Clinton - "there’s a pattern emerging here" Posted by: McQ
on Thursday, May 08, 2008
Yes there is, and I want it noted that it is a pattern among Democratic voters.
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
As an aside, I've always loved the characterization that blue-collar workers are the only "hard-working" Americans (that's who Clinton appeals too and is talking about).
It should be obvious that there has indeed been a continuing trend in voting in these primaries if you believe the exit polls. Clinton has picked up higher and higher percentages of white votes and Obama had 90% lock on the black vote.
Now, some would like to claim (and they will), that there is a certain level of the "Limbaugh effect" going on for Clinton. Perhaps. But the trend began establishing itself before Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" was ever declared. And it accelerated after the Wright debacle. I'll leave it to you to decide if the shift of white Democratic voters toward Clinton is a matter of race or questions about Obama's character, but another rising exit poll statistic are those Clinton voters who declare they won't vote for Obama (and would instead vote for McCain).
Yes, it's May and such claims are easy to make, but it has to make the kingmakers in the Democratic party a little nervous anyway. And, of course, Democrats don't want to hear these points couched in racial terms:
Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."
And everyone also knows the race of those she's talking about, whether they'll admit it or not.
Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."
However, he said her primary support doesn't prove she's more electable. Either Democrat will get "the vast majority" of the other's primary election votes in a general election, he said.
I mostly agree with the caveat that the "vast majority", in a tight race, may not be good enough. Of course, while the polls say now it may be a tight race, we really won't know until the Democratic nominee is named and the electorate is more focused. But this has to be - in an election year everyone predicted would see the Democratic nominee waltz into the White House - of concern to the party.
The problem is that Obama is not just a candidate who is black or half-black, it’s that he attends a black liberation theology church, where Jesus is black and whites are the enemy. When Obama was young, his hero was Malcolm X; when he was an adult, it was Rev. Wright, who attacks whites—as "a world in need driven by white folks greed," the first sermon that Obama heard and so moved him that he joined Wright’s church and used the sermon title for Obama’s second book.
Obama’s prejudices against whites leak out in his memoir, his Philadelphia speech, his remarks about whites clinging to guns and religion, and "typical white person."
Should anyone be surprised that more and more whites will realize this and not vote for Obama? And, yeah, sure it will be called racism when they don’t.
Even if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination through some Ickesian chicanery she will go into the general election low on funds and without the support of the black voters who Democrats usually take for granted.
Obama has his own set of problems. His base is composed of the "Deaniacs" from 2004, who managed to convince willing believers in the press that they represented a new force in American politics by making a lot of noise in the nutroots echo chamber. Later it was revealed that their actual numbers were insignificant even in terms of the Democratic primaries, never mind the general electorate.
The long primary has prevented Obama from tacking toward the center, as all Presidential candidates must do. He has had to keep his sails trimmed to maintain the propulsion of all that wind from the nutrootosphere. The same Left-wing traits that endear him to that miniscule nutroot demographic will prevent him from tapping the much larger vein of cross-over Republican and Blue-dog Democrat voters in the general election. His only hope is that these voters become so disillusioned that they stay home, rather than vote for McCain.
buenos diaz! super tuesday was 2/5. the pill popping whore monger formally launched operation chaos on 2/29. since obama cleaned up on super tuesday it’s not exactly true to say the obama slide started well before then.
relax amigos, you’re going to love having a brown-skinned muchacho as your new fearless leader.
Sure it’s a concern, but really how amny of the folks arround here were never, ever, ever going to vote for McCain? And then they realized that in November he’s going to be running against a democrat, and came back to the fold.
Is the fact that 20% of republican primary voters are still coming to the polls just to cast protest votes against McCain when he has no opponents a concern? My guess is not really, they’ll come back just like the Democrats will. I’d be much more concerned about the difference in party ID of newly registered voters, and turnout. If, of course, I was actually concerned about Republican chances in November.
I’d be much more concerned about the difference in party ID of newly registered voters, and turnout. If, of course, I was actually concerned about Republican chances in November.
A reasonable point, Retief. Here’s an interesting bit from another blog a month ago:
So who has the winning hand? The new Dem Democracy Corps poll is revealing in this regard.
Like most other polls, the Democracy Corps poll does indicate that the generic GOP brand has fallen out of favor and more folks choose a generic Democrat over a generic Republican for President.
However, when the poll asks voters to choose between actual people for President, 12% of those who nominally support a generic Dem for President reject the real life Dem contenders Obama and Clinton in favor of the real life GOP nominee McCain, giving McCain a lead over both Obama and Clinton. The Democracy Corps pollsters call these swing voters "Wanna Ds." Citizen Pampleteer
Democrats face the problem that however much Americans want change, the primaries have yielded two deeply flawed candidates unattractive to Americans in the center who have become Dems recently (not including new young voters, of course.)
Hillary loses the popular vote to McCain by .2% but wins the presidency in the Electoral College by a similarly slim margin.
Obama loses the popular vote to McCain by a whopping 10% and gets creamed in the Electoral College by a sizeable margin.
Difference: Hillary can win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, while Obama loses in those three swing states, but also has the capacity to lose New Jersey, New York, a couple of Midwestern states, and more.
The Clintons have always played themselves toward the middle and had some serious bona fides to make that look legit (e.g., the Democratic Leadership Council).
Obama has radical Left protrusions sticking out all over the place. His problem is that he has tried to play to the middle without any more bona fides than "I’m tellin’ you."
Hillary was a bit of drag on Bill in ’92, but Michelle Obama makes Teresa Heinz Kerry look like a member of the DAR.
My attitude: I gag at the idea of McCain being a Republican president (I gag at him being the Republican nominee), but if Obama is what the Democrats really want, then he could help the Republicans succeed in Congressional and Senate races where they ain’t supposed to this year, because McCain will win in a blowout.
My concern about Obama has always been what his nomination will do to race relations in this country, which will be to set them back 50 years, or more.
I was particularly impressed with Michelle Obama’s comments the other day about how "they" are out to take this nomination away from Barack by "moving the bar."
It’s as though she thinks that he is owed the nomination and the presidency because she’s unhappy about her life as a graduate of Princeton and Harvard and an income beneficiary of his political influence.
My bet: the Clintons have a hole card that they still haven’t played. I think I’ve said this here before: I won’t believe that they are out of it until Obama is actually nominated on the floor of the convention, and even then I can see something happening. If the Clintons don’t have a hole card, they are surely still in search of one. If she is dropping hints that she would accept the VP nomination, knowing the Clintons, it’s either because they believe that they can still find a way to force him out after the convention, or because they want to play toward "healing" while they wait for their hole card to get played minus their fingerprints, or both.
And in my own defense for suggesting this backroom, back-alley knife-fight scenario, which I’ve subscribed to all along, I think that anyone who buys into the conventional MSM narrative about how this is the end of the road for the Clintons and the ascension of Obama is being naive. That same narrative declared her out of it two months ago. I think that the Clintons are awful and ruinous. I think that the Obamas are even worse. And I think that the Democrats are getting worse by the second: they’ve now managed to take everything bad that they ever were and bring it all together at once and make it even more destructive through that synergy.
And that is made possible by the stumbling fools of the Republican Party.
Martin — I too find the prospect of an Obama presidency alarming, but I must say I’m spooked by how quickly Obama recovered from the most recent Wright display. He came close to beating Hillary in Indiana. His Rasmussen numbers are back up and he’s ahead of McCain again.
Reportedly, Obama’s supporters are sitting on Wright to keep the pastor out of disaster. And it’s hard to get around all the advantages the Dems have going for them in this cycle.
Plus, Obama has such a huge physical advantages: height, youth, looks, and hair. He sounds great when he speaks, and if one is at all susceptible, he feels good and trustworthy.
Now maybe the Republican party and the 527s can reframe Obama into a hard left, black power, inexperienced dreamer running a populist con. If so, Obama will lose by big numbers. But I don’t think that will be easy.
I think that Obama is a heavily damaged candidate already, and that he can be beaten like a drum in the general election campaign, for cause.
I’d rate him worse than Dukakis, better than McGovern.
The Wright problem is bottomless regardless of whether the preacher says another word. He’s already said all that he has to say.
The Ayers problem, which I’ve had my doubts about, appears to be gaining on the horizon, and is probably a feature presention from the Clintons to superdelegates at this point.
Plus, Obama’s "gains" have been blacks voting on racial lines. That’s kept him functional as a candidate in states with a high percentage of black voters. In a general election there is certainly going to be a higher black turnout, but Democrats already get most black voters (90%). He also has the nutjob base. That gets him to about 30% in the general and I think he struggles to get to 45% (which is why I said that was a "best case" for him).
The precision with which a variety of negative adds could be placed in swing, and potential swing, states tells me that unless the McCain people want to lose, they can’t. And that’s before anyone digs a little deeper into Obama’s background.
Well, Obama can stand over McCain all he wants and voters can hear about how McCain can’t lift his arms above chest high because of the torture he received at the Hanoi Hilton.
RFK, by the way, was not as big a deal in life as he became in death, other than to highly impressionable Democrats. (My Dad among them, but only on the strength of a personal handskake and compliment.) Back in those day, the idea of RFK taking advantage of JFK’s legacy was looked upon with suspicion. RFK was also effeminate, and that wasn’t a big seller in 1968.
Gore and Kerry were not appealing, but neither attended a racist church where "white people" (or black people) are the devil. Kerry got hammered on something he did 34 years earlier; Obama has his own present tense to account for.
And who can say where Nader voters would have landed in 2000, perhaps with Buchanan, or Bush, or nowhere. Remember that there were Nader voters in the first place because the Clintons had sold out to corporations. Buchanan had the hardest line against corporations of all the candidates and in fact spoke favorably of Nader’s position. On that question they were allies.
Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
She’s certainly proving her willingness to grasp any straw and say absolutely anything to keep that ever-receding chance at the nomination from slipping entirely away.
But in private, deep down where she really lives, you know she knows it’s over. (Warning: Der Rodham’s characterizations of voters and everyone else more candid and less work-safe than those quoted above.)
So Clinton thinks the democrat voters are racists? The blacks and latté Liberals will all vote for Obama because he’s black and the white union members and rank & file democrats will vote for her because she’s white? If I were a democrat, I would be very insulted.
I agree with Martin. There is another shoe to drop right before the convention. Hillary is just too smug and cheerful about her chances. It may be another pseudo-religious problem or a link to the New Black Panther Party. Rezko’s trial could end up having Obama indicted or it could expose an Iraqi source of some of his campaign cash. As a "civil rights" lawyer in Chicago he was involved with ACORN - a shady democrat voter registration organization. It could be a Kenyan connection. She’s got something on him.
Given that there is not much difference in Obama and Clinton’s platforms, it’s clear that blacks are voting for Obama because he’s black. Otherwise there is no way for Obama to carry 90%+ of the black vote.
There is no question either, however clumsily Clinton worded it, that Obama has been losing ground among working class whites in general and among whites without college education in IN and NC.
If Obama’s campaign continues to racialize, it is a big red flag. If 60% of whites vote against Obama in November—as they did in IN and NC—Obama will have a very tough, maybe impossible, job of winning. It will depend very much on Hispanics and to a lesser extent Asians. Hispanics usually line up for the Democrats, but with a black candidate it’s hard to say. The tensions between blacks and Hispanics are high. Hispanics voted 2:1 for Hillary in the last two primaries. But against McCain, a Republican, again it’s hard to say.
Asians went 3:1 against Obama in the last two primaries.