Is HRC's support based on her positions or her race/gender?

[onenote]

I think the answer is that the overwhelming majority of primary voters who support HRC are in agreement with her on her positions. That is to say, if HRC supported 100 years of war, was anti-choice, and wanted to maintain soak the poor and enrich the wealthy economic policies, she'd be long gone from the this race. And the same could be said about Obama. He would not have the support he now has if he was pro-war, anti-choice, pro-tax cuts for the rich.

What this means is that while between the two of them, race/gender may well be a motivating factor in the primary voting (with AAs and younger voters skewing towards Obama and older, white, and female voters skewing towards HRC), it also suggests the inherent flaw in the "electability" argument that some HRC supporters keep making.

That argument is that because Obama can't win over the white Democratic voters in the primaries, he won't get them in the GE. What that suggests however, is that these voters, who would not support HRC if she was pro-war, anti-choice and had regressive tax and economic positions, will support McCain (or stand idly by and let McCain win) with exactly those positions.

Much of the same argument can be made with respect to Obama with the following caveats. Obama has more supporters who are new to the political process and thus it is less clear whether they will stay engaged if he's not on the ticket. I think more will than people think, but I also think there will be some drop off. Also, one can make the argument that women have more to lose from a McCain victory (in terms of creating a much greater chance that Roe v Wade will be imperiled) than AAs.

Thoughts?

[Red Zelda]

1. Only her gender

If she were male, she'd have been gone long ago.

[onenote]

2. so do you really think that if she was anti-choice, and had other positions like McCain

she'd still be in the race?

[YOY]

5. Do you really think that if she was anti-choice, she'd actually qualify as a Democrat?

No. Then she'd cease to be Republican Lite and start being Republican Regular.

There's a lot more at stake here than Abortion...an issue that All Repulican's like to pretend they are staunchly for outlawing but never would...it would be their true demise.

[onenote]

6. My point exactly:

The assumption of those arguing that Obama's failure to "win over" HRC's supporters in the primaries means he can't attract those voters in the GE assumes that the Democrats voting in the primary aren't really Democrats -- that they would support an anti-choice, pro-war candidate over an anti-war, pro-choice candidate.

That's a particularly absurd line of thought,given that primary voters tend to have a greater interest in the issues and politics than the average voter and a higher level of party "identity". So all these motivated Democrats are suddently going to vote for a white guy who holds positions that if a white woman held, she wouldn't be in the running for the Democratic nomination.

See the logical disconnect?

[YOY]

9. So Obama is "anti-Choice"? That's the logical connection?

n/t

[onenote]

No? Where did you get that from?

I'm an Obama supporter by the way.

My point, which seems to have escaped you, is that the Democrats voting in the primary, whether they support Obama or they support Clinton are hardly likely to support McCain when they focus in on the fact that he takes positions that, if taken by either Obama or Clinton, would have made them anathema to the Democratic party.

[YOY]

12. Oh, gotcha. My bad.

n/t

[rodeodance]

16. Do you have a link? to your claim??

[onenote]

26. which claim?

[TahitiNut]

36. I sadly agree. It's tragic, imho.

Hillary is quite possibly one of the most hypocritical Democrats in the Senate ... even more than "Holy Joe."

Her "Poor Nell" act has gotten really old ... and should (imho) be disgusting to any feminist. Barbara Jordan is probably rolling over in her grave. Rosa Parks would shun Hillary. Mother Jones would spit on her.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. Really? That's not the way I see it.

[onenote]

38. please elaborate?

I'm not sure what you are saying you see differently. Do you think HRC would have the same support in the primaries if her positions were identical to McCain's? Do you think Obama would have the same support in the primaries if his positions were identical to McCain's?

If not, why would one expect large numbers of either HRC's supporters or Obama's supporters to work for (or idly sit by and allow) the election of McCain?

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. The poster claimed that HRC's supporters only do so because of her gender.

I should have thought that my reasons for disagreeing would be somewhat apparent.

[onenote]

47. my bad. Didn't realize which post you were responding to.

[scheming daemons]

3. It's based on who her husband is, more than any other factor.

[onenote]

4. so you think that she'd have the same support if she declared she was anti-choice

and supported making the tax cuts for the rich permanent?

Do you really think that? Be honest.

[scheming daemons]

20. If she held those positions, she'd be competing the GOP primary, not ours....

Every serious Democrat is pro-choice and against the Bush tax cuts.

[onenote]

27. Again, exactly my point

The idea that Obama can't attract the support of white Democrats, particularly women, assumes that these Democrats would support McCain over Obama when, in fact, if HRC herself took those positions they wouldn't have supported her.

[City Lights]

7. I know only one Hillary supporter personally, so I can't speak for the

masses. However, the one I know personally is supporting her because her last name is Clinton and knows her husband won't let her mess things up. This particular sexist, racist, white, senior male believes casting a vote Hillary translates into Bill's third term.

[onenote]

8. is that sexist racist male anti-choice too?

And if so, why would they be a fan of Bill Clinton?

[City Lights]

19. Choice isn't his top issue, but he is pro-choice.

The point I was making is that for this particular voter, his main reason for supporting Hillary has more to do with her husband than anything else. Knowing that he's a racist, sexist, and a life-long union member, I figured he would have supported Edwards, but he's been for Hillary all along, and I'm convinced it has nothing to do with her or her policy positions. Every time we talk about it, it's all about Bill and the 90's.

[Arkansas Granny]

25. I know several Clinton supporters, male and female, and none of them has

given that reason for their support. In every election there are people who support a candidate for all the wrong reasons and this one is no different.

[City Lights]

33. Agreed. nt

[whatchamacallit]

10. Mental illness

is IMO the source of much of her support.

[onenote]

11. thanks for your lack of contribution to an attempt to have a serious discussion

As an Obama supporter, let me say how proud you make me with your deep insights.

:sarcasm:

[whatchamacallit]

14. Sorry to let you down

[onenote]

15. didn't let me down

My expectations for the discourse here at DU, whether among my fellow Obama supporters or HRC supporters is set pretty low.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Well then I'm glad I fulfilled your expectations!

:thumbsup:


P.S. sorry I sullied your serious post with my ill-tempered snark

[Skidmore]

13. It's based more on the Republican party's desire to repeat the

1990s and claw their way out of the pit by destroying the Democratic party and any chance a change.

Mind you, I'm an old Obama supporter.

[invictus]

17. At this point, Hillary's support mostly comes from neo-cons, Republicans, racists ....

... and those who support the status quo. Her campaign continues solely to spoil the election of the inevitable Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, to knee-cap him so that Hillary can run against the easily beatable President McCain in 2012 since the nation will be in such a decrepit state after four years of McCain's wars and bad economic policies. Hillary's ambitions are selfish and harmful to the Democratic Party and to America.

[SeaLyons]

21. Very divisive title line...

one of the main reasons there is so much hatred on this board. You really make a great representative of your candidate :sarcasm:

[scheming daemons]

22. She's a very divisive candidate.... she CREATED this environment among Democrats...

[invictus]

24. Turn to MSNBC and see who Hillary's supporters are: Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, etc.

Or how about Richard Mellon-Scaife, owner of the right-wing tabloid Pittsburgh Tribune-Review which endorsed her. They certainly do love Hillary these days. I doubt it is because they want the Democratic candidate to win.

[onenote]

30. I was trying to be provocative. Did you actually read my post?

My point is that both the Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters who claim that neither can attract the voters in the GE that they haven't attracted in the primaries are making an argument based on a logical fallacy -- an argument that asssumes that voters who support either HRC or Obama would prefer an anti-choice, pro-war, pro-Bush economic policy candidate over (choose one) HRC or Obama.

My point is that if Obama or HRC had substantive positions identical to McCain, the voters who have been supporting them in the primaries would have been supporting someone else.

[onenote]

29. that's nonsense

She has garnered significant support in closed primaries. Many serious and lifelong Democrats have endorsed her. If you want to believe that isn't true, go ahead, but it ignores reality.

The reality is that between Obama and Clinton, the main division appears not to be so much based on their positions, but on the voters perception of their personalities, experience, truthfulness, and to a certain extent identity politics.

But when it comes down to McCain/Obama or McCain/Clinton, its hard to see how Democrats who wouldn't have supported either Obama or Clinton if they announced that were anti-choice or wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent or wanted to keep the surge going for a hundred years, would suddenly turn around and support McCain.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Which of Obama's *stated policies*

Represent a more transformative change than Hillary's equivalent policy?

Health care? Iraq? Globalization? GLBT rights? The environment?

Calling HRC the status quo candidate says more about your awareness of the issues than it does about HRC.

[invictus]

44. Obama did not call for the "obliteration" of a nation, campaign for NAFTA, vote for the Iraq War ...

vote for the Kyl-Lieberman (permission to attack Iran) amendment, unlike Hillary. She is very much the status-quo/neo-con Republican candidate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. You didn't answer my question.

Obama doesn't have the tenure during which to make any mistakes. Using your logic, the person who is most qualified to be president is the person who has never had the opportunity to screw up.

Looking forward, which of Obama's policy goals make him a change agent relative to Clinton?

- Clinton wants universal health coverage, Obama only wants to call his plan that.
- Clinton will order troop redeployment at the earliest opportunity. Obama hopes for 16 months "best case scenario".
- Neither Obama nor Clinton will drop out of NAFTA.
- Neither Clinton nor Obama support same-sex marriage.

As far as Iran goes:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article1475277.ece

Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran

By David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter

September 25, 2004

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama’s Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.

“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.

“… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”

[SeaLyons]

23. HRC supporters...

believe in her ability to deliver solutions.

[whatchamacallit]

28. She's definitely got an interesting solution for circumventing the democratic process

I'll give her that much.

[onenote]

31. I don't disagree with you

I'm an Obama supporter who will support HRC if she ends up becoming the nominee (although I think that is highly unlikely).

But a question for you: do you think that HRC's supporters would back her if her solutions were identical to the solutions that McCain offers? If not, then hopefully you'll agree that her supporters are not as likely to support McCain over Obama as some here like to suggest.

[onenote]

32. "crickets"

no pun intended

[SeaLyons]

34. Why would you equate HRC's solutions to

McCains. You have no foundation to say that.

[onenote]

35. Let me try again. For some reason you misunderstand my point.

I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying that HRC's positions are diametrically opposed to McCain's (just as are Obama's positions are diametrically opposed to McCain's). Yet there are some on this board that contend that HRC's supporters will flood to McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. That makes no sense.

[SeaLyons]

41. ...

thanks for the clarification. I agree. I think when all is said and done, most will realize the insanity of voting for McCain, no matter who the Dem nominee is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Most HRC supporters won't support McCain

A significant minority might, but a great many could be easily persuaded to stay home.

An outcome that many Obama supporters are working hard to achieve (see "mental illness" above).

[DevonRex]

43. I don't know any Hillary supporters personally. There were a

few at our precinct caucus, though. They were the only ones who spoke for their candidate. The rest of us listened respectfully, even when 2 of them said it was time for a woman in the white house because men had fucked everything up. Well, one of them said it and the other one agreed completely.

We just kind of rolled our eyes. I tell you though, it made me really, really angry. I have 2 wonderful sons who are working to make this world a better place, yet these women felt it was okay to trash all males. Sounds like sexism to me.

Oh yeah, one other lady for Hillary talked about how a single payer health care system would be a disaster and that it would be the equivalent of being on Medicaid like all the "poor people."

Since many elderly folks are on Medicaid rather than Medicare, mostly because Medicaid pays more for medications, I thought that was stupid to say the least. And it sounded like class warfare.

[knixphan]

46. emotions

Will subside after the primary ends.

Logical thought will return.

Real Democrats will not vote for the Cons.

[JPZenger]

48. Hillary's Threat to Obliterate Iran - Overseas Responses

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-hillarys-t.html

Right before the PA primary, where Jewish voters make up 12% of the Democratic electorate, Hillary played a political card to gain some votes. She said that if Iran threatens Israel, she would "obliterate" Iran. Obliterate generates images of thermonuclear war against civilians, vs. well-targeted and carefully measured retatiatory responses.

As noted in the linked LA Times piece, the comment is causing some "bitter" reactions overseas.

The comment was completely irresponsible and shows just how far she will go for personal ambition.

[Strelnikov_]

49. Per a caller just on Hartmann (12:41) it is all about gender

Stated she would not vote for Obama because he is a man, would write in Clinton.

Said she is 'done with men'.

Complained about Casey coming out for Obama, that he should have stayed neutral, but the caller was OK with Rendell backing Clinton.


Beats me.