Flash,
In a measure of comfort, Blogging Ceasar (as well as others), show the election going Obama's way (or, I suppose more accurately - the Democrats way). I think Obama's electability is dependent upon only having the focus turn to McCain's negatives. Clinton enjoys reputational largesse from her husband and that is primarily wistful nostalgia at that. She has significant (probably more significant) negatives - including the fact that knee-jerk neo-cons will show up in droves to vote against her, where they'll nearly certainly stay home against Obama.
Obama's key challenges, show he means something different, avoid looking lost in a debate or two, and focus the debate on economic and military realities, rather than on side-show idiocy. If he does that, McCain's electibility is the one that is in serious jeapordy.
Remember Flash, like you always say, a poll is just a snapshot in time. The polls showed Clinton closing the gap in North Carolina to within 4-6 points. Yet, he crushed her by 14 points. That's just one example out of many where the polls got it wrong.
Once Obama starts campaigning against McCain and Clinton voters get over their emotions and start thinking rationally, Obama will beat McCain.
It is way to early to start handicapping the election.
Today I heard on MPR that Bob Barr from Georgia a popular conservative, may run as a Libertarian,
he left the Republican party in 2006.
That isn't going to bode well for them.
Anything can happen between now and next November..
"start thinking rationally"
Comments like this is what will cause the wounds of the party to fester.
Frankly, if the party was thinking rationally to begin with, Richardson would have been the nominee months ago!
The reason I made the "thinking rationally" remark and "Clintons getting over their emotions" remark is because a Clinton supporter said pretty much the same thing to me about my support of Obama. In fact throughout the campaign I got a little tired of hearing from Clinton supporters that my support was based on emotion and not rational thinking. It goes both ways. If the shoe fits . . . .
You know, I can't deny that I'm not looking forward to the inevitable poo-flinging, back-stabbing brawl that will commence the morning after McCain is declared the winner.
But I'm wondering if you forsee this wholesale bloodletting within the Democrat party after the upcoming defeat, Flash.
Or do you think that Democrats will find some poise this time around and accept the defeat gracefully?
In any case, I'm sure that the SCOTUS will be happy to sit this one out.
I agree with Flash's assertion regarding Richardson. He's one of those candidates who would (and did) have a tougher time winning his party's nomination than winning the general election. In the general election, he'd have won the Democratic vote as well as the majority of the independent vote (including the gun-owning hunter folks) in progressive-esque Midwest swing-states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin, and his tough-guy nature would have helped immensely in rust-belt states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Plus, he's from the Southwest (including his home swing-state of New Mexico), and has high positive ratings in Rocky Mountain states such as Colorado (another swing-state this time around) and...Montana (!?!).
But that was not to be, so we move on.
In doing so, Flash, and in viewing the electoral-vote numbers you provide, it seems to me that, at this early point, a Clinton/McCain match-up and an Obama/McCain match-up is a virtual tie. (Remember 1988? Dukakis led Bush by 17 points in early August, only to lose by 8 in November--look it up if you don't believe me. Things can and often do shift wildly in presidential races.)
What all of this means to me is that the Wright fiasco, lapel-pin-gate, an angry English professor who apparently lives near Senator Obama's home in Chicago, Tony Rezko, "Muslim"-gate, and those stupidly misinformed "elitist" claims have hurt Obama surprisingly little so far (particularly given the negative coverage of those events).
Meanwhile, Clinton's new political "incarnation"--let's call it "Blue-Collar, Rocky Balboa Hillary"--has helped her surprisingly little, given the far more positive coverage she's received of late (a real reversal from the poor coverage she received in February).
Given that it's early and given the history of presidential political campaign seasons past, what strikes me about those numbers you've provided is that in either match-up this is a surprisingly stable, very close race.
The only difference, I think, is that if Hillary pulls off the nomination (a long shot), her electoral map will look a lot like Gore's in 2000 and Kerry's in 2004, though she hopes that it will include an extra state or two to put her over the top. If Obama pulls off the nomination (the greater possibility), the electoral vote race should be similarly tight, but his electoral map may look like just about anything--he may struggle in Florida and Ohio (I think he'd win Pennsylvania, but others disagree with me), but he's got far better numbers than she does in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Oregon....
Clinton or Obama, it'll be close. Either of them could win against McCain, either of them could lose against McCain. But an Obama/McCain match-up would most likely provide a wild electoral ride....
Most white men won't vote for Obama
thats a given, but they wouldn't have voted for Clinton either.
Obama's votes will come from most woman and most male minorities.
It's getting them to the polls that may be hard.
Obama supporters sniping at Clinton supporters and visa versa isn't going to help in the long run.
I borrowed this (below) from a blog called alleyesonobama It does a great job of obliterating the "Most white men won't vote for Obama" myth:
"Wrought with racial tension in general, the 2008 election has shone a spotlight on the white male voters- surprisingly the sole demographic without a representative in the Democratic primary- like few contests in modern electoral history. But what seems to have become a commonly held convention among the mass media is that Barack Obama couldn't buy a white male vote; that Hillary Clinton's advantage among this cross-section of the electorate is so great as to negate any inroads Obama may have made.
Quite simply, however, Clinton's upper hand among white males is a myth.
Exit polls have shown an overwhelming amount of support for Obama among African American males. The same can't be said of Caucasians of the same gender. So far, exit polling in 30 state contests have shown that Barack Obama has performed as well or better than Clinton among white males in 15- or half- of those states. And in two additional states, Obama managed to garner enough support from white males to bring himself to within one percentage point or less of Clinton in the same category. If that's an advantage, it's a weak one at best.
Additionally, consider Obama's surprising success with white males in a number of key states. In California, for example, Obama outpaced Clinton by more than 20% in that demographic. In fact, Obama secured margins of support of 15% or more from Caucasian males in no less than eight Democratic primary contests. That's significant, especially when one takes into account the fact that a plurality of white males cast votes for Obama in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Mexico in addition to California- all states that Clinton ultimately won.
Further examination of the exit poll data reveals another intriguing detail: some of Clinton's strongest support among the group in question has come from Deep South states- like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina- where vestiges of Jim Crow and racial tensions arising from the turbulent Civil Rights period still remain. And even with support from white males there, Clinton's advantage in that particular region may essentially be neutralized by Obama's popularity among African Americans. In each of those six states, the black population exceeds the national average, in several cases by more than 100%. Plus, with the exception of Tennessee and Arkansas- where Clinton spent a decade as First Lady- Obama won every single one of those states.
Moreover, it's possible that the indicators may point to an even closer contest for white male voters- and possibly even an advantage for Obama. Exit polling was not conducted in Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming- all of which have tremendously overwhelming populations of Cauc
Continued:
Exit polling was not conducted in Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming- all of which have tremendously overwhelming populations of Caucasian males. In every single one of those 8 states, the population of white men exceeds the national average, sometime topping 90% of the state's total population. Conversely, in not one single state of those mentioned above does the African American population constitute even half of the national average. What's more- Barack Obama won each of these states by wide margins.
The same can be said of a number of the states that have yet to vote- Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana- all of which Obama is favored to win.
The simple fact is that Clinton holds no advantage whatsoever when it comes to white males, despite the consternation being brewed in upcoming states where they constitute a considerable portion of the population. But what may work toward Clinton's benefit is that the misconception could lend itself to reality: it's possible that white voters in states like Indiana and Pennsylvania might feel some sort of obligation to adhere to the candidate they're being told a majority of their particular demographic supports.
But the facts don't support that conclusion.
In the end, gender will probably be a much larger factor in measuring support for Clinton than race has ever been or will ever be. After all, it's been an tremendous turnout among Clinton's own race-gender demographic, Caucasian women, that has carried her to victory a number of times, even as Obama has won (or secured a significant portion of) the support of both Caucasian males and African Americans.
For a detailed table on the breakdown of white male support for Obama vs Clinton go to:
www.eyesonobama.com
This should help Democrats who feel uneasy about Obama's chances against White Males feel a lot better.
The white male is screwed. If they support Obama they're sexist, if they support Clinton they're racist.
Now do you see why I chose to sit this one out.
Oh, Ohhhh, Flash, you need to check your blog site security or something. I think one of Brodkorb's operatives hacked into your blog and posted an inflammatory, swifty like, comment using your name.
"and posted an inflammatory, swifty like, comment "
Which one?!? Looks like it must be gone!
The white male [Democrat] is screwed.
Republicans don't judge people by color or gender, Flash. That's a Dem thang.
Tom, Republicans also say one thing and do or practice another, That is GOP thing.
And I didn't mean 'screwed' in the sense of the outcome of the election, just that when I showed support for Hillary, I would be chastised by Obama supporters as being racists, and when I showed my support for Madia in the 3rd CD I was chastised for being sexist.
My comment was based on how I, specifically, was treated, not on how the result or outcome whould effect that demographic. In that case, if the GOoPer gets elected, we are all screwed!
Flash
I know what you meant, Flash. You were being criticised by Democrats that were projecting their own racist, mysoginistic logic upon you.
Like I said, I'm not used to experiencing that sort of thing within the GOP. When I say I do or don't support candidate X, race and gender are not the first things that leap to the minds of Republicans.
The first question is usually "What did candidate X *do* to make you support, or not to support him or her?"
I know it's hard for you to understand, it's a Republican thing.
"Like I said, I'm not used to experiencing that sort of thing within the GOP."
You must be blind cause I see it all the time from them! Do I need to start a list
Swift,
Your comment above is laughable - I write on rigthy blogs, stick to topics, and get NOTHING but personal attacks in response.
Berg, for example, when he's not wontonly insulting his critics, shifts the sand/goalposts, doesn't discuss the points, and habitually focuses on issues of no significance by way of avoiding the overall point.
Good Lord, if ANYTHING is different between righty blogs and lefty, it surely isn't facts, both get those way wrong, way too often. No, it's the personal nature of the assaults not just of the commenters to the blog (which happens in both areas), but that while there are some lefty blogs which are 'exclusionary' in their basic approach, but on the right, those that are looking to meet in the middle, to include all, are the ultra-rare exception.
I see code-speak for racist undercurrents on righty blogs virtually EVERY time I go to one of those blogs. For example, today Mitch posted a comment about anti-semitism being present - within the Anti-War Committee (AWC) as I recall - because that committee criticized the Iraelis. I wasn't surprised that Mitch pulled his data from another righty blog, a blog that couldn't let the facts speak for themselves, but instead had to invent a relationship between AWC and several pro-Arab extremist (and clearly anti-Jewish groups). No, what I was surpised by was that Mitch failed to recognize that Anti-Semitism isn't limited to anti-Jewish sentiment (of which it is typically associated), but also includes Saudi Penninsular Arabs (which includes Iraqis, Syrians, Palestinians, etc..). Mitch showed his own rather insular thinking. I think he knows semitic refers to the larger area, but he rather casually either forgot, or forgot to care.
It points to a larger reality, that you righties actually think you can 'scare' Palestinians (and other Arabs) into cooperating. It speaks to a sentiment that you basically think they're cowards - that they just need to be "shown who's boss" and they'll cower in fear. Such extraordinary hubris is exceeded only by the arrogance it also displays. The Palestinians fight the Israelis in the way the have open to them - ie.. non-traditional, guerilla warfare - which we call 'asymetrical'. Thinking ANY ethnic/cultural group are simply cowards is the basest of simpleton propoganda-like idiocy. It might have been the approach of 'some' during WWII, but it's idiotic at best, and thinking we can 'scare' people into cooperating if we're just 'tough' enough, suggests that you think the other guy simply can't handle how 'tough' we are, and they aren't. THAT is racism, through and through, and is also why the Israelis and YOUR policy pursued since 2001, has failed utterly.
BTW, the other thing about this 'we can just kill them into submission' approach - is that it's horribly barbaric, horribly murderous. How do we distinguish ourselves from those we oppose other than (wrongly) claiming we don't make war on civilians? We destroy our national credibility and ethical reputation, but I know, I know, what those damn feriners think of US doesn't matter, screw-em', kill em' if they can't take a joke.
"I see code-speak for racist undercurrents on righty blogs virtually EVERY time I go to one of those blogs."
Of course you do.
As a leftist, your world revolves around the exploitation of differences.
Race, gender, nationality, ethnicity...hell, even the car one drives; it's all fodder for the determined leftist.
It's in the very air you breath...it's impossible *not* to see it where ever you look.
'Swhat I said.
""As a leftist, your world revolves around the exploitation of differences.""
Holy Shit, are you kidding me. That is the Karl Rove primary directive, find and exploit difference, regardless if they are true or not.'
Here, we'll start with the Simple one, the Carolina Push Poll against McCain back in 2000. Something about him being the father of an African American Baby. Yeah, you are a riot!
Sheesh, Tom, I know the polls numbers kind of suck for you guys right now, but you are so desperate you are trying to place you own parties problems and trying to tie them to the Dems. I think you need a vacation to clear your head. That is the only way you can possible win, take over the Democratic Platform and try to pin your on them. Good luck with that!
"Here, we'll start with the Simple one, the Carolina Push Poll against McCain back in 2000. Something about him being the father of an African American Baby."
And now he is the next Republican President of the US. Imagine that.
Meanwhile, white Democrat males are screwed because their ilk are flinging racist, mysoginist poo at them no matter what they do...right, Flash? Isn't that what you said?
Like I said; Republicans reject labeling people based upon anything other than their actions.
"Isn't that what you said?"
No, that wasn't what I meant, and I even clarified.
"Like I said; Republicans reject labeling people based upon anything other than their actions."
And that is a bold faced lie, which is typical of you and your ilk. Now, they CLAIM to, but their actions, as is usually the case, the exact opposite of their words.
Say, Flash?
Ever heard of the Republican "Feminist caucus"?
How 'bout the Republican "black caucus", or the Republican "Hispanic Caucus", or the Republican caucus, or the Republican (fill in the blank) caucus?
No, you haven't.
But there is a Democrat version of all of those, and piles more.
That's because Democrats thrive on division. Their candidates need that division in order to have identifiable "communities" to pander to.
The GOP reaches out to Americans; period.
We want everyone to live whatever their version of the American dream is. We want the government to make sure Americans have every opportunity to persue happiness, and nothing more.
We don't care what color you are, where you came from or anything else that doesn't have to do with what a person *does*. It's actions we judge, Flash. Not superficial divisions.
But you go with that, it works for you.
"Ever heard of the Republican . . . caucus"
Two Words; small tent
The rest is simply rhetoric while 'your party' goes out of their way to prohibit the very 'dreams' you claim we are pursuing. But you would have to pull your head out of the sand and actually look around with your eyes open to see it.
Flash
What a sad world some people live in..huh Flash?
When they get up in the morning the bile begins to form.
Somehow they have to find a way to get rid of it and it looks like they come here.
Keep the high ground...
No, Flash; the GOP tent is plenty big. It's not that we do not have people from disparate backgrounds, we do.
What's confusing you is the lack of room dividers, cubicles and pidgeon holes to stuff people into.
Republicans share our tent space equally, without regard for the superficial...it drives moonbats nuts, I know.
Again, Tom, words are fine, but in your case, they simply aren't true. You have the Mitch Berg disease. The one where you think just because you say something, that means it is true.
Remember your buddy Trent "this place would be better off if Strom T would have won' Lott. Sure, the politically correct denunciations crashed down on cue, but that doesn't remove the fact of the real soul of your party!
You can cherry pick the flaws in the people's party, warts and all, because it is a big tent open to all. The Teensy tent party on the Right wing of the ideological spectrum only has poll tested spin. Its cleaner that way. Unfortunately for you, even in bright red Mississippi, people start to understand and a district you won with 66% of the vote just a couple years ago you got creamed in with only 46%.
Frankly, I don't want you to understand what is happening out int he real world. Then you would be able to craft more lies and spin to try to fool them again. You just keep you head in the sand, I am fine with that!
Flash
I think Hillary can, should, and might (but probably won't) take her case to the floor of the convention in Denver -- it's increasingly clear that she might be able to defeat McCain, and that Obama won't. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/ does the best job of updating the polling, by the way, but you've got to learn to ignore the "barely" category, as it's meaningless.)
Which relieves me; I think he's a disaster in the making.
That said, I'm hoping that the Democrats come to their sense and choose Hillary.
Commenting by HaloScan
