And John Aravosis from Americablog is hopping mad
http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/you-all-voted-for-obama-but.html
QuoteIt's happening. Obama has the most delegates by virtue of your votes, our citizens. But Hillary has the lead in total delegates, 783-709. How is that possible? Because of a bunch of Democratic party officials got together and decided that they prefer Hillary, so they gave her the lead in spite of the fact that you, the voters, gave Obama the lead.
Who says Republicans are the only ones who know how to steal elections?
As we've explained before, in addition to the delegates each candidate wins based upon how well they do in each state, each state's Senators, Members of the House, Governor and certain Democratic National Committee officials are their own delegates and they get to vote too. But they don't get to vote like you get to vote. No. They're already delegates, and they get to choose who they throw their delegate vote behind. So what happens is that so far in this race Obama is ahead. But Hillary has a lead in Superdelegates over Obama, 2-1. Those Superdelegates - i.e., party officials that have nothing to do with your vote - have decided to give Hillary the lead in spite of your vote. How do you like that?
Now, if Hillary ends up having the lead in delegates but Obama wins anyway by getting most of the Superdelegates I'll be just as upset. This is no way to pick a president; a bunch of mostly-white mostly-rich mostly-men getting together and deciding if we're smart enough to pick our own candidate. If either candidate has fewer "real" delegates than their opponent, but wins by virtue of their Superdelegates, I think you're going to see a civil war. Imagine what will happen in the black community if a bunch of white Democrats are perceived to have taken the election away from the first black presidential nominee? Imagine how they're going to feel towards the Democratic party in the future? And for that matter, imagine how Hillary voters are going to feel towards Obama if she wins the real delegates but he wins by virtue of the Superdelegates?
Our system is a joke. They ought to split the Superdelegates now, 50-50 and be done with it.
PS Similar story if Florida's and Michigan's delegates are suddenly reinstated. Those delegates are gone, the candidates didn't campaign in those states, if those delegates are reinstated it is nothing short of an effort to steal the election. The only way you could reinstate Florida's and Michigan's delegates would be to set up caucuses in those states, let the candidates campaign for real, and then have the caucuses decide the delegates. That way you have a real campaign for votes and not some retroactive effort to throw the election by pretending we had a real election in Florida and Michigan when we did not.
Most of the Super delegates haven't choose a side publicly, and even the ones who have are under no obligation to actually vote that way. Their decision only matters when the actual convention vote is taken. No elected official would place no bearing on the public will, in making there decision, but if HRC and Obama are roughly equal, it could go either way.
Prior to the '70's both parties selected their nominees via delegates not elected by the voters at large (for the most part) and where often choosen in 'smoke-filled rooms'.
After direct election of delegates, led to McGovern and Mondale 'landslides', the hybrid system in place now evolved.
Actually, Hillary should be the one crying foul since she got more votes yesterday and ended up with less delegates due to the Democrat's arcane and byzantine delegate selection formulas.
QuoteTOTAL VOTES CAST
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html
QuoteNBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
How is that fair?
It is interesting to see though that the kook left wing fringe is gravitating to Obama now. Kind of makes me hope for an HRC win in the primaries at least. She is by far more accomplished, experienced and intelligent than Obama.
Obama is to the left of Hillary and I always prefer the devil I know (Hillary) to the devil I do not know (Obama). As for intelligence, who knows about IQ but what I mean is she appears to have a much better command of the issues, public policy and current affairs than does Obama.
Obama speaks in meaningless cliches that are also fundamentally dishonest such as the idea that he will somehow be able to transcend partisanship if elected. With one of the most liberal records in the Senate (when he actually bothered to vote), I can tell you that this is an absolute joke. Obama would be grossly unprepared for the challenges he would meet and would face a firestorm of opposition once he starts telling the truth about his far left agenda. At least the Clinton's have demonstrated in the past a willingness to compromise and work with the Republicans in Congress as they did on a number of occasions in the 1990s.
Quote from: RiversideGator on February 07, 2008, 12:50:23 AM
Actually, Hillary should be the one crying foul since she got more votes yesterday and ended up with less delegates due to the Democrat's arcane and byzantine delegate selection formulas.
QuoteTOTAL VOTES CAST
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html
QuoteNBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
How is that fair?
It is interesting to see though that the kook left wing fringe is gravitating to Obama now. Kind of makes me hope for an HRC win in the primaries at least. She is by far more accomplished, experienced and intelligent than Obama.
It's no different than the electoral college, in which the popular vote winner in 2000 (Gore) lost the race to the electoral vote winner (Bush 43).
The GOP also allocates delegates based on a combination of methods. If the GOP race were closer, the very same scenario could be happening.
Some states are winner take all, others are proportional. IMO,each state has the right to determine it's own means of selecting delegates.
As a Republican, it doesn't surprise me that you would prefer to run against HRC. Even if she wins the general (unlikely IMO), her vote 'ceiling' is pretty low, IMO.
Obama on the other hand has the potential to turn the race upside down. A Democratic version of the GOP 1980 landslide would at least be a possibility. Many states that would not be in play with HRC, would be if Obama is the nominee. His winning states in the Midwest and South, while at the same time setting records everywhere for Democratic turnout, should be putting the fear of GOD in the GOP. Obama is drawing from Independents and moderates to a degree that HRC hasn't.
I would like to know why you think Obama is to the Left of HRC.
I'll grant you that she has more experience, but her judgement has been quite faulty in the past. Her 'circle the wagons' response to Whitewater was a costly mistake, as was her stewardship of the Clinton health care proposal in the '90's. Lastly, while she wasn't alone, she fell for the Bush-Cheney con job that put us in Iraq in the first place. She is very intellectually intelligent, but her political judgement is far worse than Bill's. She brings all his liabilities, but is lacking many of his assets.
Quote from: vicupstate on February 07, 2008, 12:18:16 PM
It's no different than the electoral college, in which the popular vote winner in 2000 (Gore) lost the race to the electoral vote winner (Bush 43).
The GOP also allocates delegates based on a combination of methods. If the GOP race were closer, the very same scenario could be happening.
Some states are winner take all, others are proportional. IMO,each state has the right to determine it's own means of selecting delegates.
I am just saying that this seems to contradict the old Dem mantra of "let every vote count". The Republicans obviously understand and appreciate a republican system of choosing their leaders. The bottom line though is Hillary has the most votes so far.
Quote
As a Republican, it doesn't surprise me that you would prefer to run against HRC. Even if she wins the general (unlikely IMO), her vote 'ceiling' is pretty low, IMO.
I actually think Hillary has a better chance in the general election than does Obama. And, I dont like either one of these candidates but I do think Hillary is slightly more responsible in terms of policy. As a conservative, you dont want the other party to go off the cliff and nominate someone totally out there since it pulls the whole election to the left. Also, there is a decent chance that the Dem nominee will be elected President so I want the most responsible, qualified Dem in that position. This is all there is to it.
Quote
Obama on the other hand has the potential to turn the race upside down. A Democratic version of the GOP 1980 landslide would at least be a possibility. Many states that would not be in play with HRC, would be if Obama is the nominee. His winning states in the Midwest and South, while at the same time setting records everywhere for Democratic turnout, should be putting the fear of GOD in the GOP. Obama is drawing from Independents and moderates to a degree that HRC hasn't.
You do understand that winning states in the Democrat primary is not the same thing as winning them in the general election, dont you? John Kerry won a lot of red states in the primaries in 2004 too but didnt fare too well in them in the general election. Obama has also run strong in many red states in the South because black voters vote for him by margins of 90-10 or greater and they made up a majority or near majority of the Dem electorate. This is, of course, race based voting to support him but it will not be enough to carry the day in the general since blacks always vote Dem 90-10 anyway.
Obama has no appeal to conservatives and very limited appeal to moderates. He is doing very well among the more upscale, star struck, emotion based, Oprah wing of the Democrat party and blacks. Hillary is getting the majority of everyone else including working class people who are supposed to be the backbone of the party. In any event, many Democrats vote based on emotion which is why they are Democrats. But, I think you will find that most of the rest of us actually look at the selection of the President using logic and looking at qualifications and the actual policy pronouncements of the candidates. On these criteria, Obama will not look good. He would be helped (as would HRC) though by having to run against a moderate McCain. But, I think if Obama is the nominee a lot of the Reagan and Clinton Democrats will not support him and will gravitate towards McCain. Hillary would not suffer the same fate IMO.
QuoteI would like to know why you think Obama is to the Left of HRC.
Because he is more liberal than HRC.
QuoteI'll grant you that she has more experience, but her judgement has been quite faulty in the past. Her 'circle the wagons' response to Whitewater was a costly mistake, as was her stewardship of the Clinton health care proposal in the '90's. Lastly, while she wasn't alone, she fell for the Bush-Cheney con job that put us in Iraq in the first place. She is very intellectually intelligent, but her political judgement is far worse than Bill's. She brings all his liabilities, but is lacking many of his assets.
No candidate is perfect. But if Barrack Obama is the nominee, expect the fawning media bubble to burst rather rapidly and there to be some serious scrutiny of his rather bizarre and troubling background. This will make HRC's issues look tame in comparison. The opposition research will be working in overdrive and he will be subject to a LOT more scrutiny than he has been heretofore.
Quote from: RiversideGator on February 07, 2008, 11:32:58 AM
At least the Clinton's have demonstrated in the past a willingness to compromise and work with the Republicans in Congress as they did on a number of occasions in the 1990s.
Are you talking about in the 1990s when Bill and Congress couldn't pass a budget and the federal government shut down for three weeks?
Or are you talking about Hillary's more recent votes in favor of the war, PATRIOT Act, and various corporate contracts for weapons manufacturers?
Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what anyone could possibly like about Hillary.
Quote from: RiversideGator on February 08, 2008, 12:06:59 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on February 07, 2008, 12:18:16 PM
It's no different than the electoral college, in which the popular vote winner in 2000 (Gore) lost the race to the electoral vote winner (Bush 43).
The GOP also allocates delegates based on a combination of methods. If the GOP race were closer, the very same scenario could be happening.
Some states are winner take all, others are proportional. IMO,each state has the right to determine it's own means of selecting delegates.
I am just saying that this seems to contradict the old Dem mantra of "let every vote count". The Republicans obviously understand and appreciate a republican system of choosing their leaders. The bottom line though is Hillary has the most votes so far.
Quote
As a Republican, it doesn't surprise me that you would prefer to run against HRC. Even if she wins the general (unlikely IMO), her vote 'ceiling' is pretty low, IMO.
I actually think Hillary has a better chance in the general election than does Obama. And, I dont like either one of these candidates but I do think Hillary is slightly more responsible in terms of policy. As a conservative, you dont want the other party to go off the cliff and nominate someone totally out there since it pulls the whole election to the left. Also, there is a decent chance that the Dem nominee will be elected President so I want the most responsible, qualified Dem in that position. This is all there is to it.
Quote
Obama on the other hand has the potential to turn the race upside down. A Democratic version of the GOP 1980 landslide would at least be a possibility. Many states that would not be in play with HRC, would be if Obama is the nominee. His winning states in the Midwest and South, while at the same time setting records everywhere for Democratic turnout, should be putting the fear of GOD in the GOP. Obama is drawing from Independents and moderates to a degree that HRC hasn't.
You do understand that winning states in the Democrat primary is not the same thing as winning them in the general election, dont you? John Kerry won a lot of red states in the primaries in 2004 too but didnt fare too well in them in the general election. Obama has also run strong in many red states in the South because black voters vote for him by margins of 90-10 or greater and they made up a majority or near majority of the Dem electorate. This is, of course, race based voting to support him but it will not be enough to carry the day in the general since blacks always vote Dem 90-10 anyway.
Obama has no appeal to conservatives and very limited appeal to moderates. He is doing very well among the more upscale, star struck, emotion based, Oprah wing of the Democrat party and blacks. Hillary is getting the majority of everyone else including working class people who are supposed to be the backbone of the party. In any event, many Democrats vote based on emotion which is why they are Democrats. But, I think you will find that most of the rest of us actually look at the selection of the President using logic and looking at qualifications and the actual policy pronouncements of the candidates. On these criteria, Obama will not look good. He would be helped (as would HRC) though by having to run against a moderate McCain. But, I think if Obama is the nominee a lot of the Reagan and Clinton Democrats will not support him and will gravitate towards McCain. Hillary would not suffer the same fate IMO.
QuoteI would like to know why you think Obama is to the Left of HRC.
Because he is more liberal than HRC.
QuoteI'll grant you that she has more experience, but her judgement has been quite faulty in the past. Her 'circle the wagons' response to Whitewater was a costly mistake, as was her stewardship of the Clinton health care proposal in the '90's. Lastly, while she wasn't alone, she fell for the Bush-Cheney con job that put us in Iraq in the first place. She is very intellectually intelligent, but her political judgement is far worse than Bill's. She brings all his liabilities, but is lacking many of his assets.
No candidate is perfect. But if Barrack Obama is the nominee, expect the fawning media bubble to burst rather rapidly and there to be some serious scrutiny of his rather bizarre and troubling background. This will make HRC's issues look tame in comparison. The opposition research will be working in overdrive and he will be subject to a LOT more scrutiny than he has been heretofore.
Winning a party primary is not the same as winning that state in a general election. But he would be starting with a FOUNDATION of support that is twice as big as Kerry had in 2004. That won't turn the REDDEST of RED states, but it would easily enlarge the number of states in play. BTW, Kerry won those states by default, because it was all over, after he won Iowa and NH.
It is true that 90% of the black vote will go to the Dem. BUT the crucial question is, 90% of WHAT? If the black vote is energized and thus ENLARGED, that ADDS votes even if it does not add to the PERCENTAGE of that voter category.
Obama has BROAD appeal to moderates. He certainly appeals to conservatives more than HRC. HRC appeals mostly to old-style Dems. Obama has struke a cord with the voters that are turned off, and are seeking a break from politics as usual. HRC is the very definition of politics as usual.
I'm well aware that Left means Liberal, and Right means Conservative, in political lexicon. Can you now explain why you perceive Obama to be more Liberal than HRC based on policy positions?
I have heard nothing in Obama's background that is bizarre, unless it is discredited internet BS. I have no doubt that the Clintons have done plenty of their own 'digging'. Obviously, that hasn't worked too well for them.
Obama is in the driver's seat at this point, he has a good chance at virtually running the table until March 4. By then it may be too late for HRC to turn it around.
If you don't agree with my take on the subject, you might want to read this, from a bonafide 'conservative'
QuoteNewt Gingrich "said today that last year he would have picked Sen. Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but now he's not so sure, calling Sen. Barack Obama a 'phenomenon' and comparing him to John F. Kennedy," according to ABC News.
Said Gingrich: "I think Senator Obama is slowly and steadily pulling away. The difference in fundraising capability is getting wider... I think he's going to be very formidable for Clinton to stop."
As for the likely Republican presidential nominee, Gingrich predicted that Sen. John McCain "would choose Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, or his current opponent in the race, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, as his running mate."
I agree that Obama is a once in a generation candidate. If HRC were not so entrenched in the Dem. establishment, he would already be the nominee.
BTW, I hope McCain doesn't pick Sanford, our Lt. Governor is a Peyton-like empty suit. Of course, Sanford has accomplished nothing in 6 years, so I don't know why he would be on McCain's short list to begin with, other than to make amends to the right wing.
What are everyone's thoughts about Crist being VP?? It would be good to have him out of Tally, so he would stop messing up things, but he would be only one, 72 yo heart beat away from being President - scary thought.
Quote from: jaxweb on February 08, 2008, 04:23:13 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on February 07, 2008, 11:32:58 AM
At least the Clinton's have demonstrated in the past a willingness to compromise and work with the Republicans in Congress as they did on a number of occasions in the 1990s.
Are you talking about in the 1990s when Bill and Congress couldn't pass a budget and the federal government shut down for three weeks?
Or are you talking about Hillary's more recent votes in favor of the war, PATRIOT Act, and various corporate contracts for weapons manufacturers?
Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what anyone could possibly like about Hillary.
After the government shut down and the press blamed the Reps for the impasse, both sides appeared to learn their lessons and the Reps funded the government at a higher rate but Clinton also signed off on welfare reform, balanced budgets and some other fairly conservative things. This was part of the reason for his popularity too IMO.
BTW, if you really think that Obama will be able to come into DC and usher in some new age of bipartisan agreement whereby all of the left's pet programs are enacted, you are living in the same Obama cult-like fantasy world that his supporters apparently inhabit.
Quote from: vicupstate on February 08, 2008, 05:05:50 PM
Winning a party primary is not the same as winning that state in a general election. But he would be starting with a FOUNDATION of support that is twice as big as Kerry had in 2004. That won't turn the REDDEST of RED states, but it would easily enlarge the number of states in play. BTW, Kerry won those states by default, because it was all over, after he won Iowa and NH.
Which states exactly do you foresee Obama being able to flip from where they voted in 2004? I think a lot of this is wishful thinking to be honest with you.
Quote
It is true that 90% of the black vote will go to the Dem. BUT the crucial question is, 90% of WHAT? If the black vote is energized and thus ENLARGED, that ADDS votes even if it does not add to the PERCENTAGE of that voter category.
The Dems had a heck of a turnout among blacks in 2004 and still lost. It would surprise me if there were substantially more votes to be turned out in 2008. There are only so many black voters to go around given that they are only 12% of the population and also are concentrated more in areas that Dems will lose anyway (the Deep South) or in areas they would win anyway (NY and IL). In any event, by making racial appeals for blacks to vote for one of their own, the Dems will turn off some white voters who will nullify the gains you think will be had. I think also the exit polls indicate that a fairly substantial number of downscale white Dem primary voters would have problems voting for Obama in the general election. In terms of electability, the Dems can ignore this fact at their own peril.
Quote
Obama has BROAD appeal to moderates. He certainly appeals to conservatives more than HRC. HRC appeals mostly to old-style Dems. Obama has struke a cord with the voters that are turned off, and are seeking a break from politics as usual. HRC is the very definition of politics as usual.
I'm well aware that Left means Liberal, and Right means Conservative, in political lexicon. Can you now explain why you perceive Obama to be more Liberal than HRC based on policy positions?
According to the nonpartisan National Journal, Obama was the most liberal US Senator in 2007 while Hillary was 16th most liberal according to their votes and positions. I am not making this stuff up. Read it here:
QuoteObama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
Campaigns Tracker 2008
By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Oh and, again, National Journal is nonpartisan. Read more about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal
Quote
I have heard nothing in Obama's background that is bizarre, unless it is discredited internet BS. I have no doubt that the Clintons have done plenty of their own 'digging'. Obviously, that hasn't worked too well for them.
Trust me that the foreign background, the Muslim issue, the middle name of Hussein, the far left record, the far left radical upbringing, etc, etc will not play well in Peoria. It may not all be fair or entirely relevant but it will sway some voters. I could be wrong but I dont think America is that liberal either. I think Obama is a far left idealogue who gives good speeches and who is posing as a nonpartisan uniter but, sooner or later, he will have to take a position on something and this is when his numbers will start to come down. I really think that Obama could lose by a fairly large margin in the general election if he is the nominee.
Quote
Obama is in the driver's seat at this point, he has a good chance at virtually running the table until March 4. By then it may be too late for HRC to turn it around.
This may be true but I would still be surprised to see the Clintons lose in the end.
QuoteBTW, I hope McCain doesn't pick Sanford, our Lt. Governor is a Peyton-like empty suit. Of course, Sanford has accomplished nothing in 6 years, so I don't know why he would be on McCain's short list to begin with, other than to make amends to the right wing.
What are everyone's thoughts about Crist being VP?? It would be good to have him out of Tally, so he would stop messing up things, but he would be only one, 72 yo heart beat away from being President - scary thought.
I would not want to see Crist that close to the White House. He is way too liberal. I am holding out hope that McCain will pick a down the line conservative VP to balance out the ticket. We will see. No matter what happens, it should be interesting. :)
Interesting article from Susan Estrich, who is a Democrat columnist and ran the Dukakis's 1988 campaign, re Obama's electability problems:
QuoteFebruary 11, 2008
Race and the Democratic Party
By Susan Estrich
LOS ANGELES -- A funny thing keeps happening to Barack Obama on his way to victory against Hillary Clinton.
It happened in New Hampshire. It happened again in Nevada. It happened last week in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and even in New York.
It's not easy to figure out, but it deserves to be addressed.
In the days leading up to the voting, all anyone talks about is the wave of support for Obama, the momentum flooding in his direction, the crowds like they've never seen, the power of the unexpected endorsements -- whether from the Culinary Workers' Union in Nevada or the Kennedys (as in Ted, Caroline, and Maria Shriver) in California and Massachusetts.
Rumors fly, from people who usually -- and should -- know better, about panic in the Hillary campaign, massive firings, who is going to take over the campaign, and how soon she will exit from the race.
The conventional wisdom declares Obama the "winner" of whatever is to be won in the days leading up to the voting, whether it's the debate, the never-ending money primary, or the intensity meter.
The Obama people, after initially trying to keep expectations in check, end up getting swept up by the game, as they did this time, telling reporters the double digit lead that one poll found in California on the eve of the election was too big, and they'd be happy just to win, which of course they didn't.
The game doesn't end until the actual votes start getting reported. Even the exit polls lie.
This year, a headline on the Drudge Report, much talked about, was that Obama was huge in the exits. He was. Much bigger than in all the little polling booths across the country.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I fell for it in New Hampshire. I studied all the polls, talked to all the reporters covering the candidates. I felt the doom and gloom from the Hillary supporters, and the exuberance of the Obama aides, barely controlling their confidence and optimism.
I listened respectfully to the reports that Obama's people had been told that there should be "no dancing in the end zone" while Hillary's people were saying that keeping their loss to single digits would be a victory.
I e-mailed everyone I knew, conveying the "inside word" that Obama was expected to win by 12- to 13 points. I took a nap, expecting to be up half the night trying to explain why Hillary's campaign wasn't over and why I had been wrong in downplaying the significance of Iowa with my detailed history of Iowa winners who went on to defeat in New Hampshire.
I wrote a column about the wave, but then the wave didn't happen. This time, at least, I wasn't fooled.
I listened to the reports about the crowds, the last-minute polls, the focus groups that handed the debate to Obama, the stories about the money pouring in and the power of the Kennedy name in Massachusetts and California.
I said what I honestly believed, what I had learned the hard way -- "I don't know...not necessarily.... don't trust the polls."
When people called me in a panic about the exits showing California too close to call, showing Obama with leads in primary states that Hillary was supposed to win, I took a deep breath and suggested they do the same.
I had a two word answer for all the folks who said it was over, that Hillary was dead, that all the money and momentum for Obama meant he would walk on water come the time for the polls to close.
Two words - New Hampshire. And New Hampshire it was.
It's not that Obama didn't do well, of course he did. He did very well.
But, California turned out to be as clear-cut a victory for Hillary as most people thought it would be two weeks earlier. The Latino and women's vote stayed with Hillary.
New York was a romp. New Jersey was easy. Even Massachusetts -- the most liberal state in the nation, where Obama won the endorsements of both Senators, Kennedy and Kerry, not to mention the newly elected African American Governor, Deval Patrick, even Massachusetts was Clinton country.
What is going on?
If you paid attention to the gushers in the press and punditry in the days leading up to Super Tuesday, Hillary was on her way to the morgue, murdered by her crazy husband's loose talk, abandoned by young voters and women and anti-war Democrats, and anyone else they could think of.
Not so.
Partly, it's a measure of Hillary's strength. But it's also a sign of Obama's weakness which, it seems, we who chatter for a living have been reluctant to speak about, lest we be tarred with having raised the "race card."
But, the fact is that there is a long pattern of what we in California call the "Bradley problem" in polling, after the former Los Angeles mayor who was elected governor in every poll, including the exits, except that he lost at the ballot box. Did I mention that he was African-American?
That was, according to the pollsters, the problem: about 10 percent of the electorate claimed that they were going to vote for him, and in many cases even told pollsters that they did, but they lied.
Shocking. Racism in America. Who'd a thunk it?
Doug Wilder, who wasn't elected to the Senate from Virginia, faced the same problem. We who are Democrats would like to believe that race is not a factor in the polling of our party members, but maybe we're wrong.
No one doubts, or at least no one who is honest does, that both racism and sexism come into play as people decide between Clinton and Obama, but could it be that people are more willing to admit that they won't vote for the woman than that they won't vote for the black?
If this is happening even among us good Democrats, what does that say about Obama's strength in a general election? Not pretty questions. Not a fair world.
But for Democrats who want to win, these are questions that must be addressed.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/race_and_the_democratic_party.html
Ah, Susan Estrich, the campaign manager that stood by, while Dukakis blew a 17 point lead to Bush-41, with lots of help from Lee Atwater and Willie Horton, of course. There is a reason why you haven't heard her name much since that race. She was way over her head.
The "Bradley" effect didn't have a damn thing to do with HRC winning New Hampshire. The last NH debate and the Coffee shop emotion, turned the tide. The Bradley effect was the 'hot topic' for less than a week, but it has been throughly discredited in this case.
In fact, the 2006 senate race in Tennessee, signaled the likely death of the Bradley effect. The actual vote that the black Democrat, Harold Ford received, reflected the very figures the polls showed he would get. Obama lost California because it is a huge state that was lumped together with 20+ others with only a couple of weeks to campaign. The latino and female base that HRC had there, was too much to overcome in that short a period of time, with so many other states also in the mix.
No doubt there is a segment of the population that won't vote for a black man, but then most of them vote GOP already, and would do the same if HRC were the Dem. nominee.
As for states that Obama can take from the GOP column, here is my list of most likely...
Tier one:
Ohio - 20 votes: If the Dem candidate takes the Kerry states and Ohio, they will be elected. The GOP got their asses handed to them in Ohio in '06, so it is well within the Dem's grasp.
Virginia -13
Iowa - 7 : Again, 20 is the magic number and these two states have that. Once a bastion of Republican power, as right wing nuts took over the state party, the state has consistently rebuked the GOP. Obama is particularly is well positioned to compete for it. Iowa picked Obama by an overwhelmly margin in a HUGE turnout. Not to mention, Iowa is a swing state to begin with.
Missouri - 11
Colorado - 9: A third combo of 20. Missouri is the bellweather swing state in every presidential election. The GOP governor there, is so unpopular he isn't even running for a second term. Colorado Democrats had a HUGE year in 2006, and the party's convention is in Denver.
New Mexico - 5: Given the Illegal immigration bashing the GOP has done, and the large Hispanic population, McCain will have a hard time here. An open senate seat with a very strong Dem candidate has energized the state's Dems and will no doubt boost their turnout. Two bitter rivals will compete for the GOP nomination for the senate seat. Either will be an underdog, particularly after a divisive primary.
Nevada - 5: Once a red state, it is fully purple now. With NM and CO, plus the Kerry states, it would produce a tie in the electoral college.
Tier two:
Indiana - 11
Kentucky - 8
WV - 5
Tier Three : Some of these are not likely to switch from the GOP (esp. SC), but they would be in play enough that the GOP would have to spend time and resources to make sure they 'held', if Obama were the nominee. Doing so, could result in other 'swing' states going to the Democrats.
NC -14
SC - 8
MS - 6
Georgia - 14
Arkansas - 5
Louisiana - 10
-----
Quote
Trust me that the foreign background, the Muslim issue, the middle name of Hussein, the far left record, the far left radical upbringing, etc, etc will not play well in Peoria.
Obama isn't and never has been Muslim, nor has he had a radical upbringing, please drop the internet BS. As for Peoria, Obama won 68% there in his Senate race, only 2% lower than his statewide average. He seems to 'play' quite well there.
The middle name is accurate, but anyone stupid enough to be swayed by that, is probably already so xenophobic, that they already vote GOP.
Actual votes that are clearly out of the mainstream will be required to effectively make the case against Obama. I don't think referencing some rating that the average person has never heard of, will carry the day, IMO.
America is still more conservative than liberal philisophically, but the GOP and the Conservative movement has been discredited. The rigid ideological nonsense that spouts ad nauseum from Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and the other blow-hards that are still giving McCain fits, are only reinforcing that image. That said, McCain is the best candidate the GOP could offer of those that ran. Like Obama, he has a following with independents and moderates.
If you still don't think Obama is stronger than Hillary, then this link will show that out of nine polls, from nine different sources, each one shows Obama stronger in the general than HRC.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
I fully understand why you would rather run against HRC than Obama. She would unite the GOP, and be much easier to beat than he would.