USA Today editorial board worried about Obama's GE weaknesses

[expada]

I emphasized the parts I thought most important:

What Clinton's victory does do, however, is further expose Obama's vulnerability with a core Democratic constituency that has been pivotal in presidential races for the past four decades — white, working-class voters. He was running behind Clinton with those voters before the Pennsylvania campaign, and he compounded the damage with his clumsy characterization of small-town residents as clinging to guns and religion because of their economic hardships.

Working-class whites make up almost half the U.S. population of adults 25 and older, and they tend to be overrepresented in swing states such as Ohio. Although they lean Democratic on economic issues, they can tip the presidency to the GOP if they perceive the Democratic nominee as too liberal or out of touch with their concerns. Richard Nixon called them "the silent majority" in the late 1960s, and in the 1980s they became known as "Reagan Democrats."

In the past two presidential elections, Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry lost to George W. Bush in part because they lost white working-class voters by double digits. Democrats took control of Congress from the Republicans in 2006 in part because they narrowed their losses among this group. Obama would almost certainly have to do the same to beat Republican John McCain.

As the race goes on, that challenge could well prove to be its defining characteristic. If Obama indeed has enough of a lead to hold off Clinton, he will still be left in the ironic position of having to prove that someone who grew up with a single mother on food stamps and whose wife hails from the South Side of Chicago is not an elitist who can't relate to middle-class concerns. The Pennsylvania results, loaded with questions of race as well as class, suggest that might not be so easy.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/clintons-pa-win.html#more

[FrenchieCat]

1. Fuck 'em!

Like if they repeat bullshit enough, it will be so. The media wants to keep repeating this over and over again. They leave out a whole bunch of states when this is said, which makes it a lie. Who's gonna tell them that Hillary has already lost? Guess I will write them a letter, and explain it all to them. Let them know what states they are ignoring.

(edited to add) --Just in case folks don't quite get it:



Number crunching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwd88C25J-0&feature=user

Media delusion as admitted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsZ4xwjQLc

[ej510]

2. This is why Hillary supporters believe that there is still a race.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Of course.....the media is telling them that they have a choice,

when mostly everyone has already voted. :eyes:

[expada]

9. Many in the media are saying she has no chance

Chuck Todd, for example, and every column you read in the New York Times. Also Chris Matthews. What do you mean "the media"?

[FrenchieCat]

20. I mean the hundreds other than the three you named

[woolldog]

10. What pisses me off is how they're taking Obamas constituency

for granted. Like they'll vote democratic no matter what. And that's NOT true.

[cliffordu]

23. Thanks for hitting that point, FrenchieCat

It's little things like the voting public that gets overlooked in OP's like this.

:hi:

[ej510]

11. The race ended here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiGWORB810E

[virtualobserver]

12. Hillary is harming the ignorant with her manipulative bullshit

she is putting her own interests before theirs.......she'll fight for her own ass every day with the help of the bullshit media.......they accept almost every move of the goalposts......

[calmblueocean]

16. So true. The catapult is brimming with propaganda.

Obama has never had a problem with white working class voters, but the media is sure working their tails off to give him one. Obama wins white working class voters in Minnesota, North Dakota, Illinois, Iowa, etc., but because Hillary has more institutional support in Pennsylvania, she is able to hang on to some of them in one state. And that's supposed to throw the whole world into chaos? Give me a break.

[Political Heretic]

3. Okay, I don't actually say this a lot but:

USA Today - a pretty right leaning paper, am I wrong about that. I've steered away from reading USA today for a long time. I guess it would be important to know, did they endorse Obama previously, or either Democratic candidate? If this is basically verbage "from the right" then I couldn't care less.

I would also offer a counter response form the New Your Times board, who DID endorse Clinton basically lambasting her for her gutter politics campaign tactics.

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?ei=5087&em=&en=57404e1a3ecbecb7&ex=1209182400&pagewanted=print

[GarbagemanLB]

4. I like the last line of that article the most:

It's hard to escape the sense, however, that Clinton is running perilously low on money, and time.

[NanceGreggs]

5. Six weeks ago ...

... the polls in PA showed Hillary with a 20+-point lead over Oabama - some polls had her at 25+ points.

Last night, she 'won' by a margin of 9+ votes.

"He was running behind Clinton with those voters before the Pennsylvania campaign, and he compounded the damage with his clumsy characterization of small-town residents as clinging to guns and religion because of their economic hardships."

Apparently, Obama "compounded the damage" to his own campaign by cutting Hillary's lead in half - and then some.

Yeah, he's "vulnerable", all right.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Nance, I invite you to write a letter, along with me and anyone else

who feel that this is the right thing to do.

Here's the comment section: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/clintons-pa-win.html#more

Here's for a Ltte: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>

[ruggerson]

31. Nance, this argument is illogical

Hillary won the primary. It's utterly irrelevant where polls were before both actually started campaigning. Early polls are usually mostly name recognition anyway.

This metric we keep hearing from Obama supporters that he cut her supposed (in reality ethereal) margin in half and lost by ONLY ten points is not only pointless but a little alarming.

I don't want to look back in November, the day after the election, and hear Obama supporters saying, well he was ten points behind McCain nationally after the conventions, but we lost by only five. Isn't that great?

No it isn't.

Losing a primary, after outspending your opponent 3 to 1, after campaigning non stop for six full weeksl is losing a primary, no matter how some might want to dress it up.

I like Barack, as you know. But I like winning and installing a Democrat in the White House more than I like Barack.

If he's the one we end up nominating, I will support and vote for him. But, I want to make damn sure that we end up nominating the individual who can actually beat John McCain.

[NanceGreggs]

33. It's now "utterly irrelevant" that she was ...

... projected to win by over 20-points a few weeks ago, and only won by 9?

Is this one of the 'new rules" in the HRC camp?

Obama lost a state he has been projected to lose since day one - but I suppose that is "irrelevant", too - by a margin much smaller than was (a) predicted, and (b) doesn't put a dent in his overall numbers.

Aren't you just bone tired of moving those goalposts, day after day?

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Obama is running against a former first lady, that's unprecedented

Hillary has a very loyal following among Democrats who prefer her to Obama. That doesn't mean Obama can't win them but it means that they simply prefer Hillary, largely because of the Clinton name and the Clinton machine.

If Obama were white, Clinton would probably be winning the black vote 60-40 or even 70-30 for the same reason she wins the white vote in certain states 60-40: Clinton loyalty

[wileedog]

7. And McCain and Hillary are lock solid, golden candidates with no faults whatsoever

Both have significant negatives, large parts of their own base who despise them, and Hillary brings massive trust issues and Clinton fatigue to boot, not to mention the singular ability to galvanize the Republican base in a way McCain never will.

This is getting fucking ridiculous.

[NewHampshireDem]

8. USA Today?

Come on ... why don't you tell us what Weekly Reader thinks about the primary?

[expada]

14. Yeah, as in "largest newspaper in the United States", which is not a right-wing rag

As you suggest.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Well it actually is.....just not out of the closet.

[Muttocracy]

25. Bill Kristol, David Brooks, nah....

[expada]

27. Aren't those in the NY Times? n/t

[Kool Kitty]

34. Where's your flag pin?

I hope your hand is over your heart.

[expada]

36. As I type this, I am not in a place where the National Anthem is being sung

Sorry.

[Kool Kitty]

39. But I'm humming it,

so put that hand over your heart. You never know when the national anthem may be played.

[expada]

43. We all understand that the code refers to people who are present

In the specific location where the anthem is playing. You are playing dumb, of course, but have fun though.

[Kool Kitty]

45. I don't really want to have a war of wits with the unarmed,

troll. Enjoy your stay.

[Muttocracy]

37. yep, misread a post earlier up. Gannett though is quite the librul group. nt

[NewHampshireDem]

32. Well, McDonald's is the largest restaurant chain in the US

and I sure the fuck don't go there for culinary advice.

And, BTW, you are a moron ... no where do I suggest Weekly Reader is RW:

http://www.weeklyreader.com/


BTW, how many sock puppets are you gonna create, my elevator farting friend?

[expada]

40. You are wrong

Either way you are wrong. Because you suggested one of two things:

1) that the USA Today is a small rag like the Weekly Reader, whatever that is, or
2) that the USA Today is a right-wing rag.

If it's not #2, like you say, then it's #1.

If it's neither, I suggest that you explain what the hell you meant by bringing up the Weekly Reader, before readers think you are crazy.

[NewHampshireDem]

46. Okay ... I'll type slowly, so you can understand

USA Today is a sucky newspaper ...

The Weekly Reader is a children's weekly magazine, which was in color before USA Today was in color ...

So many people mock USA Today by referring to it as Weekly Reader, since it's written at about the same level and ... ohhh, look ... COLOR.

I guess you are probably about 12 years old, because anyone older than 12 knows what a Weekly Reader is and understand the joke 'What's black and white and red all over.'

Sorry ... do you need me to explain that one too?

:dunce:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[expada]

15. It was about the anthem, not the pledge

Are you sure you saw it?

[Eurobabe]

19. Whatever, you are a troll

you won't last long on DU.

[Muttocracy]

17. already used up 3 posts today! busy first day.

[Eurobabe]

21. Don't worry, he/she probably already has a dozen

screen names to use to continue posting anti-Obama screed.

[Muttocracy]

24. whack-a-mole. Good thing electronic granite is cheap! nt

[NJSecularist]

26. Cognitive dissonance is not a good thing.

And it seems Obama supporters love to engage in it.

Obama has a real problem with working-class voters, and it won't go away.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. What happened to you NJ?

I used to love you. I'm VERY disappointed in you now :-(

[wileedog]

35. It will when their only option is economically illiterate John McCain

who wants to further cut taxes for rich people.

[Muttocracy]

41. Hillary has strong negatives with half the public - and those don't seem to go away either. nt

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[newmajority]

29. USA Today = Gannett Publishing = right wing whores.

Thank God they sold my city's newspaper and McClatchy picked it up.

[madfloridian]

38. The fix is in to hurt Obama.

I remember the last primary. We saw what happened then. It is happening again.

[Muttocracy]

42. that's a sad thought. And it's happening within the Dem. party first. nt

[cooolandrew]

44. Still leading still what counts. Far more financially competitive.

[DeepModem Mom]

48. Welcome to DU, expada -- thanks for posting this piece.

Being blind to one's own candidate's vulnerabilities is unwise, IMO. There is no candidate without weaknesses and vulnerabilities; a candidate's own staff, his or her most involved supporters, are, believe me, more aware of and concerned about the candidate's vulnerabilities than anyone else. Advocating for a candidate is important, but so is, IMO, a realistic view.

This is the second important piece I've seen posted today about this vulnerability of our almost certain nominee. To write about, or discuss, Obama's problem with particular demographic groups is not an attack on him, or advocacy of Clinton's candidacy (she, as we all know, has her own profound vulnerabilities). It's an attempt to identify and focus on a problem that needs to be addressed (and, I think, can be addressed) so we can win in November.

K&R

[The_Casual_Observer]

49. Can obama win without the white middle class vote? Can he depend on

students & black & yuppies to carry this thing off?

[VotesForWomen]

50. DUers think he can, but then most of them probably fall into the categories you mentioned. nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

52. Categorizing DUers? Please, tell me how you have structured your surveys

to be able to make your assertion.

[GarbagemanLB]

51. Can Hillary win without the activists, yuppies, youth, and AAs all the while having sky high negativ

es?

[anonymous171]

53. DUers think she can.

:rofl: Look for Nader to get upwards of 10% in college areas and cities if she is the nom.