No wonder rethugs want Obama to win, look at what their focus groups show about his electability

[jackson_dem]

There seems to be some confusion among Obamites. This focus group was conducted by a rethug. It included people of all political stripes. What it targeted was white working class people. It wasn't a rethug only focus group. Obama's focus groups must be showing the same thing. Why do you think his camp is crying like a baby over an ad about his pastor? They know it hits him on this weak spot.

-snip-

There certainly are states that Obama might win that Clinton probably can't -- Nevada, Iowa, even Nebraska and North Dakota -- but the latest national polling roundup assembled by former White House political chief Karl Rove shows McCain leading Obama in states with 261 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, while against Clinton, he has 214.

Also, Republican pollster Whit Ayres told me that four focus groups he's conducted among blue-collar whites in Michigan and Missouri show "they are open to voting for Hillary Clinton, but there's no way in hell they are going for Obama. It's cultural.

"They just don't think he's a patriotic American. It's the flag pin, his church, his wife's statement that most Americans are 'mean.' As one woman said in one of these groups, 'I don't think he bleeds red, white and blue.'"

Ayres also polled Tennessee -- a GOP-leaning state -- for Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) and found that Clinton would lose to McCain by 8 points, but that Obama would lose by 20 points. Twenty-five percent of Democrats said they would not vote for Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obama_is_wounded_but_clinton_m.html

[LSparkle]

1. Um, have you watched Fixed Noize lately?

NO WAY the Rethugs want to run against Obama. They've had nothing
but praise for her and nothing but barbs to toss at him.

[jackson_dem]

18. Obama does 1 point better in national GE polls than her. They know what this means

Candidate 1: has been attacked by rethugs and the MSM for 16 years, the far left for 5-6 years, Obama for over a year, Edwards for almost a year (I am not a cultist. I can admit Edwards is human and did what every candidate who is losing does.)

Candidate 2: was unknown just three years ago, has received some MSM scrutiny for less than 2 months, is beloved by the netroots, has not been attacked fully by the rethug machine yet.

Despite all this he does 1 point better in national opinion polls and consistently worse in the electoral college. They know what this means: once they are through with him he will be well behind. People who were going to dislike Hillary decided to do so years ago. There are plenty of people who will wind up dislking Obama who currently like him. This is how +1 can become -10. This is how Bush's +11 became -0.4. This is how Kerry's +8 became -3. This is how Dukakis' +17 became -7. The "new" candidate always goes down after the other party attacks him. Obama is not immune to political gravity--and hoping he is takes real audacity.

[polpilot]

52. Hillary has NO CHANCE in general.

[jackson_dem]

59. Based on what? She beats McSame in OH, PA, and is tied in FL

She flips OH, PA, MO, and NV. Obama flips only Iowa and Nevada. The states only Clinton flips bring an extra 58 electoral votes to the table. Iowa brings us only 7. This is right now. She would grow stronger against McSame after he gets attacked by the Democratic party since he is less well known, less defined than she is. People who were going to dislike Clinton decided to do so years ago.

[wileedog]

73. No, not really

"People who were going to dislike Clinton decided to do so years ago."

In August 2007 her negatives were around 39.

Last week they hit a new high of 54, with 60% of people distrusting her.

This campaign has done a lot of damage to her too. And even though her husband has been through the ringer, things like the Sniper incident show she may still have more ammo on her too.

I personally never had a problem with her until February. I bet you could find a ton of people on this board who would say the same thing (anectodal I know, but still).

Obama could also flip CO, VA and NC, which are much bigger than Iowa.

[Pawel K]

113. At this point she has no chance

you could say what you want about the numbers. The fact is she lost the primary. If the super delegates gave it to her over Obama there would be riots in the streets. Not only would she lose the general election there is a very good chance we would lose the majority in at least the senate, possibly the house. How would you feel as a black person if the first black person to get the majority of the vote in a primary had the nomination snatched from under him? Democrats wouldn't be a serious party without the support of blacks. Not to mention all the other non-black Obama supporters, such as myself, that would probably end up staying at home if such a coup took place.

The argument you make about the numbers was a great argument to make months ago when she could have still won the pledged delegates, now that there is no way she can do that there is no way in hell she can win the ge for the reasons I stated above.

[goletian]

81. thats actually a decent argument. ill give you props on that one.

what gives me reassurance is the fact that mccain is a very weak candidate. hes barely close to tied with the dem candidates and hes had close to no scrutiny, yet hes a goldmine when it comes to flipflop news and gaffes -- he should have both dems trailing way below him with the free pass he has at the moment. hes most certainly not the repub base favorite. also, my concerns are placated by the strength ive perceived from obama and his camp. hes not going to be a sitting duck like kerry was, of that im certain. he might give hillary a pass more than he should, but thats just to prevent divisiveness within the party, which can only help hillary at this point.

i do think hillary can beat mccain as well. but, i have my doubts on this if she wins by overturning the voter produced delegate count. if she wins fair n square somehow, i dont think mccain has a shot in hell. a third repub term after 2 from a very unpopular president? i dont think thats ever happened in our nations history, not after a president that wasnt a huge success. if hillary alienates a large chunk of the party, however...

