On the Myth that Obama is Un-electable

[Time for change]

Electability is always a concern in the choosing of a party’s nominee for President. But this year, the amount of talk about the “electability” of the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee has been quite exceptional, if not unprecedented.

Every Obama loss and every Obama win has been subject to microscopic inspection of voter demographics that might affect Barack Obama’s “electability”. For a candidate who has prevailed in a very tough presidential nomination fight over 7 other Democratic candidates, despite being subject to a great number of attacks based on trivialities, and whose campaign has raised record breaking amounts of cash primarily among small donors, the amount of time and print devoted to this subject is quite extraordinary. Hillary Clinton’s recent statement that she won the last two primary states (North Carolina and Indiana) among white voters without a college education (oh, I almost forgot – “hard-working” too) is just the last in a long series of such arguments.

Much of this, of course, can simply be attributed to pure political calculation. Candidates always try to spin their losses in the best light. There is nothing new about that. But we know that there is also another factor at play here, one that Obama’s opponents believe will make him especially vulnerable to assessments of the demographic composition of the electorate that votes for him: As our first black candidate for President who has more than an even shot at being the nominee of one of our two major parties, many of his opponents believe that discussion of his voters’ demographics will stir up latent racism in our country and thereby derail his campaign.

Let’s take a look at some of the arguments against Obama’s electability.


Race

Race is the most frequently used argument against Obama’s electability. Whenever he has won more delegates than his opponents*, there is always an analysis of votes by race, and if it turns out that he lost the vote among whites (which has usually, but not always been the case), there is always a big deal made about that fact. For example, on Super Tuesday, the biggest primary day of the year, Obama lost the white vote to Clinton by 52% to 43%, despite the fact that he won the most total votes and delegates.

The most important and obvious reason why appeal to the racial composition of the Obama vote is a poor argument for his so-called “un-electability” is that our country is not solely made up of white people. To repeatedly refer to one’s loss of the white vote as an argument against a candidate’s electability is clearly tantamount to an argument that non-white voters are more important than other voters.

In one very minor sense, that argument has some validity. White voters do in fact include a good majority of our electorate. But if a candidate wins election after election despite often losing the white vote, that simply means that he has won a large enough majority of other voters to make up for a relatively slim loss among white voters. That in fact is exactly what Obama has done.

As I said, there is generally nothing wrong with a candidate or his/her supporters trying to spin a loss in the most favorable terms. But when that spinning is done along racial lines, as it has so frequently been done to Obama, the clear implication is that black voters don’t count as much as white voters. That kind of thing serves to divide our Party and our country along racial lines, and that is the last thing either our country or our Party needs.

And finally, it should be noted that Bill Clinton never won the white vote in a presidential election, receiving less white votes in 1992 than George Bush Sr. and less white votes in 1996 than Bob Dole, with only 39% of the white vote in both elections. As a matter of fact, the last time a Democratic candidate for President won the white vote was 1964, 44 years ago. Has any Democrat ever complained that Bill Clinton’s failure to carry the white vote made him “unelectable”?


* Obama has thus far won more delegates than Clinton in 28 states, compared to 13 for Clinton, with two ties (NH and MO), two invalid elections (FL and MI) and 5 states yet to vote.


Education and elitism

Another demographic factor that Obama’s opponents often refer to is the fact that his voters are more likely to have a college education than Clinton voters. The implication that this observation always accompanies is that Obama voters, and Obama himself, are “elite”.

“Elite” is a favorite code word and talking point for Republicans. Since the Republican Party is the party that caters to the rich and powerful, at the expense of other Americans, they need distractions to win elections. Referring to Democrats as “elites” is one of their most frequently practiced distractions. It is often an effective strategy because it not only brands their opponents, but it takes voters’ minds off of the question of which Party really is the one that benefits the rich and powerful.

Pinning the “elite” label on Obama has become great sport this election season, and it has reached ridiculous proportions. Consider Chris Matthews, for example. He recently used Obama’s poor bowling skills, as will as an incident where Obama ordered orange juice from a diner instead of coffee, to paint Obama as an “elite”. In an interview with Claire McCaskill, Matthews had this to say about Obama not being a “regular guy”:

Let me ask you about how he – how’s he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?

