Old Democrats Move from Democrat to McCain the General

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:22


Here's the first bit of evidence I've seen on how race will matter from the primary to the general.

The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.

One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

While race is often considered the most important factor, I do not actually think that is the case here.  The most obvious parallel, where a sizeable chunk of Democrats chose to vote for an incredibly hawkish maverick style politician with an undeserved reputation for liberal politics, was the 2006 Lieberman-Lamont race.  I in fact said that the 2006 Senate race at the time was a test run for John McCain's campaign, and all campaign strategists working on the Presidential race noticed exactly what the limits were of the liberal coalition at that time.

In the primary, Lamont took 52% of the vote to Lieberman's 48%, but in the general Lieberman got 33% of the Democratic vote.  And the primary determinant of that chunk was age.  That is true right now as well.  And frankly, why shouldn't it be?  Old people get that that having an old President will mean that their views are better represented.  Young people believe that having a young President will mean that their views are better represented.  This isn't and shouldn't be a surprise.

As a progressive partisan, it's disappointing that so many older white people are willing to abandon the Democratic Party to send young people into wars just because they don't want a younger African-American male to run the country.  And indeed, if you look further at the poll, McCain picks up most of his 'McCain Democrats' among the 26% of the Democratic population who want to keep some troops in Iraq.  Most Clinton supporters aren't like that, only a quarter at this point are even considering voting for McCain, I have talked to a few, and the unspoken identity problems are both age and race.  

I saw this during the Lamont race, only very few people were actually on our side.  It was a scarring experience, and the youth surge had not yet happened the way that it is helping to offset the 65+ advantage for Clinton and McCain.  At any rate, Obama's going to have to make up for his deficit by appealing to independents, something which fortunately he is doing against both McCain and Clinton.

Update:  I thought this comment is illustrative of the conversations I've had with older Clinton supporters that won't vote for Obama in the general.

As one of those "older white people willing to send young people into wars," I think you just don't get it.  First, I am old according to you, 68 to be exact.  I protested the Vietnam War, dragged my children and friends to Washington to demonstrate for a woman's right to choose, made phone calls for Jesse Jackson back in '84, and worked for McGovern when there were lots and lots of young people energized to participate - you're not the first ones to get involved.

I, for one, am not going to shift to McCain, but I am part of the fall-off.  I am not going to vote for Obama.  I am going to vote LIKE Obama.  When I go to the polls in November, if there is not a woman at the top of the ticket, I will simply be noted as "present."  Then I'll look downballot and vote for the rest of the candidates.  

I don't know now whether I will ever get to vote for a woman if Clinton is not nominated this year, but I do know that in the future I will vote for any woman over any man for president - regardless of her qualifications or her background (there have been a lot of male rogues and roués on the ballot over the years, I'm not expecting a female candidate to be perfect).  And after all, this year, you and many others are eager to vote for a thinly qualified male over a more qualified female?  Think of your own state senator (a part time job, by the way), put him in the U.S. Senate for a year and tell me if you think he or she is qualified to be president. That's how I see Obama - he may make your heart flutter, but so does Brad Pitt.  

And so I wait to see what happens this year and if Clinton is not nominated, I just hope I live long enough for someone else to be able to crack the glass ceiling.
Matt Stoller :: Old Democrats Move from Democrat to McCain the General

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Old Democrats Move from Democrat to McCain the General | 149 comments
Disturbing and worrisome numbers.... (4.00 / 1)
...obviously seniors vote very well, and young people are unreliable (although they have come out strong recently).  

They are holding the party hostage, of course...  Either nominate Hillary, who has no independent support (and is unlikely to garner any) and hope your base comes out, or a that chunk of the base stays home out of spite to torpedo the vastly more popular young nominee.

My question is, if everyone in the party is so Hillary, where were they during the primaries and caucuses?  And if they are being so spiteful, why are Obama's poll numbers still very good?  Of course all this spite comes too late to do any good.  It's nearly mathematically impossible for Obama not to win the nomination unless there is a coup.

I certainly don't want to alienate any section of the party, but the nominee has already been chosen, and the Clinton supporters cannot say they didn't have a voice.  Every state has counted this year, which is very unusual.  For them to take their ball and go home is obnoxious and destructive, and makes me wonder how "Democratic" they really are.  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

I have seen numbers that ... (4.00 / 2)
... give Hillary a lead among democrats who voted in the primaries and caususes. Obama usually got the republicans and independents.

By the way, stating that the nominee has already been chosen when in fact she/he hasn't is exactly the kind of attitude that will help push Hillary supporters to McCain.  

[ Parent ]
The nominee *has* been chosen.... (0.00 / 0)
...Hillary cannot catch up in pledged delegates.  She can only be picked with a coup from the superdelegates...  The math isn't difficult to comprehend...  Like it or not, the math is just too daunting to ignore.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
WIth the word "coup" (0.00 / 0)
you just confirmed Alvord's point, meaning that it's comments like yours which are counter-productive to Obama's potential nomination and win in a general.

Jeff Wegerson
[ Parent ]
The Obama supporters aren't making threats? (4.00 / 2)
Sure they are.....every tenth diary at Dkos is a threat to leave the party if she's the nominee.

Hillary supporters are constantly flamed and trashed....just like she is.  

And that is how the Obama campaign and his supporters treat the candidatte herself.  Every vile accusation is immediately considered true and each vile accusation is support and proof for the ones prior and the ones to come.
So the women in particular are furious about this.  And the Obama campaign, despite their protestations, cries race at every oppurtunity.  Even Andrew Sullivan says the Obama campaign should stop being offended.  The campaign and its supporters keep trolling and digging under rocks looking for "racist" statements to decry.  

The biggest fall off is with women and I think the reason is the attitude I described above. They are attacking unfairly someone they admire.  There are there for her historic candidacy...not to turn a fine woman into a caricature.

And then they are Democrats....and I am surprised at the Lamont lessons that not drawn.  NED LAMONT ONLY WON BECAUSE IT WAS A CLOSED PRIMARY....AN OPEN PRIMARY AND LIEBERMAN WOULD HAVE WON.  WHY? BECAUSE REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS WHO VOTED FOR HIM IN THE GENERAL WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR HIM IN THE PRIMARY.

So it is surprising that in this circumstance you are happy that Obama can draw independents and Republicans.  The conversation one has in a political campaign determines how one governs.  In a race that is dependent on independents and Republicans, the conversation will be less progressive and less partisan.....2 attributes that the left blogoasphere has always been for.  

The Democratic party is a party of principles and not persons.  It is important not to remold one's principles in order to make it fit the candidate.

But if the Obama people think they will win they should stop behaving like this....it's counterproductive. It is unwise and unsound party building to drive away the Democratic base for the ephemeral support that is focussed on a person.  You build parties on principles, ideology and attitude....not just on charisma.

And as a general election point McCain draws just those kinds of independents and Republicans that Obama draws...I fully expect a very large part of that group to vote for him over Obama.  Whereas all the Democratic partisans who fall away from Obama would not be McCain supporters if Hillary is the nominee.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Amen (0.00 / 0)
It is unwise and unsound party building to drive away the Democratic base for the ephemeral support that is focussed on a person.  

Very nicely put. That captures my feelings at this point in a nutshell.

[ Parent ]
Of course (0.00 / 0)
that assumes that the Democratic base and the Clinton base are synonymous, and I think that's a dubious assumption at best.
[ Parent ]
Obviously you didn't (0.00 / 0)
read Matt's post - or you did and can't absorb what the numbers say.

Why don't you try reading Matt's post again before running around here posting stuff that contradicts what the numbers say without posting any contrary credible information.

[ Parent ]
Check out (0.00 / 0)
what I have to say down a couple of posts. I did read it a couple of times though, actually.
[ Parent ]
What happened (3.00 / 4)
to more and better Democrats? If people want to participate in our process, that's just the first step to hooking them in permanently.  You seem to think that, a la Lieberman, Obama is going off to the right wing in order to pick up these Republicans and independents, but he's not - so all the better for the party, as far as I'm concerned. Can you also tell me again which candidate, um, you know, voted for the AUMF and sponsored legislation to criminalize flag burning? If you want to talk about candidates going to the right to pick up non-Democratic support, I'm more than willing to have that discussion.

Moreover, I think your evidence with regards to making points about "Obama supporters" could stand to be a little more substantial than every tenth Obama blogger at DailyKos and Andrew Sullivan.  The Obama supporters who are flaming Hillary, as you say, are doing so only because she cares more about herself and her personal gain rather than the gain of the party and our commonly held principles - I think that's been fully on display with her campaign's attempts at voter suppression and saying plenty of nice things about McCain while trashing on a fellow Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Ah, really (0.00 / 0)
there's nothing quite like a nice random troll rating just before settling down with I Am America (And So Can You) for the evening.
[ Parent ]
his enunciated domestic policy positions are to her right (0.00 / 0)
on healthcare and the economy and on energy.  He is less partisan than she is....she blames Republicans for the mess.  He blames Washington.  I don't buy that.  

So yes I do think the conversation he has is a lot less partisan because it is aimed at independents and Republicans....You can't put forward too clearly an anti Republican message when you're really dependent on their vote.  His entire popular vote lead is based on their participation in primaries.  By many calculations Hillary leads him by more in Democrats then he leads her overall.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
That's a non sequitur (0.00 / 0)
The fact that Lieberman won with Rs and Indies shouldn't mean we should stop going after Rs and Indies.
[ Parent ]
Nominee has already been chosen? (0.00 / 0)
Well if that is the case then if the numbers above holdup the wrong candidate has been chosen. But the writing was on the wall all the time as Clinton has received the most Democratic faithful votes. And if our candidate can't hold the Democratic faithful votes then he can't win.

Another question is why so many would move to McCain? He hawkish remember? Well I have said for quite sometime on many blogs that the Democratic rank and file are more interested in National Security than what many netroots and grassroots people want to admit. I think this is a big part of the migration to McCain because it certainly is not his domestic policies.

And what this migration tells us in this case is that Obama has NOT passed the Commander in Chief test. And that according to the numbers Clinton has.

I have never been a supporter of Obama exactly because of this reason and others. A primary race is nothing like a General race and some of the early numbers are making that fact known.

This race should have always been about winning the WH. But instead the vast majority of the Netroots who overwhelmingly supported Edwards moved to Obama not because Obama was a viable candidate but because he was the only remaining anti-Clinton candidate. And that is no way to win the WH.

Well when you get McCain for 4 years or more you'll start to love Clinton. But then it will be too late. Perhaps in 2012 the netroots will put ideology aside and think with their heads and get the best Democrat who can actually win and hold the Democratic base instead of taking a centrist like Obama and trying to imagine him a Liberal when he isn't and then dismissing all the handwriting on the wall that says he isn't the most likely to win.

[ Parent ]
Quick question (0.00 / 0)
do you have evidence to back up your assertion that Obama cannot win the votes of the Democratic faithful in the general election?  
[ Parent ]
Did you bother (0.00 / 0)
to read Matt's post?
[ Parent ]
I did, actually (0.00 / 0)
Though to be fair, I was thinking of state polling as far as EVs go, not head to head national matchups, which I think are really ripe for sour grapes more than meaningful data, and I didn't mention that.

So, to be more specific, is there any evidence to suggest that Democratic faithful are leaving Obama in significant numbers, as based on state head to head matchups, which are really what matter in the end?

[ Parent ]
Your arguments in this thread (0.00 / 0)
are totally emotional and partisan toward Obama. In other words you can't see the forest for the trees.

National surveys like the one Matt posted are normally taken over a sample of quite a number of states so as to get the big picture and not skew the poll to a narrow outlook of one or two states. I thought everyone knew that.

The other thing you are not seeing is that in the end there are usually tow or three swing states that decide the nomination. the biggest two in the last couple of election are Florida and Ohio - both won by Clinton in the Primaries - which mens she has a better chance of winning those states by holding a larger portion of the very important Democratic base. Which is what she has been saying all along.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
yes, I am an Obama partisan, but I'm doing my best to remain reasonable.  I'm sorry you've found I've been unable to do so.

My point is that, in my opinion, for whatever that's worth, this poll is not particularly instructive to the general election matchup because it doesn't provide state-by-state head to head polling.  It may be instructive of national sentiment, that's not in dispute.  But I don't believe it provides conclusive information on patterns of voter perspective in individual states, whether red, blue, or purple.  SurveyUSA has done a pretty good job so far this year with their polling, and I'm more inclined to believe that their results are somewhat more relevant.

That said, if you want to get into the specifics of the polls, let's do it. The sample of Democratic and Democratic leaning registered voters (in and of itself a bit problematic for accuracy, perhaps, but I won't go there).  The results of this sample have Obama up 49-40 over Clinton, outside the margin.  This is true even among self-identified liberal Democrats (presumably the very important Democratic base you're referring to), where he leads over Clinton 51-37, versus his previously polled lead of 44-42.  Among people simply identified as Democrats, Obama's lead in the poll is 47-42, versus Clinton's previously polled lead  of 49-37.  Across the board, there is no demographic of the polled segment in which Obama had his lead decrease, and in 12 of 21 of the demographics, he had an increase of 10 or more points versus the previous poll.  

So, while I do not dispute that's it's possible that the Democratic base is deserting Obama, I think that the data from this poll and other polls would not definitively support that conclusion, and in fact do much to indicate that Obama is stronger every day among the Democratic base across the country.

[ Parent ]
Got a link (0.00 / 0)
to the Pew poll you are citing?
[ Parent ]
I'd also point out (0.00 / 0)
as I did just below, most of the Democrats leaving Clinton for McCain in the event of an Obama nomination come from the 26% of Democrats who want to keep troops in Iraq/the 25% of Democrats who believe Obama isn't tough enough in his foreign policy approach.  Here's the quote from Pew's analysis:

Obama suffers a significant number of defections from Democrats with more conservative foreign policy views, particularly on the issue of Iraq. A large majority of Democrats -- 70% -- say they want U.S. troops in Iraq to return home as soon as possible; these Democrats overwhelmingly favor either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But roughly a quarter of Democrats believes the troops should remain in Iraq until the situation has stabilized. These voters would support Clinton over McCain by greater than five-to-one (83% vs. 14%). Democrats who support maintaining U. S. forces in Iraq would support Obama over McCain by a smaller margin (66% to 31%).

Similarly, concerns about Obama's foreign policy among a minority of Democrats also cut into Obama's standing. A quarter of Democratic voters believe that Obama would not be tough enough in his approach to foreign policy issues; about a third (32%) of these Democrats say they will vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination. Just 13% of these same Democrats would switch sides if Clinton wins the nomination.

Again, I do not think the Clinton deserters are representative, at least based on the information from this poll, of the Democratic base, despite your claims.

[ Parent ]
Oh Boy (0.00 / 0)
Because some Democrats don't agree with you on Iraq they are not part of the base. What a dumb thing to say.

I suppose those of us who support Clinton are also not part of the base.

Go away. Please.

[ Parent ]
Can one be considered the "base" of a party (4.00 / 1)
when they have expressed their intention to vote for the other party?

Seems contradictory to me.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Obama (0.00 / 0)
isn't exactly a 'base' candidate himself is he? Everyone here knows he isn't and it has chronicled on these front pages that he isn't many times.

The Democratic base happens to include a broad spectrum of people. Most I would say from my experience are 'center/center-left' on many issues, although there are a good number of conservative Democrats too. Most believe in National Security but not bad wars. Obama isn't reaching the Commander in Chief threshold for many of those voters.

And I got news for you. If you took away all of the voters toeing the centrist line there wouldn't be enough Democrats to elect a dog catcher

[ Parent ]
You are talking to a non-aligned voter (0.00 / 0)
From my swing perspective - Clinton is the nominee that will most likely get me to sit this one out, or go to Nader.  McCain won't get my vote - even if he prostrated himself on my doorstep and kissed my feet.

If Clinton cools the attacks on Obama from the right - I might be able to pinch my nose enough to vote for her version of the status quo - but it would be an ANTI-McCain vote.

Obama is a question mark in a well-tailored suit - but I can vote FOR him - which puts him ahead of the last two Democratic  nominees for President.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
as much as you may wish it so, it's not going to happen.

I'm not saying that because they don't agree with me on Iraq that they're not part of the base - I'm saying that, as far as I know, and I think that most would agree with me (though I'd be open to other arguments), a favorable opinion of withdrawal from Iraq is significantly more common among the Democratic base than is remaining in Iraq.  

My personal view that withdrawal from Iraq is a good thing is completely irrelevant - I'm basing my conclusion on my perception (one I believe is also held my many others, for whatever that's worth) that such a view is also the view of the Democratic base.  Thus, those Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama (and are doing so, at least according to the poll, because of their belief that we must remain in Iraq) are probably not part of the Democratic base.  I'm trying to approach this logically to support an argument, not to make broad value judgments on anyone.

By the way, I never said anything about the Clinton base not being part of the Democratic base - all I said was that they are not one in the same.  I would also argue this is true for Obama, and I'm an Obama supporter.  I'm just trying to be reasonable here and make a thorough and logical analysis.

[ Parent ]
Let me tell you the truth here (0.00 / 0)
If, and I say IF, Clinton or Obama gets in the WH and they access Iraq, oil prices, the Middle East as a whole, and the economy - and then come to the conclusion that if we left in mass that it is likely that we would have to go back in their again - and that oil would be topping 5.00 or $6.00 a gallon -  many Democrats are going to change their minds on immediate pullout.

I want out of there as bad as the next guy but unlike the majority here I have thought out the likely consequences of leaving in mass and it makes no sense to leave and have to come back to an even worse situation and with gas prices throwing our economy into turmoil. When Clinton or Obama tells the nation that then the nation will shift their views out of necessity.

[ Parent ]
We're headed to $5 or $6 at this rate anyway (0.00 / 0)
Most places are already well over 3 and rising rapidly, and, as a reflection of how poor the economy is at the moment, that's probably not even the biggest concern for a lot of people.

It's also worth noting that there are a lot of factors that determine the price of oil, and the market price has to a large extent already been rationalized to the expectation that there won't be much oil coming out of Iraq.  To a huge extent, the price of oil is out of the control of the president - this lesson has been taught to us again and again, so it's not like any action the next president will take will have much impact on the price of oil, unless they're able to significantly decrease demand domestically and abroad - that's one drives the price of oil more than anything else.  This is especially true given supply issues, peak oil and the increasing costs of extraction as oil becomes less accessible.

But hey, on the bright side, I hope your plan to stay in Iraq will succeed and gas for $1.50 will be here soon.  You obviously have far more wisdom than the mere mortals of the majority here at OpenLeft and elsewhere.

[ Parent ]
One more point though (0.00 / 0)
it should be noted that there's no real way of telling the ideological make up of the voters who are leaving Clinton for McCain, as mentioned in Matt's post.  That said, he does say that those leaving Clinton for McCain are those in favor of keeping troops in Iraq - and unless we have very different definitions of what constitutes the party faithful, I doubt that's a popular position therein.
[ Parent ]
Super Delegates (0.00 / 0)
One more point. I only hope the Super Delegates make note of this disturbing trend of losing too big a slice of the Democratic faithful to McCain. And upon realizing that how it is more important to win the WH than to honor undemocratic Caucuses and race based votes.

It was for this reason that the Supers were created. To win the WH when the electorate chose a person with a slim chance of doing so and especially one who can't even hold the base.

[ Parent ]
This "race based votes" idea is hogwash (4.00 / 3)
Clinton had a huge lead in polls of African-American voters throughout 2007.  Things didn't change until the race issue was brought up several times by Clinton's campaign just prior to the South Carolina primary.  

It makes sense that African Americans would refuse to vote for a candidate whose campaign called Obama just another Jesse Jackson, just another Sidney Poitier, just another drug dealer, and not "black" enough, all within the space of a week or so.  And subsequent actions and comments from Clinton and her advisors have only hurt her case with these voters.

The bigger problem with your post, though, is that it fails to recognize that if superdelegates put Hillary over the top, there will be very little "Democratic faithful" left.  Older voters should be given immense respect, but not at the expense of the very future of the party.  An entire generation of voters with unprecedented support for liberal views is about to join the Democratic party.  It would be insane for the party to throw this opportunity away.

[ Parent ]
If Obama (0.00 / 0)
continues to not be able to hole enough Democrats that would vote for him and that means we lose enough states to lose the /WH then the Democratic Faithful will understand why the supers did what they did.

The problem with guys like you is you view everything from the point that Obama has to win instead of the Democrats winning the WH.

We can't win the WH with a mass exodus of Democratic voters to McCain!!

[ Parent ]
And, yet, Obama does better than Clinton against McCain. Paradox! (0.00 / 0)
shortfuse wrote:
"We can't win the WH with a mass exodus of Democratic voters to McCain!!"

And, yet, Obama does better than Clinton against McCain.  According to the Polls.

So how do you know that we can't win with Obama?  How come this "mass exodus" doesn't help Clinton do better than Obama against McCain?  

How do you explain the paradox?!? Because your double exclamation marks are starting to make me nervous. ;)

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

[ Parent ]
Ha! (0.00 / 0)
Neophyte. It's 8 months before an election that hasn't even started. There will be plenty of tilting of the vote scales in the months to come. And as it stands there is only a few points difference between how Obama does and how Clinton does with McCain.

and the point of this thread is not the matchups. The point is  how badly Obama does with Dems who without we can't win the WH. That is the point.

As may here have rightly stated - a lot of the Indies and Republicans who voted for Obama in the Primaries will swing over to McCain in the general. That has happened to candidates election after election, He WILL lose some of those votes.

And combine those loses with an exodus of Democrats to McCain as the main post says we will not win.

But you don't understand all of that obviously.

[ Parent ]
I have to say (0.00 / 0)
your personal attacks and frequent implications of the ignorance of everyone else but yourself are really tiring, because we had a nice little period here at OpenLeft where, for the most part, everyone from both candidates and those who were undecided were getting along.

You repeatedly make the assertion that there is going to be an exodus of Democrats leaving for McCain if Obama is the nominee.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this conclusion is based on the information in this thread.  Yet at every instance where you've been confronted with contradictory information to your assertion, with points coming from both this poll and other data sources, you've ignored it in favor of just putting down other posters trying to reasonably disagree with you.  I, like most others, really do welcome well reasoned dissent.  So please, for the sake of this generally well behaved and contemplative community, address these matters with some sort of substance rather than self-righteous speculation.

[ Parent ]
Show me where (0.00 / 0)
I have been confronted with data from anyplace including the poll on this thread. The only mention of data that had credibility was the mention of how each candidate matched up with McCain. And I responded to that in a credible manner. So quit making stuff up please.

Every other response to me has been questions which had no real merit and were off topic of what the poll said. In other words they were the typical 'let's change the subject' post that you can find 10,000 times a day on the blogs.

[ Parent ]
Right here (0.00 / 0)
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

In that comment I addressed data from the Pew poll's subgroup of Democratic and Democratic leaning registered voters, in terms of what demographics favored Obama and what demographics favored Clinton.

I would also find it instructive on how you reconcile your conclusions with those coming from the 50 state SurveyUSA poll that was out the other day that showed Obama doing very well, sometimes better and rarely much worse than Clinton in a lot of the states in question, blue states, swing states, red states.

[ Parent ]
OK, but when will this "mass exodus" show up in the numbers? (0.00 / 0)
shortfuse wrote:
"and the point of this thread is not the matchups. The point is  how badly Obama does with Dems who without we can't win the WH. That is the point."

You keep on making this assertion. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)

How do you know we can't win without those Dems who will stage a "mass exodus" from Obama?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that a "mass exodus" away from Obama MAY happen, but when would it show up in the matchup numbers to such an extent that Obama loses to McCain?  Are you saying the "mass exodus" can't be seen in the matchup numbers for some reason, or won't be evident during the primary campaign, or what?

In other words, at what point will a polling or demographic analysis show that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama?  Because whether that "mass exodus" happens or not, the matchups IS the point.  Crying boo because, "oh no, some Dems won't vote for Obama," if those Dems are possibly OUTWEIGHED BY OTHER VOTERS (new voters, youth, indies, people who, heaven forbid, won't vote for Hillary, etc.), doesn't convince me of anything.

Yes, polls are snapshots in time.  And yes, some of Obama's "new" voters may leave him.  But I think my question still stands.

shortfuse wrote:
"And combine those loses with an exodus of Democrats to McCain as the main post says we will not win."

YOU say those losses means we will not win with Obama.  Polls don't say that.  No one credible (neutral party, pollster, what have you) that I know is saying that.  See my point?

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

[ Parent ]
Race based votes? (0.00 / 0)
Undemocratic caucuses, okay, take away ALL pledged delegates from caucuses. Simple. But to discount people who you think voted because of race? Let's discount all people who voted because of gender/sex as well, then, too. With the possible history in this election, we should not have even held primaries; just cut straight to the superdelegates who truly want to win instead of just honor the votes according to the rules set out by the party.
[ Parent ]
Obama has a slim chance of winning the White House? How do you know? (0.00 / 0)
shortfuse wrote:
"It was for this reason that the Supers were created. To win the WH when the electorate chose a person with a slim chance of doing so and especially one who can't even hold the base."

That sounds right as far as the role of superdelegates should play, except for one thing.

Even with all the defections away from Obama and towards McCain by whomever(older voters, women, Iraq war supporters, etc.), Obama STILL does better than Clinton against McCain.  Let me repeat that, Obama does BETTER than Clinton against McCain.  So who should the superdelegates vote for?

How do I know this?  Only from polling, so things may be different in reality.  The point is how do you KNOW that Clinton is the better candidate against McCain?

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

[ Parent ]
Social Security and choice (4.00 / 5)
Start making the commercials about McCain's opposition to women having control over their own bodies and his support for Bush's Social Security privatization.

Tribalism is an important factor, but McCain's on the wrong side of a key issue for Democrats in each of those two big demographics (women and seniors). Obama won't be able to win all of them back, but he can surely eat into McCain's support there.

Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I think a really important factor here is going to be whether Obama can get the AARP behind him. Running ads showing that McCain supports Bush's privatization plan will be really important.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Making fun (0.00 / 0)
of McCain's age (as many Obama supporters do) aint gonna get much support from AARP.
[ Parent ]
That doesn't mean ignore it (0.00 / 0)
Older voters, when informed of McCain's age, become less likely to vote for him.  If you're over 65, you've seen how quickly someone that age can go from healthy and alert to dead or senile.
[ Parent ]
Just who exactly (0.00 / 0)
has been making fun of McCain's age? "Most," as you so sweepingly portray Obama supporters, have simply been pointing out the candidate's flaws based on his personal disposition and his lacking policies on senior citizens.
[ Parent ]
Lieberman got 70% of the Republican vote in 2006 and 54% of the Unaffiliated vote (0.00 / 0)
in addition to 33% of Democrats.  Lieberman was also funded by Bush's Pioneers and Rangers.

McCain is having trouble raising funds and uniting the Republican Party right now.  I'm sure by RNC Convention McCain will have a new coalition, but that coalition along with McCain's permanent war ideology will turn off many Unaffiliates.  His only hope is to run against Hillary, who will rally the Republican base and the Bush machine will quickly make mincemeat of Hillary.  They've spent millions of dollars and hours preparing for Hillary's Prez campaign.

Obama will be harder for them to drive into the ground and has already shown that he can win reseasonable Unaffiliates and moderate Republicans, who are disenchanted with the contemporary GOP, and increase Democratic turnout.

Also Obama, not McCain, has demonstrated coat tails.  The recent election of a Dem to Hatert's old seat had Obama pitted against McCain as both came out to stump for their Party's candidate in that race.  Obama's candidate won and won speaking against the Iraq war.

What it really comes down to is HOW the campaigns will attack each other and how they will respond to attacks.  Hillary has already shown via her primary campaign ineptitude and arrogance that have blinded her to reality.  Why would we want a fool (Hillary) as the Dem Prez nominee?

no big deal (4.00 / 3)
At this point in the middle of a very heated primary contest, I don't know that we can take these poll results all that seriously. A large portion of those voters saying they would support McCain if Obama is the nominee are likely strong Clinton supporters simply expressing sour grapes who in reality would end up voting for Obama.

Secondly I'd want to see what states that 20% of white voters who prefer McCain over Obama are from. If a lot of them are from Mississippi, Utah, Alabama, etc., then who cares?

No (0.00 / 0)
I wish that was the case but I don't think it is. Most Obama supporters, through no fault of their own, just don't KNOW very many Clinton enthusiasts, and I think imagine that they are supporting her mainly out of name recognition and loyalty to Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a fundamental demographic and more importantly social difference between Obama and Clinton supporters. And Clinton's supporter are on the whole really JUST as enthusiastic and passionate as Obama's.

I think Obama fans on the web should really go and spend some time among Clinton's core groups: Older white women, Latinos, rural voters especially women, and most of all struggling blue collar families in the midwest. I'll bet most Obama fans on the blogs don't know very many in any of these categories, except maybe their mothers and grandmothers who might be in the first category. John McCain is quite a reasonable choice for many of these folks, for many reasons, and talking about where he stands on issues won't really help much. I suspect the 25% of the Dem base Obama loses is really gone for good, and it will cost him big time among swing states in the rust belt and southwest. He will really have to scramble to make it up.  

[ Parent ]
First (4.00 / 2)
I'd like to applaud you for picking up every line about Obama supporters hook, line and sinker - obviously, the majority of Obama supporters, are just upper middle class, completely isolated white people who are largely oblivious to "real life."  

Presumably all those Obama voters, in, well, let's say, North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas probably have no idea what rural life is like, and there are probably no older white women who supported Obama in those states either.  

Oh, and the rust belt - it goes beyond Ohio  Obama won Minnesota and Wisconsin, is polling well in Indiana so far as I know, and Clinton got only 55% of the vote against uncommitted in Michigan.  

One last thing -  it's not like Obama won Texas and almost won New Mexico, not to mention polls significantly better than Hillary against McCain in those states.  Not too many Latinos in either of those states..

So what constitutes that 25% of the base Obama's going to lose again?

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the condescension. (0.00 / 0)
   This reminds me of the snide comments from right-wingers after the 2004 elections that we needed to spend more time in red states to understand the true middle America.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
Obama Hasn't Helped Himself Here (4.00 / 3)
Hopefully he can make up most of this deficit before the general election, but Obama really hasn't helped himself with these problems.

(1) He's echoed the rightwing meme of generational warfare, blaming "both sides" for what's wrong with the country.  No reason for older Dems to feel like he speaks for them there.

(2) He's echoed the rightwing meme of a Social Security "crisis."  Even though his response is a progressive one, striking that note sends a far stronger message, simply because it has much more to resonate with.

(3) He's repeatedly called for new approaches, and been ambiguously dismissive of programs developed decades ago, often speaking as if nothing has been done since the 1930s to keep these programs up-to-date.  

(4) He's repeatedly touted his ability to win with moderates and Republicans, leaving Democratic stalwarts to ask, "What am I?  Chopped liver?"--a feeling that naturally grows stronger with age.

As I said, hopefully he can make up most of this deficit.  But he seems to have oblivious to the fact that there were costs associated with the sort of campaign he chose to run--costs that he didn't necessarily have to incur, if he had only been less eager to echo Versailles-friendly rhetoric, and more willing to sound like an actual Democrat.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

I dunno (4.00 / 4)
Personally, I believe the only way Obama could have run successfully (as a black man facing those disadvantages) is as a post-partisan uniter.

It's tough to run nationally as a black partisan lefty (as you suggest).

At any rate - I understand your points, but you're really nitpicking. Obama's record and stances are extraordinarily liberal. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by his governance. Don't be fooled by the "post-partisan" rhetoric. To me, that's just a cloak to hide his liberalness under.

Unlike the Clintons, he's not running AGAINST his party as a tactic. He's just running against partisanship. That's vague enough to not bother me.

[ Parent ]
Your Labels, Not Mine: Strawman Alert (0.00 / 0)
(1) Where, exactly, did I say he should run as "a black partisan lefty"???

That's a pathetic strawman argument on your part.

(2) This isn't "nitpicking," dude!  This is about major campaign messaging.

It has nothing to do with legislative record (Clinton's and Obama's are very similar, btw), and everything to do with the actual topic of this diary.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
My question (0.00 / 0)
Do you really think that Obama is bleeding support from the left, or at least our corner of the left?  Maybe a little bit, but especially with the way the Republicans hit him (the Muslim thing, most liberal senator, etc. etc.), there's not going to be an argument that he's unprincipled, but that he has the wrong principles.  So whether or not we personally feel that Obama isn't quite as far to the left as we might like, it seems to me that ultimately he's going to face the challenge of potentially bleeding some support from the right moreso than the left.

Also, I'm 99% sure he used the word crisis to describe Social Security once, and Clinton used a far greater right wing meme on Social Security than Obama did, going out and claiming that Obama was going to raise middle class taxes by a trillion dollars (insert additional scary tax and spend liberal rhetoric here).  

I think it may not have been perfectly phrased by another poster, but I do think it's true that Obama operates under a different set of conditions than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, and I think you've agreed with such a sentiment in the past.  If he came out in the primary, rhetorical guns blazing and giving us every line and every policy that we would die to hear, he faces a unique challenge in that he steps into another political realm - we'd see Geraldine Ferraro tenfold, and the media would go apeshit on him.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps but (0.00 / 0)
I don't totally get that. Maybe it's cause I'm a young-in still but those points seem small, really. I mean, on one side we have a campaign that has repeatedly had surrogates who disseminate horrific right-wing, hateful bile and participate in say-anything , do-anything politics, and on the other side we have a campaign that has given hints, sly notes of being not the total progressive one thinks he should be. (Not to mention sexist comments every once in a while to remind you he's no saint)

To me, it's not even close for progressives. I'll take the guy who's at least not saying the Repub is better than my fellow Dem. Both have been dragged through the mud, as I would think any of us would be by this time in the campaign season, but one campaign seems to be doing the dragging and the other seems to be the one dragged along and I can't see how all the progressive Democrats would want to side with the one doing the dragging.

[ Parent ]
You're A Sensitive Receptor (4.00 / 1)
for Obama's message.  Which is why you cite the points that you do.  They're not wrong, but they are constellated, configured, construed according to a certain gestalt.

And what I was trying to do was lay out just why he's not reaching a certain other set of voters who are sensitive receptors to a different set of messages, coming out of a different gestalt.

I'm also suggesting that he need not have alienated and/or neglected such a significant chunk of the latter.

This is not about who's right or wrong.  It's about who's connecting with whom, and why.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That's true (0.00 / 0)
I forgot to reference my support for him, didn't I?

I agree that he didn't have to say all those things, though I had put them in the context of an election where there are still two candidates, and both are now flawed and looking bad in some ways and good in other ways and so we have to yet again choose the better of two flawed people for the GE. That's where I thought a response could go, was to point out that in a contest between two people, this one is better because of (A) and (B), and that that was the context, I believed, of the comment. I'm sorry that I misunderstood.

[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
I think numbers 2 and 4 have some room to work for him electorally with Dems and Indies, though.

I think it's more than possible to refer to one's support for a progressive solution on Social Security, fighting back against McCain on his privatize it mess and effectively shutting down that talking point about how to "fix Social Security" for generations.

I believe saying you can win moderates and Republicans doesn't have to sound like you're walking away from Democrats if you say it right. I think he has been talking about how he can get "some" of each and talking about the sorts of solutions he looks to bring which are by and large just as progressive as the candidate these voting blocs have been voting for, (Clinton) meaning that he's not abandoning Democrats, he just wants to appeal to more people, which is a dream for most Democrats I know of.

It can work, he just has to be himself, I feel.

[ Parent ]
Inconvenient Truths (0.00 / 0)
The old ways of doing things are why we're in this mess.  I think at this point the case for the Democratic platform needing a major rebuild hasn't just been made, it's been judged, closed, and shipped off to the archives.

And faulting Obama for echoing right-wing memes is really disingenuous, considering the course Hillary has been on lately.

If you don't win moderates and Republicans, if you consider appealing to them a weakness in a candidate, then don't bother having a nominee.  Why waste our time on bad theater, we've seen that show before.

Let's face it: Hillary would have been out by now, except that she has a core of older women who are willing to make their descendants pay any price, as long as they don't die without seeing a woman elected President.  Roe v. Wade reversal, more war in Iraq, war in Iran, a new Draft, economic meltdown, it's all perfectly okay with them as long as Hillary gets another bite at the apple in 2012.

[ Parent ]
Your're In The Wrong Conversation, Dude! (0.00 / 0)
This is a conversation about why Obama isn't connecting with this particular group of voters.  It's not about justifying one thing or another.

But, since you took that wrong turn, let me use it to further illustrate my point:

The old ways of doing things are why we're in this mess. I think at this point the case for the Democratic platform needing a major rebuild hasn't just been made, it's been judged, closed, and shipped off to the archives.

You want to alienate older Democrats, I can't think of a better message to do it than one that implies--if not says outright--that traditional Democrats are as much the problem as Republicans (Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, George W.) are.

You don't hear that in your own words?

Exactly!

And faulting Obama for echoing right-wing memes is really disingenuous, considering the course Hillary has been on lately.

Shorter Pox: She does it too!

And you're complaining about "The old ways of doing things"?  

Please!

If you don't win moderates and Republicans, if you consider appealing to them a weakness in a candidate, then don't bother having a nominee.  Why waste our time on bad theater, we've seen that show before.

Meta Pox: Tired strawman argument, missing half its stuffing, it's been in the field so long.

Let's face it: Hillary would have been out by now, except that she has a core of older women who are willing to make their descendants pay any price, as long as they don't die without seeing a woman elected President.  Roe v. Wade reversal, more war in Iraq, war in Iran, a new Draft, economic meltdown, it's all perfectly okay with them as long as Hillary gets another bite at the apple in 2012.

Meta Pox: My identity politics argument, Good!  Your identity politics argument, Bad!

Just to give others a hint/reminder of why those older Dems might not be feeling the love: It's not being directed toward them!

Bottom Line:  I'm not trying to attack Obama here.  I'm trying to point out why his messaging has a downside that it doesn't necessarily have to have.  It's called constructive criticism.

There's a name for folks who don't think there's such a thing: Republicans.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Polish Hostages and Self-Absorbed Boomers (0.00 / 0)
Oh, I see, if I suggest that there is some reason the old methods and platforms don't work, it's an attack on the older democrats.  Accept this: You lost.  You got beat like a drum for the last 30 years.  You'll get beat for the next 30 if you keep telling yourself that it was because of anything other than "losing the center".  You've got a perfect opportunity to capitalize on the fact that the "center" is now on the left, and Hillary's team is willing to blow it off because it's tactically convenient.

And if I point out that some Hillary supporters (and yes, some Obama supporters) are turning themselves into "Polish Hostages", where if they don't get their candidate they will vote out of spite for McCain, I'm attacking older voters.

You sorry, stupid, saps.  Hillary's astroturfing team is out splitting the party, and you're lapping it up.  Do you think Geraldine Ferraro's race-baiting was an accident?  That a dying second-wave feminist icon is blowing rascist dogwhistles and provoking backlash?  That Mark "Microtrends" Penn doesn't know exactly what the consequences of this strategy are?  That Hillary doesn't know Ferraro is alienating a key Democratic voting bloc?

Hillary's team knows full well they have no chance left this year, no matter what fairy tales they're spinning for the base and the donors.  Now they're trying to make sure they get another shot in 2012 by kneecapping Obama.

I am attacking Hillary here.  Because she damn well deserves it.  Because she is not going to stop tearing the party down, because her ambitions are more important to her than all of the bad things that will happen if McCain is elected.  There's no point in "constructively criticizing" someone who is acting a a force of destruction.

See, I'll vote for the ambitious harridan in the fall, if I have to, because McCain is completely unacceptable.  But don't expect me not to be critical of her.

/rant

See, this is why negative campaigning in a primary is bad.  Because it divides the party in exactly this way, and leads to opposition wins.  And Hillary herself, as well as her advisors, know this full well, which leads me to believe they are doing it deliberately.  She's increasing not only Obama's negatives, but her own, without regard to the consequences.

[ Parent ]
Still In The Wrong Conversation (0.00 / 0)
I haven't the faintest idea why you think I'm defending Clinton.  I'm not within three parsecs of talking about her campaign.

Perhaps your desire to win just overwhelms everything else.

If so, who's practicing the old politics now?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Not quite (0.00 / 0)
Actually, I was making a point about the politics of public destruction.
[ Parent ]
I just have to (rudely) add as a Gen X Muppets mega-devotee (0.00 / 0)
how cool is it that your brother's directing a Muppets movie?!?
    The last one I saw, the Muppets Xmas movie, had all kinds of awesome progressive political commentary interspersed. I can't wait to see what he'll do with it!
me too (0.00 / 0)
Nick says that when he's tried political commentary in his films it turns out not to be funny.  And he does comedy, which means it has to be funny.  That's not to say there isn't great political satire, it's just not what he does.
[ Parent ]
"Dinosaurs" Did The Best Gulf War Critique I Ever Saw (4.00 / 1)
Even better than Three Kings, because it was just so darned Disneyish!

It just blew me away when I saw it.  I kept pinching myself, expecting to wake up.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I miss that show (0.00 / 0)
Wonderful, just wonderful

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
important numbers (0.00 / 0)
i agree that i do not believe it is about race. or gender , the other historic and divisive element to this primary. I am one of the defectors - although i don't believe i would vote at all if it was an obama ticket. for me i can't support his lack of qualifications. i do not believe he is ready or able to do this job. i am a democrat and for me it is his promise to nominate repubs in his cabinet [ sec def etc..] and his use of sexism in the race. the health care issue is also critical.  i dont believe he represents my core values. i d not think mccain does eithe rof course. and while i could just settle - i am tired of settling when it comes to the dems. i will only vote for a candidate i truly believe in.
What state do you live in? (0.00 / 0)
Hopefully it's one of the "unimportant" ones that Hillary has derided.
[ Parent ]
Typical Obama snark (0.00 / 1)
If you haven't noticed, your comment is a pretty good illustration of why, at this moment, it doesn't look very good for your guy in the general election.

I don't understand why Obama fans don't get this. Except to say that, since he pulled them into his campaign with a promise to make them feel important ("we are the change we have been waiting for"), they now think this campaign is all about them. Actually, it's "all about" those rust belt families and Latino new voters who will decide the election. And right now, they're not with Barack.

This dynamic needs to change NOW. If Obama supporters believe, as they say, that he has this thing wrapped up, then Hillary needs to be respected and lauded by them as a loyal Democrat running an historic campaign. If not, we're sunk and deserve it.

[ Parent ]
How? (4.00 / 1)
You're not making sense. How can someone who thinks the Republican nominee is more qualified than her fellow Democratic Senator be called a loyal Democrat by the "fans" (adorable wording there) of the unqualified senator?

Typical cynicism.

[ Parent ]
Another thing (0.00 / 0)
It's not 'all about' rust belt families or Latino new voters either. Maybe I'm too sensitive, who knows, but I am sure there must be more to a prevailing Democratic coalition than Latino new voters and the Industrial Midwest. That's a tad insulting, really.
[ Parent ]
What makes McCain and better choice than Obama? (0.00 / 0)
Or are you just getting in touch with your "inner Republican"?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
My thoughts on Clinton (4.00 / 2)
She IS calculating, cold, cruel and not very loyal to the Democratic Party either. Her campaign and surrogates have repeatedly insulted Sen. Obama and myself as an African-American man with their racist tactics and when she said McCain is more qualified than Obama, that was the final straw. There is very, very little chance I would vote for a ticket with HRC on it, even as VP, because I think she doesn't deserve to have her tactics rewarded. And I agree also, that settling gets really old.
[ Parent ]
2 questions (0.00 / 0)
1) doesn't every President put opposing party members in their cabinet?  Bill Clinton did, I believe even W did, and I honestly hope that Hillary and Obama will.  My own personal politics are far to the left of each, but I recognize the wisdom of listening to a variety of points of view.  It's not like anyone's going to put Limbaugh or Hannity in their cabinet.  Intelligent, talented Republicans DO exist, and there are numerous issues to which party identification does not strongly relate.

2) Please identify instances of Obama's "use of sexism in the race."

[ Parent ]
Number 2 (0.00 / 0)
--"You're likeable enough."
--"...the claws come out." Link
--"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically {long pause}, um when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal".

All direct Obama quotes. All pretty damn sexist.

[ Parent ]
"Likeable enough"? (0.00 / 0)
I don't get why that one can be construed as sexist.  And the third one was describing a pattern of behaviour, one that she was exhibiting in full measure.  Is it his fault Hillary sometimes acts like an anti-feminist cliche in order to "connect to her base"?
[ Parent ]
Hmmm... sounds like Obama should (4.00 / 2)
be faring poorly in the head-to-head matchups then? Yet he's not. It's quite close; he might even be doing a little better. This is because of turnout: Hillary encourages Republican turnout; Barack encourages Dem turnout. I know your post is about the other side of the coin and your final sentence shows you recognize this. I'm just sayin'...
Actually (4.00 / 2)
Those polls don't really predict or factor in difference turnout numbers for Obama and Hillary.

Obama's advantage in national polls is actually because he does better with independents.

I agree with you though - Obama's "plus" demographics of intense support includes young people and African Americans, who are traditionally lower turnout groups. So he has tons of room for vote growth.

Hillary's "plus" demographics of intense support is older white Democrats. And they already turnout at a high level, so it doesn't give her room for vote growth.

[ Parent ]
I stand corrected on the polls n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
AAs are high turnout (0.00 / 0)
In competitive states and voting rights states African Americans are high turnout. I.e. where it is easy to identify AAs or critical to turn out AAs campaigns get them to the polls. Obama has little room to grow there.

He has lots of room with youth, but I agree with Stoller that he would concentrate on independents. Politically this means he will move further to the right, so look for the Democratic position on Social Security, Universal Health Care and non-African American civil rights issues to take a beating. Also expect to see his preference for market based solutions to economic problems to become more prominent.

Obama's rightward slant on the above issues, combined with his using his race as a weapon, are what is driving away Democrats. While McCain's record is horrible he can sound reasonable and is better able to take a populist stance on bread and butter issues.  

[ Parent ]
There is no evidence (0.00 / 0)
that "Barack encourages Dem turnout." In fact the opposite is true: Hillary has won most of the closed primaries and leads substantially in the votes of registered Dems. I believe that you think that's true, but that's only because, imo, you don't know any of the Dems who support Clinton. They are probably very far separated from you socially and demographically.

Obama does a little better in general election matchups (and I emphasize VERY little better) because he gets a few more Independents and because he looks likely to lose some red states by a little less than Hillary would.

[ Parent ]
Really (0.00 / 0)
can we please just agree that both candidate excel at turning out Democrats to the polls? Across the board, every segment of the Democratic base is voting in vastly greater numbers than ever before, and that's the function of having two exciting, inspiring, talented, and passionate candidates.  I can't speak for the rest of Obama supporters, but I think that we'd be willing to concede to this point if you were - I think it's eminently reasonable, and probably true.
[ Parent ]
According to MSNBC... (0.00 / 0)
...26% of hillary's vote in MS was from Limbaugh Republicans.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Hypotheticals (4.00 / 1)
Voters are remarkably bad with hypotheticals.

The fact is that we're going to spend $200 million turning McCain into McBush. It's going to be easy. By the time we get to November, people will scratch their heads and say, "McCain...he's pretty much like Bush...didn't he say some maverick things a few years ago? I can't remember. Oh well."

Plus (0.00 / 0)
the Republicans (largely) own this economic mess, which appears about to get dramatically worse.
[ Parent ]
If you're going to claim that race (0.00 / 0)
is an important factor in the unwillingness of some Clinton voters to back Obama over McCain in the general, you should quote a statistic that makes that very point, don't you think?

Is that too much to ask?

It's not proven... (4.00 / 2)
...that race is a factor.

But when you see that Obama is bleeding older white support to McCain...well...it stands to reason.

He also mentioned the generational gap, which is also a likely culprit.

Honestly? I think it's just the intense primary. These people will come back into the fold eventually.

[ Parent ]
Like Matt H said... (4.00 / 4)
Obama is still doing better than Clinton in the head-to-head matchups, even though he's losing 6% more Democrats to McCain than Clinton is. I would guess that's because Obama attracts more than enough independents/Republicans to make up their number, while Clinton has no one to replace the 8% she loses.

These numbers could also be a reflection of how the two campaigns are run, too. While Clinton attacks Obama as being the affirmative-action candidate with no qualifications and speaks highly of McCain, Obama isn't nearly that negative towards Clinton or positive towards their opponent. Therefore, Clinton supporters are like Clinton--hate Obama, love McCain--while Obama supporters like both Democrats and hate McCain.

Still doing better than Clinton against McCain, though (4.00 / 1)
It's important to note that the same poll shows Obama leading McCain by 50% to 43% among all voters, while Clinton leads McCain by 50% to 45%. So Obama is making up the lost Clinton supporters and old folks elsewhere.

Also, the Lieberman comparison seems questionable, since McCain is not and has never been a Democrat, and he's not the incumbent. Both of those factors presumably were important to Lieberman's level of support among Democratic voters.

True but ... (0.00 / 0)
I don't think that will last. Independents and maverick Republicans are mostly distinguished by not giving a shit about politics. And all they know about Obama right now is not much. After the Fall campaign, I really don't think we can count on their votes for Barack. I'd MUCH rather count on turning out the Dem base.
[ Parent ]
I don't think Clinton (4.00 / 1)
Will get the Dem base numbers she may need though. It's possible Obama supporters will get behind her, and yes though you may not like it most of his supporters are Democrats. I just think AA support will lag, honestly. I can't think of what will change that outcome and the fact that Hillary's doing weak in college towns and many of the big urban centers and winning big states by winning the rural areas but not the cities gives me worries.
[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
We may not hold on to all of the independents and Republicans, but I think it's more likely that we'll hold on to some of them than that all those Clinton supporters are really going to stay angry enough to vote for McCain in the general.
[ Parent ]
Older, White "Democrats" prefer Older, White (4.00 / 1)
Candidates - even if they have to screw their own party to vote for one.

Apparently, its not only the "Democrats" in congress that lack initiative and are more comfortable with the status quo.  


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Obama fall off (4.00 / 1)
As one of those "older white people willing to send young people into wars," I think you just don't get it.  First, I am old according to you, 68 to be exact.  I protested the Vietnam War, dragged my children and friends to Washington to demonstrate for a woman's right to choose, made phone calls for Jesse Jackson back in '84, and worked for McGovern when there were lots and lots of young people energized to participate - you're not the first ones to get involved.

I, for one, am not going to shift to McCain, but I am part of the fall-off.  I am not going to vote for Obama.  I am going to vote LIKE Obama.  When I go to the polls in November, if there is not a woman at the top of the ticket, I will simply be noted as "present."  Then I'll look downballot and vote for the rest of the candidates.  

I don't know now whether I will ever get to vote for a woman if Clinton is not nominated this year, but I do know that in the future I will vote for any woman over any man for president - regardless of her qualifications or her background (there have been a lot of male rogues and roués on the ballot over the years, I'm not expecting a female candidate to be perfect).  And after all, this year, you and many others are eager to vote for a thinly qualified male over a more qualified female?  Think of your own state senator (a part time job, by the way), put him in the U.S. Senate for a year and tell me if you think he or she is qualified to be president. That's how I see Obama - he may make your heart flutter, but so does Brad Pitt.  

And so I wait to see what happens this year and if Clinton is not nominated, I just hope I live long enough for someone else to be able to crack the glass ceiling.

As much as I don't agree with you (0.00 / 0)
that is a good line about 'voting LIKE Obama.'  
[ Parent ]
I'm a young voter. (0.00 / 0)
    I really don't understand your position.  Clearly, you're an anti-war Democrat.  So why won't you enthusiastically support the anti-war candidate in the general?  It's a little annoying to hear day in and day out that Obama is a shallow celebrity candidate.  Are you an "it's Clinton's turn" voter?  You seem to be angry at Obama simply because he's standing in the way of a woman.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
To a lot of people... (0.00 / 0)
...and especially to older people the fact that Obama is thinly qualified is very troublesome. I know that the Obama fans who are in love with the guy don't get it but you can bet the Republicans will if they end up campaigning against him in the fall election.
[ Parent ]
To alot of people Clinton is too much a part of the status quo (0.00 / 0)
So, it makes sense that more of her supporters would ditch Obama for McCain.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
To a lot of people... (0.00 / 0)
... Hillary Clinton is the qualified candidate for the Democratic nomination and Barack Obama is the unqualified candidate. The example that Pililord gave above is a good one.
Think of your own state senator (a part time job, by the way), put him in the U.S. Senate for a year and tell me if you think he or she is qualified to be president. That's how I see Obama - he may make your heart flutter, but so does Brad Pitt.

Those of us that haven't caught the Obama fever see his very potent campaign skills but we also see through them. Once you strip away the skills you see a candidate with great ambition but with less than mediocre qualifications.

[ Parent ]
Different people (0.00 / 0)
value different experiences, well, differently.  Obviously, lots of Clinton voters think she's experienced. That's great, no problem from me.  Lots of Obama voters like me think he has plenty of experience too, not to mention astute judgment on a lot of really important matters, and so we think he's qualified.  The idea that for a job as complex as being president, that there's some absolute notion of a perfectly experienced candidate is, in my opinion, not accurate.  We're not talking about a computer programming job where it's the difference between someone who can program and someone who can't.
[ Parent ]
Experience arguments are baseless (4.00 / 1)
This is a false argument.  What we're really arguing about is about who is winning the "experience argument" re: messaging.   That's all.

I don't think being a spouse of a President counts as "experience."  

I don't think HRC is any more experienced than BO.  

By these standards, I don't think JFK was experienced, either. GWB wasn't experienced, either, yet R's voted for him.  A lot of people thought Truman didn't have much experience, either, if I recall my history correctly.  

   

[ Parent ]
I really don't think Clinton is as qualified (4.00 / 2)
I see your point and I just see that as Obama not having "waited his turn" and I appreciate that, in fact. I wish more people would try to be president and argue that experience is a nebulous qualification for a job none of the candidates have held before.

On to my other point, while Sen. Clinton was First Lady, but what does that mean in terms of what she's MORE able to do from Day One, and how did that positively affect her worldview? I don't see anything in her much-lauded record or her 'speeches vs. solutions' rhetoric that shows her experience means anything other than 'experience'; I don't see where it means she's more capable, smarter, wiser, or harder working. To me it's simply a dogwhistle to women voters and Clinton backers to ignore all other candidates even fellow Democrats because it's "her time".

[ Parent ]
I'm not "feverish" about Obama - but he does help out with (0.00 / 0)
my Clinton fatigue.

The primary fight has brought out all of her worst traits.

As of the moment - in Obama vs McCain: I vote FOR Obama

in Clinton vs McCain is vote AGAINST McCain - whether that protest goes so far as to end up as a vote for Nader, only time will tell.  Today, I believe that I could pinch my nose sufficiently to go for Clinton - but if she doesn't quit with the race and gender politics the stench may get too strong.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
And some of us see a racist Democrat (0.00 / 0)
who exaggerates her experience and is willing to do anything to win. To each his/her own I guess.  
[ Parent ]
Anybody who ... (0.00 / 0)
... looks at Hillary Clinton and says they see a racist should not be listened to about anything of consequence.
[ Parent ]
I just don't see it. (4.00 / 3)
  I'm not in love with Obama.  I'm in love with the thought of a president who shares my values.  I think the caricatures of Obama as a lightweight pied-piper are just as damaging and unfair as Hillary's caricature as a headstrong b-word.  The fact is that Obama has spent more time in elective office than Clinton.  He is younger than Clinton.  Is that the kind of experience we're talking about?  
    Experience, experience, experience.  Clinton has won fewer elections than Obama.  That Republicans will unfairly attack Obama as inexperienced is undeniable, I just didn't expect their attacks to be co-opted by the Hillary campaign.  I suppose I'll never understand it.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
I know state senators (0.00 / 0)
One of them lives down the street from me. He is a good guy but there is no way he is qualified to be president. A year in the United States senate wouldn't make him qualified either.

Hillary Clinton has always been an important player in her husband's administrations, both in Arkansas and later in the White House. If you don't believe she helped her husband develop policy then I don't know what to say to you. Hillary Clinton also has six years more in the United States senate than Obama. Hillary Clinton has been at the center of national politics and policy for many years. Obama cannot match that. It is not a caricature, it is a fact.

[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 1)
   Hillary has 4 more years in the senate than Obama, not 6.  She was elected in 2000, and Obama in 2004.  I don't deny the fact that Hillary has been more of a national figure.  I just don't understand why that gives everyone the right to belittle Obama.  He has been more active in the senate - he introduces more bills and gets more passed.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the correction (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Who knows what she did in the White House? (0.00 / 0)
She won't release any of the records, so I guess we just have to trust her.

My hunch: if she's trumpeting PR trips with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow to Bosnia as big time foreign policy experience, that experience is just as thin as Obama's.

[ Parent ]
Obama is not your average state senator (4.00 / 1)
Just as Hillary is not your average First Lady.

You wouldn't argue that Barbabra or Laura Bush is qualified to be President, right?  Well, Obama supporters are not arguing that the state senator from your neighborhood should be president, either.  We're arguing that Obama is qualified.

[ Parent ]
it's your opinion, not fact (0.00 / 0)
Lincoln was a state legislator. (not to equate BO with Lincoln) This argument is baseless.  
[ Parent ]
Lincoln Was A Former Congressmember (0.00 / 0)
who was a leading figure in the creation of a new political party.

He was also somewhat politically naive, as he long denied that there would ever be a civil war.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
The fact that she's been in natl politics (0.00 / 0)
Is a testament to her ambition, (which is NOT bad, I'm not even implying that it is bad) her courage and her will. She deserves praise for that, but not the presidency.

Taking the Clinton campaign's framing, I see that Sen. Clinton has done NOTHING that shows her preparedness to answer the phone at 3AM. Sen. Obama also has no such qualifications, but then again I realize that the WH probably has someone to pick up the phone for them and people to help the President formulate policy in a crisis.

Being a national figure would make most anyone in Washington qualified to be President, going by your logic, from Jan Schakowsky and Barney Frank to Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, from John Conyers to Kay Bailey Hutchinson to Maria Cantwell to John S. McCain, they're all qualified and all deserve to be president, correct?

That's in part a response to the idea that Hillary Clinton being in the national spotlight has prepared her for the presidency.

[ Parent ]
"Hillary has won fewer elections than Obama" (0.00 / 0)
That's true only if you count uncontested ones. Obama has literally NEVER been in a contested general election for anything, city countil on up. Which has always been my concern, since above all I want to WIN. He's like the talented prospect who's brought up to the major leagues and pitches well for a while. You want him throwing the 7th game of the World Series?
[ Parent ]
Funny you should mention such an analogy (0.00 / 0)
I'm a diehard Mets fan, and back in 2006, by the time Game 7 of the NLCS came around, no one knew who would (or should) pitch.  Willie Randolph picked Oliver Perez, who had, at that point, and ERA of 5 or 6 over the last couple of seasons.  Of course no one wants Oliver Perez pitching Game 7, but sometimes, you have the right person for the right job.  They sent him out there, had faith in him, knew that he might be able to finally put together all of the talent that had made him such a touted prospect, and you know what happened? He went out and hurled 6 innings and gave up 1 run in the most important Mets game since 2000.  Sometimes, you just have to look at your options and go with who you think will give you the best performance, even if it's not the "ideal" candidate for the job.  That's how Obama supporters feel - after everything that's happened, and given all that we know, he's the best we have, and believe he'll deliver, and in the end, that's all that matters.
[ Parent ]
In all fairness (4.00 / 1)
Bobby Jenks closed out the World Series as a rookie in 2005.
[ Parent ]
And he's still beating the machine. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I agree... (4.00 / 1)
Clinton's experience is pretty much a mirage in my book.  'First Lady' experience is no better than the supposedly important 'CEO' experience that Bush and his team brought to Washington.  Will Bill prove to be a better teacher than GWHB? Who knows?

Neither candidate has executive experience.  So what?  Neither does McCain.  Experience can be overrated.  Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld had as much experience as anyone in the country when they took their positions in the administration.  How did that work for us?

It is a shame that so many Clinton voters seem candidate-partisan rather than party-partisan.  I find it strange that so many buy into the Hillary as 'liberal' meme and Obama as 'right-leaning', when she and Obama are together at the right edge of the party on most issues.  Wasn't Hillary the one doing her 'abortion is icky' schtick just a few years ago?

[ Parent ]
Last thing I remember... (0.00 / 0)
   I remember Hillary co-sponsoring a bill with Lieberman to reduce video game violence.  That was when she was recreating herself in the 2004-6 period.  
 I don't really think either of them are in the right-wing of the party.  Their voting records show that.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
I guess it depends on how you define the party... (0.00 / 0)
I guess I am thinking more of the traditional Dem values rather than voting records.  The party is filled with Republicans in Democratic clothing, but I chalk that more up to politics than to the party and what it stands for.  Neither strikes me as being all that interested in really trying to fix the issues of inequality in this country.  I see too much 'free trade' and not enough fair trade coming from them for my tastes.  While I would like a 'new deal', I would settle for a 'better deal' and I don't see either of them being able to deliver. If it weren't for the Supreme Court I would vote 3rd party this fall.  I have slightly less reservations about Obama on foreign policy, but I don't think hawkishness is necessarily a right-wing-only position in a traditional GOP v. Dem sense.

[ Parent ]
If Hillary Clinton... (0.00 / 0)
... were like Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan I would agree with you. However she isn't. Not even close.
[ Parent ]
Sounds like sour grapes to me (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Hypothetical (0.00 / 0)
As a point of discussion, consider what the response to this posting would be had s/he proposed voting for Nader or Mckinney rather than "doing an Obama" and voting present.

One can only imagine the torrent of abuse-particularly compared to the relatively respectful reactions posted below-even though the practical result would be more or less identical.

I'm curious whether anyone can offer an explanation accounting for this likely asymmetry.

[ Parent ]
"present" (4.00 / 1)
You DO realize that Obama and other pro-choice Dems voted "present" in accordance with a strategy devised by Illinois' Planned Parenthood, right?  And you also realize that pro-choice activists have switched their allegiance from Clinton to Obama due to Clinton's dishonesty and intentional misleading of voters on this important issue, correct?
[ Parent ]
"present" (0.00 / 0)
That strategy has been used in Illinois to provide protection for those who might be vulnerable in an election.  Obama was not one of them - it's just that he took the easy way out.  My understanding is that the person who was president of Planned Parenthood when this took place would have preferred him to vote, rather than pass.


[ Parent ]
Uh no. It'd be quite easy for the GOP to (0.00 / 0)
point out that it was simply a strategy if only the at-risk dems voted present.

What is your understanding based on? I haven't seen that statement. I've only seen a statement from IL PP that said they were shocked that the tactic they worked together on was being used against him. I've also only seen his 100% ratings from PP.  

[ Parent ]
Explanation about Obama's Present votes on Abortion (0.00 / 0)
I figure this issue is important to you, so I took the time to look up the definitive rebuttal to this discredited argument.

This is the inside story explaining that Obama organized the "present" vote strategy with Planned Parenthood Illinois:
"Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...

As a result of what many considered a very cynical ploy to sow doubt about Obama, and I remember that at the time I was not an Obama supporter and doubts were raised in my mind, Lorna Brett Howard switched her support from Clinton to Obama.
"Former President of Chicago NOW, Lorna Brett Howard, tells the story of why she switched from supporting Hillary Clinton to supporting Barack Obama."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

This argument was a low point for the Clinton campaign in my book.  I hope these links are useful to you.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

[ Parent ]
Some feminist you are (0.00 / 0)
to stand aside so that John McCain can appoint the Justices who will overturn Roe, and perhaps decide that embryonic "life" is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, because you didn't get your way.

I tell my fellow Obama supporters not to make threats in March that they will regret having made in November.  I now say the same to you.  If you know yourself, if you care about these issues, you know that ultimately you will fall into line, as I will with Hillary.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

[ Parent ]
some feminist I am (0.00 / 0)
Actually I am a feminist - just ask my daughters - and Roe v Wade has been a very important issue for me for years. I have voted for Democrats for president for almost 50 years.  It's just that now I want to vote for a woman for president and I don't want to vote for a man.  I'm not threatening, I'm not proselytizing, I'm just saying.  
[ Parent ]
Just one question (0.00 / 0)
are you from a swing state? If you choose not to vote for Obama as a matter of principle in a state where your one vote will not have an impact on the final outcome, then I have no problem with that.  But please, for the love of all that you so obviously care for, vote for Obama if you do live in a swing state.
[ Parent ]
Swing state (0.00 / 0)
I'm not from a swing state - I'm from NJ.  Now I know that Obama is running behind here in a matchup with McCain compard to Clinton who is beating McCain (but of course, we know Clinton - she's our neighbor and we like her), but I don't think it will hold and that the state will go Democratic in the fall.

But how come my vote is so darn important all of a sudden.  Where were all these people when Gore or Kerry ran?  Were they all teenagers unable to vote back then?  If just a fraction of the people who think it's so doggone important now had bothered to vote 4 years ago, 8 years ago - we wouldn't be at war, we wouldn't wonder what happened to our Constitution, we wouldn't be torturing people - we wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't...

I know what it's like to be in love with a candidate - I was just coming of age - back then I think it was 21 - when Jack Kennedy ran.  I supported Gene McCarthy; I worked for Mo Udall - inspiring candidates all.  But if you notice, they are all men. This time I want to vote for a woman.  

[ Parent ]
Funny you should mention that (0.00 / 0)
I was 13 in 2000, 17 in 2004.  First campaign I ever worked was going door to door for McGreevey in 2001 - just hope I'm not jinxed because of that.
[ Parent ]
The you will eventually choose between (0.00 / 0)
feeding your desire and preserving Roe.  I expect that when push comes to shove you'll make the right choice.  Hillary and all of the other feminist leaders will certainly be asking you to do so.

And New Jersey is a swing state.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

[ Parent ]
Lamont/McCain (4.00 / 1)
There is another important point of comparison with the Lamont race:

During the primary, Lieberman was being pushed by party insiders and party loyalists, with the result that in the general, party loyalists were forced to do an extreme about face:  The same calls, from the same ward heelers to the same old ladies were now inverted.  In July the conversation was X is a solid, responsible, progressive who will bring home the bacon for the state, and Y is an dangerous radical who should not be trusted.

In November, the script remained the same but with X and Y reversed. The problem, as was shown by the results, is that average voters are not able to perform feats of extreme, Orwellian doublethink.  They are  resistant to immediately reshuffling their loyalties when requested to do so by the ex cathedra pronouncements from the party hierarchy.

McCain presents a similar problem.  In 2004 he was, as no one seems to want to remember, among the Democrats' top choices for the VP slot, touted for his savvy and principled bipartisanist.  Somehow, in the four intervening years, he has become a dangerous warmonger, emotionally unstable, mean and vindicative etc.

Furthermore, as pointed out above, the two variants of the neo-liberal bipartisan narrative being pushed by Obama and Clinton will do nothing to counteract, and will probably reinforce the sympathy which many Democratic voters will have for McCain based on the the party line of 2004.

No matter who ends up with the nomination, Democrats will have good reasons for voting for McCain, namely, those reasons which the party was promoting in 2004.

If the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November, what happened in July of 2004 will have a lot to do with it.

Something to keep in mind for the future, it seems to me.

It'll be fine (4.00 / 1)
Half of those are just idle threats or sour grapes borne of a harsh primary.  Hell, if a pollster asked me if I would vote for Hillary right now, I might say "no".  But probably half of those people will come to their senses in time for November.  At worst, most of them will stay home instead of voting for the opposition.

Remember how many Republicans whined that they'd never in a million years vote for McCain?  Even though a lot of them have already done an about face, they still have bigger problems with this than we do.

Obviously, getting the primary over with sooner rather than later gives these people more time to step back from the edge.  But if we figure that half are just being hyperbolic (which I think is completely reasonable), that's 7% who really really wouldn't vote for Obama and 4% who really really wouldn't vote for Clinton.  The difference is just 3% of Democrats (or 6% if we assume all these people follow through with their threats).  That's like 1% or 2% of the total electorate in terms of a disadvantage for Obama.  He'd more than makes up for that with new voters, independents and increased turnout from his core groups.  Polling (national and state-by-state) back that up.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

Turnout. (4.00 / 2)
  If Hillary can the equivalent kind of turn out from her supporters in the primary as Obama has, she would have wrapped up the primary.  Why hasn't she been able to do that?  Did Clinton supporters just assume she would walk away with the victory?

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
"Why hasn't she been able to do that?" (0.00 / 0)
Money, if you really want to know. Obama's February winning streak was won entirely in states where he outspent her 3:1 or better. In Wisconsin, his most impressive win, it was 5:1.

Just sayin'.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
Since when do candidates pay people to go to the polls?!?  Hillary has massive name recognition she didn't need to spend anything and people would know she was on the ballot.  They just haven't gone in droves through most of the process.
[ Parent ]
Money AND her team's strategic choices (4.00 / 1)
HRC's team hasn't been the sharpest in this campaign.

Does not bode too well, IMO.

[ Parent ]
Right... (4.00 / 1)
   Then how did Obama win Iowa?  Clinton was behind because she assumed that she had money to splurge on all her buddies.  She just showed that she doesn't know how to manage money.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
mean that their views are better represented (4.00 / 1)
yeah, if by better represented they want social programs killed, medicare cut, more money wasted on wars, higher utility bills, and could give a crap about the debt and sorry stay of affairs that will be foisted on their grand children.

Yep, sounds like Babyboomer Reagan Democrats to me - still doing damage. yay!

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

What did you expect? (0.00 / 0)
A change of heart?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I've been afraid of this (4.00 / 1)
Watching the demographics over the past two months, I've started to worry that if Obama is the nominee, the Democrats will lose a significant portion of lower-income whites (seniors, pro-military blue collar families).

I'm not going to attempt to explain why this does (or doesn't) make sense from the voters' perspective. I've just become concerned.

The upside of an Obama nom is that I don't think the hardcore GOP partisans will be as motivated to work against him (there's no better Republican punching bag than Hilary Clinton). And I think Obama stands a fair chance with higher-income independents and Republicans (e.g. Rockefeller Republicans).

Strong appeal among working class and retired voters should probably rank high on the list of priorities for an Obama VP. And please, God, no more windsailing.

I hope against hope that, if Obama is the nominee, Clinton & co. will work hard to bring their coalition to Obama's camp (and vice versa if the nomination goes the other way.)

No, I do not weep at the world — I am too busy sharpening my oyster knife.
    Zora Neale Hurston

Age vs Youth (4.00 / 2)
We've all dug through the SurveyUSA 50 state polls, we've seen the various head to head match-ups with McCain, and it appears both Clinton and Obama can win, but the coalitions are different.  Any time you focus on the population that votes for Clinton but not Obama, Clinton looks better.  Any time you focus on the population that votes for Obama but not Clinton, Obama looks better.

The fact they have different coalitions by definition means these populations exist.  In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that.

There is some evidence that Obama's coalition may be bigger, but roughly speaking they have coalitions of about equal size.  Given that, the correct question is which coalition do we prefer?  

I say the answer is we clearly prefer Obama's due to the age difference.  We have an opportunity to lock in an entire generation of progressive voters.  We should take advantage of that opportunity.  Combine the youth vote with Obama's superior map which isolates the Republicans to just the South, and we the future looks very bright.

For those that criticize Obama for losing that part of the population that Clinton would have won over McCain, I have to make the obvious point that we don't know who would drop off the other side if he campaigned differently.  It is nice to say that Obama could get that population without losing his own unique slice, but we really don't know that.

Nice how that 68 year old Democrat (0.00 / 0)
has bought into every lie and misconception sold by the Clinton campaign.  Ah well.

Well she's not alone, I'm sure many black Americans, like myself won't be voting for Clinton, should she get the nomination somehow.  

Ironic, too - because (0.00 / 0)
its the Obama supporters that are supposed to be naive - at least according to the MSM and the Clintons.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
don't legitimize this narrative (0.00 / 0)
I find the following part of the quoted comment particularly telling and troubling:

"I, for one, am not going to shift to McCain, but I am part of the fall-off.  I am not going to vote for Obama.  I am going to vote LIKE Obama.  When I go to the polls in November, if there is not a woman at the top of the ticket, I will simply be noted as "present."  Then I'll look downballot and vote for the rest of the candidates."

So, as someone who's fought for civil rights and so ardently wants a woman to win, who do you want to pick the next 2 Supreme Court Justices? You've become so focused on one issue alone - we have a chance to vote in a woman, and if I can't vote for her then no one - you've lost sight of the bigger picture; namely, with the hard-right voting block on the Supreme Court now only 1 vote away from having uncontested domination, and with two Justices who most likely will not last another 8 years on the court (Stevens and Ginsburg), the rights you apparently fought for will be trampled on for the next 30 years if McCain picks gets elected.

Your "take the high road" approach of abstention is anything but the high road. It reminds me of the people who voted for Nader in 2000. This is not the high road; it's blind folly, and it undercuts all the values Democrats, progressives, liberals, and activists have been fighting for.

This narrative and justification for not voting for the winner, whether Obama or Clinton (since the same arguments happen on both sides) should not be legitimized. If you care about the issues important to readers of OpenLeft, MyDD, and DKos, and you let your self-righteousness get in the way putting your effort behind the Democratic candidate, the potential consequences for the country in which our children and grandchildren will live should give you pause. Giving priority to these consequences should, if you can step out of the nastiness of this campaign and get some perspective, leave only ONE option: fighting and voting for the Democratic candidate.

Take your ego out of the equation, stop feeling so damned wounded. There are very real and severe consequences to this election.

Old Democrats Move from Democrat to McCain the General | 149 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox