MEMO #3 to Superdelegates: Obama’s Coalition Is A Losing Coalition
By Truthteller on May 25, 2008 at 8:26 PM in Barack Obama, Delegates, Democrats, Electability, Electoral College, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Superdelegates
Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics published a series of graphs on 23 MAY that underscore the weaknesses of Barack Obama’s coalition. These graphs elucidate what we already know: Obama will lose the popular vote to John McCain in a general election; Obama is unpopular with core constituencies of the Democratic Party; and Obama will lose the electoral college to John McCain. Let us discuss Cost’s graphs, as the data they present should alarm those charged with shaping and determining the destiny of the Democratic Party.
According to this graph, Clinton has the support of voters in regions of the country Democrats traditionally win: she is more popular than Obama in New England; she trounced Obama in the Middle Atlantic states, some of which are swing states; and she edges him in the south central region, or Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky, a region of the country Bill Clinton carried in 1992 and 1996. She is the candidate who has proven that she can mobilize the voters we need to deliver to the polls in November if we are to win the general election. Obama, on the other hand, cannot.
But notice where Obama is popular: the south Atlantic, which Democrats never carry during a general election; and the north central area of the country, which one can attribute to his victory in Illinois and to his ability to win caucuses in Iowa and Minnesota. Here is not the place to address the problems Obama’s caucus victories pose to Democrats in November. What is relevant, however, is the location in which Obama’s strength in primaries lies: the deep South. While he can mobilize African-American voters in this area of the country, this will not guarantee victories in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina or Mississippi. Clinton, however, can win with her coalition of working class and rural Caucasian voters in states such as Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia. The following graph illustrates this point:
Obama’s inability to gain the support of Caucasian voters south of the Mason-Dixon line makes it impossible for him to carry any of those states. Clinton, however, can win some of those states with her coalition of working class Caucasian voters and women in the upper south.
Once again Clinton’s strengths are in traditionally Democratic strongholds, particularly the Pacific West. Her primary victories in Oklahoma and Texas also reveal she is the Democrat who can cobble together a competitive coalition of working class Caucasians, Latinos and Native Americans in those states. Contrast this with Obama’s strengths, which once again are in Republican areas of the country: the Upper Midwest and the Mountain West. His advantage in the Upper Midwest is largely a result of his caucus victories in states such as Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota. But unfortunately for Obama, the general election is not a caucus.
Also notice how his lead in the Mountain West is narrow. This is a result of Clinton’s victories in New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona, states with demographics that clearly favor Clinton over Obama. Many claim that Obama is the candidate who will render the Mountain West competitive. But how does one square this with the small percentage of votes separating the two candidates in this region? And how does one ignore Clinton’s ability to win both caucuses and primaries in New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. Some may claim Clinton is not as competitive as Obama in the Mountain West, but this is not supported by the election returns and by the data presented in this graph, which reveals that both candidates are capable of building the coalitions required to render some states in this region competitive. And notice I write competitive, for none of these states are guaranteed to Democrats in the general election. This undermines one of the main arguments Obama supporters propound when they argue for his electability.
This graph also militates against those who argue for Obama’s electability, particularly those who cite the number of states he has won. For many of those states are caucus states, not primary states, and the general election is an open primary, not a closed caucus. Yes, the candidates are virtually tied in their totals for primaries, but Obama’s margin is largely a result of the margins of victory he earned in the south Atlantic states, states he has no chance of winning in November with his largely African-American coalition. Clinton’s victories, on the other hand, are in states she can win with her coalition of working and middle class Caucasians and Latinos. Also notice how they are essentially tied in the overall total. This, of course, will change after Clinton wins Puerto Rico. South Dakota and Montana may also surprise us, as these states will hold primaries and not caucuses.
Obama’s strengths in antidemocratic caucuses should raise the eyebrows of the superdelegates. Caucus victories do not necessarily translate into victories during a general election scenario wherein almost everyone has equal access to the ballot. If Obama touts these victories as evidence of his electability, the central premise of his candidacy is undermined.
The electoral problems with Obama’s reliance on caucus victories is illustrated in this graph, which reveals how Hillary’s delegates represent more actual voters than those of Obama. Obama’s delegates are largely the result of small caucus victories, while Clinton’s delegates were earned in primaries with record turnouts. How can Obama possibly translate delegates who represent a small segment of the population into a coalition that can catapult him to victory in a general election? Clinton can, for her delegates represent record turnouts in states such as West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Arkansas, all of which are states we must win in November. Those who are truly interested in “the math” will take the data explicated in this graph very seriously, for it reveals that Obama’s coalition is indeed smaller, weaker and less reliable than that of Hillary Clinton.
