Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Voters

So much for the notion that Barack Obama is uniquely weak among White voters. New Gallup polling puts that theory to rest as well.

Barack Obama's current level of support among white voters in a head-to-head matchup against John McCain is no worse than John Kerry's margin of support among whites against George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

[...]

Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, lost to the Republican Bush by a 51% to 48% margin in the popular vote. In Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from May 1-5, Obama is losing to McCain among registered voters by a 46% to 45% margin. Although there is a sizable component of undecideds in the Gallup Poll tracking data (and obviously no undecideds in the 2004 exit-poll data), the margins in these two races are quite similar, with Kerry losing by three points, and Obama by one point.

This overall comparison, in and of itself, suggests that Obama, assuming he captures the Democratic nomination, begins the general-election contest in roughly the same position in which Kerry ended his unsuccessful quest in 2004 -- that is, with the prospect of a very close race.

So at a point when Obama was getting hit as hard in the media (both paid and nonpartisan) as he ever has, attacked for his relationship with a neighbor (Bill Ayers) and his former pastor (Jeremiah Wright), Obama still runs about as well as did John Kerry, who only narrowly lost the last presidential election (give him 100,000 votes in Ohio or 100,000 spread across the Mountain West -- Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado -- and he would be in the White House today). For reference, Al Gore received 42 percent of the White vote in 2000, so Obama does not run too far behind him either.

Now it's worth pointing out that neither Kerry then nor Obama today ran or runs as well as the Democrats as a whole did in 2006. According to nationwide exit polling from the midterm House elections, Republicans only carried the White vote by a 51 percent to 47 percent margin. This is to say that there appear to be a whole lot of voters within this demographic who could find themselves amenable to voting Democratic in the fall if the party can figure out its key to success during the previous election. That said, the notion that Obama is a particularly weak candidate in regards to the White vote simply just does not play out in the data.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, white voters (all tags)

Comments

163 Comments

Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo
Shh! Don't tell Jerome!
by Jay R 2008-05-08 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Or DiamondJay?

This will take his "Obama is unelectable" binky away....

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-08 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Don't count on it...

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

ah, I wouldn't be bragging about 37% of the white vote for Obama.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

It's early, Jerome, have faith?

He JUST got pounded on Rev Wright and bittergate by the Republics AND Hillary.

In the fall, lots of folks will have his is back, or do you think Ed Rendell is going to undercut him in Penn then?

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-08 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

So maybe the conversation should be about the Democrats having a "white" problem?

by proseandpromise 2008-05-08 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

And that is the entire point of Obama's campaign.

For decades, the Right has divided working class people using lifestyle and so-called "values" issues--to the point where voting for a progressive ticket just isn't in their DNA. Clinton, unfortunately, seems to be using the same tactics in her quest for the White House.

But Obama is trying to not just win the presidency, but to convince these working class people that progressive values are working class values. The end results would be not just a Democratic president, but a different electoral and political map. A different way to doing business. And this is a change that could begin to reverse the Right's influence and last for generations.

As a left-leaning independent, that is what's so appealing about Obama and so dispiriting about Clinton. I don't expect miracles from either. But the choice between a long-range political vision vs. how much gas costs in July is a no-brainer.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-08 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

"to convince these working class people that progressive values are working class values"

Exactly it.  Well said. Recouping our progressive roots.

by mady 2008-05-08 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

I agree with you about the point of Obama's campaign. The problem is he fails miserably at it. Hillary Clinton is persuading working class people that progressive solutions are better, and that is why she wins working class whites, Hispanics and Asians.

Obama wins nearly all African Americans because he may be the best president for African Americans, not through an appeal to progressive issues.

That is another reason I prefer Hillary Clinton, she articulates the progressive stand on issues in a way that persuades swing voters. That is what we have to do to achieve a progressive long-range political vision.

by souvarine 2008-05-08 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

I hear you.

I think the biggest difference is tactics. Clinton (like the last four presidents) has to--to some degree--"con" those voters into supporting progressive values with gimmicks and distractions. An example of that would be the gas tax holiday.

Obama's alternative--walking us carefully through the nuances of a problem and taking note of the required sacrifice--is tricky. It doesn't lead to catchy soundbites. And it may be too hard of a sell for the majority of the working class.

I certainly hope otherwise.

(And in case you're wondering, I don't let Obama off the hook completely. His refusal to support gay marriage is a political gimmick and a real disappointment.)

BTW, thanks for replying in a respectfully disagreeing kind of way. Appreciate it.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-08 02:57PM | 0 recs
What complete NONSENSE

Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review by pitting the conservatives against the progressives.

He got to be a state senator by suing his friend who helped him politically and getting her name off the balot.

He won his U.S. senate seat in IL by running against a nut who didn't even live in the state.

He's about to win the Democratic nomination by tarring Democratic president Clinon and Senator Clinton with race-bating charges that are utterly FALSE!!!

He's inexperienced and has troubling associations that can easily be exploited by Republicans. He will not change the map (not in a positive way).

He can't even win a red-state in 15 minutes from where he lives even though he has a HUGE money advantage.

By playing the race card against two good and fine Democrats he's lost me, and I'm not alone.

His race-bating strategy is sickening and it will split the party.

by mmorang 2008-05-08 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: What complete NONSENSE

"He can't even win a red-state in 15 minutes from where he lives even though he has a HUGE money advantage."

Well, he actually CRUSHED Hillary in the part of the state that's fifteen minutes from his house. Damn near won the state based on Gary.

by EvilAsh 2008-05-09 12:26AM | 0 recs
Re: What complete NONSENSE

Compelling. You should totally vote for McCain.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-09 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Fow yeaws the Wight has won mowe whites.  Hillawy could have stopped that, but Bawack and his cwazy wevewend Wight will sink us with the white and the Wight fowevew!

by username3 2008-05-08 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Not bragging but still, not that different from our last few standard bearers before he is even officially declared. And with the possibility of him bringing new voters into the process he may not need to win as many white voters to win. Not that he shouldn't try of course...

by wasder 2008-05-08 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Well, from the looks of the poll, he will gain about 3% on the number of blacks, and lose about 2% on the number of latinos, so, I do think he'll need over 40% of the white vote. But this is a pretty meaningless number, only the states matter.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 11:35AM | 0 recs
I keep forgetting

The only numbers that matter are the ones that seem to benefit Clinton, be they delegates, states won, or popular vote totals in states her campaign agreed not to count.

Thanks, Jonathan for another great post. If not for you, I would have stopped reading this blog altogether. It's like politics through the looking glass.

by jadegirl 2008-05-08 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among

I think that we should be looking at what they started with.  It's possible that Kerry started with a higher level of support during the primaries and tapered off as the GE nears.  From this we could extrapolate how much lower or higher Obama's support will go.

by rickya 2008-05-08 11:52AM | 0 recs
The man can't win 15 minutes from his home

in Indiana even though they know him and he has a HUGE money advantage.

He didn't win in CA, TX, IN, OH, PA, MI, FL.

Exactly what new voters will he bring in. He needs to work on bringing the old voters back.

For every new voter he brings in 2 will walk out the door and I'm one of them.

Playing the race card against two good and fine Democrats is slimey and I will not support that kind of strategy.

Bill Clinton's foundation has already provided FREE AIDS medicine for MILLIONS of blacks in Africa. What the hell has Obama done?

Obama should wait until he is elected twice and leaves office with the highest approval rating ever recorded, like Bill Clinton, has done before he starts talking trash.

by mmorang 2008-05-08 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The man can't win 15 minutes from his home

go ahead and take your marbles and go home, since that seems to be the maturity level. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

by jadegirl 2008-05-08 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Jerome, McCain's numbers are lower than Bush's as well, because there are undecideds.  

McCain wins the white vote by 6%
Bush won the white vote by 7%

It's all within the MOE, but if anything, Obama is running better.  

by telephasic 2008-05-08 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo
I'm sure that basing an electability argument on racial grounds is going to do wonders with the Democratic superdelegates. Good luck with that.
by Jay R 2008-05-08 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

LOL!  He's already got a few "37% ain't shit" comments in below.  I think he's wise to this thread.

by crackerdog 2008-05-08 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Why the hell are we talking endlessly about "the white vote"

This is insane, aren't we progressives? Are we really OK with just taking it for granted that there are large numbers of DEMOCRATS who are basically racist?

Can't we try to undermine that way of looking at things just a little?

by Flailey 2008-05-08 11:09AM | 0 recs
I don't think he's saying that at all...

But the great white masses appear to like people who look and sound like they do (like Tester in Montana, and Lamont in Connecticut).

This is kinda normal, actually.

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he's saying that at all...

Obama doesn't sound like white people do?

Excuse me?

It's amazing to me how Hillary, a person I respected, and Bill, a person I basically revered, have gotten to the point where I'm wondering if they are flat out racists. And their supporters are backing them up.

What a strange turn of events. Why doesn't someone just count blacks at 3/5ths like we used to, that would clear HIllary's problems right up.

by Flailey 2008-05-08 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he's saying that at all...

Or if the Deomcratic party just did things like the Republicans do, Hillary would've won by now!

LOL!  She actually said that.  Is she joining Holy Joe at McCain's side in the fall?

by crackerdog 2008-05-08 12:01PM | 0 recs
I am an Obama supporter.

but you can't appeal to Appalachia, Foundry, New England, Deep South and Mountain West equally.

He does extremely well in the Midwest, and much better than hillary west of the Mississippi.

He does less well in Appalachia, and that's because of personality/cultural differences.

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I am an Obama supporter.

It's not because of cultural/personality issues. It's because there is a much larger racist population in Appalachia. I used to do a lot of business travel recruiting doctors to rural West Virginia and Kentucky. I was utterly appalled at how openly racist people were. Clients would flat out tell me they wanted "all American" candidates. When I asked what that meant, I was told, "no foreigners, no blacks and no funny names".  It was completely pathetic.

by jadegirl 2008-05-08 01:56PM | 0 recs
That is not racism...

look at webb's family. he married an Asian woman, and she's family (and many other appalachian families look like that)

There are people who are kinda hostile to people who won't fit in -- and may not want to take the time to have to learn how to deal with someone new.

Yeah, some people there are racist. that's not everyone, by a long shot, and to obscure some of the  cultural differences is to miss something.

by RisingTide 2008-05-09 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Obama will be lucky if can do as good as Kerry. Obama will rather do as bad as Dukakis - losing in landslide

by engels 2008-05-08 11:09AM | 0 recs
Losing in a landslide?
And your evidence for this is . . .  ?
Did you even read the diary?
by jeffbinnc 2008-05-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in a landslide?

>> And your evidence for this is . . .  ?

There is none.

There's a weird assumption among some of the most die-hard Clinton supporters (and quite possibly, Clinton herself) that Obama simply can't win.  There's no actual evidence to back this up, which is why when pressed for evidence of Obama's inability to win the general election these people tend to go quiet or just retreat into their faith-based certainty with statements like "He can't win.  I don't care what the polls say, I just know it."  (Just the other day one poster on this site told me it was a "fact" that "half of all Democrats agree that Obama is the next McGovern, Dukakis or Mondale".)

It's a particularly bizarre claim to cling to this year, when the fundamentals (faltering economy, unpopular war, extremely unpopular Republican president) overwhelmingly favor the Democratic party.  Quite frankly, not only would Obama and Clinton both be in extremely favorable postions as the nominee, so would've Edwards or Richardson, and probably even Dodd or Kucinich.  I dare say Kerry would've stood a very good chance of winning the general election had he been the nominee this year.

by Frood 2008-05-08 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in a landslide?

And your evidence for your assumptions?

by rickya 2008-05-08 11:54AM | 0 recs
You're changing the subject

Again, did you even read the diary? It pointed out that there's evidence that Obama does as well among white Democratic voters as Kerry did. Which pokes some holes in the argument that "whites aren't going to vote for a black man." Now if you want to refute the data or the conclusions that's one thing. But to just repeat the argument that the diary pokes holes in is just brain dead.

by jeffbinnc 2008-05-08 12:12PM | 0 recs
not Kucinich

... biden could have pulled something off though. ;-)

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in a landslide?

all fundamentals you mentioned applicable to Hillary but not to Obama. he did not win any significant state yet. he even lost Indiana. If he will win WV I will say he has a remote chance, but not before FL&MI will be seated. what is saying that Obama has any ability ot govern or experience with economy? And who said that Obama affiliated with majority of people who support Democrats? You assuming automated support from pro-democratic voters. So far I see almost automatic resistance from core groups: women, blue collars, latinos, seniors. Even loser Kerry will do better than Obama among those groups. So your own super-weird assumption welcome only on dkos, not here

by engels 2008-05-08 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in a landslide?

See, this is exactly what I mean.  A bold assertion that the fundamentals of the race are "applicable to Hillary but not to Obama" followed by a bunch of unsupported rambling ralking points.  No actual hard evidence for any of the claims, just personal observations and claims that large segments of the electorate will show "almost automatic resistance" to Obama without any supporting evidence.  The "Obama is unelectable" mean has become so ingrained for some people that you're incapable of operating outside of it.

To support my "super-weird" claim that Obama is electable, here's composite national polling for Obama vs McCain.  With all of that "automatic resistance" he's dead-even with McCain.

Now let's sit back and watch as this gets spun away back into "Obama is unelectable".

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing in a landslide?
Because Indiana's going Blue in November all of a sudden? Tell you what, can we get a list of what you consider "significant states"? That'd be really helpful.

Your kung fu is weak.

by Jay R 2008-05-08 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

I've had it with Factinistas like you, Singer.

by The Animal 2008-05-08 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo
No worse means - - -
No better, either.
by johnnygunn 2008-05-08 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Except that it's only May.

by proseandpromise 2008-05-08 11:25AM | 0 recs
Personally...

I would rather not white knuckle it out with a candidate who is doing "as well as Kerry".  We need a decisive and clear victory in November.  The Republicans have had 7 years to solidify their base and they are not going to go without a huge fight.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Personally...

Again, she's right. These levels are pretty damning. President Perot proved that in 1992 when he won the presidency based off of polling in late spring/early summer.

by ragekage 2008-05-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
They are POOR.

They are DIVIDED.
And they are wrong on the issues.

Trust me, they won't be able to compete in Colorado, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey (list fails me, but you get the picture).

Obama has great strategists on his team.

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 11:14AM | 0 recs
I suggest you start working

to help our Democratic nominee get elected this year.  Complaining doesn't help...I recommmend action!

by GFORD 2008-05-08 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

What? Clinton's arguments have no basis in fact?!?

by ragekage 2008-05-08 11:12AM | 0 recs
This comparison is not valid

BIG LIE

You can not compare Obama's primary numbers to Kerry's GE numbers. This is Apples, Oranges comparison. It makes no sense. Kerry's numbers in GE include Republican numbers where as Obama's include only Democrats

by indydem99 2008-05-08 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: This comparison is not valid

Umm, pretty sure the poster is citing general election matchup polls here, not just democratic numbers.

Now, if McCain were getting 48% of DEMOCRATIC white men, then I'd be worried.

by EvilAsh 2008-05-09 12:28AM | 0 recs
We have yet to revel

in Obama's unique weaknesses.  

by Beltway Dem 2008-05-08 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: We have yet to revel

Bowling and big ears?  

Arugla?

His net worth is only 1/60th of The Clintons or the McCains, therefore HE is the Elite?

The list is SOOOOO long....

I'm betting it's the cigarettes!

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-08 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Well this news is just kinda "eh". I want to see what happens when we actually start going after McCain!

by werd2406 2008-05-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Two posts back to back emphazing the same point. Who are you trying to convince here? Nobody is going to change their opinion of Obama.

by bsavage 2008-05-08 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

This is a site that analyzes elections.

by Jonathan Singer 2008-05-08 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

hehe, yes but for Obama to win the GE he would have to outperform by a wide margin. After everything that has happened in the last eight years a loss or a little 5 percent victory wont cut it.

by bsavage 2008-05-08 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

McCain's running 5 points behind Bush among White voters.

by Jonathan Singer 2008-05-08 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Democracy has an Obama bias so it is no longer accepted here.

You must have missed the memo, it is now My Direct Diva.

Please refrain from all facts and analysis.

And don't you dare point out that the "white" vote is least likely to be due to a racial identity.  So would be more heavily influenced by other factors such as gas tax, gender, loyalty to the Clintons (for example gays, who arn't going to abandon the party), ect.  Or that we might be getting an oversampling of "white" votes because of Republican Strategic Crossover voters (who I imagine are 99.9%[+/- .1]  white).

It would be interesting to see how removing the white voters who stated "gender" was a factor in their decision would impact the split. From exit polling data that is, not from the Gallup Poll you cited, since that race presumed two men (and people would have no motivation to lie out of a loyalty to Clinton).

by Tumult 2008-05-08 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo
Well, you're a site administrator who analyzes elections. So is Todd. But the site as a whole is a bit different these days. I used to advise candidates that this was where the wonks came to play, but now...
by Jay R 2008-05-08 01:39PM | 0 recs
I can't remember
Is Kerry the President?  Oh yeah, he lost. I don't see how comparing Obama to Kerry is particularly helpful- no matter which metrics you use.  Kerry's run has such bad memories for me- you might as well have compared him to my dogs death or something.  I'm gonna go to my happy place now...
:(
by easyE 2008-05-08 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among

Last time I checked, Kerry lost the GE in 2004. Running even with Kerry is a terrible goal for the Democratic nominee.

by LakersFan 2008-05-08 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among
It's a good starting point - Kerry got more votes than any candidate in history except for the asshole who beat him. If you can begin there and build upwards, that's a good thing.
by Jay R 2008-05-08 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among

Every candidate gets more votes than anyone before them. It's called a population increase. The goal is to get more votes than your opponent, otherwise you lose.

by LakersFan 2008-05-08 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among
Actually, gaining votes isn't automatic. The number of voters usually rises every cycle (Carter and Ford combined received slightly more votes than Carter and Reagan, and about a million fewer votes were cast in '88 than in '84), but the votes received by a candidate don't. For example, Bush in '92 didn't get more votes than Bush in '88 - population increase didn't help him increase his total there. Dole got barely 90,000 more votes than Bush did, negligible considering vote total increases. Carter '80 got 5 million fewer than Carter '76.
by Jay R 2008-05-08 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among

That doesn't change the fact that getting fewer votes than ones opponent results in a loss.

by LakersFan 2008-05-08 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among
And THAT doesn't change the fact that starting from where the previous nominee finished is a good sign.
by Jay R 2008-05-08 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among

Starting where the last LOSER started is a very bad sign.

by LakersFan 2008-05-09 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry

National, he may be even with voters right now, but I believe that as the year goes own, it will be McCain who will pick up momentum, not Obama.

And there is more about Obama that Wright and Rezko, it just hasn't been put out there yet.  With all the love the MSM has been giving Obama, you'd think he would be doing better in these groups, but he's not.

As time goes on, I don't see it getting better.

by stefystef 2008-05-08 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry

Rezko is so dead, not even the MSM is into it anymore...

Only the Clinton Blogosphere....

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-08 11:22AM | 0 recs
Dead as a doornail...

it's not like the rethugs can resurrect it in ads or anything.

by cosbo 2008-05-08 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Dead as a doornail...

It would be alot harder to do when Republicans seem to be getting drawn into that trial more than Democrats.

by Tumult 2008-05-08 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Dead as a doornail...
Keating 5, mental health, adultery, anger control, abusive to his wife, Falwell, Hagee, Parsley, 100 years, "Bomb, Bomb Iran"...you think we're fighting with unloaded guns in the Fall or something?
by Jay R 2008-05-08 01:51PM | 0 recs
You think the media will let you?

Lol.

by cosbo 2008-05-09 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry

just shut up you don't know what you are talking about

your comments don't have any facts

your comments are based on your pure hatred of Obama which you entitled to have but please stop spamming diaries unless you have a something constructive to add

by wellinformed 2008-05-08 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry
Right, because the campaign has been so genteel and the supporters (especially on the blogs) have been so forgiving that they're sitting on bombshell material that would doom Obama's chances out of a sense of honor and a desire to maintain a certain level of intra-party decorum. Sure, I buy that.
by Jay R 2008-05-08 08:38PM | 0 recs
You are delusional

if you think the MSM has been giving Obama "love."

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-08 11:22AM | 0 recs
Your numbers are misleading -- Lies

<boldquote>BIG LIE</boldquote>

You can not compare Obama's primary numbers to Kerry's GE numbers. This is Apples, Oranges comparison. It makes no sense. Kerry's numbers in GE include Republican numbers where as Obama's include only Democrats.  

by indydem99 2008-05-08 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Your numbers are misleading -- Lies

BIG LIE

You can not compare Obama's primary numbers to Kerry's GE numbers. This is Apples, Oranges comparison. It makes no sense. Kerry's numbers in GE include Republican numbers where as Obama's include only Democrats

by indydem99 2008-05-08 11:25AM | 0 recs
The MSM

will not help Obama if and when he becomes the nominee.  They will turn on him in a heartbeat and start singing the praises of McCain.  Everyone knows this.  They are just having their little fun with our party because it is such great drama.  

I am becoming less and less optimistic about our chances in November every day.  The Republican party is filled with idealogues who would vote for McCain no matter what he does.  Our only hope was to shake off a few disillusioned Repubs and attract the independents.  If Obama is the nominee I think we will lose more of our own base than we can afford to lose.  It's really a tragedy.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-08 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The MSM

>> They will turn on him in a heartbeat and start
>> singing the praises of McCain.  Everyone knows
>> this.

Which will be different from what they're doing now... how, exactly?

by Frood 2008-05-08 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The MSM

Are you kidding?  Other than Fox News I can't remember the last time the media spent more than 5 seconds talking about John McCain.  They have been framing Obama vs Clinton the whole time.  Once they start framing Obama vs McCain it will be a totally different story.. because their bosses will make it so.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-08 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The MSM

>> Are you kidding?

No, actually.  From my point of view they've been fluffing McCain and repeating all the anti-Obama talking points that both McCain and Clinton have been pushing for the last month.

I suppose we'll just have to agree that you and I have very different perceptions on this.

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The MSM

They may have been running some stories that are not pro Obama but they do no fluff McCain.. at least not yet.  I am talking about CNN and MSNBC, not Fox News.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The MSM

>> I am talking about CNN and MSNBC, not Fox News.

Yeah, me too.  The entire MSM has been in love with McCain for a decade at least.

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:53PM | 0 recs
Excuse me,

one obvious point: when Kerry ran against Bush, Bush's poll numbers were about 50%.

Nowadays, Bush's poll numbers are about 30%, the poll numbers for the Republican Party are abysmal as well, and the best that Obama can do is to roughly match Kerry's exit poll numbers among white voters (who are of course the only swing voters, since AAs always vote Democratic)?

In other words, Obama has the simply stupendous advantage of NOT being associated with the Republican Party and its failure, and the best he can do is match the numbers of a Democrat who FAILED?

And this is supposed to make people feel that Obama doesn't have a problem with white voters?

Look, Obama might possibly win in the general. But if he does so, it will NOT be because of who he is, it will be despite who he is. He will have been able to ride the Democratic brand -- which he will have had no hand in building up -- to success. And he himself, as these very numbers make clear, is nothing but a drag on that brand, depressing his own performance as a Democrat by who he is as a particular politician. He should, by rights, be up by double digit margins, and he is not.

by frankly0 2008-05-08 11:29AM | 0 recs
A further point

The overall national numbers do nothing to expose the real problem for Obama anyway.

Obama's problem is that he does poorly with whites where it is most important that he does well with them, if he's going to win: in the true swing states that win elections. He may have very high numbers of white support in, say, Minnesota or Idaho or Oregon or Washington, which make his average numbers seem acceptable, but if those highs are compensated by lows in the major swing states, the overall average means nothing.

by frankly0 2008-05-08 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me,

The current Republican administration has been a failure but I can guarantee the the party faithful have not given up on their ideas and become Democrats.  The thing about Republicans is they tend to be pretty rigid and myopic in their beliefs.  Maybe I am generalizing but I was raised by one of the biggest die hard Republicans on the planet and he and all of his political buddies (including an personal association with Bush himself) DO NOT WAVER in their beliefs one bit.  EVER.  They will support McCain.

by JustJennifer 2008-05-08 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me,

>> He should, by rights, be up by double digit
>> margins, and he is not.

He just came out of a bruising primary fight where he was attacked by a McCain/Clinton tag team.  Half of Hillary's supporters are still in "I'm not going to vote for Obama no matter what" mode, which they most certainly will not be come November.  By contrast, McCain's last serious opponent left the race over a month ago and he's been getting no serious coverage since then.

And you really expect Obama to be up by double digits at this point?

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me,

Obama's problem is that there's no good reason to believe that things are going to get better for him when he gets to the general -- in fact, they will only get worse, because there's not going to be any way to shout down Republican criticisms as Hillary's criticisms have been shouted down, and made to work against her. No one's going to say, you can't attack our precious candidate lest he be unelectable. The Republicans, as usual, will be entirely unrestrained.

So, whatever Obama can score against McCain by subjecting him to attack is more than likely to be compensated for entirely by the far more punishing attacks he'll get from the Republicans.

And would I expect Obama's numbers to be up by two digits over McCain? I certainly would if he hadn't been so deficient a candidate, and hadn't had any number of great vulnerabilities come up, as they have in recent months. That's why he's doing so poorly, and why he can't get a double digit margin over McCain -- because of his own profound weaknesses. By far the most damaging revelations -- Wright for example -- have come about, not due to Hillary by any means, but due to discoveries about his background, as well as his own gaffes. Had he been a stronger candidate, without those vulnerabilities, and without those gaffes and perceived insensitivities, he could easily lead McCain by a wide margin, especially because he was a fresh face with few negatives going against him beforehand (unlike Hillary).

by frankly0 2008-05-08 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me,

Again, as with most of the arguments for Obama's un-electability, you're basing this on a bunch of hand-waving and personal interpretations.

You seem to think it's a big deal that he's been "damaged" by the Wright revelations and others, and yet you also maintain that he hasn't really been attacked yet.  Which is it?

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me,

Which is it?

Talk about your false dilemma. It's both.

He has already been damaged by the Wright and Ayers stuff.

But the attacks by the Republicans will be a thousand times more vicious than anything Hillary would be allowed to engage. We will be seeing Wright and Ayers and their connections to Obama from all kinds of directions that we've only begun to entertain so far.

And who are you to talk about "hand waving", for God's sakes? You look at these numbers and wish them away by simply claiming that Obama's being in a "bruising battle" means we can ignore them. I point out that the "bruising" has hardly begun, and suddenly I'm the one who is "hand waving".

Yeah, sure, that makes sense.

by frankly0 2008-05-08 02:09PM | 0 recs
Isn't that the point?

Obama doesn't even do as well as Kerry at the same point? Many Clinton supporters have argued that 2008 will be a close general election and that Hillary Clinton is in a better position to win a hard-fought election given her base within the Democratic primaries. The argument from Obama supporters was that he can "change the map" and win new states.

Now even Obama supporters have given up that fantasy, we know that the competitive states will be roughly the same as 2004. Obama may do better in some Western swing states, NM, CO, NV, Clinton does better in big Eastern and Central swing states like FL, PA and OH. Obama is weaker among working class voters who are not black. Given Obama's geographic and demographic weaknesses, where he can't even match Kerry, it looks like he has his work cut out for him if he intends to win the general.

by souvarine 2008-05-08 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't that the point?

>> Obama doesn't even do as well as Kerry at the
>> same point?

It's not the same point.  At this point in 2004 Kerry had had the nomination locked up for nearly three months.  Obama is just now coming out of a bruising, contentious primary race.

Keep in mind the polls are also saying that over 50% of Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.  If you really believe that's still going to be the case in November, I've got some beachfront property in Kansas for you.

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:05PM | 0 recs
Um...from what I understand...

Kerry lost the "white vote" and oh yes...the general election.

But as you know Brazile mentioned a brand new democratic base that doesn't necessarily include working white voters...so there.

by cosbo 2008-05-08 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Um...from what I understand...

This harping on the Brazile quote is growing tiresome.  As you well know, she said that the new Democratic coalition doesn't include JUST white working class voters.  As in, it's getting bigger.  You can disagree with that assessment all you want but misrepresenting it isn't helping any argument you're trying to make.

by Koan 2008-05-08 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Um...from what I understand...

Frankly, I think it should be obvious to anyone what Brazile meant.  The people misrepresenting it are simply looking for an excuse to take umbrage.

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Gallup is joining in the MSM's fluffing of Obama.

Their own figures show he's running FOUR POINTS BEHIND Kerry v Bush?  At a time when he hasn't even faced the GOP's attack machine??

Wait til they get ahold of him:  He will not win a single state in the South, including Florida, will lose Ohio and PA, as well as the New West and even places like New Jersey and Michigan will be in play Election night.

That prick Axelrod says he has a "New Electoral Map"??

Yeah, right.

We're in trouble, boys and girls.  Hillary is still our best bet.

by dembluestates 2008-05-08 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo
>> At a time when he hasn't even faced the GOP's
>> attack machine??
Cause Hillary hasn't been attacking him at all.  No sir.  And the Wright and Ayers attacks are completely different from what the GOP attack machine would do.  Uh-huh.
by Frood 2008-05-08 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

First, Kerry LOST.

Second, Obama has not yet been hit with attacks from the GOP that will weaken his support further from middle class voters.  I know it's an Obama talking point to say that Hillary Clinton has thrown the kitchen sink at him so there is nothing new for the GOP to say.  

Well try this...

"Barack Obama thinks you can afford the largest tax increase in human history - $2 trillion.  He will raise your income tax, he will raise your Social Security tax, he will raise your capital gains tax.  He will do this to fund government run health care."

Hillary Clinton has not made any such arguments or run any similar ads.  Those will be brand new hits for Obama on his middle class to lower middle class support.  

Now, don't get me wrong.  I support those policy choices Obama wants to make regarding taxes and health care.  And I know he can attempt to say the tax increases will fall mainly on the rich.  

But to pretend that there aren't additional POLICY arguments out there - ones that have proven devastating in the past to Democratic candidates - is wishful thinking.

by steveinohio 2008-05-08 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

...and it would be different with Hillary as the nominee?

Virtually every argument made against Obama can be used on Clinton as well. Why, for instance, haven't the Republicans been going after her during the primaries while they've been hammering on Obama? You think they've run out of material on her? You think they'll let the unethical shenanigans of guys like McAuliffe just gather dust like Obama has? Jesus, where do we start? They know the playbook for whipping on Hillary and they like the map she gives them. That's why they want her.

by SuperTex 2008-05-08 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

No, the definitely will run ads like this vs. Hillary as well, although he (and not she) has proposed the Social Security tax increase.  

As usual, this response is an Obama supporter who, instead of defending Obama, just says "her too". The sole point of my comment on this diary was to say that we cannot take solace in this comparison to John Kerry's #'s with this voting group.

Despite the understandable urge to do so, we can't simply throw up our hands and say "Democrats always lose this group".  It matters (a LOT) whether we lose by 65-35 or 55-45.  

by steveinohio 2008-05-08 12:58PM | 0 recs
That's not my usual response...

but it's telling that virtually every reason given to shy away from Obama as our nominee can be equally applied to Clinton. It's not just a "her too" - it's a pertinent fact that the GOP will go after whoever our nominee is with claws and fangs and occupy the low ground. Thus, the meme about Obama being more vulnerable to GOP smear tactics is nothing more than an avoidance of Clinton's own liabilities as a general candidate. It's a wash at best. And the evidence thus far seems to indicate that Obama handles these swipes better and comes out in pretty good shape on the other end. Her numbers have been static since November. Her game is to play dirty just like the GOP does, and that's one of the things Democratic voters are rejecting. It's one reason that many believe such attacks will be more effective against her, because she refuses to rise above it and press toward a higher calling than her own political survival. And it's a major reason why the party suffered during the 90s while she and Bill seemed to thrive.

by SuperTex 2008-05-08 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

You are spot on that is exactly the point!  Taxes Taxes Taxes "if I cant vote for someone I  like I will vote my wallet".  

by grego101 2008-05-08 12:11PM | 0 recs
GOP Ads

The GOP isn't bound by the type of civility that prevents Clinton from running really caustic ads against Obama.  

The tactic by the GOP will be to paint Obama as the radical black candidate.  The GOP has no qualms losing the AA vote because they already lose it anyway.  

Fear-mongering based on gays in 2004 was pretty bad.  But racism cuts deeper than homophobia in my experience.  This will be an ugly campaign.  The GOP doesn't care if Claire McCaskill calls them divisive.  They're beholden to no one.  

by BPK80 2008-05-08 12:52PM | 0 recs
Kerry Lost, what's Obama vs. Bill Clinton among

white support?

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to compare Obama to someone who actually won the presidency?

Bill Clinton was in a 3 man race so the numbers need to be adjusted accordingly.

Obama's coalition is made up of eggheads and blacks. That is the George McGovern coalition and he got killed by Nixon.

Democrats had a chance to elect someone who could have easily won the election but instead went with a rookie who doesn't have a solid chance. Yes, Hillary's negatives are high right now, but guess what? They were off-the-wall high in PA and she still easily won despite being out spent. She would put an African American on the ticket, probably Obama and she would have sailed to victory. It was a no-brainer choice. But we blew it...AGAIN!!!

Now, people will be sending Obama money, working hard for his election, and all for a cause that is already a long-shot. When will Democrats learn what it takes to win?

For starters, candidates perceived to be liberal elitists can't win. Rookies can't win when we're at war. The contests should consist of primaries with the winner-take-all delegates just like the general election. The system that we have now is not very democratic and it doesn't result in the best candidate to run against the Republicans.

But no, we have to have this ridiculous system where a candidate with very little chance of winning (even in this Democratic year).

by mmorang 2008-05-08 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry Lost, what's Obama vs. Bill Clinton amon

Eggheads and blacks?

What planet are you living on, who comes up with this stuff.

Obama's coalition is composed of basically all types of democrats EXCEPT for a small number of people who would be republicans because they basically are republicans -- ie rural gun loving racists -- but who happen to still be democrats because they are involved in unions.

He has an issue with appalachian low income whites. There aren't that many of those and they're mostly republicans anyways. He does fine among almost all other groups.

Older people and women voted Hillary but they'll go for Obama.

Yes, it's no shock that racists won't vote for him. There aren't that many DEMOCRATS who are racists. Some, especially in northern appalachia. But not many.

And let's put it this way - black turnout could rise by double digits, annihilating any gap made up by this supposedly crucial group of white racist democrats.

by Flailey 2008-05-08 11:55AM | 0 recs
OVER 50% of the votes cast so far are for Clinton

Her supporters represent half the party. They are not Republicans although she would get many women Republicans to vote for her.

You are CLINGING to the pre-Wright, pre-Ayers, pre-Cling-to-their-religion Obama. Obama has lost support among Independents, Republicans and conservatives. He is not appealing anymore. That's why he couldn't win red-state Indiana despite out spendind Clinton and it being in his backyard.

If the race was like it is in the general election, Obama would already be out of the race. Hillary has killed him in the electoral college which is how its going to be in November.

by mmorang 2008-05-08 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: OVER 50% of the votes cast so far are for Clin

And why his negatives are now near 50%.

by steveinohio 2008-05-08 01:00PM | 0 recs
because a bunch of people are dumb enough

to believe that the Clinton's played the race card when they definately did NOT.

Obama needed to get a higher percentage of the black vote to win and he's done that. The problem is that only works in the Democratic primary, not the general election.

by mmorang 2008-05-08 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: OVER 50% of the votes cast so far are for Clin
Demonstrably false. I don't know how you could possibly skew the numbers to come up with that statement, but they have no place in an honest discussion of the relative merits or weaknesses of the two candidates.
by Jay R 2008-05-08 01:57PM | 0 recs
And NO, many older voters, women, working-class

whites, hispanics and jewish people will not vote for Obama. McCain is popular with all those groups. The only person more popular than McCain with all of the above mentioned groups is Hillary Clinton.

by mmorang 2008-05-08 12:33PM | 0 recs
If someone could put Bill Clinton's numbers

together on this that would be great - afterall, Hillary is the only candidate endorsed by a someone who actually won the White House - TWICE.

Obama, not so much - drumroll.... McGovern, Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd....

by Molee 2008-05-08 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: If someone could put Bill Clinton's numbers

Yeah, I guess we should be swayed by who Bill gave his completely unbiased endorsement to.

Not that I have any problem with someone endorsing their spouse.  But let's not pretend that actually means anything.

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: If someone could put Bill Clinton's numbers

Bill Clinton only got 43% of the vote when he was elected to his first term.  Only 6% more than what the poll showed as what Obama has amongst just Whites.  And Bush Sr. was not as unpopular as Jr. is now.

And we are so defeatist now in the Democratic Party that we assume that we have no where to go but down?

No wonder you people don't respond to Hope.

by Tumult 2008-05-08 12:23PM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton left office with the HIGHEST Approval

rating ever.

Both of his elections were serious 3-man races. Exit polls showed at the time that if Perot was not in it Clinton would have received over 50% of the total vote.

Bill Clinton won in the south and he won the swing states and the bottom line is he was elected twice and left office with the highest approval rating of any president EVER leaving office. He was very popular abroad as well...still is.

by mmorang 2008-05-08 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton left office with the HIGHEST Appr

Clinton's approval rating at the end of his second term has what, exactly, to do with elections?

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry Lost, what's Obama vs. Bill Clinton amon

Bill Clinton also never polled African American support at less than 80%.

Without the African American vote, by what percentage would All, John and Bill have lost?

Do I think African Americans will vote in en mass for McCain should the convention give the nomination to Clinton when Obama has walked in with the most pledged delegates?  No.

Do I think a lot of African Americans will stay home in November under those circumstances?  Yes I do.  Because the party will have told them what somehave complained about for years -- that they're always and forever going to be second class to the interest of whites.

by mijita 2008-05-08 01:55PM | 0 recs
3rd Eye Blind

Bill Clinton got about 90% of the black vote and he helped increased homeownership for blacks, he increased employment for blacks, he increased college access, he increased loans to black owned businesses.

Bill Clinton's foundation has already provided FREE AIDS medicine to MILLIONS of blacks in Africa. What has Obama done?

Is Bill Clinton the man you want to trash and call racists when he certainly isn't. He didn't say one thing that is remotely racist. Obama needed to get a higher percentage of the black vote and he achieved his goal, all he had to do was to FALSELY accuse President Clinton of race-bating and it did the trick.

But it will cost him in the long run. You should not trash good people who have stood by you.

If people want to stay at home let them, its a two-way street.

by mmorang 2008-05-08 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also

This is not a good comparison.  What they should compare is 1)how Kerry fared against Bush during the campaign with white voters 2)and compare that with how Barack Obama is faring against McCain with white voters.

by rickya 2008-05-08 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

I have to admit I find this entire argument sickening. I would rather lose the general election than deny a viable candidate the nomination based on his race. While there are important fights to fight - Iraq, health care, etc., do you really want to lose who you are in pursuit of those things?

This is all to say - when you question Obama's "electability" because of the supposed racism of white America, I think it's more of a statement about you than the candidate.

by tedit 2008-05-08 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

"I would rather lose the general election than deny a viable candidate the nomination based on his race."

Well, you must be new to the Democratic party.  Because if you look at the past 60 years you will see a landscape littered with Democratic candidates nominated by ideology.

Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry...  sound familiar?  All losers, all wimps.

It's time the Democratic party stop nominating loser wimps based on ideology and pick some fighters and winners.

Obama is a whiney wimp and people won't vote for a wimp in November.  It's not his color it's his personality.

by wblynch 2008-05-08 03:03PM | 0 recs
Who the hell is denying Obama anything because

he's black? He already has been helped by the media which has put their thumb on the scale for him. The Democratic party helped him by not including Florida and Michigan.

This is not about helping or hurting Obama or Clinton, its about winning and governing effectively. Obama is new to the senate. He has 1.5 years of practical experience at the national level. Isn't it possible that people don't view him as experienced enough?

Neither he or Hillary are entitled to the nomination, but one of them has a better chance to win then the other. If the evidence says its Hillary and FL and MI aren't counted or they don't have a revote, then I will leave the party.

Obama has already played the race card on BOTH Clintons. Not too cool!

by mmorang 2008-05-08 04:23PM | 0 recs
Kerry Numbers started high in the Primaries

I suspect that Kerry's support with White voters were higher during the primaries than the elections.

by rickya 2008-05-08 11:50AM | 0 recs
Context

I'm hoping the diviseness in the blogosphere is not representative of what is happening out on the streets.  Certainly, all the Democrats I associate with have been of the position all along that they will vote for the nominee, no matter who it is.

Speaking of the white vote, how about Wisconsin, where he split white women and won white men 6 out of 10.  Perhaps Virginia is a better example, where Obama won white men 58-42 and narrowly lost white women.  True enough, Clinton beat Obama among white women in MD, but Obama was able to split white men.  It is more than clear that Obama has no trouble with white folks west of the Mississippi--and the numbers east are more reflective of the Dem/Rep split than they are any other dynamic.

The bigger picture is as Jonathan suggests--the so-called "hard-working Americans, white Americans" aren't really any more or less supportive of Obama than they were of Kerry, a man who likely won in Ohio in 2004 but, alas, got robbed.  It's also very important to frame the context of this:  despite six weeks building up to PA where Wright was at the fore nearly every day, despite the re-emergence of the Wright issue prior to NC and IN, despite the triangulation between McCain and Clinton on the gas-tax holiday against him, Obama is still polling equal to what Kerry did in 2004.

There is no reason to think those numbers won't rise in the coming months.  Already today he is going after McCain on his false 'honorable campaign' pledge.  This is going to be too easy--McCain is the gift that keeps on giving.

John McCain is chum.  The sooner we all pull together and direct our fire, the faster his ship will sink.

by AK Democrat 2008-05-08 11:53AM | 0 recs
Kerry lost

Obama does not enjoy the same support among whites that he had.

I expect Obama to do worse than Kerry, certainly not better.

No one should be surprised that a man with about 1.5 years of practical experience at the national level got beat in November when the nation is in two wars.

A loss with Obama in November will force me to make a tough decision and leave the only party I've known my adult life.

The party should be made up of mature and sober adults who are serious about winning and governing.

by mmorang 2008-05-08 04:31PM | 0 recs
You write:

"So at a point when Obama was getting hit as hard in the media (both paid and nonpartisan) as he ever has"  ahh... sure up to this point this seems much harder than he experience BEFORE but compared to what the Republicans will open up on him - any recent 'hard hits' are pom-poms by comparison.

Those stats you post are Kerry's AFTER being swiftboated by Republicans - that was Kerry's rock bottom.  

Obama has yet to 'feel the love' from Republicans so to speak.  He is starting very low and could fall much, much lower.

by Molee 2008-05-08 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You write:

>> Obama has yet to 'feel the love' from Republicans
>> so to speak.

So that wasn't Fox News fluffing the Wright and Ayers stories, huh?

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

I'm pretty sure Kerry lost, didn't he?  Wouldn't the more appropriate comparison to address the question of Obama being "uniquely weak" be with Clinton?  Seriously, this might be the single stupidest pro-Obama talking point of the campaign -- he loses white voters by only as much as John Kerry did, which is to say by a lot!  Spread the word!

by aaronetc 2008-05-08 11:54AM | 0 recs
Not a strong comparison

It's getting to that point where it's time to be objective.

John Kerry is not a role model for anyone who wants to win the election.  Further, this makes Obama even weaker electorally speaking.  Why?

Nationwide, "white" people aren't dispersed in the way we really need to be talking about for the electoral college.  It might be great to have an even stronger base of so-called latte liberals in Illinois, Vermont, and Minnesota, but the advantages there are offset by disadvantages in states we need to be competitive: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine.  

I support the Dem nominee whomever it is.  But realistically, if we don't compete in Florida and Michigan, where is the money from both Obama and McCain going to be spent?

Nevada, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and maybe New Jersey.

That is a tough map for the Democrat.  

by BPK80 2008-05-08 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

"don't compete in Florida and Michigan" should read "don't compete in Florida and Ohio."

by BPK80 2008-05-08 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

Shame Obama can't compete in Ohio, what with that crushing  two-point lead McCain has with a mere 6 months to go til the election.

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

I'm not talking about one poll where Obama miraculously comes close to McCain.  I'm talking about the aggregate avg of polls there commingled with what we know about Obama's appeal to certain demographics.  He couldn't even win half of the Democrats in Ohio at a time when he was hailed the front runner.

With Obama as nominee, Ohio is off the map.  Obama knows this; he explicitly omitted it from his GE campaign memo.  He's not going to waste $20,000,000 just to whittle a 7% loss down to a 3% loss.  

by BPK80 2008-05-08 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

>> I'm not talking about one poll where Obama
>> miraculously comes close to McCain.  I'm talking
>> about the aggregate avg of polls there...

Funny you should say that, because what I linked to was an aggregate average of polls there.

>> ...commingled with what we know about Obama's
>> appeal to certain demographics.

The problem with this is that a lot of Obama's detractors tend to "know" things without actually having any hard evidence to back up their knowledge.

This is another example of the blinkered "unelectable" perception I mentioned above.  I just showed you a composite polling average putting Obama within two points of McCain in Ohio, and all you can offer in response is "well, some demographics don't like Obama".  Yeah, no kidding.  What I'm showing is that the composite of polls in Ohio, polling all of its many demographics, Obama is still within two points of McCain.

But that doesn't matter to the die-hard Obama skeptic, because the die-hard skeptic "knows" that Obama can't win Ohio.  There's just no arguing againt that kind of certainty.

>> He couldn't even win half of the Democrats in
>> Ohio at a time when he was hailed the front
>> runner.

The primary is not the general.  In the general, he'll be running against McCain, not Clinton.  Haven't we been over this bogus argument enough times?

by Frood 2008-05-08 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

This is really silly.  The data you linked me to also shows Obama losing 6 out of the last 7 polls and squeaking by with 1% in the 7th.

Look, Obama's camp said it themselves.  Their map doesn't include Ohio.  

"The primary is not the general.  In the general, he'll be running against McCain, not Clinton.  Haven't we been over this bogus argument enough times?"

Don't simplify the argument.  This isn't the "primary win = GE win" argument which doesn't hold up.  This is an acknowledgment that dempgrahic trends seen in the primary don't vanish overnight in the GE.  

I don't know what Ohio you're talking about if you think Barack Obama is competitive there.  He has better chances elsewhere.  He knows that, pollsters know that, and the party knows that.  

They're not going to waste millions of dollars in a state that can be tightened but not won.  That money will be going to Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia and defense plays in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  

by BPK80 2008-05-08 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

We're not going to compete in Michigan and Florida?

Ummm... says who?  You?

You think a state that's demographically similar to Illinois -- and has DETROIT in it for god sakes -- is automatically off limits to a black guy from Chicago? Huh?

And you think the massive hispanic population of Florida, despite having somewhat of a preference for Hillary, is going to vote for the party that wants to kick their families out of the country?

Cuz you say so?

The map looks tough for Republicans. They're losing ground in places like Louisiana, in +10 Bush districts, everywhere.

Nobody trusts the republicans any more. McCain is loved by the media for now but he says so many stupid things that it's just a matter of time before he hoses himself. And he's running as Bush III, about the least popular thing in the country right now.

Hell Obama could win Texas or Louisiana. Dare to dream a little, the republicans have run this country into the damm ground and it's not exactly a secret to most people.

by Flailey 2008-05-08 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

You missed my clarification.  I wrote "Michigan and Florida" instead of "Florida and Ohio."

by BPK80 2008-05-08 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

I didn't miss it.  Per my post above, explain how a two-point lead for McCain over Obama in May means Ohio isn't in play.

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

"And you think the massive hispanic population of Florida, despite having somewhat of a preference for Hillary, is going to vote for the party that wants to kick their families out of the country?"

Yes, I think the state of Florida is locked into the GOP column with Obama as nominee.

Keep in mind this isn't simply my opinion.  Obama's electoral strategy campaign memo explicitly excluded any reference to Florida and Ohio.  These are two massively expensive states with a strong anti-Obama tilt.  Strategically, it just makes sense to spend the money elsewhere.

Why spend tens of millions of dollars to "lose by 5% in Ohio" instead of "losing by 8%"?

by BPK80 2008-05-08 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

Dude, the "massive Hispanic population of Florida" that you mention are mostly Cubans that mostly vote Republican.

Ask Al Gore what happened to the Hispanic vote in Florida.

by wblynch 2008-05-08 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Mass, and NJ are in the bag.  That's not even a question.

Mr. Rendell will prove his worth and again help deliver Pennsyvlania.  Ohio (not listed) will be more tough and could end up in the McCain column.

Colorado is very doable with a tremendous Senate race, New Mexico is the same.  There's no reason to think Nevada won't be very close--I would not be at all surprised to see an Obama win.

That leaves Virginia.  Mark Warner and Jim Webb should be able to make this one very close--and very expensive--for John McCain to contest.  In the end it will be a coin toss, but the resources McCain has to spend (even if he wins) will help open up other avenues for poaching (ND, NC, an electoral vote in Nebraska, just to name a few).

I just don't think Obama's electoral map is nearly so difficult or onerous as many are making it out to be.

by AK Democrat 2008-05-08 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

NJ is not in the bag..do some research

by grego101 2008-05-08 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

poach
intransitive verb

  1.  to encroach upon especially for the purpose of taking something
  2.  to trespass for the purpose of stealing game; also:  to take game or fish illegally

transitive verb

  1.  to trespass on (a field poached too frequently by the amateur - Times Literary Supplement)
  2.  a: to take (game or fish) by illegal methods b: to appropriate (something) as one's own c: to attract (as an employee or customer) away from a competitor

by AK Democrat 2008-05-08 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

I don't see Obama competing in Ohio or Florida.  He consistently underpolls McCain there often with huge margins.  It's just not a wise investment when there are better opportunities elsewhere.

He'll likely pull out Mass and NJ but they're not "in the bag."  It's tempting to fall back on the typical Dem/Rep split in those states but realistically, we have to remember we have a GOP candidate who's stronger in the Northeast than any in recent history (moderate on social issues and Irish ethcnicity--HUGE) and a Dem candidate who's weaker in the Northeast than any in recent history (call it the race chasm if you will).

Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan aren't "in the bag" either.  Obama runs more strongly there than Clinton.  But it looks like we're not going to be talking much about Clinton.  

I think Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon can safely be said to be "in the bag."  But not Wisconsin, Michigan, or Iowa.  They're always competitive down to the wire and I see no reason why that would be different this year.  A lot of money will go into those states.  

by BPK80 2008-05-08 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

>> I don't see Obama competing in Ohio or Florida.  
>> He consistently underpolls McCain there often
>> with huge margins.

The composite shows McCain leading in Ohio by two points.  Perhaps you missed this when I first posted it above.

by Frood 2008-05-08 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

RCP has +McCain 3.4%

Since March, there have been seven polls in Ohio.  Obama won in 1 and lost in 6.  When he won, it was by 1%.

Ohio is a demographic and political nightmare for Barack Obama.  There aren't enough votes in Cleveland, Toledo, and Columbus to offset the state's huge GOP outlying areas and the Appalachian aversion to electing an African American doesn't help at all.  

Ohio isn't latte liberal central.  If Obama wins Ohio, it will be a national landlide.  

by BPK80 2008-05-08 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

>> RCP has +McCain 3.4%

Which is still not "out of play" by any stretch.  You'd be better off staying away from polling data.

>> Ohio is a demographic and political nightmare for
>> Barack Obama.  There aren't enough votes in
>> Cleveland, Toledo, and Columbus to offset the
>> state's huge GOP outlying areas and the
>> Appalachian aversion to electing an African
>> American doesn't help at all.  

There, now you're right back on track.  Polls don't matter, cause you know it's a NIGHTMARE!

by Frood 2008-05-08 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

Check out the Census, the 2004 election results, and the returns from 2000.  Check out the exit polls in every primary we've had this year, particularly those since March.  

Your view that Obama should waste money in Ohio is at odds with both facts and prevailing opinion (including Obama's own).  Rather than arguing here with me, a Pennsylvania Democrat who will vote Dem regardless of the nominee, maybe you should prepare a memorandum to the Obama campaign explaining why you feel they should devote their time and capital to the sinkhole that is General Election Ohio.  

by BPK80 2008-05-08 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a strong comparison

You're trying to argue that in 2008. In this election, with this economy and this war and this republican party, that Obama doesn't have Massachusetts in the bag.

Whatever you're smoking please bottle it and send it my way for testing.

If you think there is ANY remote chance of him losing NJ or MA to John McCain you're not really living with us in the reality based community.

by Flailey 2008-05-08 02:08PM | 0 recs
Kerry lost.

Obama will join the long list of losers.

Think about it, he has done nothing in the Senate and is running on his words. Kool aid, if you will.

Now, he has to step and lead by actually doing something instead of talking.

by gotalife 2008-05-08 11:58AM | 0 recs
Comparing polls is tricky and sometimes it

can be misleading a bit.

When you compare the Gallup tracking poll numbers to the 2004 CNN exit poll numbers, you forget to mention that Kerry went through a campaign, a very negative republican campaign, and he was murdered in the air. His numbers with white voters were at their lowest in those exit polls. Actually, those numbers were his real numbers.

Senator Obama has NOT gone through the republican negative campaign yet and his numbers compared to 4 years ago are kind of low (the primary attacks are not like the republican vicious attacks that i am waiting for; the 527 groups and RNC that will air ads constant in battle ground states and everything will be fair game to them).

Look, I am a supporter of Senator Obama, but i think there is no need to put lipstick on the pig, and twist and turn and demagogue the issue. Now that the primaries are about done, we have to admit that Senator Obama is weak among white voters and he needs to work his ass off to get his numbers up with them. Any other talk or comparing polls and numbers is just engaging in demagoguery and lying to ourselves. He has some serious work to do and he needs to do it. Period.

The hope that i have is that by the end of the primary session, he will consolidate his numbers with white voters (middle class white voters) and women. So basically in a month it will be all clear and the polls will tell us the trends.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-08 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Comparing polls is tricky and sometimes it

> Senator Obama has NOT gone through the republican negative campaign yet

Neither has John McCain

100 years in Iraq

I don't know much about economics

Bomb Iran

There will be wars, lots of wars

... and so on? Are we still spineless wimps? For gods sakes the Dems by now have learned how to hit back a little. And McCain's greatest liability is that he talks to much without his talking points. Press loves that straight talk but there's a reason not to do it, which is because you're gonna screw things up. He's done it before and he'll keep doing it. We'll hammer him into the ground with him.

And that's not even counting Bush III as a candidate. He can't distance himself from Bush, but he has to. It's a bind and he's extremely vulnerable, not to mention poorly disciplined.

McCain has basically NEVER had a run of sustained negative press attention. It will happen sooner or later.

by Flailey 2008-05-08 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Comparing polls is tricky and sometimes it

We have to agree that they do the negative attacking better than we do. They have practiced it for so long that they've almost perfected it.

Oh please don't talk to me about being wimps. Read some of my comments and you will realize that i am anything, but a wimp.

But that was not the point of my post. My post was indicating that you can't compare things if you don't hold some things constant. Classic 101 comparative statistical research.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-08 02:54PM | 0 recs
Legitimacy

I'm beginning to think there is absolutely nothing that can happen that would make one segment of Clinton's supporters feel Obama's win is legitimate; not the supers, not the popular vote, not the pledged delegates, not a solution for FL and MI based on what those states themselves feel is honorable.  I'm not sure what he could do now to be seen as legitimate to this group, and they will probably simply not vote for him in the fall.  

by mady 2008-05-08 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Legitimacy

I think you are right..because there have been a few deal breakers with Obama that really turned people off permanently..wright, typical, clinging, rezko, etc etc until in july the taxes issue will surface and that will be the end..

by grego101 2008-05-08 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Legitimacy

Yep, McClurkin did it for me.

by avrdream 2008-05-08 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Legitimacy

If people have "dealbreakers," that's their right and their option not to vote for him.  But it has nothing to do with his being the nominee, it has to do with whether some will vote for that nominee.  There is a difference there.  It would be easier for all if people just said I can't stand him, he is the nominee (when that happens) but I will not vote for him, than to pretend the nomination process was wrong somehow.

by mady 2008-05-08 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

Why don't you compare a poll taken this time in the cycle of Kerry vs. this Obama poll and see.

I predict Obama will do worse with white voters than Kerry. There is very little doubt in my mind.

Talk to people then citing a poll 6 months out.

by GregNYC 2008-05-08 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry Among White Vo

 
    why not? After all, it's CLinton people citing polls 6 months out as the reason Obama would suck as a nominee.

   Why is it ok for them?

by southernman 2008-05-08 12:52PM | 0 recs
News Flash:

Kerry lost.

by avrdream 2008-05-08 12:17PM | 0 recs
there is something Kerry did not do

and that was to WIN

by DiamondJay 2008-05-08 12:42PM | 0 recs
Obama Also Runs Even with Kerry

and that's a good thing... HOW?????

by devil 2008-05-08 12:54PM | 0 recs
um, and Keryy LOST! Also, this isnt national its

about the Rust Belt, two things that are obvious, nice try though

by rigsoHC 2008-05-08 12:54PM | 0 recs
Look, I'd support over Obama over McCain...

... but seriously, almost as good as Kerry? What kind of a standard is that?

As for people saying this is a starting point, well, isn't it a starting point for McCain, too? Any reason the numbers can't go down as well as up?

We'd better not hear things like "Thanks to your support, we closed a 10 point margin to 5 points and came very close to winning the election" in the fall.

Our once-in-a-lifetime, expand-the-map candidate is struggling to beat John Kerry? It almost makes one nostalgic for the razor-thin margins of Bill Clinton, who barely squeaked by with 370 electoral votes.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-08 02:00PM | 0 recs
Look, I'd support over Obama over McCain...

The far left sees this as an opporunity to vindicate themselves culturally.

Unfortunately, America's rejection of George Bush is not an open arms welcome for the 2008 McGovern Coalition.  

Left = Obama
Center = McCain
Right = McCain

We needed Hillary to fight for the center.  

by BPK80 2008-05-08 02:07PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads