If Obama wins the nomination, white working class voters will not vote for him and he will LOSE

[Herman Munster]

HE IS DAMAGED GOODS AGAINST MCCAIN.

If he wins the nomination, there will be significant defections of women, working class white democrats, and latinos to McCain. Politics at its basic core is tribal. There is a reason Obama is winning blacks 9:1. There is a reason Obama is losing older whites and white women 2:1. There is a reason he is losing latinos 2:1.

He will lose Ohio.

He will lose Florida.

He will lose Pennsylvania.

He will lose New Jersey.

And all those red caucus states he is winning now where 10,000 voters is a huge turnout?

He'll lose them all by 20 or 30 points to McCain like all democrats do.

Why?

Because Obama is not winning the base of the democratic party and that's always a dangerous situation for any candidate to be in. Without a fully unified base, he will need independents and republicans to win against McCain. But they are fickle creatures. Obama didn't do well at all with independents in Ohio and Texas. And republicans are not going to vote for him once they fully become indoctrinated into the right wings caricature of Obama and his best buddies Antonin Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Ferrakhan. Hillary's attacks were so mild as to be laughable compared to what McCain and the 527's will throw at him.

Expect ads from the 527's of Louis Ferrakhan's hate speech against whites and jews side by side with him saying glowing things about Obama. It will be devastating and the republican 527's will do it and it will destroy him.

He will be destroyed. So do you want to win with Hillary or do you want a loser who plays nice and fair?

Well nice guys finish last.

This is the real world and in the real world you need a junkyard dog to win and god bless the Clinton's, they know how to win. They are the only people in the party with the balls to go balls to the wall to win.

You know what a politician who takes the high road is?

A LOSER.

And that's what Obama will be.

A LOSER.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. If nice guys finish last, how come he's winning?

[BeatleBoot]

7. Open Caucuses.

[hueyshort]

11. Nice guys don't shit on their opponent in the blogs

under the radar of MSM.

Oily siimeballs do that. And he's been going at it for months.
That is why I do not care for Obama, and would not want him on a ticket with HRC.

His supporters will start pulling the same intimidation tactic that they are doing
here in DU.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

17. Better than practically endorsing the Republican nominee.

[hueyshort]

53. a lot of dems will vote for McCain over Obama

and the people he's had strong armed out of blogs are not going to forget. Ever.

[John Q. Citizen]

77. You have been here three days. Welcome! GoBama!

[roseBudd]

116. Right because Dems love forever war and trickle down economics more than they hate the latte

The latte is coming, sweet baby jesus get me a dunkin' donuts cup o' joe pronto

[Mooney]

168. A lot of Dems will vote for McCain over Hillary too

You may have noticed that there are some people out there who don't like her.

[theredpen]

174. What is your basis for this claim?

I can't see where you get this...

[EmilyAnne]

206. Projecting. What that person is saying is, "I'll vote for McCain over Obama." n/t

[theredpen]

209. That's what I thought... I just figured I'd give him a chance to say otherwise.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

13. AKA a superior ground game.

Hillary didn't plan past Super Tuesday and has had to catch up ever since then.

Obama has won many primaries, but of course, you won't mention that, right?

[BeatleBoot]

42. AKA Cross Over Voting

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

Bush-Cheney strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Hillary, marketing newcomer Obama, an "independent" ticket, and maybe even martial law...

Updated February 21, 2008

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. After rigging two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.

Not so. According to an article in Time Magazine, Republicans have organized to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, the democratic rival of frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Early in Obama's campaign, three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash, something the deep pockets hadn't done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.

The Time magazine article goes on to explain that rank and file Republicans in red states have switched parties for the Democratic primaries to vote for Obama. Some states, like Virginia and Texas, have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. Called crossover voting, the tactic is playing a crucial role in the Rove push to deprive Clinton of the Democratic nomination. Even with the help of his more familiar array of dirty tricks - swiftboating, phone bank sabotauge, bogus polling data, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. - Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's generally popular nationwide and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter.

If, on the other hand, Obama wins the nomination (or even the VP spot), Rove's prospects brighten considerably. Largely unvetted by the media, the self-described agent of change carries considerable baggage from his stint as a state legislator, particularly his long-running relationship with a Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko, who's about to go on trial for defrauding taxpayer-funded social service programs. So far, the mainstream press has paid lip service to the connection and instead portrayed Obama as a fresh new face in American politics. The author of the Time magazine article, Jay Newton-Small, offered the following explanation to account for the bizarre love affair G.O.P. voters say they're having with an African American senator on the other side of the aisle. "It seems a lot of Republicans took to heart Obama's statement in his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that 'there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.'"

Is he kidding?

The conservative publication National Journal claims Obama's voting record is the most liberal in Washington, eve moreso than Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Although not everyone agrees with the assessment, it's nevertheless hard to picture the voting pattern that Mr. Small implies here: Nixon - Reagan - Bush - Dole - Bush - Obama. Remarkably, journalists across the media spectrum have provided this very spin on reality, just as they continue to disparage Clinton as a has-been in her own party. Last year, at the same time she commanded a huge lead in the national polls, political analysts and professional strategists hired by CNN and other broadcast networks began hammering across the notion that "the voters don't like her". The adjectives "unlikable", "divisive" and "polarizing" are repeated over and over in the same manner as terms like "biological warfare" and "weapons of mass destruction" were branded on the American conscience in the lead-up to the Iraq War. In both cases, the terminology traces back to right-wing ideologues, especially those who keep the studio seats warm at Fox News. "There is no candidate on record, a front-runner for a party's nomination, who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has," Rove told Reuters last August. The G.O.P.'s senior election strategist recently joined Fox an a part-time news analyst.

Obama himself recites Rove's "high negatives" comment in press interviews whenever discussing Clinton. His often bitter criticism of the former First Lady and other "Washington insiders", who he says want to "boil and stew all the hope out of him", represents a staple of his core political message.

His campaign slogan of "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is also reminiscent of the Bush 2000 campaign, which Rove managed. According to Marisa Guthrie of BC Beat, Obama campaign speechwriter Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, a Fox News VP. The latter Rhodes has been with the network since its inception in 1996. You may recall that on election night in November 2000, it was Fox that called Florida for Bush, even though the other networks declared Gore the winner, citing the exit polls. How Fox knew the polls were wrong in advance of the vote tabulation has never been explained.

Her naysayers aside, on Super Tuesday, Clinton captured sizeable majorities in the population-rich states of California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey. While Obama won most of the the red states in play, Clinton took Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico and Arkansas. Obama later closed the gap in delegates with wins in the caucus states of Washington and Nebraska, along with the Louisiana primary on February 9th. These victories were followed by Maryland, Virginia, D.C., Wisconsin and Hawaii, giving Obama a 75-delegate lead, according to the Associated Press. However, neither candidate is expected to reach the 2025-delegate mark needed to cinch the nomination before the convention in August.
Presidential Race or Next American Idol?

Now that McCain has locked up the Republican nomination, it's likely that crossover voting will intensify in the remaing primary statses. Yet even when the race was hotly contested, only one in three voters cast ballots for Republican candidates nationwide. In red-state New Hampshire, 50,000 more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans, about 10 pecent of the total voter turnout. In Iowa, the lopsided vote was even more pronounced. G.O.P. winner Mike Huckabee received only half the number of votes cast for Clinton, who placed third behind Obama and Edwards.

As ominous a portent as that may be, the Clinton campaign also has to contend with a Madison Avenue-style branding campaign mounted on her opponent's behalf. Once an unknown quantity, Obama is now viewed by many as the harbinger of change in America, even as some of his major endorsers struggle to cite any past accomplishment when asked. According to Brian Williams and other TV anchors, Obama is not running a campaign, but a "movement". And both traditional progressives and younger voters alike are gobbling up the cues like hungry fish in a barrel. Free videos touting the candidate's rock star status began appearing on You-Tube in 2007, including the racy "Obama Girl" clip watched by millions. And nobody would have predicted a few years ago that left-leaning pundits would be joining in an unholy alliance with Fox to help defeat a viable candidate like Clinton, who has promised immediate troop withdrawals from Iraq, but here we are. Journalists like Ari Berman, editor of The Nation, are popping up on Fox programs they once labeled as 24/7 campaign commercials for the Republican Party. The fact that Obama is known to have watered down legislation requiring nuclear giant Exelon to publicly disclose radiation leaks doesn't seem to trouble them in the least. Exelon is Obama's fourth largest campaign contributor. (Read the New York
Times article about the controversy.)

In a blog posted the morning after the Iowa Caucus, Adrianna Huffington lauded the Illniois senator as practically the Second Coming. She didn't have much to offer in the way of specifics, however, and spent the bulk of her remarks railing at Bill Clinton, who she said had conducted himself in an interview as "arrogant and entitled, dismissive and fear-mongering". With an eye to social justice, the founder of Huffington Post might have viewed as a mitigating factor the former president's four-year mission to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for Africa, Asia and New Orleans. Yet like his wife, Bill gets no points for actual public service.

Huffington, it should be noted, was one of several progressive politicos swindled by the California recall referendum in 2002.That was the year Enron's Ken Lay, on the hook for $3 billion pilfered trom the state in the rolling blackouts scandal, succeeded in installing "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger through the back door. Candidate Huffington dropped out of the race a few days before the election, conceding the entire affair had been a set-up to divide the Democratic vote.

That she and her peers have allowed themselves to be bamboozled a second time is astonishing. With a few clicks of a mouse, they might have easily learned that former Speaker Dennis Hastert and the Illinois G.O.P. fielded a non-Illinois resident named Alan Keyes to run against Obama for the U.S. senate seat in 2004. Keyes, who had little public office experience, was hand-picked to replace Jack Ryan, the candidate who offically won the G.O.P. primary. Ryan was forced to resign in the wake of an alleged sex scandal involving his ex-wife. (A bit of trivia - The ex-wife is actress Jeri Ryan, who played the character "Seven of Nine" in the television series Star Trek Voyager.) In the general election, Alan Keyes received 27 percent of the vote to Obama's 70 percent.

Here's a little more history you won't find at HuffPost or The Nation: At the time of his senate run, Obama was a relatively minor player, a two-term state legislator who lost a congressional race against African American incumbent Bobbie Rush in 2000. Obama's first significant campaign donor in the 1990's was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a Chicago power broker and developer who he met while still in law school. After leaving Harvard, Obama hired on with a community nonprofit agency in Chicago called Project VOTE, where he helped organze voter registration efforts. He later joined the law firm Miner Barnhill & Galland, whose clients included Rezko, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Obama worked on (and later endorsed as a senator) a low-income senior housing development deal in which Rezko and a partner firm run by Allison Davis collected $855,000 in development fees. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "In addition to the development fees, a separate Davis-owned company stood to make another $900,000 through federal tax credits." Later, while Rezko was busy fundraising for Obama, tenants in other Rezko developments launched with taxpayer dollars were having their heat cut off and other maintenance left unattended. The City of Chicago eventually sued Rezko, and an F.B.I. investigation into fraud allegations led to a felony indictment, charged the developer with illegally obtaining income through kickbacks and bribes. His trial, set to begin February 25th, has been postponed to March 3rd. Last June, Davis' longtime business associate William Moorehead was convicted of stealing $1 million in public housing funds.

According to Edward McClelland, writing for Salon.com, "Rezko, after all, built part of his fortune by exploiting the black community that Obama had served in the state Senate, and by milking government programs meant to benefit black-owned businesses." While it may be unclear why Obama would continue his relationship with Rezco after this point, it's indisputable that he did. In 2005, Obama approached Rezko for help in purchasing a $2 million Georgian-revival home in a Chicago suburb. The property deal involved two adjoining lots that the owner wanted to sell together. Rezko's wife bought the first, while Obama acquired the parcel with the mansion for $300,000 less than the asking price.

Although no laws were broken in the transaction, Obama's 17-year long relationship with Rezko may represent a significant liability in achieving his presidential aspirations. If nothing else, it seems logical to assume that a President Obama will spend his Day One in office mulling over a pardon for the man who made possible his meteoric rise in politics. Regrettably, the press is having none of it, and only grudgingly reported the affair after the CNN debate in South Carolina on January 17th. That's when Clinton raised the matter of the Chicago slumlord in one of the night's most invigorating exchanges. CNN duly followed-up, interviewing Sun-Times reporter Tim Novak, who first broke the story, and confirmed her claim.

Some of Obama's campaign donations over the years have come from sources named in the federal indictment. While the Chicago Sun-Times puts the figure of known tainted cash at $168,000, the senator initially agreed to give half that amount to charity, but only as an "abundance of caution", a senior staffer said. Later, after NBC Nightly News grudgingly broadcast a story about the affair, the campaign announced it would donate the entire amount.

Soon, however, the crimes of Clinton's opponent would be transferred onto her. During an early morning interview broadcast on the Today show, Matt Lauer brandished a photograph showing Rezko posing with President Clinton and his wife during the 1990s, then grilled the sleepy-eyed, former First Lady about her relationship to Rezko. Neither she nor the former President appeared to have any history with the developer, yet NBC deftly managed to cast aspersions on them, not Barack Obama. More recently, Brian Williams repeated the journalistic sleight of hand when airing a segment on Obama's Exelon ties.

(For more on the housing deals and Obama's strange bedfellows, read the articles in the Sun-Times.)

OutFoxing Fox News

NBC may in fact be outFoxing Fox News when it comes to sabotauging Clinton's presidential hopes. On the night before the New Hampshire primary, Williams followed Obama around on the campaign trail, flashing a Newsweek cover of the senator while proclaining to viewers that the Obama campaign had now become a "movement". During the same broadcast, Andrea Mitchell described the Clinton campaign as broke, desperate, and ablaze with in-fighting. Mitchell continued with this theme the following night, even as Hillary led in the vote tally. She assured viewers that the results would eventually tip in favor of Obama. She was mistaken.

Following the South Carolina primary, both Mitchell and Tim Russert claimed on Nightly News and Today that the leadership of the Democratic Party was "mad as hell" at Bill Clinton for "attacking" Obama, and were lining up to back the Illinois senator. The charge was not corroborated with any sources. Russert also informed Matt Lauer that Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama represented a sea change in the election, insinuating that because Bobby Kennedy was friends with Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farmworkers, the endorsement should pave the way for Obama to capture the Latino vote.

What NBC's crack team of reporters failed to mention was that three of Bobby Kennedy's own children, the son of Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworkers union had already endorsed Clinton. In Nevada, Latinos in the 60,000 member Culinary Workers Union defied their white male leadership's endorsement of Obama and helped Clinton win the caucus there. While the Florida primary was showing Clinton with a 15 percent lead in the polls, CNN fill-in anchor Bob Acosta complemented NBC's aggressive push by declaring the Obama campaign had become a "runaway train" following its big South Carolina victory.

On February 10th, CBS anchor Katy Couric joined the Clinton-bashing fray in a 60 Minutes segment, barraging Clinton with multiple questions about how she would deal with losing the election. The contentious exchange followed a far more upbeat piece on Obama, who at the time was trailing Clinton in delegates.

To wit, if there's a runaway train in this race, it isn't either of the candidates. For the past 20 years, media outlets have become increasingly consolidated into chains owned by multinational corporations whose primary mission is to enhance their bottom lines. The NBC/MSNBC network, for example, is owned by energy giant General Electric. Tim Russert's Meet the Press served as a principle outpost in the dissemination of the weapons of mass destruction argument used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while Andrea Mitchell, who appears on televsion almost exclusively to criticize Hillary Clinton, is married to former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan.

Some journalists admit off-camera that Clinton has not been treated fairly in the course of the campaign. For his part, Howard Kurtz published an article in the Washington Post in December examining the widespread media bias favoring Obama. "The Illinois senator's fundraising receives far less press attention than Clinton's," Kurtz wrote. "When the Washington Post reported last month that Obama used a political action committee to hand more than $180,000 to Democratic groups and candidates in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the suggestion that he might be buying support received no attention on the network newscasts." Fear of Flying novelist Erica Jong later offered a possible explanation for the unequal treatment in Hillary vs. the Patriarchy, also published in the Washington Post.

Unlike her big Florida victory on January 29th, the news of Clinton's New Hampshire win was not blacked out from coast to coast the next day. Her detractors, however, were marsalling their resources for the next round of Clinton bashing. In the lead up to the South Carolina primary, on-air pundits and Obama surrogates argued that New England's white voters had betrayed their publicly declared support of the black candidate in the secrecy of the ballot booth - hence the reason why the polls showed Obama so far out ahead of Clinton. When the New York senator later made a speech tying Martin Luther King's civil rights work to President Johnson's signing of the 1964 Cvil Rights Act, highlighting the role of Johnson, the Obama camp siezed the opportunity for another bloodletting. An advisor wrote out a four-page memorandum urging surrogates to slam Clinton for disrespecting Dr. King.

If you tracked the coverage of the ensuing feud, you would never know that it was this document that sparked the episode. Before the memo surfaced on the internet, Obama insisted to reporters that neither he nor anyone on his staff had accused Senator Clinton of any impropriety in her speech about Johnson. Hed added that he was "baffled" by her suggestion that they were somehow involved. Meanwhile, South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn said the Clintons' incendiary reaction to the charge of racism had compelled him to renege on an earlier promise to the Democratic National Committee not to endorse a candidate before his state's primary. A few days later, Clyburn retracted his endorsement of Obama, but the damage was done. Black voters overwhelming voted for the African American candiate. Since that time, the Clintons have been barbecued for "playing the race card" in the campaign.

Clinton Unplugged

Intelligent and astute, the New York senator has historically shied away from personal attacks, whether it comes from Manhattan's sexist firefighters or Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball. Her campaign only briefly cut off relations with NBC when another reporter, David Schuster, said the Clintons had "pimped-out" daughter Chelsea as part of their election strategy. This is not to say Clinton isn't capable of landing a knock-out punch when provoked. During the ABC New Hampshire debate, she slammed the tag-team antics of John Edwards and Barack Obama when they tried to portray her as the voice of the "status quo". She informed the audience that both men supported Vice-President Dick Cheney's 2005 energy legslation, a bill "larded with subsidies for the oil companies". She opposed the legislation.

However, it was her performance in two CNN debates broadcast from South Carolina and California that elevated Clinton to the A-List of celebrity icons.

In both contests, she took the gloves off to pound Obama on his record and statements uttered along the campaign trail. In the first debate, she highlighted his habit of voting "present" in the Illinois legislature, along his characterization of Ronald Reagan as a "transformative" president and the Republican Party during that period as the "party of ideas". She said, "I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas. . . . Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." In Hollywood, she delivered her other memorable soundbite, "It took a Clinton to clean after the first President Bush, and it's going to take another Clinton to clean up after the second President Bush." Over four million domestic viewers tuned in to the South Carolina debate, breaking a cable record. Twice that many watched the second debate. Many millions more saw the verbal prize fights on CNN's international broadcast.

Nevertheless, Clinton seems remiss in doing relatively little challenge the media's manipulation of the electorate. Having agreed to appear in an NBC debate shortly before the Texas and Ohio primaries, she's sure to be walking into another ambush. Like Benazir Bhutto, the years of political bludgeoning may have short-circuited her ability to navigate the minefields of the body politic (or even to appoint competent advisors). Regarding Karl Rove and the Bush-Cheney team, all she has mustered to date is her oft-repeated statement, “They’re not going to surrender the White House voluntarily."

Last spring, she suggested that another terrorist attack against the United States would inevitably play into the hands of the G.O.P.
Vague as they sound, those two comments may prove prophetic in the event the Obama strategy fails and she goes on to win the Democratic nomination. The implications of a female president for American foreign and domestic policy are profound, creating jitters not only on Wall Street but for the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department. It's possible that a significant number of officials accused of breaking U.S. laws or violating the Geneva Conventions might be arrested and prosecuted by a Clinton-directed Justice Department.

If that's not enough to keep Bush appointees and generals lying awake deep into the night, their long-running undercover operation with the ayatollahs in Iran (who paved the way for Reagan's 1980 election), the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, and the Saudi royal family could be curtailed by the staunchly pro-women's rights democrat. The Saudis especially have reason to fret now that they and their counterparts in Kuwait and the U.A.E. have started buying up huge stakes in U.S. banks. Condolleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi are one thing. A Clinton White House is quite another.

For his part, President Bush may have implemented a back-up plan last April when he signed National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, an executive order allowing him to suspend the constitution without prior congressional approval. NSPD 51 gives the President the discretion to declare a state of emergency (i.e. martial law) in the event of a major terrorist attack or other “decapitating” incident against the United States, even if the attack happens outside the country. Under this scenario, he can cancel elections, padlock the Capitol dome and send the Supreme Court justices home.
The directive also allows assigns the President's homeland security assistant ( a low-level position exempt from senate confirmation) to administer what has been dubbed the Enduring Constitutional Government. In other words, another Sept. 11th disaster could reduce this year's election to nothing more than the status of a season of Survivor. (Here’s the text of the directive.)
Delegates, the Conventions and an Indpendent Ticket
Assuming the homeland security assistant doesn't take over the country before next August, the Democratic Party's 796 superdelegates may decide the nomination. About half are elected officials, the other half party officials and campaign managers. The specter of less than 800 people determining the ticket in November has set Obama surrogates back on their haunches, this time arguing that a "brokered convention" decided in "smoky back rooms" will destroy the party. Initially it was thought that two-thirds of the superdelegates were pledged for Clinton, but more recent surveys suggest the situation is fluid.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has issued a press release reassuring Americans that he will intervene before August if the race still remains deadlocked. The extent of his authority to do so relies on the cooperation of both candidates. However, Clinton is already under pressure from the media anad Obama supporters to "do the right thing" and bow out of the race, instead of risking a floor fight at the convention. The rules do not require her to do so.

Several times in the past, conventions have decided the party nominee. The most memorable took place in 1932, when neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his rival Al Smith secured enough delegates to cinch the nomination, causing the convention to deadlock. Corporate media tycoonWilliam Randolph Hearst took advantage of the predicament, forcing FDR to adopt an isolationist foreign policy in exchange for the delegates of the third-place candidate, Texas Congressman Jack Garner. FDR also had to take Garner as his running mate. What's interesting here is that after FDR beat Hoover in the general election, a would-be assassin nearly liquidated the new President-elect in Miami. Fortunately the shots went astray when a woman in the crowd grabbed the assailant's arm. Otherwise, Jack Garner would have become president.

Today, with only two candidates left in the race and the innovation of superdelegates, that scenario is moot. Still, the VP slot remains open and there are also lingering questions about what, if any effect the Tony Rezko trial in Chicago this year will have on Obama. It's possible that global warming crusader Al Gore, who says he'd still like to be president, may be jockeying to enter the election, perhaps as a draft candidate if Obama is forced to withdraw. (Although few voters remember, Gore is the same gentleman who received a grade of "F" from the League of Conservation Voters when he ran for president in 2000. To jog your memory, here's his 1998 press release on Kyoto Treaty.)

If Gore doesn't surface as a candidate at the convention, he could be tapped by the so-called centrist politicians who met last January in Oklahoma to lobby for a bi-partisan, independent ticket. A similar effort, the internet-based initiative known as Unity '08, likewise hopes to field a Democrat and a Republican to run together in the November election. New York mayor and billionnaire Michael Bloomberg is said to be testing the waters for a possible run, but his poll numbers to date look unpromising. Because the G.O.P. played such an anemic role in their own party primaries, the Karl Rove camp may field their Bush-Cheney successor team as independents.

The DNC is also considering the possibility of holding caucuses in Michigan and Florida in April or May as a way to allocate their delegates, which were stripped because the states were not granted "waivers" to hold primaries before February 5th. The Clinton campaign, which originally agreed to the ban, has since argued that both delegations should be seated according to the primary results. In the case of the Florida primary, the argument has merit, given that Democratic voters there recorded the largest turnout in history. It also appears some of Obama's cable TV spots appeared in the state, though he was not accused of violating the pledge not to campaign there. Clinton won 50 percent of the popular vote, Obama 33 percent, and John Edwards 16 percent. State Senator Bill Nelson, a Clinton supporter, has balked at the suggestion that the ballots cast by 1.7 million Floridians - it's the nation's fourth most populous state - should be replaced with caucuses that might at best attract 50,000 participants. It was Florida's Republican-controlled legislature that set the date for the primary, state party officials point out, not them.

Michigan held its primary on January 15th. Since Obama and Edwards pulled their names from the ballot beforehand, the votes for Clinton cannot be said to represent a mandate. Unfortunately for her, the stripped delegates in both cases have worked in Obama's favor. With its high percentage of hispanic voters, Florida could have been forecast as a Clinton treasure trove. The same is true for Michigan, whose native son Mit Romney's candidacy precluded the possiblity of a large crossover vote of Republicans there. Michigan boasts a relatively low number of upper-middle-class whites, one of Obama's strongest performing constituencies. Had the DNC not sanctioned the state, Clinton would likely have hauled in the lion's share of 156 delegates up for grabs. (The G.O.P., by the way, didn't punish either state for moving up their primaries.) One cannot blame her for experiencing some measure of frustration.

If the DNC opts to schedule caucuses, Obama would emerge the victor, since this form of voting typically requires traveling long distances, waiting outside a building in while volunteers sort out the logistics, and then attending a meeting that lasts one or two hours. Such factors tend to deter the participation of older voters; immigrants; those who work, need childcare or have other obligations during the narrow time frame of the caucus; and those for whom English is a second language. In a nutshell, this represents the Clinton base.

And it gets worse. Of the remaining states left to vote, Texas and Wisconsin will hold open primaries, which portends of a large crossover vote to put Obama over the top. (Texas was gerrymandered under Tom Delay to favor a Republican lock on most districts.) The state party in Texas also allots a third of its delegates by way of a caucus. Thus, even Clinton's superdelegate failsafe may prove insufficient in overcoming the shrewdly stacked deck against her. Thanks to Karl Rove and his friends in the shadows, the Democratic nominee may ultimately be determined not by Democrats but by the G.O.P., with the help of its unwitting accomplices at the DNC.

<more>

[Jamastiene]

91. I would like to ask you to please post this as an OP so I can recommend it.

This is the most comprehensive evidence I have seen yet. I wish I could recommend it. If you were to repost it as an OP, I could recommend it. :thumbsup:

[BeatleBoot]

96. I think I'm plum out of GDP posts tonight.

[Mooney]

164. I had never heard of so many people complaining about caucuses

until THIS election.

[Herman Munster]

9. because democrats always pick losers

there's only been one democratic president in the last 28 years.

[hueyshort]

14. a double minority ticket will be another loser

[spooky3]

27. only if you believe most Americans are extremely racist and sexist, and

by the way, women are more than 51% of the population - not "a minority."

[hueyshort]

60. I just know his supporters make me puke

and I would have to hold my nose to vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket.
An Obama ticket? I'll probably either go with Nader or nobody.
Then 4 years from now, we can get a candidate who doesn't pull intimidation
crap by getting his supporters to say they'll start riots.
So let him win. He'll lose the GE. We'll be done with Obama. 4 years from now, Dean will
be eligible to run.

[angie_love]

185. you make me puke

[KittyWampus]

24. and look at how Clinton nearly killed off the Democratic party. But GEE, at least HE won

it certainly helped him once he was out of the WH, all those contacts have netted him tens of millions in filthy money.

[angie_love]

30. Whatever, once Obama is the nominee the dems will coalesce around him. Ppls emotions are just raw

right now.

[aquarius dawning]

72. sure they will.

:rofl:

[angie_love]

184. are you 12?

[gmudem]

205. At least Obama hasn't endorsed McCain.

Face it there is no defense of what Hillary has said about McCain recently. It's Hillaryous that she thinks Obama will want her on the ticket now.

[juajen]

193. Didn't you even read the article?

Obama = The Trojan Horse

[PaDem]

49. Hillary's a sure-fire loser........

it should be painfully obvious. She's all the GOP has left to fire up the base. Why do you want to hand that to them?

[galaxy21]

2. If Obama is damaged goods its because Hillary told everyone McCain was a better president

[hueyshort]

22. he's damaged goods because HE LIED

and said no one from his camp contacted the Canadian Embassy.

And he was a hypocrite for telling Canada that the speeches he gave to
the people in Ohio was nothing more than political rhetoric.

THAT is unforgiveable.

[MercutioATC]

50. You might have a point if that had happened....but it didn't.

Hey!

Reality is over here! X


...just thought you could use a reference point.

[hueyshort]

66. You'd better look at this link. Because it DID happen.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/3/2835/02915

[Tellurian]

92. Here is a sampling of what the Republicans have in store IF Obama is the nominee..

Steve King: Al-Qaida will dance in the streets if Obama wins the White House

[Hawkeye-X]

120. And Harkin will be crushing Steve King this fall

Your point being?

[Mooney]

177. Oh my god!

Are you saying the GOP will use bullshit smear tactics on the Democratic nominee? That never even occurred to me.

I am now a Hillary Clinton supporter.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Coexist]

23. Popular Vote Total - - Obama =13,005,114 Clinton=12,414,786

I'll take RCP over the networks anyday

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[Tellurian]

98. Oh, Wow.. Hillary cut his Popular Vote lead by 400,000 votes today..

Tweety said Obama was leading by 900,000 votes the other day..

It was a good day for Hillary then!

[angie_love]

34. um you've posted this in every fucking thread. and you've not provided a link to backup your claims

[Window]

52. Not this shit again!!!!

[ariesgem]

65. Spam. Alerted.

[rocktivity]

74. Do the math--the "lead" works out to an average of .0002%

And what Obama lacks in Dem votes, he's obviously making up for in independent and ex-Bushie votes.

And Obama WON Texas--he got the majority of the delegates.

:boring:
rocknation

[frylock]

4. i wanna win at all costs..

teach me the way! :rofl:

[Zynx]

5. I'm so glad I can't hear you say this stuff verbally.

I have no doubt the shrillness would make me deaf.

You have a few valid points, but the tone is over the top.

[BzaDem]

67. Part of the reason is that Hillary supporters are attacked so much here.

They have to fight to be heard. Maybe if the tone of Obama supporters took the tone you envision, we could have a more meaningful conversation.

[NashVegas]

6. I Don't Think Obama Plays Nice and Fair At All

But whatever.

[lligrd]

This White Working Class Individual Will

Many have been crossing over. Time for you to slither on over and join us.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

54. Hi LulaMay,

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator

[El Supremo]

10. He is winning the "base".

What he is not winning are the Blue Dogs and DNC. But why should he worry about that.

Here in the west I've never seen such support for any candidate at the local and county level as Barrack is getting.

[Speck Tater]

12. I used to visit DU for information...

... Now I just come here when there's no Three Stooges movies on TV.

It's like watching a three-ring circus these days. LOL!

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. Sorta of like this half the time

[Buzz Clik]

40. Yeah, me too. I like harassing the idiots.

[MercutioATC]

61. Welcome to primary season!

...we should really have a party or an instructional video or something for those who haven't seen a DU primary season before :)

[polichick]

15. That's funny - last week a white working class Republican walked into the PA office...

...where I'm volunteering and said, "I've switched parties to vote for Obama because he's the one who cares about us working guys. Sign me up to volunteer."

That guy comes by almost every day to do whatever needs doing.

[bleowheels]

16. So you voted for Bush in 2004? Kerry lost. Did you vote for the winner?

I vote on principles. I believe Obama supports my principles. I will vote Democratic in 2008 but to diminish my vote, speaks volumes about you.

[BumRushDaShow]

18. How many OPs is this for you today?

:eyes:

[againes654]

19. Booo to you

:grr:

[FrenchieCat]

20. If Obama is the nominee and White women don't vote for Obama

they will lose their right to choose.

Sounds not too smart.

On the other hand, if it is perceived that this nomination was taken from Barack Obama, Black folks, who are always on the bottom of the totem poll of everything anyways won't really give a shit, and many will stay home.

Ditto for the apathetic Youth, new voters and Independents who hate the war.

At the end of the day, you will lose.....for advocating racism in this manner.

[bicentennial_baby]

21. I know, the bargaining stage is so rough....

:hug:

[jody]

25. You might browse exit interviews for states that had primaries versus caucuses at the link below.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

My very cursory scanning of exit interviews suggest:

a. The majority of 18-29 year old white voters support Obama in all states

b. States with a significant black population; white voters 30 years old and up support Hillary.

c. States with a very small black population; white voters 30 years old and up support Obama but that support decreases with older voters.

d. Black voters overwhelmingly support Obama with percentages from 65% to over 95%.

I make no claim to the validity of my conjectures and they deserve rigorous analysis.

They are at best conjectural hypotheses subject to further analysis.

Please don't attack me, just browse all the exit interviews and present your own analysis.

Some of my earlier conjectures are at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4450090

[bhikkhu]

119. Or this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Obama wins!

[jody]

123. Perhaps against McCain but the question of caucus vs. primary strength still has not been answered.

[bhikkhu]

167. I didn't realize it was asked. The thread begins: Obama loses the GE

He doesn't, according to this polling result: he wins. It is about the GE and has nothing to do with caucuses.

That is, if Obama wins the nomination this poll indicates he will go on to win the GE against McCain.

I haven't dug into the specifics of how the data was analyzed or the individual demographics, but I have not seen it criticized either and it appears to be objective and nonpartisan (that is an opening to seeing it trashed here, I realize).


(edit for sp.)

[jody]

170. You are correct, the question I suggested was not asked. IMO BO will have a difficult task beating

McCain.

That's my opinion and it's no better or worst than the opinion of anyone else.

[bhikkhu]

187. There is opinion, and there are vast assemblages of opinion - or statistical research

I still prefer to look at research at this point to answer the question of how well Obama does against McCain.

There is a great deal at this link - it lists the results of numerous polls and surveys. Regardless of who your candidate is, it is a good source to gain information.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/...

[jody]

188. Have a great day. n/t

[kstewart33]

28. Okay, and the independents won't vote for Hillary.

But they will vote for Obama.

So, your point again?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. everyone I have spoken with in my home state FL, has said they would NOT vote for Obama if heis nom

that's about 25 family members in Lauderdale,Boca, Miami and Key West

[kstewart33]

Why won't they? Are they racist? nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. You must be an Obamabot?..it's always Obamanites that play the race card

[MzShellG]

68. You didn't answer the question. I'll take that as a YES. nt

[JAbuchan08]

214. The whole "white voters won't vote for him" meme is a self-fulfilling prophecy

It gives cover to the racists, while they pretend not to be racist.

I suppose it is worse to think that an African American candidate is by nature incompetent than it is to simply think that he can't win, but it still amounts to the same thing. In either case they are refusing to vote for him BECAUSE he is the black candidate and he has a muslim middle name.

[MzShellG]

218. BINGO! nt

[angie_love]

56. ooooooooooo 25 ppl, i'm so scared.

:rofl:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

82. you seem to be mentally impaired too

[roseBudd]

124. Wow 25 more votes for John McCain, I'm really getting worried

[TheDonkey]

165. We'll that settles it. Why do we even waste money on these primaries

You know the saying, as goes 25 family members in Boca Raton goes the nation.

[angie_love]

189. LOL! I love how these hillbots try to scare us by saying their "family" will never vote for Obama.

[melody]

31. I'm a white working class voter

I'm female and I'm for Obama.

My husband, also a white working class voter, voted for Obama.

My son, a white working class voter, voted for Obama.

My sister .... etc, etc.

[charlie]

48. He shellacked her in Wisconsin

in every group, save women seniors. White, female, low income, low education, he took them all. Wisconsin was a gimme for Hillary and she lost it. So yeah, he can win those, he's done it.

And Geez Louise, we're talking about Hillary Clinton as the alternative, as if whatever Obama's shortcomings, the longtime star of Republican Creature Features would do better.

[Suzie57]

108. I'm a White 50 year old Woman who lives in a rural area

I'm voting for Obama.

My 56 year old Laborer Husband is voting for Obama

My 22 year old Carpenter son is voting for Obama

I asked my husband if his racist brother would vote for Obama if he is the nominee and he said that yes he will. If Clinton gets the nomination I will vote for her but I won't be happy about it.

[Quixote1818]

32. Actually, Hillary will bring out the Republican base and Obama will win Independents, Liberal Dems

Moderate Dems, Moderate Republicans etc. You can't base things on how they vote when it's Dem against Dem. When it's Dem against Republican everything changes. Not to mention the Liberal base may stay home if Hillary wins.

[Deja Q]

33. Hillary sends out flyers saying how Bush let jobs go overseas and our middle class suffers.

Hillary has said some nice things, but I've got one of those fliers mailed to me and her own offshoring dealings still have me wondering too.

I am not equating Candidate Clinton with President Bush. I'm saying, because she has had previous dealing with offshoring companies, why would she care about our middle class?

[Cali_Democrat]

35. Pretty sad that Clinton can't beat that "loser" huh.

:rofl:

[skater314159]

You weren't supposed to notice that!

:rofl:

You obviously aren't wearing your KKK-supplied Propaganda Hat :tinfoilhat:

[Buzz Clik]

36. "HE IS DAMAGED GOODS AGAINST MCCAIN." And who has been killing herself to create that impression?

Nice try.

[blue neen]

38. I am a 52 year old white working class woman who lives in Pennsylvania,

(you know, Hillary's base), and at this moment I am leaning Obama.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Don't tell me what I think and feel and how I will vote. I hate that.

[IsItJustMe]

47. Straight up Blue, straight up.

:toast:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

58. right on, Blue Neen!

I hate it when someone tells me I must be for Clinton because I'm white, 57, and working class. It smacks of snootiness to me.

[roseBudd]

127. I am a 50 year old white working class woman from Ohio & I & hubby just voted O last Tues.

And I stood in the rain canvassing at the bus stop on Tues. For Obama. I won't be busting my ass for someone who wants to cheat with her pals the superdelagates

[rwheeler31]

39. Thank God our kids still believe in the good .

[DJ13]

41. If Hillarys the nominee men will vote McCain

Seriously, they dont like Hillary, and they never thought Bill was worth a damn either.

[TexasLady]

136. In Texas that's a given

it's like they have it pasted to their foreheads, like the Terry Bradshaw commercial.

[juajen]

198. Golly, how did he get all those votes for two presidencies?

Really, ya'll are funny! You do remember the 70% approval rating as they left office, don't you. Of course, this was the democrats that gave them this rating. No pugs. Come on, tell me again why you hate the only democratic president in 28 years, actually a two termer. Still beloved by many, many Americans and grudgingly respected by pugs and indies. Really, ya'll keep on trying, but we're not buying. I'll be glad when ya'll go back to wherever you came from and let DU get back to being DU.

[IsItJustMe]

43. If I go down, I would rather go down with someone with class and dignity than go down with someone

who will try to win at any cost and take their party down with them.

I'll roll those dice and take that chance, Hell yeah. And I think you need to give people more credit than appealing to arguments based on race.

[HeraldSquare212]

44. Right, so many Reps and Independents and even Dems are just dying to vote for Hillary.

tell me again about her negatives, and how she stacks up v. McCain to how Obama stacks up v. McCain?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[marmar]

46. This post is emblamatic of why so many sane DUers avoid this forum.....

.... an absolute bottom-feeding scum-eating fish of a post. Absolutely pathetic!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. Hold on a minute

I'm a 57 year old white woman who works in an office. My husband, same age, is a blue collar worker.

I do not support Clinton, though if she's the nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for her.

My husband says if Clinton is the nominee, he will vote third party or even for McCain.

So your generalizations don't apply to us.

[ProSense]

55. Bogus spin. Here is why he will win

The big-state myth debunked:

State................Obama..............Clinton

California...........2,126,000..........2,553,000

Texas ..............1,358,000..........1,459,000

New York.............698,000..........1,003,000

Illinois...............1,302,000............662,000

Ohio...................982,000..........1,212,000

Georgia...............704,000.............330,000

New Jersey..........492,000.............603,000

Virginia...............627,000.............350,000

Washington.........354,000.............316,000


Total................8,643,000 ........8,487,000

Obama ahead in the big states by more than 150,000 votes

more

[Lochloosa]

57. White Working Class Here

And your wrong.

[NC_Nurse]

59. You mean like me? Bullshit.

[ProSense]

62. More disappointment for you: McCain loses NY

As Democratic Race Tightens, Senator Clinton’s Job Approval Dips in Home State

[Omega3]

63. one of the best posts here I've read in a long time and sums up exactely how I feel

the bottom line is Kansas will not vote for the Dem, no matter who they are, neither will North Dakota, Nebraska, Utah, Alaska, Louisiana, Alabama, Geogia, South Carolina. He is being propped up by open primaries with a repuke contest already over. And what do we have coming up? West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, North CArolina. Today he wins Wyoming, red is as red can be.

this guy has so many negatives that the GOP hate machine will be pulling out in the GE it's scary. His whole "reach across the aisle" meme is rediculous, the repukes will eat him alive, the OP was right, the GOP has hated the Clintons b/c they don't take shit from the them, they fight back.

this whole 'she's being negative' is rediculous. this is a highly contested primary and Obama and his supporters cry foul everytime she say anything. They act like this is their first primary season, like he's above reproach.

[loveangelc]

220. according to susa he's within a few points in SC, NC, AK KS and winning ND actually.

[fujiyama]

64. It's possible you may have a point...

but if it were all true, why is she not winning? She had the advantage from the start. This fight shouldn't have gone on this long. She should have won a LONG time ago.

But she didn't because she had a bad strategy of only competing in a few states. If she were winning the number of delegates or the popular vote, I'd say she has a good argument but as of now she doesn't. She understood the process. I keep hearing about all this experience she has and how she's vetted. Then why couldn't she take on a freshman senator like Obama?

[Gore1FL]

69. Do you have a link that shows this?

Becauee I have infomration shat shows otherwise:

This is about the 1000thtime I've ghad to cut and paste it.

1> The process is set up in a way to represent Democrats from across the nation. Delegates are proportioned to Democratic votes in the last three elections and electoral votes
as shown here:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

The big state Blue state argument has already been accounted for in that proportion.

2> Now more than ever, all 50 states matter. The 50-states is part of the DNC program since 2005, and has shown to be a sound model with the pickup of the house and Senate in the very first election since its implementation.

Here is the DNC policy:

The Democratic Party is committed to winning elections at every level in every region of the country, and we're getting started right now with a massive effort to fund organizers on the ground in every state.

The ultimate goal? An active, effective group of Democrats organized in every single precinct in the country.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy /

3> Knowing that all states are impiortant, and know that delegates are distributed to their electoral votes and record in Democratic elections we see what is truly amazing about the 100-175 pledged delegate lead Obama takes to the convention: Even with winning Red states as part of of the states he has won, Obma has still has managed to win what can only be viewed as an insurmountable lead due to the limited number of remaining contests, especially considering a majority of those likely to fall in his column.

4> One cannot base the outcome of the general election on primary wins. This can be seen by loking at the Survey USA polls and electoral maps. Currently those maps show Obama beating McCain 280 to 258 in the general election, and Clinton beating McCain 276 to 262.

http://www.surveyusa.com /

5> Further analysis makes this even more interesting. By taking states that McCain only leads Obama by ONLY 3 points, the following "Red" states become battleground states:
FL, NE, NC, SC, TX, and VA which put a total of 102 Red state electors in play. If you increase the margin to 5%, you can add six total electors from ND and SD.
That looks like Obama can win more than enough of the big battleground states.

6> There is no historical precedent, and no current compelling reason, especially in light of the above, for Super Delegates to overturn the expensive contests of the primary/caucus season, neglecting the efforts of the campaign volunteers, the candidates and staff to install the second place candidate who trails at the convention by a minimum of 12% of the total super delegate count.

No realistic scenario exists for Clinton to win the nomination. No realistic scenario exists for Obama to lose the General.

[Upton]

70. If Hillary's the nominee, black voters will stay home

aren't they part of that precious "base" you're blabbering about?

[BzaDem]

71. I couldn't sum it up better myself. I feel like we are talking to a wall though.

Part of me thinks that most Obama supporters on DU don't really care. They would rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary. More accurately, they would rather lose with anyone than win with Hillary. The evidence against Obama's electability is so overwhelming -- it just requires looking a few months ahead, which seems so difficult for most people on this board.

[provis99]

84. exept national polls say Clinton would lose against McCain

while Obama would win. Oh, I forget. To a Clinton supporter, polls don't matter.

[BzaDem]

88. Sorry, you are wrong.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/electability-again/

Please read that.

And aside from the fact that Clinton's electability is increasing over Obamas, would you have made the same argument for Kerry, who was up by 10 in 2004, or Dukakis, who was up by 12 in 1988?

Because if you did, you would be wrong.

The reason why you would be wrong is unknown candidates have NOWHERE TO GO BUT DOWN. Swiftboating (whether it took the form of the Willy Horton ad in 1988, or the actual Swift Boat group in 2004) dramatically raises unknown candidates' negatives.

[charlie]

115. Depends on the candidate and circumstance

The original Clinton was an unknown. Dukakis is the case study for an astoundingly bad national candidacy, he'd lose with a 200yd head start and a hurricane at his back.

[roseBudd]

130. The evidence that Hillary is unlikeable because her personality is grating is overwhelming

yet people seek to ignore that pesky fact. And you thought Kerry and Gore bombed

[BzaDem]

210. Except Obama is within 2-5 points of Hillary in any unlikability poll. Oops.

[JAbuchan08]

215. Amazing what "scorched earth" can accomplish

all the fresh new polls about Obama's "unlikeability" should be considered in light of Clinton's "kitchen sink" strategy.

[DrFunkenstein]

73. Compare The Turnout For Obama (Even In The Few States He Loses) to McCain

You cannot say that there is any big enthusiasm for McCain. Bush only won in 2004 because of high voter turnout by the fundies. The GOP is dispirited and we are FIRED UP!!!

Ps - Thinking that New Jersey - with Newark, Trenton, Jersey City, Elizabeth, Camden - will somehow turn red shows how little your sad, last minute argument makes.

[Omega3]

87. NJ won't turn red, but KS, NE, ND, ID, UT, AK, LA, AL, GA, SC won't turn blue either, this strategy

of picking up delegates in red states to artificially pump up his total is good for the numbers but not practical come Novemeber. He's being propped up by repukes in red states and an artificially high number of AA's in the south when the Dems won't win those states come the GE.

[Inuca]

75. HE IS DAMAGED GOODS !!!

The gull of such a statement from a Clinton supporter...

Another perspective http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-clinton-rul.html

For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. If this promise is eclipsed because the old political system conspires to strangle it at birth, the reaction from the new influx of voters will be severe. The Clintons will all but guarantee they will lose a hefty amount of it in the fall, as they richly deserve to. Some will gravitate to McCain; others will be so disillusioned they will withdraw from politics for another generation. If the Clintons grind up and kill the most promising young leader since Kennedy, and if they do it not on the strength of their arguments, but by the kind of politics we have seen them deploy, the backlash will be deep and severe and long. As it should be.

He has a million little donors. He has brought many, many Republicans and Independents to the brink of re-thinking their relationship with the Democratic party. And he has won the majority of primaries and caucuses and has a majority of the delegates and popular vote. This has been a staggering achievement - one that has already made campaign history. If the Clintons, after having already enjoyed presidential power for eight long years, destroy this movement in order to preserve their own grip on privilege and influence in Democratic circles, it will be more than old-fashioned politics. It will be a generational moment - as formative as 1968. Killing it will be remembered for a very, very long time. And everyone will remember who did it - and why.

[rpannier]

76. Another day, another prediction

Both sides have been wrong so often you'd think they'd give it up

[JerseygirlCT]

78. OTOH, Clinton starts with a pretty solid percentage of people

who - rightly or wrongly - already can't stand her and will not vote for her. There's a solid group of people who simply can't stand her - she's not going to win them over, and they're likely to go to McCain.

In every poll so far, Obama does far better against McCain than does Clinton. I suppose you can argue that people are lying to the pollsters so as not to appear racist (the "Bradley effect"), but I'm not so sure that holds here.

What I'm becoming very sure about is the "kitchen sink" stuff is going to hurt them both, and hurt Democratic chances in the fall, period.

[Omega3]

89. you're branded by the MSM, you've heard the words : hated, polerizing, unelectable and kitchen sick

so many times by the MSM you're starting to believe it.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. No, actually, I've spoken to that many people who say

remarkably similar things. And over the years, the same. I've been the one defending her for years to people who simply DO NOT LIKE her.

Unfortunately, her behavior in this campaign is starting to point out to me what they've been sensing.

And while I understand that you need to believe what you do on this, I think that I've got it right.

[kid a]

79. please see any post by nancegreggs on how to write a logical post

yours is hyperbole, illogical, broad stroked stereotypes and pontification.

You haven't done your homework on Obama and his supporters, have you.

[Liberal Veteran]

80. That's strange....Last time I checked I was white and working class.

And yet I support Obama.

[JVS]

83. Drink a latte! It will magically transform you to a yuppie!

[Liberal Veteran]

106. A hyper-yuppie with hyperuria at that.

Lattes make me need to pee.

[Blondiegrrl]

196. I wish I could be magically transformed into an upper-middle class person.

Since all of Obama's supporters are wealthy. :eyes:

[JVS]

200. I'm not wealthy.

And I don't mean to say not wealthy in the "boohoo, I don't make as much more than the median income as I'd like to" sense

[DerekJ]

81. Survey USA disagrees with you

This week SurveyUSA released the results of 50 separate but simultaneously conducted statewide surveys asking registered voters if they would vote for Republican John McCain or Democrat Hillary Clinton in an election “today.” Outcome:

McCain 258
Obama 280


http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/08/mccain-vs-obama-electoral-math-from-1006-compared-to-0308/

[Omega3]

90. and John Kerry was up 20% on Bush last election, that worked out great didn't it?

[DerekJ]

103. Are you saying that your speculations are actually more credible than SurveyUSA poll?

[Omega3]

105. speculation? try FACT, there's lot's of polls out there, they have little bearing on the GE, the

fact is Kerry was up on Bush by 20% before the election and lost it.

[DerekJ]

118. Where is your facts? Survery USA has been bloody accurate.

Sorry, but I have to say I trust them over you. He even beats Hillary in the GE by few points !!

[HughMoran]

245. So Hillary won all those states she was up in by 20-30 percentage points?

Don't you see how utterly foolish it is to believe polls 6 months before an election?

[rodeodance]

85. I have the same concerns you have HM.

[earthside]

86. If old Hill wins the nomination, African-Americans will not vote for her and she'll LOSE

Actually, the more probable scenario right now is that if old Hill and her supporters keep up these tactics of scorched earth politics, promoting McCain, and belittling of African-Americans aspirations -- then blacks will stay home in November 2008, and that will mean Bush Three.

Thanks to old Hill's negative, divisive. low road tactics and rhetoric in the past three weeks, the Dem nomination may be becoming worthless.

On top of that old Hill's 'experience by marriage' theme, her playing the shrill, whiny victim, and building up McCain's commander-in-chief credentials has been stupid, stupid, stupid.

The only chance the Democrats have now to salvage this presidential election is to close the door fast on Shrillary's negative rampage. Hopefully, Obama is talented enough that there might be enough time to save the value of the nomination.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

213. Agreed, You've pretty much summed the situation we're in and the reason Obama supporters get

more pissed off as each day goes by. That's one more day that McBush has to consolidate his position. Hillary just doesn't care about that though. If she was smart, she'd bow out gracefully now, holding a modicum of class, and make a stab at it next time. Instead, she decides to destroy the party for a less then negligible chance to win the nomination.

[stevietheman]

93. Will Hillbots please stop endorsing McCain over Obama?

It's getting rather...umm... unDemocratic.

[AZBlue]

94. Wow...there's absolutely nothing in your post that's correct.

I'm sorry.

[amborin]

95. Obama may not be able to win the GE says Washington Post

The Washington Post

March 8, 2008 Saturday

HEADLINE: Downside of Obama Strategy;
Losses in Big States Spur General-Election Fears

BYLINE: Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray; Washington Post Staff Writers

Democrats in Wyoming will hold caucuses today and -- following what is now a familiar pattern -- are expected to give Sen. Barack Obama the majority of their 12 pledged delegates.
The Illinois Democrat's strength in a Republican state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964 is the latest example of an ingenious strategy that neatly addresses the advantage Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) enjoys in Democratic strongholds where she and her husband have long-standing ties.

But Obama's losses Tuesday in Texas and Ohio -- coupled with his Feb. 5 defeats in California, New York and New Jersey -- have not only shown the strategy's downside. They have also given supporters of Clinton an opening for an argument that winning over affluent, educated white voters in small Democratic enclaves, such as Boise, Idaho, and Salt Lake City, and running up the score with African Americans in the Republican South exaggerate his strengths in states that will not vote Democratic in the fall.

snip

If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee but cannot win support from working-class whites and Hispanics, they argue, then Democrats will not retake the White House in November. "If you can't win in the Southwest, if you don't win Ohio, if you don't win Pennsylvania, you've got problems in November," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Clinton supporter. Even some Obama advisers see a real problem. "Ultimately, all that matters is how the nominee stacks up against John McCain," said one adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity, referring to the senator from Arizona and presumptive GOP nominee. "Right now, Barack is not connecting with the children of the Reagan Democrats. That's a real concern."

[catgirl]

97. Funny. I just read this exact post by someone else.

Racist, flamebaiting posts.

[Omega3]

99. I don't think Obama should be our nominee in November : "I'm a racist"

[catgirl]

211. Maybe extreme? Maybe a loose cannon?

Aggressive? I don't know. I don'r care either.

[moobu2]

100. Better start practicing saying president McCain

less something changes. No way in hell Barack can be elected POTUS.

[goclark]

101. She is damaged good to millions of young votes and for

sure the African American community and lots of latte drinkers and just great plain folks like those in all those states he has won.As well as those that he met at the HUGE rallies that he held.

She is damaged good all over the world to those that were looking for someone that could rise above the scum and gutter politics and reach for a higher standard.

Let's see what happens but don't think that she is not damaged.

[EndElectoral]

102. What kind of racist statement is this thread? Will men vote for Hillary vs. McCain? C'mon!

[JerseygirlCT]

107. I suspect that what this argument misses

is that while there are certainly people who won't vote for Obama - because of his race, perhaps - there are also many people who will turn out to vote who would otherwise not bother.

It's not a zero-sum game, in other words. And the number of people Obama has been pulling into politics is pretty impressive.

It's not like the US has a high percentage of its population turning out to vote. Which means there is a huge amount of people out there to be potential voters - if they are inspired to do so.

[moobu2]

109. That'll change in theGE

[rolleitreks]

110. You know what you are? A LOSER. n/t

[skater314159]

146. Yeah, and a racist one too. nt

[Marie26]

111. Stop scaring people.

Obama can blow out McCain as well. MCCAIN is the damaged goods - since his nomination he's gone from lobby sex scandal to yelling at reporters. Huckabee still racked up the 30% of fundies - and those fundie voters are NOT going to be enthusiastic McCain supporters. Plus, double turnout at Dem. primaries. The GOP is dead, dead, dead - Bush's last destruction.

[skater314159]

148. Fear worked so well for *, why not keep it up...

... if it helps their candidate win?

That's all Hillary and her cohorts care about - winning... not what the American people want if it's not Hillary.

[Marie26]

175. I'm a Hillary cohort

But there's no need for doomsday scenarios if the other Dem. gets the nomination. It's not all that different from people claiming that people will never vote for a woman, or a Clinton. She's a better candidate IMO, but either one should beat McCain in a walk.

[youknowmenotdlc]

112. Fear is the tool of the Republicans

it is not how the Democratic party I grew up with should operate.

[skater314159]

149. After her support of McCain...

... I'm starting to think that Hillary is tending towards Repuke.

I wish I knew the Democratic party you grew up with...

[michaz]

113. This is a disgusting post! And you are a loser!!

[bhikkhu]

114. A fine theory, but meet the real world:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Obama wins.

Aside, I read somewhere that FDR's embalmed nose could beat McCain in a fair election. As long as the Dem party has not imploded into flaming rubble, we win.

[LisaL]

197. Oh you've got to be kidding me.

Those polls don't amount to a bag of beans right now.

[Selatius]

117. You're a totally unbiased source of information.

:sarcasm:

[roseBudd]

121. IF white working class dems were racist, they would be republicans

Now get yourself a latte at the dunkin' donuts

[TexasLady]

122. Im White, Working, AND I have Class!

cause I voted and caucused for Obama! And so did my kid, her first time to vote!

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Maddy McCall]

129. Is it ok to point out that Mississippi has the largest African American population of any state...

and therefore predict an Obama victory there?

If someone says that, are they a "bigot and racist fuck?"

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Maddy McCall]

133. So is it bigoted to say that blacks will vote for a black person over a white...

simply because of race? Because a lot of DUers have made that observation.

[skater314159]

139. You don't get what I was saying.

And as I stated, I'm not explaining "racism" to you.

Here's a clue: To NOT vote for someone because they are BLACK IS RACIST.

[Maddy McCall]

140. We're talking about bigotry...and wouldn't you say that to predict that blacks...

will only vote for a black candidate is racist?

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[Maddy McCall]

143. No, it's no more racist than to say that blacks won't vote for Hillary because she's white.

I think race should be a topic that we can discuss without losing our heads.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[Maddy McCall]

147. I have no problem discussing race. It's part of my job.

I do it every day with other academics of multiple races.

Why you want to hurl the "bigot" label at anyone who discusses the role of race in this election is perplexing.

[skater314159]

151. When it is used as fearmongering and propaganda, I wont tolerate it.

And trotting out your "experience" smacks of your candidate.

Get down off your Ivory Tower and spend time among the people. It might actually teach YOU something.

[Maddy McCall]

153. Wow...you're just to hostile to discuss anything.

That sucks for you.

[skater314159]

157. No. I just won't give in to your academic allowance for bigotry. nt

[Maddy McCall]

160. In other words, you want to disarm anyone who wishes to discuss race in this election...

by screaming "BIGOT!" at them.

All clear now.

[skater314159]

166. No. Once again, you don't get the point.

The OP is racist.

If you can't see that despite your academic background (which means you have degrees, right?) then I can't help you, as you are likely racist yourself. Not seeing the forest becuase you are a tree and all that... maybe asking one of your "black friends" could shed some light on the situation for you.

[theredpen]

154. This doesn't really establish much...

"I do it every day with other academics of multiple races."

So... some of your best friends are black? What, exactly, is your point here?

[Maddy McCall]

158. My point is that race is a valid topic for discussion in this election.

And that I can discuss it without becoming hotheaded.

As for the "some of my friends are black" comment...don't know what that's supposed to mean.

[skater314159]

161. It means you pointed out specifically that you work with "multiple races"

so you don't SOUND like a bigot.

Gee, for an academic, you don't get stuff us normal plebians do.

[theredpen]

163. Discussing something dispassionately is not equivalent to discussing it intelligently

"And that I can discuss it without becoming hotheaded."

Does that make you better than me?

[roseBudd]

183. If Blacks stay home and don;t support the party that has a tendency to take them for granted it

will be because Hillary threw Obama under the bus

[skater314159]

191. Thanks...

I didn't know how to say that right, but you did.

I am just sick of how even here on DU, Blacks (and other minority groups) are taken for granted.

I know we don't have much choice in political parties in the US, but I hate hearing racist crap that sounds like a Repuke talking being posted here on DU.

At my precinct's caucus last week, there were many people taking part in the political process... I like Obama, as he makes everyone - people of all races, religions, ethnicities, social classes, economic groups, gender, and sexual orientation feel like they count. It's good to feel like my voice and opinion as a citizen matter again.

[theredpen]

150. I would say yes: assuming that blacks will vote only due to race is bigoted

My Congresional Rep., Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30), committed her super-delegate vote early on.

Gee, who did she pick? A woman like herself, or an African-American like herself? Neither, she pledged to Edwards. I don't know how she'll vote now, but since most of the people in her district support Obama, I suspect she'll go with him. Some people may trot out a theory that she's voting on race, but she'd proven that she's above identity politics.

A shocking exit-poll statistic came out in Ohio: 1 out of 5 (20%) of the voters polled said that race was the "most important" factor in their vote. Most of them voted for Clinton. If you take the percentage of racially-motivated voters who voted for Obama (according to the exit poll) you will have a smaller percentage than the overall percentage of African-American voters. The bottom line? Yes, some voters who vote according to race vote for Obama (and maybe it's whites who like black people — we don't know), but most of them do not.

You can predict anything you want. To predict according to biases and not data is bigoted.

Does that make sense?

[Maddy McCall]

152. All of which goes to show that the OP is a valid discussion topic.

And that the OP's mentioning this does not make him/her "racist" or "bigoted."

[skater314159]

155. It IS bigoted to say WHITE AMERICA doesn't want a BLACK MAN for President. nt

[theredpen]

159. Yes, it is a valid discussion topic

However, the conclusion is not supported. Instead, it is FUD ("Fear Uncertainty, and Doubt"). It raises a specter and appeals to our worst instincts in order to prod us into doing something "practical" rather than doing the right thing.

The right thing is the eschew identity politics and choose the candidate with the most votes. Unless there is an election miracle, that candidate will be Barack Obama.

[Samantha]

126. Sure they will

McCain is against a national health care program; Obama has one. When push comes to shove, they will vote for the candidate that will insure them.

[Hieronymus]

128. Do you think they'll vote for McCain? No doubt many Hillary supporters will.

[Maddy McCall]

132. According to Pew Research, more Dems will vote for Hillary vs. McCain...

than would if it were Obama vs. McCain.

89% vs 81%

[roseBudd]

134. Most Dems have yet to see Obama standing next to Grandpa McCain in a debate

Obama is cool as a cucumber and McCain has a temper. I can't wait.

Then there is that height thing. Add a sprinkle of that fabulous speechifying and no amount of Daily Show can make McCain look like anything but grumpy old man.

[Maddy McCall]

135. You're using your imagination. I'm using actual research...

You'll pardon me if I lean toward the authenticity of the research.

[theredpen]

169. There is other, more-recent data

1. You didn't link to your data, Ms. Academic. Stop being smug about how smart you are if you can't use the Internet properly.

2. SurveyUSA shows that Barak Obama would beat McCain with 280 electoral votes, and Clinton would also beat him — with 276

This disputes your data. It would be possible that Clinton could have more popular votes and fewer electors, but that possibility is... er... academic, as the electoral college decides the President, not the popular vote (as we are all painfully aware — well, maybe not you).

Look! Citations!
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

[bhikkhu]

172. Here is another. and Obama wins against McCain

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[skater314159]

179. Don't confuse the Partisans with DATA.

It just confuses them.

[roseBudd]

182. Oh yeah an opinion poll of likely voters 10 months before an election, well hell

lets just call off that election and crown Hillary. Elections! Who needs elections? Pew has it all figured out. It is clearly impossible for anyone other than Hillary to be president. Pardon me.

[skater314159]

142. You cherry pick polls that suit your needs.

That doesn't say much for your "research".

[Maddy McCall]

144. No I didn't. It's the most recent poll I've read that puts both candidates against McCain.

[theredpen]

171. Reference? Link? Citation?

You are an academic, right? These words have meaning for you, right?

[skater314159]

173. You cited PEW ONLY... there is more than one polling group honey.

Ms. "Academic".

There are MANY other polls out there right now that state Obama would beat McCain, as well as Hillary... but that doesn't support your point, so you ignored it.

You really shouldn't boast about being an academic or look down on people you percieve as having less education when you cherry-pick - it makes you look bad.

Also, only alerting on my posts calling the OP racist because you have a vendetta against me for disagreeing with you is immature. Why don't you alert on them too? Or did they not step on your ivory tower toes? You can call this "whining" if it makes you feel better - but it's pointing our your hypocricy for this topic you state is so "important".

[bhikkhu]

181. Link for PEW - take a look

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/750/obama-lead-problems

Embedded in the op-ed piece are the data of apparently their latest survey (Feb 20-24). In a head to head, both Obama and Clinton both beat McCain. Obama's margin is slightly better than Clinton's. The news at PEW is already old though and more opinion than data: there are better sources.

[skater314159]

190. Thanks, that was what I was trying to say.

That is cool info... thanks for your eloquence.

:yourock:

[skater314159]

194. So you don't read the links of others on this thread?

That have more recent data?
Even when they are posted as direct responses to you?
Academics can't click on a link?

[theredpen]

137. Racist Bullshit

Idaho is the whitest state in the union. Not only that, but there almost no African Americans there — you are twice as likely to run into a Native American than an African American in Idaho. Idaho is home base to a lot of the worst white supremacist organizations in the country.

Obama won 79% of the vote in the Idaho caucus.

According to Survey USA, had the election been last Thursday (Mar 6), Obama would have lost Idaho to McCain (52%-McCain, 39%-Obama). Against Clinton, McCain wins even larger: 63% to 37%.

In the whitest and arguably most racist state in the USA, Obama draws more votes that Clinton. Also clear is the number of people who would rather vote against Clinton than for McCain.

There is no question that America is ready for a black president. Take your racist "fear, uncertainty and doubt," and go home.

[JTFrog]

204. I hear those white blue collar folks wouldn't vote for him in Maine either.

O.P. is full of shit.

[Medusa]

138. Yeah that's why he's winning all these primaries and caucuses

:rofl:

By the way? Hillary's high negatives guarantee she'd get no more than 45% of the vote. . . AT BEST. Nothing would rally the general populace to turn out and vote AGAINST the Dems like having HRC as the nominee. She is unelectable.

[saltpoint]

156. O I think we Democrats are going to do very well indeed in November.

Be of good cheer.

[berni_mccoy]

162. that is one of the most racists statements made by a long-time DUer I've ever seen.

[Colobo]

176. Herman is a desperate Hillarite. A bitter Hillarite.

We need to understand how he's feeling now that he knows Obama will be the nominee.

[grantcart]

178. havent you had your third thread yet?

[RamboLiberal]

180. And if the African-American voters sit out cause they feel

shafted again by the Democratic party - how the hell will Hillary win????????????

[dionysus]

186. awwww, hermie needs his banky....

[Johnny Potpie]

192. Quite the opposite

Hillary has so many skeletons in the closet that the thugs in the GOP are going to exploit them all. Obama can win hearts and minds if given the chance. I believe that he will give hope to those moderates that want change. That want this war to end. But in order for that to happen, Hillary needs to step aside so Obama can start this difficult mission. He can accomplish this task, Hillary cannot. She's too polarizing.

[David Zephyr]

195. Herman Munster has still another thread with the title including racial overtones.

Can you say obsession with race?

[Cheap_Trick]

199. another white blue collar male (41 y.o.)

voting for Obama. No latte involved either....I HATE coffee.

I will vote for her IF she is the nominiee, however...

I think your "junkyard dog" is foaming at the mouth. The republics have hard-ons at the prospect of taking Old Yeller out behind the barn. Why do you think they've been supporting her so much? They want her to be the nominee. They NEED her to be the nominee. It's what they've dreamed of and trained 8 years for. You think they're gonna be rough with Obama? They'll annihilate Hillary. Bury her under a mountain of attack ads and pitbull pundits 10 miles high. You seem to forget the "right wing caricature" of Hillary. They'll use Bill and his magic zipper against her. They'll use Webster Hubbell, Castle Grande, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Billing-gate, Paula Jones,the Lippo group....the list goes on and on. It doesn't matter what either Clinton did or didn't do in any of this. They will bring all this and much, much more back into the light and use it against her. THIS is the real world. And she will be the LOSER.

Just a suggestion to HRC...maybe you shouldn't use your time as First Lady as qualifications for POTUS. As far as the wingers are concerned, anything Bill was involved in, you were too. And they WILL use it against you.

[thewiseguy]

201. STFU and keep twisting the facts

[mythyc]

202. well you said it, so it must be true.

:eyes:

[krispos42]

203. In 1992, Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote

to Bush41's 37.4% and Perot's 18.9%


In 1996, he won with 49.2%, to Dole's 40.7% and Ross Perot's 8.4%.


He won pluralities, not majorities, of the popular vote.

[Neshanic]

207. Herman, I agree, and all we can do is watch the wreckage.

[JackORoses]

208. You have descended into bigotry in your pain at watching Hillary crumble

You know what you are?

A RACIST.

It gives me great pleasure to say to you this:

Hillary will never be President of these United States. Never.

:)

[Little Star]

212. Yep

[DerekJ]

216. Check This

[xmas74]

221. Is that Missouri with McCain?

Did you know that Missouri has only voted against the winning candidate one time in over 100 years? (Adlai Stevenson in 1956).

Missouri is a bellwether state. Whatever happens there tends to reflect the rest of the US. In this case McCain wins Missouri.

Obama supporters should be scared if this is true. If Obama loses Missouri he loses the election. It's always been that way.

[Ka hrnt]

235. Hmmm...

Let's see:

1. Unpopular war.
2. Unpopular Republican president.
3. Shakey economy.
4. High gas prices.
5. All sorts of Republican scandals.

and yet....

The most likely Dem nominee is only ahead by 22 EC votes? Is anyone else more than a little nervous about this? Especially since Obama lost Ohio to Clinton? Heck he loses just Ohio, and according to this, he loses the election. How did the Democrats, with all they had going for them (or rather, with all the stuff going against the Republicans) wind up in a close race???

[Vinca]

217. The same morons who would vote against Obama because he is black,

would most likely vote against Clinton because she's a woman. Old, white men forever????

[LordJFT]

219. Ignore the GE polls! Ignore Hillary's 49% unfavorability rating. To determine a candidates

electability go by Herman Munster's intuition!

[Arkana]

222. Ha. Ha ha. Ahahahahahaha.

Aren't you just precious!

[dcindian]

223. Bull Obama has been winning that segment of the population.

What kind of racist loser claims to be a Dem then won't vote for a black Dem?

[mtnsnake]

224. Neither will all the Republicans & Independents who voted for him in the Primaries

He can reach out to Repukes all he wants and at the end of the day they're gonna vote for McCain, not ANY Democrat.

With his total lack of experience, Obama won't stand a chance against McCain, who will be perceived as the only strong choice on security. With Hillary as our candidate, she would cream McCain because she's a good choice for security and she's got a much stronger background on the economy.

[Johnny__Motown]

225. Wrong, people are sick of the Repugs. Every poll shows Obama doing better than McCain or Clinton

The fact that you can type something does not make it true.


Your self fulfilling prophecy of only "low road" politicians winning is no longer relevant. We have a chance to move beyond this and change raise the bar in regards to what we expect from out elected officials.


Have some courage, vote for the "high road" for a CHANGE.

[mzmolly]

226. I come from a working class family, all are supporting Obama.

If he can beat Hillary, he can beat McCain.

[Hippo_Tron]

227. Yea cuz Walter Mondale won a landslide by securing the base of the Democratic Party

:eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

228. Oh well...

I guess you have uncovered the dirty secret of the white suburban male: he is, in stereotype, but perhaps only by a thin majority, a racist asshole. By the way, he is equally a sexist asshole too, so he won't be voting for the other contender either. Oh, and by the way, by the same analysis, he votes reknucklian. How about that?

[Splinter Cell]

229. Guess what...

Hillary couldn't win Ohio, Florida, Texas, or any swing state. She wouldn't carry all the states that Gore and Kerry won. She couldn't beat John McCain. That's a fact.

Your idea that Obama can't win is bullshit. Hillary is the one that would be destroyed in the GE. Running against McCain would make Hillary WISH she could pull the votes McGovern did.

[bpeale]

230. i agree with this 100%. obama has not been bringing the base along.

the base is looking at other options, just like i am. if obama is the nominee, i will not vote for him. i'm not going to reward the democratic party for continuing bad behavior. they will have to EARN my vote & so far they haven't done that.

the democrats can't win without the base.

[Steely_Dan]

231. Biden Would Have...

wiped the floor with McCain.

Nuff said.

-P

[Tribetime]

232. You forgot the terrorist attack

and them dancing in the streets.

[metalluk]

233. Elderly voters won't stay home; they'll cross over

I agree that working class Democrats will generally not vote for Obama. I think that will also prove the case with most elderly Democrats and the elderly comprise a very large segment of the voting public.

In Rhode Island where I live, Obama received a trouncing at the polls on March 4th, largely because the elderly turned out in droves. Rhode Island may be insignificant in the electoral math, but it is one of the two most Democratic states in the country. Those elderly voters didn't trudge down to the polls on a rainy day Marth 4th out of love for Hillary Clinton. They were casting a vote against inexperience.

Here is Rhode Island, we have substantial problems that require substantial solutions, not vague appeals to "hope" and "change." Obama's youth movement holds no appeal for elderly voters. Hillary's health care plan is seen as better than Obama's and Hillary is judged to be the candidate most likely to be able to deliver on her promises.

Those who believe that Hillary's supporters are primarily party "regulars" who will fall into line if Obama is nominated are in for a surprise. Many elderly voters are Democrat-leaning, independent-minded people who will vote for the candidate they think most appreciates their concerns. Obama's youth-movement will hold little appeal. McCain has already indicated his intention to appeal to moderate Democrats and Independents and will have little difficulty doing so if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

[apocalypsehow]

234. Hurry up and post two more, so the three-thread limit can be reached

and I'll have my fill of gazing at horseshit for the day.

[mod mom]

236. UM, I WORKED W WHITE WORKING CLASS OBAMA VOLUNTEERS AND CAN HONESTLY SAY

YOU'VE PULLED MORE CRAP OUT OF YOUR BIASED BUTT.

[VotesForWomen]

237. correct. nt

[smoogatz]

238. Obama's a much more effective campaigner and counter-puncher than Hillary.

And he'll eviscerate McCain in the 527 wars. McCain is an extremely vulnerable candidate, particularly if Bush's economy and the situation in Iraq continue to deteriorate. McCain's hitched his wagon to the least popular president in history, for God's sake. You think Farrakhan's endorsement hurts Obama? Compared to what?

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

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

[goclark]

240. So let the junk yard dog (your words) run with another Democrat

And let's see how well they do~ there are more people in America, thousands of young voters and inspired poor White people and..better not forget those African American voters that helped get them to the WH.The ones that Clinton pals around with in Harlem.

When you talk about a "Clinton base," let's just keep slamming and pissing off African Americans why don't you.

Every time I see a post like yours I make it printer friendly and send it to the 40 friends on my email list with the button link to DONATE OBAMA and quick as a wink thousands of dollars for OBAMA!

Thanks!

[OzarkDem]

241. Young voters aren't enough to carry the GE

[FogerRox]

242. I disagree, I think our next president is Barack Obama

I dont know if McCain will lose like Goldwater in '64, but this is a strange year, I feel a new wind blowing in this country.

[democrattotheend]

243. Can Clinton win without African Americans?

Because they are just as important to the Democratic base as the white working class, and a lot more loyal.

As I detailed in a blog post recently, the white working class, as well as several other groups that we call "core Democrats", actually voted for Bush in 2004. http://purplestatepundit.com/blog/election08/is-clinton-really-winning-core-democrats/

I share your concern about white working class voters, but I think low African American turnout would put Clinton in just as much danger of losing. And that might happen if Clinton gets the nomination in a way that a lot of people consider undemocratic.

[Lucky 13]

244. I have faith in Hillary's base and supporters. No really, hear me out!

For the record, I am...
...white
..."working class"
...female
...over 30
...and gay.

I firmly believe John Edwards was the very best choice for our party - and still do. But I guess it wasn't to be. Does that mean I won't vote for Hillary or Barack? Sit this election out? Vote McCain? Vote Nader? Write in "John Edwards"?

No. I will vote for the democratic nominee. And why? Because I AM NOT INSANE or DIMWITTED.

I also firmly believe that most white middle class Americans are, despite some evidence to the contrary, are also not INSANE or DIMWITTED. And the non-insane, non-dimwitted white middle class voters of America don't want there to be a President McCain. Not after 8 years of this shit. Not after going from a surplus to a major deficit. Not after our economy was flushed down the toilet. Not after paying nearly $4/gallon for gas. Not after thousands have been through foreclosure. Not after 4,000 American deaths in a bogus war. Not after the systematic raping of our environment. Not after public acceptance of the global warming crisis. Not after the American public has been raked over the coals by the Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance Industries. In the face of all that, white middle class America will turn out for Barack in November - I have no doubt.

And you know what? I know the Hillary supporters will vote for Obama in November because, despite a few nutjobs on this board, I believe that they too are not INSANE or DIMWITTED. If you are a Hillary supporter, unless you also listen to Limbaugh, that means you are also a Democrat and if you are a TRUE DEMOCRAT there is no way on god's green earth that you would make us face the prospect of President McCain! I have faith in you! HOPE is a wonderful wonderful thing!

What our party should worry about more than the consistently well "enfranchised" white vote is further disenfranchising the already disenfranchised youth and black voters. How long have Dems been trying to figure out how to get them more involved and to the polls en mass? Well one guy has it figured out! And those voters have made their voices heard LOUD AND CLEAR. They want change. They want something different. They want someone that represents THEM. And if Barack's nomination is somehow kiboshed you WILL see outrage in Denver. (I said OUTRAGE, not violence, so un-bunch your panties.) You WILL see deep irreparable damage in our party. And you will see them stay home - not just in this election, but every election where they don't see someone who they chose to represent them. You can't keep turning your back on disenfranchised voters time and again without expecting that eventually, they turn their back on you.

We will see way more division if Hillary is handed the nominee than if Barack wins it outright. And any voters that might defect because they don't particularly care for Barack will be a hell of a lot easier to eventually win back than those who become disgusted with and disenfranchised by the party.

Now, can we focus our rage on the real enemy: He's described as an approximately 300 years old, white male. White hair. Chipmunk cheeks. Quick temper. No personality. Said to be suffering from severe PTSD and Nam flashbacks. Notably way more evil than either democratic contender. Often seen with witch-like, plastic-surgery ridden, blonde woman with a history of substance abuse. And then there's his wife... ;)

[TBF]

246. Sorry, but you are misinformed --

Hillary Clinton is the one who is damaged goods and cannot win this election. Perhaps you don't recall the 90's and every scandal attributed to the Clintons, including the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Obama has no scandals and no damage. Hillary is only going negative because she has no other way to beat him.

[mod mom]

247. BS-MORE SPIN. It the ANTI-WAR/PROGRESSIVES DISGUSTED W GUTTER RACIAL POLITICS WHO WON'T VOTE FOR HC