Hillary Leads with Democrats

[NewHampster]

From Slate: http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/28/a-number-you-probably-haven-t-seen.aspx

A Number You Probably Haven't Seen

It’s well known that Barack Obama’s success has depended largely on independent and Republican voters. The corollary to that, however, has been less thoroughly reported: Obama is losing among Democrats.

Over at The Perfect World, Cal Lanier crunches the numbers and finds that Obama, despite being ahead among pledged delegates, has fewer total votes among people who identify themselves as Democrats. (He has 7392809 votes; Clinton has 8229063.) That gives Clinton as lead at 52 percent of Democrats. Lanier also breaks the numbers down by race, and points out that Obama has won white Democrats in only two states: New Mexico and Illinois.

The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough. (Extrapolating those percentages to estimate exact numbers of voters is going to compound margins of error.) And because caucuses report delegates, not individual turnout, those stats are going to be a little murky, too. I'd also dispute their inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the count. But Clinton’s lead is still large enough to be significant.

It helps you understand why the party gives so much power to its 796 superdelegates. If they didn’t, independents and Republicans could essentially hijack their election. It also makes you wonder whether Clinton should start citing this number, if she maintains her lead through the convention in August. Even if Obama leads in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by outsiders.

but of course Obama would rather the Republican's rule our primary, as long as he is the winner.

[bunnies]

1. Can the GE be won with ONLY democrats?

I didnt think so.

[NewHampster]

4. But do you really believe all those rethugs

Love the god Obama?

[liberalnurse]

14. Cross over votes from the republicans

is what I see for the purpose of picking their opponent. Now, even in Ohio it is occurring.

The rise of Obama is built on a weak foundation, like a prefab home that won't be able to withstand an F-3 tornado for it will splinter under pressure.

A dynamic marketing machine, yes, they can sell it like Beanie Babies or a Hip-Hop Group's one-hit wonder. All Obama has to do is have just one sour-note in the song of Hope and Change and the spell is broken.

Republicans, they know money and are sociopath businessmen at heart. They feel no pain, attack in stealth mode, always go in for the kill and take no prisoners.

Obama supporters have grossly, obnoxiously offended Hillary supporters, the women most of all.

My father always said, "Nothing worse than a woman scorned".

[bunnies]

33. self delete: responded to wrong post

[liberalnurse]

35. Well now, I see you know your place....

You have it all figured out....congratulations.:toast:

Oh, and thank you for the clarification to the quote, I do appreciate it. My Dad, he has been gone for 10 years now.

[NewHampster]

36. I love your sig Lib

[liberalnurse]

37. It was designed by a political genius!

:thumbsup:

[NewHampster]

40. lol

I am honored

[bunnies]

41. Oy.

You and I will never agree. Im sure you see my edited post. I mashed up yours and Hampsters comments. Sorry about your Dad.

[NewHampster]

45. Oy Vey

The problem is not that we never agree it is that democrats should agree. The primaries have allowed repubs to push some dems to non-democratic thoughts and I don't like that.

Rove Rules and I hate Rove Ruling my party.

[indimuse]

83. purpose of picking their opponent..

couldn't agree more.

[Nexus7]

93. And in the southern states

I find it hard to believe that Obama is going to win the southern states in the general.
1. The repubs who voted for him in the primary will not cross-over in the general.
2. The southern strategy
3. The caucus nonsense where people have public pressure on them to vote a certain way, doesn't exist in the general.

Of course, this movement nonsense could be real, in which case it will hold up in the general, but equally likely, the repubs will have pulled off a huge strategic victory again if they win because of the 3 points above.

[NewHampster]

96. They would have suckered dems once more

nt

[emilyg]

28. Of course not.

[bunnies]

38. First of all...

I dont believe in god. And I find it really offensive that you feel the need to belittle Obama supporters that way. And for two.. I really cant pretend to know what Republicans might do.

Hampster, you and I, Living in NH, should know as well as anyone that Dem votes are not enough to win the state. Obama vs McCain is a hell of a bigger difference than exists between Hillary and her good bud John.

Don't you recognize the irony of putting up your "girl" as "the fighter" against John McCain... a man with whom she's "very close" per Bill Clinton?

The logic behind this whole argument has gotten so twisted that its nearly impossible to understand.

[NewHampster]

43. But living in NH I

like that repubs are not allowed in my primary. The general is a different story and that isn't the issue now.

I believe that most of the repubs voting in dem primaries don't give a crap about democratic issues. They just want to pick the candidate they think can be easiest to beat.

[HeraldSquare212]

67. But that doesn't answer the question - can a nominee win with just Dems

I'm guessing not, but I don't know the numbers.

[NewHampster]

70. I don't know but probably not

That has nothing to do with the primaries. This is when Democrats are supposed to choose our candidate.

Period.

[Hippo_Tron]

104. Given the incredibly small number of people that actullay vote in primaries, sure I do

Just because Obama has large support from Republicans in primaries doesn't mean that he has an incredibly huge percentage of GOP General Election voters. Given how bad Bush has in and Obama's crossover appeal I have no trouble believing that Obama will get those GOP primary voters in the GE. McCain will still get 90% of the Republican vote, though.

[LisaM]

8. But that's not the point. At issue is whether parties should choose their own candidates

Opinions vary on that, of course. I think they should (and this is not a new position for me - it's been a hot button topic in Washington state and I always come down on the side of parties choosing their own). In Washington, also, it would significantly alter the delegate count if they took the results of the primaries vs. the caucuses. The primaries make you choose a party, the caucuses didn't. The primaries also had twice as many voters (or more) and the margin was a lot closer than the caucuses. Of course, it was pre-determined that only the caucuses would count, so it might have depressed the vote somewhat, but the comparisons are interesting.

People don't generally vote as spoilers in the GE. I talked to someone who should have known better that told me she crossed party lines one year to try and get a different nominee for the Republicans (can't remember which race, darn it!)

[NewHampster]

12. Repubs should never be able to pick our candidate

I can't understand why we have these open primaries and mixed caucuses or whatever they're called. The grand daddy of primaries, my NH primary allows dems and indis to vote. That makes sense to me as Indis are needed by both parties to win, but we don't need the rethugs help.

[sampsonblk]

99. Yes. Here's how

Hillary is leading by 5 pts in the latest Pew poll. She is losing among GOPers (91-5) and Independents (50-44), but is still ahead because she wins 89% of Dems. So 89% of Dems is enough to win, assuming all the other numbers hold.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=398

[NewHampster]

102. ohh thanks for that

:)

[geek tragedy]

2. Do white Democrats count more than non-white Democrats?

If not, why bring that up?

[George_Bonanza]

29. As long as they vote for Hillary

[paulk]

52. it's important because the minority vote, while it may win you

the primaries, won't necessarily win you the general election.

[geek tragedy]

110. Democrats need the black vote to win, period.

Don't alienate them.

[babylonsister]

3. Murky stats, but she's leading. Enjoy that. nt

[PassingFair]

17. "Murky" is one word for them....

I wonder if they include "exit polls" extrapolated
by the networks in Florida and Michigan, too....

I bet they do!

They are indicative of nothing, I think.

BUT, we will see for sure on Tuesday.

[Big Blue Marble]

61. I bet those numbers also do not include caucus numbers either. n/t

[PassingFair]

62. I hadn't even THOUGHT of that!

Surely they wouldn't be THAT deceptive, would they?

:sarcasm:

[Blarch]

5. WTF ?

Obama will get the Democrats that are supporting Hillary....and then some Indys and repubs

Hillary only gets Dems.

Get it ? ...We need the Reagan Democrats, Bluedog Dems, Fence Sitters and Independents to win the GE. Obama gets these voters, Hillary doesn't.

[Liquorice]

6. I don't think it's a good idea

to take the democratic base for granted.

[Mass]

22. Sure, if the democratic base wants McCain elected, I need to move out of it NOW.

[Liquorice]

32. It's just not good politics to

take the base for granted. Of course the base doesn't want McCain, but they are not going to be motivated by a nominee that was chosen by independents and republicans. And should Obama get the presidency, those independents and republicans are going to drop away from him when things get tough. Only a strong democratic base will help us keep the WH for eight years.

[SeaLyons]

109. well said

it has long been my feeling that the republicans voting for Obama will flip to McCain in the GE.

[Blarch]

30. Then lets say 90% ...good enough ?

Anyway, welcome to DU .. :hi:

[GoreVidalIsGod]

7. PWNED.

[susankh4]

16. This is the logic that really gets me.

Because I have spent 32 years working for this party... my vote can be taken for granted? And my choice ignored?

To the preference of some new voters, indies, and crossover repugs who don't give a damn about the party. And won't give a damn about it next year.... or the next..... or the next. Still, there will be needs in the party every year. For folks like me to person phone banks, distribute mailers, drive the infirm to the polls..... on and on.

A party should choose it's own candidate. And, if there are to be crossovers from other parties, AFTER the choice is made... that is wonderful.

But, you can't throw your base under the bus to keep a few independents happy. Even less so a few repugs. The logic in that escapes me.

[LisaM]

18. A friend of mine signed up some Obama voters to go to the next level as delegates

They were quite surprised to hear that they would be representing ALL the Democratic candidates - and would be expected to work for them.

[Independent-Voter]

107. Absolutely. NO candidate wins without the indepedent/unaffilated votes going their way

Never happened. Ain't going to happen. Dems who think that HRC can win a GE without those folks in the middle are fucking idiots.

[nonconformist]

112. Don't count on it.

I know countless Democrats who are sitting out the GE, and I've even heard of a few that are voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

I'm not saying I'm doing that, and I'm not saying it's good, but that's what I'm hearing from many DEMOCRATS.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. That's Quite Interesting Actually. Thanks For That!

[BeyondGeography]

10. If we could only have a clubhouse election in the fall

she'd be our girl.

[trof]

11. Obama counters with left hook. Then works on the body.

I'm sailing.
;-)

[NewHampster]

13. ahhh Quality thinking as expected

nt

[bluestateguy]

15. Establishment voters

People who vote for whoever the party establishment and the grabby interest groups tell them to vote for. People who are oblivious to the polls showing Obama as the better bet for November (you know, the real election. The one that counts).

[NewHampster]

19. this is the one that counts

because the rethugs can't wait to get their claws into oGod

[no name no slogan]

23. Tell that to Adlai Stevenson. Or Dukakis. Or Kerry.

They won the primaries too. Fat lot of good that did them.

[NewHampster]

25. Add Obama to that list

Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Obama

[Mass]

26. All good men that would have won if the party had supported them wholeheartedly.

We can only hope that the establishment will not do the same thing to Obama.

[no name no slogan]

34. Not so fast, Karnak

This election is far from over

[Mass]

20. In the latest states, he won Democrats as well. In the early states, Clinton did not have a majority

of Democrats either, John Edwards had many of them. So these stats are largely meaningless, even if you want to ignore that these are numbers based on exit polls.

[Lucinda]

21. Thanks for posting the link.

:hi:

[NewHampster]

24. you are very welcome

:toast:

[George_Bonanza]

27. The John Edwards Factor

How would Edwards' Democrats have voted?

[NewHampster]

31. Hillary

Obama could give a crap about the poor or universal health care

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. This Edwards supporter is voting for Hillary on March 4th. Because I don't like Obama and I don't

trust him.

[NewHampster]

50. I don't trust people who ask me to

trust them. That's all I think he does.

[SammyWinstonJack]

118. That is all he does.

[democrattotheend]

39. Exit polls were not taken in caucus states, except IA and NV

So how can this number possibly be computed? It leaves out Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Maine, Nebraska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Alaska, and DC (DC was a primary, but no exit polls were conducted).

[Rock_Garden]

42. I like your bumper sticker there at the bottom. K&R!

[NewHampster]

46. Steal it

Please

[juajen]

44. Thank you so much for this. I have been looking, to no avail,

for these figures. Even if they are not exact, they prove my point made several times on one thread or another. I'm sure Obama and Hillary will have some legitimate crossover voters. However, the republicans have manipulated our elections time and time again using our inclusive large tent to worm their way in.

Now the reason for super delegates becomes clear. What they don't take account of is the "jump on the bandwagon" effect that Obama's manipulated winning is causing. I know some people have voted for him for this reason, because I know some of them. I have a large family and most of them are republicans, so I know when and why they cross over, and they all do it. Since when have true democrats trusted republicans or independents for that matter, though I do not believe they are as bad as pugs.

Look at how screwed up the state of Georgia is because of republican manipulation of the electronic voting machines. They used to have a democratic governor, democratic senators, etc., etc. We all watched as Cynthia McKinney got tossed out of her seat by another dem supported by republican cross over votes. The republicans now own that state. Doesn't it give you pause to know that Obama won in that state? Whoever won in that state, it was because the republicans wanted them to. All they had to do was mess with the machines, which they are all familiar with doing. I don't know how many cross over voters he had in Georgia, I just know that I do not trust one election coming out of that state or my state, Louisiana.

We all need to get a grip and consider how we are making our decisions. In hindsight, we probably were robbed of a candidate that could have won legitimately with real crossover appeal. Hillary has some, but not nearly as much as John Edwards. Obama robbed John Edwards because he might legitimately have taken those votes from republicans.

[NewHampster]

48. Sad but

History just keeps repeating itself and democrats never ever learn

[Cameron27]

49. K&R

[NewHampster]

51. bang

:kick:

[The River]

53. Unrecommended nt

[NewHampster]

54. why nt

[Occam Bandage]

55. Newsflash: The general election is open.

[NewHampster]

57. Bigger flash - This isn't the general

[Occam Bandage]

60. Nope. This is a primary, in which many states allow independents to vote. If you thought

that was a problem, you'd have complained about it before Hillary exposed her non-support among independents.

[NewHampster]

63. Independants are fine

NH allows them and that is fine. We do not allow rethugs to vote in our primary.

[nonconformist]

113. Newsflash: A great deal of those Republicans will vote McCain in the GE. nt

[Arkana]

56. The majority of Democrats are voting "old guard" style.

But they will also support Obama if he's the nominee.

Also, I welcome indies and disenchanted Republicans.

[NewHampster]

58. just keep believing they are "disenfranchised"

yeah, they'll all vote for Obama in November.

suckers

[Arkana]

84. Yeah, I guess you're right.

Republicans and independents are voting in droves for Obama because they actually hate his guts!

Seriously, what planet do you hail from where this is logical?

[NewHampster]

87. Planet New Hampshire

where we let Independents vote in our primary but Repubs cannot vote in our and we cannot vote in theirs.

I know many Dems suffer from Alzheimer's and can't remember that the rethugs stole the last two elections. But hey, the repubs found their new religion and no longer want to game the system. They want their once and famous second coming. They want the One, The O.

[totodeinhere]

59. Because of the complex system we have...

which includes open primaries, closed primaries, and caucuses, this type of stat is meaningless. Many of Obama's strongest states are caucus states and if those states had held primaries instead of caucuses then Obama would have probably got a lot more votes.

[Big Blue Marble]

64. Another excellent refutation of this biased article. n/t

[anonymous171]

65. That's right!

Because a majority of the democrats will vote for mccain.

[HeraldSquare212]

66. Cool. She'll be President of the Democrats, whatever that is.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

68. The Obama peeps won't listen to the facts.

[NewHampster]

72. I know but I was bored

[ElsewheresDaughter]

77. and BRAVE.....you rock!!!

:pals: :loveya: :hug:

:yourock:

[NewHampster]

80. We will never give up

Because she will never back down.

[totodeinhere]

89. Facts?

What the OP quoted is not a fact, it's nothing more than an imperfect estimate. In most states that have open primaries the only information that is released is how many votes each candidate got. They don't break it down based upon Democrat, independent, and Republican. So to get that stat the author of the article had to rely upon exit polls, and those polls are notoriously unreliable.
The only really reliable stat we have is the total number of votes reported by each state, and Obama is clearly ahead.

[NewHampster]

97. YOU want facts

You who believe in Hope? Give me facts about how Obama will bring the parties together in love.

[totodeinhere]

98. Isn't that the subject for another thread?

This thread is about whether or not Clinton has received more votes from Dems than Obama has. It's not about who "will bring the parties together in love," whatever that means.

[DemGa]

69. I've pointed out this fact and been attacked of course

When the independents and Repugs scatter -- and a large part of the base is alienated, poor Obama would be very lonely.

[NewHampster]

73. very lonely

[anonymous171]

74. Because democrats don't vote for other democrats

in general elections. Riiiiight...

[DemGa]

75. Alienating the base has its price....nt

[anonymous171]

79. Clinton dynasty does not equal the party.

[Big Blue Marble]

71. Fewer and fewer voters self-identify with a party.

That is why more states are allowing independents to participate in the primaries. If independents vote in your primary they
will also be likely to vote for your candidate in the fall. Or would you rather they stayed home?

This analysis is written with a heavy handed agenda. If Hillary were getting these votes, you and the author would not be complaining.
And are white Dems better than black Dems? What the hell is that about?

When you add in the caucas vote and subtract MI and FL, she still is ahead in Dem votes but much less significantly
C 7674328 O 7412719 difference 261,609 C 50.86% of the Dem vote O 49.13% of Dem vote.

And remember the rules of the DNC, the person with the most delegates wins regardless of who voted for these
delegates. If you think Clinton can steal the nomination with this argument, you have another think coming.

[Eric J in MN]

76. This isn't the reason for superdelegates.

If the DNC wanted to require that all 50 states have closed primaries, then it would.

[jillan]

78. The question I have is are the Repugs that are voting for him in the primary, really going to vote

for him in the GE?:shrug:

[NewHampster]

81. you don't think they all drank

the kool-aid?

[jillan]

82. Have I told you

how much I love your new sig line??

[NewHampster]

85. Please use it yourself

I've said anyone can use it.

[elixir]

86. K&R

[elixir]

88. kick

[elixir]

90. Great post, thank you.

[RBInMaine]

91. You should be dancing for joy.

A winning electoral coalition and a winning governing coalition means having the ability to work with the other side, get Independents, and even some thoughtful Republicans. This is called WINNING THE GENERAL ELECTION. Hillary Clinton would go into the general election DESPISED by half the country who would see themselves in hell before they would vote for her. Obama is running
a 50-state campaign and winning large numbers of I's and crossover R's, and that is AWESOME !
It is manifest and self-eveident that he is the better nominee.

[NewHampster]

94. It is written. It is manifest destiny

Do you people ever hear yourselves?

[Mr. Mule]

92. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH...

The local talk radio station in Houston carries Sean Hannity in the afternoons. I like to listen to it on the way to work just to see what those idiot conservatives are brewing up next. The other day he was bragging about how "we" (the republicans) have practically knocked Hillary out of the race by voting for Obama in the primaries and it was now time to concentrate on taking him down in the GE. Of coarse, you can't believe most of the crap that comes out of his mouth, but it did get my attention. Can anyone say "conspiracy theory"?

[NewHampster]

95. You don't mean that Repubs actullay

Cheat? Come on, they wouldn't really do that would they?

[workinclasszero]

100. Every single dem could vote for the candidate in the GE

and we would LOSE, if independents vote rethug.

Why cant Hillbots get this simple fact thru their heads???

Hillary loses half of the independent vote from the beginning! Maybe she splits the rest with McCain. Guess what?

America is F***ED! Can you say President McCain??

Obama draws huge numbers of independents. Hillary hardly any at all. They cant stand Hillary for the most part.

Nominate Hillary if you want to lose the GE and have 4 more years of death in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and God knows where else. Another 500 Billion or more sucked out of the american economy. Social Security, Medicare all sacrificed on the alter of the war on terra. Two years into that we should be in the 2nd Great depression and gas should be 10 bucks a gallon and a gallon of milk? 8 bucks maybe?

Health costs, insurance?? Well I figure only the very wealthy will have that. Yeah Hillary will be ok though, don't you worry about that! Hey she got 5 million out of her bank account to save her campaign right? No money problems for Hillary!

And then she'll come back in 2012 and do it all over again!

What a ****** nightmare!

[NewHampster]

101. We're talking about Repubs not the Indis

why can't you get that fact through your head?

Republicans trick elections. They steal elections.

No wait, I'm sorry. They are angels who love the O.

[avrdream]

103. Hey! Haven't seen you in a while.

Thanks for posting this information.

Very interesting. I suspect most Repubs will go back to McCain in the GE. The Independants would be hard to predict but McCain has a decent history with them. I'm not sure how good this is for Barry.

[Demagitator]

105. Exactly....

and the only reason why the Repukes are voting for Obama, is because they want to run against him, rather then Hillary. I think it is called strategic voting. They did it in the 2000 election, by using the media to make Moore into a great liberal, and have him support Nader to take away Gore votes in swing states.

[LWolf]

106. It looks like

way too many Democrats, as well as Obama, value republican votes more than those from their own party. :shrug:

[NewHampster]

108. It's called

anything to win the nomination.

[LWolf]

116. I want to REALLY win.

A REAL win is putting someone into office who will do the job I want done.

I haven't won anything by helping to put someone in office who won't do that job.

[nonconformist]

114. Yep, and that, above all things, DISGUSTS ME. nt

[nonconformist]

111. THANKS for this. I've been saying this all along. nt

[ProSense]

115. This is numbers crunching spin. Obama has won every category of Democrats for the past several

primaries

The reality is that she is not leading among Dems, Obama is getting their votes in significantly higher numbers.

[goodgd_yall]

117. Will Obama's non-Democrat supporters also vote for Democrats for Congress?

This is my worry. The crossover Republicans and independents help get Obama elected President. How are these people going to vote in the congressional races? If Obama doesn't have a Democratic majority to work with, he is not going to be able to pass the change everybody's believing in.