Ten Key States Update and a Perspective on Pennsylvania

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
Tags: Pennsylvania '08, general election '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In 2004, the Democratic ticket carried 20 states with 252 electoral votes. Obviously, it wasn't enough. What other states are most likely to play a role in 2008? Which of the Democratic candidates would be the Party's most successful candidate in the general election?

William Arnone, a long-time Democratic Party activist who worked with Robert F. Kennedy in 1967-68 has updated his July, 2007 and February, 2008 analysis (reprinted here) of "Key States in the 2008 Presidential Election."

The ten states are: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia.

With his permission, I reprint below his newest analysis, received yesterday, which also includes a thorough discussion of whether the Dems will keep Pennsylvania:

This is a further update on the "Key States in the 2008 Presidential Election" analysis I circulated last July. These are states in which the Democratic Presidential ticket needs to compete effectively in November in order to have a good chance of being elected. The Democratic Presidential ticket must win one or more of these key states, in addition to the 20 states with 252 electoral votes carried by the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2004.

Here's an update on the ten key states: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia.

Arkansas (6 electoral votes): Hillary Clinton won with 70% of the vote (202,010) to Barack Obama's 27% (77,970) in this state's February 5th open primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. Arkansas has voted for the winners of the last nine Presidential elections. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 17% in 1996 and by 18% in 1992. Since 1964, the only other Presidential election in which the Democratic ticket carried the state was 1976, when Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale won with a huge margin of 30%.

Colorado (9 electoral votes): Obama won with 67% of the vote (79,344) to Clinton's 32% (38,587) in this state's February 5th closed caucuses. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Colorado by 5% in 2004. This was a lower margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by almost 9%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 1% in 1996. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 4% in 1992. Colorado has voted Democratic in Presidential elections only three times since Franklin Roosevelt’s candidacies: Clinton-Gore in ’92; Johnson-Humphrey in ’64; and Truman-Barkley in ’48.

Florida (27 electoral votes): Clinton won 50% of the vote (865,099) to Obama's 33% (571,333) in this state's January 29th closed nonbinding primary. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Florida by 5% in 2004. This was a higher margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by less than 1% (537 votes) in a highly controversial election. Overall, the Republican ticket carried 58 of the state’s 67 counties in 2004. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 6% in 1996. The Republican ticket carried the state by 2% in 1992 and by 22% in 1988. Florida has voted for the Democratic Presidential ticket only three times since 1964: Johnson-Humphrey with 51% in 1964; Carter-Mondale with 52% in 1976; and Clinton-Gore with 48% in 1996. Republicans have not won the White House without winning Florida since 1924.

Iowa (7 electoral votes): Obama won 38% of the vote to Clinton's 29% in this state's January 3rd open proportional caucuses on. (The Iowa Democratic Party has not released the actual vote count.) The Republican Presidential ticket carried Iowa by 1% in 2004. This was the first time the Republican ticket carried the state since 1984. The Democratic ticket carried the state by .032 percentage points in 2000. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 10% in 1996 and by 6% in 1992. The Democratic ticket carried the state by 10% in 1988, which represented the largest Democratic margin since 1964, when the Johnson-Humphrey ticket carried Iowa with a margin of 24%.

Missouri (11 electoral votes): Obama won 49% of the vote (405,284) to Clinton's 48% (395,287) in this state's February 5th open primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Missouri by 7% in 2004. This was a higher margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 3%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried this state in 1996 by 6% and in 1992 by 10%. With one exception (1952), Missouri has voted with the winner of every Presidential election since 1900. No other state has this record of accuracy in Presidential elections.

Nevada (5 electoral votes): Clinton won 51% of the vote (approximately 59,000) to Obama's 45% (approximately 52,000) in this state's January 19th closed proportional caucuses. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Nevada by 3% in 2004. This was a lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 4%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 1% in 1996 and by 3% in 1992. Since 1964, Nevada has voted for the Republican Presidential ticket, except for Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996.

New Mexico (5 electoral votes): Clinton won 49% of the vote (68,084) to Obama's 48% (67,010) in this state's February 5th closed primary. New Mexico has had the two closest most recent Presidential elections. In 2004, the Republican Presidential ticket carried the state by approximately 6,800 votes (less than 1%). In 2000, the Democratic Presidential ticket carried the state by 365 votes (.006 percentage points). Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by almost 8% in 1996 and by 9% in 1992. The Republican ticket carried the state by 5% in 1988, which had been the sixth consecutive Presidential election in which the Republican ticket carried New Mexico.

Ohio (20 electoral votes): Clinton won 54% of the vote (1,207,086) to Obama's 44% (979,025) in this state's March 4th open Democratic Presidential primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Ohio by 2% in 2004. This was a slightly lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by less than 4%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 6% in 1996 and by 2% in 1992. No Republican has ever been elected President without carrying Ohio.

Virginia (13 electoral votes): Obama won 64% of the vote (620,919) to Clinton's 35% (344,477) in this state's February 12th open primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Virginia by 9% in 2004. This was a slightly higher margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 8%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 2% in 1996 and by 4% in 1992. Since 1964, the Democratic ticket has not carried the state, but the margins have often been close.

Of the ten key states, one has yet to hold its primary. It is:

North Carolina (15 electoral votes): This state's Democratic Presidential primary will be held on May 6th. The Republican Presidential ticket carried North Carolina by 12% in 2004. This was a slightly lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 13%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 5% in 1996 and by less than 1% in 1992. Since 1964, the Democratic Presidential ticket has carried this state only once – Carter-Mondale by 11% in 1976.

The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November. This is a critical consideration in determining who is likely to be the Party's most successful Presidential candidate in the general election.

Summary

Thus far, Hillary Clinton has won five of these key states -- Arkansas (decisively), Florida (decisively, but in a primary that was not recognized by the Democratic National Committee for the purpose of selecting delegates to the Party's convention), Nevada (solidly), New Mexico (slightly), and Ohio (solidly). Barack Obama has won four -- Colorado (decisively), Iowa (solidly), Missouri (slightly), and Virginia (decisively). Clinton's popular vote total in these keys states was 3,179,630 (2,314,531 if Florida's vote is excluded), or 52.7%, vs. Obama's 2,852,885 (2,281,552 if Florida's vote is excluded), or 47.3%.

Of these states, Clinton's five have a total of 63 electoral votes, while Obama's four have a total of 40 electoral votes. Together with all of the 20 states that went Democratic in the 2004 Presidential election, both Clinton's and Obama's key states would have enough electoral votes to give the Democratic Presidential ticket victory in November.

This analysis does not assess, however, the possibility that the Republican Presidential ticket, headed by John McCain, might win one or more of the 20 states that went Democratic in 2004. Based on the margins of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, the 2004 Democratic states that might be winnable by the Republican Presidential ticket in 2008 are: Michigan (17 electoral votes, 3.4% Democratic margin); Minnesota (9, 3.5%); New Hampshire (4, 1.3%); Oregon (7, 4.1%); Pennsylvania (21, 2.5%); and Wisconsin (10, 0.4%). These six states have a total of 68 electoral votes.

What to Look for in Pennsylvania

The Keystone State is not one of the key states identified, since it did go Democratic in 2004 (albeit by only 2.5%) and 2000 (by only 4.2%) and has done so more often than not in the last ten Presidential elections. It is, however, one of the states that might be winnable by the Republican Presidential ticket in 2008.

Pennsylvania's population contains significant numbers of three of the four key voting constituencies that the Democratic Presidential ticket needs to carry to win the White House in 2008. They are:

Catholics: Of those who voted in the 2004 elections, 27% were Catholic. With Catholic voters, the Republican Presidential ticket in 2004 had a margin of 5%. This was a shift of 7 percentage points from the Democratic Presidential ticket’s margin of 2% in 2000. The last Presidential election in which the Democratic ticket lost the Catholic voter to the Republican ticket was in 1988 (Dukakis-Bentsen vs. Bush-Quayle), when the margin of loss was also 5%. The Democratic Presidential ticket of Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996 carried the Catholic vote by margins of 9% and 16% respectively. Except for the 2000 election, every Presidential ticket in recent history that has won the Catholic vote has captured the Presidency.

In the 2004 Presidential election, Catholics in Pennsylvania voted for Kerry-Edwards over Bush-Cheney 51%-49%.

Approximately 29% of Pennsylvania's population is Catholic.

Older Voters: Voters age 60 or older represented 24% of those voting in the 2004 election. Of these, voters age 65 or older represented 19% of those voting in the 2004 election. In the 2006 Congressional elections, voters age 60 or older represented 27% of those voting. This was an increase of 3 percentage points from the 2004 elections. Voters age 65 or older represented 16% of total voters in 2006. This was a decrease of 3 percentage points from the 2004 elections. Of voters age 65 or older, 77% are registered to vote. This represents a higher voter registration percentage than any other age group.

Beginning with the 1976 Presidential election, people age 65 or older have constituted a larger share of actual voters than their portion of the total voting-age population. In the 2004 and 2000 Presidential elections, voters age 65 or older had turnouts of 69% and 67% respectively, which were the highest turnout rates among all age groups.

In 2004, the Democratic ticket nationwide lost voters age 60 or older to the Republican ticket by a margin of 8%. This was a shift of 12 percentage points from the Democratic Presidential ticket’s margin of 4% in 2000. The Democratic ticket’s margin of loss among voters age 65 or older was 5%. The greater margin of loss among voters age 60 or older was due to the Republican ticket winning the votes of those aged 60-64 by a 15% margin. Among older white voters in 2000, however, the Republican ticket had a margin of 6%. More white older voters have backed the Republican Presidential ticket in seven of the last eight Presidential campaigns. Of those age 65 or older, 81% are white.

The last Presidential election in which the Democratic ticket lost older voters to the Republican ticket was in 1988 (Dukakis-Bentsen vs. Bush-Quayle), when the margin of loss was 1%.

Of voters age 60 or older, 54% voted for Republican House candidates in 2004 compared with 51% in 2002 and 48% in 2000. In the 1998 Congressional elections, 55% of older voters voted Republican. In the 2006 Congressional elections, voters age 60 or older voted for Democratic candidates by a 2% margin. This represented a shift to the Democratic Party of 9 percentage points from 2004. Of these older voters, 37% described themselves as Republicans, 36% as Democrats, and 27% as Independents.

Approximately 20% of Pennsylvania's population is over age 60, with nearly 16% over age 65. One in four Pennsylvania residents is over age 55.

Women: In every Presidential election since 1980, a gender gap has existed. Women have more often supported Democratic candidates, while men have more often supported Republican candidates. In recent Presidential elections, the gap has ranged from 4% to 11%. In 1992, women voters supported the Democratic Presidential ticket in larger numbers than men by 4%. In the 2000 election, the Democratic ticket won the women's vote by 11%.

Of the voters nationwide who are men, the Republican Presidential ticket in 2004 had a margin of 11%, which was the same margin as in 2000. Of the voters nationwide who are women, the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2004 had a margin of 3%. This represented a shift of 8 percentage points to the Republican Presidential ticket from the Democratic ticket’s margin among women voters in 2000. This decrease in the margin of women voting for the Democratic Presidential ticket may have been the single most important factor in the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election. This gender gap is seen in all age groups, ranging from a 4% Democratic margin among women voters under age 30 to 11% among women voters over age 60.

While women tend to vote more Democratic and men more Republican, even larger differences exist between married and unmarried voters. Women of voting age who have never been married, are divorced or are widowed comprise 42% of all registered women voters. In the 2000 Presidential election, unmarried women voters represented the same percentage of the electorate as Jewish, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino voters combined.

Of married women overall, 55% voted for the Republican Presidential ticket in 2004. Of married women with children, 59% voted for the Republican ticket in 2004. Approximately 60% of single women voted for the Democratic ticket in 2004. The Democratic Presidential ticket, however, has carried the unmarried segment of the electorate in every election since 1988.

Approximately 52% of Pennsylvania's population are women.

Pennsylvania does not, however, have a significant percentage of voters in this fourth key voting constituency:

Hispanics/Latinos: Hispanic/Latino voters comprise 6% of the voting population nationwide. This represents an increase of 2% since 2000. With 13% of the total population and 17% of the population under age 18, Hispanics/Latinos are potentially the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. In 2004, the Democratic ticket nationwide won Hispanic/Latino voters by a margin of 11%. This was a shift to the Republican Party of 25 percentage points from the Democratic Presidential ticket’s margin of 36% in 2000. In 1996, the Democratic ticket nationwide won Hispanic/Latino voters by a margin of 51%. The 2004 Presidential election represented a continuing trend of Hispanic/Latino voters away from the Democratic ticket. The 44% share of the Hispanic/Latino vote achieved by the 2004 Republican Presidential ticket surpassed the previous high of 37% for the 1984 Republican Presidential ticket (Reagan-Bush). Although subsequent revisions of the Edison/Mitofsky National Elections Pool (NEP) exit poll reduced this share to 42%, the Republican Presidential ticket in 2004 won a greater share of the Hispanic/Latino vote than any other Republican Presidential ticket since the advent of Presidential election exit polls in 1972.

In the 2006 Congressional elections, Hispanic/Latino voters voted for Democratic candidates by a 19% margin. This represented a shift to the Democratic Party of 8 percentage points from 2004.

There is diversity among Hispanic/Latino voters nationwide. About two-thirds have roots in Mexico. The remainder includes voters with roots in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and other parts of Latin and South America.

Approximately 4% of Pennsylvania's population is Hispanic-Latino.

In the states that have held primaries/caucuses thus far, Clinton has proven to be more attractive to each of these four segments than Obama. What makes these four segments critical to the Democratic Party's chances in November? Unlike African-Americans or younger voters who have voted steadfastly for the Democratic Presidential ticket in recent elections, Catholics, Hispanics-Latinos, older voters and women have tended to vote less Democratic in recent Presidential elections. In the 2004 Presidential election, the Democratic Party suffered significant losses of support among each of these four critical constituent groups.

Thanks to Mr. Arnone for letting us reprint this. Now, what do you all think?

< Sunday Open Thread - Michigan And Florida Still Front And Center | The Republican Cross-Over Vote: Not a Factor >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Ten Key States Update and a Perspective on Pennsylvania | 124 comments (124 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Of the winnable Bush states (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST

I disagree N. Ca is winnable for either.

Clinton has advantages in Florida, Ohio and Arkansas, 53 EVS.

Obama has advantages in Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada. 39 EVs.

Missouri is a wash I think.

The analysis is the same - higher ceiling for Obama. Lower floor too.

Imagine (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by tek on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:47:35 AM EST

don't know why you say that Obama has an advantage in NV. Clinton won Nevada despite some very questionable tactics from the Obama team. It's a big hispanic/native American state. Those states generally go for Clinton.


: Nevada looks like a Clinton state to me as well. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM EST

I don't think he said (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:44:30 AM EST

N.C. is winnable, I think he said it's a key state to win. His point is "The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November. This is a critical consideration in determining who is likely to be the Party's most successful Presidential candidate in the general election."


: I'll buy that (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:46:30 AM EST

Not going to happen this election.

Clinton won New Mexico! (none / 0) (#17)
by zyx on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST

New Mexico might go COMPLETELY BLUE in its congressional delegation this fall. Udall is up ahead in the polls for the Senate seat by, uh, oodles.

Why don't people think Clinton will win NM, and that Obama will?


Colorado (none / 0) (#44)
by dissenter on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:33:32 PM EST

I think it is wishful thinking to think either Dem can win CO. I wish that wasn't true but I don't see it. The state is a lot more than Denver, Boulder and Pueblo. And it has a ton of military.


: But Colorado (none / 0) (#53)
by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST

did elect a Democratic state legislature for the first time, in I think, 40+ years. Colorado is definitely trending more progressive/Democratic. It is clearly a purple state with more of a blue hue ;). I would think that it will def be in play for the GE.

Pennsylvania's Demographics Are Definitely A (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:39:09 AM EST

much better fit for Clinton than Obama. She does extremely well with seniors and women.

Interesting (none / 0) (#6)
by blogtopus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:45:35 AM EST

As medicine gets better, we're going to have more 'older' people. Are there any numbers as to how many 'older' people there are compared to 'younger'' people?

Unless there's some kind of baby boom soon, we're all going to have to pander to the older crowd sooner than later. You can already see it in the number of prescription drug commercials.

Nothing wrong with older people, just wondered about the numbers.


Not only "older" (none / 0) (#10)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:56:19 AM EST

but having more careers and fewer children. I think the "older people" demographic is going to hold for quite some time, and think it would be futile for Democrats to ignore it for the "creative class" (whatever the heck that is).


: Short Definition For "Creative Class" (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST

Obama voters.
Makes them feel superior. Kinda above the fray.

The young get older soon enough. (none / 0) (#15)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST

Maybe I'm just deluding myself because I am in the baby boomer demographic but I just don't see the boomers fitting the stereotypes that were created about older voters more of my parents generation. Their's was the generation that would vote to cut school funding as soon as their kids were out of school.I know cause they did it when my kids were in school. I can't conceive that too many of my cohort would do that.

In spite of the fact that some young people are behaving a little obnoxiously now (snark!!!), we still look at them as our children and love them. For example, I was as a teenager guilty of calling Viet Nam vets baby killers. (Not one of my prouder memories.) But while I am still kind of anti-military, my view of the troops in Iraq is as if they were my children.


The downside (none / 0) (#28)
by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST

is even though many will live a couple years longer, there will be more boomer deaths per capita than from any other group


pander to the older crowd (none / 0) (#126)
by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:39:44 PM EST

um, guess what blogtopus.

One day you'll be a part of that "older crowd."

Always amusing when reading young people talking about 'older people,' somehow missing that they will soon enough be 'old.'


Philly will go to Obama (none / 0) (#25)
by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:56:19 PM EST

and he will do well in Pittsburgh.

Hillary will do well in the rest of the state (which normally goes Republican in the GE.)

Also, the are some anti-Hispanic areas which may favor Obama.

I think Hillary will take the PA primary but not by the Ohio margin.


Ant-Hispanic areas? What do you mean? (none / 0) (#27)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM EST

...areas in which people will vote for Obama because he is perceived as the anti-Latino candidate? Please explain, I hadn't heard of that.


Hazelton, PA (none / 0) (#31)
by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:05:00 PM EST

passed some anti-hispanic legilation. (link)


And (none / 0) (#33)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:07:08 PM EST

how the heck does that make them likely Obama voters?

Makes them sound rather bigoted in general to me frankly.


Yeah but what I am asking is... (none / 0) (#35)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM EST

...do those people think of Obama as the anti-Hispanic candidate? I hope not.


: don't think that translates to Obama votes (none / 0) (#55)
by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:04:02 PM EST

I thought the legislation in that town and others was anti-illegal immigrant. But I'd say you're right that some percentage of that vote is based on some bigotry. I'm not sure either of those groups would go for Obama though. The non bigots might remember he was for drivers licenses in CA and Clinton wasn't. And the bigot ones might be bigoted towards Obama for being black as well. Then again, they probably don't like women either, so who knows.

Where is it (none / 0) (#69)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST

anti-Hispanic?


I don't know what you think. . . (none / 0) (#36)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST

you're saying, but I don't think I like the sound of it very much.


Obama is stronger on immigrant rights. (none / 0) (#61)
by Ramo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:13:38 PM EST

See the drivers' license debate, for instance.

Why would "anti-hispanic" people vote for him?


x (none / 0) (#106)
by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:08:54 PM EST

Dubya getting close enough to steal the election in 2000 and then winning in 2004 is ample evidence for me that I do not understand the voting public. That said, I really must predict that people in Hazleton will not be voting for Obama.

The youth vote in Pittsburgh may help him but I don't see Pittsburgh going Obama (much less certain about that).

Philly? He may have some trouble there as well, but we shall see (least certain about this prediction). Sen Obama endorsed the losing candidate for Philly mayor. The winning candidate is now backing Hillary Clinton. Philly is nothing but machine politics, so the race there will be very interesting.

Another interesting aspect to the race are the Philly ring counties. They are Obama's demographics but went for Rendell, who back Hillary.


: Oh! (none / 0) (#110)
by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:13:13 PM EST

Forgot to add that Obama's youngsters need to get their act together because they won't be able to come out on Apr 22 and vote unless they've registered a month beforehand.
And if they've registered at home, they will have to get an absentee ballot. If they want to vote where they're attending school, they'll have to have changed their registration ahead of time.
So I would not count on the youth vote for Obama as heavily in PA as in other states.

Why does the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by AF on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST

"winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus . . . have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November?"

Basic median voter theory suggests that is not necessarily true.

BTD seems to agree with me, giving Obama the edge in New Mexico and Nevada despite losing those states to Hillary.

Obama says in Mississippi (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST

that Katrina spurred him to run for president.


Pander number 400,892 for the week :-)

Let's look at his campaign launch (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM EST

"After he was elected to the Senate, Obama vowed to serve out his term. But he opened the door to a 2008 presidential campaign during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in October [2006], saying that, "given the response I've been getting," he would consider the possibility after the midterm elections."

From a 2007 AP story with not a word about Katrina. So his decision was based on the response he was getting -- the fundraising, it says, and the support of Durbin and others -- but NOT on his response to what Mississippians and others were NOT getting from our government.


Have to ask again (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM EST

which of the candidates will say anything to win? Hint: it's not the woman.


give me a break (none / 0) (#50)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST

She is willing to praise John McCain on EXPERIENCE, something she KNOWS will haunt her in the GE if she gets nominated. But she accepts that risk because she feels that she needs to say it to get the nod.

Politicians are pander bears. They all are especially at the national level.


Flyerhawk (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:33:10 PM EST

Thanks for finally agreeing that Obama is also a pander bear, and is really no different than other politicians.

Point taken.


I have said that many times (none / 0) (#84)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:00:55 PM EST

I don't support politicians because they are my savior. I support them because I believe they are best choice for the country because they will make the right choices.


: Flyerhawk (none / 0) (#100)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:32:40 PM EST

Well, at least you admit Obama brings nothing new, nothing "above it all," nothing really different. A pander bear, like all of them.
Which some of us always knew.

That is not a pander (none / 0) (#81)
by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST

Its called a differentiating. What does that have to do with pandering?


You're right (none / 0) (#86)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:02:23 PM EST

She wasn't pandering. She was simply mouthing Republican talking points in an effort to disparage her opponent.

It's worse than pandering.


According to you (none / 0) (#88)
by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:08:15 PM EST

According to me differentiating yourself from the opponent is called politics. Pandering is called politics that I HATE.

We disagree on this. I don't mind attacks on the candidate of my choice, but telling people in need what they want to hear is another.


You misunderstand me (none / 0) (#91)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:18:23 PM EST

I don't have a problem with Hillary attacking Obama.

I have a problem with Hillary praising McCain as a way of attacking Obama. There is a big difference there.


: She didn't praise McCain, (none / 0) (#118)
by Anne on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST

she stated that he had a lifetime of experience.
If Obama had said, "McCain is a man. I am a man. And all Hillary has are breasts," would that be considered praise for McCain? Or just a simple statement of fact?
I understand why people didn't like Hillary's comment, but it wasn't praise.

Marvin (none / 0) (#101)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:35:15 PM EST

Well said.

How could anyone vote for Obama? By JJJr's standards, he showed NO TEARS after Katrina, and therefore isn't worthy. :)


Run Options Wer a Consideration in 2005 (none / 0) (#127)
by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:50:59 PM EST

Obama was going to vote for Roberts as CJ (pre-Katrina) in 2005. His top Senate Aid advised against the Roberts vote for Presidential considerations.

It's been his intent from the start; the Katrina stuff is just pandering horsesh*t. The everyday Obama schtick.

Most dishonest Democratic candidate in my memory and that goes back into the '50s.


Left bloggers (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Janet on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:38:55 PM EST

I have to agree on Huffungton Post and now Randi Rhodes on Air America. On Friday she was totally over the top about Hillary. She stated that the HRC campaign started the Obama is muslim e-mail. and a number of other distorted facts. I was so mad I called Air America to complain.

I sometimes (none / 0) (#92)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:19:06 PM EST

um, often think that all of this is Karl Rove's favorite dream....


: Karl Rove (none / 0) (#95)
by Janet on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:22:00 PM EST

He probably is laughing at us take a page out of his playbook. I think the left is just as bad as the right. All are just ugly.

I knew that was going to happen. (none / 0) (#96)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:25:49 PM EST

I thought it was funny that there was a diary on KOS about how carefully and insidiously the producers of the 3 am ad have prominently placed a racial slur in the little girl's pajamas. Now it turns out that it was stock footage, and that the little girl in the ad is a young adult now and an Obama volunteer.

I am really surprised at Randy Rhodes. These folks can make me start wondering if I was nuts to ever take them seriously.


Me too (none / 0) (#102)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:41:47 PM EST

It puts a whole new light on EVERYTHING they say on ever topic, not just about this issue. The credibility is gone.

...although I'll say sometimes I only listened to Randy Rhodes for the red meat satisfaction, not because I really believed what she was saying to be the non-biased facts.

Now? I just don't listen to her at all and never weill again.


: Yep (none / 0) (#113)
by hitchhiker on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:21:52 PM EST

No interest in Stephanie Miller or Ed Schultz, either. I wonder what they'll do with themselves if the ticket actually turns out to be HRC/BO?
Will they just stomp their feet and refuse to play, or pretend they never said all that stuff, or go on actively sabotaging the party?
What a waste. We still have 2 very fine candidates, as far as I can see . . . and yet there's a decreasing sense of pride and an increasing bitterness amongst the supposedly Reality-based. People complain about the tight moderation at TL, but I'm here to tell you that it's become necessary.

Obama E-Mail (none / 0) (#128)
by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM EST

I first received the Obama Email in spring or summer 2007 from people who regularly bombard me with right-wing crap.

As I recall it was included with a couple of really vile anti-immigrant screeds.

This stuff didn't come from Clinton, that's all Obama talk.


Comment deleted with (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:48:29 AM EST

attack on Obama supporters. Comments here should address the analysis in Mr. Arnone's article. Insults are not allowed.

I think the fact that Hillary (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:56:43 AM EST

apparently shuts McCain out of OH and FL, and puts him at a disadvantage in PA is important.

I personally think that the Obama risk is much higher, and that we better have a serious discussion about what the WIlder effect could mean for him in places like VIrginia.

Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#16)
by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:15:35 PM EST

Should bode well for HRC...if the demographics hold. I won't use the OH neighbor logic (see Wisconsin). PA also has a Dem governor who supports HRC and is working to GOTV. It would behoove us, no matter who we support, to stay focused on defeating the R's this November. It's my hope though that we nominate Senator Clinton.

Clinton would clearly be stronger in Arkansas (none / 0) (#18)
by tigercourse on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:20:49 PM EST

Florida, Ohio and probably Missouri. Which is more EV's then where Obama appears stronger (New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, etc.)
Pennsylvania should have been one of those key states (replace North Carolina). And she's a better bet in a GE there as well.

What happened (none / 0) (#19)
by rooge04 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:20:50 PM EST

in SC is what solidified me on Obama and how I feel about him. Previous to him trying to paint the Clinton's as racist, HRC still had the majority of the black vote. After his viability was established by winning IA and the Axelrod narrative that the Clintons were now racists that used the Black vote and were now trying to tear down Obama is what turned AA's against them. Now, I don't know if they'll come back if HRC is the nominee. I tend to think so and in spite of the blogs' crying that AA's will never vote for Clinton, I think it's overstated. She may lose some but I don't think it will really affect her chances too much.

She's getting a LOT of Reagan Democrats and Republicans (as TX and OH show) and those same people I think would be very much McCain votes come the GE if Obama is the nom.

Reagan Democrats (none / 0) (#20)
by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM EST

are indeed voting for HRC. I live in Texas and Dems that voted for Reagan voted for her in our primary. I think that the analysis that AR is a state we need to win is right on as well...and Clinton has a far better chance than Mr. Obama. Also, New Mexico and Nevada will also go heavily for Senator Clinton. We still don't know the popular vote results for NV. NC is probably not going Dem, IMO. Senator Dole is from there and there is a heavy military presence in NC. I think that is more wishful thinking than anything. Places like Virginia and Missouri are more in play than either of the Carolinas.


To look at SC more objectively (none / 0) (#21)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST

I think that the denigration of the Clintons there -- it angered me immensely, too, and for the sake of us all, but that is not my point here -- masked what may have been a more important factor there.

And it may be an important factor in coming Southern states, so: What I saw, reading local media there and thus interviews with voters there, went back to what used to be discussed before all the intervening crap and/or reluctance by the media to talk more about what AAs thought about their opportunities in this country before.

That is, a lot of AAs initially did not think that an AA could win in this country. Then came Iowa -- and that had immense impact on the AAs in SC. And I think it would have had sufficient impact in itself for Obama, so it is so sad that the race had to devolve into desperation on the part of some of his supporters who turned away from transcending race and made it all about race.

And as Obama's run of wins continued, that factor continued in his favor. So what may be worth watching from this is whether, with his recent losses, AAs continue to hold. I think they may.

(Btw, lest it be misconstrued, I am saying that racial pride or racial connection with a candidate or whatever is not the same at all as racism -- just as pride or connection with a candidate because of other shared experience is not wrongly motivated at all. A candidate who is a veteran may draw some veterans' votes because they are proud of his and their service, because they connect with him, because they consider him most likely to relate to veterans' issues, whatever.)


That was (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by rooge04 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:53:02 PM EST

exactly what bothered me so much about it. He didn't need to do any of that. And it bothers me to no end that now every state HRC wins has the taint of "They were too racist to vote for Obama" since his campaign made the narrative "He's the best, unless you're a racist" I think they've taken it a bit too far and now it's having the opposite effect. Drawing people away from him rather than towards.


WTF? (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST

I missed this quote coming out of the Obama campaign:

"He's the best, unless you're a racist"

Do you have a link to the quote? Or did you just make it up?


Let's not (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by rooge04 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:06:53 PM EST

play games here. I distinctly said it was the current narrative. And it most certainly is. Have you seen Daily Obama? They'll tell you. It's exactly the impression they are giving off to HRC supporters, especially in light of her wins in OH and TX. Immediately, I heard that those two states were obviously racists. Get real. It's what his supporters and surrogates put out there every single time she beats him.


Current Narrative? (1.00 / 0) (#40)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:26:20 PM EST

So why the quotes? You are the one playing games. I

And since you have ratcheted down your specific "quote" to mere "impression" status, some HRC supporters are guilty of the same kind of sentiment.


Doesn't help just to deny it (none / 0) (#43)
by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:32:56 PM EST

The DailyObama was going on and on about Ohio and TX not voting for Obama, so they must be racist.

Thank goodness, TL has not dug that hole for itself.


Really? (none / 0) (#47)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST

You must have either missed those comments here, or they ring so true to you that you just nodded in agreement.

Glad that we have adjusted your claim to the mere ranting of partisan supporters. Given that we have two candidates that are out of the "mainstream" given their race and gender, it is not surprising that an ugly side of America is rearing its head.

No point in contributing to that uglyness, is there now?


No, squeaky (none / 0) (#80)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:56:30 PM EST

What is not surprising is that Jesse Jackson Jr and other Obama campaign staffers HELPED that ugly side of America rear its ugly head. They GAINED South Carolina in doing so , and did it on purpose, but in the long run, cost their own campaign some credibility.

Your posts are a bit disingenuous in avoiding recognition of that fact, and you clearly show a pattern of same.

Due respect.


: Pattern Of The Same? (none / 0) (#123)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:57:27 PM EST

What are you saying? I have been quite evenhanded, imo. Since there are only a few BHO supporters here, you may have missed my calling them out for stupid nonsense.
Not sure what you think I am avoiding. What I do believe I am avoiding is jumping on a mudslinging bandwagon because others are doing it.

And conversely, let me tell you (none / 0) (#41)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:27:07 PM EST

how it's working in Wisconsin, because of the reverse -- because it voted for Obama. So there is much patting-on-backs because that means we're not racist here (except, of course, for those of us who voted for Clinton).

So, discussion over. We don't have racism in Wisconsin. Just because many whites still never have even SEEN an AA where they live -- as Obama did not get to most of the state, either . . . and just because more than 95% of AAs in the entire state live in only one city, and most of them in only two areas that have the lowest education and most problematic schools, the worst income levels, the worst housing, etc., etc. . . . nope, we don't have racism in Wisconsin.

Therefore, there goes hope of getting the rest of the state to stop beating up on the city where the AAs live, to start funding our schools and our jobs programs and our social services and more.

This is what comes from redefining the Obama campaign as about race and from redefining voters as not racist as long as they vote once every four years or so for someone they see as -- and this is the discourse here in some cases -- more white than AA. Oh, it's all getting so complicated and with such awful ramifications here that I'll stop now.

Except to say that this isn't even getting into what the heck was in the minds of the massive GOP crossover voters here. I have to hear them daily, I don't want to get into their mindset now, because I don't want them getting into my head now.


Careful Now (none / 0) (#63)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:14:46 PM EST

This is what comes from redefining the Obama campaign as about race

So what are the implications for redefining HRC's campaign as about gender, something you have done?

I guess I do not see how you can honestly reduce all (or even most) Obama supporters to people voting race, and the problems that engenders, while implying that all or most HRC supporters cannot be reduced voting gender.

Seems to me that the bulk of supporters on both sides are voting because they believe that their candidate is best qualified to be POTUS regardless of what they look like.


Exactly. I agree (none / 0) (#93)
by rooge04 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST

with you. Neither of their campaigns can be reduced to race or gender. That's my entire point in this whole thing. It's specifically what Obama supporters have made OH and TX about. Race. White, working class people there (and I'm already hearing it about PA) are racist...and that's why they vote Clinton. Perhaps they also think she's just the best person for the job? No, that would be too simple. That's my entire point in this. A vote for HRC is reduced to a racist vote. While a vote for Obama is reduced to a progressive one. It's unfair and obviously not correct. So thank you...you've actually made my point for me.


: But (none / 0) (#122)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:47:02 PM EST

You seem to miss the fact that it is a two sided coin. That is your prerogative.
People are also being called sexist because they are not voting for HRC. It has been said they those people have turned their backs on women's rights, and similar nonsense.

I agree entirely (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:11:03 PM EST

with your analysis here. Anybody who would get huffy about African-Americans voting en masse for the very first AA presidential candidate with a chance to win is just full of it.

Sliming the Clintons as racists is utterly despicable, whether the Obama camp needed to do so to win or not. This is the epitome, as far as I'm concerned, of the "politics of personal destruction" cliche, and it's by far the worst I've ever seen from a Democratic candidate in my lifetime.

That said, I think AA voters have shown themselves over the years to be by far the smartest, savviest voting bloc in the country and I think -- I hope -- that their well-founded fondness for all things Clinton has not been wiped out for all time by Obama's tactics.


Voting Race? (none / 0) (#66)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST

Guaranteed that if the person getting the chance to be the first AA president was Clarence Thomas, or even Condoleezza Rice, you would not see a similar voting pattern.

BHO supporters are voting for him because they feel he would be the best person to represent them, the color of his skin is a secondary matter.


If that's the case, squeaky, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:59:15 PM EST

then Obama campaign staffers never needed to trash the Clintons as "racists."

Since they did, they must have felt there was a NEED to attract Black voters in false anger.


: Both Sides (none / 0) (#121)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST

Are working it, IMO. Shills will do whatever it takes to get the voters attention. It's their job.
That being said, CT or CR are not going to get many Democratic votes from the AA's no matter what kind of crap the shills pull.
I do think, that because the two candidates are on equal footing, that many do vote along the lines of identity politics. But the fact that they are both high quality candidates is. imo, the main reason that they are getting their respective votes.

Uh, omit "objectively" -- not (none / 0) (#26)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:58:47 PM EST

where my post went, in the end. Analysis is always somewhat subjective. What I'm trying to say is that there may have been other and more important racialised factors before and beyond the denigration into attacks of racism.


I don't think (none / 0) (#34)
by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST

Hillary will lose the AA vote (to McCain), but definately, the AA GOTV motivation will gone


I tend (none / 0) (#37)
by rooge04 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM EST

to agree with you on this. She certainly won't lose it to McCain. But she certainly will not be getting them to come out for her unless Obama is on the ticket.

I agree with BTD that he will be on the ticket. And I think as VP


If that happens it will be interesting to see (none / 0) (#51)
by JJE on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM EST

How all the HRC supporters who have been ripping him so viciously will walk back from their vitriol. HRC herself will have some trouble spinning away her CinC threshold nonsense.


Oh please he is not being viciously ripped (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST

by most Clinton supporters. Criticized yes, viciously ripped, no. To say he isn't ready to be CiC is not a vicious rip. Obama supporters have been ripped and ridiculed, yes. I'll grant you that. But Obama himself, no.


Nonsense (none / 0) (#73)
by JJE on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST

Explicitly endorsing McCain as more qualified to be CinC. Pushing Rezko nonstop even though there is no evidence Obama did anything wrong. Calling his supporters a bunch of latte-sipping Prius-driving liberals. Even practiced equivocators like the Clintons will difficulty spinning away from that garbage.


rezko (none / 0) (#76)
by Janet on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:47:18 PM EST

Please read no-quarter today on Larry's post on Rezko and Obama. You may change your mind.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/09/obamas-prime-slime-advisers/


You're the first post I've read today... (none / 0) (#77)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:49:12 PM EST

...that mentions Rezco. Besides if it is no vicious cruelty to discuss something that is in the news then I guess we better all shut up about the economy and Iraq too.


Unfortunately for your argument (none / 0) (#83)
by JJE on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:00:42 PM EST

The campaign didn't start today, nor is it defined only by the posts that you happen to read.


: Yeah but since... (none / 0) (#94)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST

...I have been spending entirely too much time on this blog lately, I think I'm a pretty good barometer. Look, the bottom line is that you can believe what you want to believe, but I don't understand what is such a huge problem that there exists one small corner of the Democratic blogosphere that is somewhat critical of Obama.
And no, I would not post here if I thought it was a vicious Obama bashing site. Now you and I may differ on what we consider a bash, I suppose. But the moderators here don't really allow vicious attacks on Democratic candidates.

: JJE (none / 0) (#97)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM EST

I'm sorry you were too lazy to read the article link she provided.
It describes a joint plan in 2003 by Rezko, Auchie, and Alsammmarae to build 3 power plants in Kurdish Iraq. Also describes possible connections with Obama helping these Iraqi/Syrian exiles GET those contracts in governmental reconstruction funds.
Next time a link is provided, don't be so lazy. You might learn something.

and conversely (none / 0) (#60)
by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:11:20 PM EST

How will BHO's supporters come back into the fray if HRC is the nominee? anyway this is about what states dems need to win the general election, not a forum on the sensitivies of supporters of the nominees' feelings. I also feel that Missouri is a state that Dems must go after in earnest. McCaskill won that state in the 06 elections. Missouri could very well be the new Ohio, so the Dems need to focus on that. BHO won that state...barely against HRC. How will it play out in the general?


Indeed it is (none / 0) (#74)
by JJE on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST

After Clinton drives the AA vote out of the party, bye bye Pennsylvania, bye bye Michigan. Bye bye any shot at Missouri or Virginia.


Well maybe if we all work together... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST

...we can drive EVERYBODY out of the Democratic party.


: Good One (none / 0) (#79)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:53:56 PM EST

: HRC appears to be trying her best (none / 0) (#87)
by JJE on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:02:42 PM EST

It took a Clinton to hand the GOP the House and Senate and perhaps it will take a Clinton to do it again.

False premise (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by hitchhiker on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST

Clinton is not driving the AA vote anywhere. The Obama campaign and its many passionate supporters on the internet continue to talk about their supposed racism, but that doesn't make it real.

I predict 2 things.

One is that if she gets the nomination, he will campaign for her whether or not he's on the ticket. Issue evaporates, because it wasn't real in the first place.

The other is that if he gets the nomination, he will welcome her to campaign for him whether or not she's on the ticket. Again, issue evaporates, because it wasn't real in the first place.

The only people with an interest in flogging this phony racism are going to have no reason to flog it within the next few months, and then we can all stop pretending it ever existed in the first place.

The Clintons are not racist, good God. That's absurd.


JJE (none / 0) (#85)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:01:36 PM EST

What will be more interesting is to watch the Obama supporters suddenly REGRET all the Clinton trashing after Obama is on her ticket as the VP nominee.

How will you guys justify supporting that ticket if Obama accepts?


I don't know (none / 0) (#89)
by JJE on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:11:21 PM EST

Why don't you ask some of the guys who are "trashing" Clinton? I'm trashing the campaign tactics she's been employing of late and pointing out their deleterious effect on the party. Shrill diarists at DKos and other places certainly aren't helping party unity from the Obama side, though those guys are just bloggers, not the campaign itself.

It will be easy for me to justify my vote: McCain will capitulate to the wingnuts 95% of the time while I suspect Clinton will do it only about half the time.


: JJE (none / 0) (#99)
by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:28:55 PM EST

I've read your posts, dear.
You're trashing Clinton.
But you avoided the question: How WILL you support the ticket if Obama accepts VP?
Will you then backtrack on your Clinton hate?

I agree this may be a possibility. nt (none / 0) (#39)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:18:00 PM EST

Ohio, Pa, Fl (none / 0) (#22)
by Janet on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST

I think it is time for the Party to look at the demographics. Hillary will win Ohio and Florida. Strong aged women like myself and a large jewish population that will not vote for Obama. Also Pa where I grew up second oldest demographic state in the Union. Middle of the state is very conservative. Barack will win phila because of AA population, but Hillary will win Delaware Co, Bucks, Berks,and Chester they probably split montgomery. Every county north she will win allentown, Wilkes Barre, Scranton are all blight areas. Strong Blue collar Regan Dems. I do believe she brings back the Regan Dems and also the Latino vote that has voted Republican in the last three elections

As a Pennsylvanian Baby Boomer (none / 0) (#24)
by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:56:17 PM EST

I read all the demographics carefully. But, I could have just told you so. I live in a Republican county Wayne near Scranton,Lackawanna, which is a Catholic Democratic county. A lot of older people there who have just never left. But, in the area are a lot of returning to the flock, me, who lived in Florida and California allowing me the mixed cultures and beyond the 30 mile mentality. There are a lot of Catholics but a lot of younger Baby Boomer Catholics who very rarely attend Mass. Maybe this is because they are Pro Choice, divorced, remarried, and moderate to liberal. The woman are not anti-gay although a lot of the men are. The older people probably had parents of the Depression who loved FDR for saving them and a understanding that they would be Democrats too. It is not Ohio, not NJ or NY although a great influx of those last two states have moved to Penna. So I believe Hillary will take PA easier than she took Ohio.

My neighbor called me Friday night. They are Republicans but I got them to vote for Kerry last time around. They asked me about changing from GOP to Dem. They want to vote for Hillary in the Primary and in the GE. Luckily, they still have time.And 2 other GOP friends like her too. In fact the one is taking her teenage daughters to see Hillary in Scranton tomorrow night. The girls love Hillary and my friend wants to get them involved in politics at this early age.

So, my calculations of 12 close friends are: 4 GOP will stay GOP = 33% McCain. 8 are for Hillary = 67%. Of the 4 GOP, 1 female 3 male. Of the 8 Hillary votes, 2 men, 6 women.Zero margin of error.

: I tend to listen to people (none / 0) (#30)
by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST

like Barnbabe who are atuned to what's going on in their state and with people in their community. While the media was all but giving Obama the TX primary, I knew, being on the frontlines, that it would tilt HRC. Her analysis justs gives me more hope that the good people of PA will go HRC. I told my sister, who supports BHO, like another commenter, that Philly will go Barak, and maybe even Pittsburg. But the center of the state which tilts more conservative, will go HRC. If it trends the way southern OH does. Again, the analysis that PA is important cannot be understated. Our chances to win PA in the GE will be with HRC.

: We saw this in Ohio Catholic women coming to (none / 0) (#45)
by Salt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:33:46 PM EST

Clinton.

Hi study defaults whoever the Dem as netural (none / 0) (#42)
by Salt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST

without considering Race and Gender failing to consider if it is not one or the other candidate, I don't believe you can do that with out weighing a first factor both of these candidate carry pluses and minuses for what the are, I disagree with some who believe they are interchangeable, similar, my guess the factor may be as high as 30 percent in some States consider as a swing base that may not be there for the nominee, I'll speak for myself and be honest, I have been highly offended by the behavior of many activist Dems against women, the lack of non minority female leadership at the Party level, and we heard not a peep from elected Dems speaking against these gender attacks in fact the opposite praise because it may bring other growth to the Party, this also when over 1/3 of the base makes up this demographic and is 54 percent of the entire electorate. I have gone from flat out shocked to actual outrage at times I don't know if I will get over that before Nov. I just don't and I have very long coat tails as do probably most Dem women. But I can tell you I will not vote for a candidate or any Party I consider disrespectful of women. And I believe some damage certainly conflict has been created carelessly, I personally feel for the poor soul who may be silly enough to call myself or one of my female peers a monster to our face. I'm here for Hillary Clinton because I believe in her capability to lead this country to blunt the decline and begin to restore honor and dignity work and rebalance to our communities, I view her as an honorable women but I am here for only her now.
And the Republican Party is already starting to leverage this weakness by placing Carly at the RNC in a leadership role and now considering Gov Palin from Alaska as a running mate for John McCain all good stuff in my view.

Huh? (none / 0) (#49)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:47:26 PM EST

the lack of non minority female leadership at the Party level

You mean other than having a non-minority female Speaker of the House and non-minority female as the head of DGA? 2 of the most influential positions in the Democratic Party are held by non-minority women. Exactly how many are you looking for?

I find this entire argument surreal. You're voting for Hillary because she is a woman. You praise the Republicans for tossing out the rumor that they might nominate Palin as VP, which they are only doing as a clear attempt to counter Hillary's big advantage.

You are allowing your personal allegiance to Hillary to blind you to the reality of America. Let's remember which party is the one that has staunchly supported women's rights and which party believes that a woman should be barefoot in the kitchen.


Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:02:53 PM EST

that either major party has staunchly supported women's rights, not even recently, when you see how Dems did on so staunchly standing up against Supreme Court appointments and for several bills. And a lot of Dems, especially Reagan Dems running certain blogs, would do away with Dem platform plans for women and families, if they could. They said so.

And historically, do see how the Dems did on staunchly standing up for the ERA -- and before that, guess which party was first to endorse the ERA? And before that, guess which party was first to endorse woman suffrage?

And . . . well, we'll leave it at that -- so let's look instead at our current Dem candidates' records on and statements for the future for women's rights?


Women's suffrage? (none / 0) (#68)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST

Did you really just bring up women's suffrage as an example of how the Dems are not strong on women's rights? Maybe African Americans should be praising Republicans because they were the ones that freed them?

It isn't 1915. It's 2008 but if you want to embrace the Republican Party, go for it. Good luck convincing them that a woman has a right to choose.

The Equal Rights Amendment was an utterly useless and superfluous Amendment. And once again you are being disingenuous about who supported it RECENTLY.

Well, I consider within my lifetime recent (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:52:37 PM EST

enough re support of the ERA. Some of us actually were born before the '70s.

And there are a lot of historians here who would agree that in less than a century, things do not change that much. Not as much as you think or might wish. That's only a couple of generations. It takes a lot longer to change not laws but attitudes.


I would like to see (none / 0) (#115)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:34:34 PM EST

the historians who think that the composition of the Democratic and Republican Parties hasn't changed much.


: They've switched in some ways, sure (none / 0) (#124)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:51:57 AM EST

but the attitudes remain, and in both parties.

not much distinction right now between the parties (5.00 / 4) (#57)
by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM EST

"Let's remember which party is the one that has staunchly supported women's rights and which party believes that a woman should be barefoot in the kitchen."

Unfortunately, now that a woman is actually running for president, the party that has staunchly supported women's rights has now shown itself to have many members who are willing to tolerate and excuse sexism in order to get their preferred candidate the nomination. I don't frankly see much difference between the parties at this point in how they talk about women and power. Every day it gets worse to the point that now the main narrative I see around the leftie blogs is "get out of the way b***h" and drop out now. The language and attitudes is strikingly similar to the right-wing blogs.


That's why I stopped reading (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:17:38 PM EST

Huffington, Daily Kos and a host of other "progressive" (choke) blogs. Talk Left at least has real topics, like this one, instead of what we see at the aforementioned blogs. I wish Texas would become more of a battleground state, like it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Ann Richards once told Bill Clinton "don't write off Texas." It amazes me how the DNC just writes off 10% of the electoral college right off the top by not pursuing Texas. The R's go after CA...and they get republican governors seated AND came within a million votes for the general with respect to Kerry and Bush. Bush wiped Kerry out in Texas by beating him with 2+ million votes. I say let's get TX into play again.


Hillary has the right (none / 0) (#65)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST

to be attacked when running for President.

What individuals do is not relevant to what the Party on the whole does.

Let someone like Sam Brownback become President and I think you would very clearly see the difference between the 2 parties.

You confuse the fact that the Democrats don't do everything you want with the Democrats not doing EVERYTHING you want.

And PLEASE don't use blog comments to pass judgment on the Democrats. Bloggers, and even moreso posters, write things with impunity. There is no real impact on their lives if they say all sorts of dumb things.


standard reply (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:31:54 PM EST

Yes, yes, people have the right to attack Hillary when she is running for President. But they do not have the right to attack her in sexist terms and language, which has been extremely prevalent. Your response (that people have the right to attack her) is the classic response designed to avoid the fact that democrats have engaged in and tolerated the sexist treatment that she has endured. But it is irrelevant to my point. I never said that she should be immune to attack.

I still maintain that many democrats (including party members and leaders) have engaged in (at worst) or been apologists for (at the least) horribly sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton during the last year. And that will be one of the most important points of historical and sociological analysis that will come out of this in the future - how similar the talking points were from democrats and republicans when it came to the treatment of the first viable female presidential contender.

Yes, I know that there is much to attack about Clinton in particular that has nothing to do with her gender. And I agree with much of it. But that is not my point.


The problem is (none / 0) (#90)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:16:04 PM EST

that many people viscerally hate Hillary. And not just Republicans. For whatever reasons they simply can't stand her.

So they have a tendency to say things they probably wouldn't say otherwise.

I think that there has been a penchant to call any gender specific language sexist. And while I can understand why people think that it kinda the fact that we have been defining our genders for millenia.


Visceral hate (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:26:46 PM EST

People who viscerally hate Hillary Clinton have been brainwashed by the overwhelming misogynistic attacks on her over the past few decades, in my opinion. So, it's impossible to separate the "visceral hatred" from the sexism. It's the sexism that drives the hatred. Just as right-wingers have tapped into racism to promote racial hatred, it's also common to be able to tap into latent sexism to promote hatred of female political figures.

There is simply no rational explanation for that level of hatred directed at anyone, never mind Clinton. There are plenty of public figures whose policies and personalities I deplore, but I have no visceral hatred of them. Why should I? It's irrational.

Psychologists have known for years that visceral hatred is all about the hater, not about the hated.


: No evidence (none / 0) (#107)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:10:07 PM EST

You are making a connection without evidence. Lots of people hate Bill Clinton. Lots of people hate George Bush. People kill other people because of political hatred. So to argue that the only reason people hate Hillary is because of sexism seems to be a counter-factual claim.
You know it is possible that Hillary simply rubs people the wrong way.
It's also possible that accusations of sexism are simply an attempt to marginalize opponents of Hillary Clinton.

As a historian, I agree, Dr. Molly (none / 0) (#105)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:00:45 PM EST

that although Sean Willentz' analysis tells us that racialzing of this race will be a significant factor in historical treatment of Election 2008 -- and I have been wondering all along who will be the Theodore White this time, and it may be Willentz -- it may not be the dominant factor discussed.

The classic study of this contest will focus on Clinton, I think, not because of the candidates but because of the reaction of the people and parties.

And moving on to not writing history but making history, it is very intriguing for a historian to -- as ever -- try to be a futurist, too, and see where this could take us. Causation uber alles; actions have consequences. And that ever has been so in women's history, as the actions of men have finally awakened women from apathy -- with repercussions, of course, not just for them but for the country. We will wait and see.


Yes, she has the right to be questioned (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:54:57 PM EST

on issues, including so-called women's issues. But she is being attacked because of her anatomy, because it is a female anatomy.

Do you even see the difference?


I see (none / 0) (#108)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:11:27 PM EST

the accusations of sexism. Because I don't see the evidence that she is being attacked BECAUSE of her anatomy.


x (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST

So, as long as the hate comes first it's OK to use any language to attack the woman? Is that what you're saying?


No (none / 0) (#112)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST

I made no value judgment.

Hatred of Hillary does not necessarily equate to sexism.


OK, (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM EST

but you didn't answer the question. Is it OK, if you hate Hillary Clinton for perfectly good, high-minded, principled reasons, to refer to her as a b*tch/witch/harpy/nag/shrew? Are those the kinds of words you decline to judge?


Of course not (none / 0) (#116)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:39:48 PM EST

I don't that pejoratives of any kind are acceptable.

Do you think it was ok for Tina Fey to use the word b!tch as a compliment?

FTR, those terms are gender specific but are they are more or less acceptable than terms that are almost exclusively used towards men such as a-h!le/dick/jerkoff/redneck or a litany of others? Those terms are so common that no one even notices their use.


x (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST

Actually, no, I didn't like it but I understand why she used it.

Not particularly worried about gender-based attacks on men, sorry.


: Well that's your choice (none / 0) (#119)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:33:53 PM EST

If you condone gender based attacks on men you are implicitly accepting gender based attacks on women by allowing the dichotomy to exist.

subtle difference (none / 0) (#120)
by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:36:04 PM EST

She is certainly being attacked with sexism. Just look at the language of the attackers. You see it with the usage of shrill, cackling, crying, etc. etc. Of course as to what the root motive of an individual attacker might be, who knows. But if they use sexist language in their attack, I think it's close enough for all practical purposes to say the attack is sexist.


While this analysis (none / 0) (#52)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:56:12 PM EST

is interesting it is largely irrelevant. You can't compare primary performances to GE performances.

Unless one of the candidates does something really stupid or the DNC does something really stupid, the Democratic base is going to vote overwhelmingly for the nominee regardless of whether it is Obama or Hillary. Even during a contentious race between the two of the, 80+% of Democrats say they are voting Dem no matter what.

So the question becomes how to ensure getting that remaining 10-15% to come to the polls and how to get Independents to swing towards the Democrats.

: Just do a simple word search (none / 0) (#56)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:05:09 PM EST

in the analysis for "independents," "swing," etc., and you'll find something relevant. And just see how much data is in there that is not at all about primaries, most of it, and you'll find something relevant. Just, y'know, read it.

Pa and big states (none / 0) (#62)
by Janet on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:13:39 PM EST

I grew up in Pa and Now live in NJ. Both states will vote for Hillary in November. Ohio and Fl should as well. They all are the states necessary to win. Getting the Latino votes will add a few states that were not in play in 2004.

: I couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#67)
by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST

HRC wins the big prizes. Like George Will said this morning on ABC, Obama can win places like Idaho and Utah all day long but that won't help him in the general election. Cokie Roberts pointed out that BHO indeed won Wyoming...to the tune of like 60,000 dems??? Not exactly what we need in the general to defeat the r's. Also, it is interesting to point out that Cokie also said that either candidate needs a white man as a running mate (Edwards anyone?). She may have a point. She made her case by saying this is the Dem's race to win but yet with all the junk about the economy, the war, corruption....McCain still does well or about even against either Dem candidate. Sure made me think!!