Tell me again: Why Can't Obama Win?

[last1standing]

Generally, if a relative nobody rises up through the ranks to take a spot in the leadership of the party we think they must have something special. We certainly did when Bill Clinton did it in 1992.

Usually, if a less well funded candidate who's relatively unknown is able to keep up with a candidate with universal name recognition and seemingly endless pockets we say that's a remarkable person.

Supposedly, if that candidate can take the lead after the majority of states and people have voted we think that's the guy who should be the nominee.

Almost always, if that recently unknown, who has not only kept up but taken the lead, then withstands an all out attack on his religion, his ethics, his finances, his morality, and his experience to STILL be in the lead with even more delegates lined up we say this IS the nominee.

But for some reason we're not doing that. A large minority is instead screaming that this guy, who has not only beaten the odds but has blown them away, will never be able to defeat the republican nominee in the general election.

I'm not calling for Clinton to cede the nomination, she has the right to run for as long as she feels she has a shot at winning.

But I really want to know why some people are STILL saying that Obama can't win when he's shown so many times that he can.

Any answers?

[anonymous171]

1. Fear mongering. Makes people fall back to their default positions

In this case, support of known entity, The Clintons.

[polichick]

5. Good way to put it...

Fear does make people fall back to their default positions.

[DarienComp]

2. because, um, Rezko!

And Rev. Wright! And... Rezko! Plagiarism! Rezko!

Honestly, I'm still waiting for a real answer too.

[bunnies]

3. Because Hillary says so.

Duh! :P

[Bicoastal]

4. I strongly suspect he might be black.

[depakid]

6. Well, he didn't "rise up through the ranks"

he simply gave a fine speeches.

His thin resume will end up being a key issue for a lot of people, if he gets the nomination.

Whether Bush has lowered the bar enough for his campaign to overcome that, time will tell.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Lincoln was a one term congressman

The experience notion is a bunch of bull. Being a president isn't like being a CEO even though Bush and Mitt Romney try to claim it is. When you are President, management is left up to your staff. Judgment and decision making ability are the key factors that make a good president.

[depakid]

15. 1860 isn't 2008

And NO -the experience notion isn't a "bunch of bull."

The fact is that Obama's never run anything, and together with his short senatorial (and mundane) experience, a LOT of people are going to find that unnerving.

Indeed, many quite a few people I know IRL already do....

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. He is RUNNING an infinitely better campaign than Hillary. I see much better leadership on his side.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. You're right, 1860 isn't 2008

There was far more on the line on 1860 than there is in 2008. Lincoln presided over the years when the United States came the closest to collapsing in history. The next President will face great challenges but I don't think the very fate of whether the country continues to exist or not will lay in their hands.

[gateley]

32. Well, a LOT of people don't seem to find that unnerving in the least.

Including growing numbers of Super Delegates.

[cliffordu]

38. I'm thinking you need to look at his real resume and not the one

published on the Fox website. YOU should have such a thin resume.

Of course, he wasn't the President's second choice for 8 years, was he?

[last1standing]

21. The "thin resume" line has been debunked time and time again.

Seriously, what is it that makes you think that he can't win but Clinton can when he's completely swamped her at every turn?

By the way, that's not a jab at Clinton, it's just the truth. He's run a better campaign and it shows.

[depakid]

23. Nothing's been "debunked"

The man has slender qualifications for the presidency. ANY objective person would admit that- and anyone with the slightest bit of foresight knows that it's going to be an issue.

He'll be asked the question time and again- and Republican surrogates will run with the implications.

That's a given. Hopefully, if he's the nominee, he'll be able to spin it better than he did in the interview I saw about 6 weeks or so ago. Because that one wasn't very persuasive.

[stillcool]

I think 'experience' is in ...

the eye of the beholder. He has more legislative experience than Senator Clinton, and I think some people give him credit for the accomplishments he had in his early life. Senator McCain's experience is a double-edged sword. The reason why we have record breaking turnouts in state after state is because of John McCain's experience.

[last1standing]

30. OK then. We will never agree on this.

You've made your decision it seems and no facts will get in your way. Enjoy that and have a good day. :hi:

[mopinko]

31. he did too

he rose through the ranks here in illinois. he learned from some of the best progressive politicians on the planet. but people still stuck in the 1920's think everyone from chicago is a hack. that ain't what it is.

[leftofcool]

7. Edwin Gray.........coming soon to a MSM near you

[DevonRex]

40. You might want to look Edwin Gray up on Wikipedia under

the Keating Five. Also here: http://thatsrightnate.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/obama-rezko-apology/

[butterfly77]

8. Could it be skin color?

[BlooInBloo]

19. Nah. White folks tell me it's not.

[terrell9584]

24. I have seen race used in the following types of campaigns

Presidential, Gubernatorial, Mayoral, County Commisssion, County Sheriff, City Council, Legislative, Statewide Executive, pretty much, every campaign where you have multiple candidates running for office and ads can be run.

And this is all in the past decade. It is why I find it very hard to believe that we are not going to see 527s out in the fall running rampant with all sorts of race baiting ads, push polling and the like. Especially when you do have gems like Jeremiah Wright, and Farrakhan's endorsement. Obama may denounce him, and that's all well and good, but when you have a Republican worker driving through a white neighborhood distributing a little sheet of paper that says he is Farrakhan's candidate, that will hurt Obama. I have wondered why Farrakhan even bothered endorsing him because he has to know that his name is poison to white audiences. Even if he is a true believer, why would he bother by giving him the albatross of being publically declared as the candidate he supports. It reminds me of how David Duke endorsed a political rival just because that served to make him more unpopular (and therefore lose the election, Duke didn't actually support him, but he endorsed him so that he could be hurt by it)

It will be used, because so far, empirical evidence has shown that it is a tactic that works, and that does say something about the country.

I know that there is a true beliverism with Obama, I know there is, and I know there is hope there, but in the end, this is still America and so the belief that this will somehow not factor in and that everything will change and it will actually be about issues, I just don't see it happening. If anything, when people are feeling stressed and pressured, they are more likely to hunker down and dig into their foundations (including any prejudice they have) rather than go with the new and unknown. It's why race-based attacks have greater impact the lower down you go down the economic ladder.

You know, Harold Ford was a Blue Dog candidate. He actually did win a statewide primary in Tennessee. He had a great deal of goodwill with white voters. They came up with the "Call Me, Harold" ad. The GOP senatorial committee ran it. Ford's opponent asked them to stop, they refused. The opponent won narrowly and the general consensus is, the ad helped in the victory. This was two years ago. If a dirty trick like that worked two years ago, against a candidate who actually had none of the issues that have come up with Obama, someone who was popular with a large number of Southern whites, I don't see how it won't come up with Obama. Maybe I am being cynical, but it is how I see it.

[MadBadger]

9. ask Tellurian

[Saturday]

10. He rose up in the ranks of like minded people.....

Democrats. Republicans and independents do no think like Democrats. They do not worship him as many Democrats do....that's the reason his winning the general is in question. Plus he's had the adoration of the media which will stop when we go to the general.

[billbuckhead]

11. A very risky candidate, in almost every way possible

Once we get a candidate, they'll get as much media attention as a peace march.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. He gets far more crossover independents than Hillary does

You're right, independents don't think like Democrats. Democrats vote on issues. Independents vote on whether or not a candidate feels good. Obama has far more ability to tap into the emotions of swing voters than Hillary does.

[last1standing]

17. You're missing the point. He's beaten the odds in taking on Clinton.

No one thought he could do it but he did. How is it that people are still saying that she would be a better candidate when he has outmaneuvered her at every turn?

And please stop with the silly "worship" meme. The same number of nuts worship Clinton as do Obama so it doesn't wash. I'm really trying to have a serious conversation here, not just insult Democrats.

[Arugula Latte]

12. They expected a cakewalk Hillary Coronation and they are bitter to have been so wrong. nt

[hayu_lol]

16. Truth of the matter is that none of us know...

if either of our candidates can ultimately win the GE.

That is the bottom line.

What is unpleasant right now is the swampgas being discharged by the supporters of one candidate that will definitely turn off the supporters of the other candidate.

Half of the party will not elect Obama.

[last1standing]

18. Sorry, but that's the same concept as thinking Obama will lose New York.

The vast majority of Democrats will vote Democratic in November regardless of the candidate. If your best defense of Clinton's campaign is the idea that Clinton Democrats won't vote for Obama you're really not making a valid point.

[terrell9584]

26. And to disprove this. 1995 Louisiana gubernatorial election

It was an election that could have been won. It was one state where Clinton was still popular. At that point, it had only had one Republican governor post-Reconstruction, no Republican U.S. Senators, 85% Democratic legislature, Democratic congressional delegation and all else. A black Congressman named Cleo Fields ran. The state establishment was openly hostile to it because of their belief that a black candidate couldn't get elected in Louisiana. His own opponents used it. On the strength of a unified black vote, and a split white vote he earned a spot in the runoff. Many in the state party establishment refused to endorse him, they focused their efforts on elections that they thought winnable, and they diverted the money to said elections.

He ended up losing the election by 27 point margins, and it was obvious based on the re-election of white Democrats to other statewide offices that many white Democrats had simply voted for his Republican opponent because he was white. There was no other way to interpret that. In 1999, no major white Democrat ran against Foster (primarily because he was an ex-Democrat, played ball with the legislature and actually had alliances with powerful Democrats in the state)and another black candidate ran. His name was William Jefferson. He didn't even pull 30% in the jungle primary, and Foster won with more than 60% without facing a runoff.

Once again, white candidates were re-elected as Democrats to the majority of statewide offices, maintained a hold on the legislature, but many of these white Democrats just refused to vote to elect a black man governor.

Based on the post-Katrina elections in New Orleans, the same thing probably would happen today. It's not a pretty thing to think about but it is something that is part of the equation and therefore must be at least pondered.

And the truth is, alot of the talk about the Obama unelectability is rooted in race, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. And this is a phenomenon we have seen in elections lacking black candidates. In 1998, the Democratic nominee in Illinois was percieved as too conservative by some Chicago liberals, and voting results suggested that many of them crossed over to vote for Ryan, even as they voted a straight ticket in everything else. Concievably, if everyone voted the party like, Mike Bloomberg wouldn't be Mayor of New York, and Giuliani wouldn't have been Mayor before him. The city is something like 75-80% Democratic in registration but it hasn't elected a Democratic Mayor since 1989. Giuliani wouldn't have become Mayor without Democratic votes. Not that I think Obama will lose votes, but something we have to consider, is what causes voters to crossover and how much of a crossover danger does each candidate have. (and McCain has his own crossover danger too)

[last1standing]

29. Your premise is completely flawed, though.

Obama isn't winning due to a multiple candidate field, he's winning despite one. Therefore the only possible comparison with your Louisiana analogy would be that you think Democrats won't support a black man for president. This just isn't true.

You also seem to forget that 1995 was one year after the sweeping takeover by the republicans in the south and west. This was partially caused by Bill Clinton's "triangulation" strategy that allowed Democrats to fail when he could get the support of republicans.

Lastly, you take much effort to claim that we shouldn't nominate black people for office because they can't win but you once again forget something important. Hillary Clinton has consistent negative ratings of 50% or higher in repeated polling over the last decade. Those numbers aren't likely to change too greatly when the repubs start the attack machine up against her, are they?

Therefore we're right back to my original premise. Obama has proved he can run a more efficient campaign than Clinton. So why do you think he can't win but Clinton can?

[terrell9584]

41. I never said we shouldn't run black people

Extrapolation is never a good thing, because it is based on assuming and running with it and that can often be wrong.

What I am saying is, there are audiences that are going to by default be receptive to black candidates and audiences that will be tougher. You don't prove anything by winning over one of the easy audiences but still struggling in the audiences that were always tougher. You win by winning those toughest of audiences, by convincing them. Georgia's Attorney General is a black Democrat. He led the Democratic ticket in votes in 2006. Analyze that. To do such a thing, he had to do well with the toughest audiences that black candidates have, white Southerners. Baker did very well in N. Georgia. The counties he lost were by close margins, and he won a few. The general rule was, in the primary, this is where Obama got shellacked. That's worthy of analysis. Also worthy of analysis is the fact that, to get a 57% margin in a general as he did in 2006, it meant that he had to be close to the 50% mark in terms of white votes. Baker proves that black Democrats can win white Southern votes but they have to project the right image. Obviously, he does. He may very well be governor of Georgia in his lifetime.

Baker has won over a tough audience (at least half of them) and this is the same audience that Obama struggles with.

And I just think he can't win because the electoral map seems skewed against him. His underperformance in the Rust Belt (and he has a chance to change this with PA), the problems he has had in areas of the South that Bill actually won (white areas), and the fact that he does seem to be all oratory, whatever you can say about Hillary, you can at least believe that she knows most of the microscopic details, because she will bore you with it. I think she has her own problems, but, I think in this campaign she neutralized many of them. Obama's strength is charm, hers is tenacity.

In the end though, what I am saying is that we should at least wait until Pennsylvania and a few more states have voted. Until then, this is all speculative anyway.

And I would like to thank you for at least having a willingness to discuss this, rather than immediately engaging in a dismissal coupled with an ad hominem.

[Arugula Latte]

27. I don't buy that.

I think people say they won't vote for the other guy/gal because they are invested in their person winning the primary. However, once the dust settles and we have a nominee, very few will actually defect to McCain or sit home.

[quantass]

22. One added Plus is that all 50-states get to meet Obama in person which makes him even more stronger

during the GE.

[vixengrl]

25. It's the mulberry bush.

Totally. (I know it sounds stupid, but I saw some posts that sound like this--so let me explain it.)

DU-er A "He can't win"

DU-er B "Why is that?"

A "Well, because he isn't going to get everyone's support."

B "Why is that?"

A "Well, you know how he's got some negatives and he's got less experience?"

B "Well, so they say...but...the negatives are bullshit and his judgement is good despite his experience."

A "Yeah, well the voters won't get behind that--so he won't win."

B "Why aren't they getting behind that?"

A "Because they won't support a guy who can't win."

B "So, he won't win because you won't support him?"

A "Ah, now you're getting it!"

And around and around the mulberry bush it goes. He can't win, because he isn't going to be supported, because people won't think he'll win, because he isn't going to get support, because he can't win anyway, so why support him? It frankly makes my head ache. I'm in favor of supporting a Democrat who knows what he's talking about. McCain--not a Democrat. Does not know what he's talking about. I like to think if Obama is the nominee, he'll kick McCain's butt on the merits. Same as Clinton would. Better candidate, better policies, ought to win. It just requires--uh, *support*. (And people can play the same silly game with Hillary's negatives--but she still is way better than McCain, and a Democrat. Not the Bush-party candidate. The difference in the polls is negligible and fluid and we're totally too early in the game--not in the GE yet, to say how it should go.)

[phrigndumass]

33. It's also projection ...

"There's no way I could ever vote for Candidate X, so everyone that supports Candidate Y must agree with me." That's when you hear people saying that if Candidate X wins the primary, 50% of the Democrats won't vote for him/her. It's really one person (with a few agreeing) projecting their own views onto the rest of Candidate Y's supporters.

[anonymous171]

34. Because he just CAN'T!!!!!!

:cry:

[Telly Savalas]

35. Because he's such a terrible candidate.

We'd do much better to nominate someone that's having a hard time beating him, since she'd be much more likely to win even though she's having such difficulties winning now...or something.

[madrchsod]

36. he`s going to be in jail by the end of july

his wife will say something so awful he will withdrawal from the race
he will become a radical black muslim...oh wait he already is..never mind.....

answers? we do`t need answers....just links to right wing websites

[bhikkhu]

37. Don't know...I'll have to listen to Rush and get back to you

but seriously, he can, as can Hillary, according to the current crop of electoral predictions:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

and we need remember, McCain hasn't even begun the "vetting process" that our candidates have so far endured.

[Awsi Dooger]

39. I think Obama will win

I believe in situational influence above anything else, and this is a Democratic year.

But it's destined to be very close, not the situational edge of '06, a second term midterm. Independents simply won't flock our way in such surreal percentage, regardless of the nominee.

I preferred Edwards or Warner, to truly open up the electoral possibilities. Either one could have won in a comparative rout. But if we're gambling on first black or first woman, then margin for error is out the window. That's simply '08 reality, not pessimism. And among the two, I'm more confident in Hillary forging a successful presidency.

I still don't know why it's improper to have hesitation about Obama. For years on this site I've seen every Democrat scrutinized, often unfairly, but now we're supposed to march in line behind someone with a truly thin resume. And someone who was relatively mediocre in one debate after another for months. The comparisons to JFK makes me wonder, would Hillary Clinton have been able to out debate a '59 to early '60-caliber JFK for months? Somehow, I'd love to wager no. That's another big picture annoyance, something I guess I'm supposed to merely ignore.

The legit question: does Obama have general election weakness in vital states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan? Demographically I think the answer is yes. Any black man would. Just like any contending female would be shredded by a threatened white male society, if she seemed on the verge of the presidency.

Obama needs to withstand 2 months of general election caricature and fear, to maintain a 2-3 point edge over McCain. That would be plenty, to survive the electoral college. The GOP ads will be beyond anything we can envision. And the key is to withstand them early. Late comebacks are a myth in general elections.