Avoiding The Issue: Obama, Clinton And The Voting Demographics
Big Tent Democrat printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST

By Big Tent Democrat

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

Matt Stoller writes about a news story that argues Obama is gaining among women. Matt likes that line and allows the important underlying story to be overshadowed. Matt writes:

More significantly, her lead among women has slipped to just 10 points in state.

But what does that mean? It means that, as in MD, VA, and DC, CALIFORNIA and almost EVERY STATE, Obama is winning African American women 4-1. This is not the issue for Obama in terms of a General election. Among women, Obama needs to win white women in a general election.

More . . .

Let's consider Maryland, which the cited article cites as proof of the big swing of women towards Obama. In fact, Obama LOST white women to Clinton by 56-38, an 18 point spread. In a throwaway line, the article cited by Stoller states:

According to a CBS News analysis of exit polls on Tuesday's primary battles in Maryland and Virginia, 55 percent of all female voters in Maryland and 60 percent of all female voters in Virginia voted for Obama, though Clinton did maintain her edge among white women.

(Emphasis supplied.) That is some understatement. He has lost white women, Latinos, and working class white men in almost every primary. Take California for instance.

In California, Clinton won white women by 20 points, just 2 points higher than her spread in Maryland. she lost African American women by 75-17, similar to the result in Maryland. She won Latinos by a wider margin in California than in Maryland, but she still won Latinos in Maryland by 11 points.

Even consider white men. In California, Obama WON white men by a whopping 20 points over Clinton. That gap NARROWED in Maryland to a 3 point win for Obama. One could even argue that Obama LOST ground among white men since California.

But the REAL story is this, the percentage of the vote the candidates get is almost exclusively a function of the demographics of the state. Consider Wisconsin. Obama is winning African Americans, men and women. Running slightly ahead with white men and losing Latinos and white women.

Consider Ohio. The same breakdown.

And Pennsylvania. Again the same.

For all the talk of momentum, trends and other empty buzzwords, the most significant aspect of this race is the seemingly unswerving voting patterns of the different demographics.

After Wisconsin, the big states favor Hillary Clinton in the nomination process. Will this be enough to capture the nomination? Who knows.

But I think it is fair to start considering what these trends portend for a general election. And I do think it is time for the media and the blogs to stop ignoring this elephant in the room. I know what my solution is - an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket. I wonder how those so dedicated to demonizing Hillary Clinton will deal with that.



To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

Avoiding The Issue: Obama, Clinton And The Voting Demographics | 174 comments (174 topical, 0 hidden)
Super analysis. (5.00 / 5)


by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:49:28 PM EST

Thanks (5.00 / 5)
For pointing out the obvious. My first reaction to posts like Stoller's (and others like it in the media) was: "Eh, no, look at the data more carefully". Fortunately, at least someone is.


by TheRealFrank on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM EST

Flip side (5.00 / 2)
Obama right now is winning the majority of the African-American votes over Hillary because he is in this race.  However, if it looks like Hillary "stole" the election from Obama (she has LESS pledged delegates after this primary and yet she "wins" the nomination because of the superdelegates), I am absolutely sure that African-Americans will be PISSED off and will STAY HOME in the general election.  

If this happens than Hillary will NOT win the general election over McCain because the African-American vote is crucial for the Dem nominee in many of these swing states ie Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio, etc.

The bottom line is this:  Whom ever wins the Dem primary has to look like he or she won it BEFORE the superdelegates swing towards that candidate.  If either candidate looks like he or she won just because of the superdelegates when the other person had more pledged delegates, this party is going to be DIVIDED.

If this happens it will NOT matter who wins the Dem primary for we as a party will be FRACTURED and thus will LOSE the general election.

by maritza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:06:16 PM EST

Yes indeed (none / 0)
Did you read the end of my piece?

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
Parent
Just read it and I agree (5.00 / 1)
I agree that this election will NOT be a 60% blow out at all. Instead this will be a hard fought election with a 51% to 49% split.

I agree that Obama needs HRC and HRC needs Obama if one of these 2 doesn't come out as a clear favorite by the end of the primary season.  

My prediction:  after this primary is over in June that Obama will have higher pledged delegate counts but not by much over Hillary but Hillary will have won the "big states" and will have the popular votes.  At this time, the bigwigs in the party (Gore, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, etc) will sit Hillary and Obama down and make them come to a compromise.  With that Clinton will be the President and Obama will be the Vice President.

I think this will happen when all is said and done.

by maritza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
Parent

I am inclined to agree. (none / 0)


by oldpro on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:50:16 PM EST
Parent

This "sit down" solution, to me, is (none / 0)
worse than the super  ds casting there votes on the record at the convention.  

by oculus on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:06:53 PM EST
Parent



Sorry but that's the price to play in the bigs. (none / 0)


by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:11:22 PM EST
Parent

Well, right (none / 0)
This notion that demographic splits within a Democratic primary are a useful proxy for estimating Democratic votes in the general election is pretty silly.

But taking it seriously for a moment, 90% of African-Americans, most college-educated white Democrats, and Democratic leaning independents will not vote for HRC, hence McCain wins.

by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
Parent

This is silly (5.00 / 1)
The MARGINS matter.

It seems clear to me that Obama will CLEARLY run better with African-Americans and the wine track white male than Clinton.

It seems CLEAR to me that Clinton will run better with white women, Latinos and working class males.

the trick it to try and capture the appeal of BOTH.

Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama does that.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:14:58 PM EST
Parent

unless (5.00 / 2)
that combo has voters running for McCain.

by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:16:31 PM EST
Parent
The combo? (none / 0)
Not following you.

If there are anti-Obama voters, they will run to McCain no matter what. Clinton can help keep some who are undecided.

And vice versa.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM EST
Parent



No, the whole methodology (5.00 / 2)
of extrapolating primary results onto the general election is preposterous. Conversion rates from the losing to the winning side in the primary are and have always been extraordinarily high --- and indeed, over the last 30 years, it is the white and Latino working class that has been vulnerable to being picked off by Republicans in the GE, not educated liberals or African-Americans.  

by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:22:08 PM EST
Parent
Have it your way then (none / 0)
I disagree. Trnasference rates may be high, but not 1:1.

I f we lose even 5% of any of the demos we could lose the election.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
Parent

Okay, yes (none / 0)
if Obama loses 5% of Clinton's base in the GE, and Clinton loses 5% of Obama's base in the GE, and that's enough to McCain over the top, they're both in awful shape.

But (a) I doubt will be even that much, (b) I think Obama's crossover appeal will more than make up for it and (c) if your solution to this dilemma is an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket, we're in a lot of trouble, because that won't happen.

For the record, barring a massive (and unlikely) upturn in the economy, McCain's complete indifference to ordinary people's economic insecurity is going to sink him whoever is the Dem nominee. I think Obama will win by a larger margin.

by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST
Parent

And conversely (none / 0)
If Sen Clinton wins the nomination I am sure her draw of woman in the general election will more than make up for the 5% loss.

What most people are talking about is that Sen Clinton will probably draw a lot of moderate republican woman. Anecdotally I know of a number of traditionally republican woman (specially a few in "red states" like Indiana) who have decided they will vote for Hillary over McCain if she is the nominee, but will vote for McCain if Obama wins.

This may be a bit of a sleeper GE story if Sen Clinton wins.

by Marvin42 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:06:41 PM EST
Parent





Obama/ Hillary more likely (none / 0)
This combination takes out the Bill as VP negative. They can also do the Bush/Cheney job divisions. Hillary can do policy, get things done and Obama . But he would have to give Hillary true partnership role. If he is smart he would do that. He can get the best policy wonk and he can work on keeping the Hope train.

by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM EST
Parent
Not likely, IMO. (none / 0)
Why would he choose anyone who will 'steal the spotlight?'

And if the whole reason for drafting Obama was to get rid of the Clintons once and for all...why would the Obama management team allow Hillary on the ticket?  After all...that would let Bill in the 'big picture' again and if anything happened to Obama...Hillary would be the president.

Just don't see the big boys in the Dem establishment letting that happen...nope...never...they'd rather lose to McCain is my bet.

by oldpro on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:05:32 PM EST
Parent




Re: Well, right (none / 0)
This notion that demographic splits within a Democratic primary are a useful proxy for estimating Democratic votes in the general election is pretty silly.

