Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Via Markos comes news of Mason-Dixon polling out of Montana:

Barack Obama has a big lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton in Montana's June 3 Democratic presidential primary, a Gazette State Poll shows.

Obama leads Clinton by 52 percent to 35 percent among likely Democratic voters, with 13 percent undecided in the poll, which was taken May 19-21. The Democratic primary portion of the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

As Markos notes, Montana is an overwhelmingly White state. Likewise, it's one of the poorer states in the nation. So Obama's 17-point lead in the state seems to undercut the notion that he performs particularly poorly among working class Whites outside of Appalachia (a fact underscored by Obama's similarly large victory in Oregon last week).

And just to crunch the numbers, if the primary results look something like this come the first Tuesday in June, Obama should net something like 9 of the 16 pledged delegates up for grab, though and 8-8 split of delegates is entirely possible, too. In order to get much higher than that, Obama would have to get closer to two-thirds of the vote (or about 65 percent), which doesn't appear terribly likely at this point.

Tags: Democratic primaries, Montana, Montana Primary (all tags)

Comments

140 Comments

Hard working Americans, white Americans.

You'd think the whole "hard-working Americans, white Americans" pitch had more to do with Appalachia's regional geography and politics than a national demographic, or something.

by Shem 2008-05-25 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hard working Americans, white Americans.

gee, it wouldn't be code or anything, would it?

I think the national media knows this--and even the Clinton backers.  They don't really mean "white, working-class voters".  They mean a certain kind of white, undereducated voter east of the Mississippi.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-25 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hard working Americans, white Americans.

Without editorializing, I can say that what people are either narrowly calling an "Appalachian problem" or broadly calling a "white" is more aptly an East Coast and East-Midwest problem.  

The "race chasm" argument discussed in a few prominent articles a few weeks back shed the most light on the circumstance.  From Massachusetts to Mississippi, the Eastern half of the United States has a strong pedigree of racial tension (to put it lightly).  People are uncomfortable talking about it, but it's always near the foreground of consciousness here.  

By contrast, in states West of the Mississippi, where there are few traces of 1800's style segregation and very low AA populations, Black-White tension isn't as pronounced and exists more as a theoretical matter than a pragmatic everyday confrontation, Texas and Southern California being the exceptions.  Hence, "dog whistle" arguments appealing to interracial fears fall on more deaf ears.  They don't "get" the coded references to crime, or liberation, or "welfare queens" (Reagan 1980) because the tension isn't in their backyard.  

This isn't to say necessarily that the West is more enlightened.  It's just easier to say "what's all the fuss about?" when you live in a region that's been largely removed from the country's history of Black-White tension.  

by BPK80 2008-05-25 09:21PM | 0 recs
One of many reasons
   I don't live back East any more.  The residue of racial hate based on old immigration rivalries lives on in the ill-concealed racism of Italian- Americans, Polish Americans, Irish Americans, on and on.  Many's the time someone who I had thought to be a friend would blurt out the n word.  I'll spare you the examples, we've all heard them.  
   Out West, nobody gives a crap what boat you or your parents came over on, so things are a hell of a lot better.  Not perfect, of course, but better.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: One of many reasons

I have experienced the same thing.  Used to lie on the East Coast until 10 years ago.  Racism there is palpable.  Now on the West Coast, you are correct it isn't perfec, but nobody gives a damn.

by scytherius 2008-05-26 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: One of many reasons

Point taken on the divisiveness on the East Coast, but my comment shouldn't be read as an indictment of the region.

There is a tendency for Westerners and Minnesotans to condescend on the basis that they're so "above" racial issues, or what not.  It's very easy to make a statement like that when you live in an area of the country with no diversity.

by BPK80 2008-05-26 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hard working Americans, white Americans.

Big Tent Democrat (reality-based first, Obama supporter second) May 21:

Here is a lesson in reading an exit poll. Even in Oregon, Barack Obama lost working class voters to Hillary Clinton. You will read otherwise at Obama sites...but they will be disingenuous when they do so.

There are two basic characteristics that are used to define working class voters - income and education. In Oregon, a state as favorable as you can find for Obama on this score, Clinton won voters with a HS degree and no college 53-46. In Oregon, Clinton won voters earning less than $30,000 a year by 54-45.

If your intent is to bury your head in the sand, you will include the "some college" group (read COLLEGE STUDENTS) into the working class. Some Obama supporting observers will play that game. But that will not make the problem go away.

by dark1p 2008-05-26 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hard working Americans, white Americans.

Uprated to counter TR abuse.

While Hillary still did well in that core group, my understanding is that she usually wins very convincingly in that demo, with well over 55% of the vote.  

by BPK80 2008-05-26 05:10PM | 0 recs
Speaking of Appalachia

All this renewed talk about Appalachia reminds me that Obama privately promised John Edwards that he'd undertake a poverty tour in the general election. Why not take that tour, with Edwards at his side, right through the heart of Appalachia?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/26 /obamas-appalachia-problem_n_103557.html

by Bush Bites 2008-05-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

And Montana is a state that's been electing Democrats statewide. Some talk about their Governor as a potential vice-president.  Here's a good article on him: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feature s/2004/0412.sirota.html

by politicsmatters 2008-05-25 04:54PM | 0 recs
thanks for that link...

I hadn't seen this article although I knew that Sirota was a big Schweitzer fan.

How politically ambitious is this guy?  It seems that he'd be happy being governor for another term and then head back to his ranch.  Baucus and Tester block his route to the Senate.

Having read this article, I'm less sure that he and Obama would get along.  They certainly come from different political environments - maybe too different.

by mboehm 2008-05-26 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

And as Kos said .. Obama doesn't have a working class whites problem .. it is an Appalachia problem .. there is a difference

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-25 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Careful acknowledging around here that Kos was right... again.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

As Ron Reagan said, "If Appalachia were a country, Hillary could be president."

by Tommy Flanagan 2008-05-25 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

He lost the white vote in many states outside of Appalachia.

Kos, as usual, is cherry picking to make himself and his followers feel better.

