Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Vast Majority Of Working Class Americans Will Not Vote For Senator Obama In The Fall
As self appointed TPM communications director for the Clinton campaign, I'd like to correct and expand on her comments to USA Today.
What Senator Clinton intended to say was simply that she believes Senator Obama has not connected with working class Americans in the way he needs to connect with them to win the general election in the Fall.
The vast majority of working class Americans will not vote for Senator Obama in the general election.
Usually, candidates don't win elections if they can't connect with a majority of those working class voters, but Senator Obama may be an exception to that rule.
It would be helpful if Senator Obama were to explain how he intends to win the general election without the support of working class voters.
Comments (370)
According to a Gallup poll done today, Obama's support among white voters is similar to that of John Kerry's in 2004. He can only improve on that. And he does better against McCain with college grads and post graduates than Kerry did with Bush. So, I wouldn't worry too much Billy, Obama will seal the deal with blue collar voters. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx
May 9, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the information. We don't think of working class voters as white or black. We think working class voters of all backgrounds face similar problems making a better life for their families. Those problems can be almost insurmountable when artificial barriers are placed in the way. As Senator Obama pointed out so eloquently in Philadelphia, we still have work to do to make sure every child in America can realize the unlimited potential they are born with. That's why early childhood education and universal health insurance are so important to Senator Clinton. And why it's so important that we continue and extend the work of Dr. King, LBJ, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton that has been interrupted by the long nightmare of the Bush administration. And that's why we must do everything we can to make sure that nightmare is not prolonged by John McCain.
May 10, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, but you may not think of working class voters as black and white but your candidate sure does. I do believe that the majority of Americans have picked up on that. Anyway, Senator Obama is very much aware of the problems that working Americans face because that's where he's come from. As he's said, working people led him to politics not the other way around. So, as soon as Hillary gracefully exits, he'll be able to start making his case with these voters and build up on the 40% of support that he already has.
May 10, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as Hillary exits? So you acknowledge Obama can't steal her 60% while she's still in the race? Interesting.
You say he hasn't started making his case with these voters. What's he waiting for? I thought he has been making his case to these voters all along. They just don't want to go with his case vs. Hillary's.
The question is, why? This is what Dems need to find the answer to. Because if these voters aren't going to Obama in droves now, what makes any party leader think these voters are going to come over to Obama after Hillary drops out?
May 10, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you didn't look at the gallup poll above. The forty percent is in comparison with John McCain. It's Obama's number with non-college graduates 43% to John McCain's 47%. With college grads Obama has more support than McCain 50%to 44% and does even better with post college grads 57%to 38%. Obama's numbers with college and post college graduates are better than John Kerry's were in 2004 when he finished the race. Obama will do even better with the non college graduates because they'll realize that Democrats are better for their pocketbooks and their livelihoods than John McCain and the Republicans. Clinton does better with these voters because she's a freaking Clinton. I highly doubt she'd be doing so well with these voters if her husband hadn't been president in the nineties. Say what you will, but it's not her "solutions" that's attracting many of these voters.
May 10, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did look at it. You confused me by rounding up to favor Obama. You can't round up! If you could round up, John Kerry would be president.
It's actually 37%, not 40%. Obama's support among whites is 37% to McCain's 53%. That's much worse than Kerry v. Bush. So Obama has an uphill climb. And in WV and KY, his numbers are going to go the opposite direction fast. Have you seen those polls?
Bad news! This number will not improve in the real-life GE contest.
Furthermore, if there is an international incident between now and November (and chances are always good for that), expect Obama's support with these voters to crash.
As Paul Begala says, who cares only about eggheads? Here are the worrisome stats:
College: Obama 50%, Kerry 49%
Postgraduate: Obama 57%, Kerry 55%
These numbers do not offset the non-college voters!
Sheer off-the-cliff fanatsy. According to Obama himelf, these voters repeatedly vote against their economic interests. We can count on the Republicans to understand this. Apparently, the Dems are forgetful.
Clinton's star power with these voters is relevant, especially against McCain. Against McCain, it would surge.
Clinton is much more populist than Obama on economic issues, and light-years more populist than McCain.
You're starting to freak me out about Obama's chances in Nov. I wish you had never shown me that chart comparing him with Kerry.
