Just read a hilarious comment over at huffpo. Someone posted that Hillary won PA because she's been given a free ride by the press. He says someone should at least ask how much she pays for her hair styling and who pays for it. Give me a break.
Another poster said that Hillary won because of racism (party true probably), but another poster pointed out that Obama has consistently gotten 80-90% of the African-American vote. Why won't blacks vote for a white candidate? I know that's nonsense because they have in the past, obviously, but there is definitely some voting solely on race going on for Obama, just as there is voting solely on gender for Clinton.
Posted by CG at April 23, 2008 06:11 AMthe concept that this primary was vicious seems to escape you. Senator Clinton is running a scorched earth campaign that has no regard for any future effects other than her winning the primary.
Obama improved considerably from his position in Ohio, and that was without the machine of the philidelphia mayor, and the governor of the state. If anyone believes she can beat Mclie in the general based upon the kind of ads she has been running against Obama, then they are drinking the coolaid.
Would I have hoped Obama could have finished her off? Yes. Was that likely to happen? no. If he runs the kind of vicious effective ads against her that she has been running against him, he loses. None of this is good for the party. Alienating the Black vote by implied racism will truly backfire against us in the fall. YOU can be sure the press will once again turn on her like dogs if she is the nominee. Then we will hear about bill's 250 million dollar foundation, their 108 million in personal wealth, her history of republicanism until she married BC, and every list of tea parties and tours she has taken, and her complete lack of legislative accomplishments.
Posted by ltgesq at April 23, 2008 06:19 AMThe superdelegates will never overturn the pledged delegate count. Hillary's campaign is a fantasy.
Posted by nerdoff at April 23, 2008 06:22 AMLook at the SUSA poll in NC...down to 9 points! What a whimp....those waffles must have really tasted good. Come on Eriposte, Clinton just has to get out. We've found a Democrat McOld can beat, lets let Barry be the candidate. Yes Clinton must withdraw...now.
Posted by peter at April 23, 2008 06:24 AMLet's try this on for size...let's assume that Obama, instead of Clinton, had a 15-20 point lead in a state tailor made for him, and he only ended up winning by 9-10%. You would be wearing out the Bold key on your computer telling us how he blew a huge lead and therefore should get out. The fact is that Clinton has been favored all along, by varying amounts, in PA, and she won, just like she should have. Just by less, and a whole lot less, than she needed to make a real dent in his lead.
poster CG makes good points. Its clear that gender and race is a factor...that is, unfortunately, the way it is. The question really is will whites that vote for Clinton vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Increasing polling data suggest that a fairly large % of Clinton supporters would switch to McOld rather than vote for Obama-I'd definitely suggest a racial motive there. On the other hand, the African-American vote has been Democratic historically. If Clinton is the nominee, they will vote for her, perhaps not in the numbers we are seeing for Obama, but you'll not see a rush of A-A votes to McOld.
Posted by T2 at April 23, 2008 06:29 AM
e'rip.
thanks.
check out anglachel's journal if you haven't already done so.
dear howard dean and obama superdelegates,
read these paragraphs and be afraid,
for the party you dolts,
not for your candidate.
from the website of PPP polling, per e'rips cite:
[ ... It's pretty easy, based on the exit polls, to see where we went wrong. We had the black vote at 18% when it turned out to be 14-15%, and we had the under 45 vote at 41% when it turned out to be 31%.
I reweighted the results from our final Pennsylvania poll to those figures for race and age, and the result of our poll was flipped- Hillary leading 49-46. Assume she pulled 60% of the undecideds and that gives her the 52-48 lead that the extrapolation from the original exit polls does. ]
from the website of anglachel (anglachel's journal):
[... I'm using the exit poll data on CNN.
Sex
More women than men voted and more women chose Hillary. She won a higher percentage of male vote than she usually does, @ 47%.
Age Info
The youth vote was only 10%. This should worry party leaders as Obama is strongest in this age bracket, which is also the least likely to turn out for a vote. What is very surprising is that the next age bracket, 30-44 was lower than usual as well, only 17%. Though the majority of both groups voted for Obama, they simply did not turn out to support him in the same numbers they have in earlier contests. Voters over 44 turned out en masse and strongly supported Hillary. ]
eRiposte, from Pennsylvania Department of State:
Unofficial Returns *** 9,203 out of 9,264 Districts (99.34%) Reporting Statewide ***Hillary Clinton - 54.3
Barack Obama - 45.7
Technically only an 8.6 margin of victory. Make it 9. Less than double digits.
What did she pick up, 10-12 delegates. Can she afford to keep fighting?
The people of Pennsylvania had their say.
They selected Hillary Clinton.
Over 2 million people went to the polls yesterday.
And some 200,000 more of them selected Hillary Clinton than selected Barack Obama.
Nationally the race is close. Using the delegate numbers on MSNBC which give Obama a bigger lead than those at CNN Obama has 85% of the number of delegates needed for the nomination and Clinton has 78.5%. Sorry, but the party has not expressed an overwelming preference for one over the other.
The "popular vote", such as it is, tells a similiar tale.
Let the contests continue.
Neither candidate has been annointed.
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 07:01 AM
You can only feed people cheese doodles and ice cream for so long before they start looking for something more nutritious. Obama's feel-good message has run its course, but he hasn't found anything to repace it with. All the whining only makes him look like more of an empty suit. How many voters really care what Keith Olbermann or Markos Moulitsas think about Obama's magnificent inevitability?
Posted by at April 23, 2008 07:10 AMNow the popular vote total difference is now equal with the vote difference in Obama's home town of Chicago. Cook County along with the other Chicago area county is now the only difference in the Democratic race. The rest of America is basically evenly split. Yet the states of Michigan and Florida aren't getting counted.
Posted by peter at April 23, 2008 07:11 AMSome interesting things in the vote breakdown too.
Of the Democratic voters in Pennsylvania 1 out of 7 was newly registered as a Democrat. Of those Obama got the votes of 6 out of 10 and Clinton go the votes of the other 4. 60-40 split. Clearly favored to Obama but not a tidalwave of newly inspired voters.
And Obama garnered 90%, 9 out of 10, of the African American vote. How many of those voters discriminated between the two candidates on a basis of race?
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 07:18 AMI think you have to give the win to Clinton and not try to spin this at all. She won, she fought hard, and she deserves the congrats. of all of us even the Obama supporters like me.
I still feel that the odds are great that she can win the final race and the few delegits she got this day really makes it even harder. The fact is that she will have to conceed at some point and it might look better for her down the road if she quits before it is just obvious kind of like an athelete bowing out befor he is laughed off the field.
Be that as it may, the Clinton team is toughening up Obama for the long fight ahead and in the long run the drawn out primary process is good for the Dems. Obama's org. is stronger in every state and his name recognition is very very high now. He has put very good get out the vote camps and databases in place in all 50 states which will be huge in the general election.
If both sides avoid the nasty shots at the other we will get through this stronger than we went into it. I hope Obama is gracious to Mrs. Clinton but that he begins to tailor his message as a fight with the failures of the Rep. party and his vision for the future of this country. He doesn't have to ignore Clinton but he needs to begin to look ahead and not go negative. He can't take the Clinton bait. If he does this then the numbers and the supers will cont. to move his way and I predict Clinton will be out a week after Ind. Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at April 23, 2008 07:31 AM"And Obama garnered 90%, 9 out of 10, of the African American vote. How many of those voters discriminated between the two candidates on a basis of race?" I'd say a whole lot of them voted along racial lines. But alot of white people voted for Kerry and Bush and Gore, and nobody saw that as racially based. I'd be stunned, if presented with the first A-A candidate in history, the A-A population didn't support him wholeheartedly. However, I bet the A-A population wouldn't be nearly as supportive if Condi Rice was in the race. As I stated earlier, the Black vote will go Democratic, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama wins the nod. From what I've been seeing, that isn't necessarily the case with some Clinton supporters. If they desert the Party, they are dirt.
Posted by T2 at April 23, 2008 07:38 AMAnd Obama garnered 90%, 9 out of 10, of the African American vote. How many of those voters discriminated between the two candidates on a basis of race? - snark
Trust me, snark, you don't want to go there. From the exit poll:
Was Race of Candidate Important to YouYes (19%) Clinton 59%, Obama 41%
No (80%) Clinton 53%, Obama 47%
I assume that doesn't exactly give you the warm fuzzies. Obama's race is a handicap, not an asset, in his run for the nomination.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 07:44 AMYou Obamabots and Obama-anians (those that reluctantly listen to reason)...
spin, spin, spin the globe...spinmeisters..
I was over at Huffington Post, and all the editorials were so nasty, so anti-Hillary. So desperately trying to stop their heads from exploding. So trying to say that Hillary actually lost (and also, trying to say that the Democratic Party lost).
I mean, how many of these bloggers (outside of the misguided Ceska, who apparently has some brand of koolaid he's been drinking affecting his brain) actually live in PA? Do they even understand what's going on?
Get over yourselves.
Hillary won. She even won--quelle horreur!--by double digits. She will no doubt continue to win. I won't know the number of states, but let the whole thing play out, to the end. If you hate women so much, and the Clintons so much, vote for McCain. He'll gladly take your Obamabot voting block.
Obamabots feel if they keep repeating these memes that "Hillary can't win," or "Hillary's campaign is dead," or (to borrow from Star Trek Voyager) "We are the Borg. Surrender. Resistance if Futile," that they will get what they want.
