Electability mentality

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

That's David Axelrod on NPR this morning, explaining why Obama lost Pennsylvania; and implying that Obama would not do much better in the GE with white lower-income workers.

And Axelrod might as well include that this happens to coincide with the fact that only 1 Democratic Presidential candidate has gotten a fraction above 50 percent in the GE since 1964, that's 44 years ago.

Do you think the two are connected?

This leads into the discussion over on TNR, John Judis asks whether Obama is The Next McGovern and Jonathan Chait, Contra Judis, says no. I've noticed exactly what Judis is talking about here. Obama still has the young and African-American voter coalition going on, but his base beyond that seems to have shifted over the course of the primary.

Judis:

...if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.

Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.

Chait makes three counter points.

First, that going "from primary dynamics to general election dynamics" is problematic. That's true to a point, but also misses the appeal of Clinton over Obama and McCain over Obama, that's been shown of these voters in multiple recent polls. It's reflective of another shift that's happened. It used the be that Obama bragged about how Clinton wouldn't be able to win the voters that appealed to Obama. That's not the case any longer, with Obama having taken the McGovern coalition as his base.

Second, the point that Judis and Teixeira's book TEDM "argues that the elements of the McGovern coalition have expanded to the point where they can form the base of a political majority." True, but that's been obvious since 2000. That's the base, but it  skips past that its "not as a model of how to win presidential elections". This leads back to the first question, as to where, beyond the base, a candidate has appeal and can bring in votes.

Third, "compared to what?" asks Chait. Well, going by the national polls of registered voters, it is true that Obama does better than Clinton by .9 percent (can I call that 1%?) over McCain. So what, ask Al Gore. A look at the state polls reveals the trouble.

The Obama map shows big problems in Florida and Ohio, and most of the midwest region. In fact, if Obama doesn't have the states of Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico to contend for (see Obama's previous positions on gun control for potential trouble), it becomes a very difficult map. Clinton's map is stronger, taking Florida and Ohio over McCain.

Obama had much more potential with the base that he came out of Iowa with, which included evangelical white voters. Its that element which he seems to have lost, probably due to Wright. It's been subtle, but his voting coalition has moved away from that group and toward the 'secular warrior' voters, while keeping the youth and African American base.



Display:


Preach It! (2.00 / 6)

Preach it, brotha.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:04:40 PM EST

Yeah, let's take this all the way (none / 0)

to the late August convention.

Damn the consequences! Damn the polls! Obama is clearly unelectable, and our only chance is HRC!


Clinton Democrats care about the same things I do, most importantly beating John McCain.
by TrueBlueCT on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:44:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Suffers From Rudi's Problem (none / 0)

The more people see of her, the less they like her. Her numbers drop and drop badly in many of these primaries.  

It's a long road to November.


by bernardpliers on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Suffers From Rudi's Problem (none / 0)

wow. Obama is literally the overstuffed chair in your electoral politics. Everything revolves around her.. if she dictates this campaign to that degree, she should win. Also, Guiliani has one delegate she has over 1700. maybe democrats dont care about likable.


by hctb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That certainly isn't true in PA ;-) (none / 0)

She, Bill, and Chelsea were all over PA and the people there loved her!!!!!


by macmcd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

I love it that we can all agree that what he said is true.

so its a bad thing.

its really sad when we are attacking a politician for telling the truth.

all he said was he is NOT going to solely rely on the white working vote, as that has been a stable for the GOP, even Clinton couldn't win that.

but ofcourse Obama said it so lets attack him for telling the truth.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:04:47 PM EST

Sometimes, voters can't handle truth. (2.00 / 1)

It's a sad thing to say, but, when it comes to campaigning that is the truth, too.

Doubt me?

Just ask Walter Mondale. Back in '84, he told the public--continuously--that he'd probably have to raise taxes. He said countless times: "I will not lie to the American public." This stood in stark contrast to Reagan's trickle-down (urination) theories as far as his campaign's economic theories were concerned. In retrospect, as hindsight is 20/20, Reagan was leading everyone off a cliff...but the majority didn't realize it until more than 2-1/2 decades later, when it became self-evident to the masses that it simply didn't work.

Left to their own devices, the rich and the corporate elites will stuff their own pockets at the end of the day, while the middle class eats crumbs.

Just history repeating itself.

I'm just sayin'...

So, if Obama wants to talk "truth," so be it.


by bobswern on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:26:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes, voters can't handle truth. (none / 0)

I know but this is a democratic site!

we know what he means, for Democrats to spin it, its just sad.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes, voters can't handle truth. (none / 0)

Perhaps, the convention floor fight in 1984 kind of contributed to his loss, too...