Yes, it's extremely silly.  A lot of the analysis coming from BTD is fairly thoughtful and considered (if biased as hell from time to time), but this demographic extrapolation of primary to general is not substantiated or particularly useful.  It's possible to get a glimpse at nation-wide electability through primary results -- indeed that's partly why we have to have a Democratic primary.  But to say that a 5 to 15 point advantage among certain blocks of primary voters is an indicator that a candidate would have a serious deficiency or advantage against a Republican is both absurd, and essentially unverifiable.  That's never stopped a determined political commentator though.  To be fair, I much prefer BTD's post to some other media calculations I have heard in recent weeks.

by shoeshinesal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:25:50 PM EST
Parent

If my theesis is unverifiable (none / 0)
certainly the INVERSE of my theory would be too no?

To wit, these are OPINIONS.

Your argument seems to be that the results do not matter at all.

To me that is utterly silly and absurd.

But that is my OPINION and not verifiable until a General Election.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM EST
Parent

Re: Unverifiable thesis? (5.00 / 1)
To say "these are all just opinions" is taking a step back from the matter.  The inverse of your theory, (which would be what -- that one shouldn't speculate?) is merely healthy skepticism about auguring the wishes of voters in a completely different election with little analog to the current Democratic Party nomination.  I'm not saying that the results don't matter.  Rather I'm saying that I can't possibly see how the results matter the way you say they do with the weight that you imply that they do.

By the way, I agree that we are discussing "merely" opinion, but I'm sort of inviting you to defend yours rather than dismissing criticism as willfully ignorant.  I know that's the point of your whole piece -- "avoiding the issue" -- but I guess I'm not seeing the argument for an issue that is being avoided.

by shoeshinesal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST
Parent

Thanks for your opinion (none / 0)
as absurd as it is.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
Parent

Re: absurd (none / 0)
Look, I don't mean it as any sort of ad hominem attack.  Take it that way if you will.  You don't have to defend your position to me, I suppose, but I thought you might since you seem to take a lot of time responding to reader comments.  I got the impression from your post that you had thought this through and it was more than "opinion" but rather "argument."  Naturally, you have no obligation to respond to me with further points, but I sort of wish you had, rather than dismissing mine out of hand.  I'll make my disagreement less apparent next time I suppose.

At the end of this discussion I'm still left with an unresolved question: hypothetically speaking, do you really believe that in a state like New York, or any other state where Clinton won significantly, that Obama would have trouble rallying her voters in such a state?  Many people will vote for the Democrat, particularly one with similar policy preferences, rather than let McCain sweep.  I don't see that dynamic accounted for here.  I'm not sure how it could be, unless we're only speculating here.

by shoeshinesal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:05:55 PM EST
Parent






Not sure that is true (none / 0)
I think your point is well taken, but I think most democrats will accept a reasoned method of choosing the candidate. I know partisans of either side will find faults in whatever outcome, but unless the SD or the party as a whole just does something incredible irrational the majority of either candidates supporters will line up behind the nominee.

Or for once the democratic party can decide they actually want to win and force a joint ticket by any means necessary and avoid this entire issue! :)

by Marvin42 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
Parent



Any trend prediction for the General Election (5.00 / 2)
will have to be based on assumptions, of course. My own view is that we have to make assumptions on the following:

1. What issue(s) will dominate in November:

  • foregin policy (Iraq), or
  • economy ("food on the table")

2. Which candidate will be able to maintain their image least defined by opponents:
  • character and judement
  • ability to deliver

So, I think the candidate who can focus on the "right" issue in point (1) in November with the least amount of damage done to them in point (2) will emerge as the likely winner, because he/she will have the broadest base of support.

I think Clinton wins on the "key issue" and "ability to deliver", so her base would remain intact and if she's the nominee she will add AA in the general. McCain wins on character (war hero), so he would get independents and upper-middle class white men. Obama's strength now is the excitement he generates with some voters. But he's betting on "war" as the issue and that he can survive republican attempts to define him. I honestly don't think he can win, especially if Iraq improves while economy tanks further.

by Polkan on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST

Ignoring demographics (5.00 / 1)
is foolish.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:18:28 PM EST
Parent


Hispanics and Older Voters (5.00 / 1)
One of the biggest problems facing Obama is that two of his weaker demos in the primaries could very well be two of his weaker demos in match ups with McCain - hispanics and older voters.  Whereas liberal men and African Americans, his core primary constituencies, are much less likely to vote for McCain in November even if he's running against Hillary, IMO.  She may not get a huge boost in turnout among AAs that Obama would get, but she'll get Kerry levels.

Obama would have no problem with hispanic voters, IMO, if any of the Republicans other than McCain were the nominee.   The rest tanked themselves with their anti-immigrant rhetoric.  McCain, OTOH, was one of the primary backers of the most recent immigration reform bill and he did so, even though he knew it would hurt him - and did hurt him - politically with his base.  Now, sure, he backed off of it in the end and has sucked up to the base during the primary, but I think some hispanic voters will still give him credit for it.  Maybe not a majority, but possibly enough to hurt Obama in some states, like Florida, Nevada and New Mexico (the latter two of which border McCain's home state).

Older voters have consistently reported "expierence" as their reason for supporting Clinton over Obama.  Now, many of them will probably stick with Obama, but I think there will be some who would choose McCain simply because they are comfortable with him as Commander-in-Chief.  One of the big breaks that Obama has gotten in the Democratic primary is that the standards normally applied to candidates' "readiness" to be CinC have been essentially ignored, part of that is that it's the democratic primary and part of it, I think, is that his opponent is a woman.  Even then, Obama tends to lose people to Clinton if they decided on election day, this is common and usually happens for the less known candidate.

Maybe it's me, but I can see some older voters going into the booth and deciding that, while they may like Obama, they just feel safer with the guy they know, McCain, even if they don't like his policies as much.  

And it's that thought that scares the hell out of me about November.  

by BDB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST

Harry Reid needs to bring up (none / 0)
comprehensive immigration reform again. Let McCain flip-flop on it.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:30:58 PM EST
Parent
Flip Side (none / 0)
The Dems could lose Hispanic voters with both candidates' insistence on paying a fine, back taxes learning or trying to learn English and going to the back of the line.

Obama's support for drivers' license and Hillary's support for family reunification notwithstanding, I think the Dems should wait until they get a bill that immigrants can support.  

Like TIRA (TalkLeft Immigration Reform Act of 2009) (/slight sarcasm, no politician will risk supporting my bill even though it's fair and just.)

by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:43:40 PM EST
Parent

Perception is reality (none / 0)
The "comrpmise" legislation is seen as being liberal and reasonable. It is popular with latinos.

Naturally, I won't pass this session.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
Parent




Experience (none / 0)
For those who valued experience (about 19%) in a couple of exit polls I saw, Obama loses big time. The ratio was about 83% Clinton and 3% Obama in one.


by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
Parent

Good point (none / 0)
and that is why I really feel that the Dem party big wigs in June after the primary season is ended will encourage a Clinton/Obama ticket for the Fall and we win this by a squeaker because Obama could either win big or lose big and the Dem party want to win and may not want to gamble.

I still think that for Hillary to win in the Fall she will have to have Obama on the ticket if by the end of the primary season that both Hillary and Obama are close in pledged delegate count and popular vote or one has the pledged delegates higher vote and the other has the popular vote.  If they are not, I predict that this party will be SPLIT for the general election.

by maritza on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:44:16 PM EST
Parent



Clinton/Obama Ticket (5.00 / 1)
I am absolutely becoming more and more convinced that is the only way to go. I think that assures a win against McCain. Without it, I certainly think we will lose the White House. I don't see Clinton in the #2 position, of course. I can't. Her age and experience puts her in the front seat. Obama can become president in 8 years, and the Dems hold onto the presidency for the next 16 years. If Obama is the nominee, we lose to McCain. Goodbye Supreme Court (what's left of it).

by xjt on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:09:23 PM EST

BTD (4.66 / 3)
Do you think "analyses" like this one by Stoller and others in the media are sincere but wrong or do you think they're purposely trying to skew the "findings" to promote the "Obamamentum" propaganda? Or, some of both?

by Firefly4625 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
Does it matter? (none / 0)


by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:05:29 PM EST
Parent
Does it matter (none / 0)
if it's intentional or does it matter what you think?

Yes, it matters whether it's intentional or not. Your opinion about it, not so much - but I would be interested to hear.

For myself, if it's intentional skewing of the numbers in order to influence voters, then I'm completely dismayed and more discouraged than ever about the state of our nation and the state of democracy.