But those are all false framings of the reality we live in. And so reality has now clashed with the Obamabot's perceptions of reality.
And in their flailing about, they sure as hell act like Republicans.
The American electorate is in great distress. Bush and Cheney (and their Republican enablers) put them there. We should be looking for the best, all-around candidate to take us out of this mess, walk us out away from the pathway of National Destruction.
Perhaps there are some consituency blocks that still think this is an American Idol-type popularity contest. It appears that a significant proportion (in my view) of the Obamabots are of this viewpoint. "We like him--even if he has no real experience to speak of in either the National Dialogue, or in foreign policy!"
Sadly, it's not.
This is about a nation on a path that could lead to destruction, if it's not reversed. This isn't about "feelings" as the reason you vote for someone. It's about cold, hard, calculations. In the environment where everything is horrible.
Obama Barack would perhaps make a good, "Fair Weather President." But the people in PA know that things will no longer be "Fair Weather," for any foreseeable future, for many years.
That is why Hillary Clinton won. Not this "PA persons are racist." Not this "PA persons are bitter towards Obama's [boneheaded] "bitter" comments." And all these other stupid, ludicrous, and ultimately inaccurate memes being aped by the MSM, and also echoed by the Obamabots. "The exit polls indicate..."
(I truly think that a lot of the Obamabots are closeted Republicans.)
Get over it.
The PA electorate overall saw through the empty Obama-bastic rhetoric, and know a superlative candidate when they see her talk, and listen to what she says about how she will solve the problems. She is providing concepts and ideas (and also about how to pay for them) that Obama lacks.
You can see more of my comments in Turkana's thread "Pennsylvania--Clinton wins" as in regards as to what the Real Themes that drove the end results. I know this, because I do live in PA, and I have talked to many many people over the past 12 months at the very least about the election, and what people are providing opinions on.
How many of the Huffington Post or Obamabots like Daily Kos have done that?
Betting money is on that they haven't.
NBC hates the Democratic Party. Be aware of that.
Posted by Troubled American at April 23, 2008 07:44 AMAmen T2:
If Clinton supporters move over to Mccain they are sad sad sad and deserve the country they have had to the last 7 years.
My God! I can not concieve of a person that would look at Obama and what his dem. party would stand for and then look at Mccain and the rep. party and actually vote rep. If the Clinton supporters on this site do that then I may have to restart the Lexapro I took after the 2004 election.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at April 23, 2008 07:44 AMAs Anon and others noted above, turnout amongst African Americans and young voters did not materialize as expected, despite millions invested by Obama in a primary state. Yet women, men, working class voters, and older voters did turn out as expected for Hillary, even though she was outspent at least 2 if not 3-1.
It also appears that Hillary got a good chunk of those who entered the process recently, thereby undercutting the notion that Obama can singularly draw in large numbers of new people to the party. Given that Obama (rightly so) successfully spent Hillary into the ground in Pennsylvania, but still didn't get the turnout his campaign expected from a good part of his base, what does that say about his lead this late in the process and his expectations for a non-caucus contest like the November general election?
Posted by Steve Soto at April 23, 2008 07:45 AMeriposte, was the New York Times editorial board's endorsement of Clinton also showing "elitist contempt for journalism and democracy"?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 07:47 AMCalPolj- I'd be very suspect that people in general are going to admit they are racists in an exit poll. Therefore I don't put much stock in the numbers you provide. I'd love it if we were such a cool nation that 80% of the people don't consider race as a factor....doesn't enter their mind at all. I'm not sure we are quite there yet.
Posted by T2 at April 23, 2008 07:50 AMHillary is proving that for a woman to win she has to be twice as smart, work twice as hard and be twice as tough as the man he's up against. at some point the Obamedia has to put down the Koolaid and ask themselves "why can't our guy close the deal?"
he's toast in the GE. the "wrong for (your state name here), wrong for America" will start coming out the day after he is declared the nominee. I do NOT want to vote for him. I suppose that I will if I have to, to avoid a Pres McCain, but I don't trust this guy, and the more I see of him, the less I like him.
Posted by susan at April 23, 2008 07:53 AMT2, I am also surprised so many admitted to voting by race and I agree that the problem is actually even larger. Clinton supporters marginalizing Obama's support among African-Americans need to see the uglier flip side of that argument.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 07:58 AMOff topic...General Petraeus just got promoted to Centcom commander with Odierno taking over in Iraq.
Back to the primary winter we're in.
Posted by peter at April 23, 2008 07:59 AMTrust me, snark, you don't want to go there. From the exit poll:
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Yes (19%) Clinton 59%, Obama 41%
No (80%) Clinton 53%, Obama 47%
So you assume that everyone answered that question honestly?
I assume that doesn't exactly give you the warm fuzzies.
Did I sound like I was looking for "the warm fuzzies"? The fact is 90% of the African American voters voted for the African American candidate. I know it's perfectly acceptable to talk about white race discrimination because it's generally bad. But the concept that African Americans can discriminate based on race is taboo. "I'm gonna vote for someone who's like me" doesn't have the same implications in both cases it seems.
Obama's race is a handicap, not an asset, in his run for the nomination.
Not, apparently, amongst those of his own race.
Mr.Soto. At no time did Obama have a poll lead in PA. Never. She led all the way and won handily in a state she was supposed to win handily. Young voters are notoriously unreliable. Voters who are scared are very reliable. That is the basis of the mess we are in nationally. And you can be scared of lots of things, change being one of them, boogie-man preachers another. Clinton can now stay in the race as long as she wants, which, of course, is what she wants.
Also, I don't know why the fact Obama has been able to raise/spend vastly more money is being used in discussions of this result. He has the money, and he's spending for exactly what the donors donated it for...the campaign. If he'd have won, the Clinton camp would be howling that he "bought the win". Now they are howling that "he couldn't buy the win". Politics..ugh.
snark, Obama can not choose to be African-American to African-American voters and white to white voters. He receives both the benefit and the disadvantage of his race. The disadvantage outweighs the benefit, and as you point out the disadvantage is likely to be underestimated.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 08:09 AMCan one have too much money in a campaign...Obama is proving it each and every day he runs. Who wants a candidate that spends like a drunken sailor?
Posted by peter at April 23, 2008 08:15 AMMr.Soto. At no time did Obama have a poll lead in PA. Never.
yo dennis, Obama back up by 7 in todays Gallup tracker..... Posted by T2 at April 21, 2008 11:17 AM
Interesting...
Posted by iamcoyote at April 23, 2008 08:17 AMCA Pol Junkie,
What you say is true. I made no claim as to the relative advantage or disadvantage to Obama as a whole in the campaign. I just always find it interesting that white people can make comments like this;
Voters who are scared are very reliable. That is the basis of the mess we are in nationally. And you can be scared of lots of things, change being one of them, boogie-man preachers another. Clinton can now stay in the race as long as she wants, which, of course, is what she wants.
The translation being Clinton benefited from the white racist vote against Obama. This of course = BAD. The fact that 6 out of 10 white voters simply preferred Clinton is unthinkable. They must be voting against 'the boogey man'. While the fact that 9 out of 10 African Americans voting for the African American candidate is perfectly acceptable and to be expected. It's discriminating by race either way. But this is a fact that must not be acknowledged in this campaign.
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 08:20 AMI just always find it interesting that white people can make comments like this;
I did not intend to include "white" in that sentence. I don't know T2's race but regardless of that that was not my intent.
Should have read;
I just always find it interesting that people can make comments like this;
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 08:28 AMEriposte, it was decisive in PA, it was not decisive for the nomination. She won by about 9% and maybe a dozen delegates last night. Decisive for PA, not the nation. In fact, Obama's closer than ever to winning.
Peter, in regards to Obama's popular vote lead and your pointing out the margin is basically Chicago, that's a nice point. In other words, Obama leads in the popular vote by millions. That's a real good point, that's a real solid lead in popular votes for Obama.
Troubled American, Hillary did not win by double digits last night. If you go to PA's Dept. of State site with the returns, you will see that with 99.44% districts reporting statewide, Hillary has a 9.2% lead over Obama in PA's elections last night, which is a good deal closer to 9%, single digits, than 10%, double digits.
This supposed double-digit win spin is just an example of how lazy the media are in regurgitating every piece of b.s. Hillary spouts, and how they treat her with such kid gloves. Any other candidate, who's husband is not the defacto leader of her party, would have been forced to drop out by now and would never be able to bully the press into reporting silliness like Hillary won by double-digits in PA last night. Anyone paying attention could see it was going to land in the neighborhood north of 8.5% but a bit south of 9.4%, thus preventing her from making a legitimate claim of double-digits. But her team spins it and spins it and makes it so. But it's not.
Which reminds me, Dennis, wherever you are, Hillary didn't win by double-digits. I am the winner of $1.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 23, 2008 08:37 AMiamcoyote, the quote you reference was discussing a national poll, not PA. Maybe you can find a PA poll (except outliers) that had Obama in the lead, but I don't remember one. If so, then I'm in error.
CApj
snark has some very good points.
you simply cannot continue to interdict the discussion of race in this election with snide inferences of racism aimed at those who oppose your candidate.
in this election cycle, race is more a factor than any other issue, and, i suspect will only become more so to the voters waiting to vote in n. carolina, indiana, puerto rico, etc.
it is essential that we be permitted to talk analytically about race and about it's consequences.
implying that snark is racist because he argues about race from his candidate's viewpoint is just plain stupid from an analytical standpoint (among others).
since you like to do numbers, capj, here's a question i have been pondering:
folks like to say that obama's (former) lead in the popular vote can be attributed to his home town of chicago and environs.
that argument doesn't impress me much.
what would impress me, though, is to know how much obama has depended on UNUSUALLY large turnouts and proportionally UNUSUALLY high vote support
from black voters
in the five states of the deep south - south carolina, georgia, alabama, mississippi, and louisiana. you can throw in d.c. too.
if, as i suspect might be the case, his popular vote lead, and maybe his delegate vote lead too,
is due to the EXCESS over normal for a democrat in presidential primaries, then his popular and/or delegate leads can be attributed entirely to race.
and lest you think ill of me (that hurts my feelings)
i am one who believes, with paul krugman and his colleague bartel at princeton,
that ALL of the damage that the republican party has done to this nation since 1980 can be attributed to
the abandonment of the democratic party for the republican party
by white voters in the old south.
i also believe that one of the few remaining socially and politically cohesive social structures left in modern americn is the black church community. a community that, until this time, has strongly supported democratic candidates for president.
if they don't this time, out of pique at obama's not having won the nomination,
could we not say that obama has functioned as (though did not personally intend to be)
the best "wedge" candidate that the most dastardly republican political operative could possibly have dreamed up.
Posted by orionATL at April 23, 2008 08:52 AMT2, there was one poll if not a couple, that had him in front within the last week or ten days. If you want to call that an outlier to make your point, fine. As I said in the comment, and have said in previous posts, his fundraising advantages are the result of a superior campaign and strategy and are not to be condemned. But the fact remains that she was outspent by a large amount and still won by 8-9 points and his base did not turn out as expected.
As for running a campaign on fear, welcome to post-9/11 America. Both candidates know the lay of the land since 2002 and 2004. Obama has chosen to try and work around this with hope and talk of the future. Clinton is playing to the here-and-now of fear brought about by a recession and the knowledge that Bush hasn't really done a thing about the threat from those who hit us on 9/11. You can call it fear-mongering and all of us like Rachel Maddow can wish it all away and say Democrats don't run campaigns this way, but the truth is that such fear is part of the electorate, and our willingness to say that we Democrats are above such travesties are recipes why we lose to the swine GOP.
Posted by Steve Soto at April 23, 2008 09:00 AMBrian, Obama's lead is basically the difference in the vote between Clinton and Obama from Chicago's two counties.
Posted by peter at April 23, 2008 09:04 AMBrian, Obama's lead is basically the difference in the vote between Clinton and Obama from Chicago's two counties.
peter, why don't you wait until IN votes! Then you can be all inclusive of the Chicago burbs.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 23, 2008 09:27 AMPeter, okay then, so it is the difference of the vote between them in Chicago? For a moment, let's take that on its face, then.
That's 690,000 more popular votes for Obama than Clinton, very close in a set of elections conducted across the country, but still definitive enough to state who is the winner.
Also, I didn't call you on it earlier, but Chicago is only in Cook County, not two counties. What other county are you talking about? Lake? DuPage? Will? There's over a half million, maybe even close to a million people in one or two of those, each, but they'd only be technically part of Chicagoland. Those counties are really still pretty rural.
On the other hand, Cook County, the county in which Chicago resides, is home to more than 5 million people, and it's probably about 3 times the size of the the three counties surrounding it in terms of population. Moreover, Cook County and Chicago are NOT podunk. Cook County by population is the second largest, second most populous county in the nation after L.A., individually its larger than any of the counties of New York City by about 33%. You make it sound like winning in Chicago isn't enough. Well, in this set of elections, Chicago remains as important a city as ever for the Democrats and Obama won it handily.
Now, tell me Peter, since I've gone along with your scenario there, what method of popular vote counting are you using? Are you including Florida and Michigan but excluding caucus states like Texas and Nevada, or are you selectively counting only the popular vote portion of Texas? What is your method of arriving at this lead of almost 700,000 votes Obama has?
Posted by Brian Bell at April 23, 2008 09:34 AM...what method of popular vote counting are you using?
Prettymuch just summed up the irrelevance of "the popular vote" in this contest.
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 09:40 AMSteve, the point was that it was her state to win and she did. Good for her. And maybe a day or two one poll had Obama leading or tied. I think you and I would both call PPP an outlier. But she went in 6 weeks ago with a big lead, and won with a smaller one and that is beyond dispute. That can be progress if you want to call it that. I'd rather call the candidate that was 20 points down and loses by only 9-10 the one making the progress. But it still amounts to a loss, I'll grant that. Clinton can take her 10 delegates and march on.
Posted by T2 at April 23, 2008 09:44 AMI don't get eriposte's silly remarks about polls.
eriposte sez: The talking point about Sen. Clinton having dropped from a 20-point lead is nonsense - it is based on cherry picking one or two polls....
You can find a compendium of poll results going back to the beginning of 2007 at Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html#polls
Some polls taken at the beginning of 2008 did in fact show Clinton with a lead of around 20%. Look for yourself. Other polls showed a smaller margin. One poll as late as mid-March showed a 26% lead for Clinton. Oh, polling is such a scientific business, isn't it? :-)
The most noteworthy thing you will see, if you look at all the polls, is that the spread from one to another was much less in that last few weeks than it was even 3-4 months ago. Presumably this just indicates that people were finally making up their minds--no mystery here.
eriposte sez: In fact, if you look at the list of PA polls at Pollster.com, the average Clinton lead was roughly ~10% in February, ~12% in March and ~7% in April.
Again, look at the Real Clear Politics compendium and decide for yourself if this is a correct representation. Maybe yes, maybe no. Decide for yourself. Not that it ultimately matters: the election is now past.
eriposte can spin the results however s/he wants. S/he has chosen here to spin the results by writing about how "Obama...blew a huge and unprecedented amount on money on the PA race". (Note careful choice of verb here: "blew".)
eriposte sez: At least you can be happy that I didn't pick the PPP poll that had Sen. Obama leading by 3% and use that to claim that he should therefore withdraw from the race after yesterday's result.
That alleged 26% Clinton lead in mid-March was also in a PPP poll. Sort of sounds as though PPP polling is a wee bit problematic overall, doesn't it?
Spin, spin, spin. eriposte keeps spinning here, all the while telling us that that is not what s/he's doing; all the while complaining about Obama spinmeisters.
On to the next primaries, it seems. What do we have to look forward to? More spinning at TLC. More spinning all over the blogosphere. Sigh.
Posted by at April 23, 2008 09:45 AMWords of wisdom from Markos;
There is no stranger line of spin right now than the Clinton campaign's repeated statements that "Obama outspent us 3-1!"
Yeah, it's true. But that's not a bad thing.
Might not be a bad thing, but it's a fact. He poured massive resources into Pennsylvania and couldn't beat Clinton. That's the point. Not that it's bad. Hard for me to believe that Markos can't understand that.
And he continues;
Remember, this is no longer a normal race. We're no longer talking delegate counts since bizarrely, the measure of victory in this primary has been discarded.
Mostly by the Obama supporters who seem to have forgotten a very key number; 2025. Obama's not there yet and people like Markos would like to conveniently overlook that fact. I think the Clinton campaign is quite aware of the delegate 'math'.
We're no longer talking popular vote, since Clinton can't win that without throwing in a bunch of hypothetical "ifs" -- as in, "IF you count Michigan, and IF you count Florida, and IF you don't count the caucuses, and IF you don't count weekend contests, and IF you don't count black people..." You get the idea.
Now, would that be a smear? Maybe "playing the race card"? Any Obama supporters want to back Markos up on that one?
Brian...Cook and DuPage
Cook came in with a net gain of 429,052 votes.
DuPage: 32554
For a total of 461,606 more votes for Obama over Clinton.
RCP indicates a difference of some 503K votes right now. Just about the entire separation come from his home counties.
Posted by peter at April 23, 2008 10:31 AMorionATL,
you simply cannot continue to interdict the discussion of race in this election with snide inferences of racism aimed at those who oppose your candidate.
I didn't bring it up. Clinton supporters seem to think it's unfair that Obama is getting 90% of the African-American vote. However, if that is unfair it is also certainly unfair that Obama is losing even more votes because of his race than he is gaining from it.
in this election cycle, race is more a factor than any other issue, and, i suspect will only become more so to the voters waiting to vote in n. carolina, indiana, puerto rico, etc.
In states with significant African-American populations, it is an issue. It hasn't been in states with few African-Americans, like the northwest, rockies, plains, and upper New England.
it is essential that we be permitted to talk analytically about race and about it's consequences.
Sure. That's what we are doing.
implying that snark is racist because he argues about race from his candidate's viewpoint is just plain stupid from an analytical standpoint (among others).
I did absolutely no such thing.
folks like to say that obama's (former) lead in the popular vote can be attributed to his home town of chicago and environs.
He still leads by over 600,000 in the popular vote, not that it matters.
what would impress me, though, is to know how much obama has depended on UNUSUALLY large turnouts and proportionally UNUSUALLY high vote support from black voters in the five states of the deep south - south carolina, georgia, alabama, mississippi, and louisiana. you can throw in d.c. too.
Turnout is up for everybody - I haven't seen an analysis like that. It is part of campaigning to get as many of your supporters to the polls as possible. If Obama is succeeding, that is just evidence of running a good campaign.
if, as i suspect might be the case, his popular vote lead, and maybe his delegate vote lead too, is due to the EXCESS over normal for a democrat in presidential primaries, then his popular and/or delegate leads can be attributed entirely to race.
and lest you think ill of me (that hurts my feelings) i am one who believes, with paul krugman and his colleague bartel at princeton, that ALL of the damage that the republican party has done to this nation since 1980 can be attributed to the abandonment of the democratic party for the republican party by white voters in the old south.
If the Democratic primaries were just among white voters, Clinton would probably be leading. Thankfully, we count everyone's votes equally. Southern Democrats defected because they felt Republicans better represented them. That's just democracy - I don't think we should tell them they should vote for their economic interests, and I don't want the Democratic Party catering to their cultural interests.
i also believe that one of the few remaining socially and politically cohesive social structures left in modern americn is the black church community. a community that, until this time, has strongly supported democratic candidates for president.
African-Americans would vote strongly for Clinton if she were the nominee - they're certainly not going to flock to McCain.
if they don't this time, out of pique at obama's not having won the nomination, could we not say that obama has functioned as (though did not personally intend to be) the best "wedge" candidate that the most dastardly republican political operative could possibly have dreamed up.
Actually, you might say that about Senator Clinton - it's hard to fault Obama for being black, but Senator Clinton would have to earn their votes. Of course, we're not going to get a chance to test your thesis since she won't be the nominee.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 11:14 AMI didn't bring it up. Clinton supporters seem to think it's unfair that Obama is getting 90% of the African-American vote.
I didn't say anything about it being unfair.
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 11:33 AMI did absolutely no such thing.
And, for the record, I did not perceive that you had either.
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 11:37 AMCApj
FYI.
capj wrote at 7:58am:
[ T2, I am also surprised so many admitted to voting by race and I agree that the problem is actually even larger. Clinton supporters marginalizing Obama's support among African-Americans need to see the uglier flip side of that argument.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 07:58 AM ]
earlier, at 7:44am capj wrote:
[ And Obama garnered 90%, 9 out of 10, of the African American vote. How many of those voters discriminated between the two candidates on a basis of race? - snark
Trust me, snark, you don't want to go there. From the exit poll:
Was Race of Candidate Important to You
Yes (19%) Clinton 59%, Obama 41%
No (80%) Clinton 53%, Obama 47%
I assume that doesn't exactly give you the warm fuzzies. Obama's race is a handicap, not an asset, in his run for the nomination.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 07:44 AM ]
there seem to be dark inferences here, CApj?
And, for the record, I did not perceive that you had either.
Thank you, snark.
there seem to be dark inferences here, CApj?
I thought (and snark corrected above) that snark was saying that Obama was receiving benefit because of his race. I pointed out that the opposite is true and it's not something Clinton supporters are likely to be very proud of. Whether people were voting against Obama because they themselves were racists or because they thought general election voters were racists, either way it is a large enough phenomenon to be a net negative for Obama. That racist voters exist is hardly news.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 12:44 PMcapj
thanks.
what about your intentions for
"the uglier flip side of that argument."
what's that all about?
I thought (and snark corrected above) that snark was saying that Obama was receiving benefit because of his race.
Amongst African Americans, yes, he is. But I didn't say it was "unfair".
Whether people were voting against Obama because they themselves were racists or because they thought general election voters were racists...
Or because they prefer a candidate who is "like them"?
Which is how I interpret the fact that a much larger percentage of the African American vote(90% in this instance) is going to Obama than is the percentage of any other demographic you care to measure.
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 01:02 PMwhat about your intentions for "the uglier flip side of that argument."
what's that all about? - orionATL
That's what I talk about in the last paragraph of my previous post.
Or because they prefer a candidate who is "like them"? - snark
That is a gentler way to put it...
Which is how I interpret the fact that a much larger percentage of the African American vote(90% in this instance) is going to Obama than is the percentage of any other demographic you care to measure. - snark
I don't think race is a good way to choose a presidential candidate. I think it is understandable that race would be a particularly important factor for a historically, and to lesser extent presently, persecuted minority. Most whites (as the exit polling shows) are indifferent regarding race, but obviously a significant minority are not. One cannot demographically isolate the portion of white voters for whom race is an important issue in choosing a candidate - if you could I'm sure you find a similar heavy skew in favor of Senator Clinton.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 01:40 PMThat is a gentler way to put it...
Perhaps a more understanding way?
I think it is understandable that race would be a particularly important factor for a historically, and to lesser extent presently, persecuted minority.
That not withstanding, it is discriminating by race. Something which so many seem to want to deny in this contest.
One cannot demographically isolate the portion of white voters for whom race is an important issue in choosing a candidate - if you could I'm sure you find a similar heavy skew in favor of Senator Clinton.
That may be true. You may also find a certain percentage of whites who are in fact voting for Barack Obama because he is a black man. Or are supporting Obama because they'd rather support a man, any man, than a woman. Of course there's really no way to know.
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 01:55 PMListening to this discussion about the Pennsylvania primary, the candidates and race, it is beyond obvious to me that you are not Black people discussing the issue. I hate to sound rude (since I don't know the race of all the authors here) but it sounds like the discussion of white liberals who think they know what they're talking about, but really don't. Lets be honest here, Black people are voting en masse for Obama because they believe he has the opportunity to be the first Black president. They believe that its their turn, and for all the country has done (slavery, jim crow etc.), and that the country owes them this victory. And if you don't believe that, spend some time with my family, in my hair salon, listening to Black talk radio, or just on the street in any Black neighborhood in America.
Also, the Obama fans pushing the notion that Hillary is only winning contests bc of the racism of others is preposterous. Obama won Iowa, Vermont, and other "very White" states. Obama's problem isn't white peope, its 'bread and butter' Democrats that have always been the core of the democratic constituency. He has difficulty with THOSE people. That difficulty is significant, because they are the Reagan Democrats who tend to swing republican when they can't connect with the Democratic nominee.
The Far Left wing of the Democratic party which dominates the blogosphere and trying to drive the Democratic agenda doesn't understand that most Democrats or Americans for that matter are the same as them ideologically. Most americans are in the center somewhere, that's why Reagan Democrats exist. Bill Clinton understood this, that's why he won. I don't understand a party that acts as if the freshman 2006 class of Democrats wasn't FULL of conservative or moderate Democrats. Lefties lose every election. That's a fact.
Posted by kacey at April 23, 2008 02:08 PMLets be honest here, Black people are voting en masse for Obama because they believe he has the opportunity to be the first Black president.
And there are a good number of whites voting for him for that very reason too. I might not be black but I do know some white people who've told me they're happy to be able to help elect the first black president.
Bill Clinton understood this, that's why he won.
[Sounds of many heads exploding]
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 02:30 PMAlso, the Obama fans pushing the notion that Hillary is only winning contests bc of the racism of others is preposterous.
Either you believe the exit polls, or you don't, but they show Obama lost net votes in Pennsylvania from people voting on race. It's certainly not the only reason for Clinton's win, though.
Obama won Iowa, Vermont, and other "very White" states. Obama's problem isn't white peope, its 'bread and butter' Democrats that have always been the core of the democratic constituency. He has difficulty with THOSE people.
Do they not eat bread and butter in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Idaho...?
That difficulty is significant, because they are the Reagan Democrats who tend to swing republican when they can't connect with the Democratic nominee.
I agree, but then Obama reaches alot of independents and disaffected Republicans which Clinton can not.
I don't understand a party that acts as if the freshman 2006 class of Democrats wasn't FULL of conservative or moderate Democrats. Lefties lose every election. That's a fact.
The 2006 class was not full of conservative or moderate Democrats. There were 3 conservatives from Indiana and 1 from North Carolina. I think the rest are pretty much entirely solid progressives and especially anti-war.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 02:42 PMkacey
that's one fine short analysis. and one i can understand and relate to.
thanks
Posted by orionATL at April 23, 2008 03:04 PMCAPolJunkie,
You said: "eriposte, was the New York Times editorial board's endorsement of Clinton also showing "elitist contempt for journalism and democracy"?"
Strange question because one has nothing to do with the other. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand, but elitism is an attitude. The act of endorsing someone is not an act of elitism.
Richard Mellon Scaife's endorsement of Sen. Clinton did not mean he was a supporter of liberal policies or of a progressive (as opposed to conservative) world view. Newspapers often endorse people who are nothing like them.
Posted by eriposte at April 23, 2008 08:29 PMSo, the NYT is not being elitist when they presume to tell people to vote for Hillary Clinton, but they are being elitist when they say the result was inconclusive? That's exactly what it was - in the no-man's land between resurgent Clinton campaign and crippled Clinton campaign. The result did nothing but extend the campaign two more weeks without improving Clinton's chance at getting the nomination.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 08:48 PMPeter, your numbers are bad. Obama took Cook with a gain of 700,000 votes. Besides which, it doesn't matter. 700,000 or within a 100,000 of half a million, either way, a sizeable victory in an important urban area to the country and the Democrats. Sometimes that's all that's required for a definitive lead.
I think it's beautiful that Peter is defending the Hillary candidacy. It shows you what side Hillary's side really is.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 23, 2008 09:37 PM