home

House Dem Leadership Supports Obama With Ignorance

Elizabeth Drew writing in Politico confirms what we have been seeing for months - the House Dem leadership is populated by fools. Consider this unforgivable ignorance:

[T]he congressional Democratic leaders don’t draw the same conclusion from Pennsylvania and also earlier contests that many observers think they do: that Obama’s candidacy is fatally flawed because he has as yet been largely unable to win the votes of working class whites. They point out something that has been largely overlooked in all the talk – the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries were closed primaries, and, one key congressional Democrat says, “Yes, he doesn’t do really well with a big part of the Democratic base, but she doesn’t do well with independents, who will be critical to success in November.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Ohio was an Open Primary. Indeed, the exit polling indicated that 69% of the Ohio vote was Democrats, 16% was Independents and 9% was Republicans. Clinton and Obama split the Republican and Independent vote equally. Clinton won Democrats 56-42. In case these all important House Dem leaders are interested. This is their profession. This is their business. And they do not even know basic facts like this. What a incompetent leadership group we have in the House. Just pathetic.

(By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only)

< Saturday Protests Planned Over DNC Refusal To Seat FL Delegation | Double Standards Part A Jillion >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm with you... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:57:55 AM EST
    and I'm so disappointed in our Party leaders.

    I thought we Democrats were the reality-based ones. Instead, they choose to ignore the facts that are staring them right in the face.

    Sounds like (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    the Democratic Party leadership is just writing off their base.  Well, they shouldn't be surprised if a large portion of their base writes them off in November.

    Base vs. Swing Voters (none / 0) (#69)
    by daryl herbert on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    African Americans are a more reliable part of the Democratic Party's base than working class whites, many of whom were "Reagan Democrats."

    They aren't the "base," they are the swing voters.

    The Party is going to have to choose between offending its base (AAs and progressives, both of whom largely favor Obama) or swing voters (working class white men and women)

    The only way to prevent this is for Clinton to win overwhelmingly between now and August, so that she will have a superior claim to the nomination.  That way, the base will accept that they had their chance and lost.

    Parent

    That Would Be Great Except For The Fact That (4.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    even with a 88-90% AA vote for Obama, Clinton gets the majority of self identified Democratic voters in most primaries. As a percentage share of the Democratic party base, the AA community and the progressives voting for Obama, does not make up a majority of the Democratic base.  It also ignores the fact that not all progressives are Obama supporters and not all white working class people (think union workers) are swing voters.  In PA, the majority of union households voted for Hillary. In NV union workers went against their union recommendation and voted for Hillary. This also occurred in one other state that I am aware of although I can't remember which one.

    Parent
    Latino (none / 0) (#82)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:20:52 PM EST
    voters are staunch and loyal.

    And they voted for Hillary.

    Parent

    Do the numbers (none / 0) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    White male voters are second only to white women as the largest block of Democratic voters.

    Parent
    What kind of Dem strategy is relying on (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    Independents rather than Dems? That sounds very cavalier to me. Almost insulting. Of course, the factual error is just stupid.

    America for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    has a nice ring, doesn't it?

    Parent
    You mean like (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    Connecticut for Lieberman?

    [shudder]

    Parent

    shhhhhhh (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    we're on board for the non-partisan unity now!

    Parent
    My pony (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    is a unicorn!

    /swigs more Kool-Aid

    Parent

    Or Obamerica 2008! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09:38 PM EST
    The factual error (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST
    is their whole argument.

    In Ohio, Obama has no advantage with Independents and Republicans.

    The House Dem Leadership argument is utterly ridiculous.

    It is also a sign of their utter incompetence.

    The entire article is shocking in its ignorance of the basics of politics. Nancy Pelosi is simply terrible and a menace.

    Parent

    But I read he goes deep into Repubs (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:12:14 PM EST
    and Indies. So that's gotta be true. Doesn't it?

    Parent
    Did you read my post? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    In Ohio he did not.

    Please, I do not mean to be rude, but read the post.

    Parent

    Then stupid on me (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    It's hard to tell these days. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    I've heard plenty of stuff over the last few days about Obama that may have been true January 3rd, but can't be taken seriously any longer about his cross over appeal.

    He's dead meat for moderates and centrists now.

    So you are forgiven for missing the snark.

    Parent

    That's what I thought. :-) (none / 0) (#39)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    it goes to demographics again (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kimsaw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    and the scary thing is that the leadership (I use the word lightly) can't comprehend that they are in trouble. Pelosi anti-unity comments say more about her inability to lead. The Dems are in serious trouble from this independents' point of view.

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    Thanks to her incompetence and meddling in the primary, I have no doubt that it will be many years before another woman Speaker is elected.

    Way to blow it, Pelosi. You idiot.

    Parent

    It gets worse (none / 0) (#87)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    There is some real basic ignorance in the leadership and Pelosi is terribly clumsy.

    She was going to appoint Alcee Hastings chairman of the House Select Intel Cmte.  When reminded of the problems of putting Hastings in such a high profile position. Jeez. She appointed Sylvester Reyes the 3rd ranking member of the cmte.

    Reyes (all the while serving on the Intel cmte.) didn't know that al Qaeda was Sunni and had no idea whether Hezbollah was Shia or Sunni (Then there's McCain).

    The stupidity isn't confined to Democrats by any means but at least Republicans don't go out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot at election time.

    Somebody ought to give these people a primer providing fundamental info about current events.

    Very embarrassing and indicative of the people at the top.

    It's time for a house cleaning (no pun intended) and this may be a clue about the nature of the internal war raging in the Democratic Party. Pretty obvious it's spilled over into the nomination process.

    Oh to be a fly on the wall.

    Parent

    It's better then (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by hookfan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:32:40 PM EST
    to be an independant rather than a white lower income working class Democrat. At least they will put out something to woo your vote. If this keeps up, there will be a mass exodus from the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Jane in CA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    thank you, thank you for saying this. The party leadership just doesn't seem to understand that they are alienating the democratic core -- the people who actually vote in midterms as well as primaries and GEs -- with their refusal to acknowledge that, in state after state after state, the democratic base has rejected the Obama candidacy.  According to Slate, Obama has won the dem base vote in only two states.  Not the kind of support you want if you are trying to capture the presidency as a democrat.


    Parent
    Does that mean that (none / 0) (#58)
    by 0 politico on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    if we turn in our party allegiance and register as an independent, they may start to listen?

    Parent
    that's what I'm hoping for (none / 0) (#64)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    ...as I turn in my Democratic Party badge after 32 years. (The decoder ring doesn't seem to work anymore.)

    Parent
    Every day (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM EST
    2006 seems more and more like an accident.

    I could easily imagine losing the House because of incompetence like this.

    Its a sorry piece of journalism (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ajain on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:03:40 PM EST
    That piece reads something like an Obama supporter has dictated to some journalist. And if that is not true then I think the Democrats are pretty stupid.

    It says stuff like Clinton's toughness and resilience make no difference. It also fails to acknowledge the fact that the two contests where Obama and Clinton had a real fight (March 4 and Penn) Clinton won decisively. I think the lead story on Politico is a far more realistic and unbiased one.

    I mean Krugman's article this morning pretty much tells gives you the reason why Obama has serious General election vulnerabilities. His not being able to punch her out of the race is a serious problem, in my opinion.

    Krugman... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    one of the few still small voices of sanity being heard through the cacophony of the corporate media.

    What a mensch he is.

    Parent

    On to Indiana (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by nycvoter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:19 PM EST
    well it's an open primary in Indiana, with Illinois as it's neighbor.  Let's see how each candidate does there.  It amazes me that the media will be quick to say "Obama might have some trouble because it's heavily white working class people" but when they talk about how Obama's expected to win North Carolina they never say "Clinton might have a tough time becaue 40% of registered democrats are African American"  They act like that fact doesn't even exist.

    This isn't a political party. It's a confederacy (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:36 PM EST
    of dunces. I was thinking last night after Pelosi shot down a unity ticket once again. They deserve to lose. It's too bad they're taking everyone else down with them.

    I'm telling you, it's Revenge of the Wine Track (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jim J on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09:57 PM EST
    The party's entrenched elitists -- BTD is fond of calling them the "Creative Class," though that is mostly where the foot soldiers are recruited -- see Obama as their great opportunity to finally go for the gold without having to deal with those grubby gun-owning church-goers and their pesky values.

    They hate traditional working people, always have, always will. Obama is the secular messiah.

    Parent

    Frankly, I don't buy it (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:13:51 PM EST
    for example: a major reason that Obama has done so poorly with the Jewish vote is that he tends to come off as a kind of preacher. Most American Jews hate the idea of mixing religion and politics, and Obama just exudes it.

    Parent
    Well, the thing there is that Obama is clearly (none / 0) (#36)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    the more outwardly religious of the two. His entire campaign resembles a revival meeting. So I don't think it'd disdain for the religious (which is why his "bitter" comments seem out of character to me) at least. I don't know if it's a wine track/beer track thing.

    It's a stupidity thing and the Dems have that in abundance. As I think I said a few weeks ago, you don't go to a major city and attack religious people/gun owners, etc. and you also don't go around in the heartland attacking secularists and "east coast" liberals. It's just common sense to try to appeal to a broad base.

    Parent

    key word is "resembles" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kimsaw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    Religion is politics to Obama -a way into places that will secure his positioning amongst his constituency. I don't get that he's all that religious. He advertises his Christianity, but if you watched the CNN compassion forum, one could tell Clinton lives her religion. I got the sense that Obama uses his and not in a spiritual way. For him it means political opportunity, just like he uninvited Rev. Wright to his run announcement. He used Wright's church to build his constituency. When politics was local Wright's okay, but he's trouble when introduced before the national media.  

    Obama may talk like a preacher. He can sponsor a gospel tour. He can stay in a divisive church, but it's all for political purposes its surely not about the Gospel. Last time I checked Obama wasn't one of the apostles, though some are obviously confused. He has spent too much time saying he's a Christian 'cause he's making sure everyone knows he's not a Muslim. He makes it seem like it's not okay to be a Muslim, just like he runs away from his middle name. He should own his name and make it a more common part of who he is. After all he's supposed to be an agent of change and Hussein is just a name. He's caught up in his own rhetorical web writhe with contradiction.

    Obama is a politician who will use all means necessary to get where he wants to go. Nothing new here. He's just less transparent because he bamboozles so well. (Sorry couldn't resist)

    Parent

    The Only Thing I've Agreed With Obama On (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    to date, is that the Democratic party is the stupid party. Didn't think he should have said that the Republicans were the party of ideas and disagreed with him at the time. Since then, the party establishment has erased any doubt in my mind.

    Parent
    Why the surprise? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    After the way they treated Florida in the Roolz committee, then Kennedy and Kerry "handing off the torch", then the racism allegations, they have no clue.  I thought that they would be honest brokers to come up with a solution.  Now it is clear they don't know their business, they are not honest and they lost their chance for a sweeping Democratic majority.  

    and kudos to elizabeth drew (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Turkana on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    for <strike>reporting</strike> stenographing this nonsense without actually bothering to fact check.

    Heh (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    I too have been disappointed (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:11 PM EST
    in our Democratic leadership.  The fact that they are either ignorant of the fact or deliberately twisting facts to fit their own stand is beyond the pale.

    yeah not so much (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by AlSmith on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    Elizabeth Drew is trying a push poll here.

    If the House members were going to do this it would have been much more effective before Obama had lost a bunch of contests.

    With every week the rationale she suggests is becoming more tenuous.

    It seems to me that she is lobbying rather than reporting.


    I don't trust Elizabeth Drew (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by BGP on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    I've been lurking here for some time. I am most grateful for the blog and the community as a respite from the noise machine. Mostly, though, I haven't felt I had anything significant to add to the conversation and was content to be schooled by those who know more.

    I was delighted to spend the evening of the Pennsylvania primary in this company.

    I'm breaking silence now to say that I am perfectly willing to believe that Drew is push polling. She's the author of this hit piece about Senator Clinton in the NY Review of Books, so I sure don't trust her to be doing objective reporting.

    Which is not to say that the House leadership can't also be stupid.

    Parent

    Nope. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    Drew is simply telling us what these fools think and why they think it.

    The most telling issue is the blackmail over threats of losing the AA votes, down the ballot and into the forseeable future.  That is the issue and it was the cynical strategy to get him the nomination from the beginning.

    They actually do not care if he/they/we(?) don't win the presidency.

    Only one way to snap out of it now.  Maybe it can't happen but it should.

    Hil and Bill need to talk to Al.

    Parent

    In my mind (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    they got the wrong playbook for the wrong election.  They are playing with the Rove playbook for the 2004 election, when it's 2008.  We could have won with the most strident Democratic platform.  Now they have nothing.  Just like Krugman says, they are losers.  They did not listen to America.  

    Change was not just change, change was and should be for the Democratic Party.  

    Y'all, this is not incompetence! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Jim J on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:12:44 PM EST
    This is what your party's leadership actually believes.

    They have always given lip service to working people, church goers, gun owners, etc., while in reality absolutely loathing those people.

    Obama gives them the chance to openly wear their elitist prejudices on their sleeves.

    Sometimes people mean what they say. We are being told in no uncertain terms that Hillary's voters are NOT a part of the party moving ahead.

    They. Do. Not. Want. Us. OK?

    They should do more research (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:19:24 PM EST
    on who is actually voting for HRC.

    Namely, teh wimmins.