He lives in his own land of happy thoughts.

by GregNYC 2008-05-25 08:15PM | 0 recs
riiiiiighhht....

Like Oregon, Wisconsin, Vermont and Virginia. No?
Illinois? not so much, I suppose.

How about Washington, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Maine,  Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska, Minnesota, Kansas.

Wait- I forgot... caucus whites aren't actually white.

I'm sure what were essentially ties in the white vote in Connecticut and California reflect a deep-seeded Caucasian hatred for Obama...

Whatever land you're in, it needs some new talking points.

by Casuist 2008-05-25 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: riiiiiighhht....

Photobucket

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: riiiiiighhht....

Read my post below and the Newsweek poll and article that just came out and you'll realize that wishing he doesn't have a problem won't make it any less so.

And I expect Obama to carry his Caucus wins into the general in states like Kansas, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska and Alaska...because his electoral strategy is in such disarray anyway I guess that's his latest trajectory.

by GregNYC 2008-05-25 08:54PM | 0 recs
by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: riiiiiighhht....

And that article shows he has a problem with these voters.

Texeira just believes Obama can overcome this with new voters.

Tall order and risky...

The other pollster said he sees Obama's problem with wwc's in focus groups.

This makes you feel better?

It's going to be a long 6 months is all I have to say.

by GregNYC 2008-05-25 11:28PM | 0 recs
Obama does better than Gore, Bill C.

Obama is polling around 45% nationally among white voters.

Bill Clinton never cracked 43-44%.

If Obama gets 45% in November, he wins in a landslide.

Because, see, there are actually some non-white voters in our country, too. That's apparently news to some Clinton dead-enders.

by Hudson 2008-05-26 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama does better than Gore, Bill C.

And the same polls show him losing to McCain.

You'll see soon enough.

But facing reality is apparently news to some Obama delusionists.

by GregNYC 2008-05-26 10:32PM | 0 recs
oh joy....

citing a single poll in which, among voters overall, Obama runs better than Clinton against McCain, despite running weaker with white voters almost within the margin of error?

Taking ties within California and Connecticut white voters as somehow supporting your thesis?

That's some nice confirmation bias you have going for you along with your condescension.

by Casuist 2008-05-25 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: oh joy....

LOL -- you ignore ALL the other PRIMARY states he lost the white vote in and I have the ignoring problem?

Because I didn't applaud the fact he won the whoite vote in caucuses we have no chance of winning?

He has a problem beyond Appalachia and you have to be living on another planet not to see it - but if you want to just believe that because it makes you feel better than have at it.

It won't make it any more true.

by GregNYC 2008-05-25 11:21PM | 0 recs
Re: oh joy....

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right--it just makes you look kinda stupid.

by Brannon 2008-05-26 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Case in point.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 04:57AM | 0 recs
correct me if I am wrong

but I thought Obama has been doing well in all of the overwhelmingly white states, including several plains states that are not wealthy.

Where he has trouble is in the states with black populations between 5 and 20 percent.

by desmoinesdem 2008-05-25 04:54PM | 0 recs
Yes but...

The anti-Obama talking point has been much of the plains and the mountain west, until Oregon (everything besides Utah IIRC), has had caucuses and not primaries.  This, along with the fairly close results in the Washington and Nebraska "beauty contests" was enough to make some people (largely Clinton supporters) suggest Obama didn't really have a strength in the west, just a strength in caucuses.  

With Oregon, this rationale started to creak, and I think next Tuesday, it will collapse.  

by telephasic 2008-05-25 05:02PM | 0 recs
The rationale actually died with Wisconsin

but many diehard supporters failed to admit it, and kept falling back to the "but there were caucus states" argument.

Oregon confirmed that Wisconsin was not a fluke.

A county-by-county look at WV, KY, PA, OH, and IN clearly explains the phenomenon.

It was known for a long time, but IMHO the media bought the alternative spin to keep the contest alive.

by Eman 2008-05-25 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The rationale actually died with Wisconsin

Yeah, I mean, you can look at Illinois too.

I'm not sure how people got the idea that it's another Massachusettes, but anybody who's spent any time in Southern Illinois will tell you it's as hardscrabble white as any other place in the country.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-26 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: correct me if I am wrong

Sometimes this whole thing feels like the last panel of today's Opus...

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 08:52PM | 0 recs
This can't be Singer!!!

Obama has a problem with the white working class vote!

White people just can't relate to him.

These are polls are wrong! WRONG!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: This can't be Singer!!!

Singer has been fair and balanced here for a while now.  Mostly.  :)

by SpanishFly 2008-05-25 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: This can't be Singer!!!

Rated just for your sig - love it!

by Virginia Liberal 2008-05-25 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: This can't be Singer!!!

spiffy up there is one of the knee-jerkers. next diary Jonathon posts that is not anti-HRC he will be in there complaining about how he is a kool-aid drinking HRC assassin or something. he has a seriously short attention span. and even worse memory

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: This can't be Singer!!!

Why are you following me around?

Check out my sig.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: This can't be Singer!!!

some of us get it, spaceman.  i dig your sense of humor ;-)

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-25 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: This can't be Singer!!!

Spiff Rocks!  

Zerosum has sour grapes.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: This can't be Singer!!!

Heh. You make me think of a new sig line

"Better sweet, sweet kool-ade than the bitter juice of sour grapes"

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-25 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: This can't be Singer!!!

Hide rated because:

1. You insulted a member, which, according to the rules that have been quoted to everyone in dairy after weepy diary, is quite deserving of a hide rating.

2. I went to college with Singer, and he had the best political mind in a class full of smarty-pants and has been doing his alma mater proud.

3. You're a complete t-word (gasp).  But don't take my word for it, gentle readers, read this guy's comments.  Nothing good to say about anyone, just negative negative negative.  And rude.  And insulting.

Love,
Ryan

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Are they really hard-working white people?

by hootie4170 2008-05-25 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Ah, I see.

Montana is actually full of lazy hardworking white people.  I need to call my sister and her boyfriend in Helena and tell them to start working, though I'll wait until after the primary so Obama can win.

Now if only I can get their lazy asses off the couch to a polling place...

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

In those Western States like Idaho,Montana,Utah,Wyoming,Colorado- The White Working Class voter is more Libetarian. They believe in a lassiez fare economic policy. They are a strong advocate for States Rights.

In Southern States like Kentucky and West Virginia. The White Working Class voter is more traditional. They are frequent church goers. They oppose a candidate who has a Foriegn name.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-25 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

To be totally honest, thank god "Libertarian" is a dirty word to many people.  I have a really close friend (and his family) who are dyed in the wool libertarians on almost every issue (except they are for a strong defense, but not anti-immigration).  And they would never vote Ron Paul or Bob Barr because they think Libertarian is a dirty word.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-26 07:50PM | 0 recs
Am I in the Demographic?

Sometimes I'm a hardly working white person

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-25 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Does this mean white working class voters aren't racist now?

Also, in a note to desmoinesdem, that theory of black population versus Obama votes is obsolete. Obama has done poorly in such white states as West Virginia and well in diverse states such as Missouri. Basically, my sense is that was a poor attempt to cast Clinton voters as racists.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-25 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

so you believe the exit polls that say she does better among lower income voters, but NOT the exit polls where a full 1/4 of her voters say race was important?

by terra 2008-05-25 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

20% is a full quarter, now?

And a lot of these results came in states where the number of people who said race was important was a lot lower.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-25 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

You didn't get the memo?  That was part of the new mathematics changes that made 9.2% in PA equal 10%.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-26 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

and the same poll said gender was a big factor in BHO voters, but hey, keep on cherry-picking and showing how dishonest you are

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Sorry, you're wrong.

Clinton overwhelmingly WON the voters who said that gender was a factor in their vote.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-25 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

uh, nothing quite as funny as when you bring in something totally unrelated and think it means you win! LOL

I said NOTHING about the results, just the responses of BHO voters who said they could never vote for a woman. But hey, your making me laugh at your desperation :)

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Angry White Dem whipped out one of those fact things that you don't like and shut you down zerosum.  Concede the point and move on.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Yes. Move on.  Move on right to Hillis44 or noquarter.  You don't contribute anything.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

wow, showing your inability to read English today i see...

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

You got shut down.  Deal.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

funny how when you actually look at the whole poll it proves your are either a bad liar or a partisan fool. even huffpo disagrees with your simple-minded theory (based on nothing);

RACE, GENDER AS VOTING FACTORS

One in four Clinton voters and about one in 10 Obama voters said race was an important factor in their vote.

About one in five Clinton voters said gender was an important factor in their vote. Nearly as many Obama voters said that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13 /west-virginia-exit-polls_n_101578.html

by zerosumgame 2008-05-25 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Was race important to the AA voters who voted overwhelmingly for him, and against her?  Or are they overwhelmingly convinced by his policy positions, like the embrace of R Reagan, and no universal enrollment for a National Health plan?  

by magnetics 2008-05-25 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

As Russert showed this morning, Clinton was ahead of Obama among AA by around 20 points in December.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-25 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

With all respect, and not wishing to impugn your sources, I didn't see Russert, but honestly I don't trust him further than I could throw him.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my view.

As for the implication (if I read you correctly) that the AA vote switched based upon policy considerations, I would disagree -- speaking as one half of a mixed-race marriage (Aframerican-Ashkenaz).

Historically, the Clintons have been very well liked in the AA community; and migration by AA voters away from HRC would be driven partly by realization that Obama was for real as a candidate (not obvious at the outset, given his inexperience and short tenure on the national political scene.)

Beyond that, I think he has played the race card rather skillfully -- others may disagree.  I'm just telling you what I think.  When he tells an AA audience "It's the same old Okeydoke; you know what it is to be Okeydoked?  Well, I'm having too much fun here,"  I find it a bit over the top.  

Most of the Aframerican voters in this country are descended from slaves; Obama is not, and yet he has striven to make common cause with those who are.  Personally I find this a hazardous tactic, and one which could disappoint both parties in the end.

Just sayin'.  We should probably just agree to disagree.

by magnetics 2008-05-25 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Obama and team did indeed play the race card skillfully and that's the point where this election turned. That good Democrats that have worked their entire lives for civil rights could be called racists overnight turned my stomach.

I don't think the "hard working white people" are voting against a black man--they are voting against plaing the race card in the politics of personal destruction.

by SophieL 2008-05-26 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Actually, the Appalachian voters cast themselves as racist.

by fugazi 2008-05-25 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

yup.  They said so themselves in the exit polls.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

and on the Daily Show.  Gotta love how we pretend this doesn't exist.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/inde x.jhtml?videoId=168561

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-25 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

"that theory", if it's the one I think you're referring to, actually predicted that West Virginia would likely be one of Obama's worst states, because it's the worst of both worlds for him.

1. As a geographically small state surrounded by larger states with much larger cities, it is effectively in their media markets, and those states (VA, PA, MD, OH, KY) are "race chasm states" - hence, the race chasm media narrative is a familiar part of politics.

2. However, WV itself has hardly any black voters to offset the effect.  In "race chasm states", the black population is too small to actually give him a win, but it is large enough to offset the effect somewhat.  That part is missing in WV.

Now, there's actually another dynamic that theory didn't cover, which is the particular problem the Appalachian-Ozark population belt has with Obama.  However, even without that, WV reinforces that theory (and remember, Sirota made this prediction well before the WV primary).

Now, if you look at the graph he made to demonstrate the "race chasm", you'll see that Obama's narrow wins in Missouri and Connecticut are still part of the pattern.  Sure, sometimes he can do a little better in these states, but overall, he does much much much better in the mostly-white and heavily-black states than in the ones with a small but significant black population.

by cos 2008-05-25 07:24PM | 0 recs
hollerin from the hollers

Apppaaaaaalaaaaaaaaaaaaa-chiaaaaaaa

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-25 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

He needs something.  Read the headline of this article from the McClatchy newspapers.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/stor y/38057.html

Does Obama's tepid finish spell trouble against McCain?

By Steven Thomma and Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama may be on his way to the Democratic presidential nomination, but if so, he's walking rather than racing across the finish line in a lukewarm close that could signal challenges heading into the general election.

Among the warning signs: His loss of Kentucky Tuesday by 249,000 votes was the most lopsided loss by either candidate in more than three months. He's lost ground in the nationwide popular vote steadily since March 1, losing a net of a half-million votes to rival Hillary Clinton. He faces another possible big loss next week in Puerto Rico. And early looks at key battleground states such as North Carolina and Ohio suggest troubles with whites, Hispanics and the working
class.

by katmandu1 2008-05-25 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

If he "needs something" then what does Hillary "need" ?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 05:06PM | 0 recs
Therapy

or maybe just a vacation without Bill and a whole lot of margaritas.

I still have hope Hillary will get out of this mess an asset to the democratic party...

by lollydee 2008-05-25 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

the latest poll out of Ohio shows Obama beating McCain, and the average of polls according to RCP also shows him winning. polls out of NC show McCain beating both Clinton AND Obama. This is so misleading.

by terra 2008-05-25 05:39PM | 0 recs
Tell me something.

If Obama attacked Hillary as viciously as he could, would his larger margins in the popular vote satisfy you?  After all, he leads her $40 million to minus $30 million in campaign funds.  He could have swamped her message in WV and KY, forcing her to spend money she didn't have and picking up a couple hundred thousand more votes for himself.  Would you be happy then?

by edg1 2008-05-25 06:26PM | 0 recs
Great News

Obama should get enough SD's on the 4th to clinch the nomination.

by parahammer 2008-05-25 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Great News

Actually, Obama only needs about 17 more supers given conservative projections of the remaining three races. At the pace he's been amassing supers, he should pick those up before June 3rd.  

by fugazi 2008-05-25 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Let's see... A bunch of cattle ranchers and would-be cowboys who will vote lock step Republican again this November say they like BO a lot.

Ohhh boy.  That Markos is one sharp operator.

by krj47 2008-05-25 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Yeah, they're so tricky that Montana Republicans have been setting this ploy up for years now. They elected two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor, just so that their state would appear important in the 2008 primary. Then, when Obama crushes Clinton, Democrats will have to nominate the weak and feeble Obama.

Such a brilliant plan: it's no wonder the Republican party is doing so well.

by gcensr 2008-05-25 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Back in the day, this site used to be all about the nuts and bolts of strategy for electing Democrats.

Not "Democratic presidents."

Not "Democratic presidents who happen to be of a specific race or gender."

Democrats. Like Brian Schweitzer, the hugely charismatic and appealing (and just plain huge!) Democratic governor of Montana.

Like Montana's two Democratic senators, two of the 49 "D" votes we desperately need to maintain even the barest edge in the U.S. Senate.

Like South Dakota's Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, the Democratic at-large Congresswoman who's got an awfully good chance of listing "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" as her address someday if she keeps getting elected.

Like the Democrats in Idaho who have the best chance in a generation of ousting the odious Bill Sali from office.

Like the Democratic mayors and state reps and attorneys general and county legislators and town board members who will ultimately be the next Stephanie Herseths and Brian Schweitzers.

The "cattle ranchers and would-be cowboys" you're trashing are voting for these Democrats, and they'll be more likely to continue doing so if we give them a top-of-the-ticket reason to come out to the polls in droves this November.

Here's a hint: with a 50% unfavorable rating, it's pretty clear Senator Clinton isn't that reason.

by ipsos 2008-05-25 05:19PM | 0 recs
Baucus, Tester - both Democratic Senators

Schweitzer - Democratic Governor

The State Senate has a Democratic majority.

by Bee 2008-05-25 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

No kidding. Just be glad Texas'll go for Clinton in the fall when she's nominee, right?

by ragekage 2008-05-25 05:40PM | 0 recs
also look at what is happening in NE

more of your "would-be-cowboys."  lol.  Polling already shows that at least one district is now in play for the Presidential.  And with Scott Kleeb continuing to grow in his Senate race (he could use $$ by the way), suddenly Obama coat tails may produce a Senate seat.

by Eman 2008-05-25 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

wow.  is that really the argument the clintonites want to push?  wow.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-25 06:21PM | 0 recs
Hey, Jerome

>>>>>Let's see... A bunch of cattle ranchers and would-be cowboys who will vote lock step Republican again this November say they like BO a lot.

Ohhh boy.  That Markos is one sharp operator.<<<<

This is what you meant in your diary when you complained about how "low" the discourse has gotten on this site, right?

Right?

Hello?

by JoeW 2008-05-25 07:25PM | 0 recs
Typical Obama win state BTW

Kerry lost it by 21, Gore by 25.  Bill Clinton won it once, when Perot sucked off all the GOP votes.  Clinton won it during his first term with a whopping 37& of the vote.  Perot cleaned off something like 26%.

This is the sort of state where Obama does well -- a state the Dems cannot win in.

by katmandu1 2008-05-25 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

If Jon Tester can win the state, so can Obama!  Such negative nellies....

by LordMike 2008-05-25 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

Excuse me?

If Tester can win, Obama can what ?

This is the type of stupidity that got us Obama as the nominee.

What a stupid logic.

by libdemusa 2008-05-25 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

wasn't it the voters who gave us Obama as the nominee?  

by Xris 2008-05-25 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

Photobucket

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

Oh, ye of little faith...

Democrats no longer need to go with "safe" choices that try to unsuccessfully appease republican-types.  This strategy never works anyways.  In the last 10 years, the DLC philosophy has not won ONE election cycle...

The Republican brand is about as palatable to America as melamine tainted dog food... It's time for a change in philosophy... one that is a bit more risky, yet more likely to win as well...

We may not win Montana, but three is absolutely no reason not to try... If nothing else, it will force Republicans to spend money and time in a state they shouldn't have to defend.  It certainly makes more sense than the 14 state strategy that gives you a 50/50 shot at the presidency at best, and almost guarantees a congressional minority so that the president can't DO anything...

by LordMike 2008-05-25 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

As stupid as "Because Hillary won the state against Obama, she automatically wins that state in the general?"  Or "Obama lost Massachusetts, so he will never win that state in November.  Same thing for NY and CA.  He's doomed."

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-26 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

I thought Montana had a Democrat Senator and Governor.  I guess I'm wrong.

by Piuma 2008-05-25 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

The new HRC-supporter meme seems to be that the only Democratic victory that matters is at the top of the ticket.

Those other Democrats, from US Senate down to county assessor? Add them to the long list of things that "don't matter," apparently.

by ipsos 2008-05-25 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

Yes, just like Oklahoma, Tennesse, Arkansas, North Carolina, Wyoming all have Democratric Governors.

Now can Obama win any one of these states in November ???

This is all the stupid hype of Obama fans.

Not a single Obama fan can truthfully & confidently claim that Obama will not be swept in the entire South ( just like Kerry & Gore)

And could very easily lose Ohio, MO & Michigan.

Worse than even Kerry.

What a nominee we have here.

And some of his fans are on a wishful thinking trip.

by libdemusa 2008-05-25 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

Obama can win the following Southern states:

Virginia, especially if Webb and Warner are on the ticket

North Carolina is definitely in play.

With Bob Barr on the ballot in Georgia, a high AA turnout could make that easily playable.  There are 500,000 AA's not yet registered to vote in that state.  Obama is getting them signed up as we speak.

South Carolina is playable if Republicans are despited enough.

MISSISSIPPI could be the crown jewel!  If Obama gets the same percentage or better of white voters as Kerry did in 2004, he will most decidedly win that state!

Now, even if Obama does not win these states, there will be enough push down there that Republicans will have to spend time and money to defend them.  The new democratic voters in these states will also help us significantly downticket with both state federal house, senate, and governorship seats...  gaining control in the statehouses is going to be important when the congressional districts are reallocated after the next census.

As you can see, it's not all about the presidency...  It's not the 90's anymore, where we have to cling to one office.  We can (and will) retake the whole country!

by LordMike 2008-05-25 08:58PM | 0 recs
Obama will ;win Montana.

The republican brand is in the toilet out here in the west.  

by GFORD 2008-05-25 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical Obama win state BTW

And yet Obama polls only 8 points down, and that is in a poll that included Clinton and didn't include Bob Barr.

I don't actually know how Barr will do here, but I would expect a serious Libertarian candidate who actually has a meaningful campaign to do McCain some serious damage in the Mountain West. He won't have the money to do Perot-like damage, but I would guess he won't be insignificant either.

by letterc 2008-05-25 06:43PM | 0 recs
Whose poor white voters count more?

Clinton may rule Appalachia, but Obama rules Rockylachia.

by Nomo Clintons 2008-05-25 05:23PM | 0 recs
The point is...

The WHOLE COUNTRY HATES WHAT GEORGE W BUSH HAS DONE TO IT.  So, the Red state / Blue state norms may not apply right now.  Democrats have been winning in lots of places they could "never win" before.  Thank god we have a candidate in Obama who understands that and who put infrastructure in place in every state.

I'm not saying it'll be easy, but the more Obama gets out there and ties McCain to Bush, the more likely it'll be that Obama is winning states like Montana and Virginia, etc.  And surprise, surprise, we'll have a Dem in the Whitehouse who didn't sell his soul to big money donors!

by SpanishFly 2008-05-25 05:24PM | 0 recs
Frank Newport quote

He's the chief numbers guy at Gallup.  In case you haven't read it, here's what he said today:

"Clinton's five percentage point lead over McCain is statistically significant, and considerably stronger than Obama's 2-point loss to McCain among registered voters nationwide."

I'm really happy that Obama has a little to cheer him; he really is staggering to the finish.  But statistically, Montana is pretty insignificant.  It has 100,000 fewer people than the county I live in.  But the lines on the map declare it to be a state, worthy of two senators.  And it only goes Democratic in freak years.

by katmandu1 2008-05-25 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Frank Newport quote

It has 100,000 fewer people than the county I live in

Let's hear it for the guy making wild claims and trying to push divisiveness who isn't even an American, everybody!

by ragekage 2008-05-25 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Obama can win Montana in the general. Won't be easy, but it will be in play.

by DeskHack 2008-05-25 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Yeah, it's in play, Montana is no country for old men.

by obscurant 2008-05-25 06:38PM | 0 recs
delegate breakdown

There are two districts.

3-2 District 1
3-2 District 2
2-2 At Large
1-1 PLEO

for a +2 for Obama, or else a tie if Clinton wins one of the districts.  Oddly enough, the loser statewide gets the bonus delegate for Montana scheduling in June.

by John DE 2008-05-25 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

I read it mentioned here a time or two, but using Oregon to counter the challenge Obama may have with the "white working class vote" misses the point that OR is not like Kentucky or West Virginia where there are actually a lot of Democratic voters in that demographic.  Here in OR we call "white working class voters" Republicans... because they are.  Which is not to say there aren't a lot of lower income white granola heads and creative types, but it's not the same demographic you see in West Virginia, Kentucky, etc.

by Susan in Oregon 2008-05-25 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Wow, way to run down our party for a cheap political point.

Kerry won the under $50,000 income category against Bush, winning big in the under $30,000 category. He won the union vote (20% of the electorate had a union member in their household) solidly. He lost the no college degree vote by a small margin. To claim from that that the Democratic party in Oregon represents only rich people and hippies is insulting and false.

by letterc 2008-05-25 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

It those Southern States like West Virginia and Kentucky- There are a lot of BUBBA/COOTER/ZELL MILLER-YOSEMITE SAM Voters. These are voters who want to Challenge people to a DUEL.

The White Voters in Oregon- are more Environmental Freindly. Before Gordy Smith. The previous Republican Senators were Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood. Both were Moderate-Liberal Republicans.

by nkpolitics 2008-05-25 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

It'll be interesting to see what happens in Montana and South Dakota, because if both states give 20+ margins of victory to Obama that will significantly undercut the argument of many Clinton people that the caucus results in these "Rockylachia" states didn't reflect what the margin would have been if these states had primaries.

Got curious and did some math.  Take all of these caucus races--IA, NV, CO, ID, KS, ME, ND, NB, WA, MN--and assume that Clinton and Obama had tied in every one (but giving Obama the extra odd delegate).  Do you know what the shift in total pledged delegates would be?  Obama would lose 63 delegates.  Obama would still be ahead by approx. 40 pledged delegates.  

Let's say he only won primaries in these states by margins of 10%--that would probably have still given him an overall margin of 80-100 pledged delegates (in both cases whatever total gets added to one candidate has to be subtracted from the other).

If Clinton loses this race, this probably won't be because some states had caucuses (if one goes with the assumption that the results in North Dakota will probably be similar to what they would have been in South Dakota, Montana was Idaho, etc., which, to me, seems like a pretty safe assumption, and there are other comparisons like this one could do).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-25 06:13PM | 0 recs
But these small western states are irrelevant

to winning the election.  Lovely people, lovely states, but as this Huff Post writer says:

The Democratic Party, as a modern political party, dates back to 1828, when Andrew Jackson crushed John Quincy Adams to win the presidency. Yet without the votes of workers and small farmers in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a strong Democratic turnout in New York City, Jackson would have lost the Electoral College in a landslide. Over the 180 years since then, only one Democrat has gained the presidency without winning either Ohio or Pennsylvania, with their large white working-class vote. (The exception, Grover Cleveland, managed the feat in 1892, and only barely lost Ohio - but he was dependent on the post-Reconstruction solid South.) Beginning in 1964, when the Democratic solid South dissolved, every successful Democratic presidential candidate has had to carry both Ohio and Pennsylvania, even when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton picked up southern states.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-wilen tz/barack-obama-and-the-unma_b_103353.ht ml

by katmandu1 2008-05-25 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: But these small western states are irrelevant

But, apparently, not irrelevant to getting the nomination, eh.

Assbag.

by DeskHack 2008-05-25 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: But these small western states are irrelevant

Not sure if I understand the implication of this comment and quote.

Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party choose its candidate based solely or primarily on the wishes of the voters in PA and OH?  Should we deign to include the democrats of another one, two, or maybe a small handful of states deemed to be swing-y enough to count?

by NeverNude 2008-05-26 07:40AM | 0 recs
No no no

You are getting it all wrong.  Our primary should be based only in states that we can be CERTAIN will prefer Hillary.  Nothing else should count.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-26 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

More importantly, look at the primary contests with twenty percent or more AA participation and tell me how many delegates he netted from his race baiting.

by Ignored and Disgusted 2008-05-26 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Sooner or later we will move beyond this faux white person problem. Not that it isn't real but the ? is whether or not its worth our time discussing.

White people that live in holes on the sides of mountains who have problems with people not like them do not constitute a crisis on my side.

Do they vote? Yes. But do I care? No. I am not going to let 232 years of progress being held up by yokels who think it is still 1958.

Get over it. When they do the country will be better off.

by southerndemnut 2008-05-25 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

you put it too harshly, but yes.  The sooner the party accepts the fact that most "Reagan Dems" are simply gone, and takes advantage of every other demographic that's coming our way, the better off we are.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-25 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Agreed. If the GOP wants the white supremecists, they can have 'em.  

by fugazi 2008-05-25 06:43PM | 0 recs
Did you read these fav ratings today?

The trend is unmistakable--the longer Obama stays on the campaign trail the more unfavorably he is viewed by voters. One rap against Hillary was that she had "high negatives." But let's see what's happened in the past few months. Right now on May 25, 2008, both have the same rating, a -3. And both have identical numbers--47% positive and 50% negative. Hillary does better on the "highly unfavorable" ratings--she has a two percent advantage over Obama who is now viewed "very unfavorably" by 34%, according to Rasmussen Reports.

It wasn't always so. Again using Rasmussen Reports, go back to April 25, and Senator Obama was +2. On February 25, Obama was +6. Obama's popularity (lucky for him) peaked in early and mid February (Super Tuesday was February 5th). For three straight days, February 15-17, he had a net +10 favorability rating, and his "very unfavorable" rating was only 18%. Hillary at that time was struggling with a -9 average rating (February 15-17).

And let me make my position clear.  I'm not voting for Obama because I believe he's a security risk to the country.

by katmandu1 2008-05-25 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read these fav ratings today?

We'll find out where Obama's unfavorable ratings are a month after he's won the nomination.  Here's the difference between Clinton and Obama: Clinton's unfavorables are highly concentrated among indies and Republicans (and this set up the question of whether Clinton could get passed 50% in the general, a question which hasn't been answered yet and at this point is probably moot).  

Obama's unfavorables only reached Clintonesque levels because there is this large fraction of Hillary Clinton supporters who now hate him (he still runs better among indies and Republicans).  Let's admit the obvious: we have no idea to what extent this sentiment will outlast this primary campaign (what's likely to happen, though, is that these numbers will start going down); we'll only find out which of the two candidates is more electable when these unfavorables have reached a steady state (if even half of these Clinton supporters come back on board, it's almost certainly Obama, if they stay out it's probably Clinton);

those who argued that Clinton's "scorched earth" strategy (when "I'm the best candidate" got replaced with "Obama is unfit") had its intended effect, and in ways which the Dems might soon regret (eg. who thinks Clinton has a bright future in the Democratic party if 2/3rds of her supporters bolt or stay home during the general? this election might ruin the political viability of both candidates); the argument that Obama is a "security risk to the country", well, speaks for itself.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-25 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read these fav ratings today?

Indeed, how Obama really matches up against McCain is only knowable once he is matched up against McCain and Clinton has, as a previous poster suggested, headed off to Margaritaville.

Certainly, some folks will hold tight to their hatred and vote against Obama or not vote.  Methinks many of them will think about the bigger issues and vote for the Dem in November.

I'm watching one of them up close right now (father-in-law) who claims he will only vote for Clinton or McCain (apparently he has bought into the 'Obama hates the Jews' smear campaign).  Same guy claimed he would never vote for Kerry cuz he chose a trial lawyer as his veep.  Funny thing is, when you start thinking about the world and your grandkids and stuff, your long-held values tend to trump the smears.  Won't work for everyone, but I bet there are a lot of Clinton supporters who will discover their views are much closer to BO's than McCain's.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-25 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read these fav ratings today?

I am one of those Clinton supporters...

One (among many) turn-offs to an Obama presidency has been his attitude that permeates his organization. The Clinton years were the best years of my life (which is substantially longer than most Obama supporters) and he systematically deconstructed those years. The Clintons have spent their lives working for civil rights for everyone and he has calculatingly painted them as racists.

I do realize that Obama's views on the issues are closer to my own than McCains. For the record, I will never vote for McCain nor will I ever threaten to vote for McCain. That being said, Hillary's views (and experience and action) on the issues are even closer (nearly identical) to my own and I will continue to support her until it is impossible. The polling data and electoral maps clearly point to an America that wants the middle way. Obama has a narrow demographic that skews left. McCain, for the maverick he once was, skews far right. Hillary is the middle way. If the three of them could run against each other in the General, Hillary would take it. That Obama has not embraced Hillary and her 16 million supporters is what speaks to his electablity. It's not a code word for anything else--it simply means getting enough people to vote for you.

Whether my vote goes to Obama or goes empty is what I need to decide right now and I'm leaning heavily towards empty. I suspect many of her 16 million plus supporters are wrestling with this decision in the same way. How on earth can we support the guy who took every opportunity to demonize our candidate? He did it subtly and skillfully and with the help of the media and many liberal organizations that I had previously supported.

He needs to give me some reason to hold my nose.

by SophieL 2008-05-26 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read these fav ratings today?

If having President McCain is not reason enough then I don't know what is.

by parahammer 2008-05-26 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read these fav ratings today?

It's not enough. I've lived through worse.

Furthermore, your response reeks of "the politics of fear and intimidation" when you put it that way and your candidate purports to be against that sort of thing.

by SophieL 2008-05-26 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read these fav ratings today?

You are being reasonable and I can disagree with you in an amicable way.  For what it is worth, my views of Senator Clinton seem pretty analogous to yours of Senator Obama.  Please understand that this can easily cut both ways.  Speaking for myself, I am sick to death of triangulation.

As for the Clinton years, I agree that they were pretty excellent in a lot of areas, and I look back on them fondly for the most part.  But that doesn't mean that electing another Clinton brings all that back, and moreover I'm not satisfied with even that anyway.  For purely positive reasons I prefer Senator Obama's message and his policy goals.

Time heals most wounds.  Just please keep an open mind is all I ask of you.

Be well.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-26 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read these fav ratings today?

I can see how Obama's message resonates with people. What I don't get is how people aren't disenchanted when they see him cheat on his own message. My feeling is that when something looks to good to be true, it generally is. And yet, there he is, a politician (a skilled one at that), pretending to be above politics. Do you not think Obama has been gifted at triangulation as well?

I began with an open mind. I supported Obama right up until the SC BS (when it became clear that he was indeed a politician as usual and played the race card in such a disgusting manner). What he did to the Clintons is what Rove did to Kerry's war record. Not a message of hope and unity.

So far, he has not acknowledged that he's even interested in acquiring Hillary's supporters. Either he figures he can win without us or he's willing to risk losing rather than admit we have any value.

by SophieL 2008-05-26 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you read these fav ratings today?

I hope you can find the reason to vote for BO.  Honestly, I think we should all have a reason to vote for someone beyond being a Democrat.  I view that as part of being a responsible voter.

On of the reasons I am an Obama supporter rather than a Clinton supporter is that I remember the disappointments of the Clinton years and I don't want to go back to the politics of triangulation and the divide-and-conquer mentality.  That said, my memory stretches back to the Nixon years and I'd take Clinton over any of the other presidents I remember.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-26 07:38AM | 0 recs
And let me make my position clear.

You're not voting for Obama because you're a goddamned Republican.

by Nomo Clintons 2008-05-25 07:56PM | 0 recs
Saw this at noquarter. Look familiar?


Comment by katmandu | 2008-05-25 21:53:32
The trend is unmistakable--the longer Obama stays on the campaign trail the more unfavorably he is viewed by voters. One rap against Hillary was that she had "high negatives." But let's see what's happened in the past few months. Right now on May 25, 2008, both have the same rating, a -3. And both have identical numbers -- 47% positive and 50% negative. Hillary does better on the "highly unfavorable" ratings--she has a two percent advantage over Obama who is now viewed "very unfavorably" by 34%, according to Rasmussen Reports.

It wasn't always so. Again using Rasmussen Reports, go back to April 25, and Senator Obama was +2. On February 25, Obama was +6. Obama's popularity (lucky for him) peaked in early and mid February (Super Tuesday was February 5th). For three straight days, February 15-17, he had a net +10 favorability rating, and his "very unfavorable" rating was only 18%. Hillary at that time was struggling with a -9 average rating (February 15-17).

I'm sure it was received better there.

by GFORD 2008-05-25 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

It's probably all those black voters in Montana cause, ya know, whites won't vote for Obama.  no, wait, I bet it's the Montana elite!!!!

by scytherius 2008-05-25 08:00PM | 0 recs
Appalachia must be huge!!!

Is California, Nevada, Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas and NH suddenly part of Appalachia?

I guess I missed the memo because I don't understand how he lost the white votes in those states if it's just an Appalachia problem.

This whole Appalachia argument is another example of the Obama supporters looking for an argument rather than the facts.

Lame yet typical.

by GregNYC 2008-05-25 08:12PM | 0 recs
um...

NH: Clinton, 39%; Obama, 36%
CA: Clinton, 46%, Obama, 45%

If these are examples of Obama having a "problem" with white voters... it seems Clinton does as well.

In fact he's had such a terrible problem with the dominant racial demographic that he's winning the primary against a white person who started out the race with an overwhelming institutional and name-rec advantage.


This whole Appalachia argument is another example of the Obama supporters looking for an argument rather than the facts.

Lame yet typical.

I'll avoid the temptation to apply your willful selection of facts that suit your personal bias to all Clinton supporters... I don't have any evidence they've got their heads in the sand... but you seem dead set on ignoring examples across the country where Obama has readily taken the white vote... including some of the whitest states in the nation.

by Casuist 2008-05-25 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: um...

He won those votes in most states we have absolutely NO chance of winning in November and he won through activist heavy caucases.

You ignore all the other states.

And you chose NH and CA (which she still beat him with white vote).

Your argument is weak...and having your head in the sand is not a good plan.

by GregNYC 2008-05-25 11:17PM | 0 recs
yep...

Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Virginia, Illinois, Maine... all deep red states completely inaccessible to Obama.

You are making this up as you go along.

by Casuist 2008-05-25 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: um...

Some caucus heavy states he will win in November: Iowa, Minnesota, Washington and yes Colorado. (I would add Nevada though Hillary edged him in the vote there). Three are Bush states...all 5  potential swing states though polls out of Minnesota show it safe now. Iowa and Washington appear safe for Obama but not for Clinton and Colorado is strong for Obama and an almost certain loss for Clinton (she has a Rocky MTN problem apparently).

Second teh fact that Obama narrowly lost the white vote in a state doesn't, in and of itself, signal a problem with white voters any more than Hillary has a problem with male voters (who she narrowly lost in many states) or even black voters (though she hasn't carried them in any state).

Perhpas the best yardstick now is the early head to head match ups versus McCain which do show that Obama has serious problems in West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky and Florida...states where Hillary fares well.

On teh flip side...Hillary has serious problems in the Pacific Northwest (OR, WA). The Rockies (CO, MT), and The Upper Midwest (MI, WI, MN and IA).

Each ahs a path to victory in November---Hillary's runs through Appalachia and the Rust Belt. Obama's redraws the map and performs strong where a coalition of young (meaning under 50, not just college kids), professional and African-American voters can deliver decisive margins..either collectively (like in say Virginia) or seperately (as in white young and professional people delivering in places like Minneapolis or Milwaukee while blacks deliver in say Detroit or Philadelphia).

Obma holds in the Pacific Northwest and in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania (according to the most recent polls) while spreading the playing field to Virginia, the Carolinas, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and possibly even Montana, North Dakota, Omaha (one electoral vote), Texas, Missouri, Alaska and Indiana. Sure some are almost fantasy...but Obama is within single digits in places like Alaska that Hillary would lose by 30 points. So if Obama has a Kentucky/West Virginia problem...and he does....then its worth noting that Hillary has a West of Lake Michigan problem.

As for activist heavy-caucuses....if you can't get party activists out to support you, how the hell are you supposed to turnout the base in November? John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis all did fine in Caucus states as party insiders. Now if you mean to suggest that somehow Hillary Clinton is less inspiring to party activists than Michael Dukakis was well then I wonder how well that bodes for her general election chances?

in any case, sure fire proof of electability is being able to win elections, and yes primaries and caucuses are elections.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-05-26 07:18AM | 0 recs
I meant Madison not Milwaukee....

and I forgot to doublecheck for typos, so sorry for all the errors.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-05-26 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

Here's the deal.  Many Appalachian white votes SAY they won't vote for Obama because he is a Muslim, yet they know full well Rev. Wright is a Christian.   Can they be they that stupid?  Possibly.  But more likely they're just not going to tell you they won't vote for a n****r.  So, Obama needs to leave Michelle at home and go campaign in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky with his white mother, who raised him.  Then most of them will probably be able to recover from their Hillary hangover.

by braised cod 2008-05-25 08:16PM | 0 recs
That would be tricky since

she's dead.

by GFORD 2008-05-25 11:36PM | 0 recs
HRC looks like Mondale All in 1984

Obama will win the White Male vote handily in Montana and South Dakota.  Combine this with the loss of the African American Male and Female vote and HRC is doomed in Maryland, DC and Virgina.

If the last two elections are the Bell Weather of the entire primary process then HRC has no prayer in most of the States that Kerry  won it's going to look like 1984 all over again.

Sounds silly but HRC shoveled that crap last week!

by jproctor 2008-05-25 10:31PM | 0 recs
electability

If Hillary were more electable she would have been elected. No candidate short of a sitting president started with more advantages. Giuliani and Clinton were the electable candidates until the voters started voting. Now, not so much.

As far as all the hand wringing over Obama's electability based on past voting patterns. Nothing is more dangerous in investing and business then buying based on past performance and expecting past trends to continue unchanged into the future.

The country is changing if it wasn't then a white male Southern Governor would be the only smart choice. After all never in it's 200 year history has this country elected a woman or a black man. So why would we even consider running either?

by hankg 2008-05-26 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

In this state of Montana where I reside, the primary is easy to cross over for the republicans as they hand you both ballets and you chose which one to fill out....The republicans are having fun gaming our primary as when we register to vote, you don't have to declare a party....How on earth would you say "democrats" when there are no registered democrats or republicans in this state...Obama has as much chance of winning this state in a general election as flying to the moon....Look to the general election polls and see what I mean...

by athyrio 2008-05-26 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

I think this shows that the Appalachian vote was a vote for BILL Clinton as much as Hillary.

It's the Bubba vote. "He's one of us."

Not the upper middle class Wesleyan educated WalMart board member who receives more healthcare lobby dollars than anyone else.

by TimO 2008-05-26 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary
I don't think Obama can win in November.
Four months and we'll see.
by nellre 2008-05-26 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

And what will you do before November to put a Democrat in the WH?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-26 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Up 17 Points Ahead of Montana Primary

2 things:

A. 17 points!

B. If you are reading this - you ain't working too hard.

by xdem 2008-05-26 12:22PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads