You'd think, graphs included

Seeing something like this, from Gallup (Results are based on telephone interviews with 6,657 national Democratic voters, aged 18 and older, conducted March 7-22, 2008):




... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?


The Republican activists, now that they've engaged in the Democratic nomination, can be counted on to be an equal opportunity basher, allied on either side as the ebb and flow of the new scyles happens, piling on both candidates.

A couple other graphs to show how closely divided this is, from Gallup:




And Pollster has a terrific "Plus or Minus 3" entry, where this comes from, the Rasmussen & Google daily tracking numbers:


This tie in the polls won't last through the nomination, one or the other will win, but the divide might last beyond.

Also, from Rasmussen, 22% of Democrats want Clinton to drop out, 22% of Democrats want Obama to drop out. I'm glad to be in the majority 56% saying to let this continue. I'll vote for the Democrat against McCain, but for that 44 percent, this will have to get resolved in a manner that both sides feel is legitimate if the hardcore supporters of the other candidate are to be expected to help out in November.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

351 Comments

Re: You'd think, graphs included

"You would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?"

Cut the crap.  It's not as if HRC supporters have been silent.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Thank you!!  It cuts both ways.  It seems, for whatever reason, that MyDD has become the Hillary camp while DailyKos has become the Obama camp.  Who is alienating who?  How can Obama supporters win over Hillary supporters when Hillary claims that only her and McCain have "crossed the threshold"?  It's just silly.  The bigger question is: Will Hillary supporters(those that say they'd vote for McCain over Obama) cut off their noses to spite their face?  Do they really want to live another 4 years under Rethuglican rule?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-03-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Well, otherwise, how would you get all wound up and ready to go?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 09:16AM | 0 recs
Obama could address the questions many have..

for example, I posted a diary yesterday that brought up some important questions on Obama's healthcare plan - important questions.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/2021 36/064

If Obama could address questions like these, on the viability of his healthcare plan - people like me would feel much better about him, because right now we feel as if he is deceiving the American public, especially his supporters.

by architek 2008-03-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama could address the questions many have..

Cut the crap.  We all know that what he will do will be much better than McSame.

Hillary Dems need to stop being primadonnas and support Obama if he gets the nomination (same applies to the smaller percentage of Obama supporters).

by Timetheos 2008-03-26 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
Actually this is not two-sided, if you believe, as Obama supporters say over and over, that this race is over. And that's precisely Jerome's point. IF you believe that, then it's up to you (and of course Obama) to reach out to Clinton's supporters. NOT the other way around. To argue that it's Clinton's side's responsibility is incredibly arrogant.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

"IF you believe that, then it's up to you (and of course Obama) to reach out to Clinton's supporters. NOT the other way around."

I'd like to, but I get too much flak when I try.  Besides, if I assume BO has the nomination in the bag and you don't agree, wouldn't you view anything I say about the matter as condescending?

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Yes.

by 07rescue 2008-03-26 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Proves my point.  There's nothing Obama supporters can say at this point that won't be seen as hostile, condescending, or both.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
they are spoiling for a fight

not a discussion

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: they are spoiling for a fight

Amen to that.  

After Edwards dropped out my vote was up for grabs.  I was desperate for a discussion of issues and, especially, accomplishments.  I got that from Hillary's supporters.  All I got from Obama's people was "Peace, hope and love, dammit."

by creeper1014 2008-03-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
I wonder how Obama's supporters can ignore...

the healthcare issues..

What bothers me is that many of his supporters see him as a reformer, and they don't realize that theguts of his plan are basically Jim Cooper's plan (the so called "Clinton Lite") that killed the Clintons universal healthcare in 1993.

The problem with it is that too many people will opt out, making the price for thise who need it the most climb tremendously.

Low income people are afraid of Clinton's mandate but they shouldn't be because the poor will be heavily subsidized.

Obama's plan is simply unworkable.. its set up to fail and his choice of Jim Cooper shows so.

I did a diary on this yesterday..

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/2021 36/064

by architek 2008-03-26 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: they are spoiling for a fight

HRC supporters just got lumped together as 'primadonnas' up thread a bit by another greek name

I see that a lot and it isnt talking it is demeaning other Democrats

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 02:39PM | 0 recs
Not condescending, maybe premature

It ain't over till the fat lady sings. And the fat lady in this case is that lump of undecided super delegates. Both candidates need that lump to win, just no way around it.

Who knows? The supers may look back over the two campaigns and see that Hillary hinted she could very well pick Obama as her Veep. Big Dog gave a speech in which he described a Clinton/Obama ticket as "unbeatable".

No such gracious hinting from the Obama camp yet, but I'd sure like to see it.

Imagine if the two camps got together behind the scenes and agreed to make a mutual announcement. Obama will pick Hillary and she has agreed to accept or Hillary will pick Obama and he has agreed to accept.

Then our two candidates could spend the rest of the nominating campaign discussing the issues, not each other and all the rest of us could start making bets rather than nasty comments at each other!

Ahhh. Peace, at last, in Democratic land.

by RickWn 2008-03-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
And...

we could watch those red and blue lines start diverging as they should.

by creeper1014 2008-03-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

It's sort of hard to reach out to Clinton supporters when the Rec list is full of Anti-Obama diaries, which leaves no room for the the diaries that are trying to reach out.

The diaries that are reaching out just go off the page and into obscurity...

by Darknesse 2008-03-26 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I looked at the rec list and every other day there are one of two Bob Johnson anti Hilary pieces, it is not one sided on this site, that is why it is a good site IMO ...

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 02:41PM | 0 recs
Question

I agree that perhaps Obama supporters need to extend a hand, but 1) it's more likely that the HRC supporters are simply not interested in any scenario whereby HRC doesn't ride off into the sunset and Obama's career destroyed and 2) on what issue, as between Obama and McCain, do Hillary supporters need convincing?

Which issue is going to push HRC supporters to vote McCain over Obama? If you are a Democrat than I really don't understand what it is that would make you decide that McCain is a better option. It seems like it's a personality question, and I don't know that short of meeting the candidate that supporters can do anything to change another's mind.

by highgrade 2008-03-26 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

It's more than that. Because HRC's campaign is now dedicated to making Obama unacceptable, she is radicalizing her supporters so that they start to hate him. This is going on to a much lesser extent in the Obama camp, but her scorched earth fuck-the-party behavior is a major cause of this.

by MNPundit 2008-03-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
I remember when HRC and BO both said words to the effect " No matter what, in the end we will all come together as Democrats to end repuglican rule". So I say to all who are threatening to vote against their own candidates wishes, SHAME ON YOU!
I only wish Clinton didn't go down the wrong "Wrght" path.
by eddieb 2008-03-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Bump!

by Timetheos 2008-03-26 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Actually, I think it's Obama's camp that is making itself look unacceptable.  

by cmugirl90 2008-03-26 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Yes, because Obama is the one regularly attacking Clinton from the Rove playbook, the one whose surrogates are consistently trying to undermine the agreed upon process by saying 'look at who is ahead if you count electoral votes' or basically finding every way their candidate can win that is outside the rules.

by MNPundit 2008-03-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Actually, my problems with Obama are not often mentioned. Things like being for nuclear power, wanting to cut funding for NASA, and Hillary being first to talk about refunding basic science to counteract what the Repubs have done.

That's not to mention universal health care, which Obama will NOT be implementing.

Those are the kinds of things that matter to me, not all this other stuff that everyone else is talking about.

by splashy 2008-03-27 12:34AM | 0 recs
Jerome circa CTG...where are you????

SOmebody send a search party out.  Jerome, you've clearly stooped to bating the other side.  What gives?  I'm amazed every time I come to MYDD...this place used to be a must visit and I have to cringe and wade through the spin.

by Chavez100 2008-03-26 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome circa CTG...where are you????

Maybe a Freeper stole Jeromes laptop.

by Timetheos 2008-03-26 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

http://electioninspection.wordpress.com/ 2008/03/26/on-gallups-numbers/

Jerome, you really need figure out how to read more than one data set

by TheNewMexican 2008-03-26 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Actually, I would think Democrats would vote for the Democratic nominee.

If you can't vote for Obama - who is essentially the Democratic nominee - and you'd prefer to vote for McCain? Perhaps you need to change your voter registration to Republican...

And no, I'm not going to kiss your ass in order to get you to vote for the Democrat. If you'd prefer 100 years of war in Iraq over the change Obama is working towards, by all means - go vote for that.

by Elise 2008-03-26 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Now THATS the way to mend bridges. Way to go with trying to make things better. (sarcasm)

That's what is so annoying about folks that lead with an attack.

by splashy 2008-03-27 12:22AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

One thing this poll leaves out:  Many Clinton supporters will not vote for McCain, but intend to write Hillary in.  

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-26 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

It's all coming full circle!

First, Clinton authorizes the war in 2002.

Then, her supporters help elect the man who continues the war for many more years.

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-26 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Make that 100 more years...

by iowa dem 2008-03-26 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

"First, Clinton authorizes the war in 2002.

Yes, she authorized the war ALL by herself. No one else in either chamber of Congress supported the invasion of Iraq... But hey, keep pounding that hate and shoveling that nonsense down Hillary Clinton supporters... That'll be the clincher to win us over.

by JHL 2008-03-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq

Hillary - Aye.

Is that really hateful?

Sorry I hate this war. I cry when I see pictures of little babies who have had their daddies blow up in a senseless idiotic war. I look at my kids and think "what if it was me" and their mom was telling them I won't be coming home - ever again.

And even worse, those parentless children will be paying for this war for thier entire lives.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq

I hate the war too and participated in a protest march, I wrote to my Senators and my Congressman... I even wrote to some who were not my representatives. I abhore this war. It served no purpose beyond individuals' agendas IMHO. So I understand where you are coming from. My only serious problem is with the vitriole and insults and attacks that come from some people in these posts. It's dreadful and serves no positive purpose.

by JHL 2008-03-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq

Same story here.  Marched, wrote, called, seemingly to no avail.

Clinton's vote for AUMF still bothers me.  However, lest anyone believe she has not had second thoughts about it there is this:

"Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again."  Hillary Clinton, February 26, 2008 Debate

I would still like to hear her admit flat-out that it was a mistake.  But I'll settle for this.

Obama's supporters should be tickled pink that she hasn't said she's sorry.  If she did, Barack Obama's campaign would be history.

by creeper1014 2008-03-26 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Why is it hateful to remind voters of HRC un-repentant vote to authorize the war? She had every chance and can still repudiate that vote.She can also reject and repudiate her vote for authorizing action against Iran while she's at it! It's easy watch. " I eddieb am sorry for my vote and it was an honest mistake. Hillary just admitted on national TV she makes mistakes didnt she? She said it was an honest mistake claiming she dodged sniper bullets, running straight to her car and not stopping to hear a childs poetry in Kosovo! See she can admit mistakes cant she. I don't think I'm hateful just hopeful.

by eddieb 2008-03-26 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

This is getting really old already. You all know full well that Clinto did not vote for war, and said so at the time, and Obama hedged like crazy on his anti authorization speech. Give it a break, who wants to type this junk over and over.

by 07rescue 2008-03-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Yes. Her vote was a vote for peace!!!!!!

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-26 10:31AM | 0 recs
actually...

my memory from a conversation i had with her at the time (shortly after the vote) notes that hillary recognized that she was voting to invade iraq.  but things change, including hillary's memory, and hindsight is supposedly always 20-20...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
I don't get angry often but this sentiment is really infuriatingly stupid. If enough HRC supporters feel this way and are willing to let the election go to McCain if the frontrunner in every criteria doesn't give them their way I have no respect for them at all. I can see why they support a person who is willing to do the same. I don't believe for a minute they will really follow through on those threats but to make the threat is beyond stupid. It's childish and petulant. Sometimes that kind of attitude can work to get you your way in your home but in the outside world it really doesn't work.
by Becky G 2008-03-26 09:51AM | 0 recs
Thanks Becky

"If enough HRC supporters feel this way and are willing to let the election go to McCain if the frontrunner in every criteria doesn't give them their way I have no respect for them at all."

They feel like they deserve it - it's their right and damn anyone who would take it away.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks Becky

if you mean we think she deserves it b/c we feel the most qualified candidate deserves it hell yes

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
When one side is consistently demonized, targeted by the left and right, demeaned with blatantly sexist epithets and stereotypes, pilloried by the sneering media, it causes deep feelings of resentment and helplessness.  
And here's what often does work at home, and in the "outside world" as well: take responsibility for your role in the conflict, instead of calling the other side childish, petulant and beyond stupid.
by oh puhleeze 2008-03-26 10:07AM | 0 recs
take responsibility for your role in the conflict

Are you suggesting that Hillary should "take responsibility for her role in the conflict" by admitting that the Vote for the Iraq War was a mistake?

She would damage herself politically if she did that.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: take responsibility for your role in the confl

How clever, novel and off-point.  

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
"You would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?" Or Hillary can just drop out since her own staff admits shes only got a 10% chance of winning
by anujtron 2008-03-26 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
What makes you think the 28% would choose Obama if Clinton dropped out? I would think that would only make it worse.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:24AM | 0 recs
Third party candidacy..

I think Hillary should run as a third party candidate if the Dems give the nod to Obama.

by architek 2008-03-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Third party candidacy..

"I think Hillary should run as a third party candidate if the Dems give the nod to Obama."

Great idea, Senator Lieberman.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
Marvelous! Brilliant well call it the ......

....The HILL-BILLY Party. (LMAO)

by eddieb 2008-03-26 10:24AM | 0 recs
yeah..

I can see a republican troll saying this just cause  they want to divide the Dem party.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-26 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I am pretty sure you meant BOTH sides would learn not to alienate the other side right?

since those number are high on BOTH sides?

right? why is this only an issue on Obama's side? are you saying that Hillary wont need that 18%?

its a problem on both sides and it shows why this primary needs to end, both sides are becoming to entrenched

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
No, I don't think he DOES mean that. If you believe that Obama has this race won, then the urgency of reconciliation is all on Obama's side. If he hopes to win in November, that is.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

so what do you believe?

you believe Hillary will win, but she doesn't have it won yet so her side doesn't need to worry about reconciliation right now?

can someone tell me why its only Obama's side but not Hillary that needs reconciliation, espeically when the majority of posters on THIS site believe its Hillary who will be the nominee

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

"are you saying that Hillary wont need that 18%"

In my view that 18% of Obama supporters will never support Hillary, and it doesn't matter how nice and conciliatory any of us are. I have not experienced much that I could call reasonable behavior or thinking from the most extreme Obama supporters.

by 07rescue 2008-03-26 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

and you are saying its not on Hillary's side?

ok do me a favor go to taylormarsh.com right now and read some of the posts they say about BO and his supporters,

TM herself refers to his supporters as Obamabots, and i am pretty sure you can't write them of as extremists or not representative of Hillary's base.

well you can try but i will quote you over there to see their response and if they would say that mydd represents hillary's base

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

likewise for the most extreme Hillary supporters.

by you like it 2008-03-26 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I am pretty sure you meant BOTH sides would learn not to alienate the other side right?

since those number are high on BOTH sides?

right? why is this only an issue on Obama's side? are you saying that Hillary wont need that 18%?

its a problem on both sides and it shows why this primary needs to end, both sides are becoming to entrenched

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

BO, his campaign, and his supporters have nothing but contempt for both HRC and anyone who supports her.  dkos is nothing more than a hate site now and MM thinks he is the fing democractic party.  The BO crowd can say all they want about how mean HRC is the the fact of the matter is BO and his crowd are going to have to ask HRC supporters for their vote IMHO alot of them will be say not thanks.

But we can agree on two things.  BO supporters will accussing HRC supporters of not being REAL democracts and if BO loses they will blame HRC.

davi

by giusd 2008-03-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee in a presidential election, then you're not a democrat......

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-26 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Thanks for making my point.  What about number two will you be blaming HRC if Bo loses.  I assume so.  

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
i think

this shows Obama supporters are more principled. Not as many  hiss fit throwing fake democrats.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-26 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: i think

Let's see, "hiss fit throwing fake democrats", is that someone's idea of a convincing presentation of her views and reasoning power?

Does anyone else think that's an effective way to promote a candidate or opinion?

I haven't been convinced or anything by that approach. If anything, I find myself ever more doubtful of that point of view.

by 07rescue 2008-03-26 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: i think

Come on Rescue, Kindthoughts may temporarily have lost their cool a bit it the face of an overwhelming majority of HRC supporters here, but one has only to scroll up or down to see a plethora of HRC support statements with even less substance.

Fair is fair.

by fogiv 2008-03-26 10:06AM | 0 recs
I was making an

observation.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-26 11:02AM | 0 recs
not at all...

it's not hillary's fault that the primaries have lasted so long.  people who run for president don't quit unless they run out of money or you make them cry.  neither has happened, and that's just the way it is.

rational people recognize that candidates who run for president are highly competitive, ambitious people -- not exactly the kind of people likely to put the good of the party before their own ambition.  it's not like you get a chance at doing this every year...

by bored now 2008-03-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
or you make them cry

Hillary has cried trice and stayed in anyway.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 10:16AM | 0 recs
but no one made her cry...

anyway, the comment pertains to dirty tricks (ala, muskie in new hampshire)...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee in a presidential election, then you're not a democrat....

I that case, Sinbad Sinbad, then the Democratic Party has just shrunk by 35%. I hope you figure out a way to make up those numbers.

by Check077 2008-03-26 09:18AM | 0 recs
The Contempt Comes From The Clintonites

The real contempt seems to be from the rabid Hillary Clinton supporters, and it shows in their lack of loyalty to the Democratic party and their willingness to have McCain win out of spite. Just think of the damage McCain will do, starting with the Supreme Court.

The Clintonites have from the getgo had the attitude that any result other than a Clinton win is an affront to the natural order of things. Obama has repeatedly been slimed as unaccomplished and shallow, despite all available evidence to the contrary.  Clintonites can't understand why this blind refusal to treat Obama with the regard appropriate to his accomplishments and intellect is suspected as having its basis in bigotry, but there you go.

Contrary to the disingenous claim that Obama supporters are a "cult," what this shows is that Obama supporters are willing to defer to rationality and put the best interests of the country above their affection for their candidate.  I wish the same could be said for the more extreme Clinton supporters.

by AdrianLesher 2008-03-26 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The Contempt Comes From The Clintonites

I think this a really interesting and telling post.  Because my guess is there are what we all refer to as Reagan democrats and not really "HRC supporters" as you say in you post.  This really says more about the demographs of who supports which candidate.

So frankly i totally disagree with your hypothesis which really is nothing more than one more chance for you to smear HRC and her supporters.  Making personal insults against HRC is a BIG theme of BO supporters like you.

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
another way of describing reagan democrats...

is blue collar workers.  from the exits i've seen, this is one of hillary's bases of support...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Loyalty To the Party

Like the Democratic party itself is giving us much to be loyal to these days?

Like Barack Obama's loyalty to the voters of Florida and Michigan?

Troll-rate me for party-bashing if you must.  But I'm not seeing much there to engender loyalty from me nor demonstrate it on the part of either candidate.  I'll hold my nose and vote for Barack Obama if he's the nominee but it won't be because he's a Democrat.  It will be because I believe he's a better man than John McCain.

Period.

by creeper1014 2008-03-26 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

yeah only Repugs who vote for Obama in the GE are loyal Dems!
registered Dems that are not BO Dems are not real Dems!
only Dems for a Day and only if they are BO GOP not HRC GOP!

Only the Dems who have passed the 'BO loyalty test' are REAL TRUE BLUE Dems-

and BO gets to say who's a Dem and who's not, like Bush says who's a patriot and who's not

-meet the new boss, same as the old boss-

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Exactly what in the hell part of my comment below deserved a troll rating?

Are you just trying to emphasize my point?

by zonk 2008-03-26 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

"you and the Clinton supporters consider that being childish, entitled, spoiled brats who think holding their breath until they get their way is a viable strategy."

I think attacking Jerome and HRC supporters in this insulting fashion likely inspired the TRs.

I agreed after considering it for a couple of moments, and TRed you also. I don't do it often, but when a comment seems to be mainly a personal attack with nothing of substance or value otherwise included, it seems to qualify for a TR.

Like it or not, many of us are principled, lifelong Democrats who are fighting for what we sincerely believe in, and Republican lite anti progressive candidates are not who we consider to be Democrats, either. We may lose, of course, and "bipartisan" free market corporate politics may win, but it's certainly not what I believe in, nor will I support. If I wanted to vote for a Republican, I would join their party.

by 07rescue 2008-03-26 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

They will have no body but to  BLAME THEMSELVES.

This is not an honest campaign to conduct. You cannot call everyone who DOES NOT agree with you a racist.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 10:34AM | 0 recs
neither obama, nor his supporters, have...

done that.  some of us, myself included, have called racists racists -- as i think we should.

no one can excuse your wife being called a whore, and i would have pummeled a person who called my wife a whore, but i certainly wouldn't be blaming some candidate they supported for such disgusting behavior.  i'd have blamed them, the person calling my wife names.

noting that there are still racists in the democratic party is completely different.  it is completely legitimate to call out someone -- including a former president -- for using racist frames and racist code words.  hillary has apologized for these occurrences from her campaign, so that takes the edge off.  but the desire to suppress movement towards racial justice and racial equality just because white people don't like hearing that their views are racists isn't a democratic value.  we should support minorities in their quest for equality and justice.

i thought that's what the democratic party stood for...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I don't hate you I disagree with you. I HATE Bushbag and what his Clone Clown McSame will do if we don't get our act together and put a Dem in the oval office after this primary battle is over. I promise you if HRC wins I will vote for her. Will you make  the same promise for the good of all of us and our party and country?

by eddieb 2008-03-26 10:41AM | 0 recs
you got my promise

by kindthoughts 2008-03-26 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hill is NOT a Democrat

She's a DLC Democrat, which is pro-NAFTA, pro-war, anti-separation of church and state and all about moving toward issues that move swing voters to the exclusion of  the base.  

What the F*** is the matter with you people?  Have you all simply given up on crashing the gate and building a party from the grass roots?  Do you really want your voice to be overturned by lobbyists and Washington insiders?  Do you really believe that triangulation and appeasement is called for in this sunset moment of American prestige?

I just don't get it.

by zadura 2008-03-26 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hill is NOT a Democrat
Well the graphs tell the story, but it is a sad tale. I really dislike Hillary, but wouldn't hesitate to vote for her over any Republican on the planet. I suggest that the super-vocal Hillary supporters wake the fuck up and realize that this country can not afford, under any circumstances, to let the Republicans stay in power. It's really that simple.
by defibialater 2008-03-26 12:52PM | 0 recs
bullshit...

you may not agree with her, or the dlc, or any other centrist democrat, but you don't define whether or not they are democrats.

they do.

democrats in congress actually prove their support for the party by voting for their party's nominee for speaker or majority leader.  that's about the full extent of party loyalty democrats have been accustomed to.

afaic, we should be welcoming people into the democratic party, not trying to expel them from it.  sure, some of the folks here are probably republican trolls, now that there primary contest is over.  but still, hillary is clearly a democrat.  you can argue that she's not progressive, but it's disingenuous to say she's not a dem...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: bullshit...

You are correct.  She is a Democrat in the tradition of Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford and Evan Bayh.  

It is also correct for me to say that the owners of this site once supported the progressive wing of the party and opposed the weak-kneed triangulation that is a hallmark of the Clinton/DLC faction.  And I have a right to wonder what the heck happened to their "direct democracy" model if they are now willing to throw the whole thing in the shitter for a 30 pieces of silver...

Clinton is not and will not ever be a progressive.  She will not ever overturn the power structure in Washington, and she will certainly not be the candidate to "crash the gate."

by zadura 2008-03-26 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hill is NOT a Democrat

Hmm. She's for universal health care, funding NASA, and was the first to speak out for more funding for pure science.

Obama is into more nuclear power, which is not very progressive to me, because he gets funding from the nuclear industry. I am definitely against that.

She is against the private mercenaries, he is not. Is he progressive there? I personally would like those mercenaries to go completely out of business.

by splashy 2008-03-27 12:57AM | 0 recs
Wow

So that's your answer, Jerome?

Stop being so mean to the folks that are every day using such luminaries as Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Scaife, and Sean Hannity to attack Barack Obama as anti-semetic, racist, unpatriotic, and everything awful under the sun?

Geee... hadn't thought of that one.

I'll give it some consideration.

While I do so, how if you and the Clinton supporters consider that being childish, entitled, spoiled brats who think holding their breath until they get their way is a viable strategy.

by zonk 2008-03-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Thanks Zonk, in your lecture to Jerome I learned that I am "being childish, entitled, spoiled brats who think holding their breath until they (I) get their (my) way is a viable strategy".

You taught me so much about myself:
 - I have an entitlement complex
 - I am childish
 - I am spoiled
 - I am a brat
 - and I hold my breath until I get my way

Thank you.  I am now convinced to go vote for Obama.  The truth is I will vote for Obama (ugh), but you are doing nothing to help me keep that position.

by oc 2008-03-26 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow
You wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway. And yes, those words are very accurate.
by Becky G 2008-03-26 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

becky, you too, are brilliant.  Let's see, I write that I WILL vote for Obama and you respond that I won't.

Sounds like you and Zonk don't want to vote for Obama.  I say I will, you two disagree.

by oc 2008-03-26 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow
Pot, meet kettle.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

I know I feel warm and fuzzy with unity and hope when a Democrat calls millions of fellow supporters of a chosen candidate:

"childish, entitled, spoiled brats"

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 02:55PM | 0 recs
Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

I wouldn't worry.

But to blame the Obama campaign is a bit senseless. Both campaigns have engaged in typical attacks. But only one campaign has actively pronounced McCain as better than their Democratic opponent.

hmmm. Could that have an effect on her supporters???

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
Also only one side is actively alienating

African-American's by accusing the TUCC of being a "Hate" church.

I guarentee you that most AA's don't see it that way and will not forgive and forget the Clintons for tossing them to the sharks.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Also only one side is actively alienating
Umm ... not so much. Obama has lost support among African Americans too, since the Wright tapes. Seems as though most African Americans don't actually go around saying "God Damn America" and blaming the U.S. for AIDS.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:30AM | 0 recs
feel free to provide data to support this...

i'm really surprised to hear that.  if anything, i get the feeling that barack's support among african-americans has increased.  and i doubt there are very many blacks who don't recognize wright's use of black liberation theology.  it's not exactly outside the mainstream of african american churches...

by bored now 2008-03-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Also only one side is actively alienating

Link?

A new (3/25) PPP poll shows that Obama leads 80%-14% among black voters in North Carolina.  Did he lose AA support there too?  Down from what, 100%?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/poll_obama_ahead_21_poin ts_in.php

by fogiv 2008-03-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

Here is the differnce.  BO is going to have to ask HRC supporters for their vote not the other way around.  

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

but this is implies that you admit that Hillary wont win the nomination.

do you admit this?

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

Yes, i think it very unlikely that she will win.  I think my feeling about this is well documented in the way i say and write things.  But IMHO HRC does still have some small chance and I want here to stay in until BO has won.  

Furhtermore, if (as BO suppporters whine about every fing day) HRC is forced to quit or seen to be pushed to quit before BO WINS this will drive even more voters to McCain. And this nonsense is on dkos all the time.  This is something MM just doesnt get because he so wants his candidate to win.

So imho if I supported BO the last thing i would want is for HRC to qute.  That 28% number could get much higher.  And as i wrote above this number (28%) very likely represents the demographs of who supports who.  These are very likley reagan (working class) democracts who have a long history of voting dem for congress and GOP for pres.  

So please no HRC supporters are not real dems.  HRC supporters are real dems.  Instead of smearing HRC all the time maybe BO and his ilk could try to make a connection with these working class voters instead of insulting their candidate.

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

ok good if you admit that she won't likely win then you have to also admit her supporters going on the media and attacking Obama is out of the question!

a democrat does not attack the democratic nominee in the press!
bring it up to the SDs is one thing but she is attacking and fueling the GOP.

why should she drop out? BECAUSE SHE IS FUELING THE GOP.

thanks to Hillary the GOP dont have to question whether or not Barack is ready on day one, they just bring up all the times Hillary questioned it

Thanks to Hillary Mccain doesn't have to say that Obama hasn't passed the C-i-C threshold just Quote Hillary when SHE said it.

Thanks to Hillary, Mccain doesn't have to say Obama is not the one we want to answer the phone at 3 am, just show HIllary's add when SHE questioned it.

do you see what she is doing! this argument that oh well the GOP will use these attacks in the fall so I can use them now is foolish.

if the GOP use them we can unite as a party against them, but when Obama is the nominee and the GOP is simply replying and quoting Hillary, THEN what can we say? we would be forced to throw Hillary under a bus to disavow what she is saying.

THIS is why Hillary needs to drop out.

either play nice like Huckabee did (he NEVER questioned Mccain, he simply said I am in it till Mccain clinches) then its ok, but its not what she  is doing, she is trying to make him un-electable so she can pull off a win, This is why she needs to drop out.

I have seen people on this site attack obama now for

Acting like he is the presumptive nominee without actually having the votes yet, because this is condesending. so he should fight untill he ACTUALLY wins.

but!

there are other posts that say if we were so sure that he was going to be the nominee why is he fighting so hard?

HRC and her supporters are actively trying to destroy Obama (visit taylormarsh.com recently?)

Obama should drop out because Hillary supporters will ONLY vote democrat for her? and this is suppose to be a plus for her? we should tell the SDs to vote for Hillary basically because her supporters are black mailing the party?

its Hillary or no democrat you choose

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

First off I find you starement above disgusting.  And these are the typical shrill post of BO supporters.  BO has not won yet and where i come from you dont quit until it is over.  The bell hits and we are done.  And this is also typical of the nonsense you post.

Hillary is this and hillary is that.  She is the negative one blab blab blab.  BO supporters have also run a very negative but you dont see this because you so HATE HRC it clouds you judgement.  And we are forced to read this "HRC and her supporters are actively trying to destroy Obama" nonsense from you.

HRC has a right to stay in until BO has won and not we think he may run.  The real issue here is the anger issues you have that are well document in your post.  And it is shit like you have written above why BO will likely lose IMHO.

Hillary Mccain????  If you had any pride, which you clearly dont, you would should some remorse for what you have written but you wont.

You say HRC should quit for good of the party but you hateful comments also hurt the party but you dont seen to care.  IMHO i find comments like this unhinged.

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 12:14PM | 0 recs
the problem with this complaint...

is that this is what always happens in primaries.  granted, the stakes may seem higher, but attacking the character of your opponent is par for the course, because character is one of the biggest reasons why voters decide who they are going to support.

that the opposition will pick up on these attacks is normal.

only barack and hillary can decide when they will concede the race.  it is unrealistic to expect that either candidate will put the "good of the party" before their own particular interests.  it just doesn't happen.  even if it appears over (or not) to us, they are the only ones who really decide when the fat lady sung...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:45PM | 0 recs
we're just the opposite...

i'm supporting barack, but i won't believe he won until she concedes.  hillary comes to this race with some very significant institutional advantages, and their import only increases as it all comes down to superd's.  so it's ironic...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

Let's speak hypothetically:

Obama wins the nomination sooner or later.

What would HRC do in this scenario?  Will the DEMOCRATIC Senator from NY throw her support behind McCain?  Cut ties with the democratic party altogether in a show of protest?  Or will she stand behind the Party and it's nominee?

The biggest question to be answered is this:

What will YOU do in the event that HRC, the candidate you trust and admire, concedes the race, calls for unity, and endorses Barack Obama as a superior candidate to John McCain?

by fogiv 2008-03-26 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

Dude,

Let me get this you think HRC will support McCain.  Based on what.  Do you have proof of this or is this just more ranting from the unhinged bo crows.  HRC has said many times she will support and work for who ever wins.  But you are to busy calling her a racist and lier to read or hear this.

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

Are you serious or...?

The questions are rhetorical devices meant to assert the opposite.  My point is that OF COURSE HRC will support the Dem nominee if she loses.  The language was designed to pose a question to those HRC supporters like yourself who vow not to vote for Obama in the general, should he become the nominee.

Let's try again.  I'll make it easy for you:

Will you (david / guisd) vote for Obama in the General Presidential Election if Hillary Clinton tells you to?

It's a pretty simple question.  Yes or No?  Oh, and for the record:  I've never called her a racist because she isn't one and I've only called her a liar when it's been proven that she did, in fact, you know, LIE.

Check yourself, before you wreck yourself, eh?

by fogiv 2008-03-26 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

This is true.

BO is going to have to ask HRC supporters for their vote, since he will be the one standing in November still.

I do think that both sides need to rachet some of the rhetoric and personal attacks down, but it is kind of hard when you see what I can only agree with as "Tonya Harding" style politics going on.

by Darknesse 2008-03-26 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals...

Oh that is so convenient.

Did you forget that night after night after night the Obama campaign and their surrogates on CNN, MSNBC, and every blog out there writing and saying that "there are things we really do not know about Senator Clinton. How many skeletons does she still have in the closets" They actually call Senator Clinton, the Clintons, which is very sneaky way of undermining her.

Just yesterday on Anderson Cooper that Jamel guy who is an Obama surrogate said " senator Clinton need to open her closet and bring everything into light." That implies that she is hiding something bad. That she is hiding a corruption scandal or some kind of crime. While no one, i mean no one, can say anything about Senator Obama without being accused of racism. No one can say anything about the fact that he did drugs when he was a young man; no one can say anything about his long long friendship with a Chicago tug just like is friendship with a racist pastor who said that Hillary Clint is going to fuck the black community like her husband fucked Monika; no one can say anything about his deals with the nuclear lobby; no one can say anything about his pastor and the relationship that he has had with him for 20 years; no one can say anything about the fact that EVEN THOUGH Obama likes to thinks of himself as this new politician that will unit the country and promote bipartisanship, HIS RECORD IN THE SENATE DOES NOT INDICATE THAT AT ALL. Actually Senator Clinton had more pieces of legislation sponsored by republicans and passed by them. No one can say that the guy has 2 years of experience in the senate. No one can say that the guy is weak in rural America, weak with elderly, weak with blue collar workers and that he cannot win Missouri, Ohio and Florida with these numbers. And so forth and so on. There are so many issues that on one can dare even open his/her mouth about them because people are scared of being called racist. Well, i am NOT you can call me racist as long as you want.

I think the guy is deeply flawed and i think the republicans are going to tear him apart. They have already framed him as unpatriotic, now they will start call him a liberal several thousands times to sink in and that is how you win elections. So much for the new politics.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

"Arbitrarily"?

Yeah.... that's how it happened.

Howard Dean put all 50 states in a hat and picked out the two that would be penalized.

by zonk 2008-03-26 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Everyone is to blame for penalizing FL/MI - especially the campaigns. Obama and Hillary should not have argued so strenuously last fall that Michigan and FLorida shouldn't count. When Hillary said, "these elections don't count", it really ended their chance of counting. She's a party leader, after all. But Barack Obama has some blame, as well. He agreed with Hillary's statement that "they shouldn't count". He stood silent while Hillary repeatedly said that [michigan] "doesn't count".

It's tragic, really.

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-26 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
Talking sense doesn't work. If it hurts Hillary's chances it's wrong. Anything is OK if it helps her. Get with the program.
by Becky G 2008-03-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

blocking the MI revote will mean MANY Dems will feel BO got he nom unfairly if it goes that way in the end

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

WHO CARES who was to blame for FL and MI?  the question is, WHO HAS A PLAN TO FIX IT? (Kind of like what the election is all about in a broader sense).

Unfortunately, we had a solution (at least in MI) and only one person is stopping it - the Precious One - Obama!

by cmugirl90 2008-03-26 10:09AM | 0 recs
we don't need a plan to fix it...

there are a number of possibilities in the works right now.  any number of these efforts may be acceptable.

what wasn't acceptable, to floridians, at least, was a revote.  we voted.  we knew what we were voting for.  we're done.  we vote again in september -- and not until then...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:16PM | 0 recs
So, let's see...

...your side can beat us up to hell and back, cast aspersions every which way, even make the occasional valid criticism, and that's testing our candidate.

And if we counter your criticisms, make our own, and unfortunately, have a few of us go further than we should (but usually without the media support to enhance/inflame the more radical accusations further), we're isolating you, chasing you away.

Uh-HUH....

Mote.  Beam.  Eye.

Think about it.

by palamedes 2008-03-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

You know, I was thinking about this poll, and I'm not sure the numbers accurately reflect what would really happen. As an Obama supporter, I'd probably be more inclined to be magnanimous and reply that I would vote for Clinton at this point, especially since it looks like Obama's got it in the bag. But if Clinton came and back and somehow wrested the nomination away through superdelegates or some other undemocratic process, I'm sure I'd feel differently.

In other words, I think the numbers reflect confidence on the part of Obama supporters, and some sour grapes on the part of Clinton supporters, at this point.

by animated 2008-03-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Yeah. The side that's losing is usually more bitter and negative. Great points.

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-26 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Yeah. The side that's losing is usually more bitter and negative. Great points.
by Sinbad Sinbad

I'll tell you if Obama is the nominee we will know that side that is LOSING.

by Check077 2008-03-26 09:37AM | 0 recs
Maybe we all need MORE DEBATES...

So we can settle this without acrimony..

If we scheduled five more debates, with the questions given by the audiences, organized by the Leage of Women Voters or some other neutral third party organization, then a lot of people might be able to make up their minds better.

Right now, a lot of people feel they were deceived into their vote, and others think that they don't have enough positive information about one candidate to vote for him.

Thats why we are NOT 'uniting behind Obama'

by architek 2008-03-26 09:46AM | 0 recs
By the way, if the superdelegates pick Hillary

that is not 'changing the rules' thats the way the system was supposed to function.

Forcing the party to go with the older votes, and ignore the superdelegates, would be changing the rules in the middle.

Everyone here knows that.. BTW, of course..

by architek 2008-03-26 09:48AM | 0 recs
Look, whatever happens without debates is ugly..

But if we had a BUNCH of debates, in which purposefully DIFFICULT questions were asked, with the goal being to weasel out the differences between the two candidates in a way that woud make them obvious to all.. THATS THE WAY WE WIN THIS ONE...

Because many from one side might change their minds..

by architek 2008-03-26 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe we all need MORE DEBATES...

Why is HRC not willing to debate in North Carolina?  Obama has already agreed to appear.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I think Jer. agrees with you on some level.

otherwise why doesn't he point out that 19% is ALSO a problem for Hillary? the front page posts never act as if Hillary will one day be the nominee

notice that?

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Exactly. It makes you wonder what the end game is for them. It's gone from "we will crush you" to "we can still win" to "don't be mean to us."

by animated 2008-03-26 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
Obama supporters seem to have missed Jerome's point.  Yes, of course it cuts both ways.  The media (surprise, surprise), however, present only one side of the argument, that Clinton should quit since she'll lose anyway without O's supporters.
 
by oh puhleeze 2008-03-26 09:49AM | 0 recs
The Dem leadership should admit that the nation...

has still not made up their minds and should behave accordingly - If we had a bunch of debates that would get beyond the five minute sound bytes.. then we could see how these candidates behave under pressure and see some more nuanced answers to the IMPORTANT questions..

There are still huge holes in what we know about Obama's positions, in particular..

I'm talking about health care. In my conversations with Obama supporters, most of them are profoundly in the dark about what he is proposing or the basic reasons why it can't really work as presented.

See this from yesterday for a better explanation of why.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/2021 36/064

by architek 2008-03-26 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The Dem leadership should admit that the

I don't think that the debates you're proposing have ever been conducted.  Not since Lincoln-Douglas, at least.  People who have not made up their minds at this point are not likely to be swayed by additional debates.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 09:56AM | 0 recs
Actually Jerome


    you'd think polls like this would serve to shut up the Clinton supporters who are whining that Obama supporters won't support Clinton should she win. Seems it's far more obvious whose supporters would betray the Party...it's the Clinton people.

   Might want to mention that too eh?

by southernman 2008-03-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Jerome

Please don't make comments like "it's far more obvious whose supporters would betray the Party...it's the Clinton people."

BO supporters STILL don't get it that these kinds of offensive remarks only further alienate us...

by JHL 2008-03-26 09:30AM | 0 recs
I'm sorry it's offensive to you


    but Clinton supporters need to quit claiming that it's Obama supporters who'll betray the party. Clearly more Clinton people will.

  The truth isn't always pretty.

 

by southernman 2008-03-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sorry it's offensive to you

I've not heard any Clinton supporters accusing BO people of betraying the Party...

by JHL 2008-03-26 09:45AM | 0 recs
Cause he's not

Hillary on the other hand puts her loyalty to "Clinton" over loyalty to "Party"

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 10:23AM | 0 recs
Campskunk, Alegre,


    and many others have. Campskunk even cited a Dkos poll in which 243 people (out of half a million hits a day) in which 128 said they wouldn't vote for Clinton, AS PROOF THAT DAILYKOS WON'T BACK CLINTON.

  That's proof? Unbelievable. So yes they have made such claims. Many times. They need to stop.

by southernman 2008-03-26 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

This is a pro-Clinton site - you guys/gals have all the power here.  The only alienation going on is in the opposite direction.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
Oh MyDD's rec list - there are often pro-Obama and pro-Hillary diaries.
But you don't see that at DK.
by annefrank 2008-03-26 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Maybe not, but at least there are other topics than the horserace over there.  The diversity is far more pronounced, even if it's mostly pro-Obama on the single issue of the horserace.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 09:30AM | 0 recs
Another site full of Hate

or at least it will be seen that way.

Over at OpenLeft.com, Chris Bowers and Blue Majority are about to endorse Obama:

Poll :: Should Blue Majority endorse Barack Obama now, or wait at least another month?

* Endorse Barack Obama now - 718 votes (92.41%)
* Wait until at least after Pennsylvania - 59 votes (7.59%)

So soon Blue Majority will be considered a racist hate site by Hillary Supporters.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

MI and FL were not arbitrarily penalized.  Stop talking nonsense.  Harold Ickes even voted for the set-up(Meaning to penalize MI and FL).  They broke the rules so they paid the price.  Besides, does Hillary really want MI to vote again?  If MI did vote again, she'd be in an even deeper hole than she is now.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-03-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
Who exactly is "they"? You mean those voters that we were hoping might actually produce lots of electoral votes for our candidate this Fall? Or someone else?
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

The failure to have revotes in Michigan and Florida guarantees a Democratic loss in November.  Rules are rules indeed, but losses are not wins.

by bslev22 2008-03-26 09:28AM | 0 recs
the bitterly divisive primary guarantees a loss...

not florida or michigan.  nothing would change in either state, even if they did revote.  florida will still vote for mccain, and michigan will still vote for the democratic nominee.

and we'll still lose.  that's what happens in bitter primaries...

by bored now 2008-03-26 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: the bitterly divisive primary guarantees...

Wrapping the nomination up early doesn't guarantee anything either.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
very true...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:16PM | 0 recs
So, Hil supporters are more likely to defect

and this is supposed to be a positive statement about Hillary's supporters?

Anyone who is going to vote for McCain over either Democrat is not legitimately a Democrat.

If your candidate loses in the primary, get over it.

by clawed 2008-03-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: So, Hil supporters are more likely to defect

Plenty of times Dems vote for Republicans and visa-versa. What ever happened to making an informed decision over blind support?

by JHL 2008-03-26 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: So, Hil supporters are more likely to defect

clawed's comment referred to voting for McCain over either democratic candidate, not to voting for all Democrats over all Republicans.  Anyone who considers themselves progressive while voting for McCain over Clinton or Obama is not making an "informed decision"

by ashriver 2008-03-26 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: So, Hil supporters are more likely to defect

you're opinion... not based on fact, at least where I am concerned...

by JHL 2008-03-26 09:52AM | 0 recs
not true -- republicans are remarkably disciplined

they support their nominee in the mid-90s.  democrats are the ones who tend to cross over, and much of that is due to the continuance of southern democrats on the party's rolls while voting for the republican candidate in national elections...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: So, Hil supporters are more likely to defect
Actually, any Dem needs the votes of LOTS of non-Dems to win the presidency. In fact, if not for those non-Dems voting in Dem primaries (for Obama), Hillary would have wrapped up this nomination weeks ago.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: So, Hil supporters are more likely to defect

"Anyone who is going to vote for McCain over either Democrat is not legitimately a Democrat."

Considering Obama's Republican economic views, I could just as well say that anyone who votes for Obama is betraying the Democratic Party. I haven't been doing so, but you may be convincing me to start.

And you need not bother insulting me, I don't care, it's a waste of bandwidth and your time. Of course, if it takes away from your time to be productive for your candidate, fire away to your heart's content. It's like water off a duck.

by 07rescue 2008-03-26 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Great. Let's prioritize petty "getback on Dean" over bringing our soldiers home from the Iraq war.

I mean...if a few thousand more soldiers die because McCAin continues the war, it's ok, as long as I can conduct some "getback" on Howard Dean! He's the devil! He didn't change the party or anything...

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-26 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?

Of course, the same follows for Clinton supporters - Hillary would need a unified base to challenge McCain as well.  It's easy for us Obama supporters to be magnanimous because he's very likely to be the nominee, but each side needs to police their own supporters (as I have done today here and here) and bring everyone on board for the nominee.

All of us are deeply invested in our candidates because we care alot about our country's future.  It would be a shame to throw all that away in November and get 4 more years of Bush policies.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-26 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Hillary offered an olive branch to Obama and supporters with her VP comment.
But - Obama and his supporters took the low road,
"interpreted" it as Obama should "go to the back of the bus" - and flatly rejected it with a HELL NO!

Obama could have shown a modicum of "unity" by simply saying something neutral like "that's one scenario."

But instead he mocked Hillary - "why should I take 2nd place when I'm ahead" - as if he'd already won.

by annefrank 2008-03-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

And if Obama had commented that HRC would make a great Vice President -- which IMO is true, BTW -- what would HRC have said?

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Well we will never know because BO never did this and well all know he will not do this.  BO would rather lose the WH than have HRC as VP.

This clearly is something we can agree on.

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 09:43AM | 0 recs
This clearly is something we can agree on

BUZZZZT!!!

Wrong. HRC needs Obama to win at this point.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Now, I would have to disagree with this.  At that time, it was clear that there was a group of undecideds who wanted to vote for both candidates.  By implying that that would be possible as a result of voting for Clinton, she was courting those voters.  At the same time, she was courting a completely different group of voters by alleging that Obama had not "crossed the CiC threshold."  The two statements put together make absolutely no sense.  Moreover, there was never any clear indication that she in fact wanted Obama as her VP, nor did she ever say that she was willing to be a VP on Obama's ticket.  It was subtle politics, but politics none the less.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Those two statements together once again illustrate the amazing ability of Hillary Clinton to spew bullshit at phenomenal rates -- and the even more amazing ability of her followers to shallow it without blinking.

Can we have a poll among the Clinton supporters -- which of Hillary's two statements were true, the "not having passed the CiC threshold" or her offer of the VP?

Because they can't be both true -- and if people claim not to see that, they're simply lying.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

er... "easy for us Obama supporters to be magnanimous"?

TONYA HARDING IN '08!!!

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-26 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Good for you, hopefully both sides listen, it would make life easier for the admins here that have to ban so many folks, on both sides, for their behavior.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

this diary should be updated to show that they BOTH need to stop not just obama,

otherwise you are implying that Hillary doesn't need to worry about the 19% because she will never need them to vote for her in the GE

is this what you are implying? that Hillary has nothing to worry about since she wont be in the GE?

if not please update your diary

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I wouldn't be surprised that 19% of those voters are African-Americans and young voters.  See Hillary cannot win without AA support.

Also, I agree, HRC's supporters might not be really democrats because I thought that dems supported dems at the end of the day.  I guess not.

by kristannab 2008-03-26 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

supreme court seats,
bush tax cuts,
health care,

theses were only important if Hillary was behind it, anyone else then it seems that John Mccain is the person that people who believe in reproductive freedom should get behind.

any HRC supporters wanna agree with me here, I know a few of you have said you are voting for Mccain.

can you tell me how his and his party stand on abortion or gay rights, or healthcare agree with you?

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Accusations and assumptions like these: HRC's supporters might not be really democrats because I thought that dems supported dems at the end of the day.  I guess not. do not help bring any UNITY to the Party at all. But keep bashing Dems who do not support BO... It will help make you feel better, but at the end of the day, will HURT your candidate.

by JHL 2008-03-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

The problem is not Dems who don't support Obama, but "Dems" who are apparently willing to support McCain if they don't get their way. This problem stretches across both candidates' supporters, but to the extent that this attitude is so much more prevalent among HRC supporters, they therefore bear that much more of the responsibility.

by Weirdsmobile 2008-03-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Why does it have to be that as a HRC supporter I am not getting my way? If BO was in a primary with any of the other Dem candidates----Dodd, Biden, Edwards, Richardson, Gravel--- I would have put them in an order of preference too, and I can assure you BO would probably just be ahead of Gravel on my list and that's only because I don't know much about him. Edwards would be at the top. I don't like BO's campaign, or his rhetoric and he wouldn't be my choice even if HRC WASN'T in the primary.

by JHL 2008-03-26 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

You are always welcome to support who you wish in the primaries.  When talking about the general election, however, the choice boils down to McCain or Obama.  Since Democrats tend to care about people who work for a living, health care, the environment, choice, less war, etc. a vote for McCain (or no vote at all) instead of Obama makes no sense.  Obama may be low on the preference list of Clinton supporters in the primaries, but based on Democratic issues he would be far preferable to McCain.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-26 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

well, come GE time, I will again make an informed, well-researched decision. I have often written here that I put my Country first and my Party second. And I have to tell you I am not very enamored with many of my Party elders---Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, (both Congressional leaders have been dismal and disappointing). Where is the leadership of the Party of the People? I am a tried and true Dem when it comes to Health Care, Education, war, civil liberties, the economy, taxes, crime, infrastructure. I am anti-corruption, misuse of power, limiting freedoms, disinfranchisement of minorities (Federal Amendment to define marriage Act, women's choice, etc.). CHARACTER is a BIGGIE for me, as is EXPERIENCE, and so far, HRC is faring better in all categories over BO on the Dem scale. That's why I support her. Come GE time, I will listen attentively to all the arguments presented by all parties and then make a decision on who I feel best represents my values and my concerns, and who appears to have the best solutions. I don't think there is a more serious w/consequences vote than the cast for President of the United States. And as such, should be approached with the attention and thought process it deserves. ALWAYS. Not when it just suits th Party. Rather when it best serves the country and our troops.

by JHL 2008-03-26 10:58AM | 0 recs
C'mon, Jerome...

It takes two to tango, friend.

You can claim that...

... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?

But what of Hillary and her supporters poisoning the well? Isn;t that part of her strategy, as well? Read the diaries here citing rightwing news sources for damaging information on Obama or a few of your most loyal posters putting up every loony rightwing YouTube video about Obama here.

As usual, you take only one side.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 09:16AM | 0 recs
And is this a Democratic blog?

Last Friday, you wrote this front-pager:

Guidelines For Users

One of the points you included in your post was this:

Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

So will you ban any so-called Democrats who come here to bash Obama, should he get the nomination, and boost McCain, particularly since this place is rife with some very bitter Clinton backers?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: And is this a Democratic blog?

He would have to ban himself if that was the case.

by kristannab 2008-03-26 09:28AM | 0 recs
I've been banned 4 times now

while the same usernames that attack me for supporting Obama remain.

IMO anyone posting a hit-piece written by a Right-Winger who was up until Jan 3rd considered to be Hillary and Bill nemisis should be ASHAMED and run out on a RAIL.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: C'mon, Jerome...
My GOODNESS, you all are really borgs, aren't you? You repeat each other like some sort of creepy uber-voice. Read Jerome's statement (I know you have, because you actually block quote it). His point is that it is NOT a two-way street precisely because it's Obama that is claiming mathematical victory, as you have many many times in diaries. If you claim victory, then you would think, if you actually also care about winning in the Fall, that you would reach out to Clinton supporters (who comprise half -- half! -- of your base). What about this point is too subtle for you?
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:36AM | 0 recs
Right.

Meanwhile, mnicholson0220 posts a diary citing (in its entirety) an Obama hit piece by Jonah Goldberg.

Just one piece of the daily bile-spewing here against Obama.

Like I wrote, it takes two to tango.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast

Working the ref is a legitimate strategy, but when one side is being literally chased away from most of the mainstream blogs, who are nearly 100% pro-Obama, it seems a bit ungenerous to discourage a modicum of support they receive here.

I wasn't aware Hillary supporters had been calling for Obama to drop out.  But Obama supporters have been calling for Hillary to drop out.

How can you, in the one instance, say things are terribly unequal, then use as your argument in this case that things are equal?

by Larissa 2008-03-26 05:14PM | 0 recs
You should know better Jerome

This is the Height of Silly Season.

People are drunk on their candidates right now but once it is settled and the other side can't get their daily drank from the well of poison, the extreme partisanship will end.

I can't stand the thought of Clinton right now but I have 2 daughters and I'll BE DAMNED if I'll have them growing up under a GWB/John McCain Supreme Court.

I can only laugh when I see women who have fought hard for reproductive rights to even joke about voting for McCain - it is just so disengeuous. That is why I think that even the most die-hard Hillary supporters will wise up by November.

Get serious folks.

Oh and Jerome - you can finally remove the FL & MI delegate counts from the Flash thingies - that ship has sailed.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:17AM | 0 recs
Hate vs Issues

>>>I can't stand the thought of Clinton right now

Of course!  That's the result of hanging out at hate-Hillary sites that engage in FAUX OUTRAGE and focus on bashing Hillary with non-stories and racheting up the Hillary-hate.

otoh - I've seen very few comments from Hillary supporters about hating Obama. They just don't think he's qualified to be president, is weak on the issues, and cannot win the general.

Hate vs. Issues

In fact, it's almost impossible to find a diary on Obama's positions on the issues on pro-Obama sites.

by annefrank 2008-03-26 09:44AM | 0 recs
Would you vote for Obama in the general...

... if he is the nominee?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 09:47AM | 0 recs
I've seen very few comments from Hillary supporter

"I've seen very few comments from Hillary supporters about hating Obama"

You are joking right? Cause that is so blantantly wrong and dishonest.

How about this post which directly follows yours?

"I despise the thought of an Obama supporter being happy"

this guy hates Obama so much that he despises his supporters being happy. That is the height of vitirol.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: You should know better Jerome

This is the Height of Silly Season.

People are drunk on their candidates right now but once it is settled and the other side can't get their daily drank from the well of poison, the extreme partisanship will end.

I can't stand the thought of Clinton right now but I have 2 daughters and I'll BE DAMNED if I'll have them growing up under a GWB/John McCain Supreme Court.

I can only laugh when I see women who have fought hard for reproductive rights to even joke about voting for McCain - it is just so disengeuous. That is why I think that even the most die-hard Hillary supporters will wise up by November.

Get serious folks.

Oh and Jerome - you can finally remove the FL & MI delegate counts from the Flash thingies - that ship has sailed. by Chimpeach

It is absolutely ludicrous to think that Hillary supporters will automatically "WISE UP" with Obama at the top of the ticket. I've gotten to the point where I despise the thought of an Obama supporter being happy. However, if that is your thinking that Hillary supporter's will automatically wise up, well, I'm looking at a "VERY SAD" November.

by Check077 2008-03-26 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: You should know better Jerome

This is the Height of Silly Season.

People are drunk on their candidates right now but once it is settled and the other side can't get their daily drank from the well of poison, the extreme partisanship will end.

I can't stand the thought of Clinton right now but I have 2 daughters and I'll BE DAMNED if I'll have them growing up under a GWB/John McCain Supreme Court.

I can only laugh when I see women who have fought hard for reproductive rights to even joke about voting for McCain - it is just so disengeuous. That is why I think that even the most die-hard Hillary supporters will wise up by November.

Get serious folks.

Oh and Jerome - you can finally remove the FL & MI delegate counts from the Flash thingies - that ship has sailed. by Chimpeach

It is absolutely ludicrous to think that Hillary supporters will automatically "WISE UP" with Obama at the top of the ticket. I've gotten to the point where I despise the thought of an Obama supporter being happy. However, if that is your thinking that Hillary supporter's will automatically wise up, well, I'm looking at a "VERY SAD" November.

by Check077 2008-03-26 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: You should know better Jerome

I agree complete, except it's Obama who makes me a little queasy. Nevertheless, I believe in the values of the Democratic Party, and I could never vote for McCain under any circumstances. Obama will have my support. It does seem strange to me that everyone has forgotten how, when Hillary was looking inevitable, it was Obama supporters who were saying "I could never vote for her." As someone said several posts up, it's easy for those who are supporting the perceived winner to say they could support the other candidate and very hard for those who are supporting the perceived loser. Sure would be nice if we could stop labeling one another as "condescending" or "bitter" - we share the common goal of defeating the Republicans, I hope, so maybe we should cut each other some slack.

by Not the only Dem in KS 2008-03-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: You should know better Jerome

ohhhh scared yet ladies???

they are ringing the SCOTUS bell again

we're not Pavlovian dogs-- we're individuals

women voted in Bush 1

Bush 2--TWICE

Obama blocked the Alito filibuster

and planned to vote for Roberts until his aide suggested it would haunt him later...

voting downticket Dems in Congress maintains the stare decisis protection of Roe

thanks for your concern

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 02:52PM | 0 recs
5 justices appointed by moderate Republicans

upheld Roe in 1992.  In a 5-4 decision, the only justice on the court appointed by a Democrat voted against Roe.

by Larissa 2008-03-26 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

"his bandwagon of racism, hate, and divisiveness"

Ummmm.

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-26 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

sometimes there's just nothing you can say.

teh stupid. it burns.

by bookish 2008-03-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Saddam and 9/11

Most loyal views of FAUX news believe that Saddam Hussien  was responsible for 9/11. I think this explains the Hillary/McCain numbers. Hard core Hillary supporters believe all the negative spin the campaign puts out on Obama. They are going to be in for a rude awaking when Hillary starts kissing Obama's ass when he wins the nomination.  

by JoeCoaster 2008-03-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
You'd think Democrats wouldn't hurt themselves

I thought that the fight was a good thing, not anymore.  At this point it is seriously hurting us and benefiting McCain.  

I feel the same anti-Hillary passion that I see Hillary supporters expressing against Obama.  I'm trying to check my anger and realize that no matter how frustrated I may feel, it doesn't accomplish anything.  

Let's stop fighting and make a joint call for our candidates to do the same.

by Renie 2008-03-26 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

So you are admitting that racists and bigots are voting for Hillary? Explain to me exactly where that fits into "democratic party values."  If this is acceptable and if this is what the democratic party is about, I'll leave.

by kristannab 2008-03-26 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

"So you are admitting that racists and bigots are voting for Hillary?"

No, what the poster was saying was that the Obama bandwagon are racists and haters. How did you get to some admission that Hillary supporters are racists? You seem to be expecting some sort of admission to that effect, or at least very quick to hear one...? What is your opinion about Hillary Clinton supporters? Do you think we are all racists and bigots?

by 07rescue 2008-03-26 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

You're calling me a racist and bigot?  Thanks, I needed that.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
I'm a Racist Bigot

Who donates money every year to the Southern Poverty Law Center as my Charity of Choice.

Go Figure.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm a Racist Bigot

Funny you dont look like a bigot.  

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

You'd think that Clinton would see the writing on the wall and gracefully bow out of the race rather than continue to tear down the party.

She has all but lost the primary. Her supporters are loyal, but they just couldn't pull it off. Obama beat her.

Her only hope is to sway the superdelegates, but she doing so runs the risk of damaging the party.

You'd think, with hers and Obama's stand on the issues she would care more about getting the country back on track than her own desire for power.

Next time she'll just need to run a better campaign.

Many of us Dems will vote for whichever comes out on top because the only other option leads to the ruin of this nation by the GOP.

If these 28% of Clinton supporters would rather lead us down that road than vote for Obama, God help us.

by CapTim 2008-03-26 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Who are the defectors seems the important issue.

In Hillary's case, my guess is these are the 'Reagan Democrats' who have come back to the party because of her. They tend to be working class, high school educated and national security oriented. Plus probably some Asians and Latinos.

With Obama, it is probably some AA's. Would help to have a breakdown of just who will defect.  

by DaleA 2008-03-26 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included
Has Jerome put up the "Electoral College Count" flash thingie yet? Because Electoral Votes won now count too...and she's ahead in that!
by Rockville Liberal 2008-03-26 09:26AM | 0 recs
You mean there's been general election voting

... already?

I'll be damned!

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Geez, I didn't know the general election was underway already.  I'd better get my ass down to the polls before they close.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 09:55AM | 0 recs
Just a thought...

 Who at this time has the highest % of core Democratic Party votes?
  And how many of the Republican/Independent votes for Obama (since that seems to be his "core") came in after the McCain secured the Repub. spot?

 OR if those in particular states knew he (McCain) was going to get the nod from his party-I know in NJ my brother knew then (Super Tuesday) that McCain was going to get the nod-so he voted for Obama-trust me he has no intention of voting for him in the GE. Do you really think all of those folks are going to be voting for him in the GE.
  I think "not".

Neither will I-I am one of those "write-in" folks. Left the Dem party because they refused to stand up to Bush and co. And now Dean still can't take a stand.
  I refuse to give my vote to someone who for me represents hatred/anger and intolerance. In other words whose actions do not match their words-

To be honest I would much rather hear him talk to WHY thinks he should be in office rather than continue to talk about why he thinks someone else should not be there. This would also take care of any reaching out that would need to be done.

I have read the post with 100 reasons for HIllary to be there-I have not seen anything floating around with even 20 reasons why he should be there.  Until someone maybe one of you Obama supporters might want to compose such a list. But until then as far as I'm concerned he does not have enough credentials for the job.

 

by artsykr 2008-03-26 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

You forgot your snark tag "thingie".

by fogiv 2008-03-26 10:41AM | 0 recs
Obama supporters are to blame

Prior to these presidential elections, i was member of Kos for a long time, at least 2 years. I posted, commented and took part of all the activities on that site from raising money to organizing marches and so forth. Then the elections started and my wife and I began posting and supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

It started slow and in a low volume and then they went totally rabid on us. suddenly We were called racists, right-wingers, my wife was called a whore, and so on. Our comments were classified as troll and our diaries where derided, mocked and consistently  hijacked. So, we left Kos or we stopped posting their but something more serious happened to us. Obama who is the Messiah of the modern times--speaks no evil, does no evil, sees no evil--and who is brining this new politics or unity and hope and change has the most radical and less-tolerant supporters out there. There is a serious disconnect between Obama and his supporters. When you listen to them, there is no hope, no change and no tolerance. They stick you and qualify you as racist and that IS IT for you. YOU CANNOT SAY ANYTHING AFTERWARDS BECAUSE YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY ON THE DEFENSIVE.

I don't agree with most Republicans and will never vote for them mostly because of their supporters, the religious right. I can't stand them. Well, Obama's supporters are worse then the religious right people. So, we decided that If Obama clinches the nomination, my wife and I are staying home and we live in a serious battle ground state, Missouri. I don't mind 4 years of McCain. After all we survived 8 of Bush, i think we can live 4 years of McCain.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Why would you ever vote based on the microscopic fraction of people that one can meet online?  That seems a bit, well, myopic.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

OK, check out 24/7 media coverage.  Same thing.  

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
Good for a laugh I guess

That's like saying because you bought a carton of Spoiled milk from the Acme you are never going to drink Milk again.

Silly Season Eh?

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

I am an Obama supporter and I do not believe that Hillary supporters are racist, and would never insult someone's wife.  Tensions have been high over this primary season.  I do not think that Obama is perfect and would have gladly voted for Edwards if he had won Iowa.  I will admit that some of the things that Hillary and her supporters have said and done over this campaign have made me very angry.  I was considering writing in someone else if she used the superdelegates to overturn the vote of the people.  At this point though, I've had enough.  We can't do this to ourselves or our party.  Regardless of what has been said (please realize that Obama supporters are accused of being Obamabots and koolaid drinkers) we have all got to band together.      

We have not all survived 8 years of Bush, 4,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have paid for his presidency with their lives.  There are serious and deadly consequences to our vote.  The world is depending on us to do the right thing, it is not OK for us to give up and let the Republicans win because of an ugly primary.

by Renie 2008-03-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
FEMA

I don't mind 4 years of McCain. After all we survived 8 of Bush, i think we can live 4 years of McCain.

wouldn't be so sure of that. What if there are wildfires in your state and all the fire fighters are serving in the Natl. Guard in Iran? Who is going to save your house? What if there is a flood? Who is going to evacuate you? What if there is an epidemic? Whose CDC and public health system will protect you?

I share your view of the Orange Frat House, they are pouring poison across blogosphere and the Democratic party. Even if you don't like Obama, there are sure to be down ballot races you are interested in. Pay attention to them, vote Democratic in Nov. and you will feel better about yourself.

by Alice Marshall 2008-03-26 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: FEMA

Marshall, you are hilarious. So, let me get this straight, a wildfires that burns my house, a flood that is going to wipe out my house and family, and a virus that will basically kill everyone. Good scenario for a movie and i do work in the industry actually. So, we elect a president, an old decrypt one, and suddenly a worker in a CDC in Atlanta breaks a vile of a very potent virus. The virus is airborne, and it travels in the air and infects the guy who is responsible of maintaining the level of the lakes surrounding Atlanta. He is so sick and the fever is so high that he mistakingly pushes the wrong button and Atlanta is flooded. Of course, the new decrypt president is so inept that he did not nominate a competent FEMA director....

Marshall, i see some potential here. Though the dramatization is a bit over the top, it will require some serious special effects.

Marshall, i am well aware of the bottom half of the ballot, and i thank you for your concern. There is a very tight congressional race where i live and i will probably go and vote that day. But i will not vote for Obama and it is because of his rabid rabid supporters. No one likes to be called a whore and especially a racist. For goodness, they are so vicious that they made my wife cry. I can't support these people because if he gets elected, no one will be able to criticize him. Let us say that he is elected president, with these supporters around, can you criticize him? No, you will be called a racist and they might even go further than that. There is too much passion and irrationality for me to be supporting that.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Moron.  Tell that to someone with a loved one in Iraq.  YOU might "survive".  Far too many of those in the armed forces most assuredly WILL NOT.

Please re-think your callous and nonsensical remark.

by fogiv 2008-03-26 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Idiot, i have two brothers in Iraq. One is an FSO in the embassy in Baghdad and the other is USMC in Fallujah.  So, before you open you nasty piehole and utter totally idiocy, give people the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, i do not believe that we should pull ALL our troops in less than years or 2. Every FSO i know and every specialist of the region and my two brothers argue for a very very very slow withdraw that last at least 5 years because they are scared that if it is done too fast or not done right, they will be back again to fight an even nastier war.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Sorry Pal, but if you have FAMILY in Iraq, and are willing to vote for JOHN MCCAIN, you are far MORE STUPID that I orginally asserted.

If McCain is chosen to run this country (with YOUR help), you will be willingly choosing to directly endanger the lives of your very family, not just by extending their utterly unwarranted adventure in Iraq, but by potentially dropping them into Iran, Syria, North Korea, or wherever else trigger-happy McCain feels like.

God help you if these event come to pass.

by fogiv 2008-03-26 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Read the damn comment before. I think you guys have an English reading/comprehension problems. Where do you see me saying voting for McCain?

Well, if you had any understanding of the region, which you do not have, you would have realized that they will (actually one, the Marine) be going back to the region anyway if a civil war in Iraq breaks and spills over in the region. Do you think for one moment that we won't be going back and it does not matter if Obama, Clinton or McCain is president. American GIs will go back to the region to keep Israel out of the fight. See, sparky how stupid you are now.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Does your post not say the following?

So, we decided that If Obama clinches the nomination, my wife and I are staying home and we live in a serious battle ground state, Missouri. I don't mind 4 years of McCain. After all we survived 8 of Bush, i think we can live 4 years of McCain.

Now, for READING COMPREHENSION:  Explain how your statement is not tantamount to support for Republican John McCain in the general election?

Well, if you had any understanding of the region, which you do not have, you would have realized that they will (actually one, the Marine) be going back to the region anyway if a civil war in Iraq breaks and spills over in the region. Do you think for one moment that we won't be going back and it does not matter if Obama, Clinton or McCain is president.

Are you suggesting that both Clinton's and Obama's Iraq policy proposals and withdrawl plans are substantively the same as John McCain's, who has in essense pledged war in perpetuity?

Question my understanding of the region?  To date, I've read the following books on the subject:

Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff and David Corn

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks

Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy by Steven Metz

Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq by Ahmed S. Hashim

The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq by George Packer

All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer

Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by Michael R. Gordon

Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq by Larry Diamond

State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III by Bob Woodward

The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis by Reese Erlich

Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East by Rashid Khalidi

The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War by James L. Gelvin

Blood Money: Wasted Billions, Lost Lives, and Corporate Greed in Iraq by T. Christian Miller

Perilous Power: The Middle East & U.S. Foreign Policy: Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice by Noam Chomsky

The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End by Peter W. Galbraith

Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq by Michael Scheuer

Thanks, but I'm relatively well informed, and will happily discuss the region with you in nauseating detail should you so desire it.  

I have confidence that EITHER of our democratic candidates will remove us from the quagmire of Iraq with care and seek diplomatic solutions aimed at avoiding the need for US forces to return, even to bailout Israel (which is another matter entirely).

John McCain?  Not so much.  Nay, NOT AT ALL.  You are willing to concede the Oval Office to such a man if HRC loses the nomination?  Really Sparky?  REALLY?!?

by fogiv 2008-03-26 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

The only valid books from that whole list are:

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq

Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq

Perilous Power: The Middle East & U.S. Foreign Policy: Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice

And if you read very well Ricks' book would have noticed that he does not say anything about whether staying or pulling or all the options in between are valid or not. He actually argued the other day on Charlie Rose that pulling all our troops in less than a year is a very bad idea, in fact as bad as the fiasco that led us over. John Burns, the only journalist who really knows what he is talking about when it comes to Iraq, says that a total withdraw would lead, with a great certitude, to a proxy war which lead to a regional war and after that nobody really knows what would happen.

So i believe that Obama or/and Clinton will not be suicidal and pull all our troops in a year (give McCain a break about the 100 years. He clarified his comments, let us move on). I actually think they won't be able to keep their electoral promise. All of this talk is campaign rhetoric, nothing more and nothing less. The situation is way to complex that us pulling our troops and going home will amount to nothing. Diplomacy needs time to develop and take roots. It does not happen over night. And we cannot start our diplomatic effort if we have no leverage in the region--i.e. our troops.  

The books you cited above, to prove you bone fide, are more about how this administration lied and cheated and led us into this nightmare. However, we are engaged now. It is not my choice, but we are responsible for our mistakes and we are responsible for the welfare of the Iraqi people. Moreover, if we leave and pull ALL our troops in an expeditious way, we will be back to a region in fire. We'd better take our time and pull in gradual way. We have made a very bad mistake, let us not turn a bad mistake into a worse one.

You are just too naive or you have no understanding whatsoever of the situation over there. I am wasting my time with you...have a good day.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

You've read the other books I've cited and can dismiss them as invalid to a better understanding of the War in Iraq, the middle east and US Policy?  Please provide your credentials to support such a claim, or better yet, prove your assertion for each reference in turn.

You say:

And if you read very well Ricks' book would have noticed that he does not say anything about whether staying or pulling or all the options in between are valid or not. He actually argued the other day on Charlie Rose that pulling all our troops in less than a year is a very bad idea, in fact as bad as the fiasco that led us over. John Burns, the only journalist who really knows what he is talking about when it comes to Iraq, says that a total withdraw would lead, with a great certitude, to a proxy war which lead to a regional war and after that nobody really knows what would happen.

True enough.  Please explain how this has anything to do with my point, or yours for that matter?  Rick's books was cited as one of many examples supporting my relatively strong understanding of the situation, and the region in general.  You've done little here but prove that you've read a book too.  Had I claimed that you hadn't, I be bested.  As it stands now, you've accomplished nothing.

Then, you say (I'll quote selectively to save space):

So i believe that Obama or/and Clinton will not be suicidal and pull all our troops in a year...situation is way to complex that us pulling our troops and going home will amount to nothing...Diplomacy needs time to develop and take roots...does not happen over night...cannot start our diplomatic effort if we have no leverage in the region--i.e. our troops...if we leave and pull ALL our troops in an expeditious way, we will be back to a region in fire...We'd better take our time and pull in gradual way

Largely, we're in agreement here.  The problem is that NONE of what you've said is germane to the argument at hand.  You have said nothing to defend or validate the notion that John McCain will be BETTER for US Policy in the middle east, or more successful in managing the mess that is Iraq, or assuring the safe withdrawl of our troops than Barack Obama will be.

Based on your previous statements (and absurdly diversionary arguments) I can only presume that you think John McCain's generally lunatic positions on foreign policy to be superior to those of the democratic front-runner.  Otherwise, you'd not sit out the General Election, munching on sour grapes in your battleground state, while McCain ascends to the Presidency.

You are just too naive or you have no understanding whatsoever of the situation over there. I am wasting my time with you

Claims that I'm "naive" or that I "have no understanding" are completely baseless.  That said, I do agree that you're wasting your time.  You've lost the argument.

by fogiv 2008-03-26 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

I said it 2 or 3 posts above, i do not care about the outcome of these elections anymore. I did care for a while. Yes, i was a Clinton supporter but if she did not make it, i was going to happily vote for Obama. But i am no longer in that state of mind. This thing has become personal to me the day they attacked my wife and send her emails to her personal account insulting her and calling a whore. These are no longer the supporters of a candidate, they are hooligans.  

As for my credentials, i prefer keeping them private, otherwise i would have used my real name, with my function and mailing address.

I agree with you, Ricks' is the best book out there on the debacle called war in Iraq . However, it chronicles the failure, or series of failures from the beginning until about a year ago. It does not provide an analysis of the region and the geopolitical power play between the countries in the region. If you want me to recommend you books for that purpose, I'll gladly do it.

PS: I don't engage in conversations to win and lose an argument. I am not that insecure to care about losing or winning one. But if that makes you happy, yes congratulations you WON the argument. Hope that makes you happy

by Tudor 2008-03-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

I find it horrific and unexecusable that your wife was harrassed and insulted.  I share your indignation at such deplorable behavior.

As for your keeping your credentials to yourself, I sympathize completely.  I hope that you understand that I wasn't calling for your personal information, merely what specialized knowledge you held to dismiss out of hand a rather substantial collection of legitimate scholarly work.

Now, I'll happily accept your recommendations for further reading.  As ought be obvious, I'm a voracious reader, and quite interested in the topic.  Sadly, much of our future lies tied to that unstable region, and I'd like to learn and understand as much as possible.  I fear that one day my own children will still be dealing with the mess we've helped create there.  As an aside, Rick's book was definitely excellent, and I found Assassin's Gate remarkable as well.

Finally, allow me apologize for becoming a bit uppity with you in previous postings.  I have an unfortunate tendency to let the "Irish Fire" rage when I feel I'm being brushed off or unacknowledged.  So, I'm sorry for calling you "stupid".  Clearly, you are not, just as I am not naive.

As for who won the argument, I'll submit that I don't think either of us did as we never quite got to talking about the same thing.  Which brings me to my unbudging conclusion (which I concede you are welcome to disagree with):

You should still vote for the Democrat come GE time, as opposed to abstaining.  McCain is bad news for the country, not just in terms of foreign policy, but domestic as well.

My best to you and yours.

Cheers.

by fogiv 2008-03-26 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Thank you and i feel that we finally are talking like normal human beings.

Well, here are a few books that i recommend. Some of them are kind of heavy (academic) others are popular. But, i think, it is a good mixture that depicts the complexity of that region.

-Cleveland, William: A History of the Modern Middle East

-Quintan Wiktorowicz: Islamic Activism *

-Caryle Murphy: Passion for Islam, Shaping the modern Middle East

-Posusney Pripstein and Michele Penner Angrist: Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Regimes and Resistance

-Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin: Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle

-Carothers and Marina Ottaway: Uncharted Journey, Promoting Democracy in the Middle East*

-Roger Owen: State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East**

-Tawfiq Al-Hakim: The Return of Consciousness

-Marina Ottoway: Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism*

-Alan Richards, and John Waterbury: Political Economy of the Middle East

-John Bradley: Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis

-Vali Nasr: The Shia Revival (highly recommended to understand the new role of the Shi'i in the region)

-Kurzman Charles: The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran* (recommended to understand how the Iranian revolution came about)

-Charles Kurzman and Michaelle BrowersAn: Islamic Reformation

PS: books with ** are academic books and are a bit heavy.

Anyway, i will think about other/more books and if i remember them, i will post them here.

By the way, if you have read an interesting book recently, feel free to recommend it.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Great.  Thanks much for the recommendations.  I actually have a few of these on the shelf that I haven't gotten to as yet.  I need more hours in a day!

by fogiv 2008-03-27 04:09PM | 0 recs
Fingerpointers

Especially self-proclaimed blameless, one-way-only accusrs are so very persuasive, are they not?

Hmm.  I guess most of this comment applies as well to the diary at hand.

by Quicklund 2008-03-26 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

I have felt the same way as Tudor.
I stopped going to DailyKos when Kos and others became Obama fanatics.  There was no room for logical discourse, it was either Support Obama or Die.

I was a Edwards supporter and I got trashed all the time.  Very early on, I became very distressed about this Obama following, but more important, I was disturbed by Obama.

There is something "missing" from him... he says the "right" words, he has the "right" look, but there's nothing genuine about it.  It's like a good con man, like Elmer Gantry- a "nice" guy who is really a cad and can fool all the people around him, until he can't fool them anymore.

I know you got trashed for your post, but I am writing to say you are NOT ALONE.  Many more people are not impressed by Obama than people know or the MSM is willing to admit.

by stefystef 2008-03-26 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

Thank you for your support and i am sorry for you Dkos suffering. It's just not worth it anymore.

I really do not care who wins these elections. But deep down i know that Obama is a totally flawed candidate and he is not what his supporters are building him to be.

I was a Clinton supporter but i did not mind voting for Obama if clinched the nomination. But the day they called my wife a whore and they sent her nasty emails to her account just to provoke her and hurt her feeling because she refused to respond to their comments, i decided that this Obama thing has gone too far. It is no longer an electoral campaign to me; it became personal and i don't care if McCain is elected to be honest. I won't vote for him, but i don't mind if he wins.

by Tudor 2008-03-26 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama supporters are to blame

I understand your diary perfectly and have experienced the same thing on KOS.  I've even gotten my posting priviledge suspended (whoa!!).  I had the odacity to post I was voting for Nader after being so angered by the Obama idiots.  The exchange here proves you are right about Obama supporters!  Mr anti-war Obama lost his voice after his 2002 speech and voted to continue the Iraq War in the Senate also proving he is spineless with no courage of conviction.  Don't worry McCaine, Clinton, and Obama all have the same stand on Iraq using different words so I agree who is president will not make a difference on that score.

by orionwest 2008-03-26 04:47PM | 0 recs
the point may be premature...

but the conclusion is sound.  bitterly divisive primaries end up with the other party sitting in the white house (unless the two bitter opponents unite on the ticket, which i don't think anyone thinks is likely).

since we know this, we need to prepare for that outcome.  yes, john mccain will be our president for the next four years.  but that doesn't mean we have to give him a blank check.  we can strengthen our majorities in the house and the senate, rebuild the democratic party in the south and the west, and rejuvenate it elsewhere.

and we need to accept that some people who once thought of themselves as democrats will leave the party.  all the more reason to focus on its rebuilding.

the most interesting thing about this development is that it really proves that personalities are much, much, much more important to the electorate than issues.  we are about to elect a conservative who will keep us in iraq, knows nothing about economics and has expressed a willingness to overturn roe v wade.  but none of that really matters to any but a handful of democrats.  we are unquestionably in a celebrity culture, and it pervades our politics...

by bored now 2008-03-26 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: the point may be premature...

I'm still hoping that about 100 sane and wise super-delegates tell them both to go into a room and not come out until they are a ticket. And why not? The SD's can tell them both off and go for another candidate, like Gore, if they won't do it.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 10:49AM | 0 recs
this is certainly a time when party discipline...

could be useful.  hillary actually fits the vice-presidential (campaign) profile better than any democrat i can remember, while i suspect barack would be john edwards-like as a veep candidate.  i'd think hillary would be a tough negotiator, and would draw enough blood that everyone would know she got _.

i got my hillary bumber sticker, yard sign and window sign ready, though, if this were to occur...

by bored now 2008-03-26 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

It is silly wondering about what other people will do. I know what I will do.

I know Hillary Clinton to be a decent, intellegent, hard working liberal who loves her country and has served honorably for over thirty five years to help improve the lives of all Americans. I was not intially supporting her as I thought Obama would be the guy who best fit my liberal views.  The more I see of her the most enthusiatic I am to see her as our first female president.

I know John McCain as a moderate to sometimes liberal Republican who loves his country and has served honorably and heroicly to the best of his ability. He is a Republican that we know well and is basically a decent guy. He would be acceptable, but not my first choice.

I just met Barack Obama and the more I learn of him the creepier and slimier he looks. I do not like him as person nor do I like him as a politician. As a matter of long standing liberal principals I will not vote for him, ever. If he becomes head of my party I will change registration to Independent. I do not want to be affiliated with him in any manner whatsoever.

by Caliman 2008-03-26 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I hope people will notice not one substantive argument against Barack, just an ad hominum attack that he's "creepier and slimier", whatever that means.  And again, its Barack and his supporters who are being negative.

by GobBluth 2008-03-26 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

The supposedly decent, intelligent, hard working liberal who loves her country, suggested she might put Obama in her VP slot.

So, please answer me, why such a good and intelligent person like Hillary would put such a supposedly slimy and creepy person in the position of VP.

Hillary can't have it both ways. She can't bash her supporters bash Obama from one side of the mouth, while she praises him from the other.

She's a self-contradictory liar.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-26 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I disagree with Hillary offering Obama the VP slot. He is not worthy to be in public office in this country.

by Caliman 2008-03-26 11:18AM | 0 recs
Here's what the graph isn't showing

You have to keep in mind there are a HUGE amount of Obama supporters, for better or for worse, that would either sit out the election or would vote for Nader if Clinton won.  

by iowa dem 2008-03-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's what the graph isn't showing
No, not true. The evidence on this question (see Pennsylvania poll from last week, I believe Gallup) says that Obama's supporters are far more likely to vote in the Fall than Hillary's supporters.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
You got some numbers wrong.

The "22%" that wants Obama to drop out was Rasmussen's combined answer from Republicans and Democrats.  The same number for Senator Clinton was derived from only Democrats.  It's a false equivalence.

by McNasty 2008-03-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: You got some numbers wrong.

at this point I am pretty sure this post won't be updated to address any of the concerns brought up.

22% = 22% I doubt Hillary supporters will admit anything else besides that...

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: You got some numbers wrong.

The "22%" that wants Obama to drop out was Rasmussen's combined answer from Republicans and Democrats.  The same number for Senator Clinton was derived from only Democrats. It's a false equivalence. By McNasty

These were back-to-back comments for some reason. This shows the Obaman Hipocrisy. On one hand, Hillary's 22% does not mean the same as Obama's 22%--his comes from republican and Independents while her 22% comes from straight-up Democrats. Well, I guess that's why you call Hillary's supporters non-democrats, for they comprise republican-lites and independents.

Well, tell me why Hillary is winning by so many DEMOCRATIC VOTES: People count and not your preference or analysis of Obama-leaning polls!

at this point I am pretty sure this post won't be updated to address any of the concerns brought up.
22% = 22% I doubt Hillary supporters will admit anything else besides that...
by TruthMatters

You, Obama supporters, can not have it both ways. That figures, you and the MSM are birds of a feather--it seems, at least with what I'm seeing here.

by Check077 2008-03-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
We really do not deserve better at this point.....

Yeah the graphs, yeah, it's close, yeah, yeah, yeah.  

We have no chance, NONE, of winning (I accidentally wrote whining and changed it but not sure why) if this keeps up.  None.  Zero. Nada.  

The superdelegates need to step in, and soon, on either side.  It's close, some support has  been lost already.  Personally, I don't see how Hillary can possibly end up with more pledged delegates or a large popular vote (I know, please, no cries about Michigan and Florida, they blew it), but if the supers want to throw it her way I will vote for her.  This needs to be over. Fast.  We need time to repair ourselves in time for November.  Otherwise, as I said, we really are not the party that is fit to govern a damn thing.  We are, if this keeps up, a dipshit fringe group.

by mady 2008-03-26 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Oh please. When McCain got the nomination all the wingnuts were clamoring over themselves to be the first to say they'd rather vote for Hillary than McCain.

Guess what happened next? The base solidified around him. There may be some initial anger and I'm sure there will be some breathless, handwringing articles from the vapid media in the initial weeks at how the democrats are divided, but that's going to fade.

In the end, when democrats have to push the lever, they're going to pull it for a democrat.

by Wade 2008-03-26 09:37AM | 0 recs
Seriously - just watch Morning Joe

Joe was spitting on McCain daily for the entire GOP primary.

Well guess what - He stopped the day McCain took the prize.

Now he piles on Obama daily about Wright and Clinton about Lies.

by Chimpeach 2008-03-26 09:43AM | 0 recs
If McCain Wins Blame Hillary

Hillary has no chance to win unless there's a superdelegate coup d'etat over the popular vote and delegate leader. She knows that but her ego can't let go. As such, she poisons the rhetoric and her diehard supporters.

If McCain squeaks out a win because Hillary kneecaps Obama, I will hold Hillary accountable for McCain's policy of continuing the war and the deaths of our soldiers.

There, I said it.

by chatters71 2008-03-26 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: If McCain Wins Blame Hillary

Hillary has no chance to win unless there's a superdelegate coup d'etat over the popular vote and delegate leader. She knows that but her ego can't let go. As such, she poisons the rhetoric and her diehard supporters.

If McCain squeaks out a win because Hillary kneecaps Obama, I will hold Hillary accountable for McCain's policy of continuing the war and the deaths of our soldiers.

There, I said it.

Is the DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION being held today? The answer to that is NO, NO, NO, NO, NOOOO! It will take a bigger Superdelegate COUP to give Obama the nomination when he can not win it outright with 2024 or by disenfranchising actual DEMOCRATIC VOTES. Have you ever heard of people actually going to the voting booths in Michigan and Florida? This is actually what did--it's wasn't like it did not happen. The simple fact is...it DID! (2 Million-plus voters = Greater than Obama or his supporter's wants and ambitions).

A person who STEALS, STEALS, STEALS a nomination that way can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have my vote.

by Check077 2008-03-26 10:21AM | 0 recs
Thank you Jerome

Thank you for stating the obvious.

by Alice Marshall 2008-03-26 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

So, all BO supporters need to do is be kinder and gentler while Clinton and her campaign continues to attack and fight on and all you Clinton supporters will vote for Obama?

Sweet!!

by poserM 2008-03-26 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

That it BO supporters. Don't argue with Clinton's supporters about who's going to get the nomination. Just assume we've won and work at consoling them.

by poserM 2008-03-26 09:45AM | 0 recs
i tried that...

they got mad...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

nope my vote is already gone but there are a few million others who may be swayed..

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?

Actually, I was thinking that you'd think Clinton would actually care enough about her political party to stop driving wedge issues between herself and Obama when all it's doing is hurting our chances for the fall.

But no, Clinton needs to cling to that 10% victory chance and the kitchen sink is only a prelude to the bathtub, the radiator, and John McCain.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-26 09:44AM | 0 recs
So

It looks to me Jerome, that Hillary Clinton is now succeeding at the expense of the Democratic Party.  

She has now turned this contest from 'who is better' into a Civil War.

by NvDem 2008-03-26 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Funny how on Monday all day 10 fing threads about how HRC is a lier but today Tuesday you wright BO "Clinton and her campaign continues to attack and fight on".  Funny.

david

by giusd 2008-03-26 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you Jerome

1st of all great post.  Secondly, Never Before have we had two strong candidates that hold a solid base of support. Finally, If Obama is nominated I'm afraid we will lose because I feel as if our country would rather vote for a moderate white republican over a liberal black democrat.  I know Obama supporters might get offended by this statement, but I think its true.  Also the problem with HRC is that our country according the the CBS poll think it's harder for a Woman to get elected than a Black Man, So I guess we start off regardless, with two XX 's against us.  I guess that's what happens when you vote with your heart and not your head.

by nzubechukwu 2008-03-26 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

@Jerome:

I've been a consistent reader of MyDD.com for a while and I enjoyed "Crashing the Gate" but I think you're just plain wrong with the direction you've been taking with this.

I was OK with Clinton as the potential nominee when this thing started but after seeing her campaign tactics, no more.  She's poisoned the well...  You know this.  Obama has been forced to shoot back but outside pointing out policy differences with the Clinton(s), he was running a clean, positive campaign (That the Clintonistas MOCKED) before she decided to channel Karl Rove.  She has a disgusting aire of entitlement that sickens half of the democrats (ME).  The other half (YOU) is buying into her race-baiting, her yarns about dodging sniper bullets and her praising of McSame.  The Independants are getting sick of both of them, thanks to her tactics and their effects.  Now, not only is the potential for a Democratic wave subsided, McCain just might get to fulfill Bush's third term.  I wonder where the country will be in four or eight more years of the kind of willful ignorance and greed that has been ruining this country?

Before all of the Clinton's shenanigans, we had a real chance of sweeping many of the Republican members of Congress and the Blue Dog Democrats you spend so much time fundraising against.  If you dismiss her tactics as "saavy politics", you are no better than the Republicans.

Wake up...  Again, before all her (their) Rovian tactics, I would have been satisfied with her as the nominee.   But the fact is:  Contests were held and she didn't win as many delegates... in fact it has been said time and time again that she isn't capable of making up the gap.  Get over it and quite aiding and abetting the demise of the Democratic Party.  Be better than the Republicans... even if Hillary can't be.

by chamberlin 2008-03-26 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Actually it was Obama who intentially launched the divisive and wholly false racist attacks against Hillary Clinton.

That is as vile and disgusting as anything said by Reverend Wright.

by Caliman 2008-03-26 09:56AM | 0 recs
go read his

full sermons before you start spewing hate.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-26 11:31AM | 0 recs
jack and jill, a smart black blog...

documents comments from bill clinton that they found racially offensive all the way back to last summer.  it's sad that you would think that obama "launched" these attacks, since he was probably the last one to talk about them...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Obama isn't capable of winning either, and he's blocking revotes in states. Fuck him. If he isn't willing to count all the votes, then he isn't a progressive.

by Little Otter 2008-03-26 10:01AM | 0 recs
barack didn't block a revote in florida...

floridians did.  we understand that hillary needs our votes in phenomenal numbers in order to stay competitive, but WE DON'T CARE.

go ahead, blame florida.  everyone else is...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

It's too late.  The alienation started when Obama told her she was likeable enough in the debate in NH, moving on to SC to label her as a racist.  It started early and is well ingrained by now.

What made it even worse was Obama's arrogant statement a month or so ago about Clinton's supporters supporting him, but he wasn't so sure his would vote for her.  I can see him saying it now, and it was an ingnorant and clueless thing to say.

by Scotch 2008-03-26 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Well, it was certainly clueless, because polls show the opposite.  I don't think that that supports your position, though.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Polls show that fewer Clinton supporters would support him than Obama supporters would support her at the point of the GE.  It was clueless that he assumes the opposite.  That is my position.  Your response doesn't make sense in light of this diary.

by Scotch 2008-03-26 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Well, the diary is apparently neutral as to whether or not this poll reveals a good thing about the electorate or a bad thing.  Clearly each of us is reading the diary in a different way.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

You know Scotch you've got a point with that. My girlfriend is an Obama supporter, but that "likeable enough" comment bothered her.

Also, my family is primarily middle-aged women (poll not scientific in any way) and they seem to get a sense of condescention in how Obama speaks to Clinton.

I may not agree, but the perception is there. This is definately somethig he's going to have to remedy.

by SFValues 2008-03-26 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

To begin with, this is not about all men, so don't everyone flame me because I'm saying this.

Yes, it's that common attitude toward women in general, especially those that are no longer fertile. It's as though they should just shut up, go in the corner, and let the men and younger women who are "more valuable" run things.

It's as though the older women have nothing to offer in the way of experience, talents, intelligence or knowledge because they are not fertile and attractive any more.

Actually, some of that is because the women are wise to the tricks played on women by so many men, after experiencing them over the years. They stop falling for them, so the men that have that attitude don't want to deal with them because they can't BS them or dominate them any more. I'm sure those men find that very annoying. They actually have to deal with the women as people instead of someone to use and manipulate.

by splashy 2008-03-27 01:40AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Once all the emotions cool and people get a chance to see either of the candidates compared to Father Time McCain, I think those numbers will vanish. Right now Democrats are only focused on their candidate winning, not beating the GOP.

McCain's numbers are high against both Clinton and Obama simply because nobody is paying attention to him. People have this idea of who McCain is, but once he has to step out into the spotlight, I think those numbers will tank.

To paraphrase John Stewart: McCain is the Republican candidate because he beat an almost cartoonishly weak GOP field.

by SFValues 2008-03-26 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

You are wrong if you think people don't already know McCain. Most American who've been alive for a while know him pretty well. He is a republican who has earned the respect of liberal democrats over the years so he will not be someone impossible to support should Obama be put up against him.

by Caliman 2008-03-26 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Fair enough Caliman, but when he starts talking about staying in Iraq, attacking Iran, his non-plan for the economy and the fact that he is one of the world's worst communicators, I think that opinion will change.

I'm a liberal and respect McCain, but I could no longer vote for him. Remember, this isn't the 2000 McCain, this is the 2008 McCain. They really are night and day.

by SFValues 2008-03-26 10:04AM | 0 recs
You'd also think....

I was gratified when the Clinton capaign began by staying clear of the Wright controversy, particularly after I read Wright's own words in the 911 sermon.  I guess their need to win trumps any kind of decency though at this point:

(CNN) - After staying out of the Barack Obama controversy over his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Hillary Clinton has now weighed in big time. She was asked about the flap when she met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review today. "He would not have been my pastor," she replied. "You know, you don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

A few moments ago, at a news conference, she essentially said the same thing before the microphones and cameras. And as she did earlier in the day, she noted that she had spoken out last year against Don Imus for his racially-charged comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. "I gave a speech at Rutgers University saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that."

Wolf Blitzer, CNN

by mady 2008-03-26 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd also think....

At least now it's out in the open, which is better than a week ago when she was ducking questions on the issue and clandestinely making the same arguments to the superdelegates.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd also think....

I just bottomed out on this campaign this morning.  I'd rather she be making the arguments to the supers than getting it out in the press everyday.  I'd always believed that the worst ugliness in this camapaign was coming from over-the-top supporters, not the candidates.  I just realized how wrong I was.  

by mady 2008-03-26 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd also think....

She was only saying what so many were thinking.

I really understand what he was talking about, and agree with much of it, but it even bothered  me the way he was talking. It was too hateful, and reminded me of the flip side of the hateful whites.

by splashy 2008-03-27 01:44AM | 0 recs
You think that's bad?

I wish he had stayed quiet on the Bosnia thing, the media was already going after her quite enough, but he has shown remarkable restraint considering the slime that has been thrown on him.  The alienation on my side started with the use of fear to argue against him in NH, crescendoed with the Jesse Jackson comment, became anger with the condescending  attitude of the "celestial choirs" and disgust with her willingness to advocate any means necessary of winning the nomination.

Even so, I will vote for her over McCain.

by Renie 2008-03-26 10:01AM | 0 recs
oops!

I meant to post this as a reply to Scotch.

Sorry!

by Renie 2008-03-26 10:05AM | 0 recs
Pretty amusing.

I assume this post is tongue-in-cheek.

by RLMcCauley 2008-03-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

and you are saying that Hillary HASN'T taken voters for granted?

just to remind you I voted in MN, where I was told I dont count because i am a latte drinking, prius driving, liberal who doesn't even need a president so my states caucus shouldn't matter when the SD's decide the nominee because hey we are a big state.

so please tell us how one sided it is and how Hillary is fighting for every vote to count (as long as its not MN, IA, MO, VA, Maine, Wisconsin, South Carolina.)

oh but don't worry she is fighting for FL and MI, because screw those states I mentioned who needs those to win the WH right?

by TruthMatters 2008-03-26 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Most people aren't as caught up in this as we are. They don't read MyDD or DailyKos, and they haven't had their feelings hurt by supporters of the other.

The reason more Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Obama is because Clinton has spent more time tearing Obama down.  All bluster aside, this is verifiable -- this is something that can be measured.  He's not ready to be CinC. He hasn't crossed the threshold. He doesn't love his country. He didn't walk out of Dr. Wright's church.

Doesn't it make sense that the candidate who's been going more negative against her opponent would have more followers who are unwilling to vote for that opponent?  Doesn't that make more sense than people getting huffy about a pissing war between two blogs on the internets?

Additionally, it's easier to be gracious in victory than it is in defeat. People attached to a candidate who's not doing well are more likely to be bitter and spiteful.  Not innately -- I've seen Obama supporters become more spiteful when things have gone against him, as well.  It's just psychologically likely that disappointment and a bleak outlook cause people to lash out when asked if they'd support the person who's winning.

by jere7my 2008-03-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

This is my first comment on this site for a long time, although I've been reading it for years, but your comment infuriates me.

Tell me why he has a message of racism, hate and divisisiveness? What you are doing is just name-calling. Start engaging in the discussion.

I expect more than just accusations of racism from a person that choses "annefrank" as username.

by Johannes 2008-03-26 10:11AM | 0 recs
Obama, Clinton, McCain, Beneath the Surface

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_v_mc cain_and_v_clinton_b.php

From Pollster

by mady 2008-03-26 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

As an AA Independent who leans Democratic, I was excited about the candidates when the campaign started. My first choice was Biden and when he dropped out I started to support Clinton. Although I am upset at the things Obama's supporters have said, that did not form my decision not to vote for him, because some of Clinton's supporters gave as good as they got.

What turned me off was when Obama said more than once on national TV that her supporters would vote for him, but his would not vote for her. That sounded a bit arrogant. Most people do not like to be taken for granted and that's what he did. Also, when his campaign started the drum beat for her to drop out when the polls are virtually tied and none of them will earn the 2024 they need to clinch the nomination it rattled me.

I think this is more of a self-inflicted wound.

by LadyEagle 2008-03-26 10:16AM | 0 recs
he was merely repeating a recent poll (atm)...

you want to blame him for that?  i'm speechless...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: he was merely repeating a recent poll (atm)...

This was way before the poll was taken. Plus the polls suggest the opposite. If we can't hold him responsible for his own words then what can we hold him accountable for?

by LadyEagle 2008-04-02 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

@Little Otter:

That's a pretty brain-washed rant, if you ask me.  I can't tell if you're a Clinton supporter or one of Limbaugh's conscripts send out to register as a Democrat to give the less favored candidate (HRC) the nomination so their candidate can have a fighting chance.  

Obama gave a speech on race because he was reacting to the Wright controversy, plain and simple.  Did you hear anything about racial issues coming from him before that?  I get so tired of hearing Clinton supporters who complain about the race card being played.  It is an effective debate device but it is  disingenuous.  Let me ask you this:  Obama is the first black candidate who actually has a chance at becoming the President.  Why the hell would he try and play the race card in his campaign?  This would be political suicide, at best. Are you so dense that you can't see this?  He has only talked about race in any significant way during that speech as far as I know.  Why do the Clinton Supporters have to "indulge" in disingenuous BS like this?

PS:  Tell me how BO has been misogynistic in his campaign?  Give me some "in-context" quotes, please.

PPS:  Tell me which is worse?  Attending a church where the pastor made some reactionary remarks 5 years ago and not throwing him under the bus

OR

...the candidate herself telling a BALD-FACED LIE about a fictional scenario when she was flown into a warzone under sniper fire in order to make herself seen more... i dunno... battle ready?  Is this not the kind of phony "mission accomplished" banner bullshit that we loathe about Bush?  

by chamberlin 2008-03-26 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

The fact that you cannot see the difference reflects the divide perfectly.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

...and the fact that you fail to respond meaningfully, even more so.

by fogiv 2008-03-26 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

It sure would help if you had a video clip a ink to the original text that contained the context etc. Otherwise that statement you just sited pretty much makes no sense at all.

by TMP 2008-03-26 12:30PM | 0 recs
As for Team Obama's race card and misogyny

I think this speaks for itself. From the mouth of Obama's national campaign co-chair the night of the Iowa caucus, Jesse Jackson Jr quoted by the WaPo said,

The natural reminder here is O.J. [Simpson] -- how does an African American candidate attack a white woman?

WTF!!

by grlpatriot 2008-03-26 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

This shows the power of a Hillary endorsement. Since Obama never endorsed McCain, it is hard to know if his endorsement would carry the same weight.

by kitebro 2008-03-26 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Ah Jerome continues to report just one side of the facts.  So nice to see.

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-26 10:21AM | 0 recs
Missouri Numbers troubling, especially for Ob.

"Clinton earns 79% of the vote from Democrats while Obama attracts 67%. Among men, McCain leads both Democrats by a wide margin. Among women, he has a nine-point advantage over Obama but trails Clinton by five."

Higher defaction rate with Obama, shown again and again, in states we need. AND Hillary has woman advantage, she was still losing in this poll, but by 6% less than Obama (6%is alot of ground)

by rigsoHC 2008-03-26 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I only remember one campaign arguing that 40 of the 50 states "don't matter". That's the Hillary campaign.

ALso I think we can calculate which campaign has insulted the other one's race/gender more by seeing the levels of support of the candidates among black women and white men.

In both groups Obama is leading.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-26 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Oww...

I've supported Hillary from day one, and I also like Obama, though I would prefer her as the nominee.  I don't think, though, his campaign has been hateful or racist.  Can't say either one is clear of being divisive...isn't that one of the unfortunate by-products of a political campaign?

So, all I can say to that is....

Oww...

by Revel 2008-03-26 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

my son and his mates at Camp Loyalty in Bagdad have asked me to please vote democrat and help end this war. No matter which candidate is the nominee.

That is my stance, I can assure you.

by hawkjt 2008-03-26 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Sense!  Thank You!

by fogiv 2008-03-26 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Man, who cares if Hillary supporters vote McCain. That exactly goes a long way to show who the real candidate of change is and tells us why they are supporting Hillary, same goes for Obama people who will vote McCain over Clinton.

If you claim to be a democrat and you vote for McCain over another democrat then to hell with you, we don't need stupidity and idiots in the democratic party anyway!

by er1975 2008-03-26 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

It's interesting how things turn. When Nader ran in 2000, pretty much all he got was hate by whiny sorelosers despite the fact that he supported Gore's right to fight the election results more than Lieberman , the aspiring VP did. There was little blame put on the Democratic Party for being so weak as to let Nader's entreaties sway enough people in some states to make a difference. Now, I see Jerome questioning why Obama people won't do enough to minimize the Hillary voters who will vote for McCain over Obama. I actually agree that it makes sense for the Obama camp to minimize the damage.  Obama has made mistakes in the past that cost him support among some progressives which would have offset the racist people who won't vote for Obama based on his race or an association with a minister(as if a lot of ministers don't preach some sort of passive aggressive hate when they talk about people who are not saved being doomed).

I just find it interesting that concepts that generated very little support on this blog are all of sudden given legitimacy because Hillary is all of a suddent the possible losing candidate.

by Pravin 2008-03-26 10:28AM | 0 recs
Lifelong Democrat

I'm a Hillary supporter. I don't like Obama at all. In fact, I find him to be repulsive as a person. Nevertheless, if he is the nominee, I will vote for him.

Maybe some Hillary supporters feel differently. Maybe some of them are just saying that now, because they are upset that Obama is leading, and because they don't like the smugness of some Obama supporters. Or, maybe they are telling this to pollsters to try and influence the superdelegates. After the Convention though, if Obama wins, I expect that Hillary, good Democrat and good person that she is, will call for total party unity. And that many, if not most, of these Hillary Democrats will support the nominee in November.

To me, party loyalty, and the horrible policies that McCain would implemen are more than enough. To some hard core Hillary supporters, maybe they are not. Maybe they honestly believe it would be better to vote for McCain, or third party, or not at all, than to vote for Obama. That is their right. But I don't think Obama or his campaign or his supporters can convince such people otherwise by kissing their butts, and I don't think they should try.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-26 10:28AM | 0 recs
Maybe Obama's numbers skewed by Independents

I wonder what percentage of that 19% who said they would vote for McCain over Hillary among Obama's support base is actually the Independent chunk?

I am willing to bet that most of Hillary's 28% are democrats who are willing to cross parties while not as much of Obama's 19% are Democrats willing to cross parties. Maybe Obama's ability to attract independents is actually making it more likely that they will vote for McCain rather than a sore loser syndrome on a part of a possible Democratic Party affiliated voter.

Looking at these numbers, I am going to guess that Hillary has a lot more sore losers on her side than Obama.

by Pravin 2008-03-26 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

There is no point quoting national opinion polls.  We had opinion polls already. They are called PRIMARIES.  

Obama has more elected delegates than Clinton.  You can't change that and, unless Clinton totally destroys Obama, she can't be the nominee.  Is she going to do that?  Somebody tell me.  

by MikeWalk 2008-03-26 10:34AM | 0 recs
"you would think that Obama supporters"

"you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?".

Actually, you would think that these graphs and the HRC "I'll vote for McCain over Obama" crowd would realize that their true NON-DEMOCRATIC/PRO-REPUBLICAN colors are showing here on MyDT: MyDirect Treason.

This definitely explains why HRC would praise the Democratic parties true enemy, McCain and the Repugnantcan party, while trashing the TRUE Democratic candidate, Obama.

HRC and McCain, birds of a feather...

Regardless, I'll maintain what I say in my sig. I'll vote HRC if she is the nominee.

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-26 10:40AM | 0 recs
Snipers

I find your tag offensive

by JHL 2008-03-26 10:59AM | 0 recs
I find your candidate repulsive...

but being a REAL Democrat, I'll vote for her if she's the nominee.

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-26 11:06AM | 0 recs
Okay, I was wrong.

Apparently HRC did NOT use the little Bosnian girl as a human shield. She indeed stayed, cool, calm, collected, and even heroic as witnessed in this new footage of her trip to Bosnia. I have seen the light: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RV Xc

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-26 11:18AM | 0 recs
No, I was wrong.

to think that civil dialogue could exist anywhere.

by JHL 2008-03-26 02:04PM | 0 recs
Okay JHL, I was wrong about YOU.

You seem to be someone who genuinely wants to have a civil conversation and were simply pointing out your dislike of my sig.

I apologize for offending you with my sig, but understand that it's just a joke.

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-26 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay JHL, I was wrong about YOU.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the "I was only kidding, can't you take a joke?" bit.

That's said after a person has annoyed someone to the point of anger. I've heard THAT one before.

It's offensive.

by splashy 2008-03-27 01:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Based on the acrimonious nature of the comments here and over a Dkos one could easily understand why so many are so emotionally worked up and have temporarily lost their minds. So I really don't put much stock in this poll. Come on now, how many times in the heat of the moment have we all wanted to say "I'm gonna take my ball and go home"? And of course we never actually do it. Well when a Pollster asks a questions like that we get to anonymously get to do just that "Take that damn ball and go home"!

by eddieb 2008-03-26 10:56AM | 0 recs
Common Sense needed here...

It is important to consider who Hillary's 28% are. They are either old as dirt or backwoods knuckle draggers.....of course their going to vote for McCain..

Obama could shit skittles and this 28% still wouldn't vote for him

by NCDEM29 2008-03-26 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Common Sense needed here...

clearly you've offended one of them.  The only reason to TR this is if you're one of 28%.  

by Tenafly Viper 2008-03-26 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I do think the way race was used from South Carolina onward is worthy of a book. Some day. If Hillary loses the nomination, that moment will have proven to be decisive. The politics of race and gender are just too explosive (and rightfully so) to play with for some short term gain. I'm thinking of whoever the nominee is: how is our coalition looking after such an excercise? I'm an Obama supporter (was for Edwards originally) who will support whoever wins. If McCain wins so much is irrevocably lost, a generation lost, social security lost, choice in tatters. It will take years and a number of presidencies to undo the damage of just one president. As a side note, Obama's committment to choice both in the state legisture and congress has been absolute, as much as Hillary's. And rightfully so. I don't intend to see John McCain take that away. Let's paint this nation blue.

by universalist 2008-03-26 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Hillary agreed to penalize them in the first place; she did so when she signed the pledge.

I guess she was for it before she was against it.

by Timetheos 2008-03-26 11:09AM | 0 recs
The world does not revolve around blogs

Sometimes we have to remind ourselves that the world actually doesn't revolve around blogs.  In the blogosphere, it's easy to think this is about bitter divides and sour grapes, especially as a paranoid, Axelrod-driven media continues to push that message.

But if you can put your emotions on hold for a moment, and look at the data, the facts, the exit polls, you see a different story altogether.

As I write about here, it has been a marketing myth that only Barack Obama has strong cross-party appeal.  The truth, supported by data, is that both candidates have a roughly equal ability to draw in Republicans and Independents (and both have a very strong ability to do it).

The results of this poll do not surprise me and confirm exactly what I wrote about.  Generation Obama is a myth, and so is the notion that one of these candidates is more appealing to Independents and Republicans than the other.  They are both very strong in this area, but for entirely different reasons.

In Hillary's case, her being the first woman President has strong cross-party appeal, and she has demonstrated in exit polls that she is the only candidate capable of bringing the Reagan Democrats back into the fold.  She also has a significantly stronger ability to motivate participation from folks who otherwise would not have voted (4 times stronger than Obama, see the diary I linked).

Obama also has cross-party strengths.  But his are no greater or more compelling than Hillary's; they're just different.

Remember that when you read polling data of how each candidate would fair against John McCain, it has already taken into account whatever effect is being measured by this poll.  So while it is interesting, it simply isn't the apocalypse that Axelrod's marketing team wants you to believe it is.  Be cautious whenever someone uses fear to try to persuade you, as Obama's people have been doing.

by bobbank 2008-03-26 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: The world does not revolve around blogs
"Be cautious whenever someone uses fear to try to persuade you, as Obama's people have been doing." It's 3am Bob....ready for that call? Such a level headed post, then you blow it at the end with such poppycock.
by defibialater 2008-03-26 01:07PM | 0 recs
My vote is not necessary...or so I've been told.
... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?

I'm always been a Clinton supporter. If I had a dollar for each time someone has told me my vote is unnecessary for Obama to win in the GE, I'd be able to fill-up my car several times.

by zenful6219 2008-03-26 11:19AM | 0 recs
how was it

arbitrary?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-26 11:23AM | 0 recs
You'd think.........

You'd think a responsible blogger would stop obsessing about Obama's supporters while trying to didvide the party he claims to support.

by Kobi 2008-03-26 11:28AM | 0 recs
It was the Clinton campaign that said...

...that she has a 10% chance of winning, not us.

And take a look at your own graph.

Its the Clinton supporters who wont vote for Obama in higher numbers, NOT the other way around.

I wonder what blog is stirring up all these negative stories about Obama?

I wonder where those 28% got filled with all this distain for Obama?

The 19% of Obama supporters that are filled with distain for Hillary must be reading stuff that is not so skewed against her...

Any ideas where these 28% of Clinton supporters might be reading such negative stuff about Obama that they wont vote for the Democrat in November?

by Silence Do Good 2008-03-26 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: It was the Clinton campaign that said...
"Any ideas where these 28% of Clinton supporters might be reading such negative stuff about Obama that they wont vote for the Democrat in November?" <crickets>
by defibialater 2008-03-26 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were to win PA...

...I have a feeling that (most) Clinton supporters would see his nomination as fairly legitimate.
If Clinton were to go on a tear through the remaining contests, winning 7 or more out of 10, including PA, NC, IN and OR, and then picked up 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates, I think many Obama supporters would be more inclined to see her nomination as legitimate.  Obviously if she were to go 10 for 10, I think that'd be a pretty strong argument for her.

Illegitimate paths to nomination(to me) would basically be : Clinton (via seating original delegations from MI/FL + winning half or fewer of remaining contests + continued rough tactics + superdelegate "coup"); Obama(getting swept but still getting the majority of remaining supers)

The most straightforward way to end the contest is via an Obama win in PA.  Second to that, a narrow Obama loss there plus big wins in NC and IN, and major player SD endorsements following thereto.  Third, and this is the only option for a Clinton nomination scenario, is seeing things through to early June, then holding some kind of superdelegate primary to pick the nominee.

by megaplayboy 2008-03-26 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

I can see I've got my work cut out for me.

And that's going to be to seek out every bitter, foaming, angry supporter of whoever doesn't get the nomination and beat them within an inch of their lives until they remember just who the enemy is.

I didn't do it to the Nader supporters in 2000 but as God is my witness I'm not going to make that mistake again.

by pbg 2008-03-26 11:41AM | 0 recs
flawed analysis from an equally flawed poll

Wow, what a shitty poll from Gallup.  The fact that more clinton supporters would vote for Mccain is not suprising. Because:

1. Clinton supporters tend to be less liberal.  All the polls show that much of Obama's support base is comprised of those who consider themselves to be very liberal. I'd say what we're talking about here is the support from the conservative leaning Dems in her support base.  Fair weather Dems.
2.Let me reiterate, Obama has some true and fervent activist liberal Democrats in his camp.  OF COURSE they wouldn't vote for a republican (and certainly not one who wants to keep us in Iraq 100 years).

Which comes to my issue with the poll: where are the third party and decline to vote options?  

by Tenafly Viper 2008-03-26 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed analysis from an equally flawed poll

I'm pretty liberal, and Obama doesn't have enough liberal tendencies to sway me.

He's for nuclear power, has a person advising him that is against universal health care, as he is because he is not shooting for it, and another that is for privatizing Social Security. He loves the free market, which needs more regulation IMHO.

He is for cutting funding for NASA, which is horrible IMHO and seems to be just fine with the private mercenaries in Iraq, while Hillary wants to phase them out completely.

Doesn't seem that liberal to me.

by splashy 2008-03-27 02:00AM | 0 recs
What a bunch of god-forsaken primadonnas

I don't care whether you are a Hrc or Bo supporter; if you vote for McSame you deserve no respect.

Yes, we are all pissed.  I'm pissed at Hillary because she has talked up McCain.  Some of you are pissed because the way they were treated on the web by supporters of one group or the other.  Some are pissed for some other reason.

I don't give a damn.

If Hillary gets it, I will vote for her even though I don't like her.  She and Bo are a hell of a lot better than McSame.

Whether it is the economy, civil-rights, habeus corpus, warrantless wiretapping, supreme court judges, healthcare, foreign relations, ....
Bo and Hrc are better than McSame.

So suck it up and get voting.

by Timetheos 2008-03-26 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: What a bunch of god-forsaken primadonnas

Amen!

by CapTim 2008-03-26 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What a bunch of god-forsaken primadonnas

the greek names always says the loveliest things and have ever so much respect
why they tell us straight out you're with us or we have no respect for you

that's not how Democracy works remember?

bullying is not a effective means of coercion in a Democratic electorate hadn't you heard upthread?

ohhh now we are not only 'primadonnas' but 'godforsaken' too

yes Michelle Obama has told us all how only Barack can save our souls in this country, this 'mean' country

not only has your candidate lost half the Dem base, he has lost any hope of GOP crossover in a GE run, guaranteed, and 1/3 of his Indeps have dropped off as well..

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: What a bunch of god-forsaken primadonnas

Truth isn't pretty; I'm not going to sugar-coat it.

Actually, this is exactly the way Democracy works.  You have the write to say whatever you want, but I don't have to like or respect it or you.

I did not say you don't have the right to vote for who you want, just that you may not deserve respect.

Again, you may be pissed with Obama.  I'm pissed with Hillary.  Who gives a damn?

Voting to "send a message" is stupid; you hurt yourself and others.  Vote for the person whose policies are the closest to yours.

Is that McCain?  Goodluck with the 100 year war in Iraq, another war with Iran, and our soon to be Great Depression.

---
ohhh now we are not only 'primadonnas' but 'godforsaken' too
---
So you plan on voting for McCain if your candidate doesn't get the nomination?  Then yes, yes you are.

If you are an independent, so be it.  If you are a Dem, I consider your a traitor.  Why don't you go move in with your buddy Joe Leiberman.

----
not only has your candidate lost half the Dem base, he has lost any hope of GOP crossover in a GE run, guaranteed, and 1/3 of his Indeps have dropped off as well..
----

I would love to see your stats on that.  Personally, the independents I know hate Hillary and plan on going to Obama.  This includes my brother and mother and best friend and ...

Funny, I started off as an Edwards guy.  When he dropped, I was 55/45 Barak/Hillary.  I wasn't too worried about it.  But then Hillary started talking up McCain, and that broke it me.

I don't care about slams like "experience this" or "turn the page" that, but talking up the current Republican opposition is a no-no.  Period.

Even so, I'll vote Hillary if she gets it because I actually care about this country.

by Timetheos 2008-03-26 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think

That the left wingers of the Democratic party would Wake-The-F-Up and realize that Obama is unelectable in the general election because of Wright and Ayers. I'm sorry, but a presidential candidate cavorting with "radicals" that espouse anti-American sentiments CANNOT be president. It ain't gonna happen. Period. If anyone should "step aside" it should be Obama. Also, HRC supporters are steadfast in their support for her and are sick of the media bias and Team Obama's faux race charges and utter hypocrisy. These polls reflect what I'm hearing on the ground and on the blogs.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-26 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think

I'll grant that Hillary is electable -- just like John Kerry was.

by Kobi 2008-03-26 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think

I think the media bias is so blatant it only infuriates and further polarizes Clinton supporters.

by NJDEM1 2008-03-26 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think
The ONLY reason Obama would be "unelectable" is if the dumb-asses who are fixated on Clinton vote for McCain or stay and home and cry in their (cheap) beer.
by defibialater 2008-03-26 12:55PM | 0 recs
hmmm, other things that ain't gonna happen...

* elect a woman as president

  • elect a black man as president
  • elect a candidate who polls in the range of hillary's negatives

the problem you have is what is called self-similarity, you assume others think and will act like you.  but self-similarity is an aberration.

if you have any evidence that the wright "controversy" has altered the dynamics of this race, feel free to post it...

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:12PM | 0 recs
Evidence

Well, since you asked. Here's your "evidence that the wright 'controversy' has altered the dynamics of this race."

;)

by grlpatriot 2008-03-26 01:30PM | 0 recs
wasn't i challenging the assertion that black...

voters were abandoning barack because of wright?

by bored now 2008-03-26 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think

me too, they are in a bubble and not in touch with mainstream American voters; Obama wont get past McCranky with GOP and moderate Indeps and moderate Dems after Wright and the Israel positions of is advisers among other things...

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

It really WOULD help if Hillary Clinton would stop implying that John McCain would be preferable to Barack Obama.

Really, that's indefensible.

by ignatz 2008-03-26 11:56AM | 0 recs
Sour grapes.

OK, well 28% sounds like a lot.  But that's 28% of Democratic primary voters who support Clinton.  Which is only roughly half of all Democratic primary voters.  Which, in turn, represents, what, like 20% of the total general election voting population?  And at least half of them are just blowing smoke.  

50% of 28% of 50% of 20% is not very many actual people.

by fwiffo 2008-03-26 12:00PM | 0 recs
I think the reason McCain wants Clinton
as the opposition is because the Obama Thugs scare the crap out of him.
Look at how  they took over all of the liberal blogs, and choked out the Clinton people.
Look at how they intimidate news people to the point that they are afraid of criticizing him.
Who wants to run against a candidate that cannot be criticized, and whose operatives scream racist at every opportunity.
I'm inclined to believe that there is a lot going on that the press isn't reporting.
by squid 2008-03-26 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I think the reason McCain wants Clinton

You make make Obama sound more "electable."

by Kobi 2008-03-26 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Getting very close to the lame

Maybe all the Clinton people are getting "choked out" because their arguments are shitty and fewer are coming up with anything other than lame assertions about intimidation and thuggery.

by zadura 2008-03-26 12:27PM | 0 recs
Not Suprised.

Not surpised, these polls reflect what I'm seeing and hearing in NJ.  That's why recent polling in NJ shows McCain actually leading Obama, while Clinton carries the state by a 6-10 margin. There are lots of blue collar and hispanics dems who will give John McCain the benefit of the doubt. I have already encounterd 5 Gore/Kerry voters who are voting McCain if Obama is the nominee.  They all say he can win red states, but I dont see how trading NJ (15 EV) and other big blue states for a few token red electoral votes is a winning combination.

by NJDEM1 2008-03-26 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Suprised.

yes they dont seem to understand that Obama losing the blue collar, Latinas, Catholics, Seniors, moderate Reagan Dems, crossover GOP, 1/3 of Indies and military HRC voters is NOT a winning coalition and post Wright and Obama's refusal to even understand the magnititude of the damage that is where we are

downthread an Obama supporter talks about Obama standing up for something and pooh-pooh the 'moderate' Dems, those are the swing voters who make the candidate POTUS; Obama should have stood for something, he should have STOOD UP and walked OUT on the vitriolic hate in the form of claims USA invented HIV to kill its citizens, that 9/11 was karmic payback for slavery, that Israel is a dirty word, it goes on and on and on and he didnt STAND against it-that is a deal breaker for Americans in the voting booth across most of this country..

skating thru caucuses with no MSM vetting only to have Wright blow up in our faces now is a challenge but yes SDs will have to either- A. do what it takes to keep those voters in the GE which is nominate HRC on top of the ticket or -B. prepare to see McCranky sworn in and hope to limit damage with a stronger Congress, maybe that is Pelosi's plan....

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 03:12PM | 0 recs
Jerome regresed back to the anger stage of grief

Jerome said:
"... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?"

What on earth are you referring to. What cryptic thing did Obama do now? Did Obama use his magicical larynx to charm Hillary Clinton to tell those silly shameful lies this week? Boy you Clinton people are having a hard time with that one. But it will get much worse in about 36 hours. The MSM, thanks to Clinton pushing the Wright story, is just starting to look into Clinton's spiritual adviser (yep MSNBC just picked it up) and if you guys were shocked by the words of Jermiah Wright wait to you here about Clinton's cult which calls itself "the Family". Given how many Clinton supporters and surrogates compared Jerimiah Wright to David Duke I sure hope it wont bother you when the comparison is much more apt in Clintons "spititual advisers" case. Good, goose and ganders folks.

by TMP 2008-03-26 12:25PM | 0 recs
Lemme see if I've got this straight...

(1) Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are both on record with comments suggesting that John McCain would make a better President than Barack Obama.

(2) Hillary Clinton's supporters -- following their candidate's lead -- are more likely than Obama's supporters to say they'll vote for a Republican than a Democrat.

(3) Somehow this is Obama's fault and he needs to stop some completely unspecificed set of actions which are "alienating" Hillary's supporters.

... huh?

Here's a better suggestion: Why don't Hillary and Bill stop singing the praises of John McCain and focus on getting a Democratic president elected?

by Justin Alexander 2008-03-26 12:32PM | 0 recs
Because of ego

...pure ego.

We cannot afford a president McCain.

by CapTim 2008-03-26 01:11PM | 0 recs
The Obamacult Is Exasperating

They don't appear to want to take YES for an answer. Their guy is going to win. All of the numbers show it, and so does Clinton's desperation. Yet, unlike their candidate, who has the good sense to take a vacation and have his campaign people play it low-key, the Obamacultists out there are continuing to do the Hillary bashing thing.

Now, I can understand it at a certain level. It's pretty hard to watch and listen to the crap that Clinton and her campaign are pulling. But the arrogance and nastiness out of the Obamacult (read: "Daily Kos") has become ridiculous.

There must be a big "revenge of the nerds" factor going on, is all I can think.

by cwilson 2008-03-26 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

What can you say?  Clinton supporters tend to be more conservative, and are thus more likely to vote Republican.  What can we do about that?  Have Obama move to the center in Clintonian fashion?

We need a candidate who stands for something.

by Drummond 2008-03-26 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

yes, wow we agree! Clintonistas, (thank you for the term-we do have the Latina vote and Wright gave us Jews, Italians, and patriotic Americans too thanks again, dont forget the LGBT, Asian American, Native American, Catholic, blue collar, Senior and military we have them too ya know) prefer a candidate who "stands" for UNIVERSAL health care- a core value of Democrats and the first covenant in Tavis Smileys Covenant with AA community

by ginaswo 2008-03-26 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

But she doesn't.  Her track record is to wimp out.

by Drummond 2008-03-26 04:57PM | 0 recs
idiotic poll

I hate these kinds of poll.  It's almost a push-poll for McCain, in the sense that it posits that McCain is the only place Dems have to turn.

several observations that make this poll meaningless:

The enemy of my enemy must be my friend syndrome - it's the same problem we've had with our screwed up foreign policy for the past 60 years (see Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Osama Bin Laden, etc., not to mention pending disasters in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, etc))

In most states, there will be at least 4 other people on the ballot, at least 3 of whom (Nader, McKinney and whoever the Libertarians decide on - Bob Barr?) will be anti-war.  But p'd off dems are gonna vote for McCain?  please

The press hasn't even started to take a close look at McCain yet, and both Dem candidates will wipe the floor with McCain in debates.

It's freakin March, and most Dems are already tired of the campaign.  So happy I don't live in PA!

by brooklyngreenie 2008-03-26 03:38PM | 0 recs
My Take

Clinton supporters essentially see they have to make strained arguments to 'beat the math'.  While technically correct in stating neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates at the end of the primary run, they are in the weaker argument position being behind in pledged delegates and popular vote.  So their choices are blackmail "if you dont give it to us we are going to take our ball and go home" or tonya harding "we will 'vet' Obama until he is a lump of coal".  Since they are behind, they have to be more strident and forceful, thats why the higher numbers.

Obama supporters essential are saying, we are winning and have the upper hand and given an Obama collapse (unaided by Clinton) being extremely remote he will essentially finish the contest where he is now with the strongest argumnents (based on the rules) to woo supers.  So his supporters are also arguing a bit of blackmail saying (some condescendingly) "please wake up, youve lost based on the rules, changing the rules will cause catastrophe so back off or we walk" and pleading "please recognize the math is the math, the rules are the rules the race is run and the results are in, dont cut off your nose to spite your face, we are all dems after all".

I think for both sides its mostly bluster and strong arm tactics where 99% of dems, with enough time to cool off, will pull the level D when needed.  But time is not on our side.

As for me, if I could be assured a non-negative fight (or at least low intensity fight) between the two Im cool with this going on and the dems being able to reconcile.  As an Obama supporter, Im not afraid of the upcoming primaries and Id even like to see a Florida and Michigan re-vote (but with some punishment - coming up with a fair way though is really tough I will admit).  The problem is it wont be low intensity and as the stakes grow, time dwindles and the camps harden, the tougher reconciliation will become.

Im not worried about repubs 'vetting' (i.e. swiftboating), its to be expected and can be discounted by most dems and independents as 'thats what opponents do' but dem against dem is too damaging.

In the end, Im not optimistic, but I'll still pull D.

by pattonbt 2008-03-26 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Those numbers show a marked difference in Hillary vs. Obama supporters, where nearly 10% more Hillary supporters feel alienated to the point of taking a rather drastic step for many of them - voting for a moderate Republican.

Women who have felt alienated due to perceived misogyny against Hillary and themselves have been told during this campaign, hon, that's just too darn bad.  Deal with it.  

Kos (Daily Kos) tipped his hand about women earlier (""I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site. Feel free to be offended.  Me, I'll focus on the important shit."), and now says "as I'm concerned, [Hillary] doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site" after decimating her with illogic.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/6/1 125/10793

Josh Marshall (Talking Point Memo)'s editorial associate says:  "I recognize that you think female voters should be one of those things [we cover], we disagree," as he gave the boot to a woman blogger, an author who had written for the New York Times and Washington Post.

"http://taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php ?id=27194

On the other big so-called "progressive" blogs, it's the same. Hillary is called enemy of the people, and when her supporters object, they are barraged with hostility so intense they eventually surrender and leave.  

So they turn on the TV, but find no relief there.  The  misogyny of the Keith Olbermanns and Chris Matthews in the media await them.  

There is an attitude of invincibility among those turning them off with reckless abandon.  Onward, to win battle after battle, caring little about the casualties of war.  Then quite belatedly, one day they stop and think, wait a minute.  I guess maybe we might just need some of these women to help us in November?  Hey, let's play the Roe card!

Let it be known I am a lifetime Democrat.  But facts are facts, and the fact is, a moderate Republican often will choose a good Supreme Court justice.  Case in point, from Michael Farris in Constitutional Law for Christian Students:

In 1992, the Supreme Court considered the case of Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992). ...Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, and Blackmun joined together to hold that Roe was still valid and that speculation on its demise should be put to rest.

All five of these justices were appointed by Republican presidents. Justice Blackmun was appointed by President Nixon in 1970. Justice Stevens was appointed by President Ford in 1975. Justices O'Connor and Kennedy were appointed by President Reagan in 1981 and 1988 respectively. Justice Souter was appointed by President Bush in 1990.

The only justice appointed by a Democrat president, Justice White, appointed by President Kennedy in 1962, joined three Republican appointed justices, Justice Scalia (Reagan, 1986), Chief Justice Rehnquist (Nixon, 1972), and Thomas (Bush, 1991) who argued that Roe should be reversed.

It's rather insulting to not consider women until they are needed, then say, but what about Roe.
 

by Larissa 2008-03-26 06:11PM | 0 recs
And another thing

Also, women, often, for instance when they object to Harry Reid, or some other anti-choice Democrat, are told disparagingly they are "single issue voters".

Now, suddenly, they are told to be "single issue voters"???

Women are 50% of the country, but they deserve respect 100% of the time.

by Larissa 2008-03-26 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

Also, women, often, for instance when they object to Harry Reid, or some other anti-choice Democrat, are told disparagingly they are "single issue voters".

Now, suddenly, they are told to be "single issue voters"???

Women are 50% of the country, but they deserve respect 100% of the time.

by Larissa 2008-03-26 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: You'd think, graphs included

The reason why this poll is stupid and meaningless is that it omits the choice of "Obama supporters who would vote for McCain if Obama loses the nomination due to 70% of the super delegates voting for Clinton." Clinton voters are bitter right now because their candidate is losing. If Clinton claims the nomination the only way she can,  by having the super delegates overturn the popular vote, you can bet Obama supporters would not support her.

Stop hating Jerome. If Clinton wins, you will hand the White House over to McCain. How hard is it to see that?

by erlin 2008-03-26 06:26PM | 0 recs
That is so true.

You could usually expect both sets of these defection numbers to decline sometime after the convention.

But what if Hillary COULD get the nomination through the overriding vote of the superdelegates?  I know, there are plenty of arguments among Clinton supporters for why that would be a good thing.  But the actual effect of such a thing AFTER the convention would be catastrophic.

I think, in such a situation, you would suddenly see that defection number go way, way up from Obama supporters that felt that they saw the first black candidate for president robbed by a system designed to thwart the will of the people.  In fact, in such an event, you might see many pre-convention Hillary Clinton supporters defect as well in protest.

Fortunately, such a scenario seems unlikely.

by Dumbo 2008-03-26 08:00PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads