If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama's Sour "Apples to Apples", Part One

Barack Obama is hemmorhaging support against John McCain in states where Democrats can/should win in November.

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support, while Hillary Clinton has gained support, when matched against McCain. Much of Clinton’s additional support is from voters who were undecided in late February, and Clinton essentially “split” the “recent deciders” with McCain; as a result there is little change in her margins against McCain. But people who were undecided whether they preferred Obama or McCain are also making up their minds – and choosing McCain. As a result, Obama’s margins against McCain are looking much worse.

This is true among all major demographic categories that were available for comparison – if Obama improves in a category, Clinton has shown greater improvement in that category. And in categories where Clinton is not doing as well as she was in February, Obama is doing consistently worse.

These conclusions are drawn from an “apples to apples” comparison of Survey USA polling done April 11-13 in nine states (California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin) with similar polling done in late February as part the SUSA 50 state poll (conducted Feb. 26-28).

In only one of those states (MN) has Obama improved his position relative to Clinton when matched against McCain. In the other eight, the “electability” trend is in Clinton’s favor – in many of those states, significantly so.

Charts A-1 and A-2 provide a graphic representation of what has happened to the margins for Clinton and Obama when matched against McCain. Chart A-1 shows the actual margins in late February and mid-April in Clinton v McCain (February--red and April-pink bars) and Obama v McCain (February-dark blue and April-light blue bars)


Chart A-2 shows how the margins in Clinton v McCain and Clinton v Obama have changed.


    · .Clinton has improved her margins against McCain in 4 states (CA, MO, OH, OR) while Obama has improved in only one (OR).
    · Overall, Clinton’s average margin against McCain in the 9 states was basically unchanged (+0.1%, from +3.6% to +3.7%), with a range of +6% (OR) to –4% (WI).
    · Obama’s nine state average margin against McCain has decreased by an average of –4.9% (from +7.1% to +2.2%). In 5 states (CA,MA,NM,OH,WI), his margin decreased by 4% or more.
    · In February, Obama was doing better than Clinton against McCain in two states where Clinton now does better than Obama (CA, NM),
    · In Ohio, where both were beating McCain by 10 points, Clinton now leads by 11%, while Obama is behind McCain by 2%.
    · In 5 of the six remaining states (all but MN), Clinton improved her “electability” relative to Obama.

In the majority of these 9 states, Clinton gained support. Clinton’s 9 state average margins don’t improve because the increase in her overall support comes from a decrease in undecided voters (from an average of 9.1% to 6.6%), which she splits with McCain.

. The “Obama v McCain” undecideds also decreased (from an average of 9.2% to 7.4%), but despite the fact that fewer people were undecided, the percentage of people who supported Obama actually declined on average.


    · Obama gained overall support in only one state (OR).
    · In 2 states (MN, MO), his level of support remained the same, despite a decrease in the percentage of undecided voters.
    · In the other six states, Obama’s overall support decreased.
    · In 5 of those 6 states (i.e. except for Iowa), this decrease occurred despite the fact that more people had decided who to support.
    · In other words, not only did Obama not gain any support from previously undecided voter, the percentage of people supporting Obama over McCain declined.


    · Clinton, on the other hand, increased her overall support in six states (CA, IA, MA, MO, OH, OR) and lost support in only 2 (NM, WI).
    · Clinton gained overall support in four states where Obama lost support (CA, IA, MA, OR).
    · Overall support percentages for both Clinton and Obama were unchanged in Minnesota, and in Wisconsin both lost the same percentage of support.
    · In the remaining three states, Clinton either lost far less support than Obama (NM), gained significantly more than Obama (OR) or gained support while Obama’s support remained unchanged (MO).

Obama is tanking, while Clinton is holding her own.

While these 9 states are not representative of all 50 states (no Mountain/Plains or Southern states), they do represent the states that Democrats have to win in order to take the White House. Obama’s weakness in states like California and Massachusetts – states that this year a Democrat should not have to be very concerned about, is worrisome. Even more alarming is what is happening in Missouri and (especially) Ohio – Obama’s loss of support in those states raise serious questions about his electability.