We have so much media reform work to do. And I don't think Obama, since he's benefiting from the media bias, would be as disposed to reforming the media as Hillary would.

by Firefly4625 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM EST
Parent

I have decided to avoid (none / 0)
that type of speculation and take the argument on on the merits.

I leave the ad hominem attacks based on bias to other sites. you can see that type of attack directed at me at the Obama supporting sites.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM EST
Parent

Yes. That's wise of you. If we would all remember (none / 0)
we can't read mind and know for certain the intentions of others, the comments on these blogs would be more civil.

by derridog on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:03:06 PM EST
Parent





I doubt there will be a (4.66 / 3)
Hillary - Obama ticket or vice versa. I also don't think the superdelegates will be such a big factor. Obama and Hillary will be close in votes and delegates until the end. No one should mind them voting their conscience or by whatever yardstick they decide, since those are the rules, unless one is way ahead and the superdelegates go the other way en masse.

There is no mathematical formula for how they should vote. Change the rules for the next election if it seems unfair.

I think both Hillary and Obama will fight until there is a clear winner and once that is determined will insist on picking their own VP candidate.

by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM EST

and I don't mean (none / 0)
clear winner in the 2025 sense, I mean clear winner in the sense of being ahead of the other.

by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:18:10 PM EST
Parent


Only Electoral Votes Count (4.00 / 1)
This analysis suggests that when you look at electoral vote counting, you are troubled by where Obama gets enough states to beat McCain. Do you have a breakdown of how you think (on an electoral vote count) Obama will do against McCain and Clinton will do against McCain. And I can see how answering may cause you to suffer attacks from all sides. But it is a fascinating question to answer in February.

by downtownted on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:01:10 PM EST
I have pointed out before (5.00 / 4)
the significance of states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The unreal discussions surrounding Obama that dream of his winning Alabama, Kansas, Utah and the like ignore the REAL world.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:04:14 PM EST
Parent

Frankly, it's the double-edged sword (5.00 / 2)
of Dean's 50 state strategy talking. Some people actually think that it's viable right now in a Presidential election.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
Parent



Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama (4.00 / 1)
That's a pipe dream. They don't like each other, and more importantly, there are massive incentives for either of them to refuse the second spot.

Might as well wish Clinton would fire Mark Penn.

by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:03:00 PM EST

Don't agree. (none / 0)
Practical politics is the mantra of the Clintons.  She would accept him in the VP spot if she thought it would help her in the general election.

And she can better judge that a few months down the road...IF she is the nominee, of course.

by oldpro on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:45:40 PM EST
Parent



Disgruntled Women for Hillary! (4.00 / 1)
I just saw that. Hilarious. Yes, put Claire McCaskill on the ticket, that's it. Or Mary Landrieu. What's the difference? All them broads are the same. Just give the little wimmin somethin' to make them feel better and stop naggin' us.

Jeepers. Get a clue.

by xjt on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:17:10 PM EST

Claire McCaskill As VP On An Obama Ticket (none / 0)
and it will have one guaranteed result. I will stay home in November. I'm trying to convince myself that I could hold my nose and vote for Obama but no way I could hold it long enough to vote for that ticket.The same goes for Mary Landrieu

by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:40:50 PM EST
Parent
McCaskill probably not because (none / 0)
the Repub gov will replace her with a Repub.  

Again, a key consideration too will be a Dem senator losing her seat to a Repub.  

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST
Parent




That Is What We Are Trying To Tell You (4.00 / 1)
Independents have another home and Clinton's independent voters which consists of women, Latinos, older folks. workings class white men are not guaranteed to vote for Obama any more than Obama's independent voters are guaranteed to vote for Hillary.

You just want to ignore that point.

by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:29:10 PM EST


So what? (3.00 / 1)
Yes, Obama is losing white women to Hillary (although she's losing lots of demographics to him - and he is making inroads into her key constituencies).  But how on earth does this portend badly for the general election?  Do you think these white women voting for Hillary are going to vote for John McCain instead? They will almost all - and quite enthusiastically - vote for Obama in the general, just as African Americans would (despite everything) who are now voting for Obama will vote overwhelmingly for Clinton - even without Obama on the bottom of the ticket.

Look, Democrats and most independents voting in Democratic primaries are going to vote Democratic in 2008. Moreover, this year gives any Democrat enormous structural advantages over any Republican candidate, no matter what the match-up. Just wait until we are officially in a recession, unemployment ticks up to 6%, and gas prices stay high through the year. Given Bush's approval, voter identification, right track/wrong track patters, and the enthusiasm gap, any Democrat can and will win. While most polling suggests that Obama is the stronger general election candidate (and he's the one Republicans are most afraid of), Hillary can also win quite handily.

But to speculate electability from who's winning white woman seems hardly useful at this point - and highly dubious. Again, those white women voting for Hillary - God bless them - will come out and vote for Obama in November if he's the nominee. Hillary, moreover, will urge them to.

by Bear2000 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:58:01 PM EST

Do I think ALl of them will? (5.00 / 1)
Of course not. Will some of them NOT vote or vote for McCain? Certainly.

That is my point.

this dream of a 40 state 60% blowout that comes from some Obama supporters is a fairy tale.

Time to come back to Planet Earth.

Obama NEEDS Clinton. And Clinton NEEDS Obama.

Time to understand that.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:01:57 PM EST
Parent

White women (5.00 / 2)
are not monolithic. Remember the Soccer mom, she had no problem voting for Bush. White women are not a mono bloc.

by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
Parent
Neither Are Latinos For That Matter (4.50 / 2)
Bush got a sizable percentage of that demographic in 04.

by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
Parent
Lets not forget... (none / 0)
...that McCain, because of his support for comprehensive immigration reform while it was under consideration in the senate, is probably the only Republican candidate who could compete for the Latino vote. He might not win it but he could keep the margin close.

by Alvord on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:25:28 PM EST
Parent
Agree n/t (none / 0)


by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:27:32 PM EST
Parent




60% blowout? (2.00 / 2)
Did I predict a 60%, 40-state blowout in my post?

Okay, not every single white woman who voted for Clinton will vote for Obama.  But most of them will.  And Obama's strength in independents more than makes up for whatever white democratic voting women who can't bring themselves to vote for a black male.  Also, A-A turnout is going to be through the roof in November in Obama in the nominee. Their numbers will also make up for those - still very few - white women who can only vote for Hillary or no other Democrat.

I'm still amazed that you're not amazed at what Obama accomplished in Virginia and in other red states, even if they ultimately won't go to him in 08 (although he's got a much better chance at Virginia than Hillary).

And no, they don't need each other.  Hardly.  If anything, Hillary will need Obama.  But Obama does not need Hillary - outside of a strong endorsement and show of support through the campaign, which she will - if she wants to be known as a good Democrat - undoubtedly give.

by Bear2000 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
Parent

You are mistaken (5.00 / 1)
if you think all the white women voting for Hillary are Democrats...or all the white women who would vote for her but not Obama in a general election are Democrats.

Think pro-choice women who vote independent and/or Republican.  Think 'Reagan Democrats' who have had 28 more years of union-busting and can't afford to take chances with 'hopes and dreams' and want somebody to fix the goddamn economy...as Bill Clinton did.  Think white women with all the experience and credentials who, nevertheless, didn't get the promotion but 'trained the guy who did' and are damn mad about it...still.

You can hope for their vote...but you cannot count on it.  Hell...I'm beginning to wonder if you can count on mine...and I am a lifelong activist Democrat.  One who is goddamn pissed off at the sexist turn this campaign has taken.

by oldpro on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:02:50 PM EST
Parent

I totally agree. I dislike Obama so much at this (5.00 / 2)
point that it's going to be really hard to vote for him.
I certainly won't campaign for him or send him money.
I've voted in every election for Democrats since I could vote. I canvassed for John Kerry last time even though I was a Dean Democrat and hated what Kerry and the other Dem candidates did to Dean.  

But the misogyny that Obama and his supporters spout without thinking anything of it, along with his willingness to use accusations of racism against the Clintons to take the black vote away from her and demonize her with this demographic, along with Michelle Obama's statement that she doesn't know if she could even work to elect Clinton if Obama loses, tells me that this is all about him and not about our party or the problems that our country faces.

I have no respect for Obama and don't even know if I can hold my nose to vote for him.

BTW, I'm an older white woman and I KNOW that I'm not alone.

by derridog on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM EST
Parent


Dot Com (none / 0)

Think 'Reagan Democrats' who have had 28 more years of union-busting and can't afford to take chances with 'hopes and dreams' and want somebody to fix the goddamn economy...as Bill Clinton did.