[Steely_Dan]

115. Are You By Chance...

from Goleta? (Suburb of Santa Barbara)

-P

[goletian]

116. why, yes. yes i am. =D - nt

[Steely_Dan]

129. Lived there for 25 years...

Worked at UCSB for 23. Small world.

[Arkansas Granny]

96. That's a very good argument and I'm sure that the unpledged SDs are following

the same line of reasoning and that is one reason they have not pledged yet to either candidate. In the end, it comes down to electability.

[democrattotheend]

2. I meet people who say that. I meet more who say they'd be torn between McCain and Obama, but would

never vote for Hillary. It's impossible to know who is more electable, since they both have significant advantages and disadvantages. So I am not going to let a Republican focus group pick our nominee. I reject the whole notion that we should pick our nominee based on what we think the Republicans are going to do.

[Diane R]

3. Yes. Let's let Tennessee determine our nominee. Isn't there still a bit of racism there?

[Kool Kitty]

4. That's what they mean when they say it's "cultural"

or he doesn't "bleed red, white and blue".

[jackson_dem]

12. And you know this how?

Blue collar whites voted heavily for a minority candidate for governor in Louisiana. They did this over white candidates. Deval Patrick also won white working class voters. It was in Massachusetts, a liberal state, but Massachusetts is a very white state. The problem is Obama, not his color. However, let's accept that argument for the sake of discussion. What percentage of the electorate do you classify as racist?

[Kool Kitty]

127. They voted for the repug in Louisiana.

I really don't know how much of the electorate is racist. I couldn't qualify that. I guess what I react to is the things that people say. Like Ed Rendell saying that Lynn Swann (sp?) would have run a closer race if he was white or that some white people won't vote for a black man. If that makes me stupid, sorry. Sometimes I know what I mean but I do not word it correctly. Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush. I mean, look at some of the clowns that post the Obama=Muslim=Terrorist shit here. (You know, the trolls that are particularly active late in the evening.)

[jackson_dem]

7. Didn't they nominate a black guy for senate? Has your state done that?

Oh wait. They are racist:



:sarcasm:

The focus groups were conducted in Michigan and Missouri, two bellwether states.

When will Obama supporters get it with the racism excuse? If he can't win Democratic primaries because of racism (according to Obamites) how the hell can he win the general election when there will be more racists voting as a percentage of the electorate (more indies, far more rethugs, and Obama will be less shielded by the black vote offsetting some white racists because it will be half the size in the GE)?

[cali]

25. tough for you, baghdad bobby that Obama does better against McCain

in Michigan than hilly. but don't let be interrupt your exercise in propaganda, bot.

[Ka hrnt]

55. LOL! I NEED that picture.

Do you have a higher-res version of the "Barack Obama" motivational picture? (I love those motivational spoofs, and this one sums up many of the posts here in GD:P!)

[NJmaverick]

5. If "rethungs want Obama to win" why is Rush Limbaugh tellling people to vote for Clinton?

Why is NC GOP running anti Obama ads? Why is McSame, attacking only Obama? Why is Fox and that sleezy Sciafe supporting Clinto?

[jackson_dem]

10. What happens when a member of the family is attacked?

Or a member of the team? You rally behind them. They know this and their attacks on Obama help him because of this. They want Democrats to close ranks behind him to finish Clinton off. The NC ad is very revealing. If it was intended to help Clinton they would have run such an ad in Indiana, a state she could win. She has no shot in NC. What the NC ad does is increase black turnout for Obama (this is why Obama's cronies always play the race card before primaries with large black populations. Look at what Clyburn did right on cue two days after PA was out the way.) and give him a sympathy bounce across the board.

[NJmaverick]

15. Ahh candidates are not considered "family" by the average voter

So do you have another spin, that's a bit more plausible?

[jackson_dem]

20. I noticed you dodged the point about why they are running it in NC, not IN

You can't come up with an answer because it is obvious the only effect it will have in NC is to increase Obama's margin.

That was a metaphor. When "one of your own" is attacked you rally behind them. Why did Democrats rally behind Bill Clinton in 1998? Why did Democrats across the nation rally behind a Georgia candidate in 2002? Why did rethugs rally behind Bush when the Rather story came out? It is basic psychology--something the rethugs are well-versed in.

[NJmaverick]

23. With out the foundation, your point doesn't stand up

Your whole theory is built on the faulty premise that the republicans want Obama to win.

[jackson_dem]

24. Why did they run the ad in NC and not in IN?

Do Obama supporters observe political events that don't revolve around Obama (apparently not. Politics began on Feb. 10, 2007)? What happened earlier this year when McSame was attacked in an NYT story? What was happening prior to that?

[NJmaverick]

45. They were running an ad featuring Rev Wright

Those tend to have racist over tones, and I guess they think it would play well in NC.

[jackson_dem]

86. In a state where 1/3 of the Dem primary is black?

The ad will increase black turnout and that helps Obama. If they ran it in Indiana it may have hurt him. Obama will win 90% of the black vote and they know Clinton can't win NC given that. They want to run up Obama's margins to weaken her. Why do you think Obama's cronies always play the race card only before primaries with large black populations? Why not before the other 30+ states?

[NJmaverick]

128. "The ad will increase black turnout and that helps Obama."

????? How do you figure????

[Hippo_Tron]

121. The NC ad was designed to make McCain look good for wanting to have it pulled

Obama is going to win NC no matter what. There's no reason for them to try and increase black turnout for him.

The NC ad was about McCain pretending to be above dirty politics.

[DUyellow]

6. 50% say they will not vote for Clinton... I think Obama will be just fine.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

8. Great idea! We should let Republican focus groups pick our candidate!

Brilliant!

:eyes:

[jackson_dem]

13. Where was that stated? Typical Obamite tactic: make an absurd statement to change the topic

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

28. Typical Hillary supporter tactic: Post bullshit arguments as to why Obama shouldn't be nominated

[chill_wind]

14. LOL! My very same thoughts. n/t

[DJ13]

9. Please move your support over to McCain after Hillary is pushed out

We dont need your kind infecting our party.

[bowens43]

11. sorry bubba but hillary is the candidate of chooice for the repugs.

[NJSecularist]

16. Good post. Obama may be more popular nationally right now.

He may run up the margins more than Hillary in Democratic states at this point. That probably explains why he performs better in national polls than Hillary. But that will change once the Rethugs get a hold on him. And in the states we need to win - Ohio, Florida - Obama is a terrible candidate for those states.

Obama has lost control of his public image - swing voters in swing states think he is a American hating radical. The Rethugs did it in 2000 with Gore and the Love Canal and internet "lies", they did in 2004 with the swift boat ads, and they haven't even started with Obama and he has already been painted as a radical. That is not a good sign for us in the general election.

[jackson_dem]

26. The entire Obama fairy tale is premised on this: he will emerge unscathed after the rethugs attack

They can never point to any historical precedent for this in modern times for a candidate running against a non-incumbent. Talk about the audacity of hope. If Obama loses the GE by 10 they will blame racism when they should have seen a solid loss coming. His current numbers are artificially high and even despite this he does worse in the electoral college than Clinton and only 1 point better in opinion polls.

Check this out. It is a graph based on a comparison of polling in 9 states that represent a cross section of America.

[NJSecularist]

29. That is very scary graph.

This primary process is a perfect way to hide his limitations as a candidate. But they will be easy to see once the general election process starts.

[jackson_dem]

35. They don't realize 43 states have voted

So to assuage their fears they cherry pick a few states, usually caucuses. First there will be 0 caucuses in the GE. Washington and Texas proved how much of a fraud they are and him winning a caucus proves nothing. Take that away and what is left? Basically Wisconsin and Virginia. These two states voted when Obamamania was at its zenith and the MSM was not vetting him at all. You made a great point about Wisconsin. Even in the win they love to cite the most his limited appeal is on display. Even when he recorded his most broadly based win of the year he: lost seniors 41-58, won the "most qualified to be commander in chief" question by a mere 4 points (this in a state he won in a landslide), won high school graduates by only 4 points (in contrast he won college grads 59-41 and postgrads 61-36),
won those making less than 50k 54-44 while winning those making 50K+ 60-39 and those making 75-150k 64-34 (no info was available for beyond 150k but he probably got about 70% among them), merely tied among those who believed the economy was poor (he won 62-38 among those who thought it was good), lost white Democrats 48-51 and won whites overall only 54-45 (boosted in part by rethugs voting 72-28 for him), and only managed to tie among Catholics. Overall the numbers are solid but when you consider this was his zenith, this was the state where he assembled the most broad coalition they don't look so good. Since the halycon days of 2/9-2/19 (11-0 streak) he has tanked with all of these groups, which he lost on Super Tuesday as well but not by as much as his margins in March and April.

That graph is scary and they fail to realize this is just the tip of the iceberg. He does best with youth voters and a big reason for this is few of them know political history. They don't realize what is coming down the pike.

(note I am in the 18-29 demographic myself. I just am a student of political history.)

[NJSecularist]

42. The most concering part about his win in Wisconsin

is, as you said, that even with his blowout win in that state, he didn't even win white Democrats voting bloc. And this was at the height of his momentum, when the MSM had not vetted him at all.

His lack of appeal to our main constituency is frightening.

[jackson_dem]

47. Even in Virginia, his other big win he lost them. In fact he lost them by double digits

In his big win he won whites overall only 52-47. The other thing Virginia was touted for was that he won Latinos. Latinos were only 5% of the vote in Virginia so it was always a stretch to put so much stock into that result and ignore all the states that voted on Super Tuesday and Nevada where there were large latino populations but we know how the MSM is pro-Obama so they hyped this. What was his margin? 54-46. Yes. Even in his big win in Virginia, the one Obamites always point to as proof of his appeal to Latinos he won by single digits. In Texas, a state with an obviously large Latino population, he lost Latinos 32-66. In PA there weren't enough Latinos for their to be exit poll data but if his performance in Philadelphia's Latino wards is any indicator he lost them by a similar 1:2 rate in Pennsylvania.

I agree it is frightening. His coalition is the old McGovern coalition. Call him McGovern+. He has the same coalition but will probably perform better among them and not as bad among other voters than McGovern. If I had to predict the GE right now I would put it at 46-53, a replica of 1988--except for the fact we were expected to lose that year...

[ladywnch]

17. yeah and ROVE's polling not only showed the rethugs as holding

onto their Senate and House seats but GAINING seats in 2006......and we all saw how well his polling worked out!!! LOL

Truth is Rethugs WANT Hillary cause they have all their weapons ready for her.

[jackson_dem]

21. Their weapons have done the damage already and she still is stronger in the GE than Obama right now

How weak will Obama be when political gravity kicks in? He has already fallen from +10 over McSame to +1 and the rethugs haven't sent their machine after him yet. I ask this numerous times and never get an answer from the "hope" Obama can win crowd: can Obamites name one "new" candidate running against a non-incumbent who emerged stronger than he started after being attacked by the other party? That is what Obamites believe will happen with him. It didn't happen in 2004, 2000, or 1988. Even in 1976 with Ford being an incumbent for a little more than a year Carter went from +35 to +2. 1960? JFK narrowly won when his advisers expected a double digit win.

[ladywnch]

44. but he did win (JKF). narrowly or otherwise....we don't need a blow out... we need a win.

and if you believe rehashing all her demons won't hurt her in the GE your being naive. Yet you feel comfortable in saying rehashing all Obama's demons will hurt him. What, is Hillary made of Kevlar or you think the electorate will just give her a pass?

And depending on which polls you wish to use, outside of this one, Obama still wins over McCain by more than Hillary in the GE.


edited for clarity

[jackson_dem]

51. No he doesn't because we elect presidents through the electoral college

He sometimes polls 1-2 points better than her in national polls but very rarely outperforms her in the electoral college. The main problem is Florida. He never wins Florida and usually loses Ohio. She almost always wins Ohio and often wins Florida. These states have 47 electoral votes. Obama losing Idaho by less than Clinton loses it won't do us any good in the general election. That is where his margin comes from. He does better in red states but still loses anyway. Losing Idaho by 7 points less won't do us any good if we lose Florida and Ohio. The problem is Obama's worst performances come in swing states. He does better than her in red states and runs up bigger margins in many blue states (except big ones like NJ and MA. Again, winning RI by 25 instead of 20 won't mean squat if we lose NJ). Unfortunately for us, he is weakest where it matters most.

Of course they will hurt her just as McSame will be hurt too. The difference is in degree. McSame will be hurt more than Clinton since he is less defined than her, Obama will be hurt far more than either. People have known Clinton for 16 years. They have known McSame for at least a decade. Most people didn't know who Obama was until a little more than a year ago.

[Egnever]

70. the rethugs havent sent their machine after him yet?

WTF do you call hillaries bullshit? How will thiers be any different or worse than the turds she is throwing?

[indimuse]

98. Are you for real?

amazing...



" border=0 alt="Banner generated at Pimp-My-[br />
Profile.com"></a]

[Egnever]

122. All shit Clinton is currently allready pounding as hard as she can

What new revelation do you imagine the pukes coming up with?

[BlooInBloo]

19. News flash: Republicans not open to voting for Democrats...

... Well at least it isn't a lie - you're getting better!

:applause:

[jackson_dem]

22. News flash: read the article. The focus groups were not of rethugs

[NJSecularist]

31. Huh?

Focus groups are usually made up of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

[BlooInBloo]

33. If they're "open" to voting for Clinton and not even that for Obama, then they're not Democrats....

... And if they're not Democrats, then it's no criticism of Obama that he can't get their votes.

Basically the only point to be made in Clinton's "favor" is that republicans like her more than Obama. To that I wholeheartedly agree, and chuckle at the Clinton supporter who doesn't realize that s/he just lost the argument.

[NJSecularist]

34. If they are registered as Democrats, they are Democrats.

Kerry lost 10% of the Democratic vote in 2004. It was the main reason he lost the election in 2004. We need to keep these Democrats from going to the other party. Obama bleeds more Democratic support than Clinton.

You can't just pick and choose what a Democrat is... each voter has his or her own standards.

[jackson_dem]

43. Another fairy tale is they think crossover voting never existed before Obama arrived on the scene

You are right. Focus groups for the general election include a representative sample of the group being tested, and in this case that would mean white working class voters who are Dems, rethugs, and indies.

Kerry lost 10-11%, Gore lost 11%, Mondale lost 24%. They are Democrats who just didn't vote for the national candidate. They voted Democratic down ticket, hence their party registration.

Obama supporters think he can win without getting to 50+1%. You can't get there if you lose the "Reagan Democrats" (they are called that for a reason...), if you don't get at least 43% of the white vote, at least 60% of the Latino vote, and at least 60% of Asians and others. Obama would retain 90% black support and probably increase it to 95% and slightly increase black turnout so there are no worries about him there. This is the racial breakdown. Let's look at class since Obama's problem is not with whites in general but primarily with working class whites. He does well with affluent, well-educated whites of the variety that predominate on the netroots.'

Here is how Kerry performed by income (keep in mind Kerry lost the general by only 3%):

Under 15k 63-37
15-30 57-42
30-50 50-49
50-75 43-56
75-100 45-55
100-150 42-57
150-200 42-58
200+ 35-63

Here are the numbers for Gore (who won the popular vote narrowly):

Under 15k 57-37
15-30 54-41
30-50 49-48
50-75 46-51
75-100 45-52
100+ 43-54

Now for Clinton in 1996. Even when we win comfortably nationally we struggle with the affluent:

under 15k 59-28
15-30 53-36
30-50 48-40
50-75 47-45
75-100 44-48
over 100 38-54

The working class has been our base since the days of Jefferson and Jackson. Any Democrat who struggles with them can't win. Obama's coalition is largely an affluent one. If you look at exit polls you see the same trend you see with rethgs in general election exit polls, as incomes increase so does their support.

[Umbram]

27. "It's cultural" - codespeak at its best. (nt)

[jackson_dem]

30. See post 12. Even if it is what does it change? He loses regardless of why they vote against him

The greatest politician ever can't do what Deval Patrick, the precursor to "hope and change", and Bobby Jindal could do with white working class voters? That is the new Obamite argument for why he can't win white working class voters (yet he somehow will win the GE despite being clobbered among this group according to Obamites )?

[NJSecularist]

32. People in all 50 states vote.

You can't just pick and choose which states count. Obama needs to appeal to voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida - not just the reliably Democratic states.

[Umbram]

46. "You can't just pick and choose which states count."

I'm sure if you have the requisite capacity for appreciating irony and/or hypocrisy, you'll think twice before using that line again while having a Clinton icon next to your name.

[Romulox]

37. Codespeak for "Obama won't address rustbelt economic issues," you mean?

[Umbram]

50. Your definition of the word 'culture' must be much more expansive than mine. (nt)

[book_worm]

36. I've seen no evidence that they want Obama to win

[Political Heretic]

38. No republican wants Obama to win. They are attacking him and supporting Hillary.

[jackson_dem]

53. rethugs attacking Obama helps Obama in Democratic primaries

Being attacked by the other party helps you with your own party's voters. This is why Obama has went at it with McSame and Romney at different points and Edwards went at it with Giuliani. It helped all parties involved in their primaries.

[XemaSab]

39. *((@$# &(@*& #(*!@& #(*&Y!!!!!!

HOW DARE YOU POST SHIT FROM KARL ROVE!11!11!!

:grr:

[redqueen]

54. Dude it's a Clinton supporter... you can't honestly be that shocked...

this is what they do.

[jackson_dem]

56. Ironic from a former Edwards supporter. This was Edwards' main argument: I can win these voters

(and implicitly, Clinton and Obama can't)

[redqueen]

60. What's ironic is you seem to have forgotten all about this:

"I think that voters have to ask themselves is: do you believe that the candidate who's raised the most money from Washington lobbyists, Democrat or Republican, the candidate who's raised the most money from the health industry, drug companies, health insurance companies, the candidate who's raised the most money from the defence industry, Republican or Democrat - and the answer to all of those questions is: that's Senator Clinton. Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country? You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don't think that's going to happen. I really don't. I think that if people want the status quo, Senator Clinton is your candidate." -- John Edwards

[jackson_dem]

64. You forgot this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE0NNXOHUcs

Edwards also knows Obama was second or third in all of those categories as of 2007 and he is probably first in all of them now. He surpassed her in drug company many in January. Given how much more he has raised since then it is unlikely that her leads among the health and insurance industries still exist. It is no accident he hasn't endorsed Obama.

[redqueen]

66. Ah, more disingenuousness... given how his money isn't from PACs & lobbyists...

it's apples & oranges.

I'd say nice try but at this point it's really not.

[jackson_dem]

75. Edwards didn't buy that. "She raised the most money from drug companies--until you passed her"

Edwards knows how the game is played. Bundlers anyone?

So you are calling Edwards disingenuous?

How much has Clinton raised from lobbyists? She has raised 850k to Obama's 141k. That is a difference of $700,000 out of $234 million Obama has raised and $189 million Clinton has raised. In other words it accounts for 0.004% of the money Clinton has raised.

Insurance companies: Clinton $1 million, Obama $0.8 million
HMOS: Clinton 491k, Obama 375k
Hospitals/Nursing homes: Obama 996k, Clinton 941k
Drug companies: Obama 636k, Clinton 567k
"Misc" health: Obama 227k, Clinton 221k

[redqueen]

77. Edwards was being disingenuous, yes.

He had to strike where he could. :)

[jackson_dem]

88. Just like Obama over the BS lobbying issue. 0.004% of Clinton's money comes from lobbyists

[redqueen]

93. 0.004%?

Citation please.

[jackson_dem]

108. 850k out of $189 million as of 3/31

Go to Opensecrets.org for her fund raising numbers and how much she has gotten from lobbyists.

[XemaSab]

72. I have to say, this whole primary has been shocking

but enlightening.

It's important to know who the freeper trolls are. ;)

[redqueen]

74. Not all are freeper trolls... some are DLC... next best thing.

;)

[jackson_dem]

89. Which candidate has the most DLC endorsements?

A) Mike Gravel
B) Chris Dodd
C) Joe Biden
D) Barack Obama

[redqueen]

91. Which candidate IS DLC?

Hmmmm... which matters more... the one that people see is the winner... or the one that is part of the problem herself... hmmmm.

[jackson_dem]

101. That is the point. The DLC label means nothing outside of the netroots echo chamber

It isn't a cabal. It is a group of people with similar beliefs--and Barack Obama shares those beliefs. Just ask the DLC members themselves...

[redqueen]

107. Is that why he had to force them to stop claiming he was a member?

Cause he's so similar and shares their beliefs?

[jackson_dem]

110. Because he knows that was smart with the netroots

Did he change his policies? Of course not. Obama is change the DLC can believe in. Just ask the DLC.

[redqueen]

112. He's not DLC, and he' snot in bed with RWers.

That's enough difference for me thanks.

He's also not incompetent with money & doesn't say idiotic things consistently.

[redqueen]

114. Oh yeah... and PLEASE comment on the "unholy alliance" thread.

[XemaSab]

97. The republican wing of the democratic party

They can go join Holy Joe and Zell and take a hike.

[jackson_dem]

103. If the rethug wing of the party supports Obama what does that say about him?

[XemaSab]

109. You mean the DLC?

:shrug:

'Cause if you think the DLC supports Obama and that's a BAD thing, maybe you need to reconsider your choice of candidate...

[Birthmark]

40. Neither Clinton nor Obama...

...can win in November. It's over. If Clinton's goal was "it's me or no one"...well, she succeeded. The only way for Dems to win in November is for the superdelegates to sit out the first ballot, depriving either candidate of the nomination, and choosing someone else who can unite the party. That's the only way to win in November, imo.

Take it FWIW.

[dionysus]

41. crack is whack yo...

[MattBaggins]

48. Who cares what GOP focus groups have to say

Stop wasting our time.

[jackson_dem]

57. Because what it shows is backed up by results

In PA he lost these voters by 40 points, in OH by 44 points. In West Virginia he may actually lose them by 50 if the Ohio and Pennsylvania counties bordering West Virginia and chock full of these voters are any indication.

[MattBaggins]

63. I just wonder

Do you think people will want to risk our Nation's financial future and economy on someone who has such lack luster management skills that she bankrupted her own campaign? Would it really be wise to give someone that does that the reigns over our economy?

[redqueen]

78. Why would you question Rove's conclusions?

If they're good enough for Hillary's fans, they should be good enough for you!

[MattBaggins]

82. I have approached this topic

at least eleventy brazillion times today. Hillarys being "outspent" is the result of a severe lack of basic management skills and makes her a poor choice for CEO in Chief. I have noticed that the Hillary followers won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

I am taking credit for starting this approach by the way. When Keith or Rachael talks about this I am sending them an email asking for my check. They can make it out to Obamas campaign. He knows how to handle money properly.

[redqueen]

85. Yup... you can hammer on that point till the cows come home...

they don't have an answer, so they'll just keep smearing Obama if that's quite all right with you.

[izzybeans]

49. Yep let's just bow down to racists.

[DefenseLawyer]

58. Did you ever consider the slim possibility

that "Republican pollster Whit Ayres" might be fucking with your mind?

[redqueen]

62. Republicans & their smear artists & pundits are Hillary's & her supporters' BEST FRIENDS right now.

Says a lot, I think.

[jackson_dem]

69. It isn't a smear to point out reality

The focus group only gives us some reasons for why Obama loses these voters so badly. Even in his big wins in VA and WI he lost them...

[redqueen]

71. It's a smear to talk about Hamas "endorsing" Obama.

That's what your fellow Hillary supporters are doing on this board, right now.

Try not being so defensive and thinking everything is about you.

[jackson_dem]

79. "we hope he will win", "we like Mr. Obama", "like JFK, great man with great principle"

They did endorse him. That doesn't mean Obama is pro-Hamas. He isn't. Just look at his record. But the fact is these statements were made and they are unambiguous. Notice they aren't praising Hillary Clinton. It is Obama, not Clinton, they want to win. This is a fact and straight for their statement. One thing overlooked in the Obama "man of principle" fairy tale is that Obama morphed from pro-Palestinian in Chicago to pro-Israel as he went national, as he has morphed on many other things. Clearly the hope on the Palestinian's part is that Obama will be less pro-Israel than Clinton or McSame. That doesn't mean he will be pro-Hamas. Hardly. But for Palestinians to except him to be more favorable toward the Palestinians than Clinton or McSame is reasonable based on Obama 1.0, the Chicago version. This is lost on Obama supporters because they have bought the Obama fairy tale that he has never flip flopped.

[redqueen]

80. So now you ARE spreading RW smears!

Good for you!

Now you're really part of the Hillary team!

[jackson_dem]

92. "we hope he wins". What is the smear? They said it. It is a fact

Obama has also been endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, no friend of Israel. Any anti-Semites for Clinton?

[redqueen]

94. It's not an endorsement, no matter how much you want to spread RW lies.

Remember when you said I was "the most disappointing" or some shit like that?

Um... yeah.


on edit... let's hear your take on this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5685078&mesg_id=5685078

[jackson_dem]

65. Did you ever look at exit polls?

Obama lost these voters by 40 in PA and 44 in OH. Even in his big wins his supporters always point to like Virginia and Wisconsin-- during the zenith of Obamamania and no MSM vetting--he lost these voters...

[dcindian]

61. GOP focus group = HIllary voters

Not much of stretch there.....

[jackson_dem]

67. GE focus groups include Dems, rethugs, and indies

Hillary voters? Yes. She won these voters by 44 in OH and 40 in PA. Obama can't connect with a large swath of our base.

[Egnever]

68. LOL pass the stuff you are smoking

heres some freaking reality for you on the GE. She cant carry anything when the contests are open like the GE will be. She has only won 3 open primary's or caucuses one of which was her home state of arkansas effectively making it two.

Hillary has a problem with open primaries. Her argument at the moment seems to hinge on the idea that she is the better GE candidate but when the contests were open to all as they will be in the GE she doesn't fair so well at all. How she gets away with the I am more electable argument at all is beyond me.

I got these numbers from CNN

*Arkansas open O 26% C 70%
*California semi open O 43% C 52%
*Mass semi open O 41% C 56%
*New Jersey semi open O 44% C 54%
*Ohio open O 44% C 54%
*Rhode Island semi open O 40% C 58%
*Tennessee open O 41% C 54%
*Texas semi open O 47% C 51%


Alabama open O 56% C 42%
Georgia open O 67% C 31%
Hawaii open O 76% C 24%
Idaho open O 79% C 17%
Illinois open O 65% C 33%
Minnesota open O 66% C 32%
Mississippi open O 61% C 37%
Missouri open O 49% C 48%
New Hampshire semi open O 37% C 39%
North Dakota open O 61% C 37%
South Carolina open O 55% C 27%
Utah semi open O 57% C 39%
Vermont open O 59% C 39%
Virginia open O 64% C 35%
Wisconsin open O 58% C 41%
Wyoming open O 61% C 38%

Total Clinton 8 Obama 16
total with only open primaries or caucuses so far Clinton 4 Obama 14

[redqueen]

76. Why don't you like Rove's preferred numbers?

WHY?!

[jackson_dem]

84. Rove doesn't vote in Dem primaries. The fact is Obama last these voters 30-70 in PA

28-72 in OH. Even in his big wins in Wisconsin and Virginia, the two states obamites always point to since they are where he assembled his broadest coalitions, he lost them.

[redqueen]

90. Another strawman?! You're losin it...

I never said Rove voted in primaries, jackson.

You're citing an article by Mort Frickin Kondracke, which cites GOP pollsters... and you know DAMN well they GOP are wanting Hillary to win so bad it's making them telegraph every move weeks in advance.

If you don't know that... well... I don't even know what to say.

[jackson_dem]

104. The GOP pollsters reflect actual voting results

Like I said, even at his height he lost these voters. He lost them by 44 in OH and 40 in PA

[redqueen]

111. Got a link to the survey so we can check the methodology?

GOP pollsters have all kinds of reasons for doing what they do, the way they do it.

None of it is ever intended to do Dems a favor.

[jackson_dem]

83. How many caucuses are there in the general election?

Washington and Texas exposed them as frauds.

It is true that Obama has more appeal to indies right now than Clinton. The problem is he offsets it by losing more Democrats than Clinton. You then have to break it down by state and Clinton emerges the stronger electoral college candidate. And all of this is accepting the fairy tale that Obama will be stronger after the rethugs attack him 24/7 for months. Name the last "new" nominee to run against a non-incumbent who was stronger in November than he was in the spring...(no Obamite can ever answer this...)

[Egnever]

117. exposed them as frauds?

where do you get that?


and your excuse of caucuses is feeble to begin with as most of the open elections were primaries.

Alabama
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY February 05, 2008
Open primary: 60 total delegates*

Georgia
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY February 05, 2008
Open primary: 102 total delegates*

Illinois
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY February 05, 2008
Open primary: 184 total delegates*
153 tied to February 5 primary, 31 superdelegates

Mississippi
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY March 11, 2008
Open primary: 40 total delegates*
33 tied to March 11 primary, 7 superdelegates

Missouri
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY February 05, 2008
Open primary: 88 total delegates*
72 tied to February 5 primary, 16 superdelegates


South Carolina
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY January 26, 2008
Open primary: 54 total delegates*
45 tied to January 26 primary; 9 superdelegates

Utah
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY February 05, 2008
Semi-open primary: 29 total delegates*
23 tied to February 5 primary, 6 superdelegates

Vermont
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY March 04, 2008
Open primary: 23 total delegates*
15 tied to March 4 primary, 8 superdelegates

Virginia
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY February 12, 2008
Open primary: 101 total delegates*
83 tied to February 12 primary, 18 superdelegates

Wisconsin
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY February 19, 2008
Open primary: 92 total delegates*
74 tied to February 19 primary, 18 superdelegates


They have each won 15 primaries at this point 10 of his wins were open primaries while only 8 of hers were. So your story is completely full of holes except for the idea that clinton cant win a caucus in the whole contest she has won one, Nevada and even in that one she walked away with less delegates.

So in conclusion he has won just as many primaries as she has and he has won more of the ones that were open as the GE will be. The only time she can win is when it is limited to just Dem's or she lived in the state. Her chances in the GE are pathetic. As is your argument.

[PoliticalAmazon]

87. Sad when "Hillary supporters" = "Bush supporters." They use the same asinine...

...and pig-slop political tactics used by the Bush Jr supporters.

[jackson_dem]

95. There is no tactic. It is a fact Obama loses these voters consistently

In fact this will be the Obamite explanation for getting crushed in West Virginia. They will say he loses these voters anyway so he never had a shot in West Virginia. that is true. The problem is the corollary to that is he has no shot in the GE without these voters...

[PoliticalAmazon]

123. It's not a "fact." Not all voters vote by race. To try to take the actions...

...of a part of a voting group and claim it represents the entire group is a logical fallacy, especially as it applies to the General Election, when people parties will have a choice between all candidates.

I have seen several programs about Republicans switching to Dems because of Bush Jr and Hillary. One that stands out was a group of "older" women who, after a life of being in the GOP, either after becoming disgusted with Bush Jr or Hillary, or both, switched to the Dems. Some of them (the ones who had not yet been disgusted by Hillary, but ahd been disgusted by Bush Jr) were switching to Hillary. Others, who are disgusted with both Bush and Hillary, switched to Obama.

Here's the kicker: once the new Hillary voters get a good look at her, they will see that she is just like Bush Jr, and will most likely switch to another candidate.

Hillary will never be able to win many states, as well. The longer she is on the trail, the less likelihood she will have of winning states because people are leaving the Clinton campaign, not being drawn to it.

[NeedleCast]

99. I'm not going to support Hillary in the primary soley because

there are ignorant people in the country who base their vote on who wears a flag pin and who doesn't.

These bully tactics from camp Hillary regarding electibility are another desperate part of the "kitchen sink" plan.

[jackson_dem]

106. Supporting Obama will make you feel good, but enjoy President McSame

Ignorant people vote and it is naive to ignore them. How do you think we wound up with Bush?

[Mooney]

100. The rethugs also want to privatize social security.

Are we honestly supposed to pick a candidate based on whether the republicans think they can beat him?

[jackson_dem]

105. The focus group results are backed up by voting results

How do we win without these voters? How did it work out for Mondale and Carter?

[Mooney]

118. It will take work.

We don't have any built-in constituencies. We will have a tough sell no matter who the nominee is.

[MADem]

102. Wow, those are some pretty HARSH statistics.

And harsh assessments, too.

[haymakeragain]

119. You get that as a fax or spam from rove?

Just curious. It's obvious who they want to match up with, it's Hillarious pal, so search for a clue.

[BootinUp]

120. I love the smell of defeat in November.

:sarcasm:

[yurbud]

124. consider the source

[EmilyAnne]

125. Quick! Email this to Rush Limbaugh!

[AZ Criminal JD]

126. Obama does better in the GE polls because of the heavy urban black vote

But the fact he gets a very high percentage of the black vote does not help us in the electoral college. States with a large black vote are going to vote democratic no matter who is on the ballot. Hillary would still get the majority of the black vote but also a much better percentage of the white working class vote and she would have the opportunity to win more electoral votes.

[SwampG8r]

130. more of this crap

like somehow she will not have anything to be running from when the GOP starts for real
she has a long history of things that are bound to come up if not for the first time then for the 100th
she is a shitstained sheet on the bed of american politics and the GOP will pull off the comforter and show american the streaks
that may not have hurt her before
but after the way she has run her campaign the only ones who will rush to defend her this time will be those like yourselves who havent been able to come to grips with how used they have been by the clintons
if there was ANYTHING that would bring down obama in the GE she would have used it by now
she would have used it on the morning after supertuesday
all she can come up with are cheap sideshow attractions
more brown on the sheet of her life
wright,ayers,you name it and shes tried to make it work
shes got nothing and the GOP has nothing
thats why they are both so scared
they dont own him and cant be sure he will continue the two step (you hide mine and ill hide yours)they have been working on since 1988

[Freedom Train]

131. And this, of course, is the most poignant fact

Obama can't win the white blue-collar working class vote. And without that vote, no Democrat will be elected president this November. Hillary might not be much of a hope, but I've become convinced that out of our two current candidates, she has the better chance against McCain. I see this switch in line of thinking among GOP strategists as well. Whereas before they were hoping for a Hillary win, Obama now looks really good to them.