As in the case of the racial analysis of Obama’s voters, the educational analysis of his voters is supposed to imply not only that Obama is “elite”, but also that educated voters are less important than uneducated voters. How could anyone imply that the vote of an educated voter is less important than the vote of an uneducated voter? If anything, it seems to me that educated voters will usually be more informed about important issues than uneducated voters, and therefore better equipped to make an informed decision. I would not use that fact to claim that college educated voters should have more votes in elections than voters without a college education. But to imply that uneducated voters are more important than educated voters seems absurd no matter what slant is put on it.


The “big state” argument

Obama’s opponents have also often pointed out that he can’t win the “big states” that are so important in presidential elections today. That argument is absurd for many of the same reasons that the above mentioned arguments are absurd.

Our presidential elections include big states, middle sized states, and small states. Victory does not go to the candidate who wins the most big states, but rather to the one who wins the biggest combination of big states, middle sized states, and small states, weighted for the electoral votes that they have. With five states left to go, none which is particularly big, Obama has a sizable delegate lead in the combination of 43 states that have already been decided (regardless of what happens in Florida or Michigan).

If one had to choose in the matter, small states are actually more important in our presidential elections than big states, on a population basis, since they carry far more electoral votes per population than do big states. I’m not saying that that’s the way it should be, but it is the reality that we’re faced with.

Anyhow, it isn’t the size of the state that matters the most with respect to primary wins, rather it’s the competitiveness of the state for the general election. So let’s take a look at how that plays out:

According to one mainstream analysis, titled “Electoral Map Favors a Democrat, Has McCain Playing Defense”, there will be approximately 14 swing states this year, including 8 that Bush won in 2004 (NM, NV, CO, IA, MO, VA, OH, FL) and 6 that Kerry won (NH, PA, OR, MI, MN, WI). Of those 14 states, Obama won the popular vote in 6 (VA, WI, MN, MO, CO, IA) and appears ready to win one more (OR), totaling 67 electoral votes; Clinton won the popular vote in 5 of those states (NV, NH, OH, PA, NM), totaling 55 electoral votes; and two of the states (MI, FL) have not had elections according to the DNC rules. Clinton’s victories in 3 of those 5 states were razor thin (NV, NH, NM), such that she didn’t even carry a majority of delegates in two of them, while Obama’s victory was razor thin in only one of those that he won (MO). For those who would say that Clinton won Michigan and Florida, that’s somewhat of a specious argument, since all candidates agreed that those states wouldn’t count because they didn’t follow the rules, Obama consequently didn’t campaign in either state, and he wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.


The bottom line

The bottom line is NOT who wins what demographic groups. The bottom line is who can win enough combinations of demographic groups to win an election against John McCain. So let’s take a look at how Obama fares in that regard:

Two electoral analyses that came out around the beginning of March of this year showed Obama beating McCain by 280-258 (229-123 not counting states with borderline margins) in one analysis and 309-229 in the other analysis. But that was before all the controversy arose regarding Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright and Obama’s comments about some Americans feeling “bitter” about their current situation.

The above noted results appear to be the most recent 50 state electoral vote analyses. National popular vote polls generally provide a very good approximation of electoral victories, since we have never had a two party election (i.e. an election where only two candidates won electoral votes) where a candidate won the popular vote by more than 1% and yet lost the election in the Electoral College*. So let’s take at popular vote estimations in the most recent national polls – those that have been taken this month:

Obama vs. McCain in national polls – May 2008
Hotline FD – Obama + 4
CBS News/NY Times – Obama + 11
Today/Gallup – McCain + 1
Ipsos – Obama + 4
LA Times Bloomberg – Obama + 6
Rasmussen – Obama + 1
Gallup – Obama +3
Average of 7 above polls – Obama + 4

So Obama has won 6 of the most recent 7 national polls against McCain. That being said, three additional points need to be made about these polls. First, the sample size for the 7 polls combined is plenty large enough that the 4% Obama average lead is far above the margin of error. Second, if he wins the popular vote over McCain by 4% on Election Day there is virtually no chance that McCain would prevail in the Electoral College. And third, these polls include ALL demographic groups, roughly in proportion to their prevalence among actual voters.

Thus, no matter how you slice or spin the demographics, Obama is currently the choice of far more Americans than is McCain – notwithstanding all the attacks that he has recently had to put up with. His lead over McCain is getting larger. And his demonstrated record fund raising capabilities predict that he will have substantially more money than McCain to spend on the summer and fall campaign.

Sure, it’s quite possible that this could all change between now and Election Day. But attempts to spin Obama as “unelectable” have no basis whatsoever in the reality of Obama’s performance, the demographics of his Democratic primary wins and losses, or current national or state polls of head to head competition against John McCain. Rather, they are nothing but cynical and subtle but barely disguised predictions that racism will overcome the American electorate to defeat Obama this fall.


* In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote with 41%, compared to 31% for his nearest competitor, but since four candidates split the electoral vote, the contest went to the U.S. House of Representatives (in accordance with our Constitution), which voted John Quincy Adams into the Presidency. In 1876, Samuel Tilden lost the Presidency (by one electoral vote) to Rutherford Hayes, despite winning the popular vote by 3%. However, that was because a special commission awarded Hayes the electoral votes of three states that he hadn’t officially won, while leaving the popular vote as it was (in favor of Tilden) in those states. In 1888 Grover Cleveland lost the Presidency to Benjamin Harrison despite winning the popular vote by 0.8%. And in 2000 Al Gore lost the Presidency to George W. Bush (by a 5-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court) despite winning the popular vote by 0.5%.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Interesting work - thanks! The "demographic combo" bit - the central point - is plausible.

[papau]

75. combinations of demographic groups' the game-but state polls the indicator -and Obama w/o Hill loses

[CitizenLeft]

2. excellent analysis!

Thank you. :applause:

[Time for change]

66. Thank you.

[NJSecularist]

3. Obama won't be running against a formidable 3rd party candidate like Clinton did.

He was the last Democrat since LBJ to come within 5 points of winning the white vote.

[Time for change]

15. My statement about Bill Clinton not winning the white vote was not meant as a criticism of him

The point I was making is that Democrats do not have to win the white vote to be electable. The electorate is not made up only of white voters. They are obviously an important demographic because of their numbers, but they are not the only ones. There is no single demographic that has to be won by any candidate to be electable. It is the whole electorate together that has to be won, not specific portions of it that are cherry picked by one's opponent.

And anyhow, the presence of Perot in the race didn't hurt him against Bush or Dole.

[bhikkhu]

4. Obama vs. McCain polls are very encouraging

and have been for some time, even as Obama has been hit with all the negatives. I think once the GE campaign is in full swing the picture will look even better.

I think myself that racism will not play much of a role, but that is something of a leap of faith based upon my experiences with people. I am more worried about vote-tampering myself, the bitter aftertaste of the last two presidential elections.

[Useful Idiot]

33. Obama vs. McCain polls are very encouraging? Really?

47% to 43% is pretty much a statistical tie and the "bradley effect" must be considered. With states like California, OH, PA, Mich, NJ, and FL in play this general election cycle and the chinks that have appeared in O's armour the last few months an O vs Mcnasty match-up does not look all that promising from my perspective. It will look even less so for many voters over the next few weeks when Obama will be forced to run the gauntlet with possible 20+ losses to the Hilda-beast looming in WV, KY and PR.

Politics is about perception not fact. Deserved or not the perception is that O is elitist: "To know me is to love me"? "typical white person"?
"rural voter cling to guns and religion"? talk seems to belie an arrogance bordering on hubris.

[Time for change]

40. To the extent that he is perceived as an "elitist"

It's because of people like you who go around spreading that idiocy to make your political points. Just because right wing idiots repeat that stuff over and over again doesn't mean it's true. The only thing you people know how to do is personal attacks. Don't talk about issues -- wouldn't want people to judge this election on the issues.

[roseBudd]

77. Politics is about perception not fact. Deserved or not the perception is that HC is dishonest

[Time for change]

45. I agree they are very encouraging

And they're on the rise. :thumbsup:

Can you imagine McCain trying to debate Obama? That should be worth a few points.

I too am worried about vote tampering. I didn't discuss it in this post, but it certainly is something that needs to be kept in mind.

[unc70]

5. You have not included the primary Repub attack lines

The Repubs have been attacking him at other points. They are building their case using Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, etc to paint Obama as a commie radical who is part of the corruption of Chicago. They are painting him as a fraud who lies about his past, his associates, and who is behind him.

Each stage, each story that defines him is being fact checked. Watch as his mother from Kansas becomes a Marxist from Seattle. Watch a new kind of politician morph into the oldest type of pol as part of Chicago machine politics.

[iconicgnom]

14. links for that? or are you just echoing a repug slur

"Watch as his mother from Kansas becomes a Marxist from Seattle."

OK, show us. Or explain yourself.

[unc70]

31. This is the Repub attack, with a basis in fact. Here are links:

Recent articles such as this discuss that his mother, while born in Kansas, spent her middle and high school years near Seattle and much more liberal than she was portrayed.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0703270151mar27,0,5157609.story

There are several MSM articles like this to support the basis of the Repub attacks.

Now, to see how it is being used, try searching on "obama mercer island marxist" (or marxist->marx).

Then search on Obama's apparent mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, and add him to the mix.

Do you want more links or is this enough?

[iconicgnom]

50. Thanks for the link to the glowing report on O's mother!

however, the Repug attack line that you echo is shallow and totally baseless bullshit.

[abbiehoff]

62. Republican attacks are ALWAYS baseless bullshit ...

The swiftboaters were lying through their teeth, but I knew lots of people who were swayed by their story.

[unc70]

64. It doesn't matter if you or I think the attack is shallow or baseless

What will matter is whether enough people will believe it and vote for McCain. Remember that the RW were able to take down Kerry with a lot less to work with than they have with Obama. That one example search will return over 60k hits. There are a bunch of other attack line that they have been using for a couple of months now. If we don't treat these attacks seriously, we risk a repeat of 2004 or 2000.

[Time for change]

59. Republican attack lines are a part of EVERY presidential campaign

So, what does that have to do with his electability in particular, compared to the electability of any Democratic candidate?

[unc70]

65. It is a warning about over-confidence concerning Obama over McCain

Too many people at DU and elsewhere don't believe that these attacks will be effective against Obama. We have seen what the attacks on Clinton would look like, having seen them before. The RW is just now rolling out their attacks on Obama. Rev. Wright is just a small sample of what is already in view; we don't know what the RW is saving for later. Whatever it is, no one should take these attacks lightly.

[Time for change]

70. I don't take them lightly, nor should anyone else

But they certainly don't make an argument for Obama being "unelectable" -- which I guess is one reason I didn't discuss them in this OP.

[unc70]

74. Maybe not UNelectable, just NOT EASILY electable

I do not believe that Obama is unelectable (or Clinton either or Edwards if he had been our nominee, but those are a different discussion).

I do think that Obama will be much harder to elect than his strongest supporters claim and harder than it should be. I supported Edwards and I will work hard for our nominee (most likely Obama). But I have no illusions that it will be easy. Many of the problems on the horizon are the result of Obama having manipulated his life story back when he wrote Dreams and of him not being challenged on those details during the primaries.

If we screw up again and let McCain win, my being pissed off at Obama and his supporters would not matter; having McCain appoint justices to the Supreme Court would be devastating.

[kentuck]

6. This is good info !

"According to one mainstream analysis, titled “Electoral Map Favors a Democrat, Has McCain Playing Defense”, there will be approximately 14 swing states this year, including 8 that Bush won in 2004 (NM, NV, CO, IA, MO, VA, OH, FL) and 6 that Kerry won (NH, PA, OR, MI, MN, WI). Of those 14 states, Obama won the popular vote in 6 (VA, WI, MN, MO, CO, IA) and appears ready to win one more (OR), totaling 67 electoral votes; Clinton won the popular vote in 5 of those states (NV, NH, OH, PA, NM), totaling 55 electoral votes; and two of the states (MI, FL) have not had elections according to the DNC rules. Clinton’s victories in 3 of those 5 states were razor thin (NV, NH, NM), such that she didn’t even carry a majority of delegates in two of them, while Obama’s victory was razor thin in only one of those that he won (MO). For those who would say that Clinton won Michigan and Florida, that’s somewhat of a specious argument, since all candidates agreed that those states wouldn’t count because they didn’t follow the rules, Obama consequently didn’t campaign in either state, and he wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan."

[Obamamaniac_25]

7. Obama will flip a number of red states

Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada with an outside shot of flipping Virginia. I believe Quinnipiac had him up 2 points in their latest Ohio poll. So, Obama will carry 4-5 red states at a minimum.

[ericgtr]

8. How can one claim that the person who beat them is unelectable?

will someone please help me understand that?

[BzaDem]

9. Sure. It's quite simple.

The electorate in a primary is different in the general electorate.

For example, McGovern and Mondale won the primaries. Both lost the GE 49 states to 1.

Dukakis won the primary. He lost the GE 40 states to 10.

[ericgtr]

10. Oh I see.. so no matter how the people vote they should be discounted

very democratic system you have there. BTW Hillary is much more like Dukakis than Obama, picture Hillary on the tarmac over and over again, it would make Dukakis in the tank look like childs play.

[roseBudd]

78. Snipergate, by Hillary's own big embellising mouth made herself unelectable

[Kool Kitty]

60. If that's the case,

why the hell do we bother with primaries?

[Useful Idiot]

35. I will help you

First off no one has beaten anybody at this point.

But here is the problem: The hardcore base of the Democratic party is politically to the left of most Americans, some would argue far to the left. Just because Obama might (prob will) win the Democratic nomination does not mean he will make a very good general election candidate-Its apples and oranges. The general electorate has seen this make and model from the Dem's before: highly intelligent, liberal, a perception of being somewhat elitist in Mcgovern, Mondale,Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. Time and again it is rejected. Pandering to the fringe is how you secure a DEM/REP nomination to be president, moving to the center come general election time is how you become President. Many have serious questions about Obama's ability to do that as effectively as Clinton or McCain can.

[satireV]

11. Electoral College polls are much more illustrative than national polls.

Clinton v McCain
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May08.html
May 08 Electoral Votes: Clinton 291 McCain 247


Obama v McCain
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May08.html
May 08 Electoral Votes: Obama 264 McCain 263 Ties 11

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. They aren't all that illustrative in May, though.

[Time for change]

23. They are not

Electoral maps are typically outdated because it is difficult to survey a large number of states over a short period of time. For example, notice that the last polls taken in VA, OH, and FL give very slight leads to McCain, and all were taken in April. Obama has picked up about 4 points nationally over McCain since then, as demonstrated by a whole series of recent polls. A 4% rise in national polling means on average a 4% rise in every state. That would put Obama ahead in Florida and Ohio and make Virginia about tied, which would put a whole new slant on the electoral distribution.

[Carrieyazel]

72. Why is Indiana tied?? That I don't get. It should be a lock for the other side.

Then, this result is 274-264, McCain in front.

[Triana]

12. Fantastic work! Bookmarking. Thank you. K & R. n/t

[KSinTX]

13. Comprehensive take on the GE - K & R

[Perry Logan]

16. The Obamites' charges of racism against Hillary and her supporters could be fatal.

Would YOU vote for someone whose supporters have called your candidate, her family, and her supporters racists and scoundrels?

I didn't know Democrats could be so low.

[Time for change]

17. This post wasn't directed against any specific person or group

But let me ask you something. Do you think that it's racist to publicly rationalize an election loss by noting that you won the election among white voters?

It seems pretty clear to me.

I think that such an obvious appeal to racism needs to be called for what it is.