You mean with a dot-com stockmarket bubble that endsin recession?

Signature Song
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST
Parent

Well, there's a nice Republican talking point. (5.00 / 2)
Clinton inherited a massive deficit from Reagan, just like the one we have now, although GHWBush to his credit did at least have the good sense to raise taxes to try to deal with it during his term. (For this, he got "fired" by his Republican base, which is how Clinton won).  During Reagan's term of office, countless thousands of people, including families, were living on the streets.   I bet you aren't even old enough to remember, as you are speaking in cliches not as somebody who actually lived through this time.

The Clinton years were extremely prosperous.  I agree that there was a bubble, but Greenspan bears the greatest responsibility for that and the Rethugs who were in power in Congress during the latter part of Clinton's term of office whose greatest goals in life are always the same:  tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.  Deregulation essentially means to take away all government oversight.  That's why we now enjoy getting poisoned by Chinese food products and why we are also enjoying the fruits of the collapse in the housing market --unless you want to blame Clinton for that too.   You sound like the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

by derridog on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
Parent




No you did not (none / 0)
Did I SAY you did?

The rest of your comment is execrable.

Highly offensive.

Please clean up your stuff from now on.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM EST
Parent

What is execrable? (4.00 / 1)
Please, point out what in my post deserved the label "execrable?" I was responding to your non-sequitur about Obama supporters and there dreams of a blowout.

Also, I don't think that claiming that Obama doesn't need Hillary as much as she needs him is "execrable."  

Nor do I think anything I said about demographics is "execrable".

I expect you'll remove me from your blog now, but you might want to look above to your last post in which the subject heading was "Sh*t in, Sh*t out" and then a quick retort about how someone else's numbers were "nonsense."

by Bear2000 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM EST
Parent

This is offensive (5.00 / 3)
"whatever white democratic voting women who can't bring themselves to vote for a black male. "

Amazing that I have to explain it to you and others.

What the EFF is wrong with you people?

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:46:17 PM EST
Parent

Low threshold for offense.... (5.00 / 1)
....there will be white women who can't bring themselves to vote for a black male, and likely black voters who'd rather stay home than go out and vote for a white woman.

Remove me from your blog as an official user - you're ridiculous.


by Bear2000 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:59:08 PM EST
Parent

I will not remove you (none / 0)
You can of course remove yourself.

It is clearly offensive and would be just as offensive if you has said A-As can not bring themselves to vote for a white woman.

Or that those voting against Hillary are sexist.

All of it is offensive.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
Parent

Not Offensive - My last post. (none / 0)
There are people who won't vote for Blacks or Whites because of the color of their skin. Their are Latinos and Blacks who also vote prejudices.  And some of Hillary's and some of Obama's voters fall into those groups. Sorry, but what planet do they live on.

Go back to predicting the general election from primary results and keep running your blog like a little dictator.

Bye


by Bear2000 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:14:44 PM EST
Parent

Now you are suspneded. (none / 0)
Even if you want to post again today, you can't.

If you choose to never post again, that will be YOUR decision.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:22:19 PM EST
Parent





Thank you. I was just getting ready to (5.00 / 1)
point that little ditty out. It insinuates that white women who are not voting for Obama are racist because they will not vote for a Black man if he is the last one standing. That is insulting to me. It can go both ways and we should not even go there. Thank you BTD.

by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:26:57 PM EST
Parent


Offensive? (none / 0)
What was offensive in that comment? Disagreeing with BTD is offensive?

by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM EST
Parent
I'm still trying to figure it out... (none / 0)
...what was offensive and "execrable" in my comment. It was engaging what he said, strongly, but with no disrespect.


by Bear2000 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:29:10 PM EST
Parent

The standard nonsense (none / 0)
It is amazing that he obvious offensive part escapes all of you.

Of course attacking and insulting me is the FIRST resort.

I will not stand for it.

You are suspended for the rest of the day. Do not comment further today. You can come back tomorrow.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:48:16 PM EST
Parent




I think it's because your comment was a (none / 0)
lengthy reiteration of Obama's offensive comment that while Hillary's voters would vote for him, his wouldn't vote for her.  

by rebecca on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
Parent
No, Rebecca, I did not say that... (none / 0)
This is what I said in my original post:

White women( Hillary's supporters) "will almost all - and quite enthusiastically - vote for Obama in the general, just as African Americans would (despite everything) who are now voting for Obama will vote overwhelmingly for Clinton - even without Obama on the bottom of the ticket."

I did not say that Obama's supporters would not vote for Hillary, but, if you can read the above, I said that they will, just as hers would vote for him.  

That said, I think it's much more likely that many of Obama's supporters, particularly independents, will be less likely to vote for Hillary than her core constituency will vote for him. I think that's just likely, however unfortunate.  They have another potential home - McCain.  Hillary's white women democrats will almost certainly vote for Obama, as will most African Americans (although, less face it, they will be more likely to stay home or just not come out in the same numbers as they would if Obama were the nominee than Hillary's core voters - white women).

I don't see how this is offensive.

So please, go back and read what I said.

by Bear2000 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
Parent

I Seen This Argument Before (5.00 / 1)
Hillary's supporters will vote for me but my voters won't vote for Hillary. Here you are just repeating it Obama's theme:

That said, I think it's much more likely that many of Obama's supporters, particularly independents, will be less likely to vote for Hillary than her core constituency will vote for him.

Where has it been proven that all white women, Latinos, older folks and working class white men who make up Hillary's supporters are die hard Democrats who will automatically vote for Obama. Does it even cross your mind that her core constituency might just be made up of some independent voters too and they just might not want to vote for Obama? Talk about tunnel vision.

by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
Parent


You said (5.00 / 1)
Okay, not every single white woman who voted for Clinton will vote for Obama.  But most of them will.  And Obama's strength in independents more than makes up for whatever white democratic voting women who can't bring themselves to vote for a black male.

You limit Hillary's demographics to white women and state that white women will for the most part vote for Obama.  You then compare that to the independents who will more than make up that small amount of women.

As BTD said you claim that the white women who won't vote for your candidate are doing so out of racist reasons.

You also limit Hillary's appeal to white women when she is bringing in people from other demographics that you completely ignore.  

Your amazement that others aren't amazed at Obama's ability to bring people to vote for him is much lessened in impact when you totally disregard the fact that Hillary has done much the same for her set of demographics which are not limited to white women.  

Both of our candidates are drawing people in from 2 different sets of demographics.  The problem is as BTD has stated neither one of our candidates can expect to hold those people they are drawing in without both of them on the ticket.  While the die hard Democrats will more than likely hold for whomever our party eventually chooses these new people that both candidates are drawing in may not.  We can't afford that in this election.  Therefore, following BTD's logic we need both on the ticket.  

by rebecca on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM EST
Parent







Being honest, tons of the women who are (5.00 / 3)
now voting for Clinton are the demographic that does not normally vote at all.  Do I think lots of those people will revert to their normal "not voting" pattern if she's not on the ticket.  Darn right they will!


by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
Parent
I thought the biggest (5.00 / 1)
demographic for Hillary was older women? And most older women that I know, and that includes me, always vote. I've voted in every election since I was old enough to vote and most of my friends have too. It is our daughters that have sat home and complained while doing nothing.

Younger women who have never been energized before may stay home if Hillary is not on the nominee and some younger and AA voters may stay home if Obama is not the nominee.

by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM EST
Parent

I'm generally talking about single women (5.00 / 2)
who I believe are voting in larger numbers than in previous elections.  The largest demographic of typical non-voters is single women.  I imagine they get lumped into the general category in exit polls.  

Class is one of the the largest determinates of voting behavior and lots of single women are lower middle class struggling to get by and maybe raise children.  Since they usually get precious little from politicians, and thus see politics as unimportant, they don't care to vote.

Not voting is the default behavior, so that's what they will revert to in this case.


by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:46:12 PM EST
Parent

Hah (none / 0)
I'm an older single middle class woman struggling to get by. Where do I fit? ;-)

by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
Parent



Well... (none / 0)
one possible test of this is that one would expect that the primary turnout among white women relative to that of white men should increase.  Let's take a look at exit polls from cnn.com:

NH
             2004   2008
white men     43%    41%  
white women   52%    54%

MD:
             2004   2008
white men     26%    20%  
white women   33%    33%

MO:
             2004   2008
white men     41%    35%  
white women   41%    41%

CA:
             2004   2008
white men     31%    25%  
white women   36%    28%
men           47%    46%
women         53%    54%

So it looks like there's a 1-2% uptick in voting among white women in NH and CA, and a much more substatial one in MD and MO.  

I'm feeling lazy, so let me just state the independent vote actually declined somewhat.

Despite the fact that I'm an Obama supporter, this does seem to bear out the theory that he has some work to do to pull in female voters for the general.

However, what's really stricking is the increase among non-white voters in CA -- from 33% to 48%.  The exit polls from 2004 don't list the breakdown for non-white, but it would be of interest to know whether the increase is from african-americans, latinos, or some other group.

by muffie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:53:40 PM EST
Parent



Don't take women for granted (5.00 / 4)
Do you think these white women voting for Hillary are going to vote for John McCain instead?

What the Obama campaign is telling me is: "You'll vote for me and like it, because you have no other choice. It doesn't matter how much I don't care about you, your demographic, your issues, or your personal support. It doesn't matter how little respect I have for your preferred candidate or women in general."

There was a day when I said I'd vote Democratic no matter what. And that may be what I end up doing in this election, because I am a pragmatist and I think (though I am beginning to wonder) that any Dem is better than McCain. I will not, however, vote for Obama with any enthusiasm. I will not donate, I will not volunteer, I will not put a sign in my yard.

And that is all thanks to Obama. Until I started paying attention to his tone towards women, I had nothing against him. Now I do. He's not working for my vote, he thinks it's something he's got in his back pocket because I am part of the largest and most loyal voting bloc in the Dem party.

But the Democratic party, if it doesn't start showing me and my candidate some well-earned respect, is going to lose my loyalty.

by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:42:54 PM EST
Parent

There is a word (none / 0)
There is a wordfor what you describe doing (below) its called
Enabling.
"What the Obama campaign is telling me is: "You'll vote for me and like it, because you have no other choice. It doesn't matter how much I don't care about you, your demographic, your issues, or your personal support. It doesn't matter how little respect I have for your preferred candidate or women in general."

There was a day when I said I'd vote Democratic no matter what. And that may be what I end up doing in this election, because I am a pragmatist . . ."


by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:13:48 PM EST
Parent

Enabling what? (none / 0)
I divorced an alcoholic. I know what enabling is.

You tell me what you mean.

by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
Parent




Maybe yes, maybe no (4.50 / 2)
I don't care which is the nominee and will vote for either

but there are some new Talk Left posters who seem to be claiming they will stay home or vote for McCain.

I don't understand self describe Democrats who would do that.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
Parent

That's certainly not TalkLeft's position (5.00 / 2)
Big Tent and I will vote for the Democratic nominee and have repeatedly urged our readers to do the same.

Can't control what readers will do, but that's just cutting off your nose to spite your face, as my grandmother would have said.

by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM EST
Parent

I know and I appreciate that (none / 0)

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:27:44 PM EST
Parent



Have You Been Over To DKos Lately? (5.00 / 1)
The threads are full of people who have said they will not vote for Clinton. That they will stay home or vote for McCain.

by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:11:15 PM EST
Parent
I don't read comments there much anymore (none / 0)
I don't think I haven't made a comment there in months.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:26:40 PM EST
Parent



At one time (5.00 / 2)
I was ready to NOT vote for Obama in GE.

The discussions and logical comments on LT changed my position.

This is the deal... you cannot insult, badger or coerce women into voting for Sen Obama.

Some blogs let this go on... BUT not around here. Those blogs that let this go on have run out Sen Clinton supporters. You see them coming around here looking for fights but this site does a good job in stopping it. (I wonder if this will increase with such biased blogs for Obama that they have no one to fight with).

The Obama camp must reach out to the white women to win the GE. So far, it is still lacking (support by his recent comment of Periodically).

by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:35:32 PM EST
Parent


I guess my position is different, then. (none / 0)

I am one of those Clintonites who would go McCainaanite.  It is only because my perception of what I've read tells me that Obama is more right-leaning than he would like everyone to believe.  It is in part due to that hideous "Embrace the Change!" gospel tour of his (part of his "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour through South Carolina), as I do have strong roots in the GLBT community.  While I know quite well that Obama made a statement that stated that he disagreed with McClurkin's hate/positions, he still didn't clue the rest of non-GLBT America into the fact that McClurkin wasn't the only anti-gay act in that tour, or give any reasoning other than speculation as to why the tour was still going on.  To me it was just a bad move 9but brilliant one for him, since it sure captured the vote for him in S.C.).

But what this translates to me is that he will do anything/say anything to get into office at the expense of others without paying the same price as others have for the same (Clinton, all Republicans).  So if I want to vote for someone like that, I will vote for someone who is at least honest about his disdain, someone who puts their money where their mouth is.

by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM EST
Parent

You think McCain would be better (5.00 / 2)
on gay rights than  Obama? I want some of what you're smoking.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:29:34 PM EST
Parent
Do you know (none / 0)
McCain stance on gay marriage? He broke rank in 2004..McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

I do not see either candidate doing much on gay issues. For Sen Obama the subject is too devisive and for Sen McCain it is too liberal.

by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:41:25 PM EST
Parent

When EDNDA gets to the President's desk (5.00 / 1)
which one do you think is more likely to sign it?

I don't have to think too hard about this one.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:49:04 PM EST
Parent

You just made (none / 0)
McCain's case for the Evangelical vote. Another reason we will lose the Bible Belt.

by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:09:04 PM EST
Parent
We can win without them (none / 0)
In face, we have to. You think those people are going to vote for Clinton?

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
Parent
We need ALL (none / 0)
the votes we can get.

 "Those people" have just as much voice in our election as every one.... and the Bible Belt has been a HUGE problem for the Dems... Ask Gore and Kerry.

by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM EST
Parent

What would you trade to get their votes? (none / 0)
I can think of no issue that they care about that I'm willing to cede ground on.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:56:21 PM EST
Parent






Nooo, that's not what I'm saying at all. (none / 0)
I'm saying that I believe in people saying what they really feel.  I know McCain sucks with gay rights (I WOULD have to be smoking something strong to believe that!), I know he sucks with the abortion issue, too.  But I want to know where you stand, and I know where McCain stands.  

Obama's votes on abortion have been woefully ambiguous because of political strategy.  Instead of putting his foot down and voting yes or no on abortion issues in IL, he pulled the "present" vote so that his political foes couldn't use his votes against him--that was admitted to by Planned Parenthood of Illinois.  I'm not down with that.

You hate me, you hate me, say it.  But don't shroud your convictions in ambiguity in order to preserve your appeal to whatever masses you face today.

by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:45:21 PM EST
Parent

Ugh (5.00 / 1)
Look, Obama will sign ENDA, and McCain won't. Obama will sign a repeal of DADT and DOMA. McCain won't.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM EST
Parent
Obama has done (5.00 / 1)
little to show that he'll necessarily sign ENDA or any of the others.

We don't know if he will.  Obama is all over the place on many issues, and certainly has been on GLBT issues.

by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST
Parent

I'm rarely in a position to defend Obama (none / 0)
But I think it's ridiculous to assert that he wouldn't sign those things.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:20:02 PM EST
Parent
We're both entitled (none / 0)
to our opinions.  I appreciate yours.  Myself, I think its ridiculous to assume anything about Obama.  Donny McClurkin?(sp)

For me, Obama is a blank slate.  He's done little to convince me that he'll take a stand on any issue for Democrats, but WILL ONLY take a stand for himself (e.g. in one state he has a different viewpoint about gun control than in another state).  If he feels it in his best interest to snub a group, then he will.  

He needs more of a track-record before I'll have any confidence what-so-ever that he's even a Democrat.

To me, he's a charleton(sp).

by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM EST
Parent









Well (none / 0)
That is not necessarily true. I mean they could swing and vote of McCain (the experienced candidate) or just stay at home.

In McCain the Repubs have the strongest candidate to defeat Obama.

by ajain on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:01:59 PM EST
Parent


Hillary may urge (none / 0)
women to vote for Obama but many will not. You can bless us all you want but many white women, me in particular WILL NOT vote for Obama.

Many of us now perceive him as if not sexist, then pandering to sexists. With that belief how on earth could we vote for him?

I could, just barely vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket but never, ever an Obama/Clinton. To many women, again me in particular it would just be one more attempt to put women in their place. i.e. subordinate.

by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:06:34 PM EST
Parent

I take it you'd like a McCain administration? (4.50 / 2)
That's the result of playing the game you want to play in a fixed sum situation.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST
Parent
I think it's less wanting a McCain admin (2.00 / 1)
than not wanting the liberal version of Bush in power either.  We've had about all the incompetence we can stand and I don't fear that McCain would be woefully incompetent.

I don't think Obama would be woefully incompetent either but there's no record to prove it.  That gives McCain room to run on it.  "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't" could become a powerful force in the general election.


by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:17:59 PM EST
Parent

It's a terrible argument (5.00 / 2)
Because Mccain is measurably and substantially worse than either Democrat on the issues.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:20:08 PM EST
Parent
But People Don't Vote on the Issues (5.00 / 1)
If they did, we would have had President Walter Mondale* or Al Gore or John Kerry.

*Studies at the time showed that the American electorate agreed with almost all of the Dems platform.  Didn't matter.  

by BDB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:34:36 PM EST
Parent

That doesn't refute my point (none / 0)
Americans are stupid. No kidding.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:36:11 PM EST
Parent



Competence on the road to fascism is not much of (5.00 / 1)
a recommendation. McCain is for Iraq today, Iraq tomorrow, Iraq forevah! McCain is now pro torture. McCain wants to appoint more Scalias to the court.

A competent war monger. A competent torturer in chief.  A competent leader of the anti-woman movement?

Thanks a lot.  With friends like these, Democrats and progressives don't need enemies.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST
Parent

Hyperbole won't help your cause (none / 0)
If the demographics of the US don't change, and they won't anytime soon, ignoring them is a mistake.  That's the point.  

McCain will look much better to a large slice of the population, though NOT to me, than someone with a very slender record.

If you want McCain to win in a landslide, I suggest that someone campaign against him as a fascist.  

by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
Parent

What do you call someone who believes in (none / 0)
the marriage of the state to corporate interests?

What do you call a state that practices torture? Do you prefer police state? What do you want to call an advocate of torture?

Why is it Ok for McCain and his allies to refer to progressives as socialist?

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:34:50 PM EST
Parent






I agree (none / 0)
I will not be an enabler and tacitly approve what he has done and the Dem leadership has done. I would rather have McCain.

by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
Parent
You don't like Dem leadership (none / 0)
capitulating to the Bush McCain republicans, so you would rather have the real thing?

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:35:55 PM EST
Parent




I for one (none / 0)
If Senator Clinton loses the nomination, I for one, will not vote for Barack Obama.  I will not vote for a sexist.  I have heard many African Americans say that they can spot a racist from a mile away.  And I have to say that as a woman, I can spot a sexist from a mile away.  I'll write in Senator Clinton, if I have to, but I will not vote for Barack Obama

by SandyS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:22:52 PM EST
Parent
then you will be the loser (4.80 / 5)
because John McCain will be President. If feminism is the most important issue to you facing the country, then get out and help Hillary make her million calls and donate money and work to see her elected.

It's not my main issue, crime policy and judges are more important to me, not to mention the reason this blog exists. There's very little difference between Hillary and Obama on those.

Other issues more important to TalkLeft: the war. Judge selection. The economy. warrantless spying. Guantanamo. The Patriot Act. And so on. Both Hillary and Obama will be light years ahead of McCain or any Republican on all these issues.

If feminism is all you care about, this blog may not be a good fit for you.
 

by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:28:31 PM EST
Parent

Heat of the campaign (none / 0)
I think what is being revealed here, at least partially, is not that feminism is anyone's 'only issue' but that this is - for some at the moment - the last straw.

I am not a single issue voter, ordinarily, but there are times when I look like/sound like one/vote like one...the Vietnam War...pro-choice...

There are limits to tolerance and patience and particularly when one cannot trust simply because a candidate has a 'D' after their name.  We did that with LBJ and although that turned out well for civil rights it was a disaster for the war and the Democratic Party.

So...it's always a judgment call...a 'what if' call...easier for committed Democrats but much different for Independents and moderate Republicans in the general election.

by oldpro on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST
Parent



Me too Sandy (none / 0)
I've held my nose and voted a lot of times but I will not, cannot in good conscience vote for someone that I perceive as a sexist.

by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:28:26 PM EST
Parent
My big issue (5.00 / 1)
has to do with Obama's competence.  I really believe he wouldn't be a strong leader, based on his past lack of leadership.

I think it would be worse for Democrats LONG TERM in all the areas Jeralyn mentioned, if we elect a lousy president than if we waited until 2012 and elected a strong one.

I also think he's ticking off women with his statements, he's ticking off the 'teargas Democrats' of the 60's with his Reagan inkblot statements, and no doubt he'll start making ageist 'inkblot' comments about McCain and will tick off the aging voters.  I think he's going to lose anyway because much of the base will stay home.

by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:03:51 PM EST
Parent





Your math is wrong (none / 0)
If you mean that Obama will lose the primaries in Ohio and TX if the MD demographic numbers hold.  Both OH and TX have about 20% A-A's in the primaries.  If Obama loses by 10-15 points among whites and Latinos and wins 80-85 percent of the A-A vote, he wins those states.  Hillary needs 60-65 percent of the non-black vote to win.


by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM EST
Sure (none / 0)
whatever you say.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST
Parent
Denying basic arithmetic (none / 0)
Is not a good for the credibility.  .85(.20) + .43(.8) = .51.  That is a fact.  

Your larger point about demographics is valid, but your denial of the fact that Obama made inroads in MD and VA is not.

by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
Parent

Sh*t in, sht*t out (none / 0)
Your numbers are nonsense imo.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:12:45 PM EST
Parent
The SUSA numbers reflect (5.00 / 2)
the state of the race in OH right now, though Obama might actually draw another 10% of AAs. That wouldn't make a very big dent in Hillary's Numbers.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM EST
Parent

Which ones? (none / 0)
The 80/20 non-black/black breakdown is from the Texas 2004 primary.  Obama's 85% of the A-A vote is from just about every state.  Obama's 43% of the non-black vote is from MD.  Ergo, "if the MD demographics hold" Obama will win TX.

I am not saying the MD number will hold.  But they do represent inroads.  It is not the case that "the percentage of the vote the candidates get is almost exclusively a function of the demographics of the state."

by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST
Parent

Then you are arguing with yourself (none / 0)
now.

As it should be.

I am not going to engage you on this. You took me ringing around the rosies on this before and I will not engage you on it again.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
Parent

I am arguing the evidence (none / 0)
I don't know what will happen in the future.  I know what did happen in the past.  Obama made inroads into Clinton's base in MD and VA.  You have denied this and you are incorrect.

by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:32:23 PM EST
Parent
I denied it and proved why it was wromg (none / 0)
You go argue with yourself now.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
Parent
Could you prove it one more time please? (none / 0)
Because .8 x .2 + .43 x .8 = .504. That's applying Maryland figures. Virginia figures are better for Obama.

by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:45:20 PM EST
Parent
Obama got 84% not 80% (none / 0)
of the A-A vote in MD.

by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:51:50 PM EST
Parent
Sure (none / 0)
And he got close to 90% in VA. We're agreeing.

Hillary would need 60%+ blowouts in OH and TX to get back in the running in pledged delegates. Maybe she will, but that's not suggested by demographic analysis.

by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:00:20 PM EST
Parent




You are missing the distinction between (none / 0)
inroads and victory.  

Claim 1: Hillary remains stronger than Obama among working class whites and women.  True!

Claim 2: Obama has not made inroads among working class whites and women.  False!

by AF on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:14:56 PM EST
Parent



AF's point is stronger than s/he realizes... (none / 0)
because the delegates in the Texas primary are packed into heavily African-American and educated liberal (around UT Austin) state senate districts. Even projecting a conservative result for him in the caucus, HRC would have to win by a massive margin to net a significant delegate tally out of Texas.

by dmk47 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:39:12 PM EST
Parent








And the demographics/attitudes (none / 0)
of PA are like MD and VA, but with many fewer blacks and more catholic LMC whites.

by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:59:30 PM EST

Blitzer said they are a "dream ticket" (none / 0)
I don't know if they can credibly patch things up though. I don't think most of Hillary's activists and Barack's activists would have a hard time joining forces, just based on my interactions with them here in Colorado, so that's a plus. Some of the more kool-aid drinking bloggers might have some trouble with that, but all along both of the campaigns have been hammering it into the volunteers that they need to stay positive.

by MikeDitto on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST
Hope so (none / 0)


by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:02:07 PM EST
Parent


Elephant in the room (none / 0)
You named it right.  After the convention, we'll know if Democrats really want to win as bad as the grass roots seems to want it.  I agree with your solution of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, but doubt it'll happen.

Clinton/Obama I can see but Obama/Clinton is much more problematic.  There seems to have been much more nastiness in that direction and I think it could get in the way.

Personally, I think that if Edwards had run his more sunny '04 campaign, with UHC etc, this cycle he could have had a chance.  But when he adopted the "angry populist" persona, it was gone.


by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:03:45 PM EST


Value of Demographics (Primary vs. General) (none / 0)
First I'll address your last point.  Do you think Clinton wants to be on an Obama ticket or Obama on a Clinton ticket?  The last time these kids got along was during Barack's first year as a senator when their offices worked together.  Since presidential aspirations heated up and Clinton felt challenged, there has been a serious rift between the two.  I also think either would make a terrible ticket.

As for the main thrust of your article, it seems like you are picking and choosing trends to suit your own perception of the primary contests.  At one point, you suggest that momentum and trends are empty buzzwords, but your argument seems to rest entirely on the particular trends you consider to be massively important.  I think that you are overstating the demographic leanings of voters.  There are demographic trends, of course -- one cannot deny it.  But "Latino" and "white" and "working class" mean different things from state to state and perhaps even more from district to district.  I worry about the desire to group people together as voting blocks, especially on racial, economic and gender lines.  Of course it is valid and often useful, but it's problematic and can even be misleading.

I also do not understand your logic of extrapolating primary results to general election voting behavior.  If (let's say) a significant majority of women voting in the Democratic primaries vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, does that mean that Obama will have trouble getting a majority of women's votes in the general election?  Of course it doesn't.  Barack Obama lost the women's vote in New York, I'm certain (someone fact-check that for me if you like), but there is no question that he would be able to carry the majority of women's votes in the state in a general election against John McCain, and he would be almost certain to win the entire state.  Even if you can argue for the importance of demographics in an Obama-Clinton primary, applying that to conclusions about Obama-McCain or Clinton-McCain the general election is a reach, at best.

by shoeshinesal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:13:21 PM EST

Short version of your comment (1.00 / 1)
I want to ignore the elephant in the room. that is certainly your perogative.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:16:07 PM EST
Parent
Re: Short version (none / 0)
That's dismissive enough.  You could at least take the time to criticize a premise or two.  I would have preferred no response at all.

I'm not ignoring the demographics -- I am questioning the value of extrapolation of primary contest results to the general election potential of a candidate among actual voters of all political stripes.  If you can't answer that criticism or even account for it in your original post, it's not clear how valuable an observation it is.  The elephant in the room seems to be a speculative notion about the general election.  Tell me different.

by shoeshinesal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:30:57 PM EST
Parent

Excuse me (none / 0)
You questioned the very value of demographic analysis. If you want to revise and extend your remarks, that is your perogative.

It is MY perogative to respond to you as I wish.

I have many preferences as to what I want commenters to do, most of them are not fulfilled.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:33:15 PM EST
Parent





Hillary might need Obama on (none / 0)
her ticket, but not vice versa.

HRC would have vy limited choices in assuaging any lingering resentment about the primary contest by picking an AA -- the list would be quite short.  Obama might be necessary in that scenario.  Since he's younger and less experienced in DC, the #2 job isn't that far fetched and would groom him for 2016 (assuming our planet somehow miraculously escapes the upcoming, feared Mayan end date of 12-21-12 ...)

Obama, if he wins the nom, can bring disgruntled women for Hillary back on board by choosing from among probably a handful of solid women pols, either gov's or senators.  Sibelius is possible, Blanche Lincoln too, or Stabenow or one of the WA senators.  Much might depend on whether the state has a Repub or Dem  gov.  We can't afford to be losing even one Dem senator to the R side.

Hillary could not possibly work out as a #2 once again in a Dem WH -- she already did that for 8 yrs with Bill, and isn't about to go back there without complete control.  

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:00:26 PM EST

You underestimate (5.00 / 3)
as I certainly did before, the attachment for Hilary Clinton.

She can not be replaced by "some woman."

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:04:18 PM EST
Parent

Generally, everyone is replaceable -- (none / 0)
even the woman I've backed now for 3 years for the nomination and to whom I've contributed more than my fair share of time and money.

Maybe 3 exceptions in my lifetime of unreplaceable:  JFK, RFK, MLK.

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:24:16 PM EST
Parent

Is Obama replaceable? (5.00 / 1)
I think NEITHER is at this point.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:30:46 PM EST
Parent

Add one more: HRC. (none / 0)


by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM EST
Parent



"disgruntled women for Hillary?" (5.00 / 1)
Ugh - don't like that term...

by Firefly4625 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:14:25 PM EST
Parent

Women are not interchangeable. (4.50 / 2)


by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:02:11 PM EST
Parent
Sure They Are Stella (3.00 / 2)
At least in the minds of Obama supporters. Just any old woman will do.

by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:10:11 PM EST
Parent
Or in the opinion of at least one Obamaman (2.00 / 1)
On this very blog's comments, all Obama has to do is give lip service to choice, throw rallies with women stars like Oprah, and get some women to endorse him.

What more could women possibly ask for?

Mmmmm, let's see: shoes? Yeah, Manolos. I hear women love shoes.
Universal health care with mandates - nah, too hard.
How about a pink room in the White House? Women like pink, right?
A promise to not touch SS - nah, Republicans like it when we say it's "in crisis" and we might tamper with it.

Oh, I know! A female VP who doesn't make Obama look like a weak, inexperienced, phony sexist! Yeah, that'll do it!

by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:27:29 PM EST
Parent


Re: Sure they are (none / 0)
A bit unfair, eh?  I dislike being stereotyped that way, as much as I'm sure Hillary Clinton's supporters dislike the bile spread about them.

I'm starting to think that a lot of the turmoil in the active Democratic Party's between the supporters of two candidates has a lot to do with how tight this race has been and how passionate we are about our candidates.  I think it's truly unfortunate that it degenerates into talk about hating Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  These are two of the best candidates we've had in years, and all that we hear about is racism, sexism and deep hatred.

Fortunately, I think that most voters overall are significantly less passionate in this regard, which is why I question BTD's binary analysis of primary contest supporters either going for their candidate or McCain/no-one in the general election.

by shoeshinesal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:36:49 PM EST
Parent

Please do NOT distort what I wrote (none / 0)
I dislike that more than anything.
I have no such binary analysis.

You wrote a falsehood.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST
Parent


Re: distortion (none / 0)
All right, bad choice of words on my part.  Sorry.  I think you know what I'm getting at though.  Unresolved question on my end -- I am unconvinced.

by shoeshinesal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM EST
Parent



True, of course, some are better (none / 0)
pols than others.

But picking someone for your ticket is a highly political matter.  You want someone who's going to help you get elected first; all other considerations are secondary.  

Traditionally it's involved first achieving some geographical balance, then ideological, and so forth.

This cycle it's probably far more important to consider some of these non-traditional factors that have come into play this time.

I just can't imagine Dems putting up yet another all-male ticket after HRC's historic candidacy.

But what if they do, and the Rs counter with a Condi or some other fairly plausible woman for VP with McC?

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:09:10 PM EST
Parent

You miss the point entirely (5.00 / 1)
The point is these voters are FOR CLINTON, not for "some woman."

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:19:22 PM EST
Parent
No doubt she has solid backers, (none / 0)
but are you saying if she doesn't get the nom, they wouldn't vote for another Dem, Barack?  Or is it impossible for HRC supporters to shift allegiance, to be flexible for the larger good, when necessary?

I think they will stick with voting for the Dem come the fall.

Just as I think, should it happen, that they would largely embrace a BHO+ non-HRC female pol for #2.

Again, too, consider how things might not work so well with those two once in office -- JFK/LBJ redux, and that one was a very poor working relationship.

I don't want HRC as #2 -- been there, done that, wouldn't work.

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:30:04 PM EST
Parent

Actually, I would be more offended (5.00 / 1)
(if that's even possible, and I suspect it is) if he stuck in Generic Female Running Mate(tm) to "appease" Clinton supporters than if he picked a white male.

by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:57:18 PM EST
Parent
Amen To That n/t (5.00 / 1)


by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:07:44 PM EST
Parent


I am saying (none / 0)
as I have for a while now, both Obama and Clinton have supporters that will not go with theother UNLESS they are on the ticket.

Is it 5%? 10% Whatever the percent it is stupid to cause yourself this problem.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST
Parent

I think that's more true about BHO (none / 0)
backers, plus VP is the better, more natural fit for someone his age and with his relative inexperience.  A no-brainer as far as a strong consideration.

