Harping on a Moot Point
The Clinton campaign and its many surrogates are obsessed with pointing that Clinton has done better than Obama among low-income white voters in the primaries. They argue, to anyone who will listen, that Clinton's strength among this demographic means that she would be a stronger general election candidate than Obama. Putting aside the merits of that particular argument in some hypothetical universe, can someone please explain the concept of 'mootness' to Clinton supporters?
Perhaps it's true (though I doubt it) that, all things being equal, Clinton would be a stronger general election candidate. The point, however, is that all things are not equal. As things stand now, Obama has an insurmountable lead among pledged delegates and will, in all likelihood, end up with more popular votes than Clinton. So the only way that Clinton can win is by convincing the superdelegates to give the nomination to the candidate who comes in second in both delegates and votes.
Now, I seriously doubt that's going to happen, but if it did, the candidate who emerged would be very damaged. She would be the nominee of an utterly fractured party. Obama's supporters would not consider her to be the legitimate winner, much the way Democrats considered Bush's 2000 election win to be illegitimate. African-Americans (and many others) would be insensed that the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency was denied his chance by a coup of party insiders. Whatever support Clinton has among blue collar whites (and I think that support is vastly overstated) would likely be offset by the disillusionment and resentment among many other groups, including African-Americans, young voters, and the many first-time voters who have turned out for Obama.
To put things another way, Obama can win the nomination in a way that everyone will consider to be legitimate, in a way that doesn't shatter the Democratic coalition. Clinton cannot. So at this point, Obama is necessarily the most electable candidate. It makes no sense to consider general election matchups in a vacuum. Clinton can only win if Obama is denied the nomination, and he's just come too far at this point to be denied the nomination. He's the presumptive nominee, and if that is taken away from him (at least by anything other than a self-induced implosion), there will be hell to pay.
So the question of Obama's weakness among blue-collar whites is at best a moot point at this stage in the game. Obviously he'll need to address any weaknesses in his coalition as we move toward the general election, but at this point, there is no other viable alternative. Clinton is too far behind to win this nomination in anything other than a deeply controversial way. And winning that way would make her a much weaker candidate. There's no getting around that.
Perhaps it's true (though I doubt it) that, all things being equal, Clinton would be a stronger general election candidate. The point, however, is that all things are not equal. As things stand now, Obama has an insurmountable lead among pledged delegates and will, in all likelihood, end up with more popular votes than Clinton. So the only way that Clinton can win is by convincing the superdelegates to give the nomination to the candidate who comes in second in both delegates and votes.
Now, I seriously doubt that's going to happen, but if it did, the candidate who emerged would be very damaged. She would be the nominee of an utterly fractured party. Obama's supporters would not consider her to be the legitimate winner, much the way Democrats considered Bush's 2000 election win to be illegitimate. African-Americans (and many others) would be insensed that the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency was denied his chance by a coup of party insiders. Whatever support Clinton has among blue collar whites (and I think that support is vastly overstated) would likely be offset by the disillusionment and resentment among many other groups, including African-Americans, young voters, and the many first-time voters who have turned out for Obama.
To put things another way, Obama can win the nomination in a way that everyone will consider to be legitimate, in a way that doesn't shatter the Democratic coalition. Clinton cannot. So at this point, Obama is necessarily the most electable candidate. It makes no sense to consider general election matchups in a vacuum. Clinton can only win if Obama is denied the nomination, and he's just come too far at this point to be denied the nomination. He's the presumptive nominee, and if that is taken away from him (at least by anything other than a self-induced implosion), there will be hell to pay.
So the question of Obama's weakness among blue-collar whites is at best a moot point at this stage in the game. Obviously he'll need to address any weaknesses in his coalition as we move toward the general election, but at this point, there is no other viable alternative. Clinton is too far behind to win this nomination in anything other than a deeply controversial way. And winning that way would make her a much weaker candidate. There's no getting around that.
posted by A.L. at 11:05 PM
22 Comments:
Your's (and therefore Obama's) problem, A.L., is the fact that 40 some-odd percent of us Hillary supporters will never vote for Obama. Ever. Period.
And, it is not about entitlement, jealousy, envy, racism, or any other baseless inflammatory allegation you want to make.
Obama is a buffoon and hangs around with many known criminals. He said on Friday that he has visited to all 57 states.
He speaks about hope and change, but he only speaks in generalities, not specifics. Hillary speaks concisely, stating what she will do when she is elected.
As I heard an Obama supporter say the other day it is not about Obama at all, but a movement.
Obviously, Obama's followers are in a delusional fantasy led by mass psychology, the same way people were when they thought they were getting a bargain buying homes during the housing bubble. 'Nuff said.
Do not feed the stupid ignorant troll.
Amen to the post by the way AL.
And to the troll above who probably shouldn't be addressed, sure right now a lot of supporters of one candidate say they wouldn't vote for the other, but do you really believe them? Remember it's the middle of a heated, heated campaign. Do you really believe Hillary supporters would rather have McBush in the White House? Democrats staying home on election day is a vote for McCain.
And to that "Obama has only rhetoric" BS, just remember that around a year ago people said he was too wonky, too detailed in descriptions of policy. Have you not read any of AL's other posts on his endorsements of Obama?
The Clinton camp's parsing of the electoral results is symptomatic of their general disease, which is to somehow divide the opposition enough so that they can, by adopting whatever positions necessary, win the election.
Whether the assertion that Bill Clinton owes his presidency to Perot's siphoning off of voters from Bush is true or not, the Clintons act as if it were true and make it the centerpiece of their strategy.
Since Nixon, the GOP has increasingly pursued an electoral strategy based on an appeal to the worst in American voters, using a divide-and-conquer methodology that would have impressed Julius Caesar. Clinton supporters, at this point, must recognize that their candidate of choice has bought into the notion that the way to fight the GOP's strategy is to fight fire with fire.
"To the man with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" comes to mind when watching the Clintons. Unfortunately for them, this approach only works for a while, because it inevitably antagonizes more and more people. Obama's success is primarily due to his ability to transcend the Clinton/GOP approach to getting elected -- and it's making the GOP king-makers very afraid.
It may be true that most scenarios involving a Clinton nomination would fracture the Democratic party... but when I see comments akin to the first comment on this post, I wonder whether the party is already fractured. If Clinton supporters would refuse to vote for Obama in the general election even when Clinton herself asks Democrats to rally behind the nominee, there is no longer any party unity to protect.
That's not to say that A.L. isn't entirely correct that a dubious Clinton nomination wouldn't be much worse for the party... just that the threat of it being worse isn't going to influence the Clinton campaign or its supporters.
If you want to understand why soooo many Clinton supporters will NEVER vote for Obama, read this full article.
Although I am not a senior citizen, this is the sentence I identify with the most:
They are the Seniors, who are old enough and wise enough to recognize an empty suit peddling bullcrap when they see it.
Obama is a fraud and anyone who is too blinded to see that really has some soul searching to do.
you'd think Hillary Clinton would have her own google account and not need to log in as "anonymous."
btw--every die-hard Hillary supporter that says she won't vote for Obama should take a gander at McCain's record on women's issues. faced with the choice, they'll pull that lever for Obama in a heartbeat, as well they should.
a few responses:
AL said:
"African-Americans (and many others) would be insensed that the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency was denied his chance by a coup of party insiders."
not only that, but the coup will be justified EXPLICITLY by pointing to the fear that white america will never support him. if the black candidate with more votes and more delegates loses because the white candidate stokes fear among white elected officials that white americans simply won't get behind the rightful nominee (not because he's black, of course)... well, why SHOULD black people support a party that acts like this.
if clinton wins the nomination, the democrats will permanently lose the support of the african-american community (and with good reason).
first anonymous said:
"Hillary speaks concisely, stating what she will do when she is elected."
exactly which plans make you feel so confident? obliterate iran? the gas tax holiday? perhaps giving other islamic nations the "gift" she continues to say we gave iraq ("the sweet gift of freedom").
you have problems with obama's oratory. that's fine. but hillary clinton is a profoundly awful candidate, which becomes all the more obvious every time mark penn convinces her to get specific.
anonymous at 6:21 quotes someone as saying:
"They are the Seniors, who are old enough and wise enough to recognize an empty suit peddling bullcrap when they see it."
and they've decided to support hillary clinton? yeah, good thing our seniors are so damn wise.
I wouldn't worry about Anonymous #1. The link he/she provides is to Larry Johnson's No Quarter, one of the most execrable anti-Obama blogs out there and a prime candidate for being purged from liberal blogrolls once the primaries are over.
At NQ, Obama is constantly linked to Rezko, Ayers, Wright and others so much, you'd think he was the Antichrist. Ugly smears (such as that he gave Clinton the finger while speaking at a rally) are somehow seen as immutable fact -- long after they've been roundly debunked.
If Anonymous #1 won't vote for the Democratic Party nominee (Obama) in November, I say good riddance.
It's over. It's been over for some time. We're now headed for the general with Obama. For those Hillary supporters who have deep issues with Obama, I'd suggest they listen to what Hillary herself has said already, and will be saying in the coming weeks.
That said, we're all absolutely free to vote for whomever is left in the race, or for our own write-in candidate, or, for that matter, not to vote. It's a free country, kind of.
First, AL's post is right on.
Second, just on the face of things, I love it when someone hiding behind the "anonymous" moniker presumes to speak authoritatively for 40 percent of anything.
Then there's that presumptuous order to go read a full article at a right-wing blog, presumably one anon thinks will back up the 40 percent claim.
Anonymous, I concluded some time back that folks of your political persuasion are anxious to have Hillary Clinton to run against — and to not have Obama to run against — next fall. Your Obama bashing comes across as further indication of that.
The threat to not vote for Obama is just a ploy by Hillary backers to influence superdelegates. It's a pathetic form of extortion that should not be taken seriously. In the the end, they'll vote for Obama. If they don't, then they aren't Democrats.
Agree 100% with A.L.
The Clinton floks are busy raising the strawman, but it is for all practical purposes Obama vs McCain.
OK, OK, I get it! Clinton is the better candidate!
Now if only the better candidate would get more votes ...
To Mr. Bush Jr.
Are you a Communist, Sir?
Yes!
This would have been the given answer, if the question had been submitted during the Cold War era, before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
How have I came to this conclusion regarding U.S’s President?
Simply because Mr. Bush, through his policies in the Balkan region