I reread my diary and I don't know where you see the us vs. them language. I did refer to a woman and a group of people as Clinton supporters. They are a subgroup within the overall Democratic Party. And I am sorry for using the phrase "bring them back into the Democratic fold." A better phrase would have been to say "keep them in the Democratic fold."
I think that you're reading too much into my postings. I don't mean to come off that way. And I am in no way playing down what lifelong Democrats have been doing. I think that you need to be a little less sensitive.
How is this not about having Clinton supporters come to the side of Obama supporters? That is done through addressing their concerns as well as making compromises. My diary doesn't suggest that I'm against that.
I'm sorry to weigh in on a controversial topic because I want to shy away from that, but the popular vote in this campaign is hard to determine and it falls under a variety of metrics. First off, do you include Flordia, which did not have any campaigning in the state? Do you include Michigan, which also did not have any campaigning, and if you do, does Obama get 0 because he wasn't on the ballot, or what? Do you include non-US state Puerto Rico or caucus estimates? It's a false metric, and it is open to manipulation to fit one's needs.
Also, the last Republican to win the nomination without the "popular vote" was Richard Nixon in 1968 and that election turned out pretty well for him. So, winning the popular vote, regardless of how great a metric it is, does not indicate automatic losses in the general election.
Obama's coalition is much broader than McGovern's ever was. This coalition includes African-Americans, young voters, middle-aged voters, and those with college degrees and higher. He has performed strongly with non-Appalachian working class whites (see Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin). Also, Obama has something that McGovern never did: he doesn't propose drug decriminalization, guaranteed yearly incomes, or abortion on demand (in 1972 terms, that was a big political killer). Furthermore, Obama is running at the end of the southern strategy, not at the beginning of it.
As for the veep spot, I wouldn't mind that Hillary receives it. However, you do have to consider as I put it out there in another post, can she do more there or back in the Senate?
She should return to the Senate, work hard for the Democratic nominee because he represents the sort of issue positions that she has held since 1964, and see if there is a Supreme Court opening or an opening in the Senate leadership.
I intend to make this about Clinton supporters so that we can bring them back into the Democratic fold for the purposes of party unity. I know that race is a drivign factor for other candidates' supporters as well. And I know that some people won't vote for Hillary because of sexism.
And don't think of me as some naive college student. I know that the world won't be perfect. But that doesn't mean that I, or you, or anyone else, should seek to keep the world as it is. It is our moral duty to see a wrong and try to right it, whether we think we are to be successful or not. Racism is wrong, and we must do all that we can do to reduce it or prevent it from forming.
I understand what you're saying (though I don't accept your blanket statement regarding some characteristics of women).
However, you do know that you aren't investing in a woman, but rather her message? I mean would you be behind Elizabeth Dole if she were the GOP nominee for president? It's pretty clear that if you want to advance feminist issues, Senator Obama, and the Democratic Party, are your way to go, especially over McCain and his tendency to use the c-word in reference to his wife.
Your core data shows a disturbing trend towards non-participation within American democracy, especially among the poor, Latinos, the young, and African-Americans. This is by design, especially from Republican leaders who have ultimately benefitted from this non-participation.
I say that lower participation rates are bad for the health of our democracy. Obama particularly is engaged in trying to correct this through his service iniatives and willingness to provide substantial resources towards registration.
You are completely misreading my point. I am talking about how political elites want to keep participation constant. If they get involved with manipulating the electorate size, they focus on turning their voters out or those likely to support them while supressing the other side. I'm not talking about the electoral college map...I was referring to "map" as a representation of overall participation.
It is apparent that Obama, like RFK, is trying to get people engaged in their own communities, to build social capital, and expand political participation. This goes against the CW that increased participation will wreak havoc on traditional electoral strategies.
I'm talking about overall turnout, not simply Democratic. This is about fullscale, across the board participation in the political process. I am not saying that we don't do a good job of getting the Democratic vote out. I am saying that political elites generally do not want to expand the electorate because it produces too much inconsistency and unpredictability, which destroyes previous campaigning notions. RFK and Obama have completely gone against this sort of concept: he didn't and Obama doesn't feel compelled to operate within the CW regarding the electoral map.
And, yes, in the academic world I can't get away with stating that this is accepted in the academic world. I thought that a blog had a lower standard of citation, but to placate you, here are some sources that I, as well as my ND professors, have used. For further information, please see Piven and Coward 2000, Miller and Shanks 1996 , and Hudson 2004. If you would like to see my Works Cited list and my bibliography, please give more time.
As for the campaigns I've come into contact with. I have worked with the Democratic Party, a sucessful gubernatorial campaign, the Kerry campaign, and local candidates in my home state. Besides working with these campaigns, I have learned of how previous campaigns have acted from my involved father.
There are registration drives, but they are not done fullscale.
And I disagree with the idea that President Clinton changed the electorate in 1992 and 1996. In 96, only 49% of eligible voters came out, the lowest in years. In 92, Clinton change the vote choice of the electorate, but he did not fullscale change the size of the electorate. Participation was rather low, as well.
He denounced those sermons. I don't see where the complaint still is. This sort of hypernegativity regarding this church has forced him to leave it. I think that he has done more than enough to reduce your fears of him being some radical woman-hater.
My evidence is that many campaigns attempt to keep the electorate at a consistent rate. New voters, are by their nature, unlikely to provide consistent results, which is not good for people seeking to win an elective office. Therefore, you get few candidates who want to truly expand the electorate.
It is generally agreed in the academic world that Robert Kennedy was the last serious major party candidate who sought to swell the voting rolls. Obama has done this as well; consider his recent decision to coordinate with the DNC's voting registration drive in all fifty states. Annecodately, here in Ohio, there are paid Obama staffers that are solely concerned with registering voters. I have never come into contact with a campaign that has conducted such a full scale effort as this one.