Hillary as #2:  I think you're looking at that scenario too narrowly.  Many of her supporters, obviously yrs truly included, wouldn't be terribly upset about her not being on a ticket and getting to go to the WH yet again as a #2.  Been there, done that, plus the uncomfortable scenario of having to take direction from a much younger and inexperienced guy.  Sorry, I dont' like it.  

Many of us would prefer at that point that she remain in the senate, perhaps to become the next ML.

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST
Parent

Well (none / 0)
Suppose it is 8% of Obama supporters and 5% of Clinton backers, why cause yourself such a headache?

Your cold calculation seems utterly bizarre to me.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:51:08 PM EST
Parent

We have to be careful not to (none / 0)
take too much to heart what supporters of X say now as opposed to how they would actually act come Nov.  

Lots of passion during the primaries, and two superstar candidates this time makes the devotion all the more intense.

But come the fall usually things have calmed down, and people remember they're Dems and they don't want another 4 yrs of Bushist policies or a 100 yr occupation in Iraq.

But if those gender-related issues linger in a BHO nominee scenario, well he's going to have to shore up his major weakness with the base -- just as all nominees do.

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:58:13 PM EST
Parent







No, you want Hillary Clinton first. On the ticket. (none / 0)


by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:28:33 PM EST
Parent



I've said it before, I'll say it again (4.00 / 2)
Obama, if he wins the nom, can bring disgruntled women for Hillary back on board by choosing from among probably a handful of solid women pols, either gov's or senators.

Women are not interchangable. He can't just plug in Generic Female Running Mate(tm) and expect to win Clinton supporters/women.

Please disabuse yourself of that ridiculous notion immediately.

We are not Woman Candidate(tm) supporters. we are supporters of Hillary Clinton. He has done far too much damage to himself with women, and he keeps doing more the longer he goes on.

by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM EST
Parent

I disagree, ech, (none / 0)
and do so as a solid, and long-time Hillary backer.

I'm trying to project things given a BHO nom but trying also to put aside partisan preferences and just looking at the thing coldly.

Selecting for VP on the basis of gender is not going to be trumped by the sensitive view of some on the left that only Hillary can be considered -- that credits her too much while unfairly discrediting other female worthies.  

Much as I strongly prefer her to BHO, at that point in August it would be a matter of cold hard political calculation for Obama, and I wouldn't at all find it implausible nor offputting for most HRC backers for him to choose another woman pol.  

At that point, it's a matter of winning with a plausible ticket.

And at that point, she would be better off, as would BHO, by her returning to the senate.

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:14:58 PM EST
Parent

No one doubts that (none / 0)
Most of us think you are absolutely wrong in your thinking, that's all.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:18:20 PM EST
Parent



Re: solid women alternatives (none / 0)
Obama choosing a VP woman in the way that you describe smacks of tokenism.  It would be fine if he did have a woman on the ticket, but not primarily for the reason of attracting women voters.

by shoeshinesal on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM EST
Parent
Tokenism or not, (none / 0)
selecting the #2 is a matter of coldly going about doing what's best to maximize the ticket's chances of winning.

People can get all delicate and sensitive about how this appears, but it's what happens.

And folks, again I'm for Hillary.

But before that, I'm a Dem.

And am just trying to realistically look at the situation given a certain scenario come August.

Hopefully it won't come to that ...

by brodie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM EST
Parent

No one denies that (4.00 / 1)
Most of us are saying your cold calculation is utterly wrong.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST
Parent




Third party candidate? (none / 0)
Crazy idea, but not out of the question.

by echinopsia on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:50:30 PM EST

Comments are now closed (none / 0)


by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM EST

Good point (none / 0)
Yes, I was waiting for someone to have a "duh" moment and realize that the women Obama is getting are AA women, not white women. From what I'm seeing, he is more and more alienating white women. Some of the comments he has made recently won't help him in that area at all. In fact, he is rapidly getting to the point that a lot of women won't even vote for him in the general, were he to get that far.

by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:09:29 PM EST

I never have seen RCP at such a tie (none / 0)
as today's average at Real Clear Politics of many polls nationwide.  Yesterday was the tightest I'd seen in a while, with one percentage point between Clinton and Obama.  But he dropped half a point today, so it's 45.1% to 44.6%.  Amazing.  Statistical odds of such a dead-heat statistical tie, I can't imagine.

by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:47:46 PM EST

Re: 'Good point' (none / 0)
CognitiveDissonance' wrote:
"Some of the comments he has made recently won't help him in that area at all. In fact, he is rapidly getting to the point that a lot of women won't even vote for him in the general, were he to get that far."

Really? Name even one such "comment" and/or one such "fact", please. Provide your links/references too please. Go ahead, educate me.

Billary supporters, as a reflection of the candidate herself, make it easy to oppose her nomination efforts. Like BushCo and his supporters, when they engage in some negative behavior, they immediately turn around and accuse their political opponents of the sin they themselves are guilty of: sexism, lying, making claims they can't back with FACTS, etc, etc, etc.

It's funny; the author of this original post says:

"That is some understatement. He has lost white women, Latinos, and working class white men in almost every primary. Take California for instance."

The funny part is that the premise of the post is about how others [Matt Stoller]

" ... allows the important underlying story to be overshadowed"

Meanwhile, Big Tent Democrat seemingly choses to ignore the most important 'underlying' story: Obama is currently the leading candidate for the nomination, and that is no accident ... the majority of WE THE PEOPLE have voted for Obama over Clinton to-date. THAT is the only story that matters so far. It also means that Obama is being voted for by MORE than a single demographic. So, GET OVER IT.

Hillary Clinton is a Republicrat.

OBAMA '08!

by BloggerRadio on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:22:30 AM EST


Avoiding The Issue: Obama, Clinton And The Voting Demographics | 174 comments (174 topical, 0 hidden)

WWW Talk To Action



Honored to be here, and legalization of pot progress-hurdles
Briefly, I am thrilled to be permitted the "diary" honor, and hope to prove that to be a good decision. To dive right in to a topic, I'd like to share my current thinking......
Lfrieling (0 comments)
Mr. President, the answer is 'No.'
Mr. President, there has been a whole lot of strange and wacky stuff going on. Heck, it looks like your attempt to imitate "W" Bush in foreign policy, except you added steroids. That's only......
jeffinalabama (3 comments)
"The Town"-Not What it's Cracked Up to Be:
Ben Affleck's 3 year old movie, "The Town", starring Ben Affleck himself as the lead character, as well as the director, Jeremy Renner, Owen Burke and "Slaine" i. e. George Carroll, is not all......
mplo (3 comments)
How I Came to Love West Side Story:
After writing a whole diary about how I came to love West Side Story and just about finishing it, only to have it disappear on me just out of the blue (yes, this has......
mplo (4 comments)
Why I'm Against the Death Penalty:
The Death Penalty has always been a controversial topic, but it's become even more controversial nowadays, during the post-9/11 era that we're now going through.  There are people on the Left as well as......
mplo (5 comments)
A short primer on buying and selling guns - part I
The discussion on this site (and others) has been suffering from a lack of accurate information on how people buy and sell guns and the laws and regulations that govern them when they do.......
scribe (7 comments)
Some notes on Health Care reform.
First, it works. The benefits outweigh any amount of problems. The deal is simple. Pass something, then go back and modify it. In reality, the Republicans in congress have no willingness as a party......
jeffinalabama (10 comments)
How did we get here? Part one of an examination
Foreword: This diary is the first in a series examining, inter alia, the political economy of the United States. Much of what you read here will be historical, and general in application.  The drive......
jeffinalabama (2 comments)
Time for analysis, with your help, please
I'm in-between some major treatments, but I woke up today with a clear mind and some energy. I'd like to start adding some analysis from the margins (I remain marginalized, not simply by choice,......
jeffinalabama (8 comments)
The Banks Are Made of Marble
And banks want one thing: profits. It is easier to get a loan at a community bank or a credit union, but either wants their vig. you tube ......
jeffinalabama (13 comments)
'Advanced' Civilization: The Long Party is Over
Crossposted from Antemedius "Our current way of life is unsustainable. We are the first species that will have to self-consciously impose limits on ourselves if we are to survive." -- Robert Jensen In 2010......
Edger (3 comments)
Violence at Occupy Protests Becoming A Serious Problem Across America
Crossposted from Antemedius "Occupy LA has brought needed attention to the growing disparities in our country and I look forward to its ongoing efforts to build an economy that works for everyone," [Los Angeles......
Edger (1 comment)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.