And not only is that coalition smaller; it is not representative of the core constituencies that comprise the Democratic Party. Obama’s coalition is comprised of 38% African-Americans, 27% affluent Caucasians and 7% young whites. In other words, his victories are largely the result of large African-American turnout in the South and the turnout of voters in urban centers. That turnout, however, will not guarantee a general election victory in south Atlantic states or in more rural areas of the country. Moreover, the large number of younger voters his campaign touts has not made a significant contribution to his coalition. If they do not alter the composition his coalition, how will these younger voters impact the general election? And how will he win a general election if the remainder of his coalition is comprised of coastal and urban elites localized in six or seven states? That support will not translate into electoral votes in Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio or West Virginia, all of which are states we must win in November.
Jay Cost’s graphs outline what we already know: Obama’s coalition is a weak coalition resembling that of McGovern or Dukakis. And these are not winning coalitions. In fact, they are losing coalitions. If the Democratic Party desires to win in November, superdelegates will cast their votes for Clinton, for they now know that Obama’s coalition of “eggheads” and African-Americans is one that has a documented history of losing. Contrast this with Hillary’s coalition of working and middle class Caucasians and Latinos, a coalition that can form the foundation onto which we can build the electoral margins we will need in key states in order to defeat John McCain in November.
The graphs offer a very simple and didactic lesson to superdelegates: a vote for Clinton is a vote for building a home with an approved plan on a very stable Democratic foundation; a vote for Obama is a vote for balancing a dilapidated structure on three very weak cement blocks. Let us hope the superdelegates will vote in our Party’s best interest. Our Democratic big tent relies on it.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
truthteller -
damn.
this is truly an outstanding effort you’ve presented us with today.
thank you.
Here is the irony.
MSM is smearing and sliming our one viable candidate.
While disingenuously claiming SHE is hurting
the party by running against our weak candidate.
Completely calculated, money driven tactics.
Amazing. Haven’t seen these graphs on CNN… and probably never will. They tell the truth of this election. The truth is Obama is a fraud.
Outstanding analogy!
It’s the chart of voters per pledged delegates that we really need to get out there to push our cause. Otherwise, the Obama camp will say that Hillary “stole” the election if she gets the nomination.
Well, I guess Barky will just have to promise to campaign his little heart out for Hillary once she wins the nomination, like she promised she would do for him. But of course, if he really cared for his country and his party, he would step down.
We really do need to get this out there.(But they’ll probably accuse hillary of stealing the election anyway. They’ll blame her for the weather too.)
People need to understand the inbalence between delegates and voters. 500,000 people can go to the polls and the winning candidate gets the same amount of delegates as another area that has a turnout of 3000 voters. You cannot meassure someone’s popularity using delegate counts, but that’s what a lot of people think. That chart, “voters per pledged delegate” says it all.
Obama will not win the election because Americans are too smart to allow this to happen.
If the Democratic Party continues to coronate Obama, they deserve what is coming to them.
But I don’t think that really matters to them. What matters to them is the money Obama is drawing in at their box-office.
Obama isn’t the DNC’s favourite because he’s black or he’s a man but because they think he is making them money.
It’s first and foremost about money for them. Second, it’s about power for them.
It’s not about money and power for the people - or they’d tell their donors they have enough money.
It’s not surprising the US is in a recession with all the waste of money spent to get one man a job. Around the world, people are dumb-struck by the stupidity and waste of money that this election has cost.
There’s an old saying: easy come, easy go. When you throw away money, you either didn’t work at all to get it and it came free, or you don’t know how to manage it. Applies to most Obama supporters - and Obama himself.
And never forget the other party who’s getting those millions: the media - MSNBC, CNN, etc… They love Obama because he’s bringing them advertising money they could never get any other entity to buy.
truthteller wrote this:
[The electoral problems with Obama’s reliance on caucus victories is illustrated in this graph, which reveals how Hillary’s delegates represent more actual voters than those of Obama. Obama’s delegates are largely the result of small caucus victories, while Clinton’s delegates were earned in primaries with record turnouts. How can Obama possibly translate delegates who represent a small segment of the population into a coalition that can catapult him to victory in a general election? ]
that is an excellent question for the super d’s.
one very, very important laboratory
for demonstrating the speciousness of giving caucus-awarded delegate numbers equal weight with primary-awarded delegate numbers
was in the state of nebraska.
the february nebraska CAUCUS results presented senator obama with a large net gain of delegates.
but
the may 13(?) PRIMARY in nebraska, presented obama with a very narrow win.
what happened between feb caucus and the may primary?
nothing mysterious.
the number of participants who showed up for the feb caucuses was 39,000.
the number of VOTERS who showed up for the may democratic primary was 94,000.
the obama campaign had a plan to overwhelm the caucus process in every state having a caucus, including nebraska, and they carried out that plan to perfection.
the result is a specious lead in the number of “pledged” delegates for senator obama.
the may primary in nebraska, however, was not susceptible to clever manipulation like the february caucus,
so the vote difference between the two senators was MUCH more indicative of how democrats in nebraska would choose between the two candidates.
source: http://www. diversityj,com “2008 democratic primary election results”.
you are exactly right, and i imagine the same discrepancy exists in washington state, where obama won the primary by a very narrow margin. the nebraska example is the example to which i refer in the essay, for it clearly illustrates how obama’s delegates do not represent voters in a general election.
A few couple weeks ago, Texas reversed it’s causus decision and stripped Obama of the caucus delegates that he got there. The memo said it was 97 delegates although I thought he got 92 delegates from that caucus.
Does anyone know if he removed these from the total count that he has now? The decisions on those caucus delegates is supposed to be on June 3rd.
Aside from that, Texas has more going on about the delegates.
Also, someone said the delegates are alotted based on the number of precincts won. If this is true, then Hillary wom most precincts in most every state. States have shown maps where she won most all of the counties in each state. This is baffling. Anyone have any insight on this?
Good questions: I would like to know these too.
Anyone ?
My 25 year old and 18 year old plus a few other of their friends all went as Hillary Supporters to the Nebraska Caucus. They were treated HORRIDLY and basically bullied. My 25 year old is going to med school and was around when I was fighting a really tough fight there against evangelicals for a state senate seat. She wrote me that the Obama supporters were were than the evangelical set in terms of ugliness and lying. She felt that the totals weren’t reported correctly.
There is a you tube of WA. caucus showing the abuse toward Hillary voters. They were humiliated, laughed at and bullied into changing their vote to Obama. The look on the women’s faces is priceless.
LOU:
Do you have a link? Thanks.
No. I may have filed it away but it was back in Feb.
The women looked shocked.
There was 4 guys runnuning the caucus. The participants were in row seating.
You’d have to do a search on you tube.
It was so long ago..
for a search go here. There are pages of WA caucus.
keep searching.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Washington+caucus&search_type=
I checked my files for the video. I didn’t save it. I did find an old file where the seniors doing the caucus were pushed aside and the caucus was taken over by Operation Chaos workers who began to let people in without checking ID. No one knew if they were registered or of legal age. I remember many precincts came in like “12 obama 0 Clinton”
Hillary getting zero is preposterous.
This is where the inkless pens were distirbuted and I remember people were complaining that they wtiness thier votes thrown in the trash.
I was there in Nebraska too, on the winning side.
The same happened up here in Washington.
The Hillary supporters along with my wife and I were bullied at these cult like Caucuses.
My wife got up to speak for Hillary and she was summarily booed.
I spoke to the group and reminded them that their candidate had not been vetted and that they were foolish to think that he was different and was going to get a free pass.
I reminded them that the reason Hillary gets attacked is because she represents regular people who are always under attack.
I also mentioned that this election was going to center around respect for our country and it’s values and heritage. That by election day National Security and patriotism would be the main issues.
Only Hillary and McCain have these enduring qualities.
Obama won the caucus by double digits do to the Brownshirts, The primary which had a large turnout was worth nothing and Hillary and BO were almost tied.
Kind of off-topic but wanted to pass along
AXELROD BUSTED
Obama’s Lobbyist Connection
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519
Let’s see him weasel out of this one.
actually that story was already known by many of us, we’d blog about it, send it to the media and they ignored us!
the link u provide, in the comment section, i found this one commenter rather funny!
“Posted By: Zombiehero @ 05/25/2008 8:41:04 PM
Comment: Way to tell him, go team! I’m glad Obama supporters continue to try and have civil debates and they never call anyone names. ”
all i can say to that is hahahahaha
Gosh, the media ignored a negative story about the Messiah? Shocker.
Newsweek just ran this to counter the thrashing they are taking for their blatant pro-Obama bias. They run the Obama Dream Team on the cover and the story about the scumbag Chicago bagman in the Periscope section.
Mainstream Media
That should read:
Mainstream Media - SPIT!
Hell they already got out of that one. I did a piece on Frank Clark, CEO of coEd, also on the board of Exelon who IS a registered lobbyist and grabbed up 200k for Barky. Barky has a whole bunch of lobbyists who have bundled money for him. I think I did one on that here at NQ too. Months ago. These guys are teflon because the MSM won’t cover the liar that Obama is. He makes commercials saying he doesn’t take money from people he takes money from.
DC Lobbyists Obama “doesn’t” take money from.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/06/names-of-the-dc-lobbyists-obama-doesnt-take-money-from/
Frank Clark, COmmonwealth Edison bundler for Barky the liar.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/06/interesting-money-bundlers-for-obama-part-one-frank-clark/
Just Graphs? LOL. Truth Teller; You really get at the structural differences in your presentations and how much is at the stake. BO is counting on party loyalty to change this to their favor. All he is accomplishing is creating more Indie’s going away from him.
I so much want Senator Clinton to take it to the mat in Denver.
Keep fighting for what you believe in. I am!
That’s the plan.
Great plan!
The FDR fear quote applies to any naysayers.
Jimmy Carter is butting his nose in again. Today he said that:
“I am a superdelegate and after June 3rd the delegates are all going to come forward to end this.” -paraphrased yahoo news.
It’s my understanding that this still has to go to the convention. All the misinformation is getting old.
Jimmy Carter does not wear well. That’s for sure.
Damn ya’ll are on a roll today! i just got online and have so many new posts to catch up with , geeshe.
Of special interest to Susan:
You were writing about Obama’s lackluster speech today. There is speculation on the net that he is taking up drugs again–causing narcissism and an awful lot of dumb gaffes.
I don’t know about the rumors but he certainly has been smoking his own hopeium for a while now.
He’s a Blow kinda guy.
You mean like the gaffe when he said in South Dakota, “Hello Sioux City”, while addressing a rally in Sioux Falls in SD?
Or the one where he said to the people in the recent FL rally,” …and “like the spanish speaking people of Brazil” referring to it being their native language.
(Portugese is their native language Obama) {{OOOMPH}}
Wow, that’s bad.
Here’s a coming attraction video of Obama
take a break and watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HX6vbhAYaU
GREAT VIDEO. WELL DONE.
Very nice video. Thanks
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).
As we keep saying time is Obama’s worst enemy. Hillary can wear him out. She looks great lately and he looks like shit. The long campaign is taking a major toll on Obama but Hillary looks better than ever!
He is skinny like a smoker.
This is creepy. A candidate who is suspected to currently be doing crack?
It’s 3 am. Who do you wanting answering that phone?
He does not look good. And yes, he may be skinny because he’s a heavy smoker. Skinny people can have cardiovascular problems, too, and smoking ig a leading cause of heart attacks. We’ll see what his summarized health report says — due to be released next week.
Summarized?
Figures.
WHY OBAMA DIDN’T SERVE IN THE MILITARY. WAIT FOR IT.
“I didn’t serve as many people my age because Vietnam was over by the time I was of draft age and we had then moved to an all volunteer army.”
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/soren_dayton/2008/may/25/obama_didnt_serve_because_wasnt_drafted
Well, that settles that. He wasn’t forced to serve. Man, this guy is pathetic.
And yet SOME of us weren’t forced but SERVED ANYWAY!
sheeeeeeeesh that’s a piss poor excuse Barky
just SAY IT! You would have NEVER wasted good years of your young adult life drilling, marching, studying, running, stretching, reaching, challenging your INNER cracker!! Being part of a TEAM!!
Nooooope
you had other
hopey changey dreams
(snort snort)
did you use a straw or a rolled up 20 dollar bill?
L O S E R!! I knew people like you. They SUCKED!
Excellent piece. If only the DNC and superdelegates would look at the charts.
There’s an excellent analysis by one Sean Wilentz at, of all places, Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-wilentz/barack-obama-and-the-unma_b_103353.html
Here’s a little bit of it.
There were two major pieces by Sean Wilentz on the issue of race prior to this one. One of them was back in January when very few people were standing up for the honorable legacy of Big Dawg.
Sean deserves thanks for tackling this touchy subject and not backing down from the very hellish wrath of obamabloggers and MSM hacks.
Sean says: “The main difference between now and then is the openness of the condescension with which many of Obama’s supporters - and, apparently, the candidate himself - hold the crude “low information” types whom they believe dominate the white working class.”
Nailed it big time.
Condescending and undeserved entirely.
If they weren’t so mean-spirited I’d be able to laugh them off as I have done to my GOP opponents for decades. The GOP has way more in common with core dems than the obamacans have with us.
Funny that. They are entirely delusional and foul arrogant dividers who have ruined the party image and alienated the core.
Go figure that many of the party elders are included in that demographic! My eyes have been opened and nobody is ever going to shut them.
Ob has proven to be the opposite of every single claim he has made… unity and judgment my ass!
QuoteJoke of the Week:roflmwao!
Yes, Bush has been awful in every possible way. If he had been a “true conservative” (I’m putting it in quotes because these labels are all suspect) he would have at least tried to run the government efficiently. Actually, Reagan at least made an attempt to cut some waste. As for W, I think he planned a party at the trough for his cronies. I know a good number of true blue conservatives who think he has been a horrible president.
Roll out the printing presses. It’s time to print mo’ money.
And the hits (gaffes) just keep on coming…
What the FARC Was Obama Talking About?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/what-the-farc-w.html
Yes, that was a funny column. I like Tapper — he tries to be evenhanded in his lashings. (I often don’t agree, but he got this one right.)
But this raises a question. If Obama is still a smoker, we may be seeing some of the memory loss associated with long term smoking, which first starts appearing in middle age.
http://www.globalaging.org/health/world/smoking.htm
Gee…that’s bad cause I’m still a smoker and I just wanted to say….
hmmm….I forgot what I wanted to say…um…where am i ?
Pardon the OT. I just wanted to remind everyone to check out the SNL interview done by MSNBC.
It was from Joe Scarborough’s morning show.
From what I’ve seen, he says positive things about HRC, so I like to give his URL hits.
to get to the video, go to MSNBC, then top right, click on MSNBC TV
Then, top right click on Scarboroughs photo (the last)
The video is on the left under Morning Joe. Called “The politics of SNL”
I haven’t clicked on anything to do with peacocks for months and will not now. Although Joe has been perhaps one of the few bright lights over at that network it is still not reason enough to give them a single click or rating point.
Let them apologize and admit their bias and let them fire Keith and Chris and then we will talk.
Perhaps.
The once glorious peacock is a buzzard circling Hillary and I won’t have any part of their propaganda. They have behaved like thugs all along.
karen, agree wholeheartedly. has been three months of no msnbc. also no nbc or cnn. and plan to make it permanent. look forward to the unemployment of the so-called “journalists” who are actually just hate dispensers. hate toward hillary and hate toward bill and hate toward women in general. screw ‘em. permanently.
How about the latte liberals and their AA friends forming their own Church of Obama Party instead of hijacking the Democratic Party?
Where’s the petition? I’ll sign it.
Would it be possible to see those charts as the number of voters rather than as a percentage? Obama’s percentage of AA voters is quite large, but as I recall, the actual number of voters involved is much smaller.
He is getting 90% of AA votes=12% total AA’s in America.
Not all of them vote. 50% vote?
Very small amount of AA’s. So where does his popular vote count really come from especially in the caucuses? It doesn’t add up.
Wait until these Obama nut-job supporters finally conclude Obama isn’t electable. They will all go effing nutty on us.
They will just have to get over it and learn next time not to latch on to such a bad candidate.
This is a long youtube video (almost 10 minutes!) but Hill supporters and everyone MUST MUST MUST watch this video–especially toward the end!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuMDmqwwbI
Ha … you Repugs are going to be crying come November when Obama becomes President.
You’re not fooling anyone with your Operation Chaos routine
you Repugs?
Not that again. Yawn.
You Obama zealots will be hiding your face in shame and hurriedly removing all your Obama bumper stickers when Barack finally gets investigated for his Chicago Combine activities.
I am more of a Democrat than you will ever be. This is why I support Hillary.
While I think Jewish concerns about Obama are overblown, the concerns are there; nearly every Jew I talk to, academics, musicians, stockbrokers, etc. have deep reservations that could lead them to McCain. Wright-Farrakahn is poison in their minds.
Their concerns are definitely not overblown. His dealings are well documented by many Jewish sites and they are entirely right for being highly alarmed by his many obviously anti-semetic associations. If it was only Wright-Farrakhan perhaps it could be explained away but even then, with only that as his close and long time core is highly damaging of itself, but the enormous weight of his years of supporting and being supported by many other anti-israel factions and individuals are entirely cause for major RED ALERT status in regards to Israel.
His audacity is in pretending otherwise and dismissing his own history as not evidential when it clearly is. This site has covered it but there are many “Never Forget” Israeli sites that link to dozens of facts which show his untrustworthyness.
Given the increase of Anti-Semiticism world wide and the sway of Public Opinion towards belief in much Pro-Palestinian propaganda…not to mention recruiting efforts for the Jihad of choice…I’d be jittery if I were a Jew….I’m just sayn’
very good , Clinton president 2008
As was rightly pointed out over at myDD, the last graph on “voters per pledged delegate” looks a little different when put on a scale that includes 0-10,000 and does not give the impression of Clinton advantage that this picture does. This should not however hide the excellent work done by Jay Cost and summarized in this post - and represents the sort of “fact-based” disclosure that appears to be beyond most of the “highly-educated uppity members of the creative class” that Obama has set such store by. Excellent contribution to the conversation!
Hillary delegates still represent more voters than those of Obama. Her delegates also represent voters in regions of the country who will determine the outcome of the November election.
Jay Cost’s graphs illustrate how Obama’s coalition is a losing coalition, and for this I am very thankful.
Great post!
Also, I wish they would do a tally on asians and latinos/latinas.
In california they are in large enough numbers to affect the outcome. ALL non-AA minorities are in overwhelming numbers for Hillary, and they WILL switch to Mccain if Obama is the nom in august.
And mind you, this is even before the republican attack machine has started on Obama. Mark my words… Mccain will be able to beat Obama in CA, and unlike the dem. primary, the margin won’t matter, even if its close, its winner take ALL in the electoral college system.
Already, Obama and Mccain are even in MA (MA??? the bluest of blue states!!!), and Mccain is w/n the margin or error of Obama in CA.
BTW.. this not some hunch.. I heard larry on a talk radio show, saying the the dem nominee will win against mccain b/c the repubs are in such a disarray.
NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!
THE ONLY DEM THAT CAN WIN AGAINST MCCAIN IS HILLARY!!! Obama will LOSE and LOSE BIG!
Larry, you need to start interviewing repubs, even if they don’t like mccain, THEY HATE OBAMA with all his terrorist ties, I CAN GURANTEE YOU the repubs will vote in droves for Mccain to keep Obama out.
And also, know that most people, hillary supporters will go to mccain also, me, I’ve already registered on mccain;s site. I love this country over a political party. AND Obama with this close friendship with racist Wright, and terrorist Ayers, will drive many to a patriot like Mccain.
Larry, mccain will easily win against Obama. The repubs will fall in line, and the hillary supporter and many indepedents will vote for mccain.
I see it happening … a lot of us vote McCain…when BO loses, they will blame us and Clinton…
[...] that has all the hallmarks of an irrational cult of personality and who refuse to acknowledge that he’s not only unelectable, but that he shouldn’t be [...]
Excellent post, Truthteller. Very important information that I wish every SuperD would take a long, hard look at.
And, I venture to hope that if Clinton won the party’s nomination that she and Bill would be able to better present the valid case as to why she does deserve AA support. Their civil rights record is rock solid, starting when they were both young, and that they have been maligned regarding race is so unfair.
Lets not forget the Obama campaign’s “Democrat for a day” where they urged Republican and Independent voters to vote against Hillary by voting for Obama. In many states they even urged Republicans and Independents to violate state laws to vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses to do that! The Obama campaign started that program back in the spring of 2007 long before the Rush effect that they whine about was even thought of. Just how many of Obama’s caucus votes were actually Hillary hating Republicans voting for the unelectable Obama so their candidate would get an easy win in Nov?
POdVet | 2008-05-27 02:31:18 said:
“Lets not forget the Obama campaign’s “Democrat for a day” where they urged Republican and Independent voters to vote against Hillary by voting for Obama.”
RESPONSE:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don’t believe that Republicans or non-affiliated voters should be allowed to choose the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. Unaffiliated voters have chosen not to join an organized political party, so they should vote, as they please, in a general election only.
don’t know too much of delegates how they’re divided but heard on radio that a Hispanic group by the name L.U.L.A.C. (Latin American) was suing the state over how delegates were divided….
I believe they are H.R.C. supporters….
sorry but I forgot to mention the state being challenged is TEXAS….by L.U.L.A.C.