Is Hillary Outperforming Obama Against McCain Among Working Class Voters In Key Swing States?
Okay, we've been digging into this question of whether Hillary really outperforms Obama against McCain among blue-collar whites -- an argument that's a pillar of her claim that she's more electable than Obama is.
As noted below, today's Quinnipiac poll would appear to pour cold water on that argument -- it finds that McCain beats both Hillary and Obama by identical margins among non-college whites nationally, as well as among whites overall.
However, Hillary's argument is also that she outperforms Obama against McCain among this demographic specifically in the key swing states.
Is that true? The most recent poll we can find that looked at these numbers in a fine-grained way is this one from Quinnipiac some two weeks ago. It found, in the pollster's own words, that Hillary "runs much better" than Obama among these voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Take a look:
Florida
Top-Line:
Clinton (D) 49% McCain (R) 41%
McCain (R) 44%, Obama (D) 43%
Whites:
McCain (R) 45%, Clinton (D) 45%
McCain (R) 50%, Obama (D) 36%
Working-Class Whites:
Clinton (D) 45%, McCain (R) 45%
McCain (R) 51%, Obama (D) 34%
Ohio
Top-Line:
Clinton (D) 48% McCain (R) 38%
McCain (R) 43%, Obama (D) 42%
Whites:
Clinton (D) 45%, McCain (R) 42%
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 36%
Working-Class Whites:
Clinton (D) 46%, McCain (R) 40%
McCain (R) 49%, Obama (D) 34%
Pennsylvania
Top-Line:
Clinton (D) 51% McCain (R) 37%
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 38%
Whites:
Clinton (D) 47%, McCain (R) 41%
McCain (R) 43%, Obama (D) 41%
Working-Class Whites:
Clinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 40%
McCain (R) 45%, Obama (D) 38%
Some caveats are in order. This is only one poll, and as best we can determine thus far, there has been little to no polling elsewhere of precisely this nature. What's more, this polling comes months before the general election, at a time when passions from the primary haven't cooled and Obama hasn't had a chance to unite the party behind himself.
Also note that this deficit didn't prevent Obama from carrying Pennsylvania against McCain. And keep in mind that other general election polls have shown Obama running well against McCain in these states, too.
What's really noteworthy about the above numbers -- particularly when you compare them to the national numbers showing McCain beating both Dems equally among working class whites -- is that they strongly support the argument that Josh advanced yesterday at TPM:
Chiefly, that Obama's real disadvantage is in Appalachia, not among working class whites or rural voters in general.
Hmmm, you're right. This poll proves these primaries are just silly.
Delegates shmelegates... it's time to appoint Hillary the Queen!
May 14, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If obama wins..... he will not win the general election... sorry but race is a big factor in the united states..... he will not win the general election and it will be the democratic party's fault giving it to him... Hillary would do much better against John McCain.....
If she loses against Obama its because the democratic party is sexiest.
those are facts, take it how ever you like.
May 14, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much projection here?
May 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If she loses against Obama its because the democratic party is sexiest."
I agree, the Dem haircuts and outfits are much cooler than the GOP's.
[sorry, couldn't resist]
May 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. I'm certainly a legend in my own mind. And I don't need no stinkin' haircut. The hair-free works for my truly epic animal magnetism. Which further proves my sexiness (and that fact that I am a legend in my own mind!)
PS: Thanks for interjecting some much needed humor into the thread.
May 14, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Facts? I don't think that word meens what you think it meens.
May 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If she loses against Obama its because the democratic party is sexiest."
(I'm assuming you meant "sexist" - but hey, I'm just an elitist, latte-drinking, egg-head).
Can you please explain how this exactly qualifies as a "fact"? Are you suggesting that anyone who votes for Obama is sexist?
As a middle-aged female with a Master's degree in a male-dominated field who proudly voted for Obama - I find that INCREDIBLY offensive. Don't you dare tell me that I'm being sexist - unlike Hillary, I didn't ride my husband's coattails through undergrad and grad school.
I understand that you're probably just upset about your candidate's almost non-existent chances to win this nomination - but I think next time you should be a little more careful about throwing terms like "sexist" around so lightly.
May 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same here - I am a 49-year-old female with an advanced degree in a male-dominated field and I did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton, whom I consider one of the most divisive, polarizing politicians I have ever seen. I intensely dislike her manipulations, her flip-flops, her triangulating and calculation, and the horrible way she has run her campaign. Voting for her just because she shares your gender without considering any other factors is sexist.
May 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ph.D., male dominated field, woman who didn't vote for Clinton for any number of reasons.
I guess I'm just a sexist kool-aid drinker!
May 14, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a woman? Well, this is my other big surprise of the day (after the discovery that, crazy as it might seem, Clinton really does want the VP job after all).
May 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a known fact that some women are the hardest on other women. In a misogynistic culture, the hostility towards assertive women is very often internalized in some women who intensely resent the idea of any woman having authority over them.
May 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bet you never thought, when you woke up this morning, that you would be subject to psychoanalysis by a monkey today, did you Ms Soprano?
May 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious!
Go stuff it, tiny monkey man.
May 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I think she did mean sexiest. Face it, Obama is the sexiest candidate! Rawr!
As for the sexist charge, while I certainly do acknowledge the existence of vast amounts of sexism, sexism is certainly not MY reason for preferring Obama. I have been a feminist since before my first training bra, and I am thoroughly sick of being branded a traitor to feminism just because I'm not voting for ovaries.
May 14, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out here, the t-shirt in the stores has two headshots on it, one Obama, one Clinton, and the logo "Bros before Hoes."
Which group do you fall into?
Regardless of your political leanings, I'm wondering why there's no "Sistahs before Niggaz" t-shirt? Could it be that sexism is still LOTS more acceptable than racism in this nation?
Or is it just that rap has defused 'Hoes' and 'Niggaz' to the point that it's because guys will wear t-shirts and gals won't that's determining this market for mysogynistic t-shirts?
May 14, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. It is hard to say. That said, I notice that we have a woman speaker of the house; there has never been a non-white speaker of the house. There are 16 women in the senate right now; there is one black man in the senate. There 8 women serving as governors right now; there are only two black men serving as governors. There are 77 women in the house of representatives; there are only 40 black representatives. As such, if misogyny is a more potent force limiting political ambitions than racism, one would be hard pressed to find the evidence for the claim in the actual election results.
May 14, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that many women are voting for Clinton because she is a woman, the point can be made that if he loses to Hillary the Democratic party is sexist.
So there you have it, we are sexist no matter what the outcome. You see what you want to see because there are sexist and racist people everywhere and on every side.
May 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton is one of the most disliked politicians in the country. She has a hard negative rate of nearly 1/2. With all the name recognition in the world, all the money, the aura of inevitability, being married to a beloved Dem president, she could not win against an unknown first tem Senator with a funny name WHO IS A MUZLIM (sorry). I'll take my chances on Obama.
May 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean McCain Lite Hillary? You mean Hillary, who is eager to "obliterate Iran? Not talk to anyone who doesn't agree with her? Voted for the Iraq war? Pandering so far to the right in these primaries as to make Karl Rove blush?
The more America gets to see Obama, the better he will look and the more electable he becomes. Hillary has all of Bill's weaknesses and none of his strengths or charm. She will inspire no one new to vote and feel part of the government. She and McCain will fight over the same Reagan Democrat we've been fighting over for almost 30 years.
You think Hillary is going to win without the AA vote? Where are progressives supposed to go, now that she has become the George Wallace face of the Democratic party?
Obama's going to sweep over McCain.
May 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we already knew the Democratic Party was sexiest.
May 14, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
HillaryClinton08 said:
I went into this planning to vote for Hillary. However, it became very apparent that they had no plan past the early stages because they assumed they were going to win. Then they proceeded to botch every attempt to save the campaign. They did everything *wrong*. Cripes, she went into this with big-name recognition. It was hers to lose... and she lost it. She totally threw it away. She, Bill, & her entire campaign machine started acting like complete asses. She's not "shrewed" and "tenacious". She's a colossal screw-up.
That's why she isn't getting my vote. Is that sexist?
May 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct - Obama cannot win. But you left out one pertinent fact = his supporters really don't care about winning in November. Or at least, that's not their primary concern. Generally speaking, Obama supporters are an incredibly immature and self-absorbed bunch and all they really want to do is to prove how hip and tolerant they are compared to other voters, whom they look down their elitist noses at. It's also about sticking their thumb in the eyes of their baby-boomer parents. They would rather lose and retain their smug sense of moral superiority than win with someone who reminds them of their mother. And unfortunately, it looks like that's what will happen.
May 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic - our cheeky GOP monkey has returned to toss more scat filled with innuendo and smoke.
Did you scurry back in with those EV numbers that you needed to back up yesterday's assertions? Or are you hoping the lingering stench would make everyone forget?
May 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY! OBAMA IS A SURE LOSER!
May 14, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this show, but there seems to be an overdub problem. Idiotic will certainly be displeased to find that his show is being duplicated on the streets of Hong Kong like so many other Chicken Little captures that have come before.
May 14, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo, it's Appalachia that's the problem.
May 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. For some reason I'm not surprised. How about you, flufferwink?
May 14, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think these numbers indicate that clearly, only Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania really matter, and therefore, those are the only states that should count in November.
Screw the other 47 states.
May 14, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey you, the CT Voter that uses snarky ad hominem attacks. You say 'screw the other 47 states' like it's not ok.
But if Hillary dropped out, States like Oregon would never even matter in the Primary. We actually get to have our say.
anyway, I remember Bobby Kennedy and MLK and Jack Kennedy for that matter. Things can change in a heartbeat, ya' know.
May 14, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe sarcasm is lost on a blog.
May 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So tell us how Obama gets the majority of electoral votes if he can't carry states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, or border states like West Virginia and Kentucky. Please tell us which red states Obama has in the bag, which will make up for losing all the swing states.
May 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have read further down the page - of course you didn't bring numbers.
The numbers you're asking for were given to you multiple times yesterday, and you damn well know it. Learn to read, troll - or both - better, please.
May 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have never been any numbers to show how Obama would be able to win enough electoral votes while losing all the swing states he has already lost in the primary, and where he is still trailing in the polls. So go stuff it, because your open hostility only highlights your blatant denial of the facts.
May 14, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't weep, tiny troll - the internet holds all the history you need. You'll remember your touching late-game contributions to the thread in question, or certainly the numerous suggestions to counter the numbers from FiveThirtyEight that apparently escaped your keen observation.
But by all means - we love the countless reruns of the Artful Dodger act.
May 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link Einstein:
"The file you are looking for has not been found"
The electoral votes have not been found either. Typical Obamite hot air.
May 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sincere apologies, though any number of the links provided in that first quite working link would have led you there as well - just as easily when they were first tossed your way. Enjoy FiveThirtyEight in it's non-typo link fashion - all the numbers a Cherubic Howler can enjoy :)
May 14, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't waste the time, TC3K. This one will argue with a mirror.
May 14, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meh. As topics slide further down the page, more performers work the shadows and it gives me a good chance to kick the tires ahead of the reviews. Some of the patently trollish here aren't so much Trollus proper as they are socially inept, and i like to try and distinguish before the reviews go out so that no one's added to the Performer's Roster with undue haste.
My apologies if I scuttled your efforts for the second time today.
May 14, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you should know, there's no strong correlation between which states Hillary has won in the primary, and which states Obama can win in the general.
That said, Oregon, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico are all significant blocks of electoral votes Obama has a far better chance of landing than Clinton. Nor are those the only states. And because he's viable in more states than she is, that's a lot more senators and congress critters he can bring along in his wake.
May 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There certainly is a strong correlation between winning states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida and doing well in the general election since polls clearly show Hillary doing far better in those states against McCain than Obama. As far as Oregon, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico - any Democrat will carry Oregon, Hillary beat Obama in New Mexico and Nevada, and she is doing much better than Obama against McCain in Missouri.
May 14, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Any Democrat will carry Oregon"? Really? Oregon, like Washington, is a very evenly balanced state that regularly sends both parties to the Senate and the governor's mansion. Being able to carry those states is neither sure nor trivial for a Democrat.
Demographically, they're both very white states, with substantial Scots-Irish transplants to their own mountains from the Appalachian ones. But the attitude is different, because unlike much of Appalachia, Oregon and Washington are prosperous. The message of hope is not as foreign to their ears.
May 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore carried Oregon by 0.44%. Less than 1%! This is hardly a solidly blue state, your confident assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
May 14, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry carried Oregon handily and so would Hillary. Oregon is becoming more blue, not less.
May 14, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry carried Oregon by 4.16%. I hardly call that "handily."
May 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would.
May 14, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore carried Oregon by 0.44%. Less than 1%! This is hardly a solidly blue state, your confident assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
May 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who says that he cannot carry PA? Clinton does better than Obama against McCain in PA, but polls show both of them beating McCain in that particular state. Remember, there is no bonus prize for running up a larger margin of victory. The person who takes 50%+1 wins all of the electoral votes in PA, and Obama shows just as much ability to do that as does Clinton.
May 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think in your last sentence you mean Clinton's real advantage is in Appalachia.
May 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me---but are you not refuting the q-poll from yesterday listed in your post below this one---with a much older poll?
for what reason?
May 14, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
as we said in the post, this is the most recent poll we could find that looks at the demographic breakdowns in the key states in a fine-grained enough way.
and nowhere did we say that it "refutes" the conclusion in today's Q poll -- the opposite, in fact
May 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
These poll numbers certainly are consistent with the hypothesis that Clinton does better than Obama among working class white voters. On the other hand, FL, OH and PA are not the extent of critical swing states. As I have noted elsewhere, he outperforms her in WI, MN, WA and OR, which are just as critical to a democratic victory as PA and OH. I would like to see the same sort of polls from those states before I would be willing to regard the hypothesis as especially sound.
May 14, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
To further refine that point, I would note that Obama won every income quintile in the Wisconsin primary, as well as every education quintile. Rich, poor, well educated, poorly educated, he won them all. He also won the white vote in WI overall. The same is true in Virginia (another important swing state). In other words, it appears that his appeal to working class whites differs by state.
May 14, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point in line with my comment below that perhaps we should say "Scots-Irish" rather than "Appalachian" or "uneducated whites" (and no, I did not say "Scots-Irish, uneducated whites"!): Obama won handily in Vermont. The Green Mountains are part of the Appalachian chain. Whites moved into Vermont's mountains as long ago as they did into West Virginia's or North Carolina's or Pennsylvania's. Go up a dirt road in any of these states, and the lifestyle's similar.
So what was the difference in Vermont's vote? The original rural settlers were English and then French-Canadian rather than Scots-Irish. Beyond that they're just as nativist and resistant to and resentful of outsiders ("flatlanders" in Vermont). And many take pride in being not particularly educated. Still, Vermonters overwhelmingly preferred Obama.
May 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My kilt-wearing friend, A Missouri Voter, is exactly right when he suggests that this requires a pretty narrow understanding of what a "key" swing state is. If, by "key," we're talking about "delegate-rich," then yes -- OH, PA, & FL are key swing states. Of course, the more accurate definition of what a key swing state is, though, would be *any* cluster of purpleish states that flip the election one way or the other. I'd add to the list above IA, VA, CO, NM, NV, and even the Omaha area of NE -- since that's one state that awards its delegates proportionally, and an area where Obama can do well.
Ignoring the viability of these states for Democrats in the upcoming general buys into Clinton's notion that the only road to the White House is through the states she does well in. It's pretty convenient logic for her, but it's also pretty easily refuted.
May 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of turning this into a mutual admiration society, this is exactly right. Ohio has 20 electoral votes. Minnesota has 10 and Wisconsin has 10. In other words, OH=MN+WI. Unless you think that one $20 bill is worth more than two $10 bills, it is hard to see why his difficulties in OH should concern us more than her difficulties connecting to voters (including white, working class voters) in WI and MN.
May 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also important to note that, from the second of the two links that Greg provides, McCain & Obama are statistically dead even in both FL & OH. While it's true that, at this early date, Clinton outperforms McCain beyond the margin of error in both of those states, it's simply wrong to assume that Obama isn't competitive against McCain in neither of those places.
And it's absolutely essential to note that Obama is running even with McCain in FL in spite of the fact that McCain has the backing of FL's very popular Governor. What do you think happens with these numbers when Obama actually shows up in the state to campaign???
May 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your hope that Obama may eventually do better in Florida needs to be balanced with the reality that he may eventually do even worse as well. It isn't about hopes and predictions, it's about which candidate is stronger in Florida right now. Because that is the candidate most likely to carry the state six months from now.
May 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither campaigned in Florida. Saying Hillary is doing better there is meaningless. She's riding the name-recognition that she assumed would get her the ticket early on. Obama has shown he can drastically change that scenario.
May 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the first place, Obama did campaign in Northern Florida by paying for advertising which he claimed was aimed at voters in other primary states, even though he pledged not to. In the second place, both candidates have become thoroughly familiar to everyone in America at this point. And your contention that Obama is about to work some mystical magic upon them only makes you sound like some pathetic cult member praising the divine nature of your glorious leader/savior.
May 14, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that Obama always trends upwards when people get to know him. Everywhere he spends time on the ground, he comes out well ahead of his polling from the time he was less known.
May 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This 'mystical magic of Obama' which you speak about - could it have something to do with the fact that he's been spending three or four times as much on advertising as his opponents? And do you think he's going to have the same kind of money advantage against McCain in the fall?
May 14, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Polls taken six months out from the election should determine our choice? Presumably, then, the democratic party should have nominated Mr Perot in 1992.
Honestly, be serious, do...
May 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't like polls and you don't like elections. Your only indication that Obama is somehow going to do better in those states than he's done in the polls or primary elections is your messianic faith that your savior Obama is going to cast his magical spell upon the populace and work his mystical magic.
May 14, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your hope that Obama may eventually do better in Florida needs to be balanced with the reality that he may eventually do even worse as well. It isn't about hopes and predictions, it's about which candidate is stronger in Florida right now. Because that is the candidate most likely to carry the state six months from now.
Well, my comment was about Obama's prospects against McCain, but if you insist on turning the conversation to Clinton, then the point is this: the candidate most likely to carry FL six months from now will be the Republican or Democratic nominee. It might be McCain, but it might just as easily be Obama -- particularly after he has an opportunity to campaign there. No matter who it is, it isn't going to be the candidate who doesn't win her party's delegate count or popular vote count. Now what were you saying about hopes & predictions?
May 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you didn't want to discuss how Hillary is outperforming Obama in key swing states, it's amazing to me that you would go to all the trouble of continuing to post articles in this thread. You need to start another thread entitled "Let's pretend that the Democratic Convention is already over and Obama won because I don't want to face the fact of how weak a candidate he really is."
May 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only trouble with you analysis is that John Kerry carried WI, MN, WA and OR and he still lost to George Bush because, just like Obama, he couldn't carry Ohio or Florida. Though he did carry Pennsylvania.
May 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not a "trouble" with my analysis, although I agree that it is a worthy point. I agree that MN, WI, WA and OR are not enough by themselves. Neither, however, are OH, PA and FL. If Clinton were to flip OH and FL but also let MN, WI, WA and OR slip into McCain's column, the end result would be that she would gain 9 electoral votes on Kerry (which would still mean that she would be losing by 15 electoral votes).
What more, I only mentioned MN, WI, OR and WA in the previous post, but he is also outperforming her in the swing states of MI and ME, which together add to 21 electoral votes. In other words, if she flipped all of the 2004 red states where she presently out performs Obama and loses all the 2004 blue states where Obama presently outperforms her, she only moves 8 electoral votes ahead of where Kerry landed, a darn site shy of what is needed to win.
May 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are doing is that you are calling states swing states that are really not swing states, and you are pretending that since Obama did/or is doing better in them than Hillary, it doesn't matter if he can't carry the real and important swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan (not to mention boarder states like West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky). But it really does matter. And I guarantee you that if Hillary can carry the real swing states - and she can - she would also carry the states that you mention that are not really swing states.
May 14, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is outperforming her in MI. McCain is outperforming both Clinton and Obama in FL. Both Obama and Clinton are outperforming McCain in PA. As such your argument really comes down to "she is more likely than he is to flip OH." True. He is also more likely than she is to flip IA, CO and NV. OH has 20 electoral votes. IA+CO+NV=21. How exactly is she the stronger candidate?
May 14, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all know that working class whites are much more hard working than working class whites in Wisconsin.
Therefore, new Hillary talking point: Hillary has the support of the hardest working, whitest voters in America.
May 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Al Giordano @ The Field did a fantastic job on BO's applachian, "white" voter problem nearly two weeks back (IIRC). He was far more exhaustive in his analysis than the sound bites here.
May 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Completely off topic, but I just want to announce that I'm supporting the troops by giving up the violin.
No, no applause please. And contrary to anyone inclined to snark, I still would have given up the violin even if I knew how to play the violin. Anything for the troops.
May 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillary is still going to win:)
I feel it in the air:)
May 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should stop peeing into the wind, the feeling will go away.
May 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're smokin something with that air.
May 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut down on the beans and the air you're referring to will go away.
May 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, for starters we can throw out PA because both HRC and BO beat McCain by a good margin there.
As far as OH and FL? Barack hasn't campaigned in FL, which would seem to make his numbers artificially low there. Ohio, not so sure, but I wonder about the proximity to the Wright flare-up to this poll....
But let's say Barack can't make up the slack in 6 months and loses FL and OH in the general. That isn't necessarily fatal, as he puts other states in play, CO, VA, NV, NM, IA, MO, and I'm sure a few others I'm missing. All of these states went to Bush in 2004, and Obama would only need 20 electoral votes out of that group to win.
May 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The map someone (Chuck Todd?) had up last night dicussed adding LA, MS, GA, and NC to the mix on Obama's side if he can push voter registration and turnout in the South. He may not win any of these, but as seen in Mississippi, they will likely be competetive and force the RNC and MCCain to spend money and resourse to win the south. McCain got slaughtered there int he REpuublican primaries anyway by Huckabee. This is a good reason the Huckster might end up on McCain's ticket.
May 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
you got something against rasmussen? Much more detatiled information.
State polls for the Obama-McCain match-up have recently been released for Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon and Michigan (see summary of recent state-by-state results). The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189.
May 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Requiring Hillary to select one goalpost and stick with it is sexist.
Shame on you, Barack Obama!
May 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, Did you not see Josh's post on the front page on Appalachia? Obama has had no problem with the working class vote in the rest of the US(let's stop adding HRC's "white" tag to that, please), he has a problem in the Appalachian region. Look at the map and graphic. The only place where HRC has consistently reached 65% of the vote is in the Appalachian region. Stop buying into HRC's talking points and be an independent journalist again.
May 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
did you miss the link to Josh's post in my post?
kind of telling, that
May 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duly noted, my apologies.
May 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sucks when people rail against you and it turns out they didn't read the entire post. Thanks for digging into this Greg.
May 14, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh! Missed the last sentence:
Yes, exactly! This should be the first sentence of your post, not the last.
May 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's what I wrote:
is this reproducing Hillary's "talking points"?
thought not.
thanks.
May 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, I misread the last bit, especially your last sentence, which isn't written very well and seems to be lacking a subject. But whatever. When are we going to see a post that uses the phrase "working class blacks"?
May 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
the sentence is a continuation of the previous one, which ended with a colon (albeit separated into its own graf)
May 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So can we agree that your last paragraph, consisting of one long sentence, divided into two separate graphs, is a confusing mess that will be misread by some?
May 14, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude(ette?) - c'mon. It's aired and the lumps are shared. No one wins this.
May 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what amazes me is that Hillary is always touting her support amongst uneducated people. Is this something to be proud of?
Why not just say, "Gullible people like me!"
May 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL - y'all are both using polite language to say the same thing and I hate to jump into this with both feet since I have never been to W. Virginia. But I happen to be reading a memoir that partly happened in Welch, West Virginia, in the 70s and I have to say that I was not the slightest bit surprised he lost big there. He won't ever win Appalachia - there is too much racial division there, from what I can tell. Poverty is what enforces that and there is a lot of poverty there.
Greg - you and Josh are both talking about the same thing - racism in Appalachia, so let's be honest about it. If you aren't, then please feel free to set me straight.
May 14, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in NE Tennessee and lived and worked in SW Virginia for several years. Yes, there is racism, but I think it is more accurate to describe the prevailing sentiment as xenophobia. Anyone who doens't look or sound or dress like a local is a furriner not to be trusted.
May 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet, the supers reward Obama for losing and not Clinton for winning.
This election is BS.
May 14, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is lame, even for you, dude.
Can't you come up with fresh trollery?
May 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's extra Trollerific today! This calls for a toast!
CHEERS to gotnolife . . . bottoms up on that glass of PRESIDENTIAL PUNCH!!!
May 14, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the fact that Obama is winning. Other than that, you're totally right. Keep on with the awesome positivity!
May 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You heart just isn't in it today, huh? That's ok. Take a break and recharge and come back when you are ready to talk incoherently about McCain.
May 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife has resorted to stomping his feet and huffing and puffing. It's really sad. What's become of our once proud troll?
May 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 110% gotalife. If anyone knows BS - it is you.
BS flavored cool aid!
May 14, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Energizer Pander Bunny:
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/feature/08/05/08/ta080508.gif
May 14, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it's racism when it occurs on the west side of the Appalachians. But when a distinctly different group on the east side of the Appalachians exhibit the same racist tendencies it's all good.
I'm talking about blacks voting lock, stock and barrel for their Black candidate.
May 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you produce some evidence that African-Americans are voting AGAINST Clinton because she is white? Or that she's planning to re-enslave African-Americans? Or that she's a terrorist sympathizer?
There's a difference between for a candidate and voting against one. And I'd be remiss to mention that she sacrificed the African-American vote (which she was winning the lion share of up until South Carolina) with her tactics.
May 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why bother. We've gone over this for months, but some people just don't get it. Hillary had the black vote in the bag until she started to play race cards like a drunken gambler.
May 14, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty lame logic, even for an Obama supporter. White people who vote for Hillary because she's white are doing exactly the same thing as black people (or guilty white liberals) who vote for Obama because he's black. It doesn't matter whether you believe white racists are more hostile towards Obama than blacks are towards the Clintons; racism is defined as "discrimination based upon race," and not by the hostility of one race towards another.
May 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
African Americans alway vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat against the Republican. Hillary has been running as a War Mongering Republican who wants to Obliterate seventy million Men, Women, and Children. As they have always done, the African American community has supported the only Democrat in the contest.
May 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, if you have a group of voters for whom racial inequality is a long-standing, critical issue, then those voters ought to vote for the candidate who shows the most promise to begin racial reconciliation.
No race or candidate mentioned. No racism either.
May 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black voters aren't voting against Hillary because she is white, there's a difference.
May 14, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are ignoring the fact that the Clintons have systematically tried to marginalize the black vote since right before South Carolina. She gambled that by setting up the white vs. black divide she would net more votes. She is still doing it today with her "Hard working Americans, white people" remark.
Blacks are angry with Hillary, not just "obsessed" with the black candidate.
Btw, the black vote was for Hillary in the beginning when people were saying the Barack wasn't black enough. Also, a white woman, Kay Hagan, won against a black candidate, Marcus W. Williams in a Senate race in North Carolina at the exact same time Hillary was getting spanked in the AA vote.
May 14, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, Obama has never campaigned in Florida, so you can't look at polls there to determine how Floridans will feel after months of Obama campaigning in the general election.
May 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's absolutely right -
Look - Josh, Greg = there is not enough data to analyze voting patterns this early in the game.
I really wish y'all would stop this - I think there is a lot of "common wisdom" in this all so far and very little hard evidence.
This whole damn thing is premature. In the extreme.
May 14, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tena! It's good to see you back in the mix. I hope you had a great time Taos. It's such a beautiful part of the country.
May 14, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Obama Outperforming Hillary Against McCain Among African American Voters In Key Swing States?
Those states being Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, PA, and SC...
May 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
May 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I looked at the same data for PA, OH, and FL to compare the Black vote.
Clinton- McCain
PA - 78 - 8
OH - 80 - 3
FL - 80 - 11
Obama-McCain
PA - 95 - 3
OH - 93 - 1
FL - 83 - 8
So while on the surface their is not much argument that Clinton runs substantially worse than Obama vs. McCain amoung blacks, these number obviously can't predict what would happen if Clinton were percieved to have stolen the nomination. Nor can they predict the turnout that a Obama nomination might drive.
May 14, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's great. Now all you have to do is make sure that white people don't vote in those states, and Obama might have a shot.
May 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's simple: you have one Republican, and the Democrats split between two candidates. Head-to-head matchups notwithstanding, the public is divided right now between two Democrats.
In the GE, it's a Republican against a Democrat. Issues have never been as stark as they are in this election. Do you see McCain able to re-make himself into some populist hero? Come on.
It's a ridiculous argument. And please note that Hillary makes her argument with the states that favor her, and they all have Appalachia running through them. "Swing" states will be defined differently this time.
Hillary's penchant for the past is part of her problem. It also puts into question (for me at any rate) whether she has the judgment to ascertain changes in the electorate, the mood, conditions and needs.
May 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I think her judgment sux!
She knows just what she's doing = she's trying to appeal to racists. That's her entire electability argument - plain and simple and try to prove otherwise.
She has campaigned steadily on the unspoken assumption that he is too black to win.
That's her entire goddamn argument. And I think she's about 60 years behind the times and a lousy choice to lead anything, even the goddamn Rotary Club.
May 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is one thing that Hillary has succeeded in, it is that she has turned this election away from being about the issues, and has framed it as being about racial and religious prejudices.
May 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
A party that's afraid to nominate a multi-racial candidate because it fears racism is a chicken-shit party anyway, and doesn't deserve our votes.
May 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why Obama will be nominated, so that the Democrats do deserve our vote . . .
May 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
These numbers are meaningless unless you have some idea of the sample size in the poll for these demographic subgroups. The poll itself may have a reasonable margin of error, but when you start slicing and dicing to this level (non-college whites in Pennsylvania), you often find the sample size is so small and the margin of error so large that the results are meaningless.
So my question is: What is the margin of error on these subgroups? And, if you don't know, why would you post this crap in the first place?
May 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
You may have seen this already, but yesterday Kos had a graphic
up that summarized districts Clinton has won with 65% of the vote. They basically run the length of the Appalachia Mountains and down into Texas.
May 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually buried in the last part of Greg's post, highlighted as "Josh advanced yesterday." Yeah, I missed it too.
I remember being told in English 101 that it's not the reader's fault if the writer has failed to present their information in a clear, well-written manner.
May 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would also be taught in English 101 that you read a whole post before you criticize it
May 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Writer blames readers. Awesome.
May 14, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That'd be my bad for not clicking through...
May 14, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Swing states" should be defined as "all states where either match-up against McCain garners a margin of less than sixteen percent" (margin off the top of my head).
This analysis doesn't even look at most of the tradition swing states (not even Iowa and New Hampshire, which I heard far more about than West Virginia in 2000 and 2004), let alone the new ones Obama garners.
May 14, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's really noteworthy about the above numbers -- particularly when you compare them to the national numbers showing McCain beating both Dems equally among working class whites -- is that they strongly support the argument that Josh advanced yesterday at TPM:
Chiefly, that Obama's real disadvantage is in Appalachia, not among working class whites or rural voters in general.
Not quite. Since when is Florida in Appalachia?
May 14, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pan handle.
May 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Florida is not in Appalachia, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apalachicola,_Florida
May 14, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've hit the wall. I hang up my political junkie mantle because this kind of slicing and dicing only gives me a headache now. Maybe these numbers would matter if the general election were tomorrow and three candidates were running. But it's not, and there won't be.
The fact that Hillary Clinton is now arguing that uneducated white (the new euphemism for "racist") voters should determine her electability is farcical. (Wow, now that's something to be proud of.)
Personally, I give uneducated white voters more credit. Once the general election campaign truly gets underway, and the contrast between McCain's and Obama's positions becomes glaring, I think they will vote for the candidate with their best interest at heart. Between the war, health care, and the economy, it's clear.
In the meantime, my head is aching. So no more.
May 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really object to the way that elitist voters refer to people with a High School Diploma as "uneducated voters." They are NOT uneducated. They are only not as educated as those with a college degree. And I have found that so-called "uneducated voters" are very often just as smart - and wiser - than elitist voters who think they're so much smarter - which is what makes them elitists. So instead of "educated" or "uneducated" voters we should really be talking about "elitist" and "non-elitist" voters since that's much closer to the truth.
May 14, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Analyzing results like these will be a meaningless academic exercise until we have a nominee. Clearly, Hillary's supporters are strongly behind Hillary, so the numbers are heavily (and unrealistically) skewed in McCain's favor. Once Hillary has finally dropped out (if that ever happens) Obama is going to see an immediate surge. I doubt McCain will ever catch up.
And speaking of Hillary dropping out (or not), the cartoon Camille Paglia linked to in this morning's bizarrely rambling exercise in digression is worth seeing:
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/ta/2008/05/08/
May 14, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real story is how many supers reward Obama for getting crushed by the American people.
Fair?
No freaking way.
This election is BS.
May 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
150% Behind you gotalife. It's completely unfair that the Obama whiners are getting rewarded for leading in the election. I plan to complain thoroughly - simply - often using improper grammer and spellign.
I remain 110% committed to your scorched earth postings - truly, there is no hope - and I think you'd agree we must encourage as many people as possible to GIVE UP.
May 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
150% Behind you gotalife. It's completely unfair that the Obama whiners are getting rewarded for leading in the election. I plan to complain thoroughly - simply - often using improper grammer and spellign.
I remain 110% committed to your scorched earth postings - truly, there is no hope - and I think you'd agree we must encourage as many people as possible to GIVE UP.
I am so sick of the contant whining - it is completely unjust!
May 14, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's funny how, for the second time today, you're preaching Hillary's talking points
earlier, you chose to present a vote count which included MI, but not IA, ME, NV, WA
now, you choose the 3 swing states the Clinton campaign would want you to talk about; it gets sillier than that, when one of your examples doesn't even look that swingy after all
where are CO, IA, MN, NC, NM, NV, VA, WI?
not to mention that you accept the Clinton premises regarding white voters; when should we expect the equivalent article about:
i. black voters
ii. college graduates
iii. all separate voting blocks in America?
May 14, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doing copyediting for a living, I am always sensitive when I see someone bashing the way something was written. Greg's last section is 100% grammatically correct and should be perfectly clear to any intelligent person. Even MS Word doesn't flag it for wordiness. I would have used em-dashes instead of hyphens for the break in the thought, but the intent was clear. Why should I even be surprised anymore to see a semi-literate Obamaniac throwing a hysterical fit about something that is wholly due to their poor comprehension skills? Kind of ironic that most of you are supposedly highly educated. Just further proof that grade inflation in high school and college is the way all of you latte liberals got your degrees, no doubt.
May 14, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you just throw "Obamaniac" and "latte liberal" out there? If you're going for credibility, bullshit name-calling ain't the way to go, fella.
Do some copy editing on yourself and take out the insults, then get back to us.
May 14, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"latte liberals."
Have you ever been to Maine?
Obama did very well here and there is no place to buy latte in Maine. And Maine has virtually no African-American population. It is practically the whitest state in the Union.
using canned media phrases like this destroys any personal credibility your comment might have had.
May 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't do copyediting for a living, but here goes. . .
As a copyeditor, I am sensitive to someone who bashes the way something was written. Greg's last section is grammatically correct and should be clear to anyone that can read. Even MS Word doesn't flag it for wordiness. I would have used differant punctuation, but the intent is clear. I am not surprised to see a person, that I abhor, throw a fit about some writing because they misread it. For some reason, I find it ironic that people that visit this site are supposed to be highly educated. This one person's misunderstanding of one section of the post proves that all liberals are dum, no doubt.
. .. not much to work with, but I think it reads a bit clearer
May 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What difference does it make if Obama can win Swing states when he can't win even win Core states like OH, PA, FL, CA, MI
May 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you produce a poll showing McCain beating Obama in MI or CA.
No? Because they don't exist.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080417/pl_rasmussen/capreselection20080417
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080414/POLITICS/804140415/1361
Brush up on reality before you go off half-cocked.
May 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when are OH, PA, and FL not swing states? Did I miss something, or were those the very "key" swing states which the Clinton campaign keeps talking up? And weren't those also important swing states in the last two Presidential cycles?. This, coupled with the lack of any evidence that McCain could even beat a Democratic CORPSE in CA or in any other core democratic state, makes this comment ridiculous. Besides, as demonstrated in above posts, other swing states are important in this and other election cycles, not just the big swing states. Keep in mind that the margin for both Gore and Kerry could have been covered by many combinations of swing states, or even single swing states. Limiting your electability analysis to a handful of states is laughable.
May 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
BS. There's no proof of causative links between white voters supporting Hillary and that their reason is racist in origin. It certainly isn't a widespread and 100% racism if a significant number of these white racists voted for Obama.
But there are some things that separate this region out. The economic devastation of globalization and free trade and global warming have hit this region damned hard. Think about mountain-top clearing for coal and how many jobs that doesn't create--big machines are needed. This remains--even if it's just family history--an area that supports unions like the steelworkers and the mine workers (both of whom endorsed Edwards). This was also an area where FDR was heavily supported and Eleanor was flat-out loved. JFK was also loved in this area as was Bobby Kennedy. Liberals in every stretch of the word.
There's also a heavy distrust of corporations and governments. Imagine that. There's good reason as we think about lumber barons and coal barons and the mansions they built on the blood of miners in this region.
So Obama needs to go into this geographically challenging area with folks who know where the gathering spots are--and there certainly won't be crowds of 10,000. Hillary went there because she had to win big--otherwise, it's not worth campaign time or money to go through the area effectively. Get Byrd on board. Get the unions on board.
You either have to campaign yourself or send a surrogate to do the heavy lifting. Edwards as VP could live in this area and do the most good with the unions.
This area has been the region hurt most by the way our economy has been growing for the past decades. How is this escaping anyone?
It's easy to blame it off on racism--but I don't believe that's true. And I was born and raised in this region--and didn't leave until my mid-30s. Obama can take the region--but it would be the toughest part of his campaign.
May 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the "racist" charge is certainly simplistic, but it would be difficult to ignore it as at least a good hypothesis for Clinton's strong showing in this region. But while I would argue that racism is probably a contributing factor to Obama's weakness in this region, I do agree with your conclusion that Obama can win this region in the general election. Racism is certainly not the only factor hurting Obama, and he could certainly counteract his low numbers there by running a local campaign.
May 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we're going to talk about how things can change as November approaches let's not forget the possibility of more Obama gaffs and revelations, nor the fact that Jeremiah Wright has a book coming out.
May 14, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same can be said of anyone.
May 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like the devastating "gaffe" you posted before. Perish the thought.
And, Wright has a book coming out, big fat hairy deal.
Voters will be presented with a very clear case that McCain = Bush III, and no Obama gaffe will change that simple fact.
May 14, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Appalachia at war with Oceana or Europa?
May 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F, the Clintons scandals haven't been brought to the public's attention yet. Obama hasn't mentioned them and neither has the media. I bet you the republicans are dying to clean out the Clinton;s closet from Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Castle Grande, Susan McDougal to the Pardons, etc, etc.
May 14, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, unfortunately I too think race is a factor at work in the USA. I've lived in Kentucky and California and Michigan and New York, and I've seen and heard racial prejudice in every one of those states. I don't think I'm projecting.
The question is whether or not people are willing to be defined by those prejudices or whether they are willing to transcend them for the right candidate. I think Obama is the candidate who can bring people across that barrier.
I didn't think so before his Philadelphia speech. I was a Hillary supporter because I feared that racism was strong enough in this country to stop Obama from winning the election. Unfortunately this fear (thinly disguised) is now the entirety of Hillary's campaign message, and her hope of getting the Democrat nomination rests on convincing enough delegates that these fears are justified.
Time will tell. But it was a Clinton who said to vote for the candidate of hope, not the one who's selling fear. Was he right then? If so, why isn't that still true?
PS Obama is *way* sexier than McCain, no matter how much it "is raining McCain"...
May 14, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
White people have always been in denial about how much racism there really is in this country. And one of the ways this denial plays out is by pretending that it's only a problem in the south or in states like West Virginia. But Obama's problem is more than just his race. He can't connect to working people. He has the air of an elitist and he talks in a way that more down-to-earth and less self-absorbed people can't relate to. I just don't "get" Obama. To me, he sounds like a kind of flim-flam man, and I think that's how he sounds to most working people.
May 14, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brother, you are not fooling anyone that you are any more a "working man" than any of the rest of us here. If you can waste as much time as you do on this blog, your "we working folks..." schtick just will not hold water.
May 14, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's where you're wrong, elitist. Just because I don't conform to your pre-conceived derogatory notion about working people being too stupid to work a computer doesn't mean that I'm not what I say I am. It only means that you're not as superior as you think you are.
May 14, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are not facts. Electability should not be questioned by polls because they are not facts. All the results clearly show Obama is doing just fine with working class whites EXCEPT in the Appalachian region.
END of STORY.
Now as a white, working class American male, FUCK OFF!
More ranting here....
http://indepthleft.blogspot.com/2008/05/stupid-talk-race-race-and-polls.html
May 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct. But you left out one pertinent fact = they really don't care about winning in November. Or at least, that's not their primary concern. Generally speaking, Obama supporters are an incredibly immature and self-absorbed bunch and all they really want to do is to prove how hip and tolerant they are compared to other voters, whom they look down their elitist noses at. It's also about sticking their thumb in the eyes of their baby-boomer parents. They would rather lose and retain their smug sense of moral superiority than win with someone who reminds them other their mother.
May 14, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mother:
1) is completely honest and honorable;
2) thinks of and acts on behalf of others before herself;
3) knows when to quit before making a damn fool of herself;
4) is genuine and authentic for everyone in any place;
5) does the right thing even if it hurts;
6) doesn't bear the slightest resemblence to Hillary Clinton (except for living in the same county).
May 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and the rest of your overgeneralizations notwithstanding, why do you bother with these hopelessly arrogant Obama supporters? You aren't changing anyone's mind.
May 14, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of your insults and pop psychology are meaningless drivel. Obama will be the nominee. If you approve of GWB, vote for McCain.
It is always easier to stereotype people you disagree with. But it undermines your credibility, big time.
May 14, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how other people took this post, but as an Obama supporter who both liked Hillary Clinton at the beginning of this process (although right now I am certainly unhappy with her childish performances), and deeply loves his mother, I can say that Clinton really doesn't remind me of my mother at all. It is hard to understand how anyone could make the argument that just because I support a black candidate, I must look down my nose at those who do not, while not reflexively accepting the opposite charge, namely that Clinton supporters are looking down their noses at those who do not support a woman for President. Both of these charges would be ridiculous to make. I understand if you are upset that your favorite candidate has lost this election, but do not allow that to cloud your thinking to the point where you can type this kind of drivel. Obama supporters are generally well-educated, which does not make them elitist, any more than the fact that the typical Clinton voter being low-educated would make her the candidate of the red-necks. Stop buying into petty and stupid stereotypes about how other people think, and actually open your mind to the possibility that other people might have valid opinions for reasons that don't involve them looking down at you.
May 14, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My late (baby-boomer) mother said, when she saw Obama deliver his address at the '04 convention, "that man will be president some day." Pity that she did not live to see it.
Meanwhile, my white, working class, baby-boomer father is backing Obama for exactly the same reason that I am - because we want a democratic president and know that there is no way that Clinton could actually win.
May 14, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes it seems as though Hillary, et. al. would have us believe that there are no states or demographic groups involved in this election other than Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia and white working class males.
The whole thing is tired already.
Now, I where's my spirulina smoothie?
May 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I love spirulina! But I need a jolt, so I'm gonna head out from my Park Ave. Apt. in my limo to pick me up a latte. Organizing the next "NYC Elitists for Obama" event is hard work!
May 14, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, if you can afford to live on Park Ave, Starbucks will deliver!
May 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you writing in code. Is it a "disadvantage in Appalachia"? Or is it a disadvantage among the Scots-Irish? Similarly, does Obama have an "advantage in the inner city"? Or is it an advantage among blacks?
It's not that "Appalachia" and "inner city" aren't roughly true, but that they aren't as precise as Scots-Irish and blacks - unless it should happen that geography really does correlate better with the political preference here than ethnicity.
It's insulting to blacks to speak of "inner city" rather than "blacks." Are you similarly insulting the Scots-Irish?
One note on the Scots-Irish sensibility. I've lived among them. Their culture is very comfortable with personal contradictions - everyone's at church on Sunday after spending Saturday drinking moonshine. (No, it's not a stereotype. Moonshine is widely available and preferred.) They make no pretense of coherence between their Sunday and Saturday selves. The Clintons truly are of their culture.
The Scots-Irish are great people to drink with, btw.
May 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
From BTD at TalkLeft:
"The West Virginia exit polls indicate that he lost white voters 69-28. Astounding? Not really. In Ohio, Clinton won white voters 64-34. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won whites 63-37. Indiana? Whites went for Clinton 60-40. Massachusetts? Whites went for Clinton 58-40. Rhode Island? 63-31 for Clinton. North Carolina? 61-37. And the same in Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri and so on.
Obama has won the white vote in Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, etc. West of the Mississippi all of them EXCEPT Wisconsin and VA.
West Virginia is not an anomaly. Obama's white working class problem is EAST of the Mississippi. It is not just Appalachia. It MUST be addressed. Calling West Virginia names is not going to solve the problem."
May 14, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find interesting about these polls is that they show no statistically significant difference between "working class whites" and whites as a whole. Kinda removes the veil from this whole meme and calls it what it is. A significant number of whites will never vote for a black candidate no matter who he is.
Oh, yeah. And everybody's overlooking the obvious definition of "important" states...they're defined as the ones Hillary Clinton won.
May 14, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the best analyses of the various polls was done recently by a Canadian:
http://my.opera.com/Vorlath/blog/2008/05/09/who-is-the-safe-choice-for-the-white-house
Obama is looking more and more to me like a McGovern. Media and fan furvor give the impression that he'll sweep in November but it's not based on reality.
May 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is looking more and more to me like a McGovern." Precisely so. The current hoopla over Obama mirrors what happened with McGovern. In those times, everywhere I went, I heard the overconfident assurances from the True Believers that it was going to be a "new day, for America, when McGovern is president." That was before, and leading up to the election. But something happened, on the way to the "new day." Fanatics believe fanatically, all the way to the end, because they cannot believe that they can lose. But they did lose. So much for fanatical hero-worship. And now, history is poised to repeat itself.
May 14, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We just have to hope that Obama doesn't choose somebody crazy as Vice President. Really, McGovern lost it all because of one terrible error that blew up right after the convention.
No extra points will be awarded if you guess the crazy person Obama may be unfortunately inclined to offer the spot to. Don't do it, Barack!
May 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting... based on results, not polls.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/12/134251/930
May 14, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe what it really shows is that Pennsylvanians dump their grudges and jump on the party bandwagon long before their brethern.
May 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink