home

Facts Are Stubborn Things

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:13:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Pundits ignore facts when they do not fit their narrative. First it was Frank Rich. Now it is Jonathan Alter (via Yglesias selling the nonsense):

It was the "Grandma Primary." Barack Obama lost Pennsylvania mostly because white working-class women over 60 dominated the contest to an astonishing degree, and they backed Hillary Clinton by more than 2-1. The big question is what that means for November. Obama carried men and younger and middle-aged voters, but that wasn't nearly enough.

This is false in every particular. [More...]

The PA exit polls prove this. Clinton won ALL voters 40-49 by 54-46. She won ALL voters 50-64 by 57-43. these two age groups comprised 56% of the vote in Pennsylvania. Of course Clinton also won all whites 60 and older by 68-32. But she also won all whites 18-29 by 52-48. She also won all whites 30-44 by 58-42.

Jonathan Alter write an entire column that is premised on a gross falsehood. He approvingly quotes Obama saying ""If you look at the numbers, our problem has less to do with white working-class voters [than] with older voters." that is just false. Alter reports it as fact. This is now common from him. It is a shame. He was once a good journalist. See also Mark Blumenthal's debunking of this nonsense.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Whatever Happened To The Politics Of Contrast? | A Defense Of Obama On Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Facts Are Stubborn Things | 148 comments (148 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Self-Important (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Athena on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    Why does Alter still have a job?  Didn't he call for Hillary to quit before TX and Ohio?  He's been shilling for Obama endlessly.

    He can call for whatever he wants (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    But he does not get to make up the facts.

    Parent
    I guess people read his drivel (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by zyx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    That is what I conclude about Maureen Dowd.  I just can't imagine her employed except as a standup comic at the end of the line of dives--but she has a FABULOUS job.

    Parent
    Totally Agree (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:44:09 PM EST
    I am convinced that Dowd is not only a hack, but a deranged hack as well.  If I wasn't convinced before, I certainly am now that she is publically calling for Hillary to be "punished."

    I keep thinking that nothing the media does can astonish and appall me any more, and I keep being proven wrong.  

    Parent

    They May Keep Alter Around Because He Fits (none / 0) (#41)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    right in with the crowd of not credible journalists; and maybe his bout with cancer gets him a free pass...just speculating.

    Parent
    Isn't he (none / 0) (#95)
    by 0 politico on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    one of the Countdown regulars?  I may have him confused with someone else as I stopped watching Olberman and MSNBC since the Texas debate.  But, if he is, that should be self-explanatory.

    Parent
    I don't know about (none / 0) (#139)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:07:08 PM EST
    that but I do recall that he did Al Gore no favors in 2000 and supported the invasion of Iraq.

    I bring up the past because it appears from that record that he's really just a Village hack and we know where Village hacks stand in relation to this campaign.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#142)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:25:10 PM EST
    Alter is a Countdown regular, fer shure

    Parent
    You know what should scare Obama? (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    This:
    she also won all whites 18-29 by 52-48.

    That's the kind of Demographic meltdown that lets Republicans win elections.

    Why can't these pundits figure out what Hillary won PA in a landslide, and was similarly blown out in NC, but that the votes by demographic were not dissimilar?

    you're so right (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:28:16 AM EST
    That's why I kept screaming (shrilly?) after last Tues.  It's like they are blind to the obvious.

    I'm not quite sure where this derangement comes from.  We went from being the party of the people to the party of a handful of folks who think they know better than we do and just want us to shut up about it.

    In other words, the republican party.

    Parent

    Hey, that means (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilburro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:31:28 AM EST
    we might just win the white working class back yet!

    Parent
    Or lose it (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:50:27 PM EST
    in a McCain blowout.

    Parent
    People who are adamant (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jondee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    that Latinos couldnt possibly know who Bill Richardson is, should maybe be a little more careful about positioning themselves as the final arbiters of "facts".

    Parent
    As a latino I can tell you that if you ask the (none / 0) (#52)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    average Puertorican in NY or Cuban in Fl unless they are political junkies they won't know who your talking about.  I can talk for Mexican-Americans but unless they are political junkies I'm willing to bet they won't either.


    Parent
    Meant I can't talk for Mexican-Americans (none / 0) (#53)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:56:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Porqué (none / 0) (#63)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:26:58 PM EST
    Es una causa de su apellido anglo. Su madre es Mexicana. Qué lastimá no aprovecha la tradicción del apellido materno, verdad?

    Parent
    The Demographic question (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:38:46 AM EST
    Have his numbers moved in any way during the primary season?  I know in California Hillary won among the younger demographic.  

    Parent
    Demographics and Creating Ones Own Reality (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by talex on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    I recall that several years ago those same blog pundits were railing about the Bushies creating their own reality. They railed about deleting information out of important reports. About cherry picking stats that supported their talking points.

    Now those same blog pundits who support the Half Dem-Half Republican are creating their own reality by cherry picking stats that support up their talking point and deleting information out of reports like the exit polls.

    They, the Obama Drones have become what they used to despise.

    Parent

    this is the same for Hiliary Supporters (none / 0) (#57)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    People we need to take a step back and look at the arguments that are being made.  I find it interesting that all (maybe most) the arguements throughout the blogsosphere are all negative:
    1)anti-clinton arguement--> she can't win because she will lose the black vote and young people won't come out
    2)anti-obama arguement--> he can't win because he can't get the poorer white vote
    Lies, damn lies and statistics.  

    I believe both of these candidates can bring together (and have brought together) a coalition that can win this thing.  However, if we keep on repeating the same ratially tinged arguements they will become true.

    Let me add, I really like this site (especially the law stuff- so pertinent to Detroit), and I know this statement might cause me to get kicked off, but I noticed that when someone says that something is racially insulting (e.g. Clinton's "paraprasing" of the AP news story) it is mainly discounted.  Now I know at other sites, there are a lot of sexist comments being made,completely inexcusable, but isn't one of the things that makes us progessives, is listening to other people's feeling about the issues and giving it some credence?

    Let me add, for this black man, an arguement that he shouldn't be the nominee because whites won't vote for him is just not good enough (I hope).  If it is I need to stop studying medicine, as much of my potential patient base won't come to see me (which unfortunately is statistically true- but doesn't make me want to stop).

    Parent

    Hillary cites polling data (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Josey on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:33:29 PM EST
    and she's declared a racist.
    Hillary adds historical context (LBJ/MLK) - and she's declared a racist.
    Clinton says Jesse Jackson won SC - he's declared a racist.
    The Clintons eat vanilla ice cream - proving they're racists!

    At Obama blogs there are key supporters who intentionally rachet up the race-baiting and false charges of racism - in order to gain more support for Obama by smearing the Clintons.

    Parent

    Sam Donaldson Also Brought The Fact To (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:49:56 PM EST
    light to day on Geo. Steph, much to the chagrin of Geo. Will.  No one is saying that whites won't vote for obama, but a certain segment of the white vote has not and may not vote for obama.  To be blunt, obama played the race card and found out that was the best way for him, who wanted to transcend his blackness, to win the black vote.  Hillary found a way to win certain segments of the white vote...that is just the way it is.

    Parent
    ...But those are young racists (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM EST
    and other than Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Massachusetts, they will not be an impact in November; )

    Parent
    oh i think they know about it, but they (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by hellothere on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:17:06 PM EST
    don't want to spoil all their fun yucking it up about obama. the "analysis" will come later. they'll note with that worried and shocked look on their faces at these numbers and "then" translate what they mean for the general.

    Parent
    The media has gotten too good... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    at the "How did we go so wrong?" analysis story.

    I think I could do the whole storyline in my sleep. Except for the voices...those are a bit more difficult.

    Parent

    It's not the facts, it's the narrative (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    The narrative is that some Democrat constituencies are no longer important to the Democratic Party as Obama's faction defines it -- as Bollers, Stower, and Brazile have recently been at pains to point out.


    Parent
    You ask (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by ghost2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    Why can't these pundits figure out what Hillary won PA in a landslide, and was similarly blown out in NC, but that the votes by demographic were not dissimilar?

    It's a very good question.  As a non-American, I am astounded by the shallow level of journalism in America.

    Of course, pundits have a horse in this race (Obama) and so, they have taken political correctness to an art form, when it benefits them.  Well, if any j**k is going to bring up the votes of older, or working class voters, who have voted for Clinton by a good majority, he/she's better take their head out of the sand for the 90-10 majority of AA voting Obama.  

    Although these morons try to make it look otherwise, working class people vote for Clinton because she is like Bill Clinton in spirit and priorities, while Obama is like Dukakis and Kerry. By all indications, the working class doesn't like out of touch elites with superior attitudes.  

    Parent

    BINGO! (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    By all indications, the working class doesn't like out of touch elites with superior attitudes.

    Seems patently obvious, does it not?  Why should they like them?  Can't think of any reason myself.


    Parent

    Especially ones lacking in Experience. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Alter (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    has been making up facts or distorting them to support his beliefs for months now. One of the reasons I quit watching Olbermann was because of the bald-faced lies coming out of Alter's mouth which KO then backed up to the hilt.

    For someone who is from Chicago and should know the politics, Alter was also completely blindsided by the Wright thing and was shocked when the videos first started coming out since according to HIM, Wright was such a beloved figure, even with the Chicago area Jewish community (which Alter is a part of) etc. How do you not know about someone that divisive and potentially dangerous to a campaign in your own back yard? If I remember correctly, he also was sure it was going to just go away...

    I used to have such respect for that man. Then again, I've said that a lot in the last few months.

    Chicago is the New Crawford (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    Lo, it was foretold (or imagined, whatever) and so it was written and so it shall be done. (Not.)

    At least the pizza's still deep.

    Parent

    Or stuffed (none / 0) (#61)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    I lived in Chicagoland for 4 years. But you know, it'll always be the Second City for me. (Funny how being called an elitist, snotty New Yorker from the moment you set foot on the ground will kind of make you less open about a place...)

    Parent
    i dont know (none / 0) (#64)
    by isaac on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:28:33 PM EST
    how they have the nerve to call that crap pizza, no reflection on obama of course

    Parent
    Have you ever eaten (none / 0) (#146)
    by janarchy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:08:25 AM EST
    real Chicago-style pizza? From some place like Edwardo's or Giordano's or Carmen's of Evanston or a number of other places that aren't Pizza Uno (which I personally think is rubbish)? One of the few things I miss about living in Chicago is the amazing pizza.

    Parent
    Chicago is a GREAT city (none / 0) (#148)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    I love it. Great museums, sports, and the BLUES.

    NYC energy with a midwestern twist.

    Parent

    I'm constantly shocked (none / 0) (#143)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:31 PM EST
    by journalists and reporters that simply do not do their research.

    Parent
    If grandmas were the reason (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by lilburro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    you lost by 10 points, then I would definitely be worried about them.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by janarchy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    Grandmas = typical white people to be thrown under the bus in Obamaworld, aren't they? We don't need them either.

    Parent
    I can not tell you how many Grandmas at 40 (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    are raising their Grandkids for a variety of reasons.And in my group of friends in Penna, there is only one over 62, a feisty neighbor who still has 4 Hillary signs on her front lawn.I think the reason that they point to this in Penna is that the demographics show a lot more of older people who never left their original 30 mile radius. We also get on the NE corner many NY-NJ residents who retire here because it is more reasonable than those other 2 states property tax wise. And then the final demographic. Without Philly, Penna is NC in reverse.

    Parent
    Jonathan Alter...another kool-aid drinker and I (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    have to wonder what the hell happened to another fairly decent journalist.

    This was the season (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM EST
    for virtually nothing but opinions.  Very little real journalism was practiced, and those who did were tarred and feathered unmercifully.

    It was nearly verbotum to slant one way or another and to exaggerate or overstate cases, even.  I've seen some good pieces which gave credit where credit was due absolutely trashed.  It was all or nothing.

    I presume that's the underlying racial tension, which I will always insist was stirred up to a very unhealthy degree by the Obama campaign.  It was irresponsible, although a winning strategy.

    Parent

    The real danger here is that with the (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by hairspray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    MSM crowning Obama, there is no chance that the SD's will vote for Hillary even if she wins the popular vote and has the electoral math to prove her superior ability to win in November.  There will be a prevailing wisdom that the nomination belongs to Obama and if Hillary gets it, there will be riots because Hillary will be 'stealing the nomination', blah,blah.  I really think that is why people like McGovern and Panetta are calling for her to drop out.  It is about the strife in the party they are worried about, maybe more than winning.

    Parent
    I agree with this. (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Faust on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    The media shift is the tidal wave that I do not believe that she can stop. I do not believe that West Virginia will shift the media at this point.

    But I'm still curious to see how big the blow out is and how the blow out is absorbed into current narratives.

    Parent

    remember 2000? (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:29:37 PM EST
    and the calls by everyone -- the msm, the Reps & the Dems for Gore to "give up" FL for the sake of the party & the country? Yeah, I remember how that worked out -- what I can't believe is that people are falling for it again.

    Parent
    ummmmmmmm (none / 0) (#23)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    I don't give the media this much power.

    If there were a true argument to be made, the SDs could just start giving interviews to talk it out, and that would be that.

    The momentum would change.

    At this point, I'm afraid it would have to be a dramatic moment.

    But I do agree with Hillary that elections change on a dime.  There's no harm in hanging in to see.

    He definitely is a weak candidate in several respects.  He's also got strengths.  

    So it would take a big to-do to change the outcome.

    Parent

    I think the media (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    has been very effective this year.  Obama would have been no where without it.  That's why his GE chances will be completely dependent on it.  If they can keep propping him up, he'll win because there will again be no focus on issues.

    Parent
    See, I agreed with Ferarro (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM EST
    It's because he's the first viable AA candidate.

    It's no a media deal, but the media is following the emotional story of this campaign.

    Parent

    The next best story (none / 0) (#39)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    is for the Dems to lose.  BTD ahd his media darling theory.  I had the 'media will make the most with what story' theory.  I always thought they could get the most ratings by knocking Clinton around and then (gasp) how could the Dems lose? why by picking a weak candidate again. sigh

    Parent
    lol* (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    True........that will be the never-ending milk cow of this season.  I picture a lot of people hoping to rip out editorials or quick stories on TV and still make it their kids' soccer games.  :)

    But...

    I think this is all going to collapse, yet again, on network TV.

    People love a "bit" of controversy.  But this season reminds me of my love of macaroni and cheese when I was pregnant.  I could not face it for 10 years after my son was born.  haha

    It's way over-kill.  People can't take this kind of emotionalism in life and still go to work and eat.

    I feel like we're a third-world country right now.

    *Dodging sniper fire  :)

    Parent

    I'm with you (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:31:45 PM EST
    on the third world country bit.  This election has seemed a lot like those in some banana republic where a 'dear leader' is on the ticket.  Disgusting.

    *Watch out, incoming  :-)

    Parent

    Interesting,yes -- the second AA candidate (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:33:03 PM EST
    will find it a far different media landscape.

    And we can predict right now that it will be okay for the media to compare that candidate to Obama -- but it wasn't okay for Bill Clinton to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson.  

    Having taught future journalists in my former life, I can attest that they do most miserably in two other subjects, required ones that kept some from degrees for several semesters until they could eke out a passing grade.

    The two subject?  Logic and math.  I suspect that will not come as a surprise, considering the performance of the media at this point in the campaign.

    Parent

    Correct (none / 0) (#103)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:12:53 PM EST
    I'm disheartened by the SD's starting to jump on the Obama bandwagon just to push her out of the race.  

    Look, aside from Obama's demographic weaknesses as stated in this article and what can be proven from exit polls or not, there are certain things that are a fact.  The fact is, the Democratic Party is about to give us a candidate for the General Election that, during the primary season will have lost all of the following states: CA, NY, MA, FL, MI, NJ, AZ, NM, NV, NH, IN, OH, PA, RI, TX, OK, WV, KY, TN, AR.  Some of these he lost by small margins but many he lost big.  Instead, we are nominating someone that has won ID, UT, CO, MO, IA, WI, HI, AS, AL, MS, LA, SC, NC, VT, WA, ND, MN, IL, VA, DC, MD, GA, CT, WY, NB, etc...

    It is surprising that the superdelegates can look at those lists of states and not see what I see.  On top of that, the general public even now knows that he is a weakened candidate for the GE after Wright, Ayers, Rezko and several other things.  And, as much as I hate polls, they have generally shown Clinton to now be stronger against McCain than Obama.  That was not the case at the beginning which means that there has been a swing.

    Plainly stated, I don't think the superdelegates are doing the one thing that they were given the power to do.

    Parent

    his wife's a deadhead (none / 0) (#65)
    by isaac on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    maybe someone dosed him at the deadheads for obama gig

    Parent
    Seriously? re Michelle & Gratefuls? (none / 0) (#144)
    by DFLer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:31:42 PM EST


    Parent
    What worries me (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    is that this is the kind of thinking that is not being called out by the MSM yet.  But will be when their darling McCain is in a one on one race with Obama if he is the nominee.

    As Krugman noted (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Faust on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    The division is along race and CLASS lines.

    Those charts from pollster are amazing. Obama actually leads seniors that make six figures. So clearly age is just one of many factors here.

    It is unfortunate that these issues can't be discussed with reference to the data. It is clear that Obama does not have problems with whites in general, but specific slices of the white demographic. But they are important slices that cannot be dismissed casually.

    Okay...eww... (OT) (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:01:10 PM EST
    I just found myself stuck listening to the C-Span replay of MTP. (I haven't heard/watched in ages...)

    Fawning doesn't begin to describe what they were doing at that table.

    Speakiing of C-SPAN (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by joanneleon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    I just put it on and there is a forum on the role of military intelligence in national security.  Peter Pace is on the stage with Gen. McCaffrey, Leon Panetta and someone else.  Pace was apparently defending McCaffrey and at the same time, all the fire alarms were going off!  He continued to speak over them, and called somebody an SOB.  Surreal.  Just surreal.

    And C-SPAN has really gone down in quality in the last year or so.  It took awhile for the propaganda party to make significant changes to C-SPAN apparently, but they've done it.  I suppose it was always unrealistic to think that a network controlled by the cable industry could remain neutral in any way.  For the life of me, I can't understand why we don't have a public network, available to everyone, that covers our governmental affairs.  

    Parent

    even PBS News Hour (none / 0) (#74)
    by Josey on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:42:46 PM EST
    is sponsored by oil companies, car companies, and other CORPORATIONS.
    And before I became a Hillary supporter earlier this year, it appeared C-Span had gotten the Obama tattoo.

    Parent
    Anybody know Alter's email address? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    I seriously cannot let him get away with this without trying to send the facts his way.

    If you click on the "email the author" (none / 0) (#22)
    by tree on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    link on his piece it sends you to webeditors@newsweek.com. I can't find any other email address for him.

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#24)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:15:15 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm with you Bjorn (none / 0) (#109)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    I've e-mailed some writers of these crazy articles before and although it's probably futile, I still feel the need to do it.

    I can't tell you how many articles I've read this primary season with blatantly false information passing as fact.  I always thought that it was an Editor's job to fact-check before going to press.  I thought this was a basic tenet of the media so that misinformation, falsehoods, lies, slander and propaganda could not easily infiltrate our society.

    Apparently I was wrong.

    Parent

    Not just faulty facts (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by tree on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    but also faulty logic. Even without contemplating whether his facts were right or wrong, I had to stop reading to ponder how he could write a sentence like this:

    With targeted advertising, Obama can probably make up more ground among seniors in Indiana, if for no other reason than that there are fewer of them.

    Targeted advertising may help the percentages in a demographic group, but how can anyone claim with a straight face that Obama will do better WITHIN a certain demographic just because that demographic is a smaller portion of the overall population??? Alter's piece is a waste of pixels.

    Didn't she win 69% in IN?! (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:36:43 PM EST


    Parent
    That is a stunningly stupid statement (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:35:33 PM EST
    on his part.  And to think that it got through a desk, too.  It takes a stupid village to raise a stupid column to the level of publication.

    Parent
    Media self interest (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:59 PM EST
    The media darling is now the darling for a very specific reason.  The key demographic he brings along to the MSM (all it's versions, magazines, newspaper, tv, radio).  These guys now are vested into seeing him win cause they want to capture his demographic.  Without an Obama candidacy and presidency, they will not be able to create a new class of consumer.  

    So media darling, BTD is not media self interest and preservation.  Corporate media has run the numbers.  They were wallowing in a dead end future and now they think the key demographic being engaged will mean big bucks.  Frankly, they don't give a hoot about policies etc.  It's $$$$$.  

    Big Tent, you are too kind with your phraseology. (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by wurman on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    Sen. Obama may be simply mistaken in his comments about the demographics of those who vote for him.

    Or the senator may be mis-informed by his campaign staff who may sort of, kind of, partially massage the data to suit their theme of the day / week / month.

    BUT, after reading the Blumenthal summary, with its absolutely easy charts, it appears to me that the pundits are liars.  And by that I mean that they are knowing liars who have totally fabricated falsehoods.  That data cited by Blumenthal is just flat-out obvious.

    It's a pretty tough go for the voters of the USA when the suppliers of information in the various media are liars.

    Apparently, it's no longer possible for a moderately interested voter to actually acquire useful, true information.

    My daughter is a bright, educated, 30-something mom who listens to music radio on the way to work, on which she hears a form of news at the hour & half hour, and she peruses USA Today as well as a local paper during breaks in her work day.

    She is convinced that it's only geriatrics, such as myself, who strongly support Sen. Clinton.

    She's been spoonfed the lies.  And accepts them.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by kayla on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    I'm 20 and I support Hillary.

    There are a lot of myths going on during this primary season.  You would think journalists would be the truth tellers.  It's like they're campaigning for Barack or something.  I expect the politicians and surrogates to stretch the truth, but I was hoping for more from the media.  Oh well.

    Parent

    >>>It's like they're campaigning (none / 0) (#67)
    by isaac on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:35:22 PM EST
    for Barack or something.

    *DING!

    Parent

    These middle aged guys are botoxing their eyes (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:25:04 PM EST
    Can't they get sports cars or fool around like the cliche?

    The stereotypes they cling to to paint HRC herself or her voters as somehow being "wrong" become more ludicrous by the day.

    The commentaries reek of a desperation to be on board with teh new coolness or (within the party structure) eyes blinded by visions of new, shiny, endless bling.

    *hooting* (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM EST
    See Tom Hayden for validation of your thesis.  :)

    Parent
    They all used to want to be cowboys... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    ...clearing some brush and walking bowlegged. Now they want to be young, they long to be young. Supporting Obama is the fountain of youth. Hillary is a reminder to them to act their age, not their shoe size and they don't like it.

    Parent
    Too true (none / 0) (#123)
    by vigkat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:37:32 PM EST
    Too funny.

    Parent
    And a little bit (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by vigkat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:53 PM EST
    poignantly pathetic.

    Parent
    My Local NM SDSteadfast for Clinton, Udall Silent; (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by SunnyLC on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    My Local NM Superdelegate Steadfast for Clinton, Udall Silent; Breakdown on NM Count
    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    I woke up to some good news today as the paper reported that my local superdelegate, Mary Gail Gwaltney, is sticking with Clinton for as long as the latter stays in the race.

    ...

    She is also quoted as saying that Clinton has the "stamina and the will" needed as a leader.

    I'm so glad Gwaltney mentioned these qualities, because Obama, while he might have the will, doesn't look particularly strong when it comes to stamina. As long as things are going his way, he's bright as a Penny, but it's horror show time if he has to confront serious questions or has to debate. He also mispeaks about where lakes are and the number of states in the union, which doesn't give me much confidence in his ability to actually do the job of President. But, of course, he will have advisers, just like Bush has had advisers...

    MORE including the updated breakdown of the superdelegates...Hillary only 4.5 behind with the hysteria about she should quit never-ending...

    What happened to Newsweek? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by joanneleon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    Seriously, was it always like this?  I'm not a regular reader.  But it's gotten to the point where if I see that something has come from Newsweek, I completely ignore it.

    I saw Alter on TV in the last day or two, and he was trying to be somewhat positive toward Clinton in something he was saying, but he couldn't even pull it off.  His manner was so disingenuous that it overshadowed his words.

    I worry about "journalists" like (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:58:00 PM EST
    Alter not because they're starting to tell untruths, but because those untruths will bite us in November. For better or worse, we will probably have to make sure Obama wins because he's better than the alternative. And to do that, we need accurate analysis, not cherry-picked anti-Hillary tirades like Alter and Dowd somehow get paid to provide us.

    No matter what folks say, it's a tough year to be a Dem. We couldn't beat George Bush in 2004, or even in 2000 -- and we expect to beat McCain without a fight?

    I am much more troubled by the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:46:06 PM EST
    the Obama camp is pushing this kind of crap.  

    I think they really think they can guilt people into voting for them by calling them racists and old.

    Last I checked, Grannies are pretty reliable voters.  College kids - not so much.

    Parent

    this is not the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:07:46 PM EST
    This is his rabid fans who are doing him a great disservice.

    Parent
    I find it difficult to accept that excuse (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Cream City on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:44:28 PM EST
    anymore.  There is too much of it for too long now.  It is encouraged by his campaign -- and even by him in his subtly sexist comments, in his "dirt on the shoulder"-and-shoe performance, etc.

    I judge people, including candidates, by the company they keep and, if they claim to leadership, to their ability to keep their cohort in some semblance of civilized behavior.  If we are to believe he is not responsible for this, then he cannot assert himself with these out-of-control followers and campaign managers and staffers and such sorts now -- and then he will continue to ave and cavil to them in future.

    And that makes him unfit to be president, too.

    Parent

    I find it difficult to accept this. (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by delacarpa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:03:09 PM EST
    Bravo, Bravo on that very true comment.

    Parent
    Sorry, but there is a distinct (none / 0) (#147)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:54:03 AM EST
    "press release quality" to the reports that the Obama journalists are generating that suggests to me that the Obama communications folks are complicit in a lot of these stories.  I will add that there was indeed a memo back in February generated by the Obama campaign outlining the Clinton's so-called racism.  Of course, they disavowed it, but talk about Rovian politics.

    I just watched Chris Matthews accuse Craig Crawford for being in the tank for Clinton because he is talking about those white working class voters and refuses to condemn Clinton's remarks about how she is connecting to them and Obama isn't.  The real irony is that Matthews has been up until this point one of the biggest promoters of the white working class deficit story line.

    Finally, and most importantly in my mind, Obama could easily fix this problem by appealing to those voters, but he has decided not to.  Ohio could have been considered an error in judgment, Pennsylvania though after seven weeks of intensive campaigning could not.  There is something about appealing to class issues that Obama has a problem with.  What his problem is exactly I don't know, but he seems to avoid class issues like the plague.  It doesn't bode well in my mind how he will govern if he is elected.  I doubt he will be anything close to eugene's dream date.

    Parent

    He's been pushing these lies and bigotry since (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Salt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    Predicting her premature death the night before NH on Charlie Rose when he made a total arse of himself.  And the following day with his even dumber article we dont need no stinking women in the Party we need men crap not sure who the We in that article was supposed to be.

    Disgraceful Journalism in 2008! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Muzza on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    If this battle between Clinton/Obama has showed us one thing, it's this - how extraodinarily LOW the standard of American "journalism" has fallen! Abysmal is one of the best words to describe the "quality" of the mainstream media's coverage of the Democratic race. I seriously think a significant proportion of the "journalists" and "reporters" covering the election must have missed those ethics courses in college/grad school as many are behaving in the most appalling and unethical manner! Facts/truth seem to have been forgotten and the expression of personal opinion, bias and LIES (masquerading as objective reporting) has become the norm. Frankly, I am seriously sick and tired of it. The media's love affair with Obama continues and, as a result, so does the corruption of public opinion. If the media had played a more professional and reponsible role in its coverage of the Clinton/Obama battle, we probably wouldn't be writing these comments on this site right now - instead, Hillary would be well on her were to campaigning for the General Election. As it stands, Obama's pals in the MSM have done a great job of conning millions of voters with the result that Clinton now has to contend with daily calls for her to "quit". I guess these people don't know Hillary Clinton - I have full confidence in her commitment to the Democratic Party (she wants them to WIN, not LOSE) and the MILLIONS of people who have voted for her and the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people who have contributed MILLIONS of dollars to her campaign. All the way to the convention Hillary!

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    it started with (none / 0) (#70)
    by isaac on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:40:27 PM EST
    the stolen election of 2000, once they realized they could get away with it, well...  now the only check on MSM has been completely co-opted by this messianic fraud and surefire november loser

    Parent
    Journalism (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by Missblu on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    In the event Clinton loses, I have a little card to attach to my mirror entitled the four reasons I will never vote for Obama.

    1. The gang of ten formed by Dean and Kennedy immediately after Dean's loss.   Included was Barack Obama who became the candidate of choice for them to win in 2004. The Hope fund was born using Chicago big wheel dollars as reported by the Chicago Tribune. Hillary was there in the wings and they knew it.

    2. The rotten media.  All of them.  Operated without challenge from all those men candidates women had worked their proverbial bottoms for as loyal volunteers. Goodbye to that.

    3. Suspension of Florida and Michigan by Dean's DNC and with specialplaudits to Donna  Brazille for winning the argument to punish the states.  Guess who took the punishment.

    4. Absolutely systematically turning around the Clinton support from the black population for them when less than a year ago on C-span they were longing for their Bill.

    So on election day I will go to the voting booth ask for a paper ballot, and carefully and proudly for my granddaughters, write in the name Hillary Rodham Clinton with instructions for my children to tell theirs that grandma voted for the first strong womancandidate for president with pride
    Another Obama supporter ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:24:29 PM EST
    who clearly failed third grade math.

    Things just keep getting better and better (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:41:54 PM EST
    don't they?

    And you say there's no politics of contrast in this race BTD.  There's plenty of politics of contrast - just not the kind of contrast most of us who see politics as something more than skin deep.  

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:41 PM EST
    And we must confront this problem. not by calling white voters reluctant to embrace Obama racists, but by trying to appeal to them and their issues.

    the funny thing is Obama's worst enemies are his most rabid supporters.

    Parent

    Obama had better (none / 0) (#104)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:13:24 PM EST
    recognize this.

    Otherwise, his campaign will be its own worst enemy.

    Parent

    somewhat off topic ... (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:56:06 PM EST
    Armando, I cruised dKos a while ago and saw Elise' projectile hyperbole aimed straight at your back.

    So I decided I needed to say some things.

    I began as an Obama supporter. I was thrilled about Obama and extremely suspicious of Clinton.

    But the attacks by the dKossian cultists were so over the top and bizarre, ranging from clonecone calling me insane for failing to "honor" the sanctity of his love for Obama (I mean, how old are these people anyway???) to suddenly being categorized as a Clintonista that ... I started really, really liking Clinton and not necessarily disliking Obama, but developing an intense fear of his supporters getting any kind of control of this country.

    I don't know if they're all trust fund babies or if they've all emerged from extremely abusive and dysfunctional families or if they're all just a bunch of 14 year old Republican trolls [and effective ones at that], but NO WAY DO I WANT THEM RUNNING THE COUNTRY. They effectively turned me away from Obama (although not necessarily for Clinton) simply because I don't want them anywhere near power.

    I certainly don't want them in my life.

    Therefore, I retired from dKos. I still cruise there a couple of times a week and, to be honest, for as much as they bloviate about peeder's site, I see no difference between them and Political Flesh Feast. Same thing, mirror images, all that.

    Long way around to say, Armando, you kick ass! I'm glad to see you sticking up for what you believe and I'm glad to see you staying on the good foot and I'm glad to see you still delineating the fine points and what's really real.

    Don't let those numbskulls throw you off course. I may not be a Clinton fan, but Obama desperately needs to clean his house of the bunch of them.


    Cookie Bear (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:03:54 PM EST
    Welcome.

    I do not worry too much about them.

    I responded to Eugene because he is a friend and a great progressive. We have a disagreement on Obama and whether we should accept his political style.

    I am going to support Obama in the general election without question. But I will do it with honesty and with fealty to my own views.

    I will never be cowed by people who forget who fought the fight against sexism at daily kos, who fought the fight against racism at daily kos.

    the one who was always the a-hole because of it (among other things of course.) to them everything that happened before Obama means nothing. I am not that way. I will never be that way.

    Progressivism and the Democratic Party is bigger than Obama and it darn sure is bigger than them.

    the democratic Party is my Party too and they wil not dictate to me what I am supposed to think or say about it.

    Parent

    And this, Armando (none / 0) (#100)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    ... is why I always thought you rocked.

    Whether I will, I don't know. I am genuinely troubled by his supporters. And unless I see some evidence of maturity and sensibility from them, I'm not sure I can in good conscience support him.

    Parent

    Obama is not his supporters (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:12:11 PM EST
    He is a good man and a good Progressive.

    While I do not care for his political style,  I am confident his policy goals are progressive.

    But polsd are pols and pols care about getting elected above all.

    It is up to US to hold their feet to the fire.

    Parent

    Don't get me wrong (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:25:08 PM EST
    It's likely I will vote for him.

    But there'll be some major trepidation doing so thanks to all those yahoos.

    The interesting thing is, I was so wild about him and so, so suspicious of Clinton before I got a good look at his supporters. Eek.

    Parent

    I got a better (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    look at Hillary when I saw her in action, but I saw him back off.

    I think that's true of a lot of people.  They've tried to smear her.  She remains above the fray, working hard, and winning votes.  

    I keep waiting for Obama to step up and act "presidential."  He claims the throne, but hasn't pulled the sword out of the stone.

    Parent

    It's up to us to hold (none / 0) (#111)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    his feet to the fire?

    Every two years, we have a voice.  

    Other than that?  The media are no voice.  

    MoveOn has been a disappointment.  Media Matters tries to keep it real.

    Still, it's the economy, stupid.  We need to stick with the person who can start to fix it.

     

    Parent

    And because of his political style (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    he's having an impossible time convincing others of this.

    Parent
    Armando although I will be voting for him (none / 0) (#137)
    by Florida Resident on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:22:50 PM EST
    I am not convinced he is really a progressive the more I listen to him the less convinced I am he is even a true Democrat.  My opinion.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#129)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    I am going to support Obama in the general election without question.

    Parent
    I'd like to believe... (none / 0) (#90)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:59:43 PM EST
    ... that the Dem elites who support him weren't aware of all of this.

    But a lot of it percolated throughout the mainstream punditry too--MSNBC, some newspaper columnists--and they remained silent.

    I mean, you take what Kennedy said about Clinton just this week, and you think that maybe the hatred isn't just confined to DKos.

    Parent

    Well, that's the problem (none / 0) (#96)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM EST
    I've encountered one of his supporters here --- a woman of privilege, despite being a woman of "color" (Native American) - and she's equally as toxic.

    Er, sorry. I don't want anything to do with it.

    Parent

    Rahm Emmanuel apparently (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    called out Kennedy today re this remark.  NYT blog, I think.

    Parent
    Speaking of Kennedy (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    Rahm Emanuel called him on his caustic remarks, and it was about time someone bit him.

    "I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, but I don't know how the hell he comes off saying that," said Mr. Emanuel, who has ties to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and has not endorsed in the race. "The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals."

    If Obama should happen to win in Nov, are we going to go through 4 years of not being able to criticize a policy or action he takes because he's black.  My God, that's not a country I want to live in at all.

    Obama's campaign telling his supporters not to contribute to organization like VoteVets, etc is also really chilling.  I don't like the idea of a concentration of power, not when it's Bush and not when it's one of our own.


    Parent

    He did? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:29:56 PM EST
    you got a link?

    Parent
    I was gonna point it out elsewhere (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:31:55 PM EST
    here:

    "I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, but I don't know how the hell he comes off saying that," said Mr. Emanuel, who has ties to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and has not endorsed in the race. "The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals."



    Parent
    Nicely stated. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:33:57 PM EST


    Parent
    For the 34th time? (none / 0) (#126)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:40:44 PM EST
    He is a better senator than that comment reveals.

    He/she is the blah, blah, blah...

    Getting old.  Really old.

    Parent

    Reminds me a bit of the (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:04:42 PM EST
    indirect apologia here yesterday re the Glenn Close comment.  

    Parent
    I can only try again (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    It's not the white vote.

    It's the "practical pragmatist we want solutions not high falutin' rhetoric and bullcrap about unity" vote.  And yes, Obama does not appeal to that demographic.  Not one bit.

    Quit race baiting.

    I can only try again (none / 0) (#140)
    by delacarpa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:21:12 PM EST
    This is just the point I hear people making that when trying to make a point and getting the best of it, it turns to race baiting. Huge problem for us down the road. IMO

    Parent
    In the future (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by kid oakland on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    could you link to the MSNBC version of the exit polls?

    It's the exact same data from the same source but it's all on one page and much more readable and surfable.

    Since you can't hotlink to anything but the first page of the CNN data...it's also a great way to avoid confusion.

    that is good advice (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    Personally, I find the CNN formats easier to navigate.

    BTW, I am shocked to see you cavort with a site full of "racists."

    I do not think it is good for your image to be commenting here.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:42:15 PM EST
    It is kind of important.

    Calling them "white voters" all the time really does play into kid oakland's framing on the issue.

    In the least confrontational way I can think of, and with as much respect as I can muster, isn't it worth thinking of a different way of describing the voters Obama doesn't connect with?

    Isn't Obama's message different than Clinton's and aren't there other ways to describe the people the who don't feel that message is very important?


    Of course Clinton also won all whites 60 and older by 68-32. But she also won all whites 18-29 by 52-48. She also won all whites 30-44 by 58-42.



    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:54:27 PM EST
    That is game playing. I guess I could call them non-A-A voters.

    Parent
    That's better, yes (none / 0) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:49:09 PM EST
    And I'm not game playing.

    They're not voting for Clinton cause she's white and he's black.

    The color of anyone's skin has nothing at all to do with what you're trying to talk about.

    Nothing at all.  And I think what you're trying to talk about is important.  I think I'm making a valuable suggestion.

    Parent

    Obviously, to Obama, 40 is "older' (none / 0) (#42)
    by dianem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    He is probably concerned that most of the non-black over 40 (Please don't refer to it as "white" - it includes almost all non-black ethnic groups) demogrphic doesn't vote in his favor. His demographic groups are Americans under 40 and African Americans, neither of whom ever showed an inclination to vote heavily.

    Except his over-40's represent themselves as ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ellie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    ... educated, liberal "latte drinkers" blah blah blahs and stand over with the college kids and African Americans -- who are voting correctly and out of idealism.

    And the non-black, non-male amorphous blob of "others" upon whom can be projected whatever is inconvenient to the spin of the group that's voting correctly.

    I'm younger, more liberal, more ACTIVELY involved in progressive causes than Obama supporters who use the deluded imagery to mischaracterize me even to my face. It's almost become a game to see which of my multi-hyphenated cultural attributes get disappeared that particular spin cycle.

    Parent

    IIRC AAs Came Out To Vote In Record (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    numbers in 2004. Many of them had to stand in line for hours because their polling places had been set up with too few voting booths to make it difficult for them to vote. They have been an extremely loyal part of the Democratic Party.

    I support Hillary but I think it is important to be factual.

    Parent

    Here's Doyle McManus (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:15:13 PM EST
    et al., from LA Times, including some quotes from McCaskill:

    McManus

    Parent

    Her First Two Quotes Were Pretty Accurate (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
    I don't think that Obama will lose the non AA vote in small town and rural MO primarily because of race.  I do think that he will lose a lot of Democratic votes in those areas because of Rev. Wright, which they will see as un-American, they are practical people who want solutions not hype and so far Obama has not been able to talk to them in a way that will win them over. People who heard about his remarks to his SF donors probably won't even him much of a chance. Also, he seems so uncomfortable in that environment and does come across as a lecturing professor talking down to his students.

     

    Parent

    Which reminds me. Where are all (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:07:01 PM EST
    those con law students he lectured to at Univ. of Chicago Law School?  I haven't heard a peep from them.  

    Parent
    I don't get the argument here (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:38:10 PM EST
    She won 60 and older by 36 points, their problem does have less to do with the other 2 groups than it does with over 60. Over 60 vote more consistently and at least in PA they voted more than twice the amount in favor of Hillary. I think the crux of the argument is that group may flip to McCain more readily than the 40-59 group. I get that.

    Biggest problem? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:39:59 PM EST
    Sure. But losing by 16 among 30-44 is a big problem too.

    Parent
    the pundits (I know) (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:42:05 PM EST
    repeatedly said leading into PA that one candidate had to prove that they were able to cut into the key demographics of the other.  She did that in PA and, to some degree, in NC and IN.

    And here we are.

    Parent

    yeah, whatever happened (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by angie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    to whoever won TX & OH was the nominee? or whoever won PA was the nominee? don't hear that much anymore.

    Parent
    but this is just spin (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:45:05 PM EST
    turd blossom kind of way, but just spin. I think they are thinking that the middle aged voters will swing his way, reluctantly, but they will. The senior crowd who we all know outvote everyone consistenly may take a shine to McCain because he is more like them so to speak (nothing to do with color). I can't beat up alter here for this, but I would have liked to have seen a qualifier with this. I guess that would be the point then, if he didn't just leave it with the BO talking point..

    Parent
    Spin? (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    Excuse me, you are spinning.

    Obama is not connecting to white working class voters of all ages.

    This MUST be addressed.

    You know, it turns out to be a bug A-Liust Left blogger these days it takes 3 things - sliming Hillary Clinton; pretending that Obama will transcend politics and win 40 states; and that Obama is a beloeved figure in all demos.

    I will not do the first and I refuse to lie about the second and the third.

    People want fantasy blogging, they need to find it elsewhere.

    Parent

    and i don't think (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:03:20 PM EST
    people are not here because you are tough on Obama, I think people avoid it because there is an awful lot of people here sliming Obama. I read them every day and they turn my stomach, but unlike any media outlet in the US, i get great analysis that I appreciate about Obama from you. I used to think you were a pompous arse with a short fuse. Now i think you work day and night to provide realistic analysis and have a short fuse when it goes unnoticed via snarky replies from people getting their analysis from sound bytes...

    Parent
    It is a problem (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:06:49 PM EST
    Truth be told, Jeralyn and I are quite concerned about it.

    We are trying to devise ways of dealing with it.

    Parent

    even if you did deal with it (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:10:43 PM EST
    and O supporters came here, a segment of them would slime and you two would have to spend even more time ferreting out "garbage". You need two moderators who commit to working for free deleting, it is too much to expect either of you two to do and provide what you provide us. Guess it is time for me to pony up again.

    Parent
    Maybe go to Digby's no comments (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    policy at times, although there are certain super-trusted users, such as andgarden and Molly Bloom, from whom I like to hear reactions to the posts.  

    Parent
    There's nothing you can do (none / 0) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:26:44 PM EST
    It's either a pro-Obama blog or it isn't.

    This is a micro-cosm of the problem that now exists in the party.

    And it's also a by-product of Obama's folks now becoming the victors in this primary.  They have shown us what it takes to win.  If you get what I'm saying.

    You see.  That's what happens when people are rewarded for doing what they do.  People look up and notice, "Wow!  They were rewarded for behaving that way.  Guess I'll do it too!  That's what it takes to win!!"

    Really.  You're not gonna convince the people who hate Obama to stop hating Obama at this point.

    But by weeding them out, which is what you'll inevitably have to do, this will become a pro-Obama blog.

    You will reward their behavior with your support too, one day.  You will have to.   There's no middle ground here.  You're looking for a middle ground.  That's why you're having trouble figuring out how to deal with it.  But it's not there.  You will have to choose.

    I really don't think people realize that when I say some of the things that I say about the toxic nature of Obama's support, that I really haven't thought it through.

    Parent

    One for the record (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:44 PM EST
    I think you are right. Not that it will become an Obama blog, but that it would shift the blog away from Hillary. I think HIllary needs a place and it is ok with me that it is here. I just cannot stand the vitriol that comes from her supporters any more than I can stand it from O's side. I come here for Jeralyn and Tchris, and I appreciate the hard work of Armando. Long after the election I will still be here because the issues matter to me greatly. I would like to see less garbage here but with emotions running so high and with Hillary supporters having no place to vent about the MSM crapping on her constantly, I do understand where they are coming from. But there are not enough posters here making reasoned arguments or who are trying to be experts on topics where they are mental midgets. At some point, WE the chatters need to be a bit more mature despite our passions...

    Parent
    God knows there's plenty of that around (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    already.

    Parent
    Nnt saying you are spinning (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:57:58 PM EST
    I said Alter was spinning. I think you work tirelessly here, and when I think you are wrong I will say so. If I were looking for "fantasy" i would not be here. I am here because you support Obama but do not give him a free ride like MSBNC. I have not given him a free ride either, i think he needs to work a hell of a lot harder and show up for a debate. Maybe i worded it poorly.

    Parent
    The white vote (none / 0) (#71)
    by jobroskie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:41:19 PM EST
    Can anyone guess who generally wins the rural white uneducated votes in November?

    It's not normally the democrats.  Did anyone see CNN when the compared the Indianna map from the primary to the general election in 2004?  Shouldnt Hillary be worried about not winning those areas democrats have traditionally won?  and how does she plan to win when she is losing among independents?  If all of them go over to McCain the democrats will have a hard time come November

    no they don't (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:47:06 PM EST
    But Bill won enough of them combined with the hispanic and aa vote and Senior vote to win twice. The blend is important and the current "blend" shows a serious deficiency with Obama with Hillary still in the race. I think that will change once he is the candidate. I know, I know, "what if it doesn't........"

    Parent
    If she was gonna be the nominee (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    I would spend a lot of time on it. she is not therefore I do not.

    Parent
    she is not therefore I do not. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by john horse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:42:36 PM EST
    I agree with BTD that Hillary is not going to be the nominee.  Its time to get behind Obama.  I was a Hillary supporter not because I thought that Obama couldn't win but because I thought Hillary was the stronger of the two candidates.

    I think Obama can and should win.  The reason that I think he can is because he is better on the issues than McCain: the Iraq war, economic recession, the cost of living, health care, etc.  Lets not write off any group.  Even groups that traditionally vote GOP are affected by the war and rising prices and stagnant wages.

    Parent

    Um, no. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    Its time to get behind Obama.

    Please.  You're making it worse.

    Parent

    Obama is not, either. (none / 0) (#145)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:40:01 PM EST

    So why are you pushing the meme that he is?  I saw your comment, the other day, where you said that Obama is the nominee.  You're just merely pushing the same meme that TIME magazine is pushing and that all Obama people are trying to do (kill the rest of the votes when they haven't voted yet).  

    But then you turn around and say that Clinton should stay in the race, it's her right, etc.  Either she is in it because it isn't over or she isn't in it because it's over, BTD.

    Parent

    It's not (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:19:11 PM EST
    about winning the white rural vote so much as cutting into the GOP's margins. I'm willing to bet that Obama does worse here than Kerry did.

    Parent
    The innumeracy of the punditry... (none / 0) (#83)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    ... is often astonishing.

    For example, here's a math question:

    There was talk about whether Hillary Clinton could win North Carolina. African Americans were expected to make up a third of the vote, and Obama was expected to win 90-10 among them, as he has done in just about every primary so far.

    How much would Clinton have had to win everyone else to pull even in North Carolina?

    The answer is she would have had to win the remaining vote by 40 points just to pull even. A 20 point win among the non-AA votes would net a crushing 13-point loss, which is pretty much what happened.

    How many pundits knew the answer to that question before rushing to say she had suffered a disappointing loss and failed to meet expectations?

    When the story of this primary is written, I predict very few pundits will realize that the demographic were almost impossible for Hillary Clinton from the start.

    With African Americans making up 20% of the Democratic vote, and splitting 90-10 for Obama, she needed to win everyone else by 20 points to pull even. If we use an 85-15 split for AA's, she needed to win the rest by 17.5 points.

    The point is that once the AA community solidified behind Obama, Clinton was in the position of needing a massive landslide--20 points--among everyone else. How big is that? Well, Reagan beat Mondale by 18 points.

    Well, we all knew (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    this
    The point is that once the AA community solidified behind Obama, Clinton was in the position of needing a massive landslide--20 points--among everyone else. How big is that? Well, Reagan beat Mondale by 18 points.
    weeks before NC voted. Obama got his demographic blow out, as expected.

    Parent
    Re-reading my post... (none / 0) (#88)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    ... I realize it was misleading.

    The quote you referred is about the entire national Democratic primary, not just North Carolina. I'm arguing that Clinton had little chance of being the nominee from the beginning of the whole process, unless she could crush Obama by Reagan-Mondale like margins among all non-AA voters.

    Parent

    Well yes, that's true too (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    I said last week that if Obama were just a standard white liberal Senator from Illinois, Hillary would have most likely finished him off on super tuesday, probably with the help of AAs who knew her and liked her. Heck, she probably would have finished him off in SC whether she had had a comeback in NH or not.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    most Obama supporters don't want to discuss facts. The facts show that he's unelectable. It's better to stick your head in the sand with regards to his demographic problems and lie than to face the truth. The problem is that if you don't face the truth now it will run him over like a mac truck in Nov.

    Facts Are Stubborn Things | 148 comments (148 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment