me neither. that's why i sure hope hillary gets the nomination.
If Hillary is so damned electable why isn't she winning THIS election?
Because the demographics for a Democratic primary are quite different. For example, an AA component in the primary of 35% might not equal half that (of a particular state) in the general. Remember, then we add in Republicans & other Independents. To say the least, the dynamic is different in theory and in historical practice. That is why people start analyzing electoral vote possibilities. We don't want a pyrrhic victory in the primary.
If I recall we John Kerry was chosen on the basis of electability and if I remember correctly that didn't work out so well.
The republicans have elected a lackluster candidate and nothing will turn out the conservative vote more than Hillary as the nominee. The hate for her on the right is unwarranted and illogical but it is there. Not to mention if the popular vote is overturned by the SDs you can guarantee that the generation of first time voters who never participated because they thought the system was broken will be lost forever.
There is a difference between having your candidate lose a campaign and having it stolen from them. If Hillary becomes the nominee without the lead in pledged delegates or popular vote then it will destroy the party and you can forget about November. Most people here are just too blinded by their passion for Hillary to realize it.
"The republicans have elected a lackluster candidate and nothing will turn out the conservative vote more than Hillary as the nominee. The hate for her on the right is unwarranted and illogical but it is there."
I don't agree with this today. A year ago maybe but the dispassion the GOP has for Barack Obama has dwarfed the disdain they once held for HRC. Her growing centrist appeal and dare I say it "machismo" in this contest has gotten the right to reluctantly concede an admiration for her they once thought never possible. Numerous conservative commentators have picked up on this, Scarborough, etc.
Barack Obama is the living stereotype of the far left that the GOP so despises. He's fashionable, trendy, and style-over-substance in ways that the GOP loathes. The elitism monicker is going nowhere, except that it will probably morph into something more compact like "snob" by mid-fall.
Michigan and Florida will decide this election. When they are counted, Hillary will be well ahead by all metrics. And the party won't have the shame of having to say "we disenfranchised two states to help Obama win."
When push comes to shove, the party isn't going to misdirect their anger at the legislators to the voters. It would be a national embarrassment for the "Democratic" party.
has no play with the Republicans I know. Most are rather disgusted with their own party and several have claimed willingness to vote for Obama (and even Clinton in one case). The fact is, both candidates have winning electoral maps, and that only improves after the nomination concludes, regardless of who the nominee is. Our candidate will only be unelectable if we let our passions run ahead of our common sense and let this primary season split the party.
In regards to MI and FL... I suspect that in the end, the hold-out supers will swing hard enough toward the nominee to provide a margin to allow those states to be seated as is without effecting the outcome. This will happen even if it takes some closed door negotiating, if only to provide full legitimacy to the nominee.
At that point, we only lose in November if we stay home pouting because our candidate lost the primary or, worse, give in to the urge to cast a 'revenge vote' for McCain.
And I can tell you right now... anyone who thinks voting for McCain is the right response to their candidate losing the nomination is in danger of getting their ass kicked by my friend Dave when he gets back from Iraq (his words, not mine).
Cheers
The Republicans I know loathe Obama. No point contrasting anecdotes though.
I don't see how Barack Obama can win Pennsylvania in a general election. His unpopularity in Pittsburgh and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton will make it nearly impossible to offset the upstate GOP tilt.
Well, I live in a left leaning area, so the Republicans I know tend toward the centrist/moderate end rather than the winger 'hate all libruls' end of the political specrum, so no doubt that explains the difference in our anecdotes. Of course neither Obama nor Clinton will drag over huge numbers of Republicans, but I think both will get crossovers if only because the Republican brand is so damaged.
As for Pennsylvania, the polls show Obama able to win against McCain there, and that is even before any post nomination bump. McCain has tied himself rather closely to Bush and his policies. Once we get past the nomination and really start hammering that home, I think you'll see the poll numbers in almost every state move in our favor. I also think the polls will fall short of predicting the size of the final win, because polls are notoriously bad at predicting turnout, and there is a big enthusiasm gap this time around.
We just need to stay calm, stay focused, and stay united. Work your ass off trying to get your candidate nominated, and then work your ass of trying to get the Democrat elected. The Republicans are hoping for a divided Democratic party to save their collective ass in November. I don't plan to oblige them.
I'd feel a lot safer with Hillary as far as Pennsylvania goes in the GE. These Hillary supporters who say they will back McCain in the fall...
In the blogosphere, they're but a statistic. In fact, it's sometimes posited that they don't really exist or that they are bluffing and just mentioning them is part of a pro-Hillary-conspiracy to scare the party into nominating her.
But to me, these people are my friends, my coworkers, and my family. The phenomenon is very real.
A Dem can't win Pennsylvania without enormous margins in Philadelphia city, a big boost from the suburbs, a boost from Pittsburgh, a boost from Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, and a tiny boost from Lehigh Valley (Allentown/Bethlehem).
Older voters are very receptive to McCain's appeal. Even the little "Mc" is a boost in PA because its has so many old-school style ethnicity/identity politics and the state has an overwhelming Irish population.
The Dem convention bounce will vanish a week after it appears and negative ads (Rampant in PA!) will saturate.
I always shill for the Dem candidate and have been involved with campaigns but if Obama wins, it's going to be awful with me cause I don't like or trust him in my heart. If I were doing pro-Obama spins, they would sound half-hearted, because they would be exactly that: half-hearted. And knowing the culture here in Eastern PA, I don't think they'd be well received except in Philadelphia city.
I am sure there would be some disapointed voters on either side who will stay home or even vote McCain in the GE if their candidate loses the primary... but I can't see that as being a huge factor or the numbers would look different in the head-to-head polling match-ups against McCain. And I agree Clinton would do better in PA, but I don't agree that it is out of reach for Obama.
As for not liking or trusting Obama... I won't try to sway you on that. Those sorts of subjective judjments come from a lot of complex factors that are usually unique for each person. Those feelings are often amplified and solidified in the heat of a campaign and are not easily changed even after the fires die down.
Perhaps the best I can hope for is that, should Clinton not be the nominee, you are still willing to step back and take an objective look at Obama vs McCain and see who the better choice is and vote accordingly. I will certainly do the same in the reverse situation.
As it stands right now, I can't vote for McCain. I've long been a moderate independent voter and even respected McCain for some of his moderate views and willingness to work with Dems (i.e. his collaboration with my Senator, Russ Feingold), but his embracing of Bush's agenda and surrounding himself with neocons has made him a non-choice for me. I disagree with Clinton on some policy issues and on the DLC rejection of the 50 state strategy, but I still recognize that she is a waaaaay better choice than McCain. I think an objective look at Obama reveales that he is also.
Peace
Thank you for your input.
Your calm objectivity is exactly the kind of approach that appeals to the possibility of a changed mind.
If only all our candidate discussions could be like this.
You may not agree with this but I believe it to be true. The reason conservatives are admitting admiration for Hillary is because she is doing their work for them. She's driving a wedge between the party and is well on her way to fracturing it leading to their guy winning by default. They admire her "tenacity" while secretly rejoicing over the fact no one on her campaign can perform basic arithmetic.
It's funny that you make the case that Barack Obama is the "elitist" in the election considering Bill and Hillary made five times more money than he did last year. Besides this elitist argument won't fly anymore, the country has seen what happens when you vote for the person you'd rather have a beer with. Being intelligent is nothing to be ashamed of.
This disenfranchisement argument that does the rounds here is truly pathetic. Either you think voting in a primary is a privilege or it is a right. If you believe it is a right you should not only be upset about Michigan and Florida but also all the independents who are not allowed to vote in closed primaries, why is it only disenfranchisement when you agree to be affiliated with a party? If you think voting in a primary is a privilege then you can't get upset when states who try to break the rules are punished by not being allowed to participate. I guess you can take the third option and admit to being a hypocrite.
"It's funny that you make the case that Barack Obama is the 'elitist' in the election considering Bill and Hillary made five times more money than he did last year."
Elitism and wealth are two entirely different things. Since when did intelligent people begin conflating the two so regularly?
Wealth is an accumulation of pecuniary and material resources. Elitism is an attitude towards fellow human beings. A wealthy person or couple may either harbor and exhibit this superiority complex or they may be genuinely goodhearted and egalitarian, both in theory and in practice. I wouldn't brand every rich person I know as elitist. Conversely, there are middle-class and working-class folks who are elitist even while not being wealthy.
I haven't charged Obama with being an "elitist" (because frankly I think it's a weak way of phrasing the core argument) but acknowledged that the meme is there.
"I guess you can take the third option and admit to being a hypocrite."
Taking the gloves off, are we? I'll refrain. I should note though that your discursion on rights & priviliges sounds like it would be well placed in a constitutional case against a government body, but it's irrelevant here. The Democratic Party is not a state actor.
Since when did Democrats buy into the "Elitim" argument anyway.
Jon Stewart said it better, but I'll add that this anti-intellectual BS serves no onewell, and may ultimately be looked upon as the nadir of this race and the Clinton machine as a whole.
"Since when did Democrats buy into the 'Elitim' argument anyway."
We don't because it's used against us, not to advance us.
"anti-intellectual"?
Either you misread my post or you just didn't read it. That issue isn't even raised.
There is a core anti-intellectualism in the "elitism" argument, although at its root is a total contempt for the working class.
The sad irony is that it has worked in the past.
The silly irony is that Hillary Clinton, of all people, is trying to wield it.
The possibly-futile hope is that maybe the country is ready to rise above it.
But by legitimizing the 'elitist' argument, you allow it to be used against Hillary or Obama in the general, Hillary as a hypocrate and liar if she pretends to be otherwise, and Obama because, well, Hillary said it and she's a democrat.
It's like going on Fox News. Bad mojo all around.
Elitism is arguing that working class white, Latino, and Asian voters are all voting for Hillary because of racism, and not because of the fact that Hillary's out there pushing specific policy solutions to address their specific needs. Elitism is arguing that the Clinton economy was the same as the Bush economy, and that both require us to "change" from them.
Elitism is arguing that a temporary gas tax holiday, which is only passed if it comes from the coffers of Big Oil, is somehow not a "progressive" policy.
I think most Obama supporters are elitist, and I say that with full cognizance of the fact that the GOP has used this talking point against us. But the fact is, it has worked. You can either claim that it's because the working class has (again and again) been bamboozled, or you can recognize the grain of truth in it.
But I see it when I talk to my friends and colleagues, almost all of whom are Obama supporters, and they talk with contempt of Hillary white trash voters. And assume that anyone with a college degree must be an Obama supporter.
The vast wealth schism between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters, on average (and excluding African American voters), indicates that the "elitism" divide did not start with any blog postings or candidate comments. This has been a very real dynamic in this race, and while you can ignore it, that won't make it go away.
The only instance where Hillary voters were charged with racism is when exit polls asked "How important was race in making your decision of who to vote for?" and many of the people who answered "very important" also voted for Hillary.
No one has ever made the claim that much of Hillary's support is gained through racism but to think that it doesn't exist is ignorant.
I said the elitism argument was "weak." That certainly doesn't "legitimize" it.
"Taking the gloves off, are we? I'll refrain. I should note though that your discursion on rights & priviliges sounds like it would be well placed in a constitutional case against a government body, but it's irrelevant here. The Democratic Party is not a state actor."
My argument of right vs. privilege is at the heart of your claim. By using the word "disenfranchisement" you have definitionally included rights into the argument. So assuming you actually believe voting in a primary is a right, you should also be outraged for the millions of independent voters are excluded from the voting process. The charge of hypocrisy doesn't stem solely from this claim but also from how most Hillary supporters were fine with Florida and Michigan losing their delegates until after she had fallen behind and the vote had taken place.
But I understand your dismissal of my argument, I don't know how I would respond either.
"You may not agree with this but I believe it to be true. The reason conservatives are admitting admiration for Hillary is because she is doing their work for them. She's driving a wedge between the party and is well on her way to fracturing it leading to their guy winning by default. They admire her "tenacity" while secretly rejoicing over the fact no one on her campaign can perform basic arithmetic."
You're right. Hillary is the only one capable of making arguments that Obama is a bad candidate. The Republicans could never do that. And negative media scrutiny would never have hit Obama if Hillary had just dropped out.
For the record, could you please describe how Hillary is "driving a wedge between the party"? Because I have yet to talk to an Obama supporter who will give me specific examples that haven't already been discredited somewhere. On the other hand, I know that Obama has fueled the "Hillary is a racist" meme, and I know that he has called Hillary divisive and unelectable, repeatedly. His campaign has also taken the unprecedented step of calling for her to drop out, despite the fact that she can still win, by any metric (yes, even your best-case Obama scenarios still show that she can win, even if unlikely).
3am ads, which are relatively tame, or ads showing various catastrophes (including the Great Depression, 9/11, and many other examples) do not count as "tearing apart the party" in my book.
The fact that Obama is doing this poorly, without the GOP having really unleashed their meanest attack dogs yet, is a really really really poor sign for his campaign.
Obama's success in the early states was also predicated on electability. Obama ran as a "post-partisan" candidate who could unify the country. He probably mentioned his superior electability and Hillary's "divisiveness" thousands of times.
Obama's a sinking ship. If he can't handle the soft lobs he's getting now, he's toast come November. The Republicans don't play nice, or worry about being divisive. And for all the media hoopla about how Hillary is "doing anything to win" (a meme which is clearly being fueled by the Obama camp), I think she's been surprisingly genteel. She didn't introduce the Wright story (despite the fact that her campaign had all of this material and could have introduced it when she was running through a string of losses), and she's been running largely on the issues.
Furthermore, for all the talk about how Hillary makes comments denigrating Obama (the examples Obama supporters cite to me most often are the "I don't know if he's Muslim, you'll have to ask him" and the "I wouldn't have stayed in that church" comments), it's surprising to me how few Obama supporters I know actually watched those interviews. They don't know that Hillary was asked over and over about the "Is he a Muslim" question, until she finally made that soundbite, or that she prefaced the Wright comment by saying it was up to the voters to decide.
The media is out to make Hillary look a calculating b*tch, and they've succeeded in the minds of most Obama supporters.
I love that when black people participate in higher-than-expected rates, it delegitimizes a primary result. FYI, every time anyone says that, it is a statement that black people don't really count.
Of course there are not an equal number of black people that will vote in the general that voted in the primary, but that doesn't make a Democratic victory which was dependent on those black votes pyrrhic.
by equal i meant proportionate. the candidate selected by the Democratic primary should accurately reflect the membership of the Democratic primary, and that fortunately includes a majority of black people. Also fortunately, the membership of the Democratic primary encompasses a large part of the country's population. Victory 08, Clinton or Obama: It doesn't even matter.
I think you're misreading his claim. He's pointing out the obvious fact AA voters make up a much higher percentage of the Dem population than of the general population, particularly in delegate rich states like MS and AL that neither Obama nor Hillary can win.
He was doing this in the context of electability.
But nice of you to bring up the "Hillary supporters must be racist" meme again. Good to see you're following Saint Obama's lead on that one.
You're right, I did misread. Apologies.