What do you think?


by LordMike on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes, voters can't handle truth. (none / 0)

you know there was a fight in 1976 as well between Kenndey and Carter that went all the way to the convention and Carter still won.  just saying.

david


by giusd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes, voters can't handle truth. (none / 0)

...and we lost...

The last time we went all the way to the convention and still won the presidency was 1960... yeah, the year of the first televised debate ever....


by LordMike on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes, voters can't handle truth. (none / 0)

There is no "challenger".  Hillary is no incumbent.  It is an open seat.


by LordMike on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes, voters can't handle truth. (none / 0)

and Obama is ahead by 154 pledged delegates not behind.  Analogy kind of falls apart then


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:56:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sometimes, voters can't handle truth. (none / 0)

Good catch i guess i mixed up those dates.

david


by giusd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:01:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Every times that Religion gets mixed up with politics we, the American people, seem to loose.


by temptxan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM EST

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 7)

Don't you realize that religion and politics are incredibly intertwined in this nation? To unwrap one from the other would be to destroy the very foundation of this nation.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 3)

Did I get troll rated? You know, I'm only telling the truth. The electorate is incredibly religious compared to the American public.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Weird isn't it? The premature (2.00 / 1)

etrollarators are basically instantiating the "down side" of pure democracy, rule by mob.  And the reason our founders made this a representative democracy instead.


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weird isn't it? The premature (none / 0)

HA!


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I got an e-mail from a religious alliance (2.00 / 1)

that I belong to and was surprised (but also pleased) to see them raise the separation b/t church and state as it related to the CNN faith forum that the Dem candidates did recently.

It's true - since when should political candidates be put in the position to defend/state their faith?


by CoyoteCreek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yup, not supposed to work that way. (2.00 / 2)

Except ... almost everyone in public life seems to buy into some form of the same argument:  For me to support a  candidate, s/he has to think like m,  and/or believe like me, and/or look like me, and/or share my values.  

You see it big time in the liberal blogs with all the hatin' on Hillary.  Obama's most fervent anti-Hillary bloggers seem to see her as  utterly alien, "other", monstrous.   Their revulsion is visceral.  

That draws from the exactly same well of emotion that we see in the religious right's reaction to abortion, or godless liberalism, or whatever ...


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

Odd that.  The founding fathers were almost to a man Episcopalians leaning Unitarian.  Jefferson assumed that the dominant religion in America would eventually be Unitarianism, as that made sense to an Age of Enlightenment intellectual.  We would inexorably progress to a sort of highly evolved, somewhat indifferent and nonspecific theism.  We have actually gone the other direction, which is, shall we say, unfortunate...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

You point out the one founding father who was a true scoundrel. Let's look at the others and the legacy they left instead of cherry-picking a very controversial figure who made sure that the only people named Jefferson nowadays are black people. There is religion in politics and politics in religion. They may not be concentric circles, but they definitely overlap. And that overlap is that part of the electorate who determines who the President will be. Period.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 2)

My use of Jefferson has made you miss my point entirely.  I mentioned him because he actually said the bit about Unitarianism.  The leading intellectuals of the time, both here and on the Continent, were quite sure we were heading towards a post-Christian era pretty quickly, and that didn't happen.  It may have seemed to them, as it most assuredly does to me, that democracy and the capital "C" Church are inherently incompatible...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

And when, in the history of our nation since its inception, has that ever proven true?


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

Christianity, indeed all the Abrahamic faiths, are top-down heirarchical structures, concerned with the next world not this one, and fundamentally "other directed", that is, answerable to a higher power over any power on this Earth.  Democracy is firmly rooted in this world the equality, solidarity and intrinsic worth of every person, no matter what station they are born to.  The teachings of Jesus are based in these principles, but regrettably the Christian Church in America to great extent is more about Old Testament fear than New Testament love.

I am a quite devout high church Episcopalian, BTW, before you start hurling nasty atheist stuff at me.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

I'm not hurling, my friend.

The church should be about love, and I think we get it wrong a lot. We're human, after all.

But Christianity does teach a lot about the importance of civic duty, etc.

And we don't live in a democracy; we live in a republic. $4.00/gallon gas is indicative of that.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:48:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

WTF? Seriously, Jefferson is the only scoundrel, this obviously can't be about slavery otherwise you would tie in Washington, so I'd like a little bit of fillign out on your point.


by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

I don't agree with your comment 100%, but you didn't deserve a '0,' so I uprated you.  


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 0)

Thanks!


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

I don't agree with the sentiment, but there was nothing trollish about that comment.


Who puts gum on a roof?!
by thatpurplestuff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 0)

Thanks!


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

you're off base here. you're talking hypotheticals. Something that can't be measured.

while politics and religion are intertwined in this nation, there's no reason that they can not be separated as they should be.

and stop with the doom and gloom scenarios already. I've had 7 years too much of this type of framing.


!
by alex100 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Maybe I'm in the wrong place on the blog!

For an active Democrat who's also quite active in his church, perhaps I see things differently from those who believe that spirituality is an arbitrary construct.

No, I've thought about it, and I'm not going anywhere: the Party needs me too much.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

i never asked you to go anywhere so it's odd that you respond in such a way.

but in any regards, seperation of church and state is written in the constitution. Live your church life to the fullest. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with people's God(s) influencing my countries laws however.


!
by alex100 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What was wrong with that comment? (2.00 / 1)

Why was it troll rated?


by CoyoteCreek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 3)

Of course, Obama wins PA against McCain by exactly the same margin as Clinton in the most recent poll.  And he does a lot better against McCain than Clinton in lots of purple Dem-leaning states, like Iowa, Wisconsin, MN, etc.  But who cares about data like that, right?  Or that Clinton's negatives remain through the roof, and have gone up faster than Obama's as this process moves forward.  

Look, if you look at enough data you can prove just about anything.  Could Obama lose traditional "conservative democrats" to McCain?  Sure, it's possible.  Just like it's quite possible at this point that with Clinton as the nominee both the youth vote and afircan american voters will sit on their hands during the General.  I hope neither happens, since i want a Democrat elected more than anything, but both doomsday scenerios are possible.  Yet you never mention any of clinton's negatives/challenges in your posts.  I think that's odd for someone who professes to not really like either candidate all that much.    


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:09:33 PM EST

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

what? when did he say he didn't like either candidate that much

sure I have only been here a month but its pretty obvious who he favors :-p


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wonder if it's at all possible to imagine (none / 0)

Democrats that are most deeply concerned about WINNING not promoting the candidate they "favor".  It seems all attempts to rationally look at the contest in November have to now pass some "who do you favor" litmus test.  

Some interesting and significant concerns are being laid out in this diary.  If we are truly all interested in WINNING, we shouldn't give a wet rat's ass who the writer "favors".  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

Clinton's negatives are known; Obama's aren't. There are other polls which show Obama barely winning and in fact losing traditional true blue Democratic states like New York and Massachusetts, so we'd be winning Colorado and New Mexico at the sake of the Northeast, which is quickly becoming the Democratic version of the Republican Deep South.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Ya'll keep saying her negatives are "known," because she's "vetted," but her negatives just keep rising.  It's almost...as if...those numbers aren't static after all...  Ha, who knew.

As far as your NE argument goes, that's silly.  The most recent poll I've seen in NY shows Hillary with worse favorables in the state than either Obama or McCain.  She runs stronger in Mass, but both beat McCain there as of right now.  In contrast, Obama actually runs stronger against McCain in California of all places, along with the other states I mentioned.  They both have their pluses and minuses, no doubt, but the idea that she is a better bet in a General simply isn't supported by existing empirical evidence.  


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Thank you for lifting me out of negativity land on the other post!

What about Ohio? And the Wright debacle is a ticking time bomb.

Hillary is unique among Presidential candidates in that people can hate her and vote for her at the same time. I'm being serious. It's like holding one's nose and eating chitterlings. Okay, bad analogy. Or maybe not.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

Clinton is stronger in Ohio than Obama, but the most recent Survey USA poll there shows Obama in a statistical tie with McCain.  

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=7a8dbaf0-c417-490d-b388-e38c6a eb00c5

That's hardly a dire position to start a GE campaign in, given his supposed "terrible weakness" in the state.  Remember, McCain has yet to take a single hit from the left.  His numbers, in my opinion, are currently at their apex.  

I would us a different analogy next time, if I were you, but you are welcome about the uprating.  The '0' was completely uncalled for.


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Ah come on, the old chitterling analogy always works.

I don't think we're looking for "statistical ties" at this point. We are looking for cushions beyond the margin of error. Besides we know what happens in Ohio and Florida when there's a statistical tie in the polling and then Election Day happens: the R wins. So you're saying that your empirical evidence bears out that Obama is just as competitive because he is statistically tied with McCain in the states we need to win like Ohio, New York, Florida and Massachusetts (and New Hampshire). In a Democratic year, statistical ties don't cut it.


Obama-Clinton: The New Glory of America
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

No, my point is that he's statistically tied in states we need and so is she.  Last I checked,  Hillary's "strong" map doesn't work very well if she loses MN, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and NH (ironically, Obama performs better in both those last states).  Also, he makes states competative that she doesn't, including Colorado -- where he continues to beat McCain -- Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota.

Look, if the election was today both of our candidates are in a bit of trouble.  But it's not, and Mccain is at his peak right now.  Either of our candidates will win, in my opinion, so frankyl the electability argument doesn't have much force with me.  


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Look, if Obama is really at a statistical tie with McSame in  ever crucial Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire, then that is a plus. Namely, because we have already seen what happens when Obama starts campaigning in a state. Remember, FLoridans haven't  met him yet, and his ratings in Ohio can only go up since he has already campaigned there.
What you don't realize that if Obama has a good shot at winning states that Hillary 'supposedly has in the bag', then he is the better candidate because he can bring in CO and those other states out west that Hillary simply can't.

And if you REALLY think that Obama will lose New York, then you have no idea about Northeast politics. It's unlikely he will lose John Kerry's home state as well.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:47:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We should keep in mind that it's (2.00 / 2)

possible to vote for someone you don't find particularly likeable.  In fact, that's probably a far more rational approach to voting than the current American-idol model that so many people assume is correct.

You want someone who will work for you, fight for you, even get nasty for you.   And you are never going to sit down for a beer with them so do you really care how likeable they are?  

The newly-labelled 'neanderthal' 'archie bunker" voters of rural Pennsylvania may actually understand this a lot better than the presumed intellectuals pushing the "Hillary is unlikeable" meme so hard in blogosphere and MSM.  You know?  Maybe the voters really don't care that much about how likeable she is?

Though me?  I'd way rather have a beer with Hillary than with Barack.   He'd be lecturing me on constitutional law and the evils of racism, while she'd be blowing beer out her nose laughing.  


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We should keep in mind that it's (none / 0)

Yeah, racism is really, really "funny."

The comment I was making was about favorable/unfavorables, not "likeability."  Those are completely different metrics.  Not being particularly likeable isn't a huge deal, I agree.  Having very high unfavorable numbers is much more serious, because that takes into account your view of someone's performance.  


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops, I didn't mean Hillary would (none / 0)

be sitting at the same table, laughing at Obama's lecture!  Sorry ... In my imagination these were two completely separate events, one with Obama lecturing and the other with Hillary snorting beer.

As for "unfavorables", ok I can agree with you that this includes more than just likeability in principle.  But I'd be curious what items are on your list of unfavorables for Hillary in addition to the likeability thing?


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops, I didn't mean Hillary would (none / 0)

It's not my list, just to be clear.  I'll vote for her without compunction in the General if she wins the nomination.  But a significant majority of voters apparently think she is untrustworthy and calculating.  Those are not good numbers.  She also doesn't do as well as Obama with respect to the "shares my values" question, which plays into favorability ratings.  That's just off the top of my head.


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops, I didn't mean Hillary would (none / 0)

Dont you mean a significant majority of BO supporters and voters apparently think she is untrustworthy and calculating.

david


by giusd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oops, I didn't mean Hillary would (none / 0)

Nope, but thanks for your inciteful comment.  According to a recent poll, only 39% of the public view Senator Clinton as trustworthy.  Here's the link.  Enjoy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883. html?hpid=topnews


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Clinton's known negatives are above 50%.  Why are any more conversations even necessary???


by zadura on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Psssst.  Here's a secret for you.  They will smear whoever the nominee is, and they don't care what's true or not.  So forgive me if I"m unoved by this "development."  If Hillary is the nominee, it will simply be a new smear about how she's a lesbian, who sold drugs out of the WH when she wasn't killing vince foster.  So what?  The only solution is to win anyway.  Obama can do that, as -- to be clear -- can Senator Clinton.  Depsite her own substantial baggage and sky high negatives.


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

So you think Hillary would win with same margin as Obama whereever he won? Do you think your logic makes any sense?


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

I don't even understand your comment.  

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that the doomsday scenerio that Jerome and others roll out about Obama is pretty silly when you actually look at the data.  In my view, BOTH of our candidates have very viable paths to winning a GE, albeit very different paths.  Yet, I see Clinton supporters cherry pick polls or -- worse yet -- extrapolate from primary results to "prove" that Senator Obama can't win.  Which is silly, given the kind of polling data I cited above regarding Pennsylvania.

Obama is stronger than Clinton in plenty of states.  She is stronger in others.  Both can beat McCain.  Is that simple enough for you?  


by HSTruman on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Yes he is stronger in some states but unfortunately most of them are red states.For example what good will it do to win NC,GA,AL,MS,LA,ND,SD,MT,WY,SC,KS. A Democratic presidential candidate is not going to win any of those states.  


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

The states I listed, at some point in this thread, include Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, NH, MN, and Colorado.  Those aren't red states, they're purple and either lean Dem or lean GOP.  Obama is stronger in all of them.  He's also even with McCain in ND and very  competative in SD, so writing those off seems foolish to me.  He's also stronger in Virginia, which may turn blue, although current polls are tough for both Dems.  


by HSTruman on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

IA+wi+wa+or+NH+MN+Co=58
FL+OH+PA=68
Truman, you may or may not agree with me but check this website.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/Apr24.html


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

The most recent polls show Obama beating McCain by the same margin as Clinton, so feel free to add its EV to his column as well.  


by HSTruman on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

KS has 6 electrol votes and PA has 21 electrol votes Obama got more delegates winning KS than Hillary got winning PA.

Let us forget about this election(2008), I think Democrats have to reform their Primary system. It was never fully tested  before.

I think they need these reforms for future primaries:

  1. Eliminate caucuses.
  2. Make winner take all because that is how GE is.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

from www.electoral-vote.com

"A point that has come up repeatedly with Hillary Clinton's strong wins in blue-collar states is can Obama get downscale whites to vote for him in the general election? The NY Times has a story about polling on this issue in these states. The bottom line is that while many blue-collar workers prefer Clinton, they still prefer any Democrat to John McCain so the Democrats are not in grave danger of losing states like Pennsylvania that they must win in November. What Obama brings to the table is sudden competitiveness in states like Virginia, Iowa, Missouri, and Colorado, which Republicans normally win easily."

This seems to be a rational and unbiased analysis of the state polls at this point...But we have a long way til november.


by phemfrog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:10:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 5)

Obama cannot win the working class white vote, but they don't want to hear it. Instead, their response is to call those people white trash rubes. This is probably not a good way to attempt to win them over.

They're so dug in they'd rather lose in November than open their eyes and look at the loss that looms in front of them.

And after they force this nomination on our party, and after Obama loses in a landslide, they will blame the Clintons.


by cc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:11:06 PM EST

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

uh, the point they are making is NO democrat not even Bill Clinton won that vote.

thats his point, the white working vote, is not the ONLY thing a democrat relies on.

ya know what nevermind, everyone can read the word "solely" everyone knows what it means,

this is just another reason to attack Obama and try and paint him as elitist

DAMN YOU OBAMA, NEVER TELL THE TRUTH,

it seems we voters don't like it.


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

1) Obama HAS won the white working class vote in several states, especially in the Upper Midwest and Upper Mountain West regions.

2) You don't know whether Obama can win those votes in the fall or not.  

3) Obama's campaign has NOT called anyone "white trash", I'd prefer it if you didn't imply such slander.

4) The only people "forcing" Obama upon our party are the people voting in our primaries.


by bawbie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

Interesting.  By "several" do you mean ONE?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

That is just not true.

In the post linked there is a response from the Obama campaign with a whole list of states in which
Obama won voters under $50,000.

Plus, in most of the states in one of Obama's strongest geographic area (Mountain WEes


by bawbie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Ambinder has been good mainly this election, but that post is beyond stupid.

The Obama campaign responded with the states in which there were exit polls and Obama won voters <$50,000.  But ambinder says that they aren't "blue collar" because you can't have a college degree and be "blue collar".  He dismisses other because "edwards cut into Clinton's voting block" (IA and SC) and "Clinton didn't compete" (UT).  That is just weak.

Anyway, many of Obama strongest geographical states didn't have exit polls.

you can't tell me that blue collar voters in Idaho didn't vote for Obama, he won almost 80% of the vote there.


by bawbie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, well it's been reported that (none / 0)

Hillary gave Obama a hangnail last week.


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:33:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Yes, let's all hope for complete self-destruction!


by SeanF on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:12:55 PM EST

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

There is SOOOOO much wrong with this post, but let me just start with #3.

If the Iowa caucuses were held today, I am sure Obama would get a larger (if not MUCH larger) percentage of the vote than he did.  See the delegates he gained at the county conventions after the Wright thing broke.

You just CAN NOT drag demographic attributions across geographical lines and draw conclusions from them.  This race has been more geographical than it has demographical.  

Obama is beloved and Hillary is despised in the Upper Midwest (IA, MN, WI), Great Plains (KS, NE, ND, SD) and Upper Mountain West (CO, MT, WY, ID).  According to people like you there are no women or blue-collar workers in this region.  Also, these voters KNOW who Obama is, Wright or guns aren't going to scare them away.  

Obviously he's not going to win all of the states, but the principle still stands.

The epitome of foolishness in this primary season is to take a demographic result in one region and try to prescribe it to another region.  


by bawbie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:15:04 PM EST

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

The majority of regions you mentioned are complete red states.

IA, MN, WI sure... But quite frankly, the electoral votes you gain from picking Ohio/PA/Florida exceed those states.

Another problem is Obama's weakness in NJ and Ma - NJ is fairly marginal anyway, Ma: It's now failed governor Gov Patrick is a clone copy of Obama with very very low approval ratings.


by Jaz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

My point wasn't electability (although that part of this diary is stupid too), my point was that you can't say Obama won white working class voters in IA, but lost them in PA, and then conclude Wright was the cause.

It's a completely incorrect conclusion.


by bawbie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 1)

Well, that and you can't say Obama won working class voters in IA... because he didn't.


by joc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Actually he did.

Per the entrance polls on CNN Obama won or tied every economic demographic.

For voters < $50,000:
Obama 34, Clinton 32, Edwards 19

No matter how much Clinton supports would like it not to be true, the facts are the facts.


by bawbie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Well that's an interesting definition 'blue collar worker.' Perhaps you should look here to discover what a blue collar worker is.

How many of the college students Obama won were in that group? Has anyone explained to them they are now blue collar workers?

According to your definition an new assistant professor at a liberal arts college is a blue collar worker. As is an out of work actor. Or someone living on social security.

Facts are facts, just like definitions are definitions. You can't go changing them when they don't support your point of view.


by joc on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:31:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Ambinder used "no college degree" as his "blue collar worker" criteria, but "all of those college students" you cite are in that group as well.

Exit polls don't have a question about "what color is your collar".


by bawbie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:32:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Downrated for lying.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

Only you made a mistake as to who was lying. bawbie decided to create his/her own definition for blue collar workers and then applied it to this case as if it were fact. If that is the level of discourse you expect, then I redefine lying to mean the same as sleeping and demand that you change the rating you gave to me since sleeping is not a valid reason for giving a troll rating. If on the other hand you expect the truth from commenters you need to remove the troll rating and give it to bawbie instead.


by joc on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (none / 0)

If Iowa were held today, Edwards would win going away.


by sinclair on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GEE WHILLIKERS.... (2.00 / 4)

heyyyy....Obama's and McGovern's logos are both round. ROUND!!!

Only losers have rounds logos....didn't Barack get the memo?


by edmandspath on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:15:06 PM EST

Comparing Obama and McGovern (none / 0)

What was Nixon's approval rating this time of the year in '72 to compare against Bush's?


by magster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:16:37 PM EST

look at the pre-election ones (none / 0)

because they are the ones which really matter. Nixon was riding high around election time that year. Truman was bad in early 1948, but rose enough for the fall for him to win.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome's analytical skills are among... (2.00 / 4)

...the best of any blogger on the planet. Clearly, this is his forte.

(In comparison, Markos is put to shame when it comes to this aspect of "the job." He has other skills; but, communicating objectively about analytics is not one his stronger suits.)

Today, especially, in multiple posts, Jerome's on top of his game. Obamaphiles and Hillary followers would ALL be better-served today by taking their hands away from their eyes and ears and opening up their minds.


by bobswern on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:17:32 PM EST

His "circular logic", ahem, (2.00 / 0)

is certainly impressive!


by edmandspath on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome's analytical skills are among... (none / 0)

I thought this was very subtle snark for a moment...


by Skaje on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome's analytical skills are among... (2.00 / 2)

Then why did he rely on "cooked numbers" to claim that Hillary beats Obama in the popular vote. By this I mean he neglected to mention that the Fl and Mi numbers are tainted (disqualified by the DNC) and then completely leaves out caucus states votes. That should have been included there when the post was made. Leaving out relevant data that discredit his argument was wron. It was disturbingly dishonest and as a fan I was extremely disappointed.


by KosTexasliberal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome's analytical skills are among... (none / 0)

Jerome uses the worst kind of demagoguery and self-serving logic. He's a charlotann. But the lies he tells make you feel good, so enjoy them for these two weeks. Think of it as a nice cruise before you get sent back to the salt mines.


by SeanF on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you one of two dozen Obama... (none / 0)

...supporters that has told me on these blogs for the last three weeks to "come talk with them on April 23rd?"

Well, it's April 23rd. Are you now saying I should "talk with you in a couple of weeks?"

How about, "Let's talk at the convention?"


by bobswern on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you one of two dozen Obama... (none / 0)

No, I'm not. I never expected a PA win.

But if Obama doesn't pull of a two-fer May 6, you might be right about the convention!

It's pretty clear that HRC is resilient. That in my mind means Obama has to beat her where he isn't overwhelmingly favored in order to wrap it up. Indiana qualifies as that I think.


by SeanF on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome's analytical skills are among... (2.00 / 2)

There's nothing objective about counting all the popular vote for FL & MI (Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI), eliminating any estimate of popular vote in caucus states, and then declaring Hillary the popular vote winner.

It is the most intellectually dishonest thing I have ever seen a Democratic blogger write in the history of forever--and it's scary the ease of which Jerome writes such misleading dribble and the eagerness with which Hillary supporters lap it up.

Scary.


by Brannon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think it's scary (none / 0)

I think this is what the primary season dragging out has wrought on unity in the progressive blogosphere.

Neither side has been willing to give ground in a war of attrition.

If this goes on much longer, I think there are feelings that will be hurt irreparably in the short term, and that could have an impact in November.

I won't get into blame here, because it serves no useful purpose anymore. The people on this site and others have made up their minds (and based on the number of contests remaining, undecideds are in the minority anyway).

There needs to be some closure, and quick, because the usefulness of the primary season has run its course.


by bookish on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Electability mentality (2.00 / 3)

Seriously, Jerome?

This is your argument now? Smearing Obama on the basis of having a logo similar to that of a failed candidate?

This makes approximately as much sense as arguing that Clinton is Geraldine Ferraro, since they also appealed to similar demographics. It's idiotic, especially when Obama keeps polling better than Clinton, despite being tag-teamed by Clinton, McCain, and the now the GOP establishment in some states.

Raising questions about the likely nominee is fine. Let's work out what electoral problems we might face and figure out how to cope with them. Contrasting Obama and Clinton is fine. Let's figure out what the pros and cons of each of our candidates is.

But this kind of childish, oversimplifying analogy is an insult to our intelligence, and amounts to a baseless attack on our likely nominee. If you're going to go after Obama, go after him on something substantive, not "CIRCLES=MCGOVERN!!!".


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:17:45 PM EST

I disagree (none / 0)

First off, I don't see where the story is based on logos or even mentions the similarity.  But as long as it's up there, imagine for a moment why the similarity exists.

Both logos are serious departures from the typical candidate logo -- bleached of the heavy handed patriotic symbolism  -- no stars, no waving stripes  -- even the red, white and blue we are used to is muted.  

Only speculation here, but I would guess both logos were designed to appeal to a certain base of support particularly averse to "patriotism" at the time, and to signal not only a sense of new direction (the  allusion to a sunrise over a broad horizon) but a total break with the status quo.  One might say both logos are "revolutionary" in their design.

Who would this logo be designed to appeal to?  In both cases people completely fed up with the government to the point of eschewing all things remotely patriotic.

That wouldn't include working class small town voters in Pennsylvania.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

Yeah. The red-white-blue "morning in America" image is totally left-wing.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:44:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (2.00 / 1)

Furthermore...have you listened at all to this campaign?

What was the crowd chanting the night Obama won Iowa? "USA, USA!"

Who friggin' ended his book with the words, "My heart is filled with love for this country."

Who based his entire groundbreaking 2004 speech on what an amazing country this is?

The "Obama isn't a patriot" crap, in all it's forms, has got to stop. Attack him for his policies, or his political skills. But cut it out with this "change==HATES AMERICA" bullshit.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (2.00 / 1)

I didn't say Obama hates America.  Chill the hell out.

What I said was, his logo was designed outside the usual box -- not designed to appeal to the typical FORM of flag waving patriotism.  Put another way, perhaps Obama is attempting to REDEFINE patriotism and it's not an easy redefinition to accomplish.

I'm not questioning the guy's love of country.  I'm suggesting he's trying to reframe it to appeal to the left.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess I'm just kinda surprised (2.00 / 8)

that so few people saw this coming.  To an old geezer like myself who was sentient in the George McGovern days (and backed him fervently), it's been obvious since the first debate.  We've got Mr. intellectual, let's sit back and think about this,  one-worlder, who is going to change the way Washington -- and indeed the world  -- does business now and forever.  Fueled by pure goodness.  

And I"m thinking ... doesn't anyone remember that no Democrat of that description has been elected in anyone's living memory?   We aren't living in the country you have to live in to have a leader like that.   Not sure anyone is, but I"m sure we aren't.  

And so you try to, like, maybe mention this on a couple of liberal blogs and you find yourself literally swept away by a tsunami of troll ratings.   To say I'm happy to be proven correct is an overstatement.   I knew I would be proven right, but I"m astonished that it happened so soon and with so little investigative journalism behind it.    Rev. Wright basically outed himself.

Sad, in a way, how little things have changed.   I know this will earn me scorn among a certain set, but the Clinton years were so much better than the McGovern-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan years.   I really hoped, then, that we were finally entering a new century where the old divisions and stereotypes would fall away.   And they did, for a while.

But now they're back when a vengeance.   Strange days indeed.   Strange days indeed.


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:18:49 PM EST

Re: I guess I'm just kinda surprised (none / 0)

I sort of disagree.  Jimmy Carter was elected on the outsider, I-will-never-lie-to-you platform, although that story didn't turn out so well in the end.  But I agree with you that no Democrat has ever won with the Adlai Stevenson detached intellectual model.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oddly... (none / 0)

Obama has reminded of Jimmy Carter from the beginning.  A nice guy, a smart guy...but outsiders don't get things done in DC.  Washington is going to eat him for breakfast.


by randym77 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Carter's a blend. I'm convinced his (none / 0)

southern accent made the difference and he was elected purely because the accent masked his intellect -- thus making him appear to be a populist democrat ("type 1", shall we say).    

However, Once in DC it quickly became clear that he was actually a democrat of "type 2"-- the somewhat out of touch, arrogant, "I know better than you do" intellectual type -- and he ended up a one-termer who didn't accomplish much.   That was sad.


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carter's a blend. I'm convinced his (none / 0)

Yeah, John Edwards had some of the same mojo going for him.  The culturally conservative signifiers count for a lot even if the campaign you're running is very liberal.

The problem is that most people have short political memories, and we get wrapped up in trying to replicate the most superficial aspects of our past victories ("we need a southern governor!") rather than trying to drill down and figure out what's really worked for us in the past and what hasn't.

One of my favorite Daily Kos diaries was about the McGovern campaign, in fact.  From the comments:

as the supply coordinator (handled the distribution of all the literature and campaign materials, buttons, bumperstickers, etc.) for the ny office in 72, i saw first hand the result of idealism and a political campaign.

we can never make that mistake again!  it cost us the election!  and, as hard as this is for me, i can now admit, mcgovern would have been a major disaster as president - based on how he was incapable of running a national campaign! - this was also carter's mistake!

mcgovern, like carter, was from the heart - but heart wasn't/isn't enough to move the political wheel!

we need balance between the machine and the idealist!  even this current disaster in washington comes from the absence of the true "political machine" - as opposed to the "special interest groups" who have taken control and taken over the house and senate (as evidenced by the exclusion of moderate republicans from the process).

we need to have the ability to compromise with the other side of the political spectrum to bring the process back from the extremes of either side - and this is what has broken down in washington - either do it their way or do it their way!

understanding the "process" of government only comes from experience - and to throw away that knowledge (as term limits proves in states that institutes them) means that each new member will have to spend the bulk of their time learning process, but before that "process" can be implemented, a new batch of neophytes take over, only to have to spend time learning "process".  everthing stagnates, little gets done!

What's interesting is that this comment, which predates the current election, could be read as an argument for either Obama or Clinton.  They both bring good qualities to the process.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes I'll have to admit that I'm very (none / 0)

much of the "Southern Governor" turn of mind.  :)


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess I'm just kinda surprised (2.00 / 1)

Shorter version of your post:  Liberals are bad and lose elections.  


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:38:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd put it this way (2.00 / 1)

You can't run as the standard bearer for the "liberal elite" and get elected.  I know guys in their 90s still sighing and getting misty eyed over Stevenson.  

I would never have considered Obama as either a leftist or an intellectual elitist at the start of this campaign, but over time he's either framing himself that way or being effectively pigeon-holed.  And if that labelling sticks, he's toast.  

I have this wonderful dream where one day I wake up, log on to the internet, and liberals have come to understand they aren't the majority and that our version of common sense is not shared by the majority of Americans.   Overnight the blinders have fallen from our eyes and we collectively understand the importance of religion and patriotism to the typical American instead of attempting to educate them all to our ideals.  

Maybe tomorrow.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen. Unfortunately most of us (none / 0)

dream that they can wake up one day and find that the rest of world has finally seen the light.   I gave up the dream when Reagan was elected -- twice!


by miker2008 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

where Obama doesn't get it (