The advantage in the “electability” argument that Obama held six weeks ago has vanished. Six weeks ago, Obama was doing significantly better than Clinton in these nine key states, now Clinton is doing better than Obama.

And, as shall be seen in the next part of this series, Obama’s problems exist across all key demographic groups. He’s losing male and female support. He’s losing White support, and losing support among “Independent” voters and “Moderates” as well, while Clinton is either increasing her support, or at least holding her own, in all these key demographics.

NOTE: Data tables used for this post can be found at

No votes yet


Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

that you used pink to signify Clinton and blue to signify Obama, your entire analysis has been refuted.


Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I knew I should have called it "dark red" and "light red"! ;-)

I was going to use green and purple in order to avoid the whole "sexist chart" accusation, but I wanted to send the subliminal 'Democrats are Red, White, and BLue' message. And I considered doing Clinton in blue, and Obama in red, but that is the kind of "counter-intuitive" color scheme that makes charts harder to understand.

So I decided to go with "comprehensible" over "politically correct"

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

ain't got nuthin to do wit nuthin man!

Just lay back, and enjoy it.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Very interesting. I think the Obama folks are spinning like mad this morning because they recognize that for the first time in awhile, he's in real danger. He's still the frontrunner, but his position is precarious.

In the last few weeks:

As you point out, his GE strength against McCain appears to have weakened while Clinton has held steady or gained;

He's had a terrible debate and then refused a new debate (that last part can't have gone unnoticed);

He set records on television advertising in Pennsylvania ($11 million, nearly 10,000 ads), reportedly spent millions more on direct mailers and robo-callers, went openly negative on Clinton, did a bus tour and a train tour, and still only cut Clinton's white vote by 2% from Ohio (inside the exit poll margin of error);

He looks and sounds tired and a bit pissy and hasn't had a press avail for 10 days; and

For the first time in quite awhile, more votes have now been cast in this contest for Clinton than for Obama.*

Again, he isn't out of this race, but he seems to be on a downward trend right now while Clinton, who seems to have boundless energy and cheerfulness (WTF?), seems on an upward trend as we're going into the last month and a half. He's got to find a way to change the trend. Winning Indiana might do that, but it will be followed quickly by large losses in Kentucky and WVA.

As for the pink, you get a pass from me because you put her in power red.

* Jerome Armstrong has some very good advice for Clinton today. My two favorite pieces, which I've decided to help put into action by spreading the meme are: 1) More people have voted for Clinton (forcing Obama to discount Florida and Michigan) and 2) If she wins Guam, treat it like a big deal, especially if more voters turn out there than, say, Wyoming. Let's go Guam! Heh.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

facts are important is not something I agree with.

Becki Jayne's picture
Submitted by Becki Jayne on

I also have been looking at the SUSA data but you did it with visuals. Thanks for that. Agree with your analysis. I hope the supers are looking at these numbers.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

while Clinton, who seems to have boundless energy and cheerfulness (WTF?)

That is what she runs at, 125%. Can you imagine having that much boundless determination set to solving our country's problems. And I think a lot of casual political followers(who only pay attention when it becomes local), have noticed that lately Obama looks beat down, while Clinton is still raring to go.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

tedraicer's picture
Submitted by tedraicer on

But Hope! Change! Unity! (Except with fellow Dems) Ponies for godsakes! Why do you hate ponies?

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

great MTV show, they have a mini horse.

That thing is violent.


Ponies aren't what they're cracked up to be.

space's picture
Submitted by space on

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your thesis is correct: that Hillary is more electable than what? It is a little late in the day to be making straight-up electability arguments.

Anyway, I'm not sold. I think that both Obama and Hillary have substantial advantages over McCain. Not only that, but their primary "weaknesses" are remarkably similar: They both belong to classes of people that have never been elected President; they both lack executive experience; they both lack military experience; they both have DONE virtually nothing to stop the most egregious offenses of Bush and Cheney; and they both leave many progressives concerned that they will sell them out.

Submitted by lambert on

... maybe we could beat him up. "Too much."

I mean, Hillary beats him in the debate, and Barack "No Mas" Obama has to back-pedal all the way to North Carolina before turning around and flicking her, like birdshit, off his shoulders; she then proceeds to beat him in the PA primary, and he's got to back-pedal all the way to IN before delivering his stump speech with a few concession sentences tacked on to the front of it... These tactics may win him a decision on points, but it's probably not an ideal strategy for the leader of the free world to employ if an office, eh?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Than those who refuse to see. The point, while I can't speak for Paul, is that the biggest negative any Democrat faces, is the MCM. And with Clinton, that negative is turned to a positive. She raised $10 million last night alone, b/c the media couldn't help but concern troll her continued candidacy. Yes, she has high negatives, but those begin falling when the media piles on. Obama's negatives have nowhere to go but up, and the MCM will ensure that they do.

We are now stuck with this farce of an election process, because a majority of the progressive blogosphere chose not to complain about the media's behavior back in October. And Clinton is the best candidate to work within this process.

And Capn, while I appreciate the call to party unity, if Obama can't handle the kid glove treatment he is getting right now from fellow Dems, how is he going to handle the Repugs, when they come for his blood?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

tedraicer's picture
Submitted by tedraicer on

>All I ask is that you guys don’t beat up our eventual nominee too much while the race is playing itself out.

On the contrary, if Obama is going to be the nominee (which I certainly hope is not the case) he badly needs to be toughened up. His running away after losing the last debate doesn't bode well for November. Hillary has already proven her ability to take everything thrown at her. Obama so far has shown he only thrives when coddled. Well, he isn't going to be coddled in the fall.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your thesis is correct: that Hillary is more electable than Obama…so what? It is a little late in the day to be making straight-up electability arguments.

get serious.

CLinton has been making the same point all along -- that she's pre-vetted, and Obama isn't, and Obama has been saying "it doesn't matter."

Now, Clinton is showing that she was right -- the GOP smear machine has finally decided to soften up Obama a little, and its working. Obama's own self-inflicted wounds aren't helping him either of course.... but both factors make it clear that Clinton has been right all along.

For 14 months, Clinton made her argument politely, and people like you ignored it. Now that she's making the same argument less politely, you're all screaming like the WATBs that you are.

It is NOT Hillary Clinton's fault that Obama lacks experience. It is NOT Hillary Clinton's fault that Obama joined and stayed in Jeremiah Wrights church, engaged in a sleazy-looking real estate deal with someone he knew was under Federal investigation, or has a long "association" with someone who refuses to repudiate his terrorist past.

Its NOT Hillary Clinton's fault that Obama decided to get all high-and-mighty about wearing a flag pin, and its NOT Hillary Clinton's fault that Michele Obama said that her husband's candidacy was the first time she'd been proud of America. And its certainly NOT Hillary Clinton's fault that Obama blames his own failure to connect with white working class voters on those voters themselves, and tied their lifestyle (guns) and religion to prejudice an bigotry.

Obama evaded scrutiny for 14 months in this campaign. Hillary pointed this out politely for 14 months. Now that Obama is finally getting some scrutiny is the perfect time to raise the question of electability.

(wow, I think I just wrote the conclusion to this series -- thanx Space!)

space's picture
Submitted by space on

For 14 months, Clinton made her argument politely, and people like you ignored it. Now that she’s making the same argument less politely, you’re all screaming like the WATBs that you are.

You don't have the first fucking clue what I've been saying for the past 14 months. You've already (wrongly) called me an Obama supporter. You obviously don't know where I am coming from.

As I have said before, Obama was no darling of most progressive bloggers, at least until Edwards and Kucinich dropped out. Hillary could have won over dKos if she had bothered to try. She didn't. Most of her supporters there sounded like a cross between Joe Lieberman and Al From.

Meanwhile, Obama was repeatedly and justifiably scrutinized by progressive bloggers. For his lack of experience. For his apparent naivete. For tempering his ant-war stance. For attacking Al Gore, John Kerry, and Paul Krugman. Whenever he said something stupid, Democrats, myself included, were all over his ass. So don't tell me that I've ignored Obama's faults.

Beyond that, I don't think that bullshit attacks are "vetting". Back when Edwards was in the race and I visited dKos fairly regularly, I was much more anti-Hillary than I am now. But whenever an idiot Obama supporter would echo a bullshit GOP smear on the Clintons (e.g. Whitewater or Travelgate), I would be the first to jump on them. Why? Call me crazy but I believe there is a difference between legitimate criticism and complete bullshit and those Obama supporters were complete fucking assholes. Attacking Obama over Rev. Wright is complete nonsense. Elevating Rezko to anything approaching a scandal is complete nonsense.

This new "trial by fire" theory that Hillary's supporters are advancing...that rather than aggressively defend Democrats against the next round of swiftboating, we should be pre-emptively smearing our own candidates in order to "vet" them is just about the most insanely bad idea that Democrats have ever come up with.

space's picture
Submitted by space on

You know who is arguably more electable than Obama? Gore. And Edwards. But they aren't in the race, so who cares?

The only interesting question, from my standpoint, is whether Hillary is "still in the race". I'm willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments that Hillary still has a realistic shot of convincing the necessary number of remaining superdelegates to support her. I just haven't heard that argument yet. Just a lot of arguments that Hillary is BETTER...a completely irrelevant point to be making.

Personally, I just prefer that this primary be over. Whether that meant that Obama collapsed, Hillary won Pennsylvania by 30 points, and the remaining superdelegates abandoned Obama OR whether that meant that Obama edged out Hillary in Pennsylvania and forced her concession.

I don't even object to Hillary staying in the race in principle...I certainly wouldn't have cared if Edwards had remained in the race for the purpose of keeping his issues high profile. I just don't like seeing a primary that is turning increasingly nasty.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

If the primary is "increasingly nasty", then why are record numbers of people still turning out to vote? Voters are turned off by nasty politics(which is why it works to the GOP's advantage, less people vote=they win), so obviously they don't think it's that nasty. Hell, Kerry pulled a Bin Laden ad on Dean way earlier than this.

Personally, I just prefer that this primary be over.

And I'm so glad, that since your precious vote has counted, the rest of ours are pointless. The wonderful thing about living in a republic is that the rights of the minority(those who haven't yet voted) can't be trumped by the whims of the majority(those who have voted). I live in KY and this is the first time our presidential primary has mattered. So I suggest you man up and deal with it, because she won't quit until all of us have voted.

And as to how she wins, she demonstrates, as she is doing now, that Obama's support peaked with Wisconsin. She demonstrates that he doesn't have the endurance to go to Nov. And, if you count the popular votes in FL & MI(which the superdelegates are entitled to do), she is now leading in the popular vote.

In other news, Huffington Post ensures that we continue to lose elections.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

This new “trial by fire” theory that Hillary’s supporters are advancing…

What is she doing? All I hear are people screaming that she is making him unfit to run in the GE, that she is using horrible Right Wing attacks, but now one person has shown me these oh so horrible attacks.

Riverdaughter Rules Apply.

#1 You may not use an example where the candidate compares or contrasts herself with Obama.
#2 The offense must be an overt and deliberate attack on Obama’s personality or character.
#3 Outperforming Obama, for the purposes of this exercise, is not considered negative campaigning.
#4 The negativity can not have been initiated by a media source.
#5 Please back up your examples with citations.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

That looks like a get out of jail free card.

For instance, nobody at 60 Minutes forced her to say "as far as I know" Obama is not a muslim. However, that slimy maneuver was "initiated" by the media.

Cap'n John Brown

space's picture
Submitted by space on

Let me first state that I find the unsolicited negative actions and attitudes of both Obama's and Hillary's supporters to far, far, far exceed the negativity that directly emanates from either campaign.

So, my criticism of the "trial by fire" theory is directed far more, but not solely, at the candidates' supporters rather than the candidates themselves. I have no interest in citing every instance where I thought Hillary (or Obama) engaged in "trial by fire" tactics. But, to the extent that she does, it is a Bad Thing.

I'm just tired of listening to supporters -- from either campaign -- making arguments that they would never be making if the shoe were on the other foot. Both Hillary and Obama have moved the goalposts so many times with regard to what it takes to "win" this primary that it is a joke. Big states. Small states. Primaries. Caucuses. Red states. Blue states. Superdelgates should vote their conscience. Superdelgates should vote with their states. Superdelegates should vote for whoever wins a plurality of the voters. Superdelegates should vote for whoever wins a plurality of the pledged delegates. Superdelegates should vote for who they think is the most electable. Rules matter! Democracy matters! Count every vote! Stop, it's inevitable!

Man, if I haven't heard every version of these arguments coming from BOTH campaigns in the past year. Believe it or not, there was even a time when Hillary was believed to be the favored in caucuses because they supposedly favored older, experienced, loyal Democrats over new, young, independent voters. You didn't hear Hillary running down caucuses then. Nor did Hillary want to count every vote back when her strategy was to wrap this up by Super Tuesday.

All I ask of the supporters of either campaign is to not insult my intelligence by making arguments that they argued the other way 6 months, 6 weeks, or even 6 days ago.

wasabi's picture
Submitted by wasabi on

All the attacks by Republicans are bullshit. Any Dem candidate needs to get used to them.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

For instance, nobody at 60 Minutes forced her to say “as far as I know” Obama is not a muslim. However, that slimy maneuver was “initiated” by the media.

Kroft asked her the question three straight time. If someone asks you the same question repeatedly, by the third time "as far as I know" is the natural response.

The fact that Obots ignore what came before that is evidence of how desperate they are for reasons to hate Clinton. Its completely nuts that we even have to deal with this kind of insanity, but here is the transcript...

KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?

CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --

KROFT: -- or implying, right?

CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

You have to be completely insane to read this as Clinton suggesting in any way that Obama might be a Muslim. Indeed, its symptomatic of the NEGATIVE campaign tactics of Obama supporters against Clinton that Obama tolerates.

Hillary Clinton is not the problem. Its CaptainJohnBrown and his ilk that are the problem.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

or an over reliance on Obama favoring memes, Capn.

For instance, nobody at 60 Minutes forced her to say “as far as I know” Obama is not a muslim..

She was hounded over and over and over again on that question, when finally she broke down and said, "as far as I know." Of course, if you were interested in fairness, you would have investigated that claim before reading that. Of course, if you were even more interested in fairness, you would have acknowledged that the question was unfair to begin with, all silliness aside, how is she supposed to know whether or not Obama is faking his Christianity? Maybe they should hound Obama for 30 minutes about that. And since when is being a Muslim a bad thing, I though Hillary's supporters were supposed to be racist, Capn.

Need better troll food, Senior Fellows of the (al)Mighty Corrente :)

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

running the right's new Willie Horton "Obama protected gang killers" ads and the NC GOP "God Damn America" ads for free--over and over...this will go on in every remaining state, and in all 50 states in the fall.

The fact that the media's already catapulting the propaganda so early is really important, and will only contribute to his weak showing from now on.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

You beat me to it. With a transcript, no less.

And space, I just don't understand how you can get all preachy about what both sides are doing, in re the supporters, when it is obvious to anyone with intelligence that the Obama supporters are worse(I'll grant you that many smears being put out about Obama are despicable, on caliber with Hillary smears from the 90's, but most of these right wing memes are being pushed by Republicans against Obama, not by Clinton supporters, though some have run with them,and I don't agree with it), and they have been doing it longer. The rage against Obama now amongst Clinton supporters is a natural outgrowth of this behavior. And they are understandably unsympathetic to his claims of media unfairness, when he didn't hesitate to use that unfairness to his benefit.

"All I ask of the supporters of either campaign is to not insult my intelligence by making arguments that they argued the other way 6 months, 6 weeks, or even 6 days ago.

Is Paul doing that? Because I don't think so, since much of this data hasn't been available. So why are you complaining about this piece? And since when are Democrats, of all people, not allowed to take new information into account, when forming opinions? Are we to be like Republicans now, clinging to ideas from the 50's, even though they are no longer relevant?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

That's why he's now spinning (read: lying) about them. I'll let Marc Ambinder explain:

Here's Barack Obama, speaking to CNN's Roland Martin: "We have won the white, blue collar vote in a whole bunch of states ... and if we had a demographic problem in Pennsylvania, it was that it's an older state than a lot of states, and it is true that Sen. Clinton has some strong support among voters over 60."

Not in a "whole bunch of states."

Atlantic Media's Ron Brownstein notes to me in an e-mail that, according to the exit polls, Obama has won the white non college voting bloc (e.g., white blue collar voters) in Wisconsin -- 52% -- and lost them everywhere else, even in Illinois, where they narrowly preferred Clinton (50% to 46%).
Writes Ron: "The only other state where he’s reached even 40% of the vote among white non college voters is Virginia, according to the exit polls. In Ohio, he won only 27% of non college white voters; in PA, as of this morning, the number was just 30% (although the exit could be revised slightly)."

Okay, let's let the Obama campaign try again:

The Obama campaign sends along an e-mail:

States where we’ve won voters who make less than $50,000:, Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Vermont and Wisconsin. Came within 10 points in: Arizona, Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas.

We're talking here about white blue collar voters as defined by socioeconomic status; in some of these states, John Edwards cut into Clinton's voting bloc (Iowa and South Carolina); in most of the others, African Americans making under $50,000 provided Obama's margin of victory in the demographic (MS, MD, VA and GA). Missouri is a narrow exception, although Obama lost whites without college degrees there. And in Utah, Clinton did not compete.

And further spinning from David Axelrod:

The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years.

Apparently, once again, the Obama campaign keeps forgetting that Pennsylvania is a democratic state and that's partly due to white working class voters. As we saw last night yuppies+blacks+students can't even get you a win in a democratic primary, much less a statewide election.

Here's the Big Dog responding:

Today her opponent’s campaign strategist said, ‘Well we don’t really need these working class people to win, half the time they vote for Republicans anyways.’ And I will tell you something, America needs you to win and therefore Hillary wants your support….


space's picture
Submitted by space on

First, let me stipulate, that I think that Obama, as a person, is much, much more of an arrogant asshole than Hillary is (to immediately avoid getting any credit for that statement, I will say that Obama reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton).

I will also stipulate that precisely because Obama has more supporters who used to be Republicans, independents, or disengaged citizens that I expect less of them. Their ideas are less well thought out and I may agree less with their values than mainstream Democrats in any case. They may echo RW talking points simply because the Democrats have done such a piss-poor job of challenging them over the years. They actually think that Whitewater had merit.

So it personally bothers me more when people who I used to have a lot of respect for, like Lambert, P-Luk, or eriposte at the Left Coaster, just go completely in the tank for Hillary than if I hear some idiocy from a random Obama supporter who otherwise would have been penciling in Ross Perot in November.

And it pains me more when, in attempting to point out that mirroring the irrationality of the OFB is not a Good Thing, I get attacked and repeatedly accused of being an Obama supporter.

What I have seen from the progressive Hillary supporters is a disappointing refusal to realize that virtually every complaint that they level at Obama, from a willingness to echo RW talking points, to a lack of political experience, to selling the base a Unity Pony, is a complaint that has been leveled against both Clintons for YEARS. (Oh, and if you try to bring up Bill's 8 years for any reason other than praising it as the greatest administration ever, you will be attacked as a sexist pig who assumes that Hillary is a mere "appendage" to Bill)

The Clintons have a credibility problem among the activist progressive base that they should have been working on long before the campaign ever kicked off. Hillary's campaign simply ignored the problem and her supporters pretended that anyone who raised an issue was a biased "Hillary hater."

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Hillary has pursuing the majority of the Democratic party, not the "activist progressive base" than constitutes a minority within the party

A vocal minority, but still a minority.

BTW - They rejected her, not the other way around.

"McGovern - Mondale - Dukakis - Obama

The few, the lame, the losers

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

with the fact that several bloggers are now "in the tank" for Clinton. There was no where else to go, so the fact that this happened is natural. And regardless of our irreverent attitudes, we are much more willing to engage on the important issues, than the OFB.

The Clintons have a credibility problem among the activist progressive base

Yes, I agree. Clinton is a centrist, though I believe her agenda is more progressive than Obama's. And, after Edwards dropped out(who I originally supported), there were no real progressives with a a viable chance at the nomination remaining. I weighed the issues, and Obama's repugnant supporters were among them, and chose Clinton. And the more I learn, the more I agree with my choice. Hillary Clinton ignored the "progressive" base, but Obama ignored the "woman" base and now the working class base,(because they both bought the mentality that we have nowhere else to go) act which are also coming back to bite him in the ass. As a person who belongs to all three of those "bases", I feel more slighted as a woman and as semi-rural working class voter, which is why he is losing GE support.

When progressives are faced with no real progressive choice, they should go with their best option. And as a part of the most recent successful Democratic administration*, Clinton is our best option. No fundamental shifts in politics will happen during a Clinton Administration(though we will get UH and rid of DADT), the trains will run on time.

During that time we, as progressives, need to build the necessary infrastructure, to ensure a viable progressive candidate in '16.

I don't think Obama has enough time to repair his own self-inflicted damage(nor the OFB a little humility) to win in Nov.
*(She was more than an appendage of her husband, but she was no typical FL, and she was there for the day-to-day operations in the executive branch. I feel she learned much from being there, including what polices worked and which didn't)

This may seem pointless to you, who have already voted. I have not, nor has anyone in my immedeate family, or circle of friends and co workers. I believe that the future of our country hinges on Clinton getting the democratic nomination, which means showing the SDs that Obama can't win. So I visit blogs like this, and some Obama favoring ones too, to learn, so I can spread my knowledge in RL. I will engage any Obama supporter who crosses my path.

I do not think there is anything Clinton could do to make Obama unelectable. He has done that himself, by running to early in his political career. He is an unknown quantity, something he admits himself and attributes to his loss in PA, and the Republicans will use it.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by lambert on

As usual with Space's concerns, there's no way to operationalize a response that would live up to his expectations (assuming that anybody was put on this earth to live up to space's expectations). And if some of the writer's on a tiny little C list blog are providing a counterbalance to much of the A list and most of our famously free press... Then what on earth can be the problem? There are a lot of stories to be covered, it's true; but the Clinton story is not well covered, and it's important. And if anybody wants balance, they're perfectly free to create it for themselves by reading other blogs, or by adding their own contributions.

I'm reminded of a famous passage from Elmore Leonard's wonderful Unknown Man #89:

Ryan was thirty-six by then and starting to worry that maybe he was a misfit, a little out of touch with reality, that all the peoplestrapped to their boring nine-to-fives were right and he was wrong.He had sold insurance one time, for three weeks. He had sold new cars for several different Detroit dealerships; but, each place, the sales manager or the owner turned out to be a pain in the ass. He’d worked construction and driven a truck. He’d been with Local 299 of the Teamsters as a business agent for a while and got into a couple of fistfights that were interesting. He’d worked on the line at Chevrolet truck assembly in Flint, quit before he went out of his mind, and got a job at Abercrombie’s store in Troy, but only lasted two weeks. One day during the Christmas rush he told a lady if she didn’t like the service why didn’t she go someplace else. He’d said to her, “Why should a nice person like you stand around taking a lot of shit?” Ryan was always polite.

And gawd knows I try to be.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.