We are not the majority.

[kentuck]

Up to this point in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama has beaten Hillary Clinton by almost 1 million votes - approximately 10 million to 9 million. By all accounts, this has been a record turnout for a primary of either Party. On the face of it, it appears that the Democratic Party will have a record turnout in the general election. However, we should not forget that John Kerry received about 59 million votes in the last general election. And he lost.

If we combine the votes of Hillary and Barack in these primaries up to this point, they are still about 30 million votes behind Kerry's total in the last election. We can assume that either of them can get those 30 million voters or we cannot assume? Therein lies the illusion.

If Obama wins the nomination, will those other 30 million Democratic voters vote for him? Will it matter to them that his middle name is Hussein? Will they believe the right-wing propaganda that he is a Muslim? Of course not, we say. His mother gave him the name of his father. That is his birthright.

But why do we think Obama will win in a landslide? The majority of folks that vote in the primaries are the "liberal" base of the Party. There is no doubt about that. We cannot assume that the "liberal" base is reflective of the rest of the Party. Obama is the recipient of a lot of money from the Internet contributors. The Internet organizes the base of the Party. It is a powerful new influence upon the politics of this country. But is it the voice of the majority?

This is not written in support of Hillary or Barack. It is written in the hopes of touching the reality of the present condition in which we find ourselves. Do we have the courage to vote our convictions, even if we might fail? Even if we put a Republican in the White House for 4 more years? Are we ready once again to fight for what we believe in, or will we surrender to cautiousness?

[kentuck]

1. I'm ashamed.

:-)

[Armstead]

2. You should be

For what?



:evilgrin:

[Signofthetime]

13. What you should do is compare last elections primary numbers

to this years Primary numbers, that is an accurate depiction, not comparing this years primary /caucus numbers to the general election, that's not a fair assessment

[Labors of Hercules]

3. Barack is inspiring unprecedented numbers of registered Republicans to vote for him

instead of voting for McCain. Precedent suggests that since he has been this effective in the Primary, he will do even better in the General.

[Vinca]

4. If it would make you feel better, go to some of the sites that have

the actual primary vote counts. In nearly every state, both Hillary and Barack got more votes than McCain. McCain's home state is an exception. In some states they - individually - got more votes than all the Republicans combined.

[kentuck]

5. That's my point.

Some are under the illusion that the primary votes will translate to the general election. So far, Barack Obama has just over 10 million votes in the primaries. John Kerry got 59 million and lost. The primaries are about the liberal base.

[Bluebear]

7. 'The primaries are about the liberal base.' There we disagree, friend. "Open primaries"

Including so many here who have been gleeful that they "know a Republican who voted for such and such" in the primary....

As long as states have open primaries in which non-Democrats can pick our nominee, I disagree wholeheartedly that it is about the liberal base. I submit if it were, Edwards would have made a run for this nomination.

[Vinca]

21. Another thing to keep in mind is election fraud.

Did Kerry actually lose? Possibly not. Somehow after every election everything is swept under the table. The machines are still there. The buggy software is still there. The nice Diebold man who helps the blue-haired ladies at the polls is still there. McCain might win, but it won't necessarily be because he got a majority of votes.

[Omega3]

15. don't you ppl realize that there are open primaries and a repub contest already settled?

[TheDoorbellRang]

6. That worries me

Someone else had a post this past week pointing out that Dems outvoted conservatives quite a bit in past primaries, but the Republicans still won in the GE.

I do think that Obama has a far greater chance of winning than Clinton does, however. I think he's a lot better at this political gaming than anyone had given him credit for. He's shown himself to be a master at feeling the public pulse.

Here's one example. One thing she has done that he has avoided: she keeps mentioning how awesome it would be to a the first woman president, which I think makes many men think "What are we then, chopped liver? Won't she be our president, too?" I think for sexism to be nonrelevant in her campaign, she needed to treat it herself as irrelevant. OTOH, Obama rarely if ever goes there; he doesn't say "Wouldn't it be awesome if an African American was president?" which would garner a similar response in the "white" population. Consequently, he presents himself as a president of Americans, not just a subset of Americans. Just my POV (as a woman, I might add).

[crispini]

8. I think that Obama is bringing a lot of new people into the party.

At least it is down here. And I'm not sure you can call them simply "liberal."

Yes, we still have to win a campaign in the fall. To be perfectly honest, that's why I'm voting for Obama. I admire the way his campaign has been run. I have seen amazing organization and careful use of resources. He has handled himself very well, always responding to attacks yet rising above them at the same time.

I think Hillary is a great person, but not as talented of a campaigner. I think there would be a lot MORE people who would be willing to work and vote for Obama.

[mohc]

9. Its hard to compare those numbers

Many states have not yet voted, and in some of the ones that have caucuses make a direct comparison difficult. Even closed primaries would not be a fair comparison as a substantial portion of support in the general election comes from independents. The only fair comparison in my opinion are direct state-by-state comparisons among open primary contests.

State Kerry-04 Primary-Total
AL 693,933 536,635 77%
AR 469,953 312,984 67%
GA 1,366,149 1,060,851 78%
IL 2,891,550 2,016,316 70%
MO 1,259,171 822,454 65%
SC 661,699 532,151 80%
TN 1,036,477 618,711 60%
VA 1,454,742 986,502 68%
WI 1,489,504 1,111,285 75%
Total 11,323,178 7,997,889 71%

These turnout numbers are just totally unheard of. If every Dem primary voter could get one person to vote Democratic in November that did not vote in the primary, we would win in a landslide. My guess is this just a sign of excitement, and in fact most of the general election Dem voters voted this time around both because the race is close and the candidates were strong. I am going to be very interested in seeing what kind of turnout we see in November.

[DefenseLawyer]

10. Since when has the Democratic Party cared about electabilty?

Bill Clinton? He turned out to be a good president. But was he the most electable candidate? Well he won with 43% of the vote, thanks in large measure to Ross Perot being on the ballot. Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Adlai Stevenson, I mean come on now. I think those are all valid concerns, but the Democratic Party has done what it always does. The only consolation I have is that Barack Obama is an excellent campaigner, and the country is ripe for change, so maybe be bucks the tide of conventional wisdom. We'll see. But the party has made its bed, and I have jumped in.

[bigtree]

11. I think, if you are measuring support by votes cast, you should include Florida

which would bring the difference to about 600,000 not 1 million.

Popular vote total for top two candidates in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination:

Not Including FL
Barack Obama 10,300,410
Hillary Clinton 9,375,213
Total: 19,675,623

Including FL
Barack Obama 10,876,624
Hillary Clinton 10,246,199
Total: 21,122,823

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

[robbedvoter]

12. More importantly: would those GOP-ers & indys vote for a dem (any) in GE?

[paulk]

14. I'm very worried about this election and the overconfidence

of the Obama supporters.

Obama, so far, has put together the coalition necessary to win a Democratic nomination. But there seems to be a very clear dividing line between the Obama and Clinton supporter demographic - age, race, sex - these are all falling on one side or the other of that line - and Obama's support group is NOT the majority group when it comes to a general election. It's true, though, that Obama has been making inroads into Hillary's support base - we'll know if that continues to hold after the next round of primaries.

The Republicans, especially if they make Huckabee the VP to get out the religious right, have a strong ticket. McCain will appeal to the centrist/moderate wing of the Democratic Party and many independents. I don't think the lesson of CT should be lost on us - Lieberman, a centrist - got the Republican vote and enough of the centrist middle to beat a liberal Democratic candidate - in a BLUE state.

We cannot afford to forget that.

[bigtree]

16. I think if we focus on preparing and energizing the base of new supporters

. . . like the youth vote and the minority vote, we could hope to replicate much of the surge of interest that has boosted those numbers.

[paulk]

19. that is how we win

If Obama can get the same numbers of younger people to the polls in November that he's gotten to the primaries, he has a good chance of pulling this off.

[berni_mccoy]

17. You are comparing Apples and Oranges my friend

You can not fairly compare 2008 primary numbers to 2004 GE numbers. The reason: independent and cross-over votes and many who don't care about the choice in the primary (they always vote party-line no matter who the candidate is).

You *can* compare 2008 primary numbers with 2004 primary numbers. End result: both D and R are way up from 2004 primary.

What this means is you can expect even bigger numbers in the GE from both sides.

Obama is getting far more independent and cross-over votes than either Clinton or McCain. Even if the tin-foil hatters here are right about subterfuge of republican voters "throwing" the election for Obama, there are A) not enough of them to affect the GE and B) not all R cross-overs for Obama would be for that reason.

No "party" represents a majority of voters. They simply can't. There are too many independently minded people that don't buy everything the party is selling. That's why appeal to the independents is so important. Obama has it. Clinton and McCain do not.

[kentuck]

18. How do you know this?

"What this means is you can expect even bigger numbers in the GE from both sides."

How do we know that it is not the Internet that has given enough money to Obama to make him a viable primary candidate simply because he is very popular with the liberal wing of our Party? How can we predict what the other 30 million might vote if they were not interested enough to vote in this very exciting primary? We can assume, that is all.

[berni_mccoy]

20. He's not just popular with, as you say, "the liberal wing" of our party. He's winning independents

In states with open primaries, he's winning 60-70% of the independent vote. That's significant. These independents can vote for Republicans too, but they aren't. When about 10% of the voting population is independent, you are guaranteed that their voice matters in the GE, and with Obama getting them 2-to-1 vs. Clinton, more so vs. McCain, you can be, shall I say, hopeful. No, you can not count on them, but you better have a message that they connect with or you will lose them.

I do not know why you are raising the money/internet issue? Obama has over 1 million individual donors who have contributed online. That's another huge, unprecedented milestone for *any* presidential candidate. The people, dems, independents and repubs alike are not only speaking with their vote, but with their money.