Obama losing among Dems? Wins white Dems in New Mexico and Illinois

[candice]

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/28/a-number-you-probably-haven-t-seen.aspx

A Number You Probably Haven't Seen
It’s well-known that Barack Obama’s success has depended largely on independent and Republican voters. The corollary to that, however, has been less thoroughly reported: Obama is losing among Democrats.
Over at the Perfect World, Cal Lanier crunches the numbers and finds that Obama, despite being ahead among pledged delegates, has fewer total votes among people who identify themselves as Democrats. (He has 7,392,809 votes; Clinton has 8,229,063.) That gives Clinton as lead with 52 percent of Democrats. Lanier also breaks the numbers down by race and points out that Obama has won white Democrats in only two states: New Mexico and Illinois.
The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough. (Extrapolating those percentages to estimate exact numbers of voters is going to compound margins of error.) And because caucuses report delegates, not individual turnout, those stats are going to be a little murky, too. I'd also dispute their inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the count. But Clinton’s lead is still large enough to be significant.
It helps you understand why the party gives so much power to its 796 superdelegates. If they didn’t, independents and Republicans could essentially hijack their election. It also makes you wonder whether Clinton should start citing this number, if she maintains her lead through the convention in August. Even if Obama leads in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by outsiders.
Published Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:34 PM by Christopher Beam

[anonymous171]

1. It's well known that you post the same BS over and over agian.

[SoFlaJet]

2. man the propagandists are out in force here today

the Clinton paid operatives are throwing any and everything at the walls here at DU hoping against all hope that something will stick-one more day folks and she is DONE

[onehandle]

5. Yeah. DU is the force that has lost her 11 in a row.

Hillary is paying operatives to get the oh so important DU vote.

ha ha.

[redqueen]

6. BIG day tomorrow...

desperation has kicked in to high gear.

[ingac70]

3. Obama loses among Freepers...

to Hillary...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4857328&mesg_id=4857328

[cindyw]

4. MANY independents are disaffected Dems. So you can't leave them out. Also, I find it just disgusting

to separate the White Dems from the "Other" Dems. Honestly it does not matter if his support is stronger among 'Other" Dems. People are people.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Thanks for donating this piece over and over to DU. Maybe you might want to donate something else?$?

[lapfog_1]

8. From your own post...

and the article quoted...

"The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough. (Extrapolating those percentages to estimate exact numbers of voters is going to compound margins of error.) And because caucuses report delegates, not individual turnout, those stats are going to be a little murky, too. I'd also dispute their inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the count."

So, IF they include Florida and Michigan (where, I'm guessing Obama received ZERO votes from Democrats), and you look at other bullshit piled on top of bullshit...

you can reach (and it's a REACH) that Hillary is winning within those that identify as Democrats.

The real question is WHICH of those self-identified Democrats will NOT vote for Obama in a GE? And the corollary, which of those independents and republicans WILL vote for Hillary in a GE?

Do we want to win this fall? Or would you rather just run a "more pure" (debatable) candidate?