    Writing us off is simply moronic.

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:42:57 PM EST
    heard the message and salute the Democratic party good-bye.

    I learned a long time ago to read the writing on the wall.

    Parent

    Great Minds ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Jane in CA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    and all that.  I'm also planning on going Decline-to-State if/when Obama gets the nod.  

    Parent
    Get Independents by pointing out the mess NOT by (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jerry on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:18:09 PM EST
    bashing on Medicare, Social Security, Bill Clinton and praising Ronald Reagan.

    When your reaching out to Independents looks like that I have no idea how to assess your commitment to progressive issues.

    As Sadly, No! points out very nicely, if there are food shortages in the US and the Dems can't win an election, we deserve to lose.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    that our leadership is, in fact, political.  :)

    Come on guys.  These are politicians.  If they thought much, they'd never survive this game.

    It's a rare politician who actually thinks.  Now, I happen to think Hillary is one of those rare birds.

    But Pelosi?  Dean?

    Let's stop being surprised they are really not all that bright except at pandering.

    That's not how he comes off (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:23:08 PM EST
    to my relatives.

    Why do you think the Wright thing mattered? Because he sounds like a second rate Farrakhan.

    Exactly my point. (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Jim J on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:27:19 PM EST
    Obama's allegiance to Wright tells the tale.

    Obama is wholly inauthentic when he speaks about religion. By my lights he is agnostic at best. And Wright is clearly more political than religious.

    Bottom line, they are both radical, destructive figures. One smooth, one less so.

    Parent

    I think you're analysis is all wrong (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    Obama has "scary black militant" rubbing off on him. It doesn't have anything to do with religion.

    Parent
    Sigh. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jim J on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    Yes, you are right: It doesn't have anything to do with religion. Yup, exactly what I'm trying to say.

    I think you are finding differences between our positions where there are few.

    Parent

    Ok, fine (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    IQ matches their competence quotient (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:30:57 PM EST
    as judged by Americans and reflected in Congressional approval ratings.

    By the way it really is funny too, but it is what Pa has done its put a period on the Elect ability Base and Obama support in the party which we all pretty much knew was not the majority.  What else can they say even as dumb as it is their trying to remove the  period from the sentence, the majority of the Democratic base do not support Obama as nominee and the likelihood that he can win in Nov without their support is slim.

    Hard times = Hard luck voters (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by davnee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST
    Are the Dems too stupid to realize this?  The number of Americans falling behind is getting larger right now, not smaller.  More people are feeling the pinch and desperately want the bread and butter.  Well give them the bread and butter candidate!  Is this really that hard to figure out?  Can they be this clueless about which way the wind is blowing?

    And is it really that hard to figure out that a giant mass of working class, Catholic, somewhat culturally conservative voters have recently arrived in this country and become voters?  The Latinos are up for grabs.  This is a staggeringly important base to capture going forward, particularly in the Southwest and the Mountain West.  They are growing in population at a faster rate than AA's and the "creative class."  (Heck probably combined!)  Why are we not running their favorite candidate?  Talk about changing the electoral map for a generation.

    The ipod kids are for the most part going to be Dems anyway.  Why obsess over pumping up their turnout now when you got bigger fish to fry in holding and consolidating your traditional base and capturing Latinos.  

    What's going on with the Dem leadership boggles my mind.

    Speaking of ignorance of elected Dems (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    Did you see the article at The Hill the other day where Dems are backing away from Obama's and Clinton's healthcare plans. Great idea while they are out there selling their plans, for Dems in Congress to be saying how it won't happen.

    Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.
    ...
    "We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates' healthcare plans. "What they are doing is ... laying out their ambitions."
    ...
    Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is "not sure we have the big plan on healthcare."

    "Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan," Schumer said.

    I think this is related to the topic at hand but please delete if not. Thanks.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    Obama blew it big-time for us on health care.  Most people I talk to think she's for a single-payer plan.

    jeesh

    He was idiotic.

    Parent

    Still no correction of Drew's incorrect claim (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    You think maybe Politico is hoping that if they leave it this way, reality will conform to the article? Like a variation of "repeat a lie enough times and people will eventually believe it's true"?

    I've had doubts about Obama's ability to hang on to Independents and Republicans for a while now. I cannot IMAGINE that these out-of-the-Democratic party Obama-supporters, who tend to be moderates, will choose him over McCain in the fall--not after Reverend Wright, Ayers, Michelle's thesis, and Obama's own obvious cluelessness.

    Are any polls showing a falling-off of their support thus far?



    Oh (4.80 / 5) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    and this has Tom Daschle written all over it.

    Anybody ever think to question Obama about his association with him?

    BTD, you better get your whip ready. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:00:05 PM EST
    It's getting to the point that you're going to have to use it on me to motivate me in November. I'm trying to do that with my family but I'm losing the heart for it.

    who was the last liberal elitist elected (none / 0) (#28)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    to the presidency?? just answer that one and you will see Obama's chances...

    Kennedy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    yup and they have been unelectable ever since IMO (none / 0) (#33)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    And the solid south (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    just barely came through for him.

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#60)
    by nell on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    have lost my vote for good. If it's not Hillary, I will register as an Independent. There is simply no benefit to being registered as a Democrat with this kind of leadership, you are simply taken for granted.

    McCain win (none / 0) (#70)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    Are you okay with 4 more years of a Bush-like White House, two new Supreme Court nominees being far right, more war, bad economy, etc?
    Look, I'll take any Democrat over McCain.

    Parent
    I don't trust (none / 0) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    that Obama will be any better than McCain.

    Parent
    No foul language (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:24:53 PM EST
    Check out the rules.  Foul language messes with the filtering software.  :)

    Further, even 'closed' D primaries include ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    ... substantial shares of self-identified R's and I's.

    Hillary took a majority of self-identified white independent voters in the PA primary (per exit polling).

    Who Do They Think Those Ind. and Rep. Look Like (none / 0) (#73)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    Hillary's base or Obama's base?

    And it's not independents and Republicans who swing elections, its moderates who swing elections.  This is where it gets really scary because while Obama used to win or hold his own among moderates, he lost moderates by 20% in Pennsylvania.  The only ideological group he won were self-identified as very liberal.  If he can't win democrats with ideologies and demographics closest to the non-dems, and who are in the same demographics, then what magic is going to win him those non-dems.  Unless there are enough African American, college, and very liberal people in Pennsylvania who aren't democrats.

    Idiots.  No wonder we always lose elections, no one can read an exit poll.

    BTW, all of the exit poll data cited comes from CNN.

    Please keep your comments on topic (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    No red herrings please.

    if that was to me.... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kempis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:36:06 PM EST
    Sorry. I thought it was "on topic" to question the Politico assertion that Obama outperforms Hillary among Independents. I think "Independents" is a vague term ideologically, and I can't imagine Obama doing better than Hillary, post-Wright, among moderates. I was wondering if there was any recent data on Independent support of each candidate.

    Early on, Obama was presented as a moderate; hence, he had moderate support. Wright and Ayers and Michelle and "bitter-cling" put that support in peril, I'd think.

    But if all this is off-topic, then nevermind....

    Parent

    The article at Politico (none / 0) (#76)
    by jen on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:29:07 PM EST
    makes it sound like it's a done deal. But I don't count Clinton out. She's a scrappy fighter and so am I. I'll stand behind her and Wes Clark until it's over. If they hand the nomination to O! even if Hillary continues to whoop his butt, I'll be gone from the Dem Party and apparently won't be missed.


    Politico (none / 0) (#80)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:56:51 PM EST
    Oh, hell, I didn't notice this was the Politico.  The folks quoted could very well be known Obama supporters.  

    I don't trust the reporting there at all.

    I'm not seeing this question... (none / 0) (#83)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:26:39 PM EST
    ... asked, so I guess I'll have to ask it--

    And the other way to support Obama would be?

    [rimshot, laughter]

    Jeebus, what with the DNC making a cross-selling deal with the Precious, it looks like the disconnect of the party from its base is complete. It's like they're daring me to vote for McCain. Gad.

    don't assume (none / 0) (#84)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    This is their business. And they do not even know basic facts like this. What a incompetent leadership group we have in the House. Just pathetic.

    Whose to say their idiocy isn't on purpose? As politicians, who by nature lie and deceive all the time I'd say its better than a 50-50 chance they know exactly what the story is, they don't like what it tells, and hence make up stuff to try to influence a different outcome.

    For many in the democratic "leadership" the primary has been way more, almost exclusively about dethroning the Clintons as democratic principles than it has been about winning the presidency in November for America and Americans.

    The democratic "leadership' has proven itself over and over and over again through the bush years to be extremely small minded little fools wholly undeserving of the responsibility invested in them.  


    She acted as if representing all of them (none / 0) (#85)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:47:55 PM EST
    Sounds more as if she talked to a few friends and then comes out now with their thinking, hoping that saying so will make it so.

      This way, making other superdelegates feel as if they might miss out on a 'surge' is one way to try to get them to declare FOR 'the winner'...  packs are like that.