Your passion is well recieved and you are a good writer with a solid understanding of your topic matter. Thanks for the read!
Posted by Brandon Beth at April 25, 2008 06:33 AMAnd yet Clinton is behind in popular votes and in delegates (unless you count like she counts). That is, Clinton is so impossibly behind that she cannot catch Obama.
There must be other metrics out there, some group or groups that eriposte has ignored, that account for Obama winning. Maybe the statisticians are all voting for Obama.
And speaking of Michigan, the other day McAuliffe as much as admitted that Clinton left her name on the ballot to intentionally undermine her pledge to the DNC. That is, she lied to the Democratic Party to gain an unfair advantage. There's nothing that says qualified to be the nominee for a party than to lie to that party. I bet the super delegates are just lining up to vote for her.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 25, 2008 06:47 AMSo in his attempt to win white working class voters, Obama says their stupid for voting on wedge issues (my interpretation of the "bitter" comments). Good strategy.
There must be other metrics out there, some group or groups that eriposte has ignored, that account for Obama winning.
Sure there are--the African-American vote, the youth vote, etc. The demographic that's important in the GE is people who don't bother to vote in primaries. Despite record turnout, there are still a lot of democrats who don't vote in primaries, but do vote in general elections. The question is who will they vote for?
Posted by CG at April 25, 2008 06:59 AMUm once again nice analysis...interesting stuff and lots of new information for me.
Once again Krugman nails and makes it all so simple as to why I prefer Clinton at this point(but will vote for Obama should he win)....with this comment.
Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.
Exactly! That's what I have a big problem with. It's his vague campaign theme that do nothing for me and give me no specifics of how and what exactly you will do to change. I also think Junyah ran on a similar campaign themes when he first came into offic e and look what change he brought us. Plus change can mean different things to different people and then there's the how to change and change to what???
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight: The reason that the white Catholic vote went from plus 5% Democrat in Bill Clinton’s initial election to the White House to plus 7% Republican two months before the end of his Presidency (with apparently a similar swing among white working class voters in general) was because George (“I can dismangle any sentence”) Bush had the clearer message in the 2000 election??? Go figure!
Posted by redstater at April 25, 2008 07:21 AM"falsely portray the Clinton legacy"---defending the Clinton (I) "legacy" will be THE crucial consideration of any Clinton (II) admin.
Posted by euzoius at April 25, 2008 07:53 AMfine analysis e'rip.
obama doesn't merely disdain talking "policies"; he really DOES NOT CARE about the new deal ideal of employing government to better the lives of ordinary citizens.
his central political behavior seems to be to avoid taking any stand that might inhibit his future political moves -
in short, obama is for obama first.
(and i bet you would find plenty of evidence of this central trait of senator obama's in the history of his illinois public service)
that, i suspect, is what folks who could actually use some government help in their lives sense when they listen to him.
not surprisingly, those non-blacks who support obama most fervently are those whose education allows them the luxury of not needing much help from the government on health, on education, on jobs, on home mortgages.
having observed for five months now the essential vacuity of obama's political vision,
i am to the point that i think it would be an abdication of responsibility of historical proportions if the superdelegates failed to support clinton over obama.
obama simply does not have the knowledge or the experience or the CARING to run the national government in economically perilous times like those we are entering.
Posted by orionATL at April 25, 2008 08:11 AMeriposte;
It is true that the white voters you described have more at stake and the democratic party candidate policies should be more appealing to them. However, the republicans have influenced these voters and made them one issue voters. These issues are like gun control, abortion, gay marriage, school prayers, etc. These voters end up voting on emotions rather than logic and thus go to the republican candidate. That is unfortunate but is the fact.
The democrats have to cahnge their image as the party that favors abortion, gun control, keeping GOD out of government,etc. They just have to explain in layman terms as to what their positions mean. Both Hillary and Obama are doing this upto certain degree. However, I do not see that as a major effort to win these voters over. For example, the abortion law. I would explain it as the law that does not mandate an abortion if one does not want. On the contrary if this law is changed to no abortion law as the republicans want, then if a woman wants to have an abortion for a legitimate reason, cannot have one. So the law as is, is actually fair to all.
Similarly banning assult weapons does not impege upon the sport hunters. They should not be using AK-47 for hunting. Having safety locks on guns is actually good for stopping accidental deaths of children. I do not see this issue explained that way by democratic candidates. They seem to be too scared of how republicans will attack them that they tend to show that they belong with these people. That is why Hillary mentioned about her father teaching her how to shoot ducks.
Why is that a presidential candidate must show that he kills some creatures if he wants to get elected?
Posted by suresh at April 25, 2008 08:32 AMobama doesn't merely disdain talking "policies"; he really DOES NOT CARE about the new deal ideal of employing government to better the lives of ordinary citizens.
his central political behavior seems to be to avoid taking any stand that might inhibit his future political moves -
in short, obama is for obama first.
(and i bet you would find plenty of evidence of this central trait of senator obama's in the history of his illinois public service)
Yeah, that community organizing in poor neighborhoods was really self-serving, wasn't it? And getting health insurance coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults - ha! That doesn't help anybody! Who wants the improved access to breast and cervical cancer screening he worked to pass anyway? Then there's that community redevelopment funding and enterprise zones... all rubbish, right?
Seriously, it's pretty rich for a Clinton supporter to say Obama has been careful to not take a stand which would hurt his future political career. Opposing the Iraq war was very risky at the time, but he did because it was the right thing to do. Clinton voted for the war because it was the politically easy thing to do. That's one of the reasons I support Obama, because it shows he has a spine (and good judgment).
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 08:34 AM2004 election stats by race, income, gender, education levels...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Posted by Muck at April 25, 2008 08:42 AMeriposte,
I think that your argument is fundamentaally flawed for several reasons. I think that political scientist, Alan Abramowitz,offers a better, fact-based analysis(h/t Marc Ambinder):
"The fact that Democratic identifiers now decisively outnumber Republican identifiers means that in order to win, Democrats only have to unite and turn out their own base. If Obama wins the national popular vote by even a single percentage point, it's worth remembering, he'll almost certainly win the electoral vote as well.
In order for John McCain to win, on the other hand, Republicans not only have to unite and turn out their own base, which they have been fairly successful at doing in recent elections, but they also have to win a large majority of the small bloc of true independents and make significant inroads among Democratic identifiers, which they have not been very successful at doing recently.
In other words -- it doesn't really matter if Barack Obama isn't doing as well among white working class Dems as Hillary Clinton is. He doesn't need their votes to win.
A big part of the reason for the growing Democratic edge in party identification is the fact that Democrats now enjoy a large advantage among voters under the age of 30, as well as among African American and Hispanic voters. All three of these groups have been turning out in record numbers in the Democratic primaries, and there is no reason to believe that they will not also turn out in large numbers in November. Based on the early indicators of voter interest, the 2008 presidential election could very well witness the highest turnout of eligible voters in the postwar era, and that can only be good news for Democrats.
With a unified Democratic Party, a clear message of change, and a strong grass-roots effort at mobilizing the Democratic base, on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will be taking office as the head of a unified Democratic government. And John McCain will still be a member of the minority party in the United States Senate."
We need to unite behind Obama as quickly as possible. As has been stated before, alienation of black, upper middle class professionals, and new/young voters will almost certainly lead to a McCain win. Many of them will stay home. McCain wins; Clinton's brand is irrevocable damaged.
With careful impression management coupled with sincerity, Hillary could end up being a very effective senate majority leader, supreme court justice, or viable future presidential candidate.
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 08:47 AMeriposte,
I think that your argument is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. Who realyy cares what the 'mouth pieces' for either campaign says. I think that political scientist, Alan Abramowitz, offers a more comprehensive, fact-based analysis (h/t Marc Ambinder):
"The fact that Democratic identifiers now decisively outnumber Republican identifiers means that in order to win, Democrats only have to unite and turn out their own base. If Obama wins the national popular vote by even a single percentage point, it's worth remembering, he'll almost certainly win the electoral vote as well.
In order for John McCain to win, on the other hand, Republicans not only have to unite and turn out their own base, which they have been fairly successful at doing in recent elections, but they also have to win a large majority of the small bloc of true independents and make significant inroads among Democratic identifiers, which they have not been very successful at doing recently.
In other words -- it doesn't really matter if Barack Obama isn't doing as well among white working class Dems as Hillary Clinton is. He doesn't need their votes to win.
A big part of the reason for the growing Democratic edge in party identification is the fact that Democrats now enjoy a large advantage among voters under the age of 30, as well as among African American and Hispanic voters. All three of these groups have been turning out in record numbers in the Democratic primaries, and there is no reason to believe that they will not also turn out in large numbers in November. Based on the early indicators of voter interest, the 2008 presidential election could very well witness the highest turnout of eligible voters in the postwar era, and that can only be good news for Democrats.
With a unified Democratic Party, a clear message of change, and a strong grass-roots effort at mobilizing the Democratic base, on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will be taking office as the head of a unified Democratic government. And John McCain will still be a member of the minority party in the United States Senate."
We need to unite behind Obama as quickly as possible. As has been stated before, alienation of black, upper middle class professionals, and new/young voters will almost certainly lead to a McCain win. Many of them will stay home. McCain wins; Clinton's brand is irrevocably damaged.
With careful and sincere communications of support, Hillary could end up being a very effective senate majority leader, supreme court justice, or viable future presidential candidate.
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 08:51 AMsorry,
moderator feel free to remove my erroneous repost
thanks,
Obama...spine...what a joke. You kill me CalpolJ. And judgment too...Ha!
Posted by peter at April 25, 2008 08:55 AMCApj
gee, capj, raw emotion!
you wouldn't happen to be an obama supporter would you?
what happened to the numbers and the numerical inevitability you usually hide behind.
my point above, but not my main point at all,
is that one should look very carefully at obama's record of political activism in illinois to understand whether he is what he claims to be
or whether he is a self-protecting ducker and dodger.
there is political gossip that floats about that obama failed to protect some of his constituents from some of the depredations
of his pal and sugar daddy,
the slum lord,
and indicted political fixer,
tony rezko.
to whit,
if rezko's buildings did not have heat or water
and if some who lived in those buildings were constituents of obama's
did obama work to protect them from rezko?
similarly,
did obama really bear primary responsibility for the legislation you mention? political gossip from illinois has it that obama was always
one to avoid taking stands during the battle, but to claim max credit when the battle was won.
is any of this true?
do you capj have detailed knowledge of obama's illinois record of public service?
i don't .
and i doubt you do either.
and i've heard enough of these rumors to want to know whether they are true or not.
but not to worry, capj.
you can bet some folks are doing this little bit of historical research for the democrats and the nation.
those folks are the republican opo research cadre.
would you rather any negative info about obama's illinois days come out before or after denver?
or would you rather have it all on the table now?
Posted by orionATL at April 25, 2008 09:07 AMmy point above, but not my main point at all, is that one should look very carefully at obama's record of political activism in illinois to understand whether he is what he claims to be or whether he is a self-protecting ducker and dodger.
What do you see? I see someone who worked for those who needed help.
to whit, if rezko's buildings did not have heat or water and if some who lived in those buildings were constituents of obama's did obama work to protect them from rezko?
If you have an allegation with factual basis, make it. Until then, what you post is scurrilous innuendo.
similarly, did obama really bear primary responsibility for the legislation you mention?
That is legislation he worked to pass, not just voted for.
political gossip from illinois has it that obama was always one to avoid taking stands during the battle, but to claim max credit when the battle was won.
Again, if you want to make an accusation, do it with a factual basis. Innuendo is worthless. I cite the Iraq war as a case where Obama took a tough stand and Clinton took the easy way out to our great detriment. Do you have an example of where Clinton made a tough stand?
is any of this true?
People can say anything, but that doesn't mean it's true. You've certainly offered no evidence that it is true, so I assume it is not.
do you capj have detailed knowledge of obama's illinois record of public service?
You can see some of it on Obama's website. I've read others' more detailed accounts of his record.
i don't .
Well, then maybe you should read up before characterizing his record.
and i doubt you do either.
Pbfft.
and i've heard enough of these rumors to want to know whether they are true or not.
If they were true, we'd know about it. They're not. Do you think we should give credence to romors about Senator Clinton? I didn't think so.
but not to worry, capj. you can bet some folks are doing this little bit of historical research for the democrats and the nation.
I'm sure Senator Clinton has.
those folks are the republican opo research cadre. would you rather any negative info about obama's illinois days come out before or after denver?
Republicans will find something stupid to attack either candidate. If you think Clinton has nothing for them to attack, I'm certain you are seriously mistaken.
or would you rather have it all on the table now?
Do you want Clinton's on the table now? She's getting kind treatment (and even help) from the GOP because they want the nomination contest to drag out as long as possible.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 09:33 AMdeflection
deflection
deflection
deflection, thy name is CApj.
Posted by orionATL at April 25, 2008 09:38 AMExcellent analysis Eriposte....
Your arguments are also reinforced by the fact that Union Households overwhelmingly have been going to Clinton, despite their Union endorsements to Obama...
The MSM have been AWOL in regards to these issues....
Reinforces the interesting comment I caught on the blogs yesterday:
"People who have the luxury of hope go for Obama," one aide told me. "If they are college-educated and buy lattes at Starbucks, they're for him...But if people are really hurting, facing foreclosure or in danger of losing a job or health insurance, they're for her."
Orion:
I am really beginning to feel sorry for you and the sad little diatribes aganst Obama. I've read them for weeks now and it is beginning to wear thin. It's quite sad how you keep trotting out the same points about Obama over and over.
So Orion, just what are you gonna do? Huh?
I mean look. You may think she is going to pull this out and all but reality is soon going to bite you in the ass and Barak Obama will accept the nomination and begin to run against the republicans. Then what? I'm talking to you Orion then what? You going to vote for Mccain? Really? We are comming off of the worst group of criminals ever to hold power in this country who have done more damage to our world reputation and damage to our constitution than the last 5 bad presidents and you are going to vote for more of this? Are you kidding me?
The way you talk about Barak Obama you would think he was the anticrist. You leave yourself no room to even have doubts.
So tough guy what are you going to do?
Going to vote for the devil? Or not?
That goes for all the Clinton supporters on this site that get so over the top about Obama. Give me a freaking break. I and I suspect most Obama supporters don't hate Mrs. Clinton. I even like her and think she would be a fine president and will vote for her if she gets the nod but that is very unlikely whether you like that or not.
I began to support Obama very early on because I was so impressed with the way he thought and spoke but I also felt very strongly that Clinton would have a much tougher time in the general election because so many dems are luke warm or hostil to her and the republicans hate her so. Its nothing personal, I just want to drive this group of neocons so far out of power in Washington that they can never find their way back and Clinton is the least likely to do that.
The only way we loose this race is if we cut our own throats. We hang together or we hang seperately.
So what will it be Orion? If he wins the nomination will you vote for him?
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at April 25, 2008 09:45 AMOrionATL,
CA Pol junkie is sticking to the post content, what are you doing besides 'deflection...'?
Posted by tfitznc at April 25, 2008 09:53 AMdeflection, thy name is CApj. - orionATL
I addressed your post point by point, you refuse to respond and say I am deflecting? You can do better than that.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 09:57 AMI keep hearing Democrats have more than enough talent to field a great candidate for president/vice president as spoken by Speaker Pelosi. Democrats don't even have enough talent to figure their way out of the mess they're in right now with Obama-Clinton. There's not the one person who can get either one of these two fine people to back down and allow the party to go on.
Posted by peter at April 25, 2008 10:15 AMOk:
for just a moment lets pretend that Peter is trying to be serious and not acting like a rep. troll.
As long as the two candidates keep it focused on the issues and not on personal attacks ( granted, not always happening) this primary process can work in the Dem. favor. It may turn out to be the best thing the party could do.
a. The candidates dominate the news cycle day after day.
b. the democratic platform gets great and continous coverage.
c. both candidates build tremendous support staffs and data bases in every single state (when was the last time that happened)
d. Obama's name recognition is no longer an issue.
e. It toughens both candidates up and gets most of the dirty laundry out way before the rep. can bring it out.
It would be nice to see both of them begin to hammer Mccain/Bush day after day.
I like the bumper sticker with that picture of Mccain hugging Bush and the logo "had enough yet?"
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at April 25, 2008 10:44 AMDo you have an example of where Clinton made a tough stand?
I do. She took a tough stance when she said she would commit nuclear genocide against Iran.
Posted by phidipides at April 25, 2008 10:53 AMwhat the superdelegates should be voting on is:
who is best qualified to lead the u.s. in a time of severe economic distress,
senator obama or senator clinton?
not on "eligibility",
not on who's ahead in the democratic primary popular vote,
not who had the most elected delegates,
just
who can best use the levers of power of the presidency to maneuver the united states safely thru the dangerous waters we are entering.
this has to be a probabilistic calculation. no one knows with certainly that clinton would be great and obama a failure as president.
but the calculation is that there is a far better CHANCE that clinton, with her thirty years of experience in the democratic party, will be superior to obama given his limited experience.
consider this:
if the democratic party superdelegates were a board of directors of a major corporation,
they would never even consider for CEO
a person with so little experience in their corporation's industry as barack obama has in american national politics.
barack obama, ceo of
general electric?
general dynamics?
ford motors?
bank of america?
the news corp?
michelin?
exxon?
coca-cola?
koch industries?
walmart?
goldman, sachs?
not a chance in hell!
no board of directors member in their right mind would even allow a person with obama's meager credentials to be placed on the list of possible candidates.
but of course, this is merely the presidency of the united states and this is merely the democratic party, where "foolish" is genetically imprinted in politicians' judgments.
let me say this as straight as possible.
selecting barack obama because he has 150 more elected delegates than clinton, out of ~4000,
that's ~.04 (4%) of the total cast,
would be an act of folly.
not because obama cannot be elected, though i think he cannot,
but because he does not have the experience to lead this country, even in easy times,
let alone in the perilous times we face now.
so, superdelegates,
vote strictly by the party rules?
vote to save yourselves the least giref in the short-tun
or
vote for the national interest?
i won't hold my breath waiting for good sense to prevail among democratic politicians,
but i will say that history will be taking note.
Posted by orionATL at April 25, 2008 10:59 AMQuery about the Bill Clinton elections. In both 1992 and 1996, H Raw Pile-o-Dough was running as a third party candidate. Did Bill Clinton win a majority of white working class voters in those two elections or did he just win more than George Bush or Ross Perot did?
Having come from a white working class Milwaukee background, I was around politically during the whole shift of those voters to the Republicans. I watched it happen with my relatives.
The way the Republicans did this was an addendum to Nixon's southern strategy. Republicans won these votes by running against welfare queens, welfare Cadillacs, and by running against school busing and affirmative action. In other words, an almost (though not quite) naked appeal to racism and a play on the fears white workers had that blacks would take their jobs.
This is a refrain in American white working class history that goes back to the New York draft riots and even before.
So how does one get that recalcitrant and (let's face it) racist part of the white working class to "trust us" without alienating black people, who are at this point a much larger and more critical part of the Democratic coalition?
I have yet to be convinced that Hillary Clinton has found a way to do that. She gets some of those votes because, well, her opponent is black. Almost anything Clinton might try -- in the unlikely event HRC wins the nomination in a bitter divisive fight against a black man -- to get black working class Democrats to "trust her" again would likely alienate her new found friends among the white working class.
Senator Clinton may have gained Barfenburger's vote and lost Clayton's. It remains to be seen whether that will provide her a net gain in the unlikely event that she is the nominee.
It may be that for the foreseeable future (as LBJ foresaw) the Democrats have made their choice -- to go with black voters -- and just have to live with the consequence of "losing the south (and a chunk of the northern white working class) for a generation" (or two).
Posted by kaleidescope at April 25, 2008 11:11 AMorionATL, thank you for making a defensible argument for your candidate and for why the super delegates should choose her. Experience is a good thing, but I don't think Clinton has more relevant experience and that is not an important criterion for Americans anyway (witness Presidents Clinton and Bush II).
I disagree with you about the importance of democracy. Our democratic system, both in the primaries and the general, rely upon the losing team accepting the results. If the Democratic Party says you lose whether or not you get majority support (and 5% is absolutely significant), that is doing nothing less than telling people not to bother participating. It would be an incredibly destructive thing to do to the Party, which is why they won't do it.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 11:24 AMYah Orion I didn't think you would respond to my question. Ok. Then let's take your dramatic post at face value and talk about it.
First the experience rant. I have never felt that experience in Washington D.C. was quite the gold star you tend to make it out to be. Really now , if that is the metric you want to go by then Dick Cheny and John Mccain are more qualified to be president than Clinton. Also, that qualification would have been a good reason to choose the first Bush over Bill Clinton and thank goodness we didn't. I happen to think Bill Clinton left the country in pretty good shape after he left office, how about you?
Let me suggest you remember another politician that had little national experience ( I think only one term in the House ) and a moderate bit of experience in his state leg. just like Obama
and he did fairly well remember who that was?
Abraham Lincoln. Oh yea now you do right? He did ok didn't he?
And don't forget that using the "CEO experience" meme isn't exactly a good way to go right now seeing as how the first MBA president is in there right now and not doing so well.
I also think you really need to stretch things quite a bit to give your candidate all that experince. One term in the senate is about what Obama had and First Lady doen't count an awful lot in my book (sniper fire or no sniper fire).
Now let's talk about perilous times. Look, it's hard to have definitive moments when you are tested in DC. The vote outcomes are fairly well known before they occur and most votes aren't that difficult. I can think of only a few that define people and it is usually when they would have to the thing that would threaten their job in DC or their future but they do it anyway because it is the right thing to do. Sadly, I think most pols think first "what will get me reelected" and second "what is best for this country" it is just a fact of life.
I think the defining vote for Mrs. Clinton in perilous times was on the Iraq war and when you talk about experience you must look back and see how the person was tested and how did they preform when it was tough.
I think Mrs Clinton failed or got it wrong on the most important vote she ever had to make and this must count damn it! She simply blew it. Over thirty other Sen. got it right and she probably had better access to the real story than any of the others.
So you can sound as dramatic as you want but in point of fact, her judgment (something experience is supposed to improve) and her actual experience in DC has not exactly proven your point.
With all due respect, I think you need to take her down off your pedistal and open your mind a bit.
Eric in Austin
when Clinton loses the nomination, she should go for the VP slot. She'd make a really good VP and I think he'd be genius to select her.
Posted by T2 at April 25, 2008 11:46 AMeric
go back to the dorm and watch the hockey playoffs.
you've got to be better at watching teevee than you are the drivel that you are trying to pass off here as political analysis.
Posted by orionATL at April 25, 2008 11:52 AMShe'd make a really good VP and I think he'd be genius to select her.
It would be political suicide. Edwards would be a much better choice. Feingold, anyone? Too bad Donna Edwards is just entering politics.
Posted by phidipides at April 25, 2008 11:53 AMI was talking about McCain.
Posted by T2 at April 25, 2008 11:57 AMAh, the last refuge of the person on the loosing end of the arguement. Name calling.
One more time Orion,
If Obama gets the nomination will you vote for him or Mccain?
Eric in Austin
Has anyone calculated (just for fun) how many superdelegates each candidate would have if:
each super voted the way his/her congressional district (for house members), city (for mayors), or state (for senators, governors) voted?
I'm curious because that was an early argument of the Obama camp.
How many superdelegates are not elected officials.
And will some elected superdelegates go the way of their constituents in order to avoid getting voted out of office?
Posted by CG at April 25, 2008 12:46 PMWhen labeling folks as going after this race or that race, or this group or that group, you miss the beauty of the GOP strategy. Take a look at the link I posted above which reflect the results and breakdown of the 2004 election.
The GOP strategy is to appeal to those voters who make over $50K a year, battle the Democrats to a standstill for those in between $30-50K, and let the Democrats dominate in those who make less than $30K. By appealing to the issues that face folks making above $50K, the GOP has been able to win elections.
Education strategy for the GOP? Go after High School grads and folks with 4-year college degrees, and let the Democrats have the high school dropouts and post-grads. I imagine the GOP realizes that high school dropouts don't show up at the polls in the same numbers as the rest of the population.
CG, I've actually wondered about that question myself. Elected officials are basically split slightly in favor of Obama right now, so I don't think either candidate would get a large boost if everyone voted like their constituents. 317 of the supers are Democratic Party Leaders or DNC members, who have leaned toward Clinton thus far.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 01:30 PMcorrection
for post of april 25 10:59am:
substitute in "electibility",
in place of "eligibility".
spell-check does not like "electibility" at all.
Your arguments are also reinforced by the fact that Union Households overwhelmingly have been going to Clinton, despite their Union endorsements to Obama...
I'd really like to see a link to that.
It certainly doesn't hold true in this Teamster Union household!
I think Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean proved in Iowa in 2004 that union endorsements just don't have much pull anymore.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 25, 2008 02:38 PMI think Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean proved in Iowa in 2004 that union endorsements just don't have much pull anymore.
CAPJ, Wasn't that part of the grand scheme of things under 'ray-gun'. Take Union jobs away... Unions will never have the power they once had in American politics. It's been an effective plan.