I say Obama can't beat McCain in Nov. Obama = Kerry.
May 10, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of your uniformed rhetoric is based in real numbers nor does it take into account the huge turnout advantage that democrats have over republicans this year. You comment doesn't even do a plausible job of offering a common sense opinion based on sound analysis.
In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't 2004. Barack isn't Kerry, either. He will get a huge chunk of disaffected republican votes that Hillary doesn't get. He will spank McCain with independents who want to look to the future not a third Baby Bush term.
Using your logic, Hillary Clinton will get spanked by McCain as well, because she will swell the republican ranks and has so much dirt to uncover, so why even bother at all if both candidates are so fatally flawed?
You are the trolliest of the trolls.
May 10, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used the Gallup numbers that Spade linked to, moron.
No need to read the rest of your comment.
May 10, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're comparing 2004 to 2008 with no basis for comparison. Everything about those two races is different in every way imaginable. Come back when you develop better analytical skills and find a touch of common sense.
May 10, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you talking to me? You argue by bullying. That debate strategy pegs you as a Republican troll who has infiltrated this site.
May 10, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blow - that is the most ridiculous line of argument that has been posted here in a long time. Youre the troll, and that has been apparent for a long time.
May 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
urban, you damaged your credibility by complimenting liam below. If you want to refute me, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. That's what this post is for: to prove Billy Glad wrong. So far no one has.
Go ahead. We'll wait.
May 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe urban is feeding my personal troll. I'm trying to train him to eat only from my hand, urban.
May 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blow and Billy Sad -
It is obvious that you both have too much time on your hands. Just by looking at the time stamps on your posts, you must sit in front of your computers all day looking to be disagreeable. And you cant "run people" out of here. This isnt your website. Get a grip.
May 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey. If you and Jason can't discuss this issue reasonably and without insulting people, you're going to have to leave. There are plenty of threads you can join to vent and rant.
May 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The next time you insult readytoblowagasket, I'm going to run your asses off.
May 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean calling a flawed comparison flawed is an attack now?
May 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until Jason interrupted, I was responding to Spade's assertions upthread. The comparison between Obama and Kerry doesn't come from me, it comes from the exact same Gallup data that Spade originally linked to, if that's the "flawed comparison" you're referring to. All of the numbers I quoted come from Gallup. The title of the Gallup article is Obama’s Support Similar to Kerry’s in 2004, so if you have issues with the comparison, I suggest you write to Gallup. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear from you.
May 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling my friends trolls.
May 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it's not kewl to say lol, but lol! anyway.
May 10, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
For several reasons, Bill Clinton doesn't belong in the list you just laid out. Granted, he did more to protect civil rights than Bush has done, but he's not activist or anything. He's a politician who conceded points to Republicans too, too many times.
May 10, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
BG: We have been hearing this message for months now, how she and John McCain are the only qualified candidates and all that.
Yes, she did flip-flop on that when it appeared that touting the Republican candidate over the fellow party opponent might provide some blowback, but not until a couple of months of poisoning the well had occurred.
And, yes, it appears that 60% of her supporters heard that message loud and clear. After all, now that 60% have declared that the person who is not a Muslim -- as far as Ms. Clinton knows -- wins the candidacy they will go over and vote for that other qualified candidate. Is that doing "everything we can" to prevent McCain from making a Bush III term? Is that reflective of ideas her leadership instills?
Yup. Divide and conquer appears to be her mode of operation. The biggest difficulty is the division part is working ("working class" vs. "educated" -- yes, I know: I'm not using the correct code word language; that should be elite, "I have better support among the Hispanics," and now "I have better support among struggling, undereducated whites," ad infinitum, ad nauseum...). However, the "conquer" part may well be that other qualified candidate (McCain), who will be there just long enough to install two more Roberts/Alito candidates in the Supreme Court.
Buh-bye to a woman's right to control her own body and destiny. A big "welcome!" to making the Patriot Act a permanent part of the legal landscape. A big "howdy do!" to keeping the Department of Justice as the Department of Neocon Justice it is now.
How is it that the most politically experienced candidate could so miserably miscalculate how to run ground campaigns as to not know how to handle caucus states? Those aren't new; they've been around for all the 30+ years of "experience" she claims, correct?
And how can she convince those not already committed to her candidacy (you know...and however "slim"...the majority?) that we want to place the national budget into her hands? Whatever mojo (or dot-com bubbles) that Bill Clinton had going in the 90s is certainly not anywhere to be found as represented in her handling of her campaign budget. It's a miserable mess.
And she started this whole thing, sometime about a year ago, with everybody all a-buzz about how huge was her campaign "war chest."
I see nothing there that would recommend her to me to balance my checkbook.
BTW: If you start suspecting I must have a fat, college-educated checkbook, I offer a few demographics.
And I support Barak Obama.
I used to support Hillary Clinton, but her naked lust for power drove me away.
Neither of their health-care plans will lead to universal coverage though, aside from the disputable mandates, they are very, very similar. Sorry, but not a selling point one way or the other for me.
However, since there is more sick here than just the economy, I was very heartened to hear his explicit promise that one of the very first things he would do entering the Oval Office is to review and reverse the 700+ Bush signing statements, and restore the imperial presidency to one of accountability. And, since I have three relatives currently in Iraq and Afghanistan (the one there was stop-lossed just as he was preparing to retire...), things like getting rid of corporate infiltration into our government and military are fairly high up on my "elite" list.
Seriously, the only thing that Hillary has convinced me of since her campaign opened the "kitchen sink" back around Texas is her absolute addiction to the power of the POTUS office. I don't believe for a single heartbeat that she would do anything to give away one small piece of the power-wall Bush/Cheney has built around the executive branch.
She stared us in the face and lied about dodging bullets. She tried to pull the wool over the eyes of those in most desperate need with that ridiculous "Tax Holiday" that would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs -- all but for the fact it would never get through Congress -- and she knew it. It appears that's another lie.
She and the former president were supposedly successful attorneys. Why do they not understand that instruction typically given to jurors when a witness lies? You know, that moment when the judge says, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, remember that if it is shown a witness has told a single lie during testimony, you must view with suspicion or even disregard their entire testimony."
All her plans, all her promises are suspect, and no statement she has since made can ever allow me to trust her again. If nothing else, her new skin-color or class-distinction arguments are driving out the very last hope for trusting or respecting her again.
The super delegates need to do the responsible thing: They need to run an intervention on her before her addiction causes any more damage to her "family."
May 10, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously Senator Obama's message resonates with you. If he's our nominee, we hope he will be able to reach out to the vast majority of working class Americans the way he has reached out to you.
May 10, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand the fear that Obama will not appeal to the working class demographic. However, just because they prefer Hillary now, does not mean that the will defect to McCain or sit on their hands come November.
I really dislike how this dynamic is playing out. I support Obama for a few reasons. Firstly, he an activist running and actvist campaign that is funded primarily by small donors... I didn't say EXCLUSIVELY, but primarily.
Secondly, I support Obama because he has the most sober and thoughtful foreign policy. When it comes to McCain or Clinton, I feel like a chess piece. With Obama, I feel like a Marine.
Third, I support Obama because he believes in resotring federal oversight and regulation to the laissez faire market that has engineered a war built on housing speculation.
Do I support him personally? To a degree. I think he is a dynamic speaker, and has kept a level head through the most grueling campaign since 1968. But largely my support exists because his campaign is activist, and this level of civic participation will heal this nation. The only war America will right itself is if its citizens GET TO WORK.
The main reason I disliked Hillary Clinton's campaign from the start was because it was an agenda built on keynote promises. Unviersal this, full coverage that, a chicken in every pot and a dollar under every pillow. This has made her the so-called "issues" candidate, when in fact she is actually the promises candidate. The commercial that shows her presenting Christmas gifts to the American people was just shameless.
Right now, Hillary has the majority of the Democratic working class vote. Will they vote for Obama? Many will. That is the nature of political science. They will hold their nose and vote for their candidate, especially in blue collar Democratic families that have been union for generations. The alternative is unthinkable.
The single biggest criticism of Obama is his inexperience. He has the time as the nominee to dispel that criticism or be swallowed by it. That is up to him. So far, his campaign is a stupendous fundraising and message-building machine that will be the blueprint for future candidates. He took what Dean started and is running to the end zone with it.
The second biggest criticism is his association with fringe black and New Left elements that scare the elderly who lived through Black Power and the Zippies. The problem is, as long as his message remains moderate, the accusations will wear out. The only one that might stick is his judgment for remaining a part of the Trinity Church in spite of Reverend Wright... the problem being that Wright had a sterling international reputation before this flare up. His judgment, if compared to the general consensus until March, was impeccable in that regard.
Finally, there is his opponent, whose only chance to win is to pick a vibrant VP who will take over in a year or two... look at the GOP field and tell me who this Magic Reactionary could be? Mitt? Huckster? Kindasleazy Rice?
All metrics point to a landlside Obama victory...
May 10, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking Rice. To vet her for 2012.
May 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting.
May 11, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Hillary Clinton gets out the race as she should have done about 2 months ago, those working, hard working Americans, White Americans will settle in and his base will grow. We cannot compare how he will do with them like her delusions on being president is still making them think she has a chance. Yes, her ONLY chance is if some racist kills Senator Obama, that's it.
May 10, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, perhaps "we" don't when referring to the whole group of working class voters, but Obama split working class voters with Clinton in Indiana. Only if you break the group down by race did Obama do worse among *white* working class voters than Clinton. And whatever problems Obama has among white working class voters pale in comparison to the inability of Clinton to reach black voters, working class and otherwise.
Hillary said "white" for a reason, because it's only then that she does better than Obama.
Based on the primaries, there's no reason to think that black voters, who were essential in Bill Clinton's victory, would turn out for Hillary in nearly the numbers that they will turn out for Obama.
May 10, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she said "white" because that is who she does better with. That was the point she was making. Clinton was discussing Obama’s failure to connect with poor working class voters. His 95% lock on the black vote, including black working class, led her to clarify the working class he has problems with is white.
She was thinking about the recent and soon-to-come primaries where Obama’s problem with white working class voters has become apparent. His camp has known about this problem since early 2007 and has tried to overcome it to no avail. It will be a problem in the general election. And if anyone doubts this problem, watch what happens in WV with Clinton already considered out of the running.
Anyway, making this into another racial slur by Clinton after she has been declared to be out of the race reveals a cynicism from the Obama side and an insecurity about the race. Where is the unity or empathy or higher transcendent principles? And calling someone racist who isn’t is a slur itself. Falsely accusing someone of racism or race-baiting or anti-Semitism is just as bad as making racist comments. It is accusing someone of being a negative stereotype they are not.
The Accusists have been out in full force during this campaign and Clinton doesn’t seem to have a PC shield (occasionally, a gender defense)against the Accusers; it's been Clinton Rules. Obama's a smart and skilled candidate, but I think the Obama supporters have come to believe he can win without a plurality of white working class and Hispanics or that he can turn them around at some point in the GE, but that is hard to imagine.
May 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, maybe I didn't make myself clear: my point was directed to Billy Glad, not Hillary. Hillary's phrasing of "hardworking Americans, white Americans" is ugly, but Billy's removal of Hillary's race reference, to suggest that Obama's problem is with working class voters regardless of race, is revisionist and misleading. It is, one might say, a whitewash.
May 10, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't trying to be. I was just trying to phrase the issue in a way that would let us discuss it without the emotion and baggage that surrounds race. Senator Clinton was only attempting to acknowledge that some working class voters are voting for Senator Obama, while a far greater number are voting for her. We don't think it's useful to stir up discord or play gotcha politics. We're just trying to be conciliatory, not revisionist.
May 10, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, I can understand your point, and appreciate the attempt to frame the issue without the baggage of racial polarization, but leaving out race undermines the "vast majority" argument for working class voters not supporting Obama. The exit polls out of Indiana and North Carolina indicate that Obama and Clinton either split the working class vote or, depending on where you draw the line, Clinton won by at most 55/45. Of course, the exit pollsters don't ask about "class", they ask education and income. But the point remains.
May 10, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I wasn’t clear either, gtk. I don’t think anyone was referring to strictly to Indiana or NC. Again, Clinton was talking about working class voters that Obama cannot connect with as working class- whites, in this case. Obama’s problem with working class voters, excepting most black voters- many voting identity, is one of character and perception not race. I think Obama enjoyed benefits of being the black candidate at crucial times in the primary but will want to lose the race identification in the GE, which won’t be easy.
I wasn’t referring to you when I spoke of those accusing Clinton of race politics. Clinton was playing politics with her statement because she is in a campaign. Some complain that she is upsetting Obama’s chances, but that is her job as long as she is still in the running. Where I live, Obama has a problem with Hispanic working class voters (and many whites and Asians). Some have said that Hispanics won't vote for a black candidate but this is untrue.
Obama does have a problem of perceived elitism. If you buy into his message, it is hard to see that. Of course, he isn't elitist and unconcerned with the problems of working people, but HRC isn't racist and would not dismiss the black community to gain some edge in votes either.
May 11, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don, I think we are in agreement. She said "white" for a reason, perhaps several, as you describe. I don't think her language was helpful, to say the least, and think the patterns she's chosen she only steepen the uphill battle she would have with black voters were she to win the nomination.
I just don't think Billy's "correction" actually provides one.
May 11, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the core premise that the white working class voters won't vote democrat because a black man is the nominee?
Or that Obama does not tell the correct "democrat story" and usually democrat leaning voters will not vote democratic? particularly if they are white and working class?
Or does it really boil down to Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, and the Weather Underground?
May 11, 2008 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the so-called Reagan Democrats won't vote for him, what difference does it make why they won't vote for him?
No executive experience of any kind. Unknown until 2003 keynote. Less than a full term in the Senate and running for office most of that time. Never held a single hearing on Afghanistan. Got caught on tape putting down working class value voters. And on and on.
Bright spots? Mainly that Axelrod, one of the guys who picked him to run, ran a brilliant campaign that gamed the Democratic nomination process. Unfortunately, the Axelrod strategy revealed deep divisions in the Democratic Party and has to be restructured for a winner take all electoral vote campaign.
What is scary is not that working class people won't vote for him. It's that people like you are seriously intending to turn the executive branch of the United States government over to this bunch.
I know you're not one of them, but there are many people here who don't care what happens next. They just want this nomination, no matter what.
May 11, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, your candidate does.
May 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what your candidate said, she referenced "working, hard working Americans, White Americans"; her words not ours.
Please we may be hard working neither are all of us dumb.
May 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant we may "not" be hard working but neither are all of us dumb.
May 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's support among white voters is similar to that of John Kerry's in 2004
How'd that turn out back then?
May 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's support among white voters is not similar to Kerry's; in fact it's lower than Kerry's!
I wonder how that's going to turn out?
May 10, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that he can only build up on those numbers as soon as Hillary gets out.
May 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers you used match up Obama's white support with McCain's, not with Hillary's.
Please explain to me—using facts, of course—how Obama is going to gain white support from McCain's group after Hillary drops out?
May 10, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is 10% still unaccounted for. I'm assuming that's the undecided number and that's who he'll have to work to convince that he's better for their livelihoods. I refuse to cynically believe that Reagan democrats are secret racists that won't vote for a black man when he has better ideas and a better agenda for all Americans than the Republican.
May 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why Senator Obama's "clinging" comments upset us.
Senator Clinton has been guilty of that kind of thinking, too. I've done it myself. And we're sorry.
It has been an article of faith with Progressives that working class voters often vote their values instead of their economic best interests. And we've been dismissive of them for it.
We believe we owe those voters an apology. It's up to us to find a way to improve the economic condition of the working class period. That's why Senator Clinton favors truly universal health insurance. That's why she favors immediate relief for homeowners. That's why she favors taking the burden of supporting the transportation infrastructure off the backs of workers and putting it on the oil companies by taxing their obscene profits.
May 10, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
Your (our) use of the Royal "we"- sounds a bit elitist :)
May 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that's right, it's the communications director who speaks like that. Well, he's working class, right? Sorry, carry on.
May 10, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant Senator Clinton and I. Naturally, we agree on this point. I do like to use the royal we, though. Especially is sentences like "We do not particularly value what you have to say, since ..... etc." Real sophisto, ain't it?
May 10, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too sophisto for me, litle brother. Have I been dismissed?
May 11, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
In regards to the clinging comments and Clinton's determination, in fact many people's, to find them elitist.
I have no doubt that Obama chose poor words, but I know without a doubt they were in no way elitist. The evidence of this can be found in his appearance at the Call to Renewal in 2006. It shows his mindset and proves that his word "clinging" is not as it appears:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/Taken in this context, Republicans are all too willing to cloud the real issues facing this nation and drum up outrage like "The Democrats want to take away your guns" or "The Godless Democrats want to kill babies."
Republicans, or as Hillary would like to call them "white working class Americans", all too often take the bait.
This is what Obama meant by cling to guns and religion. Very badly worded I know. But hardly elitist. In fact, it shows how Hillary has now turned into a Neo-con. (As if we needed more evidence)
May 10, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would also help if Hillary didn't keep mentioning this over and over again making it a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Saying it over and over again has an effect of making it fact when it simply might not have been the case.
I mean isn't this what Hillary wanted by trying to frame Obama as the "Black Candidate" and trying to stick him with the elitist tag? How exactly does a black elitist connect with white working class? Could it be that Hillary appealed to this group more but they'd still back Obama? Is it a case of Hillary supporters saying the will not vote for Obama because they think that will help out her case with the Super Delegates? How has this group voted in the past?
I guess I just don't understand the idea that a Democrat would vote for a Republican Candidate - I mean if you'd be willing to vote Hillary, why not Barack given their policy differences are miniscule compared to Obama and McCain.
May 9, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't think of Senator Obama as the "Black Candidate" or of Senator Clinton as the "white" candidate. We believe the entire Democratic Party will line up behind Senator Obama if he is the candidate and Senator Clinton urges all of her supporters to support Senator Obama in the Fall. However, in the past we've lost elections when we've been unable to hold on to working class Democrats and win the votes of working class Independents.
May 9, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something very wrong with this hypothesis.
This is the democratic primary. The only reason why they are split is because there is not much difference between them policy wise. The divide could very well be that working class Americans feel "Well, even if Hillary doesnt know what she's doing, she's got Bill. He's been president before."
I mean think about it! With all of the fear mongering, lies, distortion and corruption no one is buying anything the GOP has to sell, especially coming from old man McCain.
Why is Hillary fighting so hard? Because this is it! This nomination process is the presidential election.
The GOP has no money. Donors have dried up. The evangelicals feel used. Bush's approval rating is somewhere around 80%. There is nothing the American public is buying from the GOP.
Why the heck do people think Obama does not connect with working class people? His whole campaign is about the little guy. The whole thing. The only reason it has been so close is "working class" Americans were buying the Clinton (yes both of them) brand name.
Once that brand is removed from the shelf, they will NEVER EVER choose the republican.
May 10, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he just doesn't seem to be doing well, if the exit polls and other polls are any guide. We're as puzzled by it as anyone, but we think Senator Obama is in a better position to explain why he's not connecting with those voters than we are.
May 10, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that is just it Billy. Two democrats splitting the democratic vote.
One set of voters think "He's too green. Better to go with the one who brings her hubby with her that has been president before. Remember the 90's? Wasn't that a great time?"
Or the set that says:
This nation has become too corrupt. Full of cronyism, loyalists and corporate money. Unfortunately Bill and Hillary both fall into that category. Obama is ethical, honest, has integrity. He believes, as Supreme Court Justice Brandeis once said, "The best disinfectant for corruption is sunshine."
We have our nominee. I think he is a good one. He has won over many, many cynics on his way there. I believe, once this primary race is done, he will win over even the most cynical of the remaining democratic voters.
Really..the alternative is McCain. Obama embodies democratic values. Why would democrats not vote for him in huge numbers? You actually think the "working class" democratic voter is going to vote for 100 years in Iraq and God Save the Rich McCain?
May 10, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy;
Tomorrow I will show you analyses that show that it is not true that Obama is not garnering working class voters. He has been slowly gaining a higher percentage and when you factor in the Limbaugh Republican votes Obama does not have as far to go as HRC's speeches imply. It is too late right now-but if you want I will find the links for you tomorrow.
I am very confident that when the dust settles everyone who is a progressive or moderate democrat will line up behind Obama. They have yet to experience how compelling and inspiring his speeches are.
We will be all together in November!
May 10, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
ooops disapproval rating
May 10, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of the electoral arguements from the Clinton camp are being made with respect to the old electoral map: Florida, Ohio, PA, MO, New Hampshire...
This is the map the Democrats keep losing. (yes old Bill Clinton would have lost it too if it weren't for Ross Perot)
Obama draws a new electoral map, and while he will probably have more trouble with lower income, less educated whites in the midwest, he's also going to greatly expand the states that are competitive. With Obama we're going to see VA, NC, NM, NV, CO.
Expanding the electoral map plays right into the hands of a well funded campaign with a strong volunteer base.
May 10, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sheer lipservice. Your candidate is about a week from running off the cliff totally and declaring herself the "white people's candidate."
And, she's playing the "good cop" to Bill Clinton's "bad cop!" (See remarks after SC primary.)
I can't wait for Sen. Clinton rip the mask off and reveal... Tonya Harding going for Obama's kneecaps while proclaiming that he just can't be elected because of the racist American electorate.
May 10, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what many of you don't understand is that part of the high turn out in the Democratic primary is due to a combination of liberal progressive Democrats (like me) who simply remember all that Hillary has done for people in this country all of her working life, and see her as the best qualified candidate; plus conservative Democrats who see Hillary as more toward the center politically than very very liberal Obama; plus many many Republicans who are so disgusted with Bush, and who want out of this war so badly that they are willing to vote for a Democrat who they see as the more conservative of the two Democrats.
What this means is that if Obama gets the nomination, people like me will support him. But conservative Democrats, and Republicans voting Democratic in this election will simply vote for McCain. They are not worried about a woman's right to choose, gay marriage rights, or any other of our liberal agenda.
But...if Clinton is the nominee, she will keep all of these voters, plus liberal Democrats like most of us because we DO care very much about the Supreme Court and abortion rights, etc. And, we can count on Clinton upholding all of these issues that are important to us because, believe it or not, she is a liberal Democrat...just not as liberal as Obama.
Obama is carrying 16 mil of liberal democrats. Clinton is carrying 16 mil of a combination of liberals, conservative Dems, and Repubs who will vote for her to get us out of this war. This is why the race is still on. The popular vote is still basically half and half, which means that if the superdelegates go with either one, they will be going against the will of 1/2 of Democratic voters, either way.
Thus, the remaining superdelegates, over 150 of them who have not declared, are just as likely to go with Clinton to be safe than to go with Obama and hope there are no skeletons left to jump out and ruin the general election for the Dems. He is getting many of the publicly elected supers, but the party leaders who have no concern over constituents are more likely to vote for the person most likely to keep the conservative voters, and that is Clinton.
May 10, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is completely untrue. No republican is going to vote for Hillary. There is a conservative radio talk show host that has repeated what many conservatives tell me. Check this out, a rare look into the regular conservative (not neocon) mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uFauzE_cqw
May 10, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to another Gallup poll done on May 2, it turns out that more Republicans genuinely support Obama over Clinton. "Though neither Democrat is viewed very positively by Republicans, they seem to like Obama more than Clinton. Obama's favorable rating among Republicans is 34%, compared to just 24% for Clinton." http://www.gallup.com/poll/106993/Republicans-Divided-Preferences-Democratic-Nominee.aspx
As to conservative Democrats, I think Obama will improve the relationship with them as soon as Hillary gets out of the race and stops insulting them by telling them they're too racist to vote for the black man.
May 10, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget, if Hillary manages to "win" the primaries like Bush "won" the previous elections (2000 Rep primary), the black vote may not be there for her.
To have the superdelegates give her the nomination after the way she's campaign, and I'm including her arguments to the supers about electability, there will be many, many angry African Americans. If she gets the nomination, there will be a strong concerted effort to get African Americans to vote for a 3rd party - cause we still don't like McCain. Especially since the Green Party and even Nader is more in line with our politics than the major two. Though, I'll be voting Dem down ticket.
For the sake of the country and our future, I would hope that Clinton and her coalition of noncollege educated whites, blue collar whites, older women whites, and white Catholics come out strong for her. I won't be upset with Latin activist and progressives if they put her over the top. Who knows how many wars we may end up in, or how many trade deals her husband successfullly lobbies her into (trying to make the point that Clinton is hawkish and economically conservative)? At least we'll have healthcare and better child care (trying to commend the policies I do like).
But, in the interest of racial justice and equality, she just may have to go it with the 8% of black voters she gets now.
May 10, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
While Senator Clinton has never viewed this race in terms of black and white, the anger of African Americans is understandable and justified. And black Americans are uniquely positioned to move America forward this century. The black experience has given African Americans insight into the reality of American culture and politics. Although Senator Clinton can never share those experiences, she acknowledges that African Americans have earned their wisdom at a high price.
It is no accident that Senator Obama, along with Jesse Jackson, was one of the first Americans to denounce Bush's misadventures in the Middle East.
Black Americans bore a tragic and disproportionate burden during the Vietnam and the Cold War in the Reagan era.
Senator Clinton has always been proud that Bill Clinton denounced the racist policies of the US government like the Tuskegee experiment, and personally apologized as President to African Americans on behalf of the United States for Tuskegee. But righteous anger that those things ever took place is totally justified.
We can only hope that Senator Clinton will find a way to reach out to African American voters if she is the nominee.
May 10, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, if she becomes the nominee, it means that rules were broken or she basically had super delegates overrule the will of the voters. Many voters will see the injustice of that and I suspect that many African Americans will choose to sit out this election and the Dems can't afford that. So, all this talk about her becoming the nominee is as Bill so delicately put it, "a fairytale."
May 10, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't share your view of African American voters, especially black women. We don't think they will vote for McCain if Obama is unable to convince the super delegates, many of whom are black themselves, that he is the right candidate to go up against McCain and company this year.
Facts are facts. Water is wet. Rocks are hard. The vast majority of working class voters do not support Senator Obama, probably because they don't trust him yet.
May 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, if you're going to perpetuate the myth that Obama cannot win over working class voters despite the information I presented below, which clearly shows that they are virtually tied among voters making less than $50,000/year; then you are going to have to clarify your statement to say either what you really mean, or where the actual discrepancy lies: she's winning a larger portion of white working class voters.
May 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who the hell are you talking about? You keep saying "we" as if you are more than one person. Have you finally snapped?
None of your comments here are based in facts or even just common sense. Barack has won huge numbers of working WHITE middle class in Alaska and Idaho and Iowa and Colorado and Virginia and Maryland and Georgia and Texas.
He is winning the democratic primary by winning a small percentage of the vote. They are splitting the vote, essentially. He gets white, Latino, Asian, black and all the other division you would like to cite. His coalition is not only broad but it is deep as well.
Have you not been paying attention? Don't you see the vast variety of Barack's support, even just here on this site? Just when "we" thought you had decided to join us in a reality-based context, you decide to go the other direction.
Good luck out there!
May 10, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a good laugh over that one. Thanks!
May 10, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is why nobody respects you: you make strawmen to dodge the arguments you are unable to counter.
Obama also won the whitest state in the country: Vermont (surprising, I know).
May 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A statement made by someone who claims 1) 65-year-olds are do-nothings, 2) all "menial jobs" require "trade school," and 3) only rich people's votes should count. You sound like someone I should take seriously.
It's Spade's argument to make, not mine.
Not surprisingly, you give me a migraine, Einstein.
May 10, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's pretending he works for the Clinton campaign. Sort of like how Hillary pretends to have experience.
May 10, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...probably because they don't trust him yet."
That may or may not be a key insight, but it is only speculation. If it is true, then the 'yet' is the operative word.
But, I think this is all premature. The 'working class' voters - I'm not even sure who that is given you take the 'white' out of it that Clinton seems to include, but I don't see why AA's can't be included - have had to choose between Clinton and Obama, not Obama and McCain. It could just as easily be that while Clinton was thier first choice, Obama is an easy second ahead of McCain.
This is not to discount your point that Dems need to appeal to the 'working class'. They do, however; Obama may not need to win as much of it as previous Dems because of his strengths in the AA vote, bringing in new voters, his appeal to independents (which competes against McCain's appeal to independents), and the young voters which if they continue to show up in the numbers they have - and I know that's traditionally a big 'if' - could put Obama over the top without a majority of the demographic you're referring to.
May 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink