MyDD :: Question to Clinton AND Obama supporters

Question to Clinton AND Obama supporters

by SevenStrings, Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM EST

I am writing this diary in response to the other diary which asks a question of Clinton supporters: what is her path to the nomination ?

A better question is: what is the path to being a successful President ?

After all, your sole interest is in seeing a good government in the 2009-2017 time period, not in who wins the democratic nomination (the latter should only be one step to the former; but if you cannot get to the former, then the latter is meaningless). And at this point, I am afraid, neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama appear to have a realistic chance of winning a "governing majority" in the fall.

In Sen. Obama's case, his coalition is too narrow ~ based almost solely on blacks and latte liberals; he is losing to Sen. Clinton amongst latinos, asians and whites. In Sen. Clinton's case, her coalition is also fairly narrow (albeit somewhat broader than Sen. Obama's). She is getting little or no support from blacks, and she will lose the overall white vote in the fall (democrats always lose the white vote). Neither candidate has been able to win over the other candidate's supporters.

Even if they win with such demographics, such a narrow demographic support will result in a weak President.

And so, what is your candidate's path to being a successful President ?

Tags: Question, Clinton, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment

is Obama's coalition narrow? (2.00 / 0)

Obama's coalition narrow!?

In human history, what politician has mobilized as many small contributors as Obama?

What politicians have mobilized more volunteers?

Dismissing Obama's volunteers as being Blacks and latte liberals is disrespectful and using a Right Wing frame.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (none / 0)

Obama coalition is enthused, young and full of energy...these are all positives. And yes, those are historic achivements.

But he does not have substantial support amongst latinos, asians, whites (other than the "latte liberals") and catholics.

That may sound offensive, but it will pose a problem as far as being able to govern is concerned !!

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (2.00 / 1)

Oh, yes he does have support with those groups!

It's silly to claim that the vast majority of registered Dems are not going to vote for the Dem candidate this Fall. EVERY piece of historical information says that they will do so. Now, some independents and those who can't get over the racial issue may not. But most of those who voted for Hillary will vote for Obama this term.

'latte liberals,' I hate that bullshit and offensive term, and you would do well to drop it. It's a Republican meme, you realize this?

by Cycloptichorn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:51:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (none / 0)

Which piece of historical information are you referring ?

The latino vote is a true swing vote. Democrats are not guaranteed the latino vote ~ McCain can win it, you know.

And both Clinton and Obama are guaranteed to lose the white vote (democrats have been losing the white vote for quite sometime)

And I will stop using the moniker latte liberals solely because it offends you, if you stop using other monikers that offend me: the list includes blacks, whites, asians, latinos.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (none / 0)

Two points -

1. You are dead right about the Latino vote. It is a concern.

2. 'Latte Liberal' is a pretty awful term. Different from 'black', 'white' etcetera because it was born, nurtured and spread around specifically to smear Democrats and frame liberals as 'out-of-touch'. Use it if you'd like, but you may find that a lot of liberals will question where you are coming from, ideologically, when you throw that term around.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:00:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (none / 0)

What moniker would you prefer I use ? And why do you consider that moniker offensive ? I find the moniker funny, actually (my wife used to work in the coffee industry)

Note: I am more liable to stop using the term since you asked nicely. I was not going to honost Cyclo's demand that I stop using that term ?

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (none / 0)

Well, I think an emerging term is "creative class", though I'm not sure those terms are synonymous.

Are you trying to describe affluent Dem voters? Educated Dem voters? Creative class does not always imply affluent - though the creative class is certainly not considered to be poor/underclass/working class. More middle and middle/upper class. The term does imply educated.

Just an idea. I would love to hear other people's opinion on this comparison of 'Creative Class" and "Latte Liberal".

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (none / 0)

I hate the term "creative" class...because it implies that a certain segment of the population has a monopoly on creativity.

I do not like the term educated class because it implies that that class of people are smarter than the rest ~ and I certainly do not think educated people are any smarter (education being almost synonymous with being smart, for most people)

And I think if I used the term affluent class, it would offend even more people than if I used the term "latte".

Josh Marshall uses the term "starbucks liberals" without offending too many people.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a must read diary on the latino vote (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/1312 5/0839

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a must read diary on the latino vote (none / 0)

Yes, that was an excellent diary with very interesting information. I particularly took note that latinos are historically not shy about voting Republican rather than Democratic. I hadn't known that, and it could spell danger to us in the GE. I hope latinfighter won't mind me quoting a bit:

The Million Dollar question is can, Sen. Barack Obama win at least 70% of Latino voters in November ? ( Only Bill Clinton has ever done that at 72% ) ( Gore & Kerry were way off )

The $100,000 question is, John McCain is obviously more popular among Latinos than most Republicans. He has always won Arizona Latinos in big numbers. His Approval rating among Latinos inched even higher in 2007 because of his stand on protecting Latinos on immigration.McCain has won as much as 65% of Latino voters.

All McCain needs in November is take at least 40% of Latino voters in November & its GAME OVER. ( Remember, Bush got 44% of all latino votes in 2000 & won )

So if Bush got 44% of Latino votes in 2000( despite massive Kerry spending on Spanish TV,Radio & Direct mail) inspite of the War in Iraq, can a more popular(among Latinos) McCain get at least 40% ? (...snip...)

Remember this IMPORTANT FACT about LATINOS/HISPANICS.

It is a Swing Voting Block. It is NEVER shy to vote Republican.
The 4 Top Republican Latino vote getters in history are George W. Bush, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger & Mel Martinez)
In fact, All were successful against Democrats in large part because of Latino crossover.

(I would point out one small error in the diary, though. Bush did not actually win in 2000, in spite of his success in the latino community...)

Do read the whole thing. It's an important diary. Again, that URL is:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/1312 5/0839

by Swedie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a must read diary on the latino vote (none / 0)

I am not latino, but I live in So Cal (which is latino country, as we all know =)

And I am hearing a lot of support for McCain over Obama; and even some support for McCain over Clinton. I know CA polls are not registering this, so maybe I am sampling the wrong latinos, but I do know that McCain has a very realistic chance amongst latinos overall ~ he has been viewed as championing their causes for quite some time.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:02:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And oh...Bush did win in 2000 (none / 0)

He won 55.6% of the votes (5 out of 9, that is =)

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (none / 0)

Mmmm - you forgot women. 52% of the population and more than 50% of people who actually vote.

Yes, he got young people - but you're assuming they'll stick around to vote and support him if he wins. History has not shown that to be true.

Catholics? Not so much.

http://www.catholic.org/national/nationa l_story.php?id=27006

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.p hp?option=com_content&task=view& id=2871&Itemid=48

I think Obama overestimates how many true blue Democrats will come home for him - especially if it looks like we'll get a super majority in the Senate.

by cmugirl90 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is Obama's coalition narrow? (none / 0)

What is your evidence that Obama's support is weak among Latinos, Asian-Americans, "Whites" and Catholics?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

again, a highly recommended diary (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/1312 5/0839

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: again, a highly recommended diary (none / 0)

Would it be too much to ask to post a usable link?

Perhaps you could paraphrase the arguments and hit the highlights of the facts you found persuasive?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: again, a highly recommended diary (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/1312 5/0839

you should read the whole diary!

basically:

(a) the latino vote is a true swing vote. Bill Clinton got 72% in 96, Al Gore got 62% and Kerry got 52%. McCain is popular amongst Hispanics (but so is Bush)!

(b) Clinton, Gore and Kerry got about 40% of the white vote. Obama will get less than this.. question is will he get more than 37% ?

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: again, a highly recommended diary (none / 0)

What's the evidence HRC will perform better among Latinos than Obama?

I suppose there's a risk Obama won't get "White" votes. Are you concerned HRC won't get male votes?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:16:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: again, a highly recommended diary (none / 0)

If you read my diary, you will see that I have concerns about both candidates. Yes, I am supporting HRC, but at this point I do not see either one being able to put together a "governing" coalition.

I think HRC will perform better amongst Latinos based on what I am hearing (I live in So Cal), because HRC has won the latino vote 2:1, and because there is a lot of residual goodwill for Bill Clinton.

I do not think the male/female demographic (the gender gap) will be too large, at least not as large as the ethnic gaps we have.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:30:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: again, a highly recommended diary (none / 0)

You think HRC will perform as well among male voters as Gore and Kerry?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: again, a highly recommended diary (none / 0)

No!

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously? Obama's coalition narrow?! (none / 0)

As Carl Nyberg just noted, he has shattered all preconceived notions about who would support him. It's HRC's base that is confined to the 65+ whites as consistently reported after every contest. She's McWalkingCane in a pantsuit.

*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.

by VT COnQuest on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:47:56 PM EST

Re: Seriously? Obama's coalition narrow?! (none / 0)

Every preconceived notion ? Hardly

What was the preconceived notion about where his support was, and how has it been shattered ?

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's simple (none / 0)

mandates come more from sweeping in more fellow party members in the Senate and House.

Even the most depressing estimates have us at +3 - and there's a realistic, if outside, shot at +9. On the House side of things, 29 GOP retirements. There are 3-5 winnable seats (2-4 since I guess Foster is now technically a seat defense) in Obama's home state.

There's opportunity out west. There's opportunity in the deep south. We've already poached virtually all that's poachable in the NE.

I think Obama runs strongest (particularly in the west) in the states where we have the most pickup opportunities.

"Mandates" will come from a Senate that's 55-60 Dem and a House that can expand it's majority to +15-20 or so.

by zonk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:39:22 PM EST

Not tha simple (none / 0)

If you recall 1993, Bill Clinton had a "mandate" of that nature. Large majorities in both houses did not save him from being nearly ineffective the first two years he was there. The underlying reason was that very few Senators and Congressmen were "afraid" of him ~ they had won without Clinton's supporters, even though the democratic majority had increased in 1992. He quickly became the "minority President", or Mr 43%, as Rush L used to mock !

The key demographic is the latino vote, in my opinion ~ because it is growing.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not tha simple (none / 0)

I think that the Latino vote will go to the Democrats this fall because of some fo the more borderline racist rhetoric employed by Republicnas in the current immigration debate. McCain can only reach so far on that issue before parts of his conservative coalition decide to stay home. Just my opinion, of course.

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not tha simple (none / 0)

I will refer you as well to this highly recommended diary as well

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/1312 5/0839

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not tha simple (none / 0)

Interesting analysis. But I think that McCain looses hard core conservates (who would stay home, not vote deomocratic) if he does not supply the anti-illigal immigration rhetoric that they are looking for, and I doubt he'll do that. Right now I think that each party has about 40-42 percent of the vote locked up, and it's the 16-20 percent that's going to be fought over.

I ain't go no crystal ball, but I'd put money on the Democratic nominee in the fall, be it Obama or Clinton.

One parting question: why don't you think that Latino's would support Obama?

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not tha simple (none / 0)

"why don't you think that Latino's would support Obama?"

I am not latino, so I am not qualified to answer. But this is a blog, so what the hell =)

Some racial stereotyping, some genuinely felt affection for McCain's championing of their causes, some appreciation of his war hero status... and some suspicion of his church.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not tha simple (none / 0)

One parting thought for you:

If your analysis is true, then the outcome of the election will depend on McCain ~ it becomes his to lose.

If he can convince the hard core conservatives to come out and vote for him without offending the latinos, then he will win....regardless of what the democratic nominee does.

Now, you can probably see the point of my diary =)

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not tha simple (none / 0)

Or, it becomes incumbent on the loosing candidate in the nominating process to support the nominee so we don't have to rely on McCain making a mistake.

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not tha simple (none / 0)

If there is a "loosing" candidate... right now, the two sides want to destroy each other !

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not tha simple (none / 0)

I don't know - I think that this blog is a hyper magnified section of the electorate. Most voters don't want to destroy their opposition. November is a long way off.

by NewOaklandDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Depended Upon and Dismissed (none / 0)

Loyalty to the principles of the party has led to an interesting theory that the black vote is at once a block vote that blindly follows along racial lines and will, after being denigrated during the primary, blindly vote for Clinton should she get the nomination.

As to the Hispanics vote, they have and will continue to vote for black candidates. They have all over the country.

by Mylie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:11:11 PM EST

You Imply the Answer to Your Question: (none / 0)

"Neither candidate has been able to win over the other candidate's supporters."

Look. WhichEVER candidate gets the nomination will get the vast majority of the other's supporters. The "kids" and the new AAs might just go home, but the candidates themselves will call on their supporters to vote for the nominee.

THAT WILL HAPPEN.

Hillary just today told her supporters the very thing.

A lot of this is media-driven dreck.

by a gunslinger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:14:37 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.