Would I vote for someone whose supporters called me racist? I think that I vote mostly on the candidate, rather than the candidate's supporters.

[satireV]

25. Would you vote for a race baiter?

Obama's "Race Memo" is a fact.

[Time for change]

26. Yeah, and Obama didn't write it

One of his staff wrote it, and he was unhappy with it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/17/obama-unhappy-with-aides-_n_81990.html

So, every time a Democratic candidate's staff makes a mistake, that makes him inelligible to receive our votes in the GE? Is that what you're saying? If that's the case we would never vote, period. With that attitude we can look forward to 8 more years of Bush policies.

[roseBudd]

79. No I would not vote for racially divisive The Billaries

[TBF]

19. Perry, you start your post with the perjorative term "Obamites'" (insulting supporters of Obama).

Are you not being just as "low" as other dems by doing that?

In this race I imagine there will be alot of name-calling, particularly since the anonymous internet seems to propel people to say things that they wouldn't normally say face-to-face.

I hope you will look at the issues seriously, and choose your candidate that way, rather than listening to internet rantings on either side.

[satireV]

24. Obama supporters still deny

The very existence of the "Race Memo."

That Obama watered down a nuclear energy regulatory bill for Exelon.

That Obama voted to continue funding of the Bush War on Iraq to the tune of 300 billion deficit dollars(with time line).

[EOTE]

54. Hillary supporters still deny reality by not admitting defeat.

Who gives a rat's ass about an Obama staffer who tried to play the race card?

If Hillary supporters are so desperate for popular support that their largest argument is: "We're such racist assholes we won't vote for a black man, so vote for Hillary instead!", I think they've got far greater problems to deal with than any memo.

[roseBudd]

80. Waaa! The voters don't care. How dare they not read DU!

[EOTE]

57. But what of the HRC campaign's actual racism?

Are we supposed to simply ignore that? Would you vote for a candidate who said that many of her supporters won't vote for the other guy because he's black? Would you vote for a candidate who makes such a big deal about how well she does with white voters?

On edit: I didn't realize democrats could be so hypocritical.

[TBF]

18. Thank you so much for the intensive and coherent analysis. K&R

[Gman]

20. Nice try at rationalization, but Obama remains unelectable

and the big state argument is the biggest reason. McCain will win 40 states in November mainly because Obama does not connect with the white working class. The only big states Obama will win will be New York, California who would vote for a yellow dog if it ran as a Democrat for president and Illinois . Obama will not win in the South. Obama will not win the Western states that he did well in (ok, give him Washington state and Oregon). He will win a couple of the Mid-West swing states and a couple or three New England states like Massachusets. Hispanics in New Mexico will not turn out for Obama or anywhere else. Florida is out of the question.

If Obama is already the nominee then the General Election is over too. Get used to saying President McCain.

[Time for change]

22. How do you explain the fact that the long series of national polls that have Obama leading McCain

by an average of 4% include the white working class voters who you claim he can't connect with? Either the polls are all wrong, they accidentally left out white working class voters, or Obama has enough support among other groups to make up for them.

You claim that McCain will win 40 states. That's easilty said, but you offer no evidence for that.

[Useful Idiot]

37. How do you explain the fact that national polls have Obama leading McCain ? Quite Easy !

Its called the Bradley effect.

[Time for change]

51. Don't you wish

Most experts believe that whites now respond honestly when asked whether they'll vote for a black candidate. And when it comes to willingness to vote for and elect African American candidates in a bi-racial election, the United States seems far ahead of where it was just a decade ago.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/24/white_voters/

[Gman]

41. As the quite useful Useful Idiot says

the Bradley Effect is a very likely explanation. But also, the polls are national that produce a blending. National polls are not very useful since the election is not national, but a vote of the electoral college. I've yet to see any individual state polls. Furthermore relying on national polling information in May rather than state by state results closer to the election does nothing.

[Time for change]

53. National polls are a very good guide to the vote in the Electoral College

There has never been a U.S. Presidential candidate who carried the popular vote by more than 1% and lost in the Electoral College (See my statement to that effect in the OP).

[Gman]

56. But we're all still too very well aware

of the last time it happened that the popular vote was carried and the candidate lost in the electoral college. In any event, the most recent national polls are outside of, but very close to the margin of error meaning the actuals could be somewhat different. They'll also be volatile over the next few months depending on how events unfold. Again, a national poll that shows Obama winning in May has no validity for predicting an election 6 months later. It's only a snapshot of conditions at at point in time as are all polls.

I won't take any of the polls seriously until after Labor Day.

[PuppyBismark]

27. Most Democratic white votes for HRC lost to Obama?

Huh? Just because a group prefers HRC, how many of those voters will not vote for Obama? We are discussing the Democratic Primary, not the national election. Many of these discussions seem to imply if someone voted for HRC, they will not vote for Obama in the GE. This seems to me to be flawed analysis. Where is the analysis that shows how many of HRC's voters will vote for McCain?

We have a good chance to win this election if we keep our eye on the ball and communicate what the people of the country are looking for, if we show what we will do and keep the Repubs message under control. It is not about HRC vs. Obama, but Obama vs. McCain in the GE.

:bounce: :bounce:

[Gman]

46. Many of the state primary exit polls

have said that (I want to say) probably 33% or so of HRC supporters would not vote for Obama in November. I don't have the specifics, but they're out there if you want to google.

You know, I would love to see Obama win in November. I'm "series". I just don't believe he will. I saw this kind of enthusiasm for McGovern in 72 as the anti-war candidate. In the reality of hindsight, McGovern never had a chance. I think it's the same with Obama.

[Time for change]

67. If you're sincere about your desire to see Obama win in November

then why are you so eager to tear him down?

You know, the 33% of Clinton supporters, or whatever, who say they'll vote for McCain is not the point. Those voters are all reflected in McCain-Obama polls, and Obama still comes out ahead. Many of them are probably not really Democrats anyhow. And many of the ones who are will come back once this race is over, and that will just add gravy to Obama's lead.

[Useful Idiot]

38. On the down-low but California is in Play cause McCain wont concede it so easily!

McCain is quite well known and liked in California. He has already stated that simply writing off CA is not in the cards this year and he is gonna make the Democratic candidate fight for it tooth and nail. He does not need it to win it but knows either Dem does.

I live in California and I can tell you that Hispanics for the most part are not that impressed with Obama, working class whites we already know he is not resonating with, and Asian Americans are a toss up. With a popular moderate Republican Governor working for McCain's election here and the knock down drag out nature of the Democratic race giving McCain a jump start in running a general election campaign, he has hit the ground running in California. McCain's Spanish language web sites and campaign literature, his perceived common sense approach toward immigration reform, and experience as a borderland state politician makes him very attractive to Hispanic voters.

You throw in an African-american VP choice like Rice or Powell and you've got a perfect storm brewing.

[Gman]

42. I was being generous with California

but your points are very well taken as to why Obama will struggle in California. However, I expect that being outspent by Obama, and not wanting to throw what may be good money after bad, McCain may abandon California rather soon in order to focus on where he has to win.

[Damian the LHP]

43. Sure thing.

Yes, I'm already used to the idea of "President McCain", and I have you Hillbots encouraging division in the party to thank for it. Take a bow, you miserable whiners, you're costing us the election.

By the way, try to read the journal before you screed. Thank you.

[Gman]

44. What the hell can I say to someone with only 5 posts here?

[Damian the LHP]

48. What can you say?

How about "Thank you for pointing out how wrong I was"?

Oh, wait, I forgot, since I don't have four berzillion posts, I'm obviously some stupid troll, right?

Pathetic.

[Time for change]

81. I'll say it

Thank you for pointing out how wrong he is.

And welcome to DU :toast:

[tledford]

28. THANK YOU! For pointing out FACTS amongst the SPIN!

Time for change wrote:

And finally, it should be noted that Bill Clinton never won the white vote in a presidential election, receiving less white votes in 1992 than George Bush Sr. and less white votes in 1996 than Bob Dole, with only 39% of the white vote in both elections. As a matter of fact, the last time a Democratic candidate for President won the white vote was 1964, 44 years ago. Has any Democrat ever complained that Bill Clinton’s failure to carry the white vote made him “unelectable”?

Don't confuse people with FACTS!!! :D

[Useful Idiot]

32. Flawed argument

These Democrats where all whites running against other whites-That will not be the case this year if Obama wins the nomination. It will be a very liberal Democrat with scant experience(who as you stated have not won a majority of the white vote in 40 years) and who is black , against a white moderate Republican with tons of experience.


That does not look like a very favorable match-up in a center-right country.

[Time for change]

47. McCain has tons of experience in what? War mongering you mean?

In what way has his war mongering in the Senate prepared him to be our President?

[EOTE]

49. McCain is a moderate?

Just where does the "Useful" portion of your username come in?

[Time for change]

58. I can answer that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=220271

[Time for change]

76. Bye bye

:hi:

[Time for change]

73. Thank you

It seems that a lot of people on this thread don't give a damn about facts. All they're interested in doing is tearing down the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

Only Republicans made a big deal out of Bill not winning the white vote. Too bad that some in our party think that it's ok to do that.

[iamthebandfanman]

29. there is no such thing as 'electable' n/t

[indimuse]

30. UNLESS you are allowed to Caucus in the GE...NO WAY HE COULD EVER WIN!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjBeVYvMOwc

[iamthebandfanman]

36. glad your following clinton philosphy!

the caucuses dont matter, the primaries dont matter, and the popular vote dont matter! yay@@#

life must be grand in dillusional land.

[EOTE]

55. If that's true, then Hilary couldn't win a single state this election.

So much worthless tripe I hear. HRC supporters are completely willing to reduce the chances of a Democrat winning the White House just to see their horse in the race. It's SICKENING.

[Carrieyazel]

34. Don't put too much stock in the MSM polls. They're not the ones being taken seriously

by a lot of pollsters and "independent" analysts. I heard a radio interview on Friday, in which a pollster believed that the big media polls overestimate Obama's support by a few points. He didn't explain why, but its an interesting theory.

[Time for change]

39. Then what is your take on what the real polls say?

[Carrieyazel]

68. The daily tracking polls have Obama up 1-4 points, and that's about right.

He's up +3 but not much more. He's received great coverage the past 10 days, culminating in his primary win in NC, while McCain is basically invisible. Taking that into account, he's probably only slightly ahead.

[Time for change]

69. But why do you think that the daily tracking polls are more accurate than the others?

I notice that Rasmussen routinely has Obama doing much worse than any of the other polls. What reason is there to believe that Rasmussen is the only accurate one. Doesn't it make more sense to think of that poll as an outlyer?

[Carrieyazel]

71. Mostly because they predicited the 2006 Democratic tidal wave spot on.

While the other polls significantly underestimated our strength in the midterms.

I could be putting too much importance into the tracking polls, though.

[EOTE]

52. Hillary supporters are in a very rough situation.

It seems to me that they have two choices. Choice number one is that they admit that they lost and throw their support behind Obama (we all know how well Hillary accepts defeat, are her supporters any different?).

Or, they eagerly talk about the fact that so many Hillary supporters are such asshole racists that they'd never support a black man for President, so you Obama supporters better throw your support to the winning dog.

It makes me want to vomit when I hear Hillary supporters talk about what little chances Obama has. Obama isn't the one who has the ridiculous negatives that Hillary has. Obama isn't the one that's going to have republicans just itching for a chance to vote against the bane of their existence for the past 16 years. The more I hear from Hillary supporters, the more I know I've made the right choice. There are lots of things I don't like about Obama, but Obama would do his damnedest to ensure that Hillary wins if she got the nomination. Hillary would do her damnedest to ensure his defeat. That is SICKENING.

[VotesForWomen]

61. he is BARELY winning the dem primary, fer christ's sake!!! what in the hell makes you think the rest

[Time for change]

63. Could you repeat that sentence in English?