[Welcome, InstaPutz readers.]
[Welcome also, Taylor Marsh readers, thanks to Grey.]
After Hillary Clinton’s historic 41-point victory in the West Virginia primary, two questions loom: How long will Barak Obama cling to his shattered dreams of the presidency, and how much damage will be done to the Democratic Party by his stubborn and divisive refusal to accept the obvious?
UPDATE – Below: How will Obama win an Electoral College majority? at Salon by Paul Maslin, former pollster to Howard Dean. (h/t BDBlue)
UPDATE 2 – Below: Skirting Appalachia, an Op Ed in the NYT opining on Barak Obama’s Electoral College strategic options by Charles Blow, Art Director at National Geographic -and why not? (h/t again to the sharp-eyed BDBlue)
What just weeks earlier had looked to the Obama camp like an easy path to victory has been derailed following his confidence-shattering defeat in Indiana, a state conventional wisdom and his own campaign had projected he would win, and his disastrous showing in Pennsylvania in spite of outspending Clinton 3:1. The North Carolina win was expected, with a demographic that heavily favored Obama’s race-based campaign style, and is of no value strategically since it came in a state that will certainly end up in the Republican win column. In sharp and defining contrast, Clinton’s 41-point West Virginia primary victory is highly significant because current polls show Clinton leading McCain there by a growing margin – it is a state she can win in the fall.
Obama’s best hope for convincing party elders of his general election viability was a decent showing in West Virginia, the closest thing there is to a “key” state for Democratic victory in the general election. Obama aides tried to dismiss the state’s importance – and avoid disturbing questions about why he is badly trailing McCain there in the polls – by saying that West Virginia won’t be part of their plans for victory in the fall.
It is difficult to see how Obama could win the general election without West Virginia; no Democrat, in fact, has taken the White House without West Virginia since 1916. When pressed for Electoral College details, Obama staffers could offer no specifics on what the general election campaign plan might be. “We’re still working on that, but don’t worry,” a source* cites one staffer as saying; “we’ll come up with something.”*
Concern Mounts Regarding Obama’s Electability
The superdelegates certainly are worried. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have repeatedly taken the trouble to make clear they don’t need to force a decision before the end of June, giving them time to see how Obama does with the remaining primaries before they make any decision. What happened in West Virginia, the single biggest percentage loss ever suffered by a leading candidate this late in the primary process, must certainly give them great pause; the expected result of next week’s Kentucky primary will only add to those concerns. The last thing these leaders want is to nominate another flawed candidate, one who can win the activist part of the Democratic Party but will fail in the general election.
Anticipating rejection by West Virginia voters, the Obama campaign scrambled to create a positive spin for an increasingly faltering effort. In a May 13 press release, they had this to say:
To understand a potential general election match-up between Obama and McCain, the only analysis and data that should be considered valid are the current head-to-head National polls rather than extrapolating irrelevant assumptions from exit poll data in Democratic primaries.
But polls offer no comfort for Obama. Rather than supporting the aura of inevitability the campaign wishes to project, they actually suggest that there is considerable trouble ahead.
Polls: McCain Holds Electoral College Race Advantage Over Obama
In their search for some positive spin, Obama’s supporters have reached for and pinned their argument on the only metric that does not matter at all: national polls. However, the country does not vote as a nation: In the general election, voters express their views in a state-by-state winner-take-all Electoral College process. As we saw in 2000, the White House does not always go to the candidate with the highest total in the popular vote. National polling does not matter. Only the Electoral College matters.
Even worse for Obama’s look-over-there-at-the-polls argument, examining state-by-state voter opinion can only heighten senior Democrats’ suspicions about Obama’s general election viability. Again, the only metric for electability that matters is a projection of Electoral College votes. Recent individual state polls show McCain ahead of Obama in Electoral vote projections, and many of the Electoral votes from remaining “tossup” states will surely go McCain’s way. Further, an Obama candidacy puts Florida firmly in the Republican’s hands along with bellwether West Virginia, and turns what should be Democratic strongholds like Ohio into definite Republican possibilities.
Obama’s supporters insist that their candidate’s cross-over appeal puts states like Colorado and New Mexico into play. This proclaimed advantage may not matter; the number of Electoral votes he can potentially gain from these states (9 and 5, respectively) is small compared to the number of otherwise safely Democratic Electoral votes his candidacy puts at risk (20 from Ohio alone). And while states like Colorado have been showing a definite trend towards a Democratic majority, Obama’s problems with Hispanic voters, who average 15% of the population nationwide and 20% in Colorado, will almost certainly counter any gain from the so-called “Creative Class,” a numerically insignificant, though noisy, fraction of the population confined to cities like Denver and Boulder.
Democrats would do well to remember that Hispanics in California went strongly enough in 2003 to Republican Schwarzenegger that he crushed his main rival, popular Latino and Democratic leader Cruz Bustamante. It was a reflection of the enduring appeal of machismo, still a strong cultural tendency and one that favors the war hero narrative of McCain.
With state-by-state poll standings like these, Obama may acquire enough Electoral votes to eke out a victory but the race with McCain appears very close and the risk of failure for the Democratic Party quite high. Even though Obama ran up an early primary delegate lead with small-turnout caucuses in Republican-leaning states, he will not be able to transform those inconsequential successes into Electoral College votes. Not even the most enthusiastic Obama supporter thinks Obama will win Wyoming, Idaho or Kansas in the general.
Of the “tossup” states in this preference map, only Michigan and Wisconsin can be expected to swing to the Democrats. These two additional states would bring Obama’s total to 255, meaning he would need to win South Carolina, Indiana or Colorado, none of them certain, or some even less likely combination of Western states to reach 270. Not impossible, but it would make for a very close and risky race.
Swing State Democrats Greatly Prefer Hillary
Unfortunately for the effectiveness of the Democratic primary process, Obama’s greatest popularity was among Democrats in states where Republicans dominate;** those states will not be of any help in the fall. Obama’s current lead in primary delegates is an artifact of a flawed primary selection system, rather than a true expression of general election viability. In states where Democrats can actually win enough Electoral votes to clinch the White House, it is Clinton who is by far the most popular:
From these results, even assuming Oregon goes to Obama, it is crystal clear that Clinton absolutely dominates with voters in states where the 2004 outcomes were close (Swing States, +/- 5% margins). These are precisely the states most likely to make the 2008 election decision. Further, Clinton is far and away the leader in states where Democrats dominated in 2004 (over 5% margins) and can hold these states in the fall. With Obama, many of these become possible Republican pickups and must be defended, consuming precious resources that would be better spent on Swing State opportunities.
Clinton leads McCain in Electoral College Race
Looking again at opinion polls in states across the nation, as the Obama camp suggests, Hillary Clinton carries a healthy advantage over McCain. The vast majority of Electoral votes in the “tossup” states here should break for Hillary and the Democrats, including Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Maryland, for a total of 302. Her Electoral College advantage is so great that even if the Crist-Bush cabal manages to steal Florida’s Electors again, she will still win easily.
Against Clinton, McCain and the Republicans will have a difficult – almost overwhelming – fight on their hands. Against Obama, however, McCain already has an Electoral College advantage and it will be the Democratic Party scrambling to find a way to catch up.
The Endorsement Parade
John Edwards is the latest of a string of political second tier males to choose to support a candidate at odds with his stated policies, while rejecting the candidate more in sympathy with core Democratic Party principles. That the unwanted candidate is female cannot be entirely dismissed as a consideration in their decisions.
These endorsements would be more understandable as policy-based if it were not for the fact that what difference there is between the candidates’ written positions places Obama farther to the right of the Democratic mainstream than Clinton; with their spoken positions and associations considered, the disconnect is greater still. For example, Obama’s position on Universal Health Care is to the right of John Edwards—and Elizabeth Edwards.
Obama now has the endorsement of two recent rivals, Edwards and Richardson, who between them collected just over one half of one percent of the total available pledged primary delegates. How much weight this announcement will carry with Dean, Pelosi, and Reid remains to be seen; in terms of garnering votes in the general election the impact will be nil, and that is all that the superdelegates should consider.
In some ways the Edwards endorsement may heighten the blow to Obama’s campaign that is coming in Kentucky, where he will again suffer a major repudiation. What will it take for Obama to secure the support of the Democratic Party working-class base? Is it even possible for Obama to change the minds of these voters? If John Edwards’ endorsement cannot move mainstream working-class Democratic voters to support Obama, what will?
While conventional wisdom casts these later primary defeats for Obama as the result of unreconstructed racism, it may as likely be that voters in earlier primaries, especially in the caucuses, were voting with their hearts while voters in later primaries, having considered the consequences of an Obama nomination, are voting with their heads. This wave of rejection may, in fact, be exactly the broad-based repudiation of Obama that it appears to be.
The Superdelegate’s Dilemma
It is no wonder that the triumvirate of Dean, Pelosi, and Reid have put their decision on hold. Obama’s inability to put Clinton away, especially considering his huge cash-on-hand advantage and extremely favorable media coverage, does not bode well against an experienced and wily opponent like McCain. Even allowing for massive advertising buys from an anticipated Obama fundraising advantage, the same media bias that doomed Gore and Kerry will soon turn on Obama and the relentless negative drumbeat will work against the Democrats again this year. Starting from behind in the Electoral College race against such formidable opposition seems near suicidal.
Losing the White House in a year with such high negatives for the Republican Party would be an enormous embarrassment for the Democratic Leadership, and would seriously cripple if not end the majority of their political careers. There will be a heavy price to pay, and they must weigh their decision with utmost care.
What will the superdelegates do? Will they risk the White House on a relatively untested, apparently fragile young man who is at present well behind John McCain in the contest for Electoral College votes? Will “Hope” overcome common sense and straightforward political arithmetic, once again?
Will the stronger candidate be bypassed, or can Obama be persuaded that his chance of victory in the general election is so slim that the right thing for him to do is gracefully withdraw and throw his support to Hillary Clinton? Withdrawing before any more bitterness develops would be in the best interests of the Party as well as the security of Obama’s political future - and the political futures of the Party Leadership.
Conclusion
Hillary Clinton has the best chance of beating John McCain, and by a substantial margin. This is true whether the Electoral College calculation is based on her winning in unequivocal fashion the Swing States in the primary, or on her current highly favorable relative position in state-by-state polls. By any meaningful measure, Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate.
Do the party leaders have the moral strength and political will to make the bold move, to act counter to the Mainstream Media drumbeat and persuade Obama to step aside? Only time will tell; it seems foolish for them to back away from what appears to be a dominating position in the general election with Hillary Clinton, and instead roll the presidential dice with their bet riding on a much chancier candidate.
—Assisted by: Lambert Strether, Paul Lukasiak.
NOTE * Personal communication.
NOTE ** This infertile terrain no doubt accounts for Obama’s highly pragmatic adoption of right wing talking points, which has plagued him so much with loyal Democrats in closed primary states.
UPDATE – Below: How will Obama win an Electoral College majority? at Salon by Paul Maslin, former pollster to Howard Dean. (h/t BDBlue, who pointed this article out)
An interesting article from a number of standpoints, and well worth the read. About half is meat, about half the kind of speculation you could get from just about anywhere – right here, for instance. What makes this article of special interest is the author himself. Paul Maslin was most recently the chief pollster for Bill Richardson, so he has at least a passing familiarity with the current lay of the land. But the tidbit that piqued my forebrain was reading that he was also chief pollster for Howard Dean in 2004. I’m all ears, or eyes, for what a Friend of Howard thinks about Barak Obama’s electability right about now.
While his definition of a Swing State is slightly different that what I used, Maslin generally agrees on the magnitude. He says no more than 17 states can even be considered as possibly shifting from their 2004 affiliation, and realistically the number is around half of that. On methodology, Maslin is rightly skeptical of polls:
I mostly ignored the polls — come on, it’s May. Instead, I looked at long-term voting trends and demographics.
The same approach I took with my earlier electability post. Already I like this guy. Clearly smart, and probably pretty accurate.
Maslin’s conclusions are bleak. He is even more pessimistic than I am, saying that Obama gets to 238 votes with some assurance but characterized reaching the next 32 as “a harder slog”. Go take the long, slow, dismal walk with him, but here’s the conclusion on Obama versus McCain:
Clearly, and I’m being cautious, I think it’s going to be a close race.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Do have to wonder, though; why this article, now? Is it supposed to reassure Democrats that Obama has a good shot in the general election? If so, it fails to do so; this is a very sobering read. While the two-term Republican incumbent has approval numbers below 30%, more than 80% of the country thinks the Republicans have taken us in the wrong direction and McCain has promised to continue with the same policies and practices. Obama – any Democrat – should be well ahead; instead, in Electoral College votes, he is behind.
That the race between Obama and McCain is so close should engender some serious soul-searching on the part of the Democratic leadership. Something is very wrong here, and maybe that’s the message this article delivers. Maybe this is a wake-up call for everyone, including Obama, that this nomination decision needs some further deliberation.
UPDATE 2 – Skirting Appalachia, an Op Ed in the NYT opining on Barak Obama’s Electoral College strategic options by Charles Blow, Art Director at National Geographic; and why not? (h/t again to the amazingly on-top-of-it BDBlue)
Mr. Blow pens a thoughtful piece on Obama’s struggle for votes in Appalachia. He does so in a dispassionate, almost dry voice without once mentioning or alluding to race or racism. We are, apparently, going to resolve our residual issues around race by not mentioning them - because that works so well with other problems.
Looking at county-by-county returns, the scope of domination by Clinton is shocking.
She has won 88% (362/410) of those already finished, and should win most of the Kentucky counties as well. Mr. Blow discounts this in terms of a general election advantage for Hillary, even though Bill won more than half the states in both of his elections, by pointing out that she is not he. True, but then neither is Barak.
Mr. Blow recognizes that the heart of Appalachia is lost to Obama but suggests that he can nibble around the edges, perhaps winning states which are only partly Appalachian such as New York (a primary loss), Pennsylvania (another primary loss) or Ohio (another primary loss).
In an alternative scenario he posits that by winning Virginia (which has not gone Democratic for 40 years) and Florida (which fell to the Republicans the last two cycles and where he trails McCain in the polls) would more than compensate for losing the heart of Appalachia.
So Mr. Blow’s plan, as it were, is for Obama to win in the general election in states where the Republicans are established and leading and/or in states where he has already been rejected by the voters of his own party.
Brilliant.
One wonders why no one ever thought of this approach before.
One more comment
I get the window pushing, but I think it is unhelpful to sound like the OFB
by saying, why won’t Obama accept his loss. The reality is neither of them can win right now, and it looks like it will come down to superdelegates at the convention, though Edwards delegates probably are going to decide things.
As a second reference to your maps, I think FiveThirtyEight’s maps and polls are a little more accurate, but they closely resemble the ones you used.
Compare to
Ok invert the colors, but which of the above graphs resembles the 2004 General Election? (And we know how that turned out).
BIO: is this the post for which i'm supposed to spank you?
or another one? very nice, fact-based argument you’ve made here. i don’t really care anymore, i guess you know that, but still: what a nice post! good job. you do this blog proud. i wish a BHO supporter could do a post like this too, it’d be interesting to contrast and compare. i haven’t read one from that camp like this yet, i suppose it’s my fault for not really looking, but damn, thems some strong fact-based points you’re making, dog.
well, i guess i can still spank you if that’s what you need. ;-)
The simpler argument
The back of a business card pitch…. Clinton can win FL & OH. With these two states she is much more likely to win in Nov.
Obama is not winning these states. The electoral college deficit from these means he has to win many, many more non-traditional states to make up for it. Seems risky.
I guess people need to really focus on MI, WI, MN then if Obama has any chance in Nov. Oh, yeah and NV, CO, NM. Those last three are all notorious for major election irregularities. (CO less so, but major turmoil with voting machines)
This meme makes me laugh:
Obama’s supporters insist that their candidate’s cross-over appeal puts states like Colorado and New Mexico into play.
NO REPUBLICAN is going to vote for obama, in the end they’ll(republicans) fall in line behind mccain.
I disagree
I think a number of fed-up GOP will vote for Obama. The question is how many, but it is a real phenomenon, and I’m sure it is something Obama camp is banking on, or why push the GOP secret handshakes so often.
Dream on
If moderate DEMOCRATS wont vote for him by the millions (check out the county maps of Pennslvania and Ohio and even California where Obama SHOULD have won handily if he really were what his handlers want us to believe he is) then what on God’s green earth could his astroturfed campaign possibly do to convince a republican, even a moderate one, to vote for the guy?
Obama is so bad that more than half of his OWN party wont vote for him. Repeatedly. Even after they’ve been told they MUST vote for him for the sake of unity. Even after their reproductive rights have been threatened if the dont vote for him. Even after they’ve been threatened with character assassination by being called racists, and stupid, and poor, and old, and hicks, and underemployed, and bitter and clingy, and even Female for Christ’s sake (eww). After all that pressure to get in line and vote for the guy, democrats, by the millions, STILL WONT VOTE FOR HIM.
It is a hysterical fantasy for him and his handlers to believe that any republicans will be fooled. The Republicans will be laughing all the way to the booth. Laughing at democrats — laughing at us.
Thanks Obama.
Check Out This Brave PA Talk Show Host--(Link to WILK-FM in PA
Check Out This Brave PA Talk Show Host, Steve Corbett…(Link to WILK-FM, Scranton, PA) posted by SunnyLC
Check Out This Brave PA Talk Show Host, Steve Corbett…(Link to WILK-FM, Scranton, PA)
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/
Hat tip to Riverdaughter over at The Confluence for breaking this news and “Nana” who first reported it and also posted her report here a TM…
Seems there’s one very brave talk show host in Scranton, PA who is firmly in Hillary Clinton’s camp and has had it with being called a “racist.”
MORE
The other night, O'Reilly and guest dismissed the "predictive"
aura of WV…but, of course, I think a lot of these guys have switched into pro-Obama mode now because they believe they can beat him in the general…
What are you talking about
Last time I checked there wasn’t a choice given.
You are comparing the Dem Primary votes in rural GOP counties??? So some rural Dems came out and voted for Hillary, so what? That is expected with OH, PA, WV especially with older registered Dems and the Appalachia.
Since when did GOP voters have to walk into a polling booth and decide McCain (old, McBush, approves torture) or someone else. Now I know many of them will never vote for Hillary, but I know first hand many GOP who hate McCain and might vote for Obama.
Your argument about half the dems strengthens this point. He is distasteful to real progressives, so if half od Dems won’t vote for him it means he has some appeal to more conservative people.
a fool and his vote are soon parted
The GOP is already laying the groundwork for 2008 election theft. How it works is there will be record numbers of undervotes on the Presidential race, and it will be explained away as ’disgruntled HRC/BHO primary voters’. The GOP has laid the trap for the Dems and they walked into.
This radiohost from your link is clearly a corporate plant and furthering this narrative to explain how McCain wins NM, and CO, and other places with record undervotes.
2006 election
I think its pretty fair to say there were a lot of disaffected GOPers in ’06. How many of them voted Dem? Also, how has Obama fared, over time, among Indies and GOPers in the open primaries?
No Intranets
I’m comparing the counties Clinton won to the counties Obama won in the Democratic primaries. The republican primaries are irrelevant.
I am making the assumption that the more progressive democrats are concentrated in the cities, along with AA’s, the other leg of BO’s rickety stool of support. Argue that if you like. I stand by it.
Clinton absolutely dominates in the rural and semi-rural counties of the crucial states of California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and others. She is clearly more likely to benefit from republican crossover than Obama. There is just not that much distance — culturally, politically, economically — between a republican truck driver in Scranton and a democratic truck driver in Scranton. Or between a republican nurse in Toledo and a democratic one. Clinton has the truck drivers and the nurses sewn up — she can get many of the fed-up-with-bush-and-his-ilk republican working class voters too. Obama can dream on in that department.
For me to believe that Obama has better than a snowball’s chance in hell of turning even a tiny number of Republicans to his cause in Novemeber, which even the OFB
admits must be done since they’ve written off the white working class vote, he would have to have won a large number of rural and semi-rural counties, you know — the places where moderate conservatives and independents tend to concentrate.
There is no groundswell for Obama among any new voters — republicans, democrats, independents. His groundswell is over and the only ones still screaming for him are the the leisure class liberals and the you-tube babies. Those groups arent very influential or effective at swaying republicans.
So, like I said — dream on Obama. You and Karl Rove are having the same dream, only you don’t know it yet. He’s known it since Pennsylvania.
What happened to Elko?
Remember Obama was the bestest thing ever in the history of the entire universe because he won in Elko. That was only a few months ago. Now that Obama can no longer win these counties it’s no big deal?
Come on. Give me a break.
Speaking of Sen Obama's electability...
Does anyone know anything about:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/15/…
I now have it from three sources close to senior Republicans that they have video dynamite -– Michelle Obama railing against “whitey” at Jeremiah Wright’s church.
Larry Johnson is highly biased but reputed to be well connected. Does anyone else know anything about this?
If such a tape exists, his electability problems have entered the red zone.
good stuff
this is an excellent analysis.
it says what i think needs to be said, that at some point obama needs to leave the race. i doubt he will, but he needs to.
that, instead, it is the highly experienced and highly capable democratic leader, clinton, who is admonished to leave is one of the absurd, up-side-down aspects of this nominating fight.
it is a powerful indicator that the obama campaign is, first and foremost, about image rather than substance, and about media manipulation.
a key paragraph for me:
[Losing the White House in a year with such high negatives for the Republican Party would be an enormous embarrassment for the Democratic Leadership, and would seriously cripple if not end the majority of their political careers. There will be a heavy price to pay, and they must weigh their decision with utmost care.
that is true for those leaders’ careers;
it is also true for obama’s career.
a second key paragraph to my way of thinking:
[What will the superdelegates do? Will they risk the White House on a relatively untested, apparently fragile young man who is at present well behind John McCain in the contest for Electoral College votes? Will “Hope” overcome common sense and straightforward political arithmetic, once again?]
i think it is virtually certain that obama will suffer some sort of severe emotional distress before november.
in fact, it is my opinion that he has already entered a period of significant emotional stress. this is not surprising. the pressure on politicians at this level is enormous and UNRELENTING. it is like being trapped in a high-heat, high-humidity environment. there is no place to go for relief.
obama simply does not have the experience to allow him to work thru this 11 months of hell in good mental health.
that one so relatively callow was even allowed to get as far as he has gotten in the nominating process speaks VERY, VERY BADLY for the “leadership” of the democratic party.
that is the principal reason i think that, even if clinton gets the nomination, it is time for a general house cleaning of democratic “leaders” who have time-and-again failed to demonstrate the needed political courage and the expected political good judgment.
Thanks, BIO
Very nice analysis of the road facing democrats in November. I don’t think either candidate is a shoe-in, but Obama’s electoral map is shrinking fast. I’m actually kind of shocked at how fast. Obama hasn’t even been hit that hard. Every time things started to get nasty, the media realized Clinton wasn’t dead yet and stepped in to save him. There have been no really negative ads. We have yet to see photos of Obama’s mansion intercut with stark photos of Tony Rezko, for example. It’s stunning to me that Clinton who has the Clinton/Gore/Kerry media narrative is running stronger at this point than Obama who has gotten almost fawning media at times. Yes, I believe one of the most important things for democrats is to crush the media narrative and the best way to do this is to find a candidate who can get the public to ignore and then repudiate it, but I’m still surprised by it.
All of the EV bad news is more troubling is the admission by his team that he has no general election plan. This is a guy whose only “national” race was against a Republican was against Alan Keyes.
His campaign now is almost exactly the same as it was two months ago. Right down to bringing in John Edwards to prove he can reach out to working class voters just as he brought in Ted Kennedy to reach out to hispanics in California (many of whom, it should be noted are also working class voters). I have the feeling it will be about as successful. He’s the one who should be reaching out, but I don’t think he knows how. He’s alienated a lot of people he’s going to need in November and instead of moving to repair that damage, he seems intent on continuing to inflict it. I’m beginning to suspect he has no second act.
I should add that while I believe the party needs to usher Obama out of the race, I don’t think he has to quit anymore than Clinton does. She hasn’t been able to put him away either. Instead, the SDs will need to step in and do what’s right for the party.
Finally, I can’t help wondering how the popular vote plays into all of this. The Obama campaign seems terrified they aren’t going to win the popular vote (witness the hyperbole comparing the popular vote metric to voters’ heights). While I know the democratic leadership isn’t bound by it, I do think given the electoral reality you’ve laid out, it becomes very awkward for them to go with a weaker electoral college candidate who also lost the popular vote. Or, to put it another way, a popular vote win by Clinton would give SDs some political cover for going with her instead of Obama.
Republicans Lie
I don’t think this is true. I’ve seen it in comment threads at a variety of sites. I think it’s designed to spread as a rumor so people start to believe it because they’ve heard it so many places. But I simply don’t believe it. If they want me to, they’re going to have to show me the video. Until then, it’s bullshit as far as I’m concerned.
Republican Lies
That is essentially the position I’m taking but I’m looking for more information if anyone has any.
if it's McCain/Huckabee,
they’ll fall in line—it’s guaranteed.
who's likely to believe it tho?
already, millions believe the Muslim stuff—Democrats and Republicans alike.
Hillary’s strategy since
Hillary’s strategy since before TX/OH was extremely simple: win the important states and tie or win the popular vote. Since that time, she has netted over 300k votes. She expects to net even more. PR alone can net a few 100k. Brazile herself was talking about how Hillary would be the nominee if she won by 15. Hillary won by 10, pretty close to that. Yet despite her stronger position than a couple months ago she’s suddenly declared the loser. Hmm.
What is becoming clear is that of the three decent measures Super-Ds will have—pledged delegates, popular vote, electoral map—Hillary will have an advantage in two of those measures.
Sad realization
Just reading all the info supporting Hillary, the avalanche of reasons why she’s a better candidate, and then the Super D’s who just want her to ’take it’. Sounds like the guys who try to force themselves on women during dates, or in prison (with other guys), or just outright rape.
Just Take It and Shut Up.
Sorry, this is probably over the top, but that’s what it made me think of.
Obama Will Not Get Enough Republicans To Off Set
the number of Democrats who won’t vote for him. The exit polls and recent polling indicate large blocks of Democratic voters who will vote McCain rather than Obama. (25% - 50%) A recent SUSA poll in MO indicates that 27% of Democrats will vote for McCain instead of Obama. These are primarily, but not exclusively, small town, rural voters who were insulted by his SF remarks and are offended by Rev. Wright. These are voters who will not be coming home in November.
Before this Primary, I'd Say Only Wingers
will believe it and they aren’t going to vote democratic anyway.
However, having watched every rightwing slur from the 1990s be used by so-called progressives against Hillary, I no longer have any confidence that even democrats are immune to these kind of slurs.
I’m not particularly a Michelle Obama fan, but what’s coming her way if her husband is the nominee is going to be vicious and ugly. It will be the full Hillary treatment. Only, as this smear indicates, instead of relying solely on sexist stereotyping (e.g. she’s ambitious, she’s cold, she’s a liar, she’s a lesbian), it will also rely on racist stereotyping.
I live in Central California (Gary Condit's old district)
My Congressman (Dennis Cardoza) is a blue dog Democrat. Hillary did very well here.
California is not as liberal as people think we are. We have had 3 of our last 4 governors from the GOP, including the current one, who won reelection easily in the Democratic tidal wave of 2006. We have some very red areas of this state, including urban areas.
Whites are the plurality here (there is no majority group) but Hispanics are expected to move into first place sometime in the next decade. Obama doesn’t do well with Mexican-Americans, who comprise the vast majority of our Hispanics.
————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
Scary Smart Anglachel
does a better job than I have on how the Obama campaign’s words (he’s got this wrapped up) differ considerably from his actions (he acts like he doesn’t have this wrapped up:
and
Read the whole thing - here.
Umm so what?
Right now MO is a red state. Who cares how many Dems vote for McCain, pissed off or otherwise. I don’t care about popular vote, it means nothing for winning White House.
The small town, rural voters will have bigger concerns in Nov. You think they will even remember some Wright and/or (what SF remark). You have blogosphere blinders on.
The 27% of Dems voting for McCain might be pro-white old dude, or maybe pro-kill them musloms. Or “I herd his name is Osama”.
What does that have to do with anything? And yes, some Repugs will vote for Obama, unless you want to say white woman against white man will do better in MO? Who cares, it’s not in play.
Are you implying this is nationwide trend to extrapolate?
We need to ask, are these 27% in which category?
A- Dems voting for McCain anyways
B- Dems voting for Clinton but not Obama
C- Dems voting for Obama but not Clinton
The 27% is comprised of some amount of A & B. Now we need to determine in MO how many C voters are there, and also of the 27% how many are B voters.
You are not right
I have personal anecdotal confirmation from dozens of Repubs who might vote for Obama and not real happy about McCain, but would never, ever vote for Hillary. Not because she is a woman, but because she is a caricature created over more than a decade of media influence and that is all they are willing to know about her.
You might not want to use Toledo nurses as your example, and stick to Appalachia instead. This doesn’t include cross-over GOP “Rush” Clinton votes, and hopefully we’ll have some figures from the counties soon on those voter registrations.
You are wrong about Toledo nurses, just FYI:
Lucas CD5 Clinton-2,352 Obama-1,658
Lucas CD9 Clinton-50,033 Obama-46,184
Do You Think
those small town voters aren’t going to be constantly reminded about Wright by the GOP? After his book comes out?
Do you think there aren’t going to be GOP ads with the bitter-cling remarks and the laughing?
I’m afraid you’re the one with blinders on. Neither of these issues will go away, they’re the first pieces in the baggage set Obama - like every other presidential nominee - is going to pick up.
community activist disrupters - same as in the caucuses
so, intranets
when did you get on obama’s payroll?
and how much does he pay you to muddle discussion on a pro-clinton web-log?
how many web-logs are you responsible for cruising?
Anecdotal Evidence and $4
will buy you a cup of coffee. I know Republicans who are open to voting for Clinton, but not Obama.
In this election, demographics have been destiny. The independent and Republican voters in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio who are willing to swing have a lot more in common and are a lot more like Clinton’s base than Obama’s.
It’s interesting to me that when Clinton wins GOP votes it’s because of Rush Limbaugh, but when Obama does it, it proves that he’s going to get them in November.
wow, you have a lot of republican pals
Dozens of republicans? really? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
no links either. Am I reading your evidence correctly that Clinton beat Obama in Lucas County Ohio, where Toledo is located, by 35% ? and if so, what is your point? That Clinton is much more popular among working class voters in Toledo than Obama is?
I thought that was MY point.
Its basic
“It’s interesting to me that when Clinton wins GOP votes it’s because of Rush Limbaugh, but when Obama does it, it proves that he’s going to get them in November.”
Umm, one is an underdog and by voting for them you keep the primary still going and the Dems crippled and not attacking McCain.. Oh and one was on the radio with millions of listeners saying who to vote for. So… If Hillary was ahead and GOP were voting for Obama I would say they were doing it to keep him around.
another question
intranets,
how often do you post here?
have you posted here previous to this week?
and then there is us women...
I think there is a huge block of stealth voters just waiting to get behind the closed curtain and cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton in November. They are older women who have voted Republican, and have doggedly supported patriarchal politics in the past.
I have been a lifelong Democrat and a Hillary supporter from the get-go; not because of gender, but because of her clear understanding of, and positions on, the issues that most matter to me. However, until “the finger” incident, I maintained that, whomever survived the primaries, I would vote Democratic in November. From that moment on, it has been Hillary only for me.
Huge numbers of women, no matter their political affiliation, are beyond offended by the behavior of the Obama campaign, its supporters, and the media towards Hillary. They ALL are the reason that personality has trumped policy in this contest. And the longer it has gone on, the better Hillary has worn in the public eye, and the worse her detractors are looking.
IMO, at this point, if the DNCniacs continue their strong-arm tactics, the Democratic Party will splinter. Too many of their, heretofore, rock solid base are saying NO MORE!
Right on, BDBlue
Shorter common sense: Obama cant even get moderate Democrats to vote for him. How the HELL will he get moderate republicans to switch parties for him?
Not.Gonna.Happen.
The beautiful dream goes on for anyone who is silly enough to think Wright will be a dim memory. He is Obama’s recurring nightmare.
There’s a rumor being floated by republicans (remember them? the ones who will stop at nothing to beat Obama?) that they are holding a Rev. Wright/Michelle Obama October Surprise for the Precious that should REALLY wake him up.
Margins
this is really a question of margins… the larger the margin that Republicans win “their” counties by, the larger the margins the Democrats have to come up with in “their” counties.
Kerry lost in 2004 in places like Ohio despite carrying the traditionally Democratic areas of that state by sizeable margins because he did so atrociously in the traditionally Republican areas of the state.
While Obama’s ability to turn out the black vote will help him if he is the nominee, that is likely to be a wash in states like Pennsylvania if current demographic trends hold up. There are a lot of “working class white” voters in Philadelphia as well — the people who elected Frank Rizzo to two terms as Mayor here, and they are unlikely to provide Obama with the same levels of support they gave Kerry… in other words, while Obama will turn out the black vote in Philly, he’s also likely to lose a big chunk of the non-white vote here.
Clinton, on the other hand, won’t attract as many black voters, but these “Rizzo democrats” will vote for her — and the vote margins coming out of Philadelpia will probably be the same regardless of whether Clinton or Obama heads the ticket.
Thus, the margins in the “Republican” counties will be crucial in Pennsylvania — and Clinton is extremely likely to keep those margins smaller than Obama.
OrionATL, it is you who are
OrionATL, it is you who are the newcomer, or you’d know of intranets. We don’t always agree, he and I, but I do respect his integrity and seriousness; I count him as a valued opponent in many things, a cherished ally in others.
Neither Clinton nor Obama should count on GOP votes
Crossover GOP votes are hypothetical. Registered Dems and independents are the key to victory.
Hillary does better with both.
————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
Ditto CD
This is one hell of a compilation of facts and references which put together a helluva compelling argument.
Don’t people get paid to do this kind of thing? Too bad Mark Penn didn’t spend some of my money to do this kind of thing.
——————————————-
Good night and good riddance!
that's true PL, but
you are quite right about the importance of margins, and they most certainly trend in Clinton’s favor for the general. That is the most salient fact and will hopefully bring the supers and the leadership to their senses sometime soon.
But, I just want to stick up for the white working class of Philadelphia and other cities, like my own — Boston. Yes, they supported Frank Rizzo , whom many remember as a notorious race-baiter and who held back integration and civil rights. But, that was over thirty years ago. Many, many of those voters are dead and buried.
A few months ago, those same white, working class voters in Philly supported Michael Nutter , a black reformist, by tremendous margins. They supported him over a popular rich white democrat who had been leading in the polls.
I canvassed for Hillary in Northeast Philadelphia in April, and the voters there were NOT racist. Most of them expressed great fondness and hope for their new mayor. Many of them were Obama supporters. But the vast majority of the 18,000 people we spoke to over the weekend before the primary were Clinton supporters because they actually believe in her message and her competence.
The battles of the 70’s are long over. Most of the old-guard racists in Boston and Philadelphia are in the cemetery. Just like not all baby boomers were hippies or war protestors, it wasnt just college kids whose hearts and minds were changed by the civil rights movement. White working class people were also changed. Most of them are not racists and are not susceptible to race-baiting. To Obama’s increasing chagrin.
< a href = ” URL ” > Words you want to hyperlink < /a >??Except no spaces, save for the one just before href.
oops
I let my cheat sheet show,
how embarrassing!
That Poll Had Hillary Beating McCain By 1%
Obama losing by 8%. 27% of Dems would vote for McCain over Obama 15% would vote for McCain over Clinton - a 12% spread. Republican cross over votes were tied and Obama had a 4% (smaller pool then Dems) edge over Clinton.
Clinton has a slight chance of winning MO while Obama has little or no chance. She is popular in small town, rural MO. I quoted MO because it is my state and I’m familiar with it and it has been considered a bellwether state.
If you do not think that small town and rural voters will remember being labeled as backwards by Obama or that they were offended by Rev. Wright, I question your understanding of this group of people.
How many more states are you willing to write off using this same type of logic?
Intranets, thanks as always for your thoughts
Appreciate your taking the time to comment, and as always I read you with interest.
It is early, no doubt, and still I agree it is disconcerting that the polls are so close. McCain should have already sunk from sight, but no. Both Clinton and Obama represent a risk, I guess all advancement does and either of these two will be a positive, a change for the better, for equality under the law and in practice - how ever flawed they may be as individuals.
Thanks also for putting up the Fivethirtyeight maps. They are indeed similar, but 538 gets a lot of traffic so I though I’d give the uselectionaltas group a shoutout, good to have more than one site being followed.
“More accurate” is a lovely term, usually means “agrees with me.” :-) At this time I’m in closer agreement with the maps I chose than with 538; among my disagreements, I don’t believe that either Dem wins Arkansas nor in this cycle will either WI or MI go to McCain - IMNSHO.
Either way, they both show and we both see that the general with Obama is more risky than with Clinton; Hillary as the “lower-risk” candidate, who saw that coming six months ago? It all could change, certainly, and maybe I am getting too old and too old-fashioned, but all things equal I would rather sit down at the table with a bigger stack of chips than not.
Again, appreciate the commentary.
Wha??
I think I’ve always stated Clinton is a stronger opponent for McCain and I said this will come down to a convention with Edwards delegates deciding things. I said that months ago.
I personally am opposed to Clintons having 8 more years — because I am opposed to dynasties. Heck think Jeb and Dumbya are examples of what can go wrong. Are you saying this because I pointed out that many Repub voters hate Clinton but might vote for Obama? Have you seen what the media has implanted in people’s brains for decades now? Is being more GOP-friendly a selling point for your Dem candidate anyways?
Also, I would never think of this as a pro-Clinton blog. Just because people are rational and intelligent and willing to discuss things without sounding like zombies doesn’t necessarily make it pro-Clinton (it only seems like a rule).
I’m not sure where this comes from. My first post in this VERY diary was maps showing that Obama is only winning the exact same states as Kerry in 2004 and can’t beat McCain in Nov. I must be the worst Obama paid shill ever.
People lie to pollsters
They always say they hate negative ads but negative ads work.
While there are not as many racists in this country as the OFB
like to claim, they are certainly out there. But if you asked them if race made a difference in their votes, I bet most racists would say no, because racism isn’t socially acceptable anymore.
Also, many of the Democrats that will care about Rev Wright and “bittergate” will be Hillary voters that won’t switch to Obama if he’s the nominee.
————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
um
I could have said “hundreds” which is accurate, but I didn’t want to have to reply to someone questioning the “number of friends”… which I see I failed.
Only the BEST responses include the phrase “no links either”. Do you mean I should not reply with links, or are you saying I didn’t link. Sorry, but that is from the Ohio SOS website. Would you like a spreadsheet of precinct level results? I didn’t know simple facts like vote totals get you worked up.
(Use the reply button so this stays in thread)
My point is that Clinton did poorly in Toledo compared to just about any other Ohio “small town” nurse factory you care to point to in Ohio. Her highest support is towards Appalachia. Toledo might have been one of Clinton’s worst showings among Dem counties.
what about FDR's dynasty?
i think “dynasties” mean jackcrap; what’s far more important is who’s occupying the office and whether they’re accountable to the voters they purportedly represent.
Okaaay, so, even in the close contests
She still kicks his ass?
when you say her “highest support” you must be referring to those counties in WV, OH, and PA where she received over 90 PERCENT of the vote.
Why these numbers would be used in an argument AGAINST clinton is beyond me, truly.
i'm flattered
I lost my last post.. (Protip: don’t click on /track for another user it logs you out)
I usually don’t get noticed unless I use inflammatory language or act like a troll, so the attention is exciting, maybe I have a stalker.
Believe it or not most forums like this have a way to click and see another users comments and stuff, but I’ll help you out.
http://www.correntewire.com/user/intrane…
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aco…
fix it
Click the Edit button up there /\ and fix it. You can edit it until someone posts a reply.
I mean this sincerely
only the best responses betray below grade level reading comprehension.
They put a smile on my face which brightens up an otherwise overcast and chilly afternoon.
My meaning was clear. Links help make your case. Especially when you are using codes like Lucas CD5.
But anyways, thanks for the smile and for helping me make my point, in more ways than one.
Herb the Verb, you are right; now where's the money?
Usually people do get paid for high-quality work, you’ve just been giving your money to the wrong ones. From all available evidence, Penn spent your entire donation, along with many others, at Krispy Creme. Nothing wrong with donuts, but a little moderation would be better….
Only the finest here at Corrente, top-shelf all the way, sparkling wit and scintillating insight 24/7/365, so Herb when you can tell Mark Penn to bugger off and drop Lambert a buck or two. The hamsters are hungry, and the office needs a new coat of paint.
oops made a funny
I see I put “More accurate” in a sentence regarding not only polling, but crazy EV voodoo based on trying to average polls to determine what a hypothetical group of 400 “likely voters” said they would vote for in six months from now. (I only posted them because to show most projections agree with Obama’s Electoral [College] Dysfunction)
What might be fun is to review the 2004 equivalent Electoral maps and see how close they were.
Also, if you look at the uselectionmaps page they have historical EV graph and Clinton has always been way ahead in terms of EV.
where's Obama's millions going?
it’s certainly not to win.
obtuse much?
Are you just being this way on purpose? You sound like an infomercial, no one is arguing with you, I only pointed out that Toledo nurses show you lack understanding of Ohio’s support and you should maybe pick better examples. Oh and some number might help, like your above 90%. I’m not sure how if 90% of nurses in Smallton, USA choose Hillary that means GOP nurses will, but whatever. I’m not even sure in the places where Hillary got 90% of the vote that given the choice of Hillary or McCain, these same primary voters vote for Clinton again, or stay home, or vote for McCain.
(AND USE THE REPLY BUTTON) Some of us enjoy threaded posting.
Not to Defend Penn
but his fees were capped. Those enormous amounts you see were payouts to vendors from his firm. He earned (and I use that term loosely) a few hundred thousand dollars.
Interesting, at least to me, Hillary and John Edwards capped their top folks’ salaries as well as commissions from television ads. For some reason, Obama did not so Axelrod gets paid for every tv ad run.
thanks
thanks for the info, bringiton.
i was not concerned with who is or is not new, but with the sudden appearance on several weblogs of commenters whose names i have never seen before, each using a particular style of argumentation,
a style of arguing which i have come to identify with obama supporters,
a principle characteristic of which is that the commenter professes to be “independent”.
intranets’ style of arguing fits this pattern closley, hence my questions to him/her.
my apolgoies, intranets, if i was incorrect in my assumptions.
thanks
double-posted, sorry.
and they run far more tv ads than Clinton
does, so Axelrod is cleaning up.
This is fun
At least you make me laugh. I don’t think markgrate had that ability. I haven’t seen him in awhile, I’m thinking he re-registered and is reverse trolling.
You said Toledo, I can’t help it that you don’t know Ohio voted by County, and in addition the delegates are selected by Congressional District (CD).
(I’m sorry LB, I’ll quit after this)
On this subject of my reading comprehension…
no links either.Diagram that sentence.
BTW, I can tell you come from cheeto-land. You have a certain familiar style. I’ll bet you cherished your TU status.
bringiton, can't believe i missed this post.
(because of information overload this season, i peruse blogs in an erratic fashion; so although i commented upthread, i’d missed the original post.) fantastic work and some desperately needed re-framing of the corrupt, media-hijacked narrative. i enjoyed reading it; thank you.
Yes MO is close
Polls show Clinton and McCain neck and neck in MO, and probably WV also, but I just wouldn’t hang your electoral college hopes on those states. Who knows what will happen in the next six months, and I’m tending to believe that MO will fall back to it’s old ways more easily than it will be pushed to electing a Dem.
I'm not even sure
That you read the fucking post at the top of this page.
“From these results, even assuming Oregon goes to Obama, it is crystal clear that Clinton absolutely dominates with voters in states where the 2004 outcomes were close (Swing States, +/- 5% margins).”
Which states will swing which way is the fucking point of the post. And of much of Paul_L’s polling analysis.
Since you dont like links, I wont provide them to the counties in WV where Clinton beat Obama by over 85%, like Mingo County
Record turnout, record support for Clinton among workng class voters in swing states — nurses in toledo or schoolteachers in scranton or waiters in Louisville or whatever the fuck you want to call the voting base of the country — means a groundswell of support for Clinton in the places the democrats need groundswells. Their support also bodes well for Clinton’s crossover appeal among republicans and independents, and bodes ill for Obama.
Where are the trolls?
No markgrate, no bgd69, no jack
offbrownie; Sweet Serenity!Somewhere in Axelrod’s mainframe the search queries are churning as a thousand pairs of beady eyes under sweating foreheads await their instructions, their Official Talking Point Reply. Apparently the Standard List does not have an autoresponse for “McCain is kicking his butt” nor have the home office Troll Masters formulated one.
Reality bites.
Sigh
Wasn’t Obama’s entire justification based on his ability to be a “map changer”? That no longer appears to be the case, but you can’t pretend that wasn’t one of Obama’s biggest justifications for running. Without that, what is his justification?
why the obsession with toledo?
She won in Logan County. She got the delegates from the congressional districts that comprise Toledo and its suburbs.
Clinton beat Obama in Logan County, congressional districts 5 and 9, and won by significant margins — by 20% and 10% respectively, according to your uncited source.
Can’t you just leave the poor nurses in Toledo alone??
also State control--
OH was run by the GOP then and now it’s not—the Secretaries of State and people running the Elections stuff need to be watched everywhere and taken into account—who’s in control where, and where will FL/OH shit happen this time? That’s key too.
see this about OH--
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5986
(they’re still messed up even with Dem control)
It's worse
Honestly, in Ohio it is worse.
At least with Blackwell people knew the SOS was up to no good and not to be trusted. Now Ohio has this “good intentioned” effort ruining fair, open elections.
Trust me, Blackwell can’t compare to what has been done by the current SOS.
bradblog on MO's ID thing--
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5986
he’s defnitely the go-to guy for election games and restricting Dem voting.
Wha???
Seriously, huh?
You brought up Toledo as an example of such overwhelming support that of course GOP and Ind will vote for her.
For the record, Toledo is Lucas county.
You will delight to know that Clinton also won by 18% in the rural, red Logan county:
Logan County (CD4) Clinton-3,249 Obama-2,223 ***
Again I’ll taunt you with the mysterious Ohio SOS website and leave this uncited (*** according to the Ohio SOS website).
It's not a dynasty unless the office is inherited
Hillary will have to earn it. If Hillary becomes President, she will have worked harder to earn it than any previous occupant of the Oval Office.
————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
I find it interesting that the Oborg hate Penn
He was inept as a campaign manager but hardly an object of hatred like Karl Rove.
It’s also funny that Hillary showed loyalty by sticking with Penn long after the CW
was he should be fired, yet she is portrayed as “calculating and ruthless” and the Clintons are both accused of throwing people to the wolves (as opposed to under the bus)
————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
Intranets is no Oborg troll
although s/he occasionally seems to have a split personality.
————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
We've been burning up troll brains pretty fast
kinda like the Star Trek episode where Harry Mudd had all the androids at his command and Kirk blew their fuses.
“Everything I say is a lie. I’m lying.”
“Does not compute. Does not compute.”
————————————————————————
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde
Exactly who was on the radio
with million sof listeners saying who to vote for?
Hmm... not convinced that WV is crucial in November myself
And btw