Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

In general, as the sheen wears off Obama, I expect to see more polls like those coming out of SurveyUSA, showing Obama just as vulnerable, or even weaker, than Clinton in the general election, especially against McCain. A McCain vs Obama race would be the worst case scenario I could imagine for us. Why? Because the talky-centrists like Jonathan Alter from Newsweek and Joe Klein from Time that Obama panders too, who now come to Obama's defense to attack the progressive Krugman, would soon say: "Obama's great but he's too young and inexperienced, let's go with McCain."

I also fear the inroads to Latinos that McCain would make. He's their only candidate that isn't a wall-builder and hater toward illegal immigrants, and that would hurt Obama the most. I thought about that when I was looking at SurveyUSA's poll of New Mexico:

Clinton 49%, Giuliani 46%
Clinton 59%, Romney 44%
Clinton 49%, Huckabee 45%
McCain 48%, Clinton 45%

Giuliani 49%, Obama 44%
Romney 46%, Obama 44%
Huckabee 46%, Obama 45%
McCain 51%, Obama 40%

It's not good news for us, in what's considered the winnable southwestern states, if Obama's got a problem with Latino voters. And he does. In New Mexico, which has a big enough Latino population (35%) that we get a good sub-sample, Clinton defeats McCain 54-39 among Latinos in New Mexico, while Obama loses 45-42 among Latinos. In fact, Obama loses every single matchup precisely because he never exceeds 50% support among Latinos.

John Judis has an article up about the problem, and it's not a very comfortable read:

Over the last two decades, there has been evidence of growing hostility from Hispanics toward African Americans. Some of this hostility is the result of conflicts, or perceived conflicts, over politically controlled resources in cities and states. But as Tanya K. Hernandez, a professor of law at George Washington, has argued recently, it may also be a legacy of an older Latin American prejudice against blacks that has been transplanted to this country.

While this conflict passes largely unnoticed in the popular press, African American and Latino sociologists have been conducting extensive surveys in Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Philadelphia. These surveys have generally found that Latinos display more prejudice toward African Americans than African Americans do toward Latinos or than whites display toward African Americans. In the words of University of Houston sociologist Tatcho Mindiola, Jr. and two associates, "in general African Americans have more positive views of Hispanics than vice versa."

Judis goes on to reveal a compelling snapshot of the studies that have shown the division, with electoral data to back it up.

Given this, Judis concludes by wondering about Obama's chances:

Suppose Obama does win the nomination. Would he be hampered by Latino-black hostility in gaining the Latino vote in November 2008? Probably not, because of the Republican party's embrace of a nativist agenda that stigmatizes Latinos. But as Rudolph Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg have shown in New York mayoral contests, if in the future Republicans were to abandon their nativism and nominate centrist candidates who could court the Latino vote, they might find themselves the beneficiaries of this division.

Judis is right about the Republicans having bigger problems with Latinos, especially Romney and to a bit lesser extent Huckabee, but not McCain. Now that McCain is coming back, it becomes even more recognizable as an electability problem than the centrist pundit debacle that would happen in a Obama-McCain match-up.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, John McCain (all tags)



The Xenophobes and Fundies hate McCain

The Xenophobes and Fundies are a huge hunk of the Republican party. They both hate McCain. When the fundies had their conclave earlier in the year, John  McCain was the lowest on their list, the lowest, despite all his ass kissing of Jerry Falwell. And remember the cry of the Xenophobes, "No Amnesty!!"

by cmpnwtr 2007-12-20 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Yeah, it's true, in general Latinos hate black folks like me.

Guess we'll never be able to run a black person unless we put a stop to the inflow from south of the border.

by Bode 2007-12-20 06:59PM | 0 recs
There are so many problems

with Obama in a GE.  If he had accomplishments or something to rest on, but fancy rhetoric and a intereting bio are not enough.

by masslib1 2007-12-20 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: There are so many problems

No...Obama's problem with Latinos is purely race-based.

Let's just be up front about that.

by Bode 2007-12-20 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

So this is argument against any generic black candidate...even if they met the standards of Paul Krugman.

by Bode 2007-12-20 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: You can throw Asian-Americans as well

Like I said, it's an argument that supports not wasting our time with a black candidate.

It may be harsh, but that is the argument.

by Bode 2007-12-21 04:42AM | 0 recs
McCain vs. Obama is indeed a bad matchup.

The potential Latino problem, combined with the dramatic contrast in age and experience, is not good.

I'm not sure how well Hillary will do with Latinos either after her inability to answer the question about driver's licenses. Nothing else quite says "I'll sell you out at the first opportunity" like that exhibition in waffling did.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-20 07:06PM | 0 recs
Maybe if the old man survives the campaign...

by moreaxe 2007-12-20 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton by landslide among Latinos

This may explain why she is able to compete with McCain in NM.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-20 08:49PM | 0 recs
Sure, they want to beat the GOP and...

...many of them are under the misconception that Hillary is the most electable Democrat.

Guess what effect her coming in third in Iowa will have on that misconception.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-20 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Whatever. I hate this country.

by Bode 2007-12-20 07:08PM | 0 recs

so your argument is...don't vote for Obama because Latinos are racist?


by rashomon 2007-12-20 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...

I assume that Jerome is simply presenting a harsh reality--lamenting it even.

But given that Jerome is opposed to Obama on other grounds, yes, that is the gist of his argument.

As a black man, makes me feel sorta hopeless. But oh well.

God Bless America.

by Bode 2007-12-20 07:12PM | 0 recs
It always seemed more likely to me that...

...a black man would first become vice president, Chris Rock's logic notwithstanding.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-20 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It always seemed more likely to me that...

Whatever. I guess Obama was stupid for even trying.


by Bode 2007-12-20 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...

I think Jerome is streching the facts of this poll. From what I can see (from what is presented) all of the results except 2 are within the margin of error. In otherwords Obama's situation is not nearly as bad a Jerome is emphasizing. It is obvious who his preferred candidate is.

by waldo 2007-12-20 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: And I guess from this

vapid analysis, that John McCain is suddenly going to emphasize his soft immigration stand and face a backlash from the republican base in the GE? This is after they almost bounced him out of the whole election process for supporting comprehensive immigration. It is more likely that he is mum on the issue and it becomes a wash that frees independents and moderate republicans to float over the line and make up for Latinos who let racism drive them away. While no one can say, the actual numbers do not justify the lamenting of this non-reality. Besides Barack's election may be exactly what we need to discourage people from bringing a new wave of racism to this country.

by jazzyjay 2007-12-21 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: And I guess from this

Funny how so many anti-Obama types are willing to leverage existing racism for political convenience.

At least repubs don't pretend to give a damn about black folks.

by Bode 2007-12-21 10:03AM | 0 recs
Racism sucks.

You did get a good look at that New Mexico poll, right?

As I recall, Edwards kicked the living crap out of the Republicans in SUSA polls in state after state. I mean, he humiliated them to the point where I almost even felt sorry for them. Almost.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-20 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Racism sucks.

It's not only the Dead Loser Caucus that doesn't want anyone to know that fact.

Many here in the blogosphere would just as soon that JRE go away.

But he won't.

And fuck that poll. Hispanics are not going to go for McCain. That's just delusional.

by Pericles 2007-12-20 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...

So is Judis a racist for writing it according to you?

Hell no. I don't blog here to tell you whom to vote for, I blog to cover politics.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-20 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh...

No Jerome, specifically you blog here to attack Obama. Since thats exclusively what you do, I think we can all be up front about that.

by AC4508 2007-12-20 09:04PM | 0 recs
Don't delete this Jerome!!!

I assume this comment will be deleted moments after I post it...but at any rate...

Jerome Armstrong is pathetic. Latinos will not vote against Obama because he's black. This is the most pathetic attempt to discredit Obama that I've read yet.

by wahoopaul 2007-12-20 07:14PM | 0 recs
I think Jerome just wants the Democrats to win.

I'm guessing he's not convinced that Obama gives us the best chance to do that. Come to think of it, neither am I.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-20 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Jerome just wants the Democrats to win

Well, I don't think that Edwards gives us a very good chance to derail Hillary....indeed, zero chance.

So with him, I'd say it's a moot point.

by Bode 2007-12-20 07:24PM | 0 recs
Jan. 3 should be lots of fun.

It'll be entertaining watching the corporate media, who have made little effort to hide their desire to make this a two-horse race.

Grab some popcorn, sit back and watch the festivities.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-20 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Electability

Zogby Poll: Obama Leads Top Republicans

Telephone survey shows fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would defeat some GOPers, lose to others

UTICA, New York - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would defeat all five of the top Republicans in prospective general election contests, performing better than either of his two top rivals, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.

His margins of advantage range from a 4 percent edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain and a 5 percent edge over Arkansas' Mike Huckabee to an 18 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the survey shows. Against New York's Rudy Giuliani he leads by 9%, and against Fred Thompson of Tennessee he holds a 16 point edge.

Romney Huckabee Giuliani McCain Thompson
Obama Obama leads 53%-35% Obama leads 47%-42% Obama leads 48%-39% Obama leads 47%-43% Obama leads 52%-36%

The telephone survey included 1,000 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. The poll was conducted Dec. 12-14, 2007.

Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would defeat Romney by a narrow 46% to 44% margin and Thompson by a 48% to 42% margin. She would lose to Huckabee 48% to 43%, to Giuliani 46% to 42%, and to McCain by a 49% to 42% margin. The data suggest that Clinton has improved her position slightly. A November Zogby Interactive poll showed her losing by small margins to all five of the top GOP candidates.

Romney Huckabee Giuliani McCain Thompson
Clinton Clinton leads 46%-44% Huckabee leads 48%-43% Giuliani leads 46%-42% McCain leads 49%-42% Clinton leads 48%-42%

This national poll and the recent Gallup poll show otherwise to Jerome's electability argument

by BDM 2007-12-20 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Electability

Yeah, Jerome certainly is good at cherry-picking a few state polls.  

Wait, didn't you know that former Arkansas first lady Hillary Clinton does better against former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee IN ARKANSAS than does Illinois Senator Barack Obama????  Obviously, we must nominate Hillary, because of all of her (first lady) experience.

by moreaxe 2007-12-20 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't delete this Jerome!!!

wahoopaul, i agree with you. nonwhites will vote for obama. but i will vote for john edwards at primary election. i will not vote for hillary in any of elections. she is a republican wearing democratic cloth.  

by judybrennan 2007-12-21 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

I see all the regular Obama spammers are prepared to have a substantive debate about Jerome's latest diary.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-20 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Oh i see, so for Obama they are spammers, but Hillary has supporters?

by Socks The Cat 2007-12-20 07:26PM | 0 recs

Another bullshit "electability" argument and a bullshit "we can't nominate a racial minority or we'll lose votes" argument all rolled into one!!!!

God I love presidential primaries...

Oh, and the added pleasure of the argument being about a man the Republicans will NEVER nominate.  Good luck getting through SC John McCain!

by moreaxe 2007-12-20 07:26PM | 0 recs

On immigration, positions are:

Obama is open border with Corporate cheap labor lobby,  and McCain is Corporate cheap labor lobby.  Clinton is corporate cheap labor lobby.  The comprehensive immigration bills, which is what both push for, were written by the US Chamber of Commerce plus Compete America (tech lobbyists).

So, I think attributing these polls to whether someone is open border, corporate cheap labor lobby or not is pretty inaccurate to say the least.  It probably has more to do with McCain being a Senator in the next state over than anything, he's more well known.

Look at that, Huckabee is a 120 day window to plain get out of the country for all illegals, period, and Romney is about the same yet they are polling higher.  So trying to attribute these polling results to illegal/corporate cheap labor lobby/guest worker positions is spurious in the least.

by Robert Oak 2007-12-20 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with a poll driven approach to selecting a President or even a policy. Who cares what the polls say this week? If Obama becomes the democratic candidate there will be a campaign and Obama together with other groups will work to win over hispanics. Thats a natural part of the process. All candidates have weaker or stronger areas and there are things they have to address. To say that because Obama is polling poorly with hispanics- and to even suggest that McCain will win- that therefore Obama is bad choice. That seems like a stretch. Lastly, I would never pick a candidate because of who the other party picks. If we reduce ourselves to this type of thinking we're no better than these pollsters we are always criticizing.

by crackityjones 2007-12-20 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

For me, this is another justification for Obama's nomination.  If the Hispanic/African American divide is real, and I have no doubt that it is, then it's a real problem for the progressive community for this country at large... a problem that needs to be confronted and addressed, not simply ignored.  It's a big challenge for anyone, but Obama has both the will and the ability to start us down that long and bumpy road.  We shouldn't simply surrender in the face of adversity so unjust.

by Ryan Anderson 2007-12-20 07:34PM | 0 recs
win at what cost?

This electability argument is presented as objective and non perjorative (hey, I'm just pointing it out) but it is another form of the politics of fear innuendo.  It commits the core Mark Penn fallacy of relying on hypothetical poll match-ups before people are paying attention, to make decisions about the future.  Not only that, we already knew it.  

Obama has reached out to the Hispanic Community in good faith and his policies are favorable to this community, including immigration (and drivers licenses), among others.  That is the starting point.

The progressive netroots believe in the fight.  Confronting this racism is something worth fighting for- and that's not objective.      

by mboehm 2007-12-20 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: win at what cost?

Exactly.  I'm interested in progress, and that means something more than mere party victory.

by Ryan Anderson 2007-12-20 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: win at what cost?

So hypothetically, if you knew for sure that Obama would lose the general, you'd vote for him anyway?

Thats kinda cultish.... reminds me of the Nader voters.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-20 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: win at what cost?

I don't know that Obama would lose the general.  You've demonstrated only that he would have to confront a very serious problem along the way.  So what?  That problem needs to be addressed.  It won't go away simply because we surrender to it now.

by Ryan Anderson 2007-12-20 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: win at what cost?

What you advocate is a head in the sand blog, I'm all for hoping for the best in the world, and working for it, but I don't ignore reality.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-20 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: win at what cost?

A complete reverse of the truth.  We advocate confronting this problem head on.  That sorta implies acknowledgment of its reality.

by Ryan Anderson 2007-12-20 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: win at what cost?

I neither criticized Jerome for making his diary nor disagreed with him about the reality of its conclusions.  If I had, it would have made my own position irrelevant.

"We cannot force people to vote one way if they have some prejudicial issue with a particular candidate."

No, we can't.  We can only try to reach out to them (and yes, risk getting slapped back in return), or we can throw up our hands and let this injustice go unanswered.

Let me be clear: this isn't some "office project".  This won't be easy.  Barack can't do it alone.  There's no guarantee it can be done at all.

I can concede you all of those points and I still don't see any argument for just leaving this problem alone. Confronting racism has always been hard, but I don't think that makes previous generations fools for even trying.  And I don't think their accomplishments can be belittled as mere "feel good" history.  Unless you're argument is that somehow Latino racism (unlike white racism) just isn't an important issue, in which case it seems clear that you're the one intent on ignoring its reality.

Sorry if I think that issue might be a little more important than pretending to divine an election result still 11 months away.  

by Ryan Anderson 2007-12-21 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: win at what cost?

Exactly how are you working for the best in the world?  Look at what your website has become.  You set the tone.

by Piuma 2007-12-20 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: win at what cost?

But you are not even dealing in any reality that is substantiated by data. Obama beats John McCain by 4 points. That is today's reality, you have contrived a hypothetical that is not based in data. And you don't have any data about how many voting Latinos are going to make a race based decision on who they would support.

by jazzyjay 2007-12-21 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem

Does anyone recall the racial tensions undergirding the special election in Los Angeles last summer?  

by truthteller2007 2007-12-20 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain
Latinos are not monolithic. Latinos that were born in Harlem and have grown up with AA have no irrational racists sentiments against them.
I've not seen any problems in NYC between latinos and AA.
There is a problem with recent immigrants and their views of AA. This is true of African immigrants, Asian immigrants and yes latino mexican immigrants.
by joachim 2007-12-20 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

When you say Latino, it seems here that the focus is on the Mexican American vote, because many Latinos, have African roots.  Going on the sentiment of where Latinos of Mexican descent are concentrated, do they really impact Obama in the GE.  I mean will CA-where the electoral votes matter and where there are a lot of Latinos go in the Repub column if Obama is the candidate?  Texas, another heavily Latino state, is surely going to remain red, and even if NM goes red, how many electoral vote  would we lose out on?  I certainly don't disagree that Latinos may have this prejudice against African Americans (Obama), but I don't think he loses the election because the Latinos didn't vote for him.  I would be more concerned about how Obama matches up against McCain in states like Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania,  which are what I consider swing states and crucial to a Dem victory.  

by Kingstongirl 2007-12-20 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with...

BDM and wahoopaul your both wrong.  Latinos do have a common racist slant toward blacks.  Just look at how the darker Cubans and Brazilians are treated compared to the lighter ones'.  Look at the gangs in the inner city and the race wars that persist.  Please don't insult Jerome unless you have facts to back up your positions.

by nzubechukwu 2007-12-20 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with...

I don't feel that way, but then again I didn't grow up in the inner city.

by MNPundit 2007-12-20 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Sorry for the double post, I accidentally posted this as a reply above:

Just a week or so ago you posted a diary stating that Barack Obama is unelectable in the general, with a disclaimer stating that it had nothing to do with his race and threatening to ban anyone who brought race into the discussion.

Now, you're saying that, no, actually, it's true that he can't win because he's black, only it has nothing to do with white racism, it's because Latinos won't vote for a black candidate?

I beg to differ. The list of black politicians representing predominantly Latino districts here in LA and elsewhere is very long -- in California it might be the majority of them.

I've canvassed for Barack in East Los Angeles. Most of those who know him like him, but many just don't know him yet. Obama may in fact have a particular appeal even beyond other black politicians because of his immigrant background.

by dmc2 2007-12-20 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Yea, that's true, about what I posted, but I hadn't come across the Judis article. I was mostly going off of the poll numbers I'd seen regarding color and white voters, which do show it not being a problem.

Also, what I said (and again in a follow up) wasn't that bringing color into the debate was bannable, but that anyone who made accusations of racism against others here would be banned.

You can beg to differ, but the facts of his studies, based on real numbers, speak for themselves.

Also, regarding LA, I do recall reading that Hahn was elected against Villaraigosa in '01 because of black support. It may have been his family roots more than it was an anti-Villaraigosa vote, but it was an issue.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-20 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Yes, it's true about Hahn in '01. His father, Kenneth Hahn, represented South Central LA on the County Board of Supervisors for 40 years, and was a stalwart advocate of civil rights and other black issues.

But after beating Antonio the first time, Jim Hahn failed to live up to the legacy of his father in any way and, in the rematch in '05, blacks switched to Villaraigosa, paving the way for the first Latino to be elected mayor of Los Angeles in a century. The political coalition since then has had its ups and downs, but it's generally productive, and that's from firsthand experience on my part.

Of course, there are tensions at the community level, in particular in the jails and between gangs, but at the political level there is quite a bit of space for peaceful coexistence and cooperation. To be sure, Obama has his work cut out for him with Latinos, especially in the primaries with HRC's name recognition, but I think he'd do great in the general, even against McCain.

by dmc2 2007-12-20 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Well I'm not sure the general public realizes what a warmonger McCain is...they've just heard a lot of praise for his being a so-called "Maverick" from the traditional media.

I'd think if he is the nominee (highly unlikely considering much of the GOP base hates him and doesn't trust him), his warmonger attributes would come out in full force.  Much like Giuliani, I don't think McCain wears that well over time...

by moreaxe 2007-12-20 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
 Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
 Bomb. bomb, bomb Iran
 Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran!'

Yeah, look my daschund could beat the tired old fart McCain.

Guy is in delusional state.

by Pericles 2007-12-20 08:15PM | 0 recs
What problem?

I mean, I don't see any evidence of a problem.


Do you have nothing positive to say about your own candidate, Jerome?

Surely Hillary has done SOMETHING worth talking about these last few years...I keep hearing about all this "experience" she has and how "we know where she stands" - but I don't know her message. Maybe you could tell us what it is?

by Elise 2007-12-20 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: What problem?

Hello, Hillary has nothing to do with this.

Issue:  Obama and Latino voters.

Question:  If latinos have this prejudice against AAs and Obama is our nominee, how much impact would their lack of support have on the GE?

Let's start there and leave Hillary out of it.  Here's further help to move the discussion forward.  Which states have huge Latino populations and where do they stand in terms of the # of electoral votes and the side of the Isle.  i.e Texas: Red, gonna stay red.  CA:Blue, gonna stay blue.  NM(Purple-but has how many votes?), AZ:Red, gonna stay red.  

by Kingstongirl 2007-12-20 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: What problem?

CO, which a Democrat can win; AZ, which a Democrat can win; NV, which a Democrat can win: those are a few we should list.  But Latino voters in other states help Democrats produce margins the GOP cannot surmount.  McCain enjoys wide support in the Latino community, and we must nominate a Democrat who can compete for those votes in the general election.  Polls from NM reveal that Obama is not that candidate.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-20 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: What problem?

Does Jerome even have a candidate?

I have no idea who Jerome supports aside from the fact that every diary of his is anti-Obama.  Even the open threads are anti-Obama.  Maybe I should check the archives before I look silly, but off the top of my head, I literally can't remember a single argument Jerome has made FOR a particular candidate.  

For all I know Jerome is sitting there waiting for Mario Cuomo to get into the race.

by Steve M 2007-12-20 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: What problem?

I hear Mario is no the tarmack now, trying to decide whether to run...

by HSTruman 2007-12-21 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: What problem?


by John Mills 2007-12-21 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Did you read the diary?  Did you analyze the data?  Did you read the demographic information presented in the pollster's full report?  I assume you did not, for you are dismissing the argument tout court without evidence and without a compelling argument.  Instead, you resort to ad hominem statements that are vacuous and counterproductive.  You have absolutely nothing to offer, and you do not know how to interpret polling data.

Regarding Clinton, you are more than welcome to visit her website and read her policy statements.  But you are an Obama supporter, and you refuse to consider other candidates' stances.  After all, you would learn that Hillary and not Obama offers universal health care.  You would also learn that Hillary and not Obama has decades of experience improving access to quality education.  You may even learn about all the progressive changes Clinton enacted during her 17 year tenure in Arkansas. But no, you are Elise, and you refuse to read.  Instead, you will post vacuous statements online in a vain attempt to invalidate those who support other candidates.

I must say you are one tragic figure.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-20 08:31PM | 0 recs
against McCain

My comment is a response to Elise.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-20 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Wow, this was a depressing read.  By the time this election is over, we're going to have had to face a lot about sexism and racism in this country and how far we still have to go even though it's almost 2008.  

Although, honestly, if you would have told me even in 2000 that in 2008 the top two Democratic contenders would be a woman and an African American man  AND that it was a year in which the Democrats were expected to win (as opposed to nominating Geraldine Ferraro for VP on Mondale's cannon-fodder ticket), I'm not sure I would have believed you.  So that's at least some progress.  

At least we're participating at the top.  It's revealing some fairly screwed up things, but at least we're learning that by competing in the process instead of being locked out of it.

I do think whatever problem Obama may have with Latinos is likely to be a non-issue.  I'm just not sure McCain can recover because he is so loathed by so many in the Republican base (although I admit they don't have a lot of stellar choices either).  To the extent McCain is the nominee, I think he's the hardest candidate for any of the Dems to beat and I also think, with the right campaign, any of the big Dems can beat him.

I do worry about how race or gender bias could hurt the Democratic nominee if it's Obama or Clinton.  But, in the end, I think we just have to nominate the person we think is best overall and hope that's enough.  It's not like nominating the white guy has always produced a winner for the Dems.

I think these kind of statistics are one more argument against the electoral college.  Part of the problem with that system is it lets concentrated groups of voters in swing states decide things on narrow parochial grounds.  The most obvious of these, to me at least, is the disproportionate effect Cuban voters have in Florida.   But it also explains some of the suck up to the white males of the South and Midwest states like Ohio and Michigan.  There's simply no reason any racial or ethnic group should have a disproportionate amount of influence just because they are concentrated in certain areas of the country.

For that matter, it's ridiculous that 6% of Democrats in Iowa (at most) might choose the Democratic nominee.  If nothing else, I'm happy to see the race tightening because it makes that less likely.  

So, basically, my radical position is everyone should get to vote and all votes should be counted equally.  Crazy talk, I know.

by BDB 2007-12-20 08:39PM | 0 recs
Jerome stick to polling posts

this is awful, hispanics will love Obama's positions compared to Republicans in fact he stood up for not them throughout his whole career including in the Vegas debate. If becausewe nominate a black man and hispanics won't vote dem anymore we lose then you know what what's the point. Hillary will have huge problems with indy white men, polls show it and we know it, Edwards will have trouble with upper income suburban dems who might be tuned off to populism, so please stop it. Oh and go ask your expartner KOS about this -----theres one hispanic that's voting for Obama.

by nevadadem 2007-12-20 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome stick to polling posts

That's bizzare, because this post is about polling, did you read it?  There's facts there for you to confront, not that you care.

I think you need a new tag line too, 51% for Obama would be way more than I would expect.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-20 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

1. They aren't legal

  1. Those that are legal, aren't citizens.
  2. Those that are citizens  just don't vote in large numbers.

They'll have a choice. They can go with the White man whose party has called them everything under the sun.

Or, they can go with the Black man, who has tried to extend his hand to them.

I, personally, wasn't surprised by the study, because I always bring up, look how they treat their fellow AFRO-Latins. Look at the television programs. Watching them,you would never believe that 80% of the slaves from Africa went somewhere else OTHER than North America.

I don't doubt that they'd follow the White man, because that's the kind of buying into White Supremacy that they practice.

by rikyrah 2007-12-21 04:41AM | 0 recs
I don't see it

McCain is from a neighboring state and beats both Hillary AND Obama in a general matchup.  Hillary is better known nationally and may explain why she is polling better than Obama in NM (although still worse than McCain).  In general, though, I think that folks from the Southwest will take someone from the Southwest any day over a Chicagoan or New Yorker.  

One thing that barely makes the national news is the looming water fight out West.  The people that live out there believe (and probably rightly so) that only someone from the Southwest understands the problem and can come up with some sort of agreement which does not simply give all of the water to Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

I guess I was expecting some actual data showing Obama polling worse with Latinos.  Either way, the polling isn't great.

One last thing:  If you take the 2004 election map as it ended, flipping Colorado and either New Mexico or Nevada blue gives a Democrat win.  This of course assumes that Iowas, Ohio, and West Virginia stay red.

So even if Obama or Hillary lost New Mexico because of the supposed Latino animosity (or McCain proximity), it's not necessarily a disaster.

by the mollusk 2007-12-21 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see it

Well OH is a problem. Polls repeatedly show Hillary winning there and Obama losing.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-21 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't see it

but again, even if everything stays as it was in 2004, and I tend to think that it will, you would only need to switch Colorado and either Nevada, Iowa, or New Mexico blue to get a Democratic win.  I can't really see any other states changing appreciably.  With Hillary in the GE, I suppose Missouri and maybe even Arkansas would be in play, but I bet they would remain red.

This is based on nothing, remind you.

by the mollusk 2007-12-21 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Never thought I'd see the day when Jerome resorted to race baiting to make his case against Obama.

by Hawkeye Dem 2007-12-21 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Why? Are you surprised? As long as their is a weapon to use against Obama, Jermone will surely employ it, even it it's dripping with racial fear tactics.

Kinda tells you alot about so-called progressives.

by Bode 2007-12-21 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

This is a hypothetical that won't occur. Either Independents in NH will go to McCain and Clinton will win. Or Independents will go to Obama and Romney or Huckabee will win. The bigger issue is that McCain will beat Clinton as well (not just Obama). The NH primary is basically the General election. If McCain does well, we are in trouble. The key is to get Independents to go for Obama in NH and then whoever gets the dem nomination (which would probably be Obama), can beat any of the other Repub candidates.

by benb 2007-12-21 05:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Another "Don't vote for Obama 'cuz he's black" diary. I think this is the first one of this type from Jerome.

This type of analysis completely ignores the lessons of 2006 and the importance of the Iraq War. There is no way McCain will take New Mexico after he is not only attacked for, but openly admits that he will not remove American troops from Iraq during his first term.

Race is a weak force in American politics nowadays. The strong issues of the day are Iraq, immigration, and health care.

Also keep in mind:

1) Obama is unknown outside of the early primary states. People in New Mexico don't know where he stands on the issues. Polls a year before election day are largely meaningless, especially considering that McCain and Clinton have much higher name ID than Obama.

2) It's very unlikely that both Obama and McCain will be the nominees. The road goes through New Hampshire, and the independents there can only vote for one of them.

3) If, as your theory goes, Hispanics aren't saying that they'll vote for Obama because he is a generic black man, doesn't it stand to reason that his place in the polls will improve as he is better known, and that his powerful rhetoric can get him past other's racial fears?

The best the Republican can do in an 04 Bush state against a big, scary black man is 51%, and that's with a neighboring Senator with a liberal immigration plan? Isn't that a good sign?

by Kal 2007-12-21 06:38AM | 0 recs
So what? Polls show HALF the voters

in this country say that they will NEVER vote for Hillary. That includes a majority of MEN in EVERY ETHNIC CATEGORY.

But, I don't see you writing diaries about THAT.

So what is the answer? NEVER nominate a Black person because of Latinos?


I'll remind you that Blacks are the base of this party, and continued disrespect that I see from some across the blogosphere will be challenged.

by rikyrah 2007-12-21 09:19AM | 0 recs
FYI, Obama leads against GOP

Obama Tops Republicans
by rikyrah 2007-12-21 09:31AM | 0 recs
by Bode 2007-12-21 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's problem with Latinos against McCain

Frankly I'm sick and tired of the hispanic in America getting a free ride. Lets add things up. They are benefitting from the civil rights act that black people shed blood to get pass that made it gravy for any other ethnic group to walk into America and enjoy from day one. They inter into America by breaking our laws and expect to be treating as equals. Hispanic should be kissing black people ass in the united states. I'm all in favor of deploying all of illegals back to there country.  Look,,,,, if Operation Wetback could send 1.2 Million hispanics back to there country in 1954 we sure do have the means in 2008 to send 12 Million back.  

by ddmcneill 2008-01-15 09:19PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads