"20% of white Democratic voters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee"

[MagsDem]

"That is twice the percentage of white Democrats who say they would support McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup. Older Democrats (ages 65 and older), lower-income and less educated Democrats also would support McCain at higher levels if Obama rather than Clinton is the party's nominee."

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=398

This is what many of us having been saying for quite some time. Obama's just simply not electable in the GE. Now I know you watch all the hype of television, so you think all that is left is the coronation, but you're in dream land.

And keep in mind, this is before he has been attacked for his myriad of weaknesses by the rethugs, such as his inexperience and naivity on foreign policy. He is a diaster waiting to happen for this party.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. So you're saying we should nominate a white person instead of a black person?

OK.

[cali]

4. oh don't bother

certain people have made certain remarks that make it clear what they are and certain people are so consumed by hate it's like they have a worm eating away at their brains.

[JeffR]

9. You're assuming, cali, that there's a brain involved in this case

I'm not so sure myself.

[cloud75]

20. so let's just ignore this poll..it's true it's not mags fault people are still

ignorant. racism exist and it influences the way people vote. wake up!!!

[blonndee]

26. Why should it influence the way WE vote?

Holy hell!!! When you let bigots dictate what you do, you only feed bigotry. ESPECIALLY when you're doing the EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE!!! Let's not vote for a black man because the bigots won't either. That is some kind of disgusting.

[MagsDem]

42. You shouldn't if you don't want to...

... if electabilty is not a factor for you in who you vote for in the primary, then ignore it. For some people it's an important issue. Some people actually want a democratic president for the next 8 yrs instead of a warm feeling in their pants.

[blonndee]

47. So you're going to let ignorant bigots dictate what you do?

And that would be, to buy into their bigotry by engaging in the same actions they are? I just don't see how you could possibly think that is a morally acceptable thing to do. And by the way, the same argument could be made for sexism, as others have pointed out. I think that kind of "thinking" is equally stupid and demonstrates a breathtaking lack of moral fortitude.

[MagsDem]

59. Not in this instance, no

I wouldn't vote for Obama in any election for any office because he panders to anti-gay homophobic bigots, and I find him to be very untruthful on several issues.

But I also understand why people take electibility into account. Ignorant bigots don't like MA liberals like Kerry either, which is why he wasn't electible. And that did factor into decision not to support him during the primaries in 2004. I eventually voted for him because I had nothing against him, but I knew when he got the nod he was never going to win.

[Hawaii Hiker]

130. Kerry was branded MA liberal, an elitist, he was swift boated, & yet

received 59 million votes, & probably won Ohio (but that's another story)...Not bad for such an MA elitist....

Obama is a better candiate than Kerry & in general, people are even more angry at Republicans today than in 2004....

No "true" democrat would vote for McCain....He is an awful person (see his extremely cruel 1998 joke at a fundraiser about Chelsea Clinton who was only 18 at the time) & an even worse candiate....Do you want a Supreme Court full of 9 Scalia's??.....Obama will make better appointments to the SCOTUS than McCain would, think of that on election day......

[MagsDem]

156. Do "I" want a USSC full of Scalia's?

No, of course not. That is why I wanted Edwards, and now support HRC. Obama will have to win the GE without my vote, though I won't be voting for McCain either. Nothing in this world could make me vote for a person that gave a stage to a homophobic bigot to spew hatred against GLBT people. And I can honestly tell you I also wouldn't vote for someone that did the same against jews, blacks, women, or any other class of people. It's called having principles.

His electibility is a separate issue from the reasons why I won't vote for him, and that is what this thread is about.

[Hawaii Hiker]

205. When did Obama give the stage to a bigot? - I'm not familiar w/that incident

I think another important thing to remember is if Obama or Clinton wins, religious right leaders will NEVER have the influence they've had these last 7 years....(they were the ones who derailed Harriet Myers nomination)....If a democrat is POTUS, the ONLY way religious right leaders will get in the White House is like everyone else - with a ticket on a guided tour!!........

I despise Republicans (especially the socially conservative / religious right ones) so much, that I simply vote straight Democratic all the time......Yes, I prefer Obama, but I like Clinton, I liked Edwards, & would easily vote for any of them before an SOB like McCain.....

[MagsDem]

230. Donnie McClurkin

He is a religious anti-gay homophobe that Obama invited to his rally's in Carolina. He advertised that he would be there, and when protests went up he declined to disinvite him. At the rally's McClurkin was permitted to go into a lengthy diatribe about the evils of the sinning GLBT population. Obama just stood by and watched it.

It was pandering to anti-gay religious zealots the likes of which have never been seen before by a democratic candidate in my lifetime.

[cloudythescribbler]

271. this blending of two arguments is very indicative -- helps explain all the overemphasis on McClurkin

[NanceGreggs]

142. Yeah, that's right ...

"Some people actually want a democratic president".

Which Democratic president do you want, MagsDem?

Still waiting to hear from ya ...

[cliffordu]

153. I'm convinced!! It's Hillary, just to elect a white person.....

NOT!!!!!!

:puke:

I'd like to welcome you to practice your hate anytime. You fool no one.

[catgirl]

305. 10% of white dems will vote for McCain if Hillary is elected

and Independents flock to Obama. Obama is the electable candidate, not Hillary. You
are sooooo full of it.

[NMMatt]

329. We should not nominate a women...

Since throughout the entire primary season all we've heard about is how sexist everyone is. Obviously that means Clinton is unelectable. See how it can cut both ways and why your argument is ridiculous?

[Hepburn]

341. If you are looking for electibility....

...then why in the hell would you support a loser like Hillary???

[Zachstar]

311. GREAT POST! blonndee!

You hit the nail RIGHT on the head here.

Nice try, Bad Clinton supporters. We know you will do anything to win. I guess it had to be expected that you would pull more bigotry in.

[cali]

31. what part of men won't vote for Clinton eludes your brilliant mind?

What part of highest negatives eludes you?

[bvar22]

234. I thought it was sexism that influenced the way people vote.

According to the Hillary supporters on DU today, Sexism is way more rampant, pervasive, and devastating that Racism is today.

Maybe that is why ALL the polls for the GE have Obama defeating Mc, and Hillary losing to Mc?
Sexism > Racism?

[MagsDem]

24. I'm saying he isn't going to win

[cali]

27. sadly, odds are

you won't be here if he does. You'll be sobbing your little heart out over McCain's loss.

[democrattotheend]

147. Not if you can help it, at least

Aren't you the one who said you will not only not vote for him but actively work against him in the general?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. umm noooo the People's Press article is saying it.

[yourguide]

195. Oh your signature..

is soooooo clever :sarcasm:

Looking forward to when a famous artist is so inspired by Hillary that he does his own art based on her so that I may mock it...but I suspect I will be waiting for quite some time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

321. Is she going to denounce and reject the People's Press article?

Are you?

[yourguide]

61. did she just essentially say

vote for Hillary because she's white?

[Yukari Yakumo]

78. dupe-delete

[Yukari Yakumo]

80. Yup. It's official. Mags is a racist.

Hopefully, the mods will deal with him like they did with MalloyLiberal.

[MagsDem]

111. I'm a racist because I'm realistic enough to know it exists?

I see, so if I wasn't a racist I would be putting on rose colored glasses and pretending it didn't? I also acknowledge men are less likely to vote for HRC. Does that make me a sexist too?

I have consistently said the media has convinced us to have a contest between our two most unelectable candidates, and this pretty much proves it. You need to grow up and deal with reality instead of hurling ridiculous accusations against people that are able to deal with it.

[Yukari Yakumo]

117. You're a racist by saying "Vote Hillary 'cause she's the safe white vote"

But then you go and label both candidates as "unelectable" in the second paragraph.

The one who needs to grow up is you.

You no longer deserve to privilege to call yourself a Dem.

Mags, leave. Now.

[MagsDem]

121. I didn't say any such thing

Where did I say that?

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MagsDem]

170. LOL - I responded to "nance" 15 min ago, okay?

... try to keep up.

[yourguide]

190. No, you're a racist

because you're a racist.

[MagsDem]

212. I'm a racist because I recognize it exists?

Would you acknowledge that bigotry exists against GLBT people? Does that make you a bigot? How does that work in that pea brain of yours.

[yourguide]

222. No because you suggest:

"Obama's just simply not electable in the GE" because of that dumb ass poll that somehow justifies the racist thought in your head.

I bet you get tombstoned soon.

[MagsDem]

239. okay, you're right... let's play pretend

20% of white democrats won't vote for him because they just think he's a bad candidate. Do you feel better now?

You know what would make me feel better? To pretend 20% of white democrats won't vote for him because he pandered to anti-gay homophobic bigots by giving McClurkin a stage to spew his hate. :)

[yourguide]

245. you're a mess.

I am truly disappointed that the health care industry would allow you amongst their ranks.

wow.

[Recursion]

101. 'Fraid so

Sigh

[Jersey Devil]

95. That seems to be the crux of it

What a shame that people at DU would resort to such garbage.

[David Zephyr]

221. Sounded like the OP's message is was a cry to appease bigots.

I read it exactly as you did, Bornaginhooligan.

[Avalux]

2. Mags, Mags, Mags.....

Hillary has the highest negative rating. She is divisive and independents will not vote for her.

[MagsDem]

25. How does that translate into an Obama win?

Last I checked, when that many people of your party won't vote for you, you're screwed.

[BeyondGeography]

3. And less than 40% of men in this country would vote for Hillary

Next.

[cali]

7. Precisely An both should make us weep. n/t

[MagsDem]

28. I've been telling you for months that the media has conned...

people into having a contest bewteen our two most unelectable candidates. See what happens when you act like sheeple?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MagsDem]

45. I've stated I am doing so NOW, but that wasn't your accusation...

You accused me of saying I would work with some journalist against in the GE. Now I don't know if you have me confused with someone else or you are simply lying, but I never said any such thing.

[Greyskye]

5. From the same link:

Hillary Clinton's support levels have slipped across the board among Democrats. Clinton leads Obama only among white women voters, those ages 65 and older, and voters with household incomes of less than $30,000 a year. In addition, overcoming voters' perceptions of Obama's momentum is a major challenge for Clinton. Fully 70% of Democratic voters -- including 52% of those who support Clinton -- say that Obama is most likely to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

[GoreVidalIsGod]

6. Ooooh, and 48% of the public (including a majority of men) won't vote for your girl.

[dsc]

11. No Democrat has gotten a majority of men since Lyndon Johnson

not Clinton, not Carter, and even though he was before Johnson, not Kennedy either.

[cd3dem]

94. actually, they will vote for Hillary, b/c she has Bill to help her!

hahaha.... I think it is sad but I have heard it from the men who are sexist!

[DUyellow]

8. well, i guess we are going lose then...

or we have 9 months to change those 20%...

[earthlover]

10. Blah blah blah...but he still does better than Hillary against McCain in polls

pollingreport.com last time i checked every one of the polls had Obama doing better than Hillary against McCain.

I do find it hard to figure why so many Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain than Obama...which is apparently what you are touting.

Says a lot about the stupidity of some hillary supporters that they would prefer McCain if this is true. But I really doubt it is. Hillary supporters I know are a lot more rational than this.

[madrchsod]

12. white people rule!

better tell all the people who still have a vote to vote for the white woman!

[madaboutharry]

13. I guess only whites need apply.

Your post is disturbing on many levels. Basically it is saying that 20% of democrats are racists.

The general public doesn't have the information on McCain today that they will have on election day. Having had lived in Arizona for many years, I know he is a fraud and full of shit. I honestly believe that McCain's "special relationship" with the national media is coming to an end. I don't think these polls today mean anything.

[Tarheel_Dem]

122. sadly, it doesn't surprise me...

after the dustup in S. Carolina, I couldn't believe some of the things I was reading here from longtime DU'ers. Racism and sexism are deeply ingrained in the collective American psyche. The o.p. is very offensive to me as an AA, but I fear there's truth to it. That being said, there's a thread around here somewhere that says 18% of blacks will vote for McCain if Hillary's the nominee; in contrast, that number is reduced to 3% if it's Obama. Add to that the percentage of men who won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances, and she's a disaster waiting to happen.

The fact of the matter is, whoever gets the nod will have their work cut out for them to put this party back together.

[jody]

14. Also, Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funds VPC to ban handguns.

See discussion http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x160510

[peace13]

15. Unfortunately for Clinton she is largely unelectable in the GE.

She has alienated Obama supporters but the damage doesn't stop there. We will see no help from the rthuglicans. Their memories of years gone by are still too fresh. To make matters worse she will lose points because she is a woman. Add to this the fact that she has lost her temper in the debates. Not something that Americans wish to see in these tense times. The cherry at the top is Big Bill who showed that when pushed to the corner he can be down right mean. Who will run the WH if Hillary is elected. That would be the big question. Don't bother to flame me. My original candidate was forced out long ago. I have been left to pick the lesser of two evils which happy for me is looking better every day. Peace, Kim

[MagsDem]

85. Like I said months ago, the media convinced dems to...

have a contest between their two most unelectable candidates. I think she has a better shot because she could probably win AR and TN and FL in the GE. He won't win a single red state, which means we lose.

[peace13]

No disrespect but even if she wins

in my opinion there will be no change in the direction of this country. No sarcasm here when I say when I saw the footage of Hillary selling the Iraq war to her colleagues she used the exact talking mems of *. I just can't get by that. I could try but really, I just don't know if I could vote for that. Thanks for your input. Peace, Kim

[aasleka]

309. No, your wrong.

Obama is bringing what percentage of new voters to the polls? Hence my comment previous about the massive unprecedented rallies. More Democrats are coming out of the wood work that haven't voted in years, that thought it didn't matter that there was no alternative to how DC worked. That percentage of new voters that are inspired to actually show up will dwarf the percentage of Democratic voters that are claiming they will not vote for Obama.

Obama will win, GOP will blame him for raising taxes and dealing with the rebuilding of the army, infrastructure, schools, medicare and everything else that has been strangled during Bushes terms, the GOP are sacrificing Mccain (even they know he is fukin' crazy) so that they can present these arguements in 2012. Except for the fact that Obama just might be able to pull enough people together to actually make change happen and turn it all around. THATS WHY HE'LL WIN. He is the best person for the job, period.

[Blarch]

16. Sounds like those 20% are racists.

Fuck em all, our party doesn't need racists.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_TKi7iMXAY0Y/RuZb7NPlOwI/AAAAAAAABVU/JWKHZi4ks1E/s400/al+jolson+black+face.jpg

[MagsDem]

89. Probably -- just like the men who won't vote for a woman are sexist

That's why it was stupid to have a nominating contest between our party's two most unelectable candidates. You think? But hey, you can all have a warm feeling in your pants when it's all over.

[charlie]

17. Same report says he *is* electable in the GE

Obama and Clinton both hold modest leads over McCain in a general election matchup; Obama has a 50% to 43% lead and Clinton holds a 50% to 45% edge. But Clinton draws more universal support among Democrats (89%) than does Obama (81%). Conversely, Obama leads McCain slightly among independents (49% to 43%), while McCain edges Clinton among this group by the same margin. There is no evidence that either Obama or Clinton attracts much support from Republicans.

[MagsDem]

34. That'd be relevant if we didn't use the electoral college

But since we do, the bigger problem is that he can't get sufficient support in the GE from his own party.

[charlie]

56. I can't say that I see how that follows

Unless you have a map somewhere of where Obama support/defections reside.

As long as we're slinging controversial factoids -- the report says 1 in 4 Clintonites will defect to McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee. McCain would get 1 in 10 Obamans if she is. So, if you're looking for problems in the Democratic vote, you could say a big one lies in the capriciousness of the Clinton supporters camp.

[MagsDem]

64. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out

As I mentioned many weeks ago, white democrats in red states won't support a black person for president. There is still too much racial predjudice in too many parts of the country. I don't see how he wins without a red state. Do you?

[charlie]

110. Ah

Sorry, you're right. I'm no rocket scientist. And I let my subscription to the MagsDem Newswire lapse, I had no idea what you said weeks ago. Sometimes you'll have to restate yourself, so some of us know what you're thinking.

Running a black candidate is risky, sure. So is running Hillary Clinton. A southern shutout for her is far from implausible. Harold Ford came within 3 points in Tennessee and from what I've seen so far, Obama is a better campaigner. IMHO he's a better campaigner than Clinton as well (and at the moment, he has the edge among independent voters to counter some of a Democratic deficit).

[JustinL]

280. polls show him ahead or tied in several "red" states

From Rasmussen Reports:

  CO (02/11): 46-39
  IA  (02/18): 44-41
  NV (02/12): 50-38
  NM (02/18): 44-44

From Survey USA:

  MO (02/22): 49-43
  NM (02/22): 55-40
  OH (02/22): 47-44
  VA (02/19): 51-45
  IA  (02/19): 51-41

[aasleka]

310. He'll win Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina among others

[DemBones DemBones]

348. You're deluding yourself. nt

[HeraldSquare212]

18. You beg the question:does that result, if true, mean he is unelectable?

[MagsDem]

67. That's the point of the thread

Personally, I would say no. If he gets the nomination he should win the blue states -- no big deal there. But 20% of white democrats pretty much nails shut the prospect of him winning a red or swing state. How does he win with just the blues? He can't.

[HeraldSquare212]

87. Does it or not? Does he pick up votes from Reps and Inds that more that offset that?

[MagsDem]

106. I don't think you can pick up enough votes...

from indies to offset such a huge decline in support amoung your own party, especially not with the way indies have always gravitated to McCain. And the rethug vote? You're kidding yourself.

[JustinL]

282. yes, he does pick up enough votes

Overall, he's ahead of McCain 50-43%, while Clinton is ahead by a smaller margin of 50-45%.

[Straight Shooter]

19. This election brings out the best in people: racism, sexism, ageism.

God bless America. :eyes:

[UALRBSofL]

150. Straight Shooter All we need now is a

Gay candidate then we would be set. :) BTW, do you like my new avatar? I had the rainbow flag but thought the crazed look of Jack Nicholson was kind of cool.

[rodeodance]

168. That would be fine with me. ---

[UALRBSofL]

172. Wups, I see my avatar didn't change

Wonder what I did wrong?

[Straight Shooter]

225. Let me tell you *my* perfect candidate.

Female, bisexual, atheist, physically challenged, also speaks with a lisp.

And you know what? I'm not kidding, because anyone who can surmount those odds in America's head-up-hiney-land is all right with me.

=============

To fix your avuhtah, dahlin':
1. Click on options at top of screen
2. Click Edit Your Profile
3. Under Avatar Image, click following images link
4. Click on Crazy Jack icon
5. Click Update at bottom of page
6. Voila!
7. Disregard message if you've already figured out what went wrong :D

[HCE SuiGeneris]

21. Grim Reaper Rides Again... has it been 24 hours already?

:sigh:

[NanceGreggs]

246. Ah, yes, time flies, doesn't it?

Here's one for you, BushDespiser12 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rW-YvYmUE

I find that listening to it (at Volume #11) tends to drown out the mewling of the trolls and such-like.

Enjoy!

:toast:

[Patsy Stone]

22. FreeRepublic united!

Is that the same 20% who still like Dick Cheney?

[blonndee]

23. Sounds like the percentage of "Democratic voters" here who are racist enough to do that.

Fuck them. And fuck race-baiting. I'm not going to let fear of what ignorant bigots might do influence me to engage IN THE VERY SAME BIGOTED BEHAVIOR THEY ARE. What.The.Fuck?!?!?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

33. The OP has stated she will WORK AGAINST OBAMA if he is the nominee

along with a certain "journalist". This kind of crap needs to end here. :mad:

[MagsDem]

37. Link to that post, please?

I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm actively working against him now, and I have intention of voting for him if he is the nominee, but I haven't said anything about working against if he is the nominee.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

46. Don't you mean NO intention?

[MagsDem]

75. Yes, thanks for pointing that out

I've never voted, donated to, or worked for a rethug in 30 yrs of voting, and I'm not going to start now. But Obama also won't get my vote, even in the GE.

[PassingFair]

74. You keep on working against him. You do more damage to Clinton's campaign that way.

Seriously, you are!

:rofl:

"...actively working against him now..."

[democrattotheend]

177. I thought you did in a thread this morning

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4807013

Maybe I misunderstood. If so, I apologize.

[MikeNearMcChord]

92. If the last eight years has not convinced those idiots why we should vote for

the Democratic nominee(and I will apply this to those who won't vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee) They can go Cheney themselves. People who are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces, are a waste of oxygen. F$$$ em!

[Occam Bandage]

29. And yet he *still* does better than Hillary Clinton.

[Faygo Kid]

30. March 5, MagsDem. I keep reminding myself, March 5 is near.

This "disaster" has wiped out your candidate 11 straight, and you are reduced to these kinds of posts saying we should reject Barack because of his race.

If he's such a disaster, the solution is simple: Beat him in the primaries. Go ahead, win against him.

Either way, please quit posting such ugliness.

[cali]

35. And we can have a party

because certain folks won't be posting their bile anymore.

[eShirl]

32. GOOD RIDDANCE

[kid a]

36. i hope this is your last "grasp"

Please - you only make yourself look foolish posting pathetic, racial crap like this.

[MagsDem]

41. Oh I know, anything that doesn't buy into the hype....

is foolish, pathetic, racial crap, blah fucking blah. Cue BO supporters wailing, whining, gnashing of teeth. Reality sucks, doesn't it?

[blonndee]

43. Excuse, me, aren't you buying into the "hype" of bigots?

Racist fucks won't vote for the black man, so we better not vote for him either!!!!!!!

[MagsDem]

49. Electibility is important to me....

I won't vote for him under any circumstances, either a primary or GE, but it isn't because he is black. It's because he panders to anti-gay bigots and he lies about issues, and he's horribly unqualified.

I would certainly vote for him in the GE (although not the primary, because I don't think he is electible) if it weren't for those things.

[blonndee]

51. Then why are you making this about race?

Why not make your other points instead of suggesting that RACE should be the reason we shouldn't vote for him?

[MagsDem]

69. Where did I suggest that?

I'm acknowledging reality, not endorsing it.

[blonndee]

77. Are you kidding?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4813647&mesg_id=4813647

[MagsDem]

97. It may well be about race for some people, but I didn't "make" it that way

What a stupid thing to suggest. Acknowledging an issue exists is not saying it's good. It just is. Like a lot of BO supporters, you need to take an introductory course in logic.

[blonndee]

107. Um, excuse me, you cite a poll about "white democrats"

and then follow up by saying, basically, "this is what we've been saying. He is unelectable." Tell me that you're not posting this because you support Hillary or simply don't like Obama for other reasons, and I'll believe you that you're not making this about race.

And resorting to personal attacks doesn't make your so-called "logic" any stronger. My and others' ability to see what you're doing for what it is says nothing about our "logic," but much about your own lack of substantive arguments FOR your candidate. What you said above about your reasons for not voting for him was closer to what I would expect from a reasonable person; but resorting to this kind of tactic as you have done in this thread undermines your efforts. I won't attack you as you have felt the need to do to me, however.

[MagsDem]

114. It's not a poll "about" white democrats -- did you read the link?

It's an overall analysis and demo breakdown of the various candidate's support. Now get on the fucking reality train or don't -- your choice. But I don't pretend I am somehow responsible for the reality that exists.

And don't lecture me about personal attacks, please. Not when you jump into a thread and call me a racist because you're too fucking lazy to read the data at the link.

[blonndee]

118. Where did I call you a racist? And why so defensive? n/t

[MagsDem]

125. Right here....

"Why not make your other points instead of suggesting that RACE should be the reason we shouldn't vote for him?"

You shouldn't vote for him because he panders to homophobic anti-gay bigots, and because he is prone to lying.

But, regardless, the bottom line is he is unelectable.

[blonndee]

134. That's calling you a racist? It is not. Quit making false accusations against me.

Make your case for your candidate instead. Race-baiting. fear-mongering, and pandering to bigots isn't working here, and everyone sees it for what it is.

[kid a]

50. hype? thats funny! I think its beyond hype now.

Why would you hype numbers that are already quite obvious?

Have you researched how many female, African American woman will not vote for Clinton?
Search that figure and get back to me.

=)

BO 08!

[MagsDem]

81. They are already quite obvious?

Huh, then I wonder why so many Obama supporters told me I was FOS when I pointed out that he would have this problem several weeks ago?

[New Dawn]

40. We already knew that right-wing "Dixiecrats" support Clinton

I.e. Bill Nelson.

[bowens43]

44. more racist bullshit.....

you HIllary supporters are pathetic.

[MagsDem]

71. It's reality -- just like it's reality that people have never elected

... a woman president in this country even though they are half the fucking population. Get a grip on it.

[mkultra]

48. article also says

Hillary Clinton's support levels have slipped across the board among Democrats. Clinton leads Obama only among white women voters, those ages 65 and older, and voters with household incomes of less than $30,000 a year.

So basically, the same dems who would jump to mccain are the HRC base.

[onenote]

52. lets go to some other numbers: same source

46 percent of men will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. 51 percent will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

And, Obama beats McCain by 20 points among female independents, while Clinton only ekes out a 3 percent win over McCain among female independents.

When you consider that despite what they may be saying now, many voters who identify themselves as Democrats (including women who identify themselves as Democrats) will "come home" and support the party's nominee in November, whether its Obama or Clinton, the importance of independent voters becomes quite apparent. And Obama cleans up among indpendent voters, particularly women.

Inconvenient truths.

[kid a]

55. thank you..i doubt she read that far

[MagsDem]

99. I see, so they didn't mean what they told the pollsters?

Interesting concept. I guess if those delusions get you through the night, that's okay. But you know, I heard the same ridiculous delusions from Kerry supporters in 2004. Oh yeah, a MA liberal could so win a red state, and FOR SURE FL and OH. That worked out well, didn't it?

Sorry, I'd have to say when 20% of white democrats won't vote for you, and McCain, a favorite of the independents you're pretty much fucked.

[onenote]

215. I'm pretty sure its clear where the delusions on this thread are.

I think its a pretty safe bet that voters who identify themselves as Democrats are more likely, in the end, to change their position and support the party's candidate than it is that independent voters, who say that they don't support a particular candidate -- particularly a candidate with whom they are very familiar -- will suddenly change their position.

So, in a sense, yes. Many of the Democrats who told pollsters that they were for McCain over Obama probably don't mean it and the ten point difference in white male Democratic support for McCain v. Obama as opposed to McCain v. Clinton will narrow. But the female independents who, by a much bigger margin, lean towards Obama v. McCain than Clinton v. McCain, will largely stay with that position, since they have no party loyalty tugging on them in the end. Their opposition to HRC is,imo, wrongheaded, but it would be a huge mistake to pretend it will go away.

[Unsane]

53. You're a joke.

[cd3dem]

54. Hillary clinton is more electable!!!!!

Obama people are sucking up the fantasy that people are going to vote for Obama if he is the nominee.... You may not agree with MagsDem's points as policy but they are a reality! Many older voters are not going to go for it! They have been disenfranchised in the Caucus states as they are afraid to go into crowds and many are at night when they do not drive...

This is why the republicans and independents are voting in the open caucuses and primaries for Obama... not so they can vote for him in the GE but they want McCain or any republican to win! Obama people are so full of "Happy Juice" they can not see the world they live in! You are being taken for saps!

Bush got elected and middle class people voted for him because they wanted to fight the terrorists there not here! Are these same people going to vote for Barack Hussein Obama? GET REAL!!!

[mohc]

62. Regardless of that being true

You simply can not infer that from the poll being cited. He may be trailing among white Democrats, but he has a bigger lead over McCain than Clinton does. I would happily trade the support of 10% of white Democrats that will not vote for Obama but will vote for Clinton in return for the greater support Obama has among other groups. The quicker we get the bigots out of the party the better.

[cd3dem]

70. those polls on Obama and McCain are a joke!

they are made to fool people... my friend took a poll once and then started getting mailings from the far right! she was the secretary for her district.... they looked into the records and it said she voted for Bush. and was identified as leaning republican... she was Right to Life and a bunch of other BS...

she has never voted for a republican and is pro-choice...

I get calls and refuse to answer them... because I know they will lie! Obama people believe what they want and the polls are made to persuade people... old people are stuck in the 50's and 60's... my ex. says he would rather vote for Hillary b/c she has her husband to lean on... he is a red-neck construction worker... that is how they are!

it is meant to screw with your head!

[mohc]

79. If the poll is a joke

Then the white Democratic defector percentage from this poll is a joke too. You can't decide which numbers you will and will not trust from a single poll just because it fits your view.

[cd3dem]

90. I really do not know what this poll is! I know what people tell me!

Old people are prejudice! Lots of white blue collar workers won't vote for a black man! I am a white woman and this is what they tell me!

[mohc]

103. Oh ok

You're one of those anecdotal evidence trumps polling types. In other words completely irrational. Of course there are some bigots that will not vote for a black man, just as there are bigots that will not vote for a woman. All in all Obama is doing MUCH better among people that do not fall into those 2 categories than Clinton is. And yes, some of the reason Obama is doing better is because of irrational hatred of Clinton not related to sexism but of an anti-Clintonism the right has fostered over the last 16 years. But what truly gives Obama the edge is the appeal he has to new voters, young voters and disenchanted voters. If you and some of your friends can not bring yourselves to vote for Obama, well that is too bad, but there are millions lining up all over the country to take your place.

[cd3dem]

116. he appeals to people who are uneducated...

My friend works in a senior building... 100's of old people... they don't like Obama... they like Hillary because she has experience too...

I am not telling them how to think...

I personally do not care if a person is black, white or whatever... I do not like Obama first. b/c he has no experience to be president... and then he played the race card! that last one makes it impossible for me to support him... used to like him as a person... in years I may have voted for him... after he got some experience... but I do not like him AT ALL now...

I would rather vote for a DUCK!

[mcctatas]

199. last I heard he appealed to those with a college education over

hillary, insinuating Obama supporters are stupid is pretty freaking desperate!

[cd3dem]

327. uneducated politically!!!!! they don't know a flippin' thing about real issues...

people who have to work a long hard day and barely make ends meet know more about life than college educated people who go to the office and sit by their pool in the evening...

I am college educated but I am not the norm...

[mcctatas]

336. Condescending much...

I come from a long line of overeducated/underpaid folks, and believe me, not one of has a pool to sit by in the evening. My husband is a college educated house painter and my great grandfather worked as a janitor at Yale so he could go to school there. Not everyone with a college degree is a Wharton School of Business asshole! Obviously you got just enough education to turn you into a pedantic boor!

[aasleka]

313. ?what?

OK first the oldest generation ussually decides who wins at the polls because they are the only relkiable demographic to show up. However there is an unprecedented wave of people who have been disenfranchised or couldn't care less hearing that this time might be different. Hence the biggest primary rallies ever, that translates into instead of only 20 percent of the population ACTUALLY voting in the GE to maybe upwards of 40 percent.

BTW Clinton couldn't get healthcare passed with a Democratic congress and a Democratic President why would you think she can do it now?

So far Obama has shown he has a better campaign that was better thought out and prepared, he used his finances better and inspires more voters to the polls. That is experience to me.

[Faygo Kid]

65. OK - so go out and WIN. You can't beat him? Cut the racist crap, at least.

"Barack Hussein Obama"?

Those of us who support him are "saps?"

Go out and WIN. Go out and WIN the nomination. WIN some elections, for a change. Cut the name calling, cut the crap, just cut it out. Go out and win. Break your 11-loss streak.

You accuse us of being full of "Happy Juice," but Barack is winning,and you are reduced to this drivel. And I assure you, I know exactly what kind of world I live in. It's one I want to change, and Barack Obama is the agent who is going to make it happen.

So quit complaining, and win some elections.

[cd3dem]

83. if we had just primaries and they were open only to declared democrats, Hillary would have...

more than enough delegates from votes and no need for super-delegates...

Don't yell at me for being a messenger... I listened to people making 25K say they were voting for Bush because he was going to make them safe! Are these same people going to vote for Barack Hussein Obama?

I personally won't vote for him because he played the race-card to get votes! I liked the guy before he ran! but he is so dirty in his tactics I would rather lose all my rights or move to Canada, than to vote for him!

In all my years, I have never seen anything more shameful than this so-called campaign! I myself do not care if he is black... I don't like the race card played against fellow democrats!

[mcctatas]

139. If wishes were horses dreamers would ride...

and Hillary would hypothetically, by your estimation be ahead...IF we lose because Obama is the nominee, I'll personally donate my frequent flier miles to fly your delusional ass to Canada (one way)...freaking pathetic, no wonder why the pukes beat us all the time, they can get past personal feelings to deliver a win to a party they believe in...I can't stand Hillary anymore, think she has run a dirty campaign full of rovian tactics, but I would crawl naked through broken glass to elect her if she were our nominee!..."rather lose all my rights"... :wtf:...weak sauce cd3, weak sauce! :rant:

[aasleka]

314. what race card?

[The River]

93. Well Said

Tuesday can't come soon enough.
When H.R.H.H.C. gets nothing but R.I.
it will be over.

Hopefully it will move the Hillary Cult Members
past the denial, grieving and anger stages
and into the acceptance phase of coping with loss.

[MagsDem]

120. Isn't it interesting that BO has won so many races in a row, yet...

He's only ahead by 80 delegates and 300K overall in the primary popular vote?

You have irrational exuberance in a really bad way. If he does manage to win the nomination, it should be pretty damn clear he doesn't stand a chance in the GE. But hey, you'll have your Hillary hate to keep you warm for the next 8 yrs, right?

[NEDem]

124. Why are you avoiding answering Nance,at post #57?

[MagsDem]

126. Avoiding? There are like 120 posts to this thread all ready

I haven't even read all of them yet. Get a grip.

[NEDem]

127. Then why won't you answer directly?

Got something to hide?

[Yukari Yakumo]

132. It's called cowardice

Mags knows Nance will destroy her. To claim "too busy with other threads" is abject bullshit.

[NEDem]

133. Yep, MAGSDEM IS SCARED OF NANCEGREGGS

at least that's how it looks to me.

Prove me wrong magsdem, answer Nance.

[MagsDem]

148. Try to hold yourself together -- I responded to her while you were ranting on...

about why I hadn't yet. Jesus christ, like I respond to each and every post immediately. You don't mind if I actually read the posts first, do you? Thanks.

[NEDem]

149. .

[juajen]

235. It's hard to beat Obama when he has the replubican vote going for him. Too bad they won't be there

in November. Just remember, we told you. BTW, we cannot help it if his middle name is Hussein. He just needs to own it. There's nothing wrong with it. He's just afraid it will get to his republicans. It doesn't bother us dems.

[DemBones DemBones]

349. Right. Why don't Obamaniacs get it that the crossover

votes from Republicans have been going to Obama because the GOP is sure they can beat a freshman senator with lots of sizzle but no real meat about him?

Why don't they get it that all the media fawning over Obama is a sure sign the GOP wants to run against him?
Don't they know who owns the media?

Why don't they get it that people can lie to pollsters who ask them who they'll vote for?

[MagsDem]

104. Thanks for making those points

I think you are exactly correct. An excellent example of your comments about caucuses can be shown right here in WA state. Obama won the caucuses by 30 plus precent here, but a few weeks later, in the non-binding primary 3x as many people voted and he barely eeked out a victory.

And yes, BO supporters have drunk so much kool aid they can't see basic realities of electoral college politics. We dems have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating unelectable pres candidates. It's very sad. Hopefully, one day our party base will wake up and get a clue. We also need to get rid of the caucus system so that we can get a nominee that will actually be supported by our party in the GE.

[cd3dem]

119. exactly, 6.3 % of a state in a caucus does not represent us!

we brag about the voter turnout... but it is chaotic and frankly invites voter fraud... I know there was fraud in our state on caucus night... heard of voters bused in and handed Obama ballots... never wrote down their names and were documented.. not sure if they could read or write or were even citizens...

put their pre-written ballots in the box and got back on the bus... all Somalians... but the votes counted!

and Florida and Michigan are nothing!... no no no... can't count those b/c they went to Hillary!

I wear my political buttons everywhere and people stop me and say... when are you guys going to nominate more moderate candidates? I don't like voting for the republican but all you nominate are liberal liberals...

Obama is more liberal than Hillary... not gonna happen! we keep kickin' ourselves in the ass!!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

151. are you sure you're on the right message board?

now we're "too liberal" for your friends and acquaintances? Surely you meant to post that kind of crap at your other site.....

[dionysus]

191. are you just the sidekick racist\troll?

or are you so stupid you've actually been duped by a freeper?

[cd3dem]

326. just because red-necks tell me what they think does not make me a racist!

I have no problem with diversity...

my problem with Obama is he is a race-card player! and he has no experience to be president!

and his lack of experience is not going to get racists to change their mind and vote for him!

[Alexander]

197. You call our nominees "liberal liberals" while sporting a Wellstone avatar?

Fuck off, troll.

[cd3dem]

325. your name calling is rude!!!!

I love Paul Wellstone and he is a man as no other! but he knew his liberal leanings were not going to win him a lot of votes from moderates... MN is a liberal state and he was liked for his outspoken nature... he took a lot of hits and finally was murdered for his liberal beliefs as it was the only way to get rid of him... so back off and do not speak to me about Paul Wellstone... I have known him and admired him... keep your profanity to yourself...

[Alexander]

330. And your ranting is just plain crazy.

"but he knew his liberal leanings were not going to win him a lot of votes from moderates..."

They did. That's why he was re-elected twice and his poll numbers went up after voting against the IWR.

"he took a lot of hits and finally was murdered for his liberal beliefs as it was the only way to get rid of him..."

You state this like it's a fact, which it isn't.

"so back off and do not speak to me about Paul Wellstone..."

I'll talk to whomever I want, about whomever and whatever I want. If you're so damn touchy that you can't handle it, then maybe you should go elsewhere.

[cd3dem]

332. I will do and say what I wish and no pushy rude person is going to control this woman!

[dionysus]

179. please take the wellstone avatar off you disgrace...

[Alexander]

184. Wellstone would be disgusted by the Clintons' tactics this year.

Frankly, so am I.

But I will still vote for her if she becomes the nominee, which hopefully she won't.

[dionysus]

189. it will take me approximately 3.78 bowlpacks before i will be able to do it...

[democrattotheend]

180. Aren't caucuses usually dominated by older people?

They tend to be the most active, so I would think they would be the most likely to participate in caucuses. and I think that has been the case in previous years.

[Alexander]

187. Yep, older white people. Hillary's base. And yet they vote for Obama.

[NanceGreggs]

57. Well, let's HEAR IT, MagsDem ...

Let's do a quick recap, shall we?

On Monday, February 25th, @ 11:16 PM (EST) you posted:

"If the dem party started out to nominate a guy that could be more easily swift boated then John Kerry, they couldn't have planned it any better. Hillary and Bill have had everything in the world thrown at them -- there is nothing left to say that isn't old news and won't stink of desperation.

But no, we nominate an inexperienced black "liberal" candidate from Chicago, with Hussien for a middle name, and a muslim ethic (sic) background. Brilliant. Just brilliant. There are so many avenues for attack open there it is almost as if we are begging for it. No one can tell me, after this primary election, that Dems have a brain in their heads."

Today, Thursday, February 28th, @ 7:49 a.m., you posted:

"The media, by insisting this be a race between our two most unelectable candidates (with a healthy assist from Obama kool aid drinkers) has all but handed it to McCain."

And tonight you post the piece of garbage above.

So exactly what IS your agenda, MagsDem? You're obviously not an Obama supporter. And you've referred to Hillary as one of "our TWO most unelectable candidates", even though you posted less than 48 hours ago that "Hillary and Bill have had everything in the world thrown at them -- there is nothing left to say that isn't old news and won't stink of desperation." - so you're obviously not a Hillary supporter.

I've yet to see you come out for Kucinich, Biden, or Edwards - or any other Democrat.

Is your only purpose in posting here to spread your bigotry and anti-Democratic BS?

It would certainly seem that way - I'm patiently awaiting your response. Let's hear what you really stand for, "MagsDem" - inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

[Ichingcarpenter]

72. Thank you Nance...I want an answer too

It is overt racism and the poster even acknowledges it.
Shameful and it disgraces this site.

[Ichingcarpenter]

76. I don't think she will answer you

but I hope other people read what you wrote.

[NanceGreggs]

98. No, she won't ...

... and that proves my point. I have been posting replies on MagsDem OPs over and over - and she never responds. And I know I'm not on IGNORE, because she posts on MY threads.

Still waitin', MagsDem - we're ALL waiting ...

[Ichingcarpenter]

100. Come on MAgsDem.......Answer Nance.... or MagsDems supporters.

Debate this now!

[Yukari Yakumo]

123. Kick for Nance

I, however, do not play nice. So excuse the following language.

Mags, you pig racist bitch. I want you right here, right now, and I want you to take everything Nance has got for you.

Or are you just a coward?

[MagsDem]

158. Okay with you if I work my way down the thread?

I did indeed respond to her -- happy to do it. Let's see if she responds. In the meantime, okay with you if I read the rest of the thread while we wait? You folks really need to get a grip, you know that?

[rodeodance]

173. best to you:-)

[greguganus]

84. Good work Nance! Kicking for you! n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

137. Still no answer?

I believe this racist troll may not be too forthcoming. It lives in a deluded reality.

[MagsDem]

167. nance doesn't seem to want to respond to my response to her

Could be she's just busy. :)

[NEDem]

178. Get a grip, she was responding while you were ranting

[MagsDem]

145. Get a grip on reality

You call it garbage, I call it reality from the Pew Research Center -- not exactly slack organization when it comes to polling and analysis. I'm flattered that you think you have read each and every post I have ever made to DU, but the fact is that I was an Edwards supporter. Have been since Dean dropped out of the 2004 race. I've posted that many, many, many times.

I wouldn't vote for Obama for dog catcher, and I have been very clear about why. I don't think it's a secret. HRC would be infinitely better, although I acknowledge that she will have some problems with electibility as well because of sexism. I do think she can win FL and AR, and TN, and she'll win in the blue states, so by my count that's enough to win the GE. I don't Obama can pick up a single red state for the reasons detailed in this poll.

Now, for someone that fancies themselves as such an intellectual as you seem to, it's pretty fucking bone-headed to suggest that because a person is intelligent enough to know that racism and sexism exist they must be a racist or sexist. I've seen BO supporters making the accusations since the election began, and frankly it just makes you look like morons to anyone with any intelligence. But by all mean, be my guest. The rest of us will meet you later once you decide to get on the reality train (or are forced to after Nov).

[NanceGreggs]

169. Oh, I am well aware that racism exists ...

... as you have pointed out over and over, to wit:

"If the dem party started out to nominate a guy that could be more easily swift boated then John Kerry, they couldn't have planned it any better. Hillary and Bill have had everything in the world thrown at them -- there is nothing left to say that isn't old news and won't stink of desperation.

But no, we nominate an inexperienced black "liberal" candidate from Chicago, with Hussien for a middle name, and a muslim ethic (sic) background. Brilliant. Just brilliant. There are so many avenues for attack open there it is almost as if we are begging for it. No one can tell me, after this primary election, that Dems have a brain in their heads."

In other words, the Democratic Party (as you see it) stands for the idea that "Non-Whites Need Not Apply" when it comes to running for elected office - especially if you come from a certain city, and have a "muslim ethic (sic) background", with "Hussein" for a middle name.

Yeah, I see what you mean about racism ...

And no, please don't flatter yourself that I have read your every post - you simply caught my attention when you started posting your own bigoted ideas and tried to pass them off as "voicing your concerns" about bigotry.

And you needn't have expressed your opinion that you "wouldn't vote for Obama for dog catcher" - after all, who really wants a dog-catcher with a funny-sounding middle name and that "muslim ethic background", right?

So please keep posting about that "racism problem" - no one truly illustrates that "problem" in as glaringly obvious terms as you do.

[MagsDem]

185. You have a problem with critical thinking, Nance

First of all, you accuse me of NOT posting something, to wit... support for what I would define as more electable candidates. I would have to assume in order for you to make that judgment, you think you'd read every one of my posts. Otherwise it's pretty damn irresponsible, not to mention illogical for you to accuse me of something for which you have no proof. But I will accept that you concede the point that you shot off that accusation in ignorance since you admit you have not read all of my posts.

Second, I have been extremely clear in saying that I will not vote for a candidate that gives a microphone to a homophobic bigot like McClurkin to spew hatred against gays for 30 min on stage, so he can capture the votes of other homophobic bigots. I also would never vote for a candidate that cravenly pandered to racist voters or anti-semtic voters. It's called having principles. So, no, he's not getting my vote for any office, ever, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his name or his race.

The racism problem exists, as does the sexism problem. I did not invent them, nor am I responsible for them. And I reject the moronic idea that discussing them makes a person a racist or sexist. Again, your critical thinking skills are lacking.

[NanceGreggs]

208. My reference to your not posting ...

... positive things about other Democrats comes from the fact that since you caught my attention (which, as I've said, started with your bigoted remarks about Obama), I've never seen you say anything about, "This is why I support so-and-so instead."

So now you take the high road with your remarks about "homophobic bigots who spew hatred against gays". That's truly interesting.

When do you start explaining your remarks about Obama being unelectable because he's a "black from Chicago, with a muslim ethic (sic) background", who has "Hussein" for a middle name?

Or were you just trying to point out what other people are saying, NOT YOU, and you just forgot to mention that in your post last night?

[MagsDem]

224. Isn't that exactly what this poll tends to show?

You seem to want to continue to pretend that because a problem exists the person that acknowledges it endorses it. That is what I mean about your apparent lack of ability to think critically.

Let me see if I can make it easier for you to wrap your head around basic concepts here... would you acknowledge that a gay, atheist candidate from San Fransisco would be unlikely to get elected president in this country? Would you need a poll to confirm to yourself that it was very unlikely?

Now let's assume you can apply common sense and agree a gay atheist from San Fran wouldn't have a farmer's chance of hell of being elected president in this country. Yes?

Ooops, that makes you a complete fucking bigot Nance.

No, you say? You're not?

Now run off and stop making specious accusations that you pulled out of your rear end, okay?

[NanceGreggs]

231. If a gay atheist from San Francisco ...

... was pulling in the supporters and the campaign donations that Obama has been pulling in, NO, I wouldn't get on a Democratic board and start telling people that he was an unelectable "fairy". If he was speaking to SRO crowds across the nation, NO, I wouldn't be pointing out the fact that his middle name is something everyone should be concerned about.

(Maybe "Uday" - that sounds like a "gay" terrorist, doesn't it?)

You can couch your remarks in that "I'm ONLY trying to be helpful here" bullshit, but I ain't buying - and neither are a lot of people here.

And you STILL haven't defended (uh, explained) your remarks about Obama having that "muslim ethic" (sic) thing ...

[MagsDem]

233. I didn't ask you that.... and that's not the discussion you appear...

to want to have. You can disagree with me on whether his electibility should ever be mentioned. It doesn't seem to be off limits about HRC, so it's a pretty hypocritical statement for you to make, but so be it. The issue is making specious accusations that a person is racist because they realistically acknowledge that racism, specifically that of southern white democrats, is going to very possibly have an effect on this election. That IS the point of portions of this analysis. Is the Pew Research Center racist as well? Sorry, but your argument is utterly ridiculous.

And why the quotes around the word "fairy"? I haven't used any racist slurs about Obama, nor anyone else in my lifetime. So far in this discussion you'd be the only one posting bigoted slurs.

[NanceGreggs]

237. My original question still remains ...

... no matter how often you choose to dodge it.

You said, and I quote:

"If the dem party started out to nominate a guy that could be more easily swift boated then John Kerry, they couldn't have planned it any better. Hillary and Bill have had everything in the world thrown at them -- there is nothing left to say that isn't old news and won't stink of desperation.

But no, we nominate an inexperienced black "liberal" candidate from Chicago, with Hussien for a middle name, and a muslim ethic background. Brilliant. Just brilliant. There are so many avenues for attack open there it is almost as if we are begging for it. No one can tell me, after this primary election, that Dems have a brain in their heads."

Please explain HOW those remarks are merely a reflection of what others are saying about Obama, and are NOT actually your own words. That doesn't sound like 'acknowledging' racism to me - but it sure sounds like promoting it.

And (it would seem OBVIOUS) I used the word "fairy" to demonstrate how bigotry can be injected into a discussion -- kind of like the same way you used the words "muslim ethic"

[MagsDem]

249. Again, a strawman

I didn't say ANYONE was saying those things about Obama, though I am sure some folks are. However, having lived and worked in the south for 20 yrs, before I finally had the opportunity to move to a blue state there are some things that are very clear to me:

1. They don't like gay people

2. They don't like "libruls"

3. They still make racist remarks on a daily basis

4. They are afraid of muslims

5. They aren't overly crazy about "yankees" and think they should stay in the north

I think in that thread I was careful to say, no, not all southerns, but there is still quite a bit of prejudice in the south, and it certainly isn't confined to rethugs either. People are kidding themselves if they think it is. Now by my count John Kerry had 2 of those five strikes against him, and as predicted he got his butt whupped and didn't win a single red state. Obama has 3 of them, and 4 if the rethugs can make people believe he is a secret muslim. It is NOT a coincidence that the only 2 dem presidents in your lifetime were both from the south. This poll, like it or not, proves the point I have been making.

I wish someone could show me the electoral college math that makes a case for how Obama can win. I think he sucks, but that's beside the point. How can he win if 20% of white dems won't even vote for him? 10% of white dems won't vote for Hillary. Which also proves the point that she is slightly more electable than he is, but also will suffer because of sexism. Hell, half of DU is rampantly sexist against her. God forbid a mod ban anyone that does that. No, you want the wrath saved for those who acknowledge the reality of racial and gender politics in this country. Sorry, but that's fucked.

You can rail on from now until the general election, but that isn't going to change the fact that we AGAIN picked candidates that are going to have a very, very hard time winning a majority of the electoral college. Denying racism and sexism exists is foolish. If you really want a dem president you need to face reality. If you don't -- if you just want to feel good and continue to let rethugs rule, then do that. But don't whine, and most importantly, don't blame gay people like DU'ers did in 2004 when we lose again.

[NanceGreggs]

257. You STILL haven't answered my query ...

You posted:

"But no, we nominate an inexperienced black "liberal" candidate from Chicago, with Hussien for a middle name, and a muslim ethic background. Brilliant. Just brilliant. There are so many avenues for attack open there it is almost as if we are begging for it. No one can tell me, after this primary election, that Dems have a brain in their heads."

Please explain how those words are NOT promoting the idea that Obama is unelectable based on race and some peripheral 'association' with "The Muslim ethic (sic)" per YOUR OWN WORDS - no link to a pundit, no link to a 'survey' analysis - YOUR WORDS.

Is the idea that Democrats "don't have a brain in their heads" if they have a candidate who is black? Is your idea of the Democratic Party "no non-whites need apply"? Or is your idea that Democrats should only nominate candidates that the GOP find "acceptable'?

And I apologize in advance if I am mistaken - but wasn't it YOU who, a few weeks ago, posted a thread about Obama "buying votes" in the primary/caucus states by handing out cash to "blacks who needed the money" to participate and vote for Obama in exchange for bucks? (Again, I apologize if I have you confused with someone else - but I'm pretty sure it WAS you, because in all of my years on DU, that was the only time I 'alerted' on a thread. And I WILL do the necessary searches tomorrow to confirm who that WAS.)

[MagsDem]

261. First, don't put quotes around words I have never written

Second, I think I have been very clear on the issue of why I think it makes NO SENSE to continue to nominate dem candidates that cannot get elected in the GE. It's about ELECTIBILITY. I'm sorry you can't grasp that, but that doesn't mean I have to dumb myself down and pretend electibility issues don't exist. Maybe you find it more palatable if we pretend they don't exist, but that's your problem, not mine. So yes, I think it is stupid to keep nominating people that have huge electibility issues to transcend. I'm a little tired of rethugs in the WH.

Second, get ready to apologize, I have NEVER suggested that Obama paid "blacks" to vote in caucuses. You might have wanted to check that out BEFORE you posted such complete bullshit. But I suppose it is to be expected of a person that calls people racist because they aren't incapable of recognizing that racism exists in this country.

Have I said I suspect Obama has paid kids to "organize" and vote in caucuses in WA state -- yes, I have. I am very active in my precinct. I have worked the polls, knocked every door for dem candidates in this precinct, and I have a son in high school. During the last cycle my partner was the precinct committee chair. I KNOW the people in my precinct. So yes, I found it quite curious that there were at least 15 very young boys (all boys by the way) that showed up to vote for Obama in my precinct that I had never laid eyes on in my life. I was hardly the only one that noticed. As you may know, caucuses don't require you to register, prove you live in the precinct or anything like that. You can just show up and vote. But I never said they were black, and in fact, if I remember correctly I don't think any of them were. For one thing, it would be completely irrelevant.

Curiously enough, Obama has also spent more on campaign "salaries" than any other candidate in history, and if you go into the FEC detail you will see it is almost all on temp agencies. Caucuses are about the most undemocratic method of nominating a candidate that one can imagine. They exclude voters that don't have time to be at the polling place at a precise exact time, or cannot stay for the length of time required. And they are easily manipulated by candidates.

WA state is a perfect example of this. We held a non-binding primary several weeks after our caucuses. Obama won the caucuses and 2/3rds of the delegates by 30% over HRC. Several weeks later, the primary, which awards no delegates saw 3x as many people turn out and he won by only 3%.
That means 400K people's votes were ignored, as if they did not matter. That's not democracy in my book.

Now see if you can lay off the specious accusations given that you don't know anything about me.

[NanceGreggs]

264. Yes, then it was you ...

... who posted the thread I'm talking about, the one I alerted on.

You can call your remarks "a matter of recognizing racism" as frequently as you want - and apparently, you will.

But the fact remains - you STILL haven't explained your comments about the fact that Dems don't have a brain if they nominate candidates of colour who have 'muslin ethics' and the middle name 'Hussein'.

I'm still truly interested in how you 'square' those sentiments with being the "Big Tent" party that is open to everyone of like mindedness - or are we, as Dems, only meant to take the financial contributions, support and votes of non-whites while, at the same time, pointing out their obvious 'unelectability' when they dare to run for office?

Maybe you could explain that concept to everyone here - especially the enormous amount of people who are rallying around that non-white, muslim-ethic guy Barack Obama. I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your take on things.

(Edited to add: THIS is the thread I was talking about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4452778

And I do apologize. You didn't say "young blacks who needed the money" - that was someone else on another post. But that doesn't make your remarks on this thread any less offensive.)

[MagsDem]

270. Post a link to it then -- put up or shut up

That's a completely bullshit accusation on your part, so either post a link to it or apologize. If you can't make you argument without lying I suggest you not make it at all.

"But the fact remains - you STILL haven't explained your comments about the fact that Dems don't have a brain if they nominate candidates of colour who have 'muslin ethics' and the middle name 'Hussein'"

I have explained it to you ad nauseum. I'm sorry, but I am not responsible for your inability to grasp a simple concept such as electibility. As I have ALSO said, numerous times in this thread alone, you and anyone else is free to ignore that issue. Go right ahead, it's a free country. I, personally, think it's stupid to ignore that issue if we really want a democrat in the WH. That is MY opinion, which I am free to have, just like you're free to have yours, which I guess is that you don't care about electibility. What you aren't free to do is pretend I am racist because I can read polling data that shows it very well may be an issue in this election.

"I'm still truly interested in how you 'square' those sentiments with being the "Big Tent" party that is open to everyone of like mindedness - or are we, as Dems, only meant to take the financial contributions, support and votes of non-whites while, at the same time, pointing out their obvious 'unelectability' when they dare to run for office?"

You can support whomever you choose. Unfortunately, "Big Tent" only actually seems to apply to voters rather than candidates. In reality, which is the land I live in, Obama is the only black senator out of 100. There are, I believe, about 15 females senators out of 100 even though women make up 50% of the population. I am not personally responsible for that disparity. I vote for gay, female, and non-white candidates regularly. That doesn't, however, mean that I don't recognize that the disparity exists. So, spew your ire in someone else's direction because it's pointless to spew it at me.

Now, I will not respond to another post to you until you either include the link to my supposed comment about "black boys" that DOES NOT exist, or you apologize for making the false accusation. And really, how dare you even make such an accusation with absolutely nothing to back it up. That is beyond disgusting.

[NanceGreggs]

278. I've already posted the link to your previous thread ...

... actually, quite awhile ago now.

"Unfortunately, "Big Tent" only actually seems to apply to voters rather than candidates."

Yes, it does seem to apply only to voters and not candidates - in your estimation, anyway.

And the question still remains:

"But no, we nominate an inexperienced black "liberal" candidate from Chicago, with Hussien for a middle name, and a muslim ethic background. Brilliant. Just brilliant. There are so many avenues for attack open there it is almost as if we are begging for it. No one can tell me, after this primary election, that Dems have a brain in their heads."

Are Democrats who support black men from Chicago with "muslim ethics (sic)" and the middle name "Hussein" are brainless? Inquiring minds want to know.

Should all Democrats only support white citizens with middle names the GOP find "acceptable"? And if that is the case, shouldn't we just call the powers-that-be in the Republican party and ask them outright who Democrats should nominate, so as not to offend?

Silly me, I thought that Democrats who do the bidding of the GOP, and allow them to dictate the rules of engagement were spineless fools.

I thought this primary was about us, and not about them. I guess I'm just one of those uppity types who thinks for herself.

[MagsDem]

285. No, you accused me of saying Obama was paying "black boys"

to caucus for him, and I said no such thing. You lied about that. Deliberately. Multiple times. And that would make you a liar. So this discussion is over. Period.

[NanceGreggs]

288. And you have undoubtedly seen ...

... my apology for having said so - because it was someone else who said that, not you.

But, as is your wont, don't ever let facts stand in the way of your arguments. And what you said on that thread was disgusting anyway ... even without the "black boys" comment. As far as You lied about that. Deliberately. Multiple times, (a) it wasn't a lie, as I said I didn't know if it was you who said that, and (b) I said it once - not 'multiple times'.

We can agree on one thing - this discussion is over. But I've still got my red dress ready and waiting for the appropriate occasion ...

[JeffR]

277. Nice of you to emphasize the fact that they were "boys"

You give a clearer and clearer picture of where you're coming from all the time.

[MagsDem]

286. I emphasized the fact that there were boys because I have a son...

in high school, and I know all the boys his age in the neighborhood. Which is something I made quite clear in the original post. Ever have fifteen 18 yr old boys just pop up all at once in your neighborhood that have never been seen or heard from before? So much for your "clearer" picture.

[JeffR]

287. Mm-hmm.

Sure thing.

BTW, the only reason you're not on "Ignore" is because I actually look forward to reading the next installment of your endless stream of bilge here over the past months. Keep 'em comin', please! I'll miss you when you're gone.

[MagsDem]

291. Why do people think anyone would care if they are on ignore?

I see this ignore crap from Obama supporters toward anyone they don't agree with all the time. Why should anyone give a shit if someone has them on ignore? Are you so arrogant to think I care if you read my posts? I don't know you from adam and whether you read my posts or not is completely irrelevant to me. For fuck's sake -- get over yourself already.

[JeffR]

292. I'm not really into myself, but I just can't get over you!

You're just fascinating, with your poorly-concealed racism, repeated deceptions, flimsy assertions, shallow generalizations and remarkable sophistry.

And BTW, I'm not really an Obama supporter. But he'll get my vote in the fall. At least that'll cancel out your enthusiastic support of John McCain.

[MagsDem]

296. You sure do have quite an imagination

My enthusiastic support of John McCain??? I don't support John McCain and have never even remotely implied that I did. Not voting for Obama does not = supporting John McCain. Sorry, I'm not taking a rethug style loyalty oath to support any democrat in this election, regardless of how onerous he may be.

Here is a great article you should read. Written by a black guy, even. :) Talks about people just like yourself:

"Many white Democrats who do not support Obama are keeping their heads down and their mouths shut. They do not want to be denounced as racists for preferring Hillary Rodham Clinton for reasons that have nothing to do with race."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/352909_maxwellonline29.html

The difference is I'm not keeping my mouth shut. The world is full of namecalling jerks like you, and I've just never been one to back down from people like that. No reason to start now.

[Yukari Yakumo]

298. Not voting for Obama does not = supporting John McCain?

Tell that to Gore in Jan 2001.
Lemme guess, you're voting for Nader?

While the world is full of jerks, DU can be free of racist stupid bitches like you.

Dear Skinner, TOMBSTONE HER ASS!

[JeffR]

320. Now you've gone and hurt my little feelings

:cry:

Seriously, though, when it comes to namecalling, being a jerk, working to demoralize and deceive fellow Democrats, and hurling innuendo and outright lies at this board just to see what sticks, you've set new standards here. As for not keeping your mouth shut, it was redundant of you to even point that out.

And I didn't say I don't support Obama. He was just a distant third in my candidate preferences when primary season began. He's number one by default now. You're the one who isn't going to vote for him, remember? Bottom line is if you don't vote for the nominee - and he's looking good to be that - then, yes, you're just allowing McCain to get one step closer to winning in November. What was his healthcare plan again?

[aasleka]

316. The south is changing

Don't know when you lived here but our neigbors in NC are more likely to be from New York, Massachussetts, Connecticut or Michigan than from the state of North Carolina.

Same with Virginia, Georgia etc..

[Yukari Yakumo]

194. You left an important word out...

I don't Obama can pick up a single red state for the reasons detailed in this poll.

You forgot the word "think", which is ironic because it obvious you don't think.

The whole basis of your original post is to bait people into voting for Hillary because some people won't vote for Obama because he is black. That is racism. No ifs, no ands, no buts.
And no matter how you dodge the issue, the real reason you won't vote for Obama is because he is black. That is racism. No ifs, no ands, no buts.
We all know racism and sexism still exist. But to try to use it to influence others? That is racism. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

Which leaves me to one conclusion. Mags, you are a racist. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

Furthermore, you also made it abundantly clear you do not support either Obama or Clinton. Let me remind you of something:

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

So, what the hell are you doing posting in GD: P?

Mags, pack your bags, and get the hell out of DU.

[MagsDem]

201. The point of the OP is to get a grip on reality

Now it may be a reality you don't like, but it is indeed a reality. I didn't invent it. Try to deal with it without calling people specious names.

[Yukari Yakumo]

216. However, what you are trying to do is crystal clear.

You may try to hide behinds polls and research, but that doesn't change a thing. You're trying to influence people on the basis of race. That is racism.

And therefore, you, Mags, are a racist. And that is reality.

[MagsDem]

229. I tend to think we should nominate someone that is electable

Yes, that is true. But they doesn't make me a racist. I'm gay, and I also don't think a gay person can be elected president. I will acknowledge that a black person or a woman has a better chance than a gay person, but understanding that this country is pretty damn well focused on having white, straight, males as CiC doesn't make me a bigot, a sexists or a racist.

Again, your accusations are specious.

Why no outrage about all the outright sexism directed at HRC by the way? It's on your TV on a daily basis; there are hundreds of posts to that effect here everyday. I mean fuck, we're half the population, but it seems fine with people to make sexist remarks day in and day out. It's a bit strange that there is all this outrage for even acknowledging racial prejudice, but almost none for the overt expressions of sexism.

I find it very curious.

[Yukari Yakumo]

240. You just revealed exactly why you are doing what you have been doing.

I tend to think we should nominate someone that is electable

You're just trying to provoke a war between the Clinton and the Obama camps because Edwards is out of the race. Not only are you a racist, you're a troll too.

You still dodge everything that I have called you out on.
My accusations are quite sound. You're trying to use race as a means to influence voters as to how they should vote. That is racism, and that makes you a racist. You have nothing to refute this fact.

[aasleka]

58. It is a PRIMARY! Since when have you seen tens of thousands

of people show up for primary speeches? The fact that there is record turnout in a primary bodes well for the GE, seriously it's already nuts with people fired up and ready to go, people who never vote are trying to get their shit together and find out what they have to do.

Obama's biggest crowd was about 30k? When have you EVER heard of a primary candidate speech drawing that kind of crowd? People are ready for Obama's message, it will take a lot of work but we CAN change our country and world. First we need to change how we treat each other and then maybe we can try for social changes.

[MagsDem]

160. That's wonderful, but it means nothing in the GE

[OHdem10]

60. A repeat of the 60s----Whites left the party in droves because

they felt shafted by Democrats.

[dionysus]

shafted dems by nominating one of those "negroes"?

how dare we....

[Lone_Star_Dem]

63. Where do these Democrats hail from??

It would seem to me that would be an important factor in this. If they're by majority from Alabama or Texas or any other majority RW state where the EV's don't go to the Democratic candidate then what does that really mean? Other than that those states may have issues with latent bigotry even within the Democratic party. Which I think for those of us who live in areas where this is an issue would not find that to be much of a surprise.

Also, polling such as this does not include new and renewed Democratic voters. Only those who voted in the past two elections as a Democrat are usually considered eligible.

[MagsDem]

165. I'm guessing mostly from red states

And it's just a guess, but having lived and worked in the south for the better part of 20 yrs it wouldn't surprise me. The sexism against Hillary is probably more evenly spread out.

The problem is he going to need at least one red state from 2004 to win. I don't see where he gets it.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

186. Speaking only of Texas

I'm going to bet that we've gained enough new and renewed Democratic voters this year to negate the few bigoted pre LBJ Democrats we still harbor.

As I said in my other post, these polls usually exclude new and renewed votes. They only count people who've voted in the past two elections.

Frankly, it will be a cold day in hell when I let a bigot tell me how I should vote.

[MagsDem]

198. I can't say I blame you

If I felt strongly about a candidate I probably wouldn't let it deter me either. But if I felt the choices were equal I would probably vote in favor of the more electible candidate. I mean I love a lot of Kucinich's policy ideas, but wouldn't suggest we nominate him for president.

[totodeinhere]

66. You started another thread about who "real Democrats" are.

And of course in your mind, Obama supporters are not real Democrats. But I submit to you that if we really want to know who is not a real Democrat it is a bigot who will let the color of a candidate's skin decide whether or not they will vote for him or her.

Edit - BTW, I don't believe that poll for a minute. The Democratic Party is better than that.

[MagsDem]

166. You're entitled to live in fantasy land if you want (n/t)

[Lint Head]

68. That is a sad statement if true.

:dem:

[democrattotheend]

73. New poll to see how many DUers that includes (white and black)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4813949

But please don't turn into a flame war. Amazingly, I put the poll up 15 minutes ago, and it has yet to get nasty.

[RDANGELO]

82. I suspect that a lot of these whites are Hillary supporters

who will eventually come to Barack. The Democratic Party will be united.

[Redstone]

86. I'm REALLY suprised that you're not sick of listening to yourself yet.

Redstone

[NanceGreggs]

274. Dearest Redstone ...

... always able to say in one sentence what the rest of us struggle to convey with a million words.

:loveya:

[anonymous171]

88. RACE CARD!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, what about clinton's numbers with males of all ages?

[jgraz]

204. ya think?

[rodeodance]

252. you toss out the Race card cause someone wants to discuss the effect of race

on this election?

shame on you.

[mckeown1128]

91. You post this as though it were a case for Hillary...

the same results show that she doesn't do as well against McCain as Obama does.. hmmm I guess all those Indies and Reps... Nice cherry picking of the results... You are really intellectually honest.

[The Straight Story]

96. Let's appease the racist and vote for a woman. Oh wait, the sexist won't vote for her

So let's vote for McCain :)

[NanceGreggs]

102. I'm REPLY #57, MagsDem ...

... just in case you missed it.

And I'm still WAITING ....

[CTLawGuy]

105. what's your point?

don't nominate him because he's black? I'm gonna miss you come March 13...

[blonndee]

109. I won't.

[CTLawGuy]

112. ok I won't either

you made me say it ;)

[mcctatas]

108. Lies, damned lies and statistics...

wow, way to skew that to make it say what you want...

More republicans and independants favor obama over clinoton, and while McCain leads Clinton 50% to 40% among independants, Obama leads McCain 49-43%...

before you grab a headline that suits your cause, you should take some time to look at the actual numbers :eyes:

[chapel hill dem]

113. In this red state of NC, the Republicans want Hillary to be the nominee

because they think it is easier to be a sexist than a racist.

They are actually saying this on some local talk radio shows!

[THUNDER HANDS]

115. polling Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller Democrats don't count

we don't want, and/or need them.

[TeamJordan23]

128. You do know how stupid this makes Hillary supporters look right? nm

[NanceGreggs]

135. MagsDem is no Hillary supporter ...

... as per her post of this morning:

"The media, by insisting this be a race between our two most unelectable candidates (with a healthy assist from Obama kool aid drinkers) has all but handed it to McCain."

Our TWO MOST UNELECTABLE CANDIDATES ...

Gee, I wonder who MagsDem was referring to? Obama and ... ?

[Yukari Yakumo]

163. Tombstone Maa~ags (clap, clap, clapclapclap), Tombstone Maa~ags (clap, clap, clapclapclap)...

Mags made it abundantly clear she won't support either HRC or Obama. What the hell is she doing posting here anyway?

[NEDem]

183. Tombstone Maa~ags (clap, clap, clapclapclap), Tombstone Maa~ags (clap, clap, clapclapclap)...

[MagsDem]

207. Oh come on Nance, don't be a coward

I thought we were having a nice dicussion up thread. If you want to continue the debate why not have the guts to do it there?

[NanceGreggs]

250. Oh, my bad ...

... I didn't realize there was a rule about where on the thread I was allowed to respond.

But dare I repeat myself - or, more accurately, repeat YOURSELF:

"But no, we nominate an inexperienced black "liberal" candidate from Chicago, with Hussien for a middle name, and a muslim ethic background. Brilliant. Just brilliant. There are so many avenues for attack open there it is almost as if we are begging for it. No one can tell me, after this primary election, that Dems have a brain in their heads."

I realize now that you are only repeating what pollsters are saying ... so perhaps you could provide a link to the survey that stated the above?

Thanks in advance!

[DemGa]

131. I figured right at 15-20% of the base would drop out for Obama

But still these numbers are striking -- and do fit what Dems with insight have been saying all along.

Factor in the loss of those independents and "repugs for Obama" and the outcome appears bleak for Obama.

[Faygo Kid]

138. "Dems with insight?" Why can't you beat us poor deluded cultists?

Geez, if you're such superior beings, why are you losing?

All we have are our cult leaders.

Klaatu Barada Nikto ("Yes We Can")

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ichingcarpenter]

140. #57 answer Nance

[Alexander]

141. You are SO going to get banned after March 4th.

And it will be hilarious to watch.

[Ichingcarpenter]

143. #57 answer Nance

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yukari Yakumo]

157. She won't last that long.

She'll get tombstoned by Monday, if not tonight.

[Alexander]

164. Hopefully not. But nothing surprises me any more.

[Forkboy]

144. Been nice knowing ya.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZBlue]

152. Congrats! You just won a big old fat "I" - I can't take even one more of your absurd rants.

Buh bye.

[Yukari Yakumo]

155. Don't worry...

Because... what's that I smell? I... I think...

I think I smell a megadose of granite in Mags's immediate future.

[Zorra]

154. I'm not a Clinton or Obama supporter.

I'll vote for whatever Dem is nominated.

But that is a very disturbing poll.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

182. YOU are beyond RUDE. shame on you. Discuss the OP instead of name--calling.

[dionysus]

200. i don't debate with racist freeper trolls, and if you're so blind to follow them,

well good luck to you....NOT

[rodeodance]

217. I was not debating with that poster and

if you think I was you are silly!---note that posters name was removed please.

[Alexander]

203. If you're supporting the racism in the OP, you have much more to be shameful about.

[rodeodance]

213. 2 points. 1, Op is citing some stats--that does not make her racist!. 2) as you

can see---the poster who called the OP has his name removed.

[dionysus]

219. oh, that's me, and you're supporting a racist OP... enjoy

[Yukari Yakumo]

232. Here's how she's showing her racist colors

She may be citing some stats, but she is trying to use them to influence voters. That is racism.

[MagsDem]

236. Your accusations are specious ....

The Pew Research Center is one of the most respected polling and analysis firms in this country. And if it hurts your feelings for them to do polling and analysis that reveal how factors such as race and gender are going to figure in to the voting during this election it's going to be a rough season for you.

[Alexander]

331. And your posts are racist. Get over it.

[ecstatic]

161. And many of that 20% post right here at DU

:eyes:

[RiverStone]

171. Then they are not Dems in my book...

Sorry - I just don't buy it.

No real Dem would see that war mongering bastard McCain as better than either of our candidates!

Do you enjoy posting stuff like this?

How does a story about a bunch of sheeple cowards help the Dems win the GE?

[JimGinPA]

174. Race Baiting? Are You Sure You're Posting In The Right Party's Forums?

:puke:

[AtomicKitten]

175. Well, that makes them douchebags then, doesn't it?

[rodeodance]

176. It gives pause that is for sure. Much higher than I would have thought.

"20% of white Democratic voters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee"
Posted by MagsDem


"That is twice the percentage of white Democrats who say they would support McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup. Older Democrats (ages 65 and older), lower-income and less educated Democrats also would support McCain at higher levels if Obama rather than Clinton is the party's nominee."

[DemGa]

181. Wow, it turns out Barack Obama is the "divisive" one!!

I have tried to tell people this is so -- always nice to see empirical backup.

[dionysus]

206. gloating because a poll suggests there's a pack of racist dems kinda makes you look like an ass...

[DemGa]

241. Really? How do you know it's because of racism?......nt

[dionysus]

247. just a hunch...i'm not kreskin however.....

[mmonk]

188. Then they need to switch parties and join the Reich stag.

[MagsDem]

192. Perhaps they should, but that isn't going to get us a Dem president

[mmonk]

196. I get your undercurrent. Fear based politics. It's no better

no matter where it comes from.

[kerstin]

193. Thank you for posting this.

No matter the nominee, we all need to know what we're up against come November.

And after reading some of the replies to your post, it's clear you are anything but a coward, Mags!:hide:

[dionysus]

209. congrats, you just got duped by a freeper....

[kerstin]

238. Well then she's a damn fine one. n/t

[jgraz]

202. Their 20% figure is complete bullshit on its face

The 20% of white voters who would vote for McCain? Just whom do you think their current primary candidate is? That's right, the one who's getting her ass handed to her by none other than Barack Obama.

How much of this 20% is simply sour grapes? How many of those bad feelings will fade once Hillary inevitably does the right thing and heartily endorses Obama?

I don't believe that 20% number for a second, and neither should you.

[Alexander]

211. I agree. 17-18% will vote for Obama once Hillary endorses him.

The other 2-3% are simply racists.

[MagsDem]

256. So your theory is that 20% of those polled lied to the pollster

Okay, gotcha. Your theory is it's impossible to believe that 20% of democrats have a preference that goes in this order... Clinton, McCain, Obama. In your world 100% of dems prefer the dem over the rethug no matter who the dem is.

Wow, that's a really unique way of looking at the world of election politics. Kind of non-sensical, but quite unique.

[jgraz]

315. You really don't have a single clue, do you?

I said nothing of the sort. Go back, re-read the post and the responses from others. Then we'll talk. But probably not.

[BringBigDogBack]

267. great post.

tho I'm afraid Mags has trouble with logic.

[jackson_dem]

272. How many voted for Bush?

10% will vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. Obama causes another 10% to defect. Is that shocking? Obama is winning the black vote by 70+ pointes and no one is surprised yet it is a shocker that St. Obama runs 10 points worse with whites than Hillary?

[jgraz]

308. Except there's this troubling little turd of a fact swimming in your punch bowl of supposition

In the last 3 primaries, Obama won the white demographic. Hmmm.... :shrug:

[citizen snips]

210. that is what my dad has been saying

but I hope this poll is wrong.

[Fox Mulder]

214. What a bunch of shit.

[Crunchy Frog]

218. Support Hillary because she's white.

Even though Obama polls better against McCain than Hillary does. :eyes:

[CyberPieHole]

220. According to the Obamanations on DU, they don't need these voters...

Obama doesn't need ANY of the voters who support Hillary Clinton...they tell me to "get on the train or get out of the way"...I'll step aside and watch the train derail. They feel they can do it without our support. We should let them and sit back and watch them lose in the GE.

:kick: and rec

[rodeodance]

223. Wasn't it obama who self-assuringly said he would get the support of Hilliary voters?

[CyberPieHole]

226. He takes us for granted...and I can assure you what I do to anyone who takes me for granted...

Let him get elected without any of our support. He told us that Hillary wouldn't get his voters...let's show him the flip side of that coin.:evilgrin:

[rodeodance]

227. i am with you on that.

[Forkboy]

228. Are you two part of that 20% of white voters?

If you are, that's sad.

If you're not, then what's this "us" you refer to? The OP isn't directed at all Hillary supporters, just white ones saying they won't vote for Barack. You sure that's a point you want to be siding with?

[Danger Mouse]

242. I saw an exchange of 'ignoreds'

:hi:

[Alexander]

260. Obviously, yes.

Some people can't get past the dark skin.

[Danger Mouse]

243. More fearmongering.

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

244. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thrill]

248. Oh MagsDem go ahead and say it. You're not going to vote for him

because he is black. Your true colors have been showing since this primary season started. You finally found a poll, that makes you feel good about yourself.

[woolldog]

251. Nah

She's not going to vote for him because he's "played the race card." :eyes:

[MagsDem]

254. I wouldn't vote for him if he was white, female, gay, jewish, latino

or the color green with orange spots. I won't vote for ANY politician who panders to anti-gay homophobic bigots to get votes from other bigots -- no matter what race, religion, creed, gender or sexual orientation they might happen to be. I don't know how I can be more clear than that.

As for your assumptions, they are bullshit. I have supported, right in the state of WA, the black dem candidate for govenor (Ron Sims) over the white female candidate (Christine Gregoire) in the 2004 primary. Specifically because he was solid on GLBT issues and she was a coward about them. I supported him with my donations, and with my time to phone bank and door knock. He didn't win, and I did vote for her in the GE. So KMA with your assumptions.

[Thrill]

259. uh huh. yeah right

[DefenseLawyer]

253. Well since Hillary has run such a kick ass campaign

too bad she isn't the nominee. Oh wait, she is HATED by about 45% of the population. I'm no Bob Shrum, but that might have been a bit of a problem in the general election. Yes some people may not like Obama. The difference is, he has the skill to change some of there minds. Hillary is despised, and she has the personality of a bar of soap, she's not changing anyone's mind. I blows my mind, that even after seeing what a truly horrible campaigner she turned out to be, you people are still under the delusion that she and her huge negatives ever had the best chance to win.

[Hutzpa]

255. Hopefully this is not a trait,

but with all these post, I can't help but think you have an hidden agenda,

now help me out here...what is it....you are an Hillbot that much have been

established, but what I don't get is the personal attacks coming from you,

most of them seem to be vile, but I'm sure its the primaries so we can

afford to be patient, heres to hoping this all dies with the primary.

Just to give you an idea; here are some of your post for February.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4542088


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4549108


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4772106

[barack the house]

258. God bless you. All the best March 4th.

[JVS]

262. Shit! We gotta reach out to old, white, uneducated voters

So should we nominate Matlock for VP or should we try to up the appeal to the older women by choosing Bob Barker

[Leopolds Ghost]

281. Older, white, uneducated voters better listen up or we'll give them the Bob Barker treatment.

[SoCalDem]

263. 80% who will..not bad :)

:rofl:

[ArfDogMNO]

265. gotta wonder how much of the diff between

the obama and clinton vs. mccain numbers is due to concerns about national security views, where clinton is definitely more hawkish.

There are more possible motivations to switch choices in the above examples than Race.

Edit - wow, the OP had a fairly balanced comment, but this thread is one huge race-card fest.

[woolldog]

276. It has to do with the OPs posting history.

[BringBigDogBack]

266. 20% huh? I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one.

Sorry.


But that's pure bullshit.

[jackson_dem]

268. The Obama doctrine police need to calm down. What a freakin cult

This isn't the first poll to show this. However, Obama offsets the extra defections with white Dems with gains among independents.

[BringBigDogBack]

273. Thanks, Hillbot.

'Cult' :thumbsdown:

[jackson_dem]

289. If Obamites don't want to be called a cult they need to stop acting like one

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4813647#4817110

[anonymous171]

323. How about the The Church of Clintonology?

[Joz]

269. I guess you don't know any republicans

Because if you talked to them you'd find out that they are really not that into McCain and probably won't show up to vote in November... unless Hillary Clinton is the candidate, then they'll show up just to vote against her.

Obama has not been exposed to the general non-news-watching public on a national level yet. And you should know what happens when people see an Obama speech by now.

Even the general non-hardcore republican is fascinated or at least interested in Barack. Hillary is very polarizing and the most moderate republicans even hate her, will turn out in droves to vote against her. We don't need somebody like that, we should be very tired of divisive candidates.

The democratic primary results don't support your opinion, and the general election polls also don't support your opinion. Everybody already knows who Hillary is, and McCain is crushing her already. I think most people polled at least know that Obama is black.

And if you think race is a bigger gamble than sex, then why were black men legally allowed to vote 55 years prior to white women in the United States? Yet somehow we're ready for a white woman as President before a black man? I'm not so sure that's the case.

But mainly you shouldn't nominate someone that half the country already hates as your candidate, it's not a good strategy - just a piece of advice.

[Melinda]

275. From the same poll: 70% of Democrat RV's say Obama will likely win the nomination:

I like to pick apart polls too... here is my favorite part of the same poll:


ASK OF DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANING RVs <(PARTY=2 OR PARTYLN=2) AND[br />REGICERT=1] ONLY :
Q.13 Regardless of who you might support, who do you think is most likely to win the Democratic presidential
nomination
17% Hillary Clinton
70% Barack Obama
13% Other/Can’t say/Don’t know/Refused


March 4th can't come soon enough, and good riddance too.

[Name removed]

279. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

283. Mags is the shy retiring type, can't you tell?

;)

[jackson_dem]

290. It isn't like having a hotly contested primary inspires people to get off the fence and start postin

I can't believe the discussion over the gang of 14 didn't result in an influx of new posters!

[Demagitator]

284. It is estimated that if Obama wins....

that the Repukes will receive the largest Jewish vote ever, in the history of the United States of America.

[Hillary_Hillary]

293. I see a lot of shouting at the messenger! Ain't her fault.

[JustinL]

295. the OP didn't just bear a message

She drew the unwarranted conclusion that "Obama's just simply not electable in the GE," despite the fact that the poll shows him ahead of McCain by 50-43%, while Clinton is ahead by a smaller margin of 50-45%.

[avrdream]

294. Interesting.

Let's see how this plays out.

This Clinton supporter will vote for Barack. Not happily, but I will.

[BigBearJohn]

297. To all of you who call Magsdem a racist with such vitriol. What does that make you other than a

bonafide HATE MONGER.

---

hate monger

1.) A person who uses political beliefs or passions of any kind as a platform to express their hatred for another individual.

---

You're so busy calling out the splinter in someone else's eyes that you overlook the log in your own.
With your ever pervasive mob mentality, it seems like a lot of self-righteous posters here throw
every trick in the book (like thunderous emotion, indignation, disgust, name-calling, etc.) and
platitudes about democratic loyalty to try and beat others either into submission or to scare them
away. Why not try to use a logic and intelligence instead of insults and attempted intimidation to win
your arguements? Hell, what's next? Torches and pitchforks? How about a nice burning at the stake?

Take a look at YOURSELF. The hatred spewing forth from you is no better than the hatred you accuse
others of. Oh, I forgot. YOU are on the RIGHT side. The "democratic" side. You wouldn't say "shit"
if you had a mouthful. So pure. tsk, tsk, tsk.

[dionysus]

306. or, the OP has a pattern of posting shit like this and deserves the ridicule...

[JTFrog]

299. Whoever said saying goodbye wasn't easy was lying their ass off.

March 6, 2008: Spring Cleaning

[mohc]

300. Actually we'll have to wait a week

Skinner has stated everyone will have a week to "get it out of their system" once the nominee is determined. I expect that week to be the ugliest yet.

[JTFrog]

301. Uggg. I'll have to take a vacation that week. I can't watch them feed the republican machine

for another two weeks.

[Independent-Voter]

302. When you consider that HRC's base are old, less-educated white women, this makes sense

but if you're going to base your entire campaign on old, less educated white women, don't be surprised when you get your ass kicked by 25% as she's been doing.

[Vinca]

303. So you're saying poor, old, stupid Democrats will vote for Clinton

in the general election over McCain? Wow - that makes her quite the attractive candidate. She should make a commercial - "The magnet for stupid people."

[catgirl]

304. Funny how you pick out this one part of the findings

Obama does well in the rest of the "survey", like wins.

[against all enemies]

307. No he is not the disaster waiting to happen - the racist Democratic Party is.

[blocker]

312. Same goes for clinton!

plus, she's got more than half the country detesting her, i would rather bet on Obama! so why bring it up?

[sampsonblk]

317. Faulty analysis

Obama is still ahead of McCain in the poll you cite. (?)

I'd like to be generous to you and at least agree that it would be hard for Obama to win. But...no. With his strong showing among independents, Obama more than makes up for the weaknesses you point out.

The one who is in trouble is McCain. The GOP has big big problems in this cycle. The future viability of their party is at stake. And they know it.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

318. wtf? who cares how he beats McCain? He beats him in almost all head-to-head polls.

ed to sp cares right

[mindfulNJ]

319. dammit...these MagsDem threads

are like rubbernecking at an accident. You can't help looking, but after you do, you sure wish you hadn't.:puke:

[cloudythescribbler]

322. IF this poll is accurate, then ~10% DWV's = about 3% of the electorate; if Obama draws MORE indy ...

voters than other Democratic candidates, that could still be consistent with his generally running AHEAD of Hillary Clinton in comparing head-to-head matchups with McCain. The latter is found not just in one dubious poll, but in a whole BATTERY of polls. Most Democrats now think Obama is the strongest to beat the GOP.

Remember to 'keep your supposed "realism" real, and be skeptical about your "skepticism"'

I think Obama is the STRONGEST candidate of the major Democrats (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) to run against McCain. I also think he has the best (relative term here) range of abilities and temperament for the job, and is less likely to betray progressives the way Bill the Shill did as president.

[long_green]

324. Mags, you're a total whack-job but I agree with you

Obama is a long shot to win the GE. I just don't think the voters in this country are ready to elect a person of color President of the United States.

And so what? What is the point of the OP? He can't win so we need to nominate HRC? Have you learned nothing from the nomination campaign? HRC is a lemon. To use a football analogy, she started this campaign on her opponents' five yard line. Now she's on her own twenty and it's fourth down. The voters in her own party have done this to her (to the extent that she hasn't done it to herself). We're not even talking about the huge numbers outside the reach of the DNC who just flat hate her guts (unreasonably, sure, but it is the biggest single fact in this election).

If you still think HRC can win in November then you are past all help. Good luck getting over this campaign.

[amborin]

328. and this

a democratic victory in the GE cannot be taken for granted.

Just yesterday an article showed how large voter turnouts in primaries do not translate into large voter turnouts in the GE or to GE victories; this has held for both parties.

Here, a troubling article in yesterday's LA Times, shows current voter sentiment. Sure, polls are totally unreliable. But the message is still there: Dems have to work hard and take nothing for granted. And, Rove is surely working furiously behind the scenes.

I will always remember the shock of 2004: leaving Las Vegas with friends after a day of door to door getting out the vote, with the car news radio station saying Kerry had won; then hearing, by the time we arrived back home, that the dems had lost.

This article shows we have much work ahead: from latimes.com:

McCain has edge over Democrats

Sen. John McCain speaks during a campaign rally in Cincinnati.

He is rated higher for experience, fighting terrorism and Iraq. Obama has widened the gap over Clinton.

By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 27, 2008

WASHINGTON -- As he emerges from a sometimes- bitter primary campaign, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain poses a stiff challenge to either of his potential Democratic opponents in the general election, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The findings underscore the difficulties ahead for Democrats as they hope to retake the White House during a time of war, with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.


Choosing a candidate

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have made ending America's involvement in the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. And even though a clear majority of those polled said the war was not worth waging, about half of registered voters said McCain -- a Vietnam vet who has supported the Bush administration's military strategy -- was better able to deal with Iraq.

In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61% of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats.

The survey showed that McCain's potential advantages extend even to domestic issues, where he is considered to be most vulnerable. Even though McCain has joked about his lack of expertise on economic issues, voters picked him over Obama, 42% to 34%, as being best able to handle the economy. However, Clinton led McCain on that issue, 43% to 34%.

"I just think he's older, he's more experienced, and he's got the betterment of the country in mind," said Robert Fear, 79, a registered Democrat from Newton, Ill., who said he planned to support McCain in November.

In the Democratic race, the survey showed, Obama's support has increased across all of the party's key constituencies.

The Illinois senator now leads Clinton, 48% to 42%, among Democratic primary voters nationally -- a far cry from his double-digit deficits throughout 2007 and the first weeks of 2008.

The poll, which surveyed 1,246 registered voters, was conducted under the direction of Times Polling Director Susan Pinkus.

Obama's lead over Clinton in the Times/Bloomberg poll comes in the wake of his 11 consecutive primary and caucus victories. He is ahead in the closely contested race for delegates to the party's national nominating convention and in recent days has made gains in the key states of Ohio and Texas, which hold primaries Tuesday.

At least two other national surveys released this week have shown Obama taking the lead among Democratic voters -- a development that puts further pressure on Clinton to win the upcoming primaries or face calls from some party leaders to drop out.

One hopeful sign for the New York senator: Of Democratic voters whose home states have yet to hold primaries or caucuses, the former first lady maintains a 13-point edge over Obama.

But the findings also showed that Obama has successfully broadened his coalition, which once was limited primarily to wealthier and better-educated Democrats.

While Clinton's support has remained steady at 42% since the last Times/Bloomberg survey, in January, Obama's has surged 15 points. That may be due to backing from voters who had supported John Edwards -- who dropped out of the race Jan. 30 -- as well as many previously undecided voters.

Obama now splits the vote with Clinton among Democratic primary voters without college degrees and among working women, two areas in which Clinton had been strong.

But the findings showed that whoever wins the nomination could face challenges in unifying the party. Older white women remain fiercely loyal to Clinton, while the contest has revealed a sharp race gap -- with blacks overwhelmingly supporting the man who could become the country's first African American president.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

333. Never needed more.

[Beacool]

334. Only 20%????

Last night a friend of mine and I were killing time at a diner before going to a movie. We frequent the place and know the staff. It was fairly slow at that time, so we started talking to the waitress and other people joined the conversation. Everyone was white and the majority of the 10 or so people there were Democrats. To a one, they all said that if Obama won the nomination they would rather vote for McCain. No one claimed that they would do so because he's black, they all mentioned that they would prefer McCain because he's a lot more experienced than Obama. Does Obama's race factor in even though no one mentioned it? Probably yes..........

[Tarheel_Dem]

335. Well, that's good to know....

I guess black people should reassess their lopsided loyalty to the Democratic Party. I've read some outright racist crap here in recent weeks, but yours is just about as transparent as they come. Tell your friends to vote for the whomever the hell they want, and should Hillary become the nominee, I guess I'll have to take the comments of you and your co-Klansmen into account.

[Beacool]

338. These were not my "friends".

Other than the friend I was with and the waitress, I didn't know who they were. I was just retelling my experience of last night. BTW, I live in a bastion of liberalism in NJ. So, these comments weren't coming from some rednecks in some backwater town. There are plenty of Democrats who don't like Obama and the reasons are various.

:shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

340. Well it's clear from the many anecdotes like yours on this thread

and elsewhere, that Repubs have been right all along, blacks have been taken for granted by the Dem Party. I think whatever the outcome of the primaries, there's going to be some serious realignment of this party that I've been loyal to for my whole life.

Just imagine the impact on state, federal, and local races when blacks come to the realization that we've been told by the party to just vote for us & STFU? I seriously think that Dems could be reduced to minority status for a couple of generations. You should be very careful what you & other Clintonites put out into the universe, it just may come back to bite you and the party in the seat of the pants.

[Beacool]

345. Some Democrats may be racists,

but racism cuts both ways. When 80% to 90% of black people vote for the black candidate, don't tell me that all of them are doing so because they prefer his position on the issues more than his opponent's. What would you think if in the GE the same percentage of whites voted for McCain? I would say that race was definitely a factor in their vote, wouldn't you?

[Tarheel_Dem]

351. and how do you explain white women voting disproportionately

for HRC? There may be some blacks supporting Obama, just because he's black. But you guys never complained when blacks supported the typical white Dem candidate by 80% to 90%, right? Whatever deficits Obama might suffer from racist Dems, I think disaffected Repubs and Independents will make up. Not true of Clinton. She is despised, not only by the right, but a significant portion of the left despises her as well, count me among them.

Whites can vote for whomever the hell they want, that's between them and their individual consciences. But, I don't want to see them in church every four years, scrounging for votes after this.

[LordJFT]

337. yes I know many Clinton supporters are racist

[mythyc]

339. would you mind, for once in your propagandistic life

putting your grand sweeping generalization in perspective

and discuss how this fits into the wide rage of polls showing Obama beating McCain in the General, or yet again those that show McCain beating Hillary?

Or better yet, will you moderate your own damn mania (you who accuse his supporters of being irrational and cult-like) with a discussion of the impact of the new voters, on a massive scale, between 18 and 40 who have come over to his camp? Or how about the numbers, state after state of votes he's earned, state after state dwarfing not just your Hillary-ness but all the Republican candidates. Wait, I'll preempt your anticipated facile response, this even before McCain emerged as the likely candidate.

No, of course you won't.

Why not?

because your point of view is the only valid one. :eyes:

I can't wait to see all you hypocritical Hillbots eat crow when Obama emerges as the nominee, and then as POTS. of course you wont though, you'll go back grumbling into the holes you crawled out of.

*disclaimer* I don't mean all Clinton supporters; I refer to the fanatical divisive, and worst of all dismissive ones who post ridiculous threads and predictions such as these ones. We know who you are: your one-sidedness and lack of objective range give you immediately away.

pathetic

[Demagitator]

343. Strategic polling...

and strategic voting -- are pushing the numbers up for Obama; so that the Repukes can run against Obama. If Obama wins; they will all go back to the Repuke party and vote for McCain.

For example, in 2000 the Repukes funded Nader's campaign in swing states (and also voted for Nader) to take away votes that would go to Gore, creating a vote for Nader as being a vote for Bush. In a -- one dollar one vote -- system that we have it works quite easily to favor the Repukes, because the Repukes have more $$$.

[cindyw]

342. If HIllary is the nominee, McCain will take California and it won't matter what 20% will do.

People in this neck of the woods do not like Hillary.

[LadyVT]

344. Yes, of course--it's the Democrats who are voting for HIllary!

[Cadwallader]

346. Nice Cherry picking

Look, such disingenuous and specious garbage posts like this one might fly over at the pink website, because the intellectual bar there is pretty low, but your conclusions don't reflect anything near reality, except in the Southern half of Mississippi.

No offense, Biloxi

I'm sre Hillary is proud of your support. I'm sure you believe she thinks like that. But she's a bit more of an American than some of her drain-bramaged "supporters"

[DemBones DemBones]

I have been saying this for quite a while -- Obama can't win

the general election.

Mr. Bones and I are white Democrats who won't vote for Obama. We're not over 65, not lower income, and each have graduate degrees. If Cynthia McKinney gets the Green Party nomination, we'll probably vote for her. If not, I'd like to write in Dennis Kucinich but will probably vote for Nader because Green or Independent candidates getting a significant number of votes will send a message to the Democratic Party that it has serious problems. The main problem is that it's too damned much like the GOP.

Obama has voted for all the bills to fund the war so how can he honestly claim to oppose it? Because he made one speech against it at a rally in 2002? :rofl: He also voted to extend the PATRIOT Act. How can anyone claim to be for civil rights and vote for that Act?

In 2004, running for the U.S. Senate, Obama told the Chicago newspaper that his position on the war was basically as same as George W. Bush's. At that time, public support for the war was fairly high so he said what he thought he had to say to get elected. And he's doing the same thing now.

[DemBones DemBones]

I have been saying this for quite a while -- Obama can't win

the general election.

Mr. Bones and I are white Democrats who won't vote for Obama. We're not over 65, not lower income, and each have graduate degrees. If Cynthia McKinney gets the Green Party nomination, we'll probably vote for her. If not, I'd like to write in Dennis Kucinich but will probably vote for Nader because Green or Independent candidates getting a significant number of votes will send a message to the Democratic Party that it has serious problems. The main problem is that it's too damned much like the GOP.

Obama has voted for all the bills to fund the war so how can he honestly claim to oppose it? Because he made one speech against it at a rally in 2002? :rofl: He also voted to extend the PATRIOT Act. How can anyone claim to be for civil rights and vote for that Act?

In 2004, running for the U.S. Senate, Obama told the Chicago newspaper that his position on the war was basically as same as George W. Bush's. At that time, public support for the war was fairly high so he said what he thought he had to say to get elected. And he's doing the same thing now.

[DemBones DemBones]

347. I have been saying this for quite a while -- Obama can't win

the general election.

Mr. Bones and I are white Democrats who won't vote for Obama. We're not over 65, not lower income, and each have graduate degrees. If Cynthia McKinney gets the Green Party nomination, we'll probably vote for her. If not, I'd like to write in Dennis Kucinich but will probably vote for Nader because Green or Independent candidates getting a significant number of votes will send a message to the Democratic Party that it has serious problems. The main problem is that it's too damned much like the GOP.

Obama has voted for all the bills to fund the war so how can he honestly claim to oppose it? Because he made one speech against it at a rally in 2002? :rofl: He also voted to extend the PATRIOT Act. How can anyone claim to be for civil rights and vote for that Act?

In 2004, running for the U.S. Senate, Obama told the Chicago newspaper that his position on the war was basically as same as George W. Bush's. At that time, public support for the war was fairly high so he said what he thought he had to say to get elected. And he's doing the same thing now.

[dcindian]

350. The poll has no correlation with your conclusion

Since the only bad news for Obama (and for real democrats) in that entire poll is that one quote, it would be expected as a Hillary only supporter you would be happy with such a quote. Though your choice to highlight that one quote over all the others in a poll whipping by Obama shows a very delusional stance on reality when viewed in the darkness of your conclusion.

[goletian]

352. if obama gets it, everyone who is not racist should put forth an effort to get new voters

dont encourage the racism by giving in, instead work harder to counteract it so obama can win the ge if nominated.

[amborin]

353. maybe obama's hypocrisy has something to do with it?

The Washington Times

February 22, 2008 Friday

Obama takes funds from lobby partners;
Draws line only with federal lobbyists

BYLINE: By Jim McElhatton, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. Barack Obama,who has refused donations from federal lobbyists and paints his Democratic presidential rival as a Washington insider for accepting their contributions, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from partners at dozens of firms that lobbied Congress in 2007.

The partners - who often share in a law firm's overall profits - gave at least $214,000 to the Obama campaign from October through December, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records and lobbying-disclosure reports with the Senate.

Partners at the Chicago-based law firm of Kirkland Ellis LLP, which has a lobbying arm in Washington, gave Mr. Obama more than $70,000 in contributions last year. The firm represented a pharmaceuticals company and the Futures Industry Association.

Mr. Obama also has accepted tens of thousands from partners Covington & Burling, which was paid nearly a half-million dollars last year to lobby for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, or PhRMA. None of the donations came from three partners at the firm who worked as PhRMA lobbyists.

As a rule, the Obama campaign says it won't accept donations from PhRMA, current federally registered lobbyists, or political action committees. It does accept contributions from state lobbyists, past federal lobbyists and employees of firms that lobby Congress.

"He's kind of saying, 'Look, I want to distance myself from the current system,' but he's not saying he's not going to take any money from anyone who employs lobbyists," said Steven Weissman, associate director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.

"That was a sincere gesture but it's a gesture, it's not a significant subtraction from his money," he said. "Lobbyists are only a very small part of the overall campaign money, but the ones who employ these people are more important. Nobody is willing to refuse their money."

[McCamy Taylor]

354. OK, but what if Black voters turn out at close 100% for the first time ever?

And every one of them votes for Barack? I have seen massive increases in the number of African-Americans turning out at primaries to vote. If the Democrats can achieve close to full turn out of the African American base to support Obama, it would radically change things for years to come. Marginalized groups often have lower voter turn out. If voting becomes the norm in this country rather than the exception, then the Republicans lose power.

There are 72 million Democrats total. Lets say that 50 million are White. So 20% of those may cross over. That is 10 million max. Compare that to the adult portion of the 12% of the American population that is Black (37 million) and you are still talking about more votes for Obama than you are losing.

And I do not believe that all those people will cross over to vote for McCain. Once they see that Obama is not scary at all---he is just as much White as he is Black--they will have no problem voting for him.