Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

But she needs the crushing victories to convince the vast majority of superdelegates that despite being behind in delegates and popular vote that she deserves it

If that's the only way she gets them then she's screwed already. If she can't make it an issue of who is more qualified & prepared to be President then the race is already over.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If that's the only way she gets them then she's screwed already. If she can't make it an issue of who is more qualified & prepared to be President then the race is already over.

And it is over. Her only chance for a massive victory is in PA in 6 weeks. She's not going to get anything more than a 5-7 point victory there. And the other primaries look bleak for her. NC? Nope. OR? Not a chance. KY? Forget it.

I've even given up on her having a chance with the supers. The dem supers aren't that dumb, they aren't going to piss off a huge voter base to swing the popular, total state and regular delegate vote. Not happening.

Her only hope now is a major Obama scandal. Maybe Michelle will make some idiotic quotes. I dunno. The way he loses is if he goes off of the deep end at this point.

[ISiddiqui]

Her only hope now is a major Obama scandal.

I'm thinking that's one of the major reasons she's sticking around. Maybe she's hoping for a Spitzer like scandel, which would make the superdelegates rally around Clinton and the rest of the party would probably be quite ok with that.

[Vegas Vic]

Here's an excerpt from an article on the issue of race in the democratic primary:

“In Mississippi, Obama’s not carrying independent whites, he’s not carrying young whites, he’s not carrying educated whites,” FOX News contributor and NPR national correspondent Juan Williams said, noting that race was an influencing factor for both black and white voters in the Magnolia State.

“The results are very similar to the South Carolina results, in terms of how blacks and whites polarize,” said Roll Call Managing Editor Mort Kondracke, a FOX News contributor.

Black voters have pushed Obama over the top in southern states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. He has also succeeded in much whiter and more racially homogeneous states like Wyoming, Nebraska and Iowa.

“The only kind of state that Obama picks up are states that either are majority black or very heavily black … or states where there are practically no blacks at all,” Kondracke said. “This has been going on in practically every state.”

Like it or Not, Race Looms Large in Democratic Contest

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Here's an excerpt from an article on the issue of race in the democratic primary:

“In Mississippi, Obama’s not carrying independent whites, he’s not carrying young whites, he’s not carrying educated whites,” FOX News contributor and NPR national correspondent Juan Williams said, noting that race was an influencing factor for both black and white voters in the Magnolia State.

“The results are very similar to the South Carolina results, in terms of how blacks and whites polarize,” said Roll Call Managing Editor Mort Kondracke, a FOX News contributor.

Black voters have pushed Obama over the top in southern states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. He has also succeeded in much whiter and more racially homogeneous states like Wyoming, Nebraska and Iowa.

“The only kind of state that Obama picks up are states that either are majority black or very heavily black … or states where there are practically no blacks at all,” Kondracke said. “This has been going on in practically every state.”

Like it or Not, Race Looms Large in Democratic Contest

I think there is another elemant people aren't talking about enough. When Obama wins, he crushes Hillary. In a format like the dems have, it's all about the blowouts. Obama has carried 60% of the vote 12 times. He's carried 70% of the vote 4 times more. Hillary? She carried Arkansas at 70%. She hasn't hit the 60% mark in any other win. That's 16 blowouts to 1.

So Obama does well in majority white or majority black states and Hillary wins the mix states? Well, Oregon is 90% white. NC is about 1/4 black. (roughly the same amount as Georgia where Hillary was trounced) I don't see a lot of hope for her.

I'm not sure the above study really covers the issue. Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white? It's obviously more than race playing a factor here. Is it the fact a majority of Nebraskans just despise Hillary and would rather have a black man in office than a white women? Or did Obama do a better job of campaigning and getting his message to the people. Was his team on the ground that much better than Hillary's team?

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle between race and outworked.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white?

Perhaps the answer to that isn't as obvious as I would have figured after all.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not sure the above study really covers the issue. Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white? . . . I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle between race and outworked.

I agree mostly. I think that the single biggest factor is that the almost fully white states are the small flat states in which Hillary simply didn't campaign (for reasons that even God Himself probably still does not understand).

There is, however, a racial component to it--at least from what I have read. White people in states with almost no black people seem much more willing to vote for a black candidate than white people in states with a significant black population. So, in states like Mississippi, there are enough black people to carry Obama to victory. In states like Wyoming, there are so few black people that white people don't vote along racial lines. And, in states like Ohio, there are enough black people to scare all the white people, but not so many black people that they could bring Obama to victory. Or so the theory (which seems to accord with the numbers to some degree) goes.

The problem that Obama has (and I think that this is Clinton's strongest argument) is that he has not convinced everyone that the white working-class union member in Ohio who does not like to drive through "that crack neighborhood across the highway" will pull the trigger for him in November instead of McCain. By all rights, that guy should be a solid Dem. voter. And he will vote for Hillary. But will race be a factor in that guy's vote and keep him from voting for Obama? I don't think that anyone really knows that.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

And might I add that I think that Clinton is being mighty stupid in stoking those flames through Ferraro (sp?). It's not like the kinds of people who are going to vote on the basis of race were likely to come over to Obama's side. It was a strong silent base of support that she had/has. She didn't need to bolster it up.

Now, by keeping it in the forefront, she gives Obama a chance to confront the issue and speak directly to it. And she runs the risk of being seen as pushing it too far. It's OK for a democrat to rely on racism and sexism that are already there. You begin to play with fire when you are seen as courting it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Why is Obama devastating Hillary in states that are almost fully white? It's obviously more than race playing a factor here. Is it the fact a majority of Nebraskans just despise Hillary and would rather have a black man in office than a white women? Or did Obama do a better job of campaigning and getting his message to the people. Was his team on the ground that much better than Hillary's team?

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle between race and outworked.

IMO, I've notice that (for the most part) Obama tends to do well in states that tend to vote republican. The South, parts of the West, areas in the midwest. Now, there are some exceptions (most notably IL, but that makes sense too). But, I think the point here is that a lot of the independents and former republicans in these "red/battleground states" don't really like Hillary on a personal level. You combine those people with the extremely high African American turnout in the democratic party for Obama, and it's not surprising at all to see these results. Basically, in states that either have a huge black population or tend to have more conservative democrats/independents, Obama wins (see states like Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, SC, Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, ...). In states that are more traditional "blue states", with more liberal leaning independents, Hillary wins (California, New York, Mass, NJ, ...). The only real oddball in this theory is Hillary winning Texas - but that's more because of the Latino vote.

The true irony of this entire process is that the two front runners (McCain and Obama) are doing better in states they normally don't do well in for the generals. McCain won the nomination by winning blue states and Obama may end up winning by carrying red states in the primaries.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by TroyF

So Obama does well in majority white or majority black states and Hillary wins the mix states? Well, Oregon is 90% white. NC is about 1/4 black. (roughly the same amount as Georgia where Hillary was trounced) I don't see a lot of hope for her.

It's tough to reconcile this statement, without knowing what you really mean by "majority black" states.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola--

And might I add that I think that Clinton is being mighty stupid in stoking those flames through Ferraro (sp?). It's not like the kinds of people who are going to vote on the basis of race were likely to come over to Obama's side. It was a strong silent base of support that she had/has. She didn't need to bolster it up.

Now, by keeping it in the forefront, she gives Obama a chance to confront the issue and speak directly to it. And she runs the risk of being seen as pushing it too far. It's OK for a democrat to rely on racism and sexism that are already there. You begin to play with fire when you are seen as courting it.

I'll admit I haven't been a part of this entire process. I've watched a handfull of debates and read some synopsis of their takes on issues. In the debates and speeches I've watched, I've heard Hillary play the "I'm a women" card plenty of times and haven't heard Obama play the "I'm an African American" card at all. Michelle has with some of her quotes, but it's not something that is consistent from the Obama camp as it seems to be from the Hillary camp.

Hillary is walking a very, very fine line at this point. She's trying to hammer the experience card on Obama to make her comeback and get the supers on her side. That isn't going to bode well for her in the GE, because she won't be able to play that card against McCain. In fact, McCain will be able to play it right back on her. Especially that 3AM quote where she said "I'm prepared to take the call, McCain is prepared to take the call, Obama gave a speech in 2002"

This is the second or third article I've seen from feminists looking like fools and making statements that it's easier for a black man than a white women to get into office. Ummm. . . maybe, maybe not. But bringing it up makes you look idiotic.

This is intersting to watch anyway.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

It's tough to reconcile this statement, without knowing what you really mean by "majority black" states.

majority was the wrong word. How about a large percentage?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Arles

IMO, I've notice that (for the most part) Obama tends to do well in states that tend to vote republican. The South, parts of the West, areas in the midwest. Now, there are some exceptions (most notably IL, but that makes sense too). But, I think the point here is that a lot of the independents and former republicans in these "red/battleground states" don't really like Hillary on a personal level. You combine those people with the extremely high African American turnout in the democratic party for Obama, and it's not surprising at all to see these results. Basically, in states that either have a huge black population or tend to have more conservative democrats/independents, Obama wins (see states like Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, SC, Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, ...). In states that are more traditional "blue states", with more liberal leaning independents, Hillary wins (California, New York, Mass, NJ, ...). The only real oddball in this theory is Hillary winning Texas - but that's more because of the Latino vote.

The true irony of this entire process is that the two front runners (McCain and Obama) are doing better in states they normally don't do well in for the generals. McCain won the nomination by winning blue states and Obama may end up winning by carrying red states in the primaries.

On the democratic side, I think this is partly explicable by Obama being to the left of Hillary. In a state like Kansas, for example, most everybody in the state is conservative and republican. But then there's Lawrence, which is probably more liberal than New York City, and that's where the democrats live.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

On the democratic side, I think this is partly explicable by Obama being to the left of Hillary. In a state like Kansas, for example, most everybody in the state is conservative and republican. But then there's Lawrence, which is probably more liberal than New York City, and that's where the democrats live.

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary? It seems to me that a large part of Obama's appeal is this farcical notion that he transcends political partisanship and can lead us to a third way of doing things.

[path12]

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary? It seems to me that a large part of Obama's appeal is this farcical notion that he transcends political partisanship and can lead us to a third way of doing things.

I think in general, no, but I think for certain issues, like Iraq, yes. I think your farcical notion is a media fabrication, and perhaps something his voters like to say, but not something they actually believe. I think they envision him as a liberal/minority/youth takeover of the White House. Down with the preppy Bushes, up with ... whatever Obama is supposed to represent in their imagination.

Just my own $0.02.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by path12

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

I think the Republicans are more entertained by this race than the Democrats.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by path12

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

Well, the R side of the discussion is settled, it's just a matter of who they face off against. It's fascinating for the neutral or the other side to watch, I'm sure (with a bag of popcorn, and enjoying every in-fighting moment of it)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by path12

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

A majority of the dems are too busy cringing right now. I have a ton of (D) friends who are beside themselves now. Both Hillary and Obama supporters. None of them think what is happening is a good thing. They are also becoming more entrenched with "their" candidate by the day. Not a single one of the friends I have who voted for Obama would vote for Hillary in the GE. (15 is a small sample size, but it's the only firsthand thing I have to work off of) The friends I have who support Hillary are supporting her because of her "experience" (which I find laughable, but whatever) and won't vote for Obama in a GE because of that.

Honestly, I think the conservatives are taking a great interest in this thing. Watching to see how the dems finish this thing is of great interest.

I'm interested for a variety of reasons. I am right leaning (though that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a democrat if I thought they were the best person for the job) More than that, I'm a fan of history. I think we are all witnessing something incredibly historical here and as much as I want the right person to get elected, I'm fascinated to see how this thing plays out.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by TroyF

majority was the wrong word. How about a large percentage?

Sounds better, but I still don't know what defines a large percentage. You said NC was 25% black -- is that large? I honestly don't know. You said Oregon is 90% white -- so maybe 6-7% black? I'm assuming that's small.

[Young Drachma]

Here's a better breakdown.

Black population by state
Rank States Amount (top to bottom)
#1 District of Columbia: 57.177 per 100 people
#2 Mississippi: 35.596 per 100 people
#3 Louisiana: 31.613 per 100 people
#4 South Carolina: 28.294 per 100 people
#5 Georgia: 27.212 per 100 people
#6 Maryland: 26.685 per 100 people
#7 Alabama: 25.416 per 100 people
#8 North Carolina: 20.441 per 100 people
#9 Delaware: 18.628 per 100 people
#10 Virginia: 18.287 per 100 people
#11 Tennessee: 15.878 per 100 people
#12 Arkansas: 15.134 per 100 people
#13 New York: 15.022 per 100 people
#14 Illinois: 14.619 per 100 people
#15 Florida: 14.374 per 100 people
#16 Michigan: 13.851 per 100 people
#17 New Jersey: 13.328 per 100 people
#18 Ohio: 11.4 per 100 people
#19 Missouri: 10.955 per 100 people
#20 Texas: 10.742 per 100 people
#21 Pennsylvania: 9.663 per 100 people
#22 Connecticut: 8.853 per 100 people
#23 Indiana: 8.309 per 100 people
#24 Kentucky: 7.237 per 100 people
#25 Oklahoma: 6.939 per 100 people
#26 Nevada: 6.433 per 100 people
#27 California: 6.119 per 100 people
#28 Massachusetts: 5.546 per 100 people
#29 Kansas: 5.429 per 100 people
#30 Wisconsin: 5.417 per 100 people
#31 Rhode Island: 5.268 per 100 people
#32 Nebraska: 4.015 per 100 people
#33 Minnesota: 3.781 per 100 people
#34 Colorado: 3.518 per 100 people
#35 Washington: 3.167 per 100 people
#36 Arizona: 3.112 per 100 people
#37 Alaska: 2.974 per 100 people
#38 West Virginia: 2.862 per 100 people
#39 Iowa: 1.987 per 100 people
#40 Hawaii: 1.656 per 100 people
#41 Oregon: 1.601 per 100 people
#42 New Mexico: 1.593 per 100 people
#43 New Hampshire: 0.889 per 100 people
#44 South Dakota: 0.795 per 100 people
#45 Utah: 0.774 per 100 people
#46 Wyoming: 0.662 per 100 people
#47 North Dakota: 0.638 per 100 people
#48 Maine: 0.629 per 100 people
#49 Vermont: 0.573 per 100 people
#50 Idaho: 0.427 per 100 people
#51 Montana: 0.227 per 100 people

[Noop]

Damn alot of blacks in D.C.? Do they work for the government?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Noop

Damn alot of blacks in D.C.? Do they work for the government?

They don't call it Chocolate City for nothing. It's been that way for a long time.

In 1830, there were about the same number of free blacks and slaves in a total African American population of a little over 12,000. By 1860, the free black population had nearly doubled, to 11,131, while the slave population had shrunk to about half, to 3185. These free blacks created a community with its own churches, schools, and fraternal organizations.

It was a lot higher at one point. It's continuing to drop as more and more folks move to the suburbs.

Here's an article about it.

WASHINGTON — Much has changed since Ben's Chili Bowl opened nearly 50 years ago on a bustling strip known as America's Black Broadway for its thriving black-owned shops and theaters.

Back then, the red-and-white diner was a popular hangout for black bankers, doctors and blue-collar workers who lived and worked along U Street. Even jazz greats Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald could be found devouring chili half-smokes and milkshakes after performing at nearby clubs.

Now, on some days, the crowd at the Washington landmark is mostly white, reflecting a neighborhood metamorphosis that has brought in high-end condominiums and businesses like Starbucks.

"Sometimes you look around and wonder, 'Where are all the black people?"' said Virginia Ali, who opened the diner with her husband, Ben, in 1958.

A similar transformation is happening across Washington as the black population declines and more white residents and other ethnic groups move in. Demographers say if the trend continues the District of Columbia could lose its longtime majority-black status within 10 years. The changes are shaking up city politics, reshaping neighborhoods and displacing longtime residents.

Washington's black population peaked at 71% in 1970 as tens of thousands of white residents left for the suburbs, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But by 2006, the estimated number of black residents had fallen to 57%.

At the same time, the population of white residents, which plunged from 65% in 1950 to 27% 30 years later, is growing. By 2006, the census estimated that 38% of D.C. residents were white. The city's Asian and Hispanic populations also are climbing.

[Passacaglia]

Reverse alphabetical order. Diabolical.

[Young Drachma]

Found a better one that seems more accurate with all of the states included this time.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by TroyF

She's trying to hammer the experience card on Obama to make her comeback and get the supers on her side. That isn't going to bode well for her in the GE, because she won't be able to play that card against McCain.

Yeah, it's like watching two chihuahuas argue over who is the biggest dog.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Yeah, it's like watching two chihuahuas argue over who is the biggest dog.

LOL. I've seen that today already...

[Buccaneer]

More than that, I'm a fan of history. I think we are all witnessing something incredibly historical here and as much as I want the right person to get elected, I'm fascinated to see how this thing plays out.

+1

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Found a better one that seems more accurate with all of the states included this time.

Just as an exercise (I'm sure somebody else has already done this somewhere, but I'm going to look it up myself), let's see who "won" each state (popular vote, not delegates):

Obama
Clinton


#1 District of Columbia: 57.177 per 100 people
#2 Mississippi: 35.596 per 100 people
#3 Louisiana: 31.613 per 100 people
#4 South Carolina: 28.294 per 100 people
#5 Georgia: 27.212 per 100 people
#6 Maryland: 26.685 per 100 people
#7 Alabama: 25.416 per 100 people
#8 North Carolina: 20.441 per 100 people
#9 Delaware: 18.628 per 100 people
#10 Virginia: 18.287 per 100 people
#11 Tennessee: 15.878 per 100 people
#12 Arkansas: 15.134 per 100 people
#13 New York: 15.022 per 100 people
#14 Illinois: 14.619 per 100 people
#15 Florida: 14.374 per 100 people
#16 Michigan: 13.851 per 100 people
#17 New Jersey: 13.328 per 100 people
#18 Ohio: 11.4 per 100 people
#19 Missouri: 10.955 per 100 people
#20 Texas: 10.742 per 100 people
#21 Pennsylvania: 9.663 per 100 people
#22 Connecticut: 8.853 per 100 people
#23 Indiana: 8.309 per 100 people
#24 Kentucky: 7.237 per 100 people
#25 Oklahoma: 6.939 per 100 people
#26 Nevada: 6.433 per 100 people
#27 California: 6.119 per 100 people
#28 Massachusetts: 5.546 per 100 people
#29 Kansas: 5.429 per 100 people
#30 Wisconsin: 5.417 per 100 people
#31 Rhode Island: 5.268 per 100 people
#32 Nebraska: 4.015 per 100 people
#33 Minnesota: 3.781 per 100 people
#34 Colorado: 3.518 per 100 people
#35 Washington: 3.167 per 100 people
#36 Arizona: 3.112 per 100 people
#37 Alaska: 2.974 per 100 people
#38 West Virginia: 2.862 per 100 people
#39 Iowa: 1.987 per 100 people
#40 Hawaii: 1.656 per 100 people
#41 Oregon: 1.601 per 100 people
#42 New Mexico: 1.593 per 100 people
#43 New Hampshire: 0.889 per 100 people
#44 South Dakota: 0.795 per 100 people
#45 Utah: 0.774 per 100 people
#46 Wyoming: 0.662 per 100 people
#47 North Dakota: 0.638 per 100 people
#48 Maine: 0.629 per 100 people
#49 Vermont: 0.573 per 100 people
#50 Idaho: 0.427 per 100 people
#51 Montana: 0.227 per 100 people

I left Florida and Michigan out because of the weird circumstances surrounding those states. I also left alone states which haven't held Democratic primaries or caucuses yet.

Okay, no surprise that of the ten states with the highest ratio of blacks to overall population, Obama has won the nine that have held contests.

On the other hand, of the ten states with the LOWEST such ratios, he's won 6 of the 8 that have held contests.

Hell, of the 25 states with the lowest ratios, Senator Clinton has won six, four haven't held contests, and the other sixteen went to Senator Obama. There may be a "black thing" going on in favor of Senator Obama, but it isn't "just" a "black thing."

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

This is hilarious:

"Yesterday [In Mississippi], Barack Obama won 60.6% and Clinton won 37.2%. If her Republican voters hadn't shown up, she would have won about 28% and Obama would have won about 68%."

The 9.2% is about the same as what Obama got from the Republican vote in the Texas primary. Contrary to the tone of this thread, Clinton has not been dominating the Republican vote.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Sounds better, but I still don't know what defines a large percentage. You said NC was 25% black -- is that large? I honestly don't know. You said Oregon is 90% white -- so maybe 6-7% black? I'm assuming that's small.

Remember we are talking about Democratic primaries/caucuses. i'm guessing damn near no blacks in the South are Republicans.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

Remember we are talking about Democratic primaries/caucuses. i'm guessing damn near no blacks in the South are Republicans.

Right, how many black people are in the state is an irrelevant question as far as I can tell.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary? It seems to me that a large part of Obama's appeal is this farcical notion that he transcends political partisanship and can lead us to a third way of doing things.

People seem to make him into what they want him to be. If you look at the far left blogs, they love him there. They certainly don't think that he is outside of partisanship. They think that he will pull things way to the left.

And a lot of moderate people do see him as a post-partisan moderate because he has spoken out against the red state/blue state dynamic.

So what I am making him into ? I like him best of the three for a few reasons. First, I like that he is less beholden to the Washington structure than the other two. That does not mean that he is somehow post-partisan. It does mean that he hasn't been a major Washington player for 20 years, so he will be able to evalute things and make choices without tons of baggage.

Second, the guy was a liberal professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Which means that he has been exposed to the highest level of conservative intellectual thought. Which means that when it comes time to work with the Republicans, he is more likely to say "Even though I disagree with your goals, I understand and respect the truths at the core of your position" and less likely to say "I hate all of you because you kept pointing out how my husband fucked a lot of random women."

Third, I just don't really like the other two. McCain will appoint judges too conservative for my taste. Clinton will expose us to 4 or 8 more years of that soap opera she calls a marriage. Maybe Obama will do something just as bad, but I don't know about it yet. That's good enough for me .

All of which is to say that not all of Obama's supporters are hopeless romantics with no sense of reality. Just a healthy percentage of them

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Right, how many black people are in the state is an irrelevant question as far as I can tell.

I think one is a function of the other.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But do you think the voters at large recognize that Obama is to the left of Hillary?

No, I don't think the voters at large know or care about his voting record in the senate over his three year career. That's extraneous information to them (at this point).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think one is a function of the other.

I totally don't get it.

[JPhillips]

People don't care about his record in the Senate in large part because there isn't much of one. For good or ill this Senate just hasn't voted on anything controversial. The agreements made wit Republicans to count the threat of a filibuster as equal to the real thing has left us with a scarcity of votes that can be easily used to frighten voters.

His Illinois record has better ammunition, but he also has stories from Republicans about how he was able to respect their views and work with them. I'm sure the same old "liberal elite" arguments will be made, but in comparison to the voting records of the past two Dem candidates, he looks very middle of the road. The Republicans have spent decades defining crazy liberal" and Obama doesn't fit the mold.

Of course it's also interesting that Obama gets criticized for extreme left policies and a shortage of policy specifics at the same time.

On the threat of voters to switch to McCain if their candidate doesn't win, it's overblown. It's easy to say that now. When the choice is R vs. D most of them will clench their teeth and vote for the nominee.

[cartman]

For the first time in a long time, I don't think voting records are going to be a central part of the campaign. This is the first campaign I can remember where both candidates will be sitting Senators. In the past, just because of the way the Senate works, there were tons of votes that could be used to attack a candidate as not being "true to the conservative/liberal cause". That is why Governors had an edge, because there wasn't a comparable body of work that could leave them vulnerable to attacks.

[Vegas Vic]

You guys act like Obama just walked into the senate chamber yesterday, and his slate is non-existent. Granted, he only has three years of experience, but in 2007 alone, he cast 286 votes in the senate. He has a lifetime rating of “8” from the American Conservative Union, virtually identical to Clinton’s “9” rating. John McCain has an “83” rating. I’ll concede that this has been a non-issue in the primary, playing to the democratic base, but when the general election campaign gets underway, his voting record and stand on the issues will take center stage, and he won’t be able to continue to skate on ““We are not a collection of Red States and Blue States — We are the United States of America”. At this point, someone will whack him over the head with an Electoral College map, and the real campaign will commence.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by path12

Is it me, or are there more Republican leaning folks posting in this thread than Democrats? Not that it matters, of course.

Same reason more people are voting in the democratic primaries than the republican ones - more drama

[JPhillips]

Vic: Point out some truly controversial votes. I don't think a number rating has much effect on the moderates who will eventually decide the election. It only matters, if even then, when it's tied to specific scary sounding votes. He won't have the, "Obama voted for tax increases 300 times," or Obama voted to cut defense spending 200 times," charges to worry about.

I'll admit I've only looked at last year's votes, but there wasn't more than one or two that looked like it could be used against him in a thirty second spot. Obama's best decision was to run now before he had a long Senate record of easily distorted votes.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Third, I just don't really like the other two. McCain will appoint judges too conservative for my taste. Clinton will expose us to 4 or 8 more years of that soap opera she calls a marriage. Maybe Obama will do something just as bad, but I don't know about it yet. That's good enough for me

That's probably the most concise description of this election I've heard yet. Bravo, sir.

[Vegas Vic]

Wait until the RNC starts running ads on this. Let's see if Obama distances himself from these remarks. We'll see. Clinton has been excoriated for playing the race card, but what will happen with this?

Barack Obama's Pastor Preaching the Love of Jesus

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

On the threat of voters to switch to McCain if their candidate doesn't win, it's overblown. It's easy to say that now. When the choice is R vs. D most of them will clench their teeth and vote for the nominee.

This isn't overblown at all. The fact is, there are major differences between the two candidates and the two sides don't like each other very much. (and it's going to get nastier, Ferraro's comments are just the tip of what's to come in the next six weeks leading to PA)

The Hillary supporters use "experience" as one of their #1 tenants for voting for her. This ins't just a partison fight for the Hillary supporters I know. They truly feel he lacks the qualifications for the job. With an experienced (R) on the other side to vote for, there are going to be a good percentage of them which will slide over to the other side.

On the opposite side, don't think a majority of those black voters in the south are going to just flip over to Hillary. If Hillary wins by the superdelegates, they are going to feel like the election was stolen from them. A lot of them aren't going to cast a ballot for the candidate who they feel was responsible for a backroom deal.

I really don't think enough has been made of it myself. I think the longer this goes, the easier McCain can skate into The White House no matter what candidate the dems throw out there. Again, from a historical perspective, candidates who went down to the wire in the primaries have not fared all that well in the GE. I don't think that trend will go away.

One last thing, keep in mind that it doesn't take 40% of the dems to switch over for the reps to win this thing. Bush wasn't a popular president when he won reelection. Don't underestimate the conservatives pulling together and coming up with another big showing in November. ANY split in the dems is going to devastating for their chances to win the election. That split is already there and is going to grow wider the longer this continues. I'm stunned more people aren't on this storyline.

[ISiddiqui]

The Hillary supporters use "experience" as one of their #1 tenants for voting for her. This ins't just a partison fight for the Hillary supporters I know. They truly feel he lacks the qualifications for the job. With an experienced (R) on the other side to vote for, there are going to be a good percentage of them which will slide over to the other side.

Not only an experienced (R), but one who has had a history of working with Democrats to get things done and one that doesn't seem to be as crazy as some of the other conservative Republicans.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

One last thing, keep in mind that it doesn't take 40% of the dems to switch over for the reps to win this thing. Bush wasn't a popular president when he won reelection. Don't underestimate the conservatives pulling together and coming up with another big showing in November. ANY split in the dems is going to devastating for their chances to win the election. That split is already there and is going to grow wider the longer this continues. I'm stunned more people aren't on this storyline.

I've detailed this several times already, but here's the short version again:

- There are fewer self-identified conservatives now as there were in '04 and especially '00
- McCain is essentially running as Bush III
- With the economy headed for the toilet, the above two points would keep any R from winning against any non-Hillary D

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The Hillary supporters use "experience" as one of their #1 tenants for voting for her. This ins't just a partison fight for the Hillary supporters I know. They truly feel he lacks the qualifications for the job. With an experienced (R) on the other side to vote for, there are going to be a good percentage of them which will slide over to the other side.

Hillary's problem is she doesn't have any experience either. And she can't make an argument that she's more experienced vs. McCain anyway.

R's are getting involved as someone else mentioned and they're voting Hillary. See my post from the other day.

[JPhillips]

Troy: I just don't think that many people will switch when it actually comes down to it. It's an easy threat to make in March because there are no consequences, but in November after months of negative ads and vitriol most of the people who threaten to walk away will vote Dem. This is especially true since the people making the threat are on average far more partisan than the average voter. It's just like with the Religious Right and McCain. They all threatened to bolt, but one by one they're now stepping in line because McCain is still better than a Dem in their eyes.

There might be a threat of people stying home, but even this diminishes if the race is over in early June. If there's an ugly floor fight I can see people stying home, but otherwise there is plenty of time to heal wounds and move on. Provided the losing candidate comes out and endorses the winner, the "split" in the party won't be anything to worry about.

Every election cycle something comes up that's going to permanently destroy one of the two parties, but it never happens.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Troy: I just don't think that many people will switch when it actually comes down to it. It's an easy threat to make in March because there are no consequences, but in November after months of negative ads and vitriol most of the people who threaten to walk away will vote Dem. This is especially true since the people making the threat are on average far more partisan than the average voter. It's just like with the Religious Right and McCain. They all threatened to bolt, but one by one they're now stepping in line because McCain is still better than a Dem in their eyes.

There might be a threat of people stying home, but even this diminishes if the race is over in early June. If there's an ugly floor fight I can see people stying home, but otherwise there is plenty of time to heal wounds and move on. Provided the losing candidate comes out and endorses the winner, the "split" in the party won't be anything to worry about.

Every election cycle something comes up that's going to permanently destroy one of the two parties, but it never happens.

Not permanently destroy a party (though this is as close as I've seen to one of the two big parties heading for an iceberg) But in terms of blowing up a single major election? It's happened frequently in our history. And it's about to happen again.

I think a lot of people are vastly underestimating the divisivness going on in the democratic campaign now. The only good thing for the dems is that many of the party leaders who I've heard in interviews are taking it seriously and are already preparing to try to heal the wounds after this ends. If the end comes on the convention floor, it will be too late.

Agian, it's just my opinion and we'll have to wait until election time to see if it comes true.

[JPhillips]

In the past forty years I can only think of one example of a split causing a major fallout, McGovern in 1972.

In 68 Humphrey lost by less than one percent of the popular vote.

In 76 Ford closed a 33 point gap after the conventions and may have won if not for a major blunder in an October debate.

In 80 both parties had splits. Carter had so many problems that I think it's very hard to blame the loss on Kennedy. Bush I was the inventor of the phrase "voodoo economics, " but he closed ranks and ran as the VP.

In 2000 Bush angered a lot of moderates in the party with his attacks on McCain and prominent conservatives voiced a "with us or against us" mentality.

In 2004 Deaniacs were pushed to the side to make room for a more establishment candidate. A few thousand votes in Ohio changing hands would have put Kerry in the White House.

I just think the "I'll never vote for that kind of Dem/Rep argument by party stalwarts rarely comes to pass. The primary voters are generally the most passionate members of the party and even though they'll stomp and cry, eventually they almost always come back to the fold.