is a real one that needs to be taken seriously and that his lackluster showings in Pennsylvania, Ohio and yes Michigan and Florida, whether they count or not, are significant. The past few elections have been tremendously close, and shifts of even tiny numbers of voters among any group could make a huge difference. In these elections past, Hillary's strength among the white, blue collar voters would be seen as a breakthrough and harbinger of a November blowout. That said, though, I agree that the fundamentals are there for an Obama victory and that his support among the base should continue to grow as the emotional primary fades in the rearview mirror.

As for hyperventilating, isn't that what this site is all about? Without these issues to pick over ad infinitum, would we even be here? And for those of us who have supported Hillary (particularly those who continue to do so), her strength among this constituency is the best argument to make. Your reasonable response is disconcerting. Can people just get back to calling her racist?

USA Today/Gallup poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107215/Bush-May-Harmful-McCain-Wright-Obama.aspx

May 12, 2008

Bush May Be as Harmful to McCain as Wright Is to Obama

One-third of likely voters say they are less likely to vote for McCain because of Bush

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- George W. Bush may do as much damage to John McCain's chances of being elected as Jeremiah Wright does to Barack Obama's, according to results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

The May 1-3 poll finds 38% of likely voters saying McCain's association with Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain, while 33% say Obama's association with Wright diminishes their likelihood of voting for Obama. The Bush-McCain relationship does have more upside than the Obama-Wright association, though, as 7% say they are more likely to vote for McCain because of his association with Bush, while only 1% say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of his association with Wright.

Importantly, a majority of voters in both questions say the personal association will not affect their vote either way.

The nature of the relationships is clearly different -- Wright was Obama's former pastor, while Bush and McCain were rivals for the 2000 presidential nomination but Bush has endorsed McCain in the 2008 election. But both present problems for the candidates -- Wright for his incendiary sermons and controversial remarks that have raised questions about Obama's beliefs and his personal judgment, and Bush for his low approval ratings that hurt the GOP in the 2006 elections and may well do so again in 2008.

The poll also asked how Bill Clinton might affect voters' propensity to vote for Hillary Clinton. While the 33% who say it makes them less likely to cast a ballot for Hillary for president rivals the percentages found for the McCain-Bush and Obama-Wright associations, the 18% who say it makes them more likely to vote for Hillary means Bill also helps to attract support for his wife. Just under half say the Clintons' association would not affect their vote.

The percentages of voters saying they are less likely to vote for a candidate because of one of their personal associations probably overstates the true negative impact for the candidates, mainly because voters who might not seriously consider voting for a candidate in the first place (e.g., Democrats for McCain or Republicans for Obama) often respond that they are "less likely" to vote for that candidate. So it is instructive to see how the results compare among voters who are generally inclined to support a candidate -- the rank-and-file of the candidate's party.

From this perspective, the data suggest that Wright may be more detrimental to Obama's candidacy than Bush is to McCain's. Nearly one-fifth of Democrats, 19%, say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of his ties to Wright (only 2% say the Wright-Obama connection increases their odds of voting for Obama). Meanwhile, just 10% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for McCain because of his association with Bush; about the same percentage (12%) say this relationship makes them more likely to vote for McCain.

It is important to note that the question asks about likelihood of voting for a candidate, so individual respondents may say that Obama's association with Wright makes them less likely to vote for Obama, but they still might vote for Obama. So in addition to measuring vote intention, the question probably also picks up some measure of enthusiasm for the candidates. As such, the actual percentages may best be thought of as a rough gauge of the risks that each of the controversial personalities poses to the respective candidate.

Implications

In general, the results are mixed as to whether Wright or Bush is a greater threat to his associate's presidential ambitions. Among the entire electorate, the two appear to be about equally damaging. In particular, Bush could hinder McCain's ability to attract independent and Democratic voters.

However, the poll suggests Obama may have a harder time holding his natural base of support given his association with Wright, and, as such, that may make Wright a greater threat to Obama than Bush is to McCain.

From a West Virginia paper linked at HUffPo

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

"I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist," said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

Mr Simpson's remarks help explain why Mr Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by 40 percentage points ahead of Tuesday's primary election in the heavily white and rural state, according to recent opinion polls.

Articleman! Fabulous!

The error that the hyperventilators made is in presenting the "white working class" voter to be an all or nothing proposition, as you point out. This proposition could only be possible if those voters are an undifferentiated blob with a herd mind, and your analysis shows that to not be true.

I too like Webb. He would certainly draw from the disenchanted pool of Repukes. Also, he has sharp rhetorical skills. He would be a very good running mate for Obama. I would accept Strickland or Rendell.

I'm hoping for Sebelius. Let me tell you why: She is a native of Ohio. She has worked in Kansas by wooing the Repukes with notable success. She has executive experience. She would appeal to many women (like my mom) who have a hankering to vote for a woman on the ticket. Her drawbacks, as I see it, are her lack of sharp, rhetorical skills, and she is nearly unknown to many people. Both of these drawbacks can be fixed but the party may not have time.

I suspect though, that Obama will pick Webb.

Funny...all the arguements Clinton supporters make against Obama and yet he has managed to beat the mighty Clinton machine. In spite of bittergate, in spite of Rev. Wright, in spite of lapel pins and a funny sounding name, Obama has probably won the nomination. Clinton had all the advantages: name recognition, a substantial war chest, 100+ super delegates, but Obama's campaign out-strategized, out-organized and out-inspired her's. That alone is worth a second look.

Secondly, Obama showed great restraint and class by not bringing up Monica and pay to stay, and Whitewater and a host of other things. He also showed immense restraint by not pounding the Bosnia lie over and over and over. Further he went out of his way NOT to make gender into a wedge to divide the party. Can the Clinton campaign say the same about race?

I'd like comments on Clark, Gephardt and Bob Graham of FL as possible veeps.

Clark puts no state in play, speaks out of turn sometimes, not fresh. Webb gives you military cred with more vigor, better geography.

Gephardt was ineffective in 1988, don't know if he can deliver Missouri.

Graham I thought had health issues. Could put Florida within reach.

None as strong as Webb, Strickland, Judas, er, Richardson.

Not Gephardt, will not add to the ticket. Clark isn't a good campaigner. Graham ios appealing to me but I don't think he would be widely appealing. I like the idea of a Republican. If someone like Chuck Hagel could be tapped, it would neutralize McCain. War hero checkmates Wat hero. Plus he's from Nebraska, Roman Catholic, and a real good head on foreign policy.

Talking about some weeks ago. Then I began my guerrilla campaign against cliques, which, I am proud to say, has had some effect here and there. But let it go. I read your posts. Commenting on them would only keep the others from the discussions

I wrote a very fast and sloppy overview of the working class issue for Fidel in this post:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/how-obama-can-bridge-the-racia.php

I think the discussions at this point about the intricacies of the politics are getting dull. It's a wait and see deal now. Also, the stuff here is not more interesting than reading the pros.

Posters here are completely obsessed with the TV details of this thing. They have no understanding of history and the nuances of cultural context. Billy does, but he's on the other side and I don't care for that debate. It's over. He's the candidate. If not, well...
that would be a time to act up.

I don't care for people who stereotype "whites" as "hard working" and "non-whites" as somehow ... well ... "something other" than hard-working, intelligent, or accomplished in life.

My own proudest moment as a "white" father came when my youngest son (who inherited his Taiwanese mother's brains) nailed me good and proper when I gave him a load of shit about his freshman grades in high school. His first semester, he got straight A's. But in his second semester he "fell down" and got all A's except for one "B." (Something about earning the first of his four varsity letters in soccer probably had something to do with this). When I dumped all over him and demanded to know why he had disappointed me, his mother, and all of his ancestors on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, he looked me straight in the eye and said:

"Because I'm only half Chinese, dad."

Ouch. I had that one coming to me. And I never afterward had a doubt in my mind about that young man's future success in life. It takes a little sophistication, as well as true self-confidence, to speak truth to power, and yet do so with a degree of disarming wit.

"White" people, even such somewhat-educated and relatively tolerant cosmopolitan types as myself, have little reason to feel superior to anyone of another racial background or culture -- as our current national calamity of a political and economic situation ought to prove conclusively. What have "white" people like Deputy Dubya Bush and Senator You-Know-Her done for America lately, if ever? I'd say not much worth mentioning in polite company. Surely we can find many more accomplished white and non-white Americans to rescue our country from the "pure white" aristocratic trash that has affirmatively-actioned itself upwards to unrivaled levels of over-compensated incompetence.

A little "color" and education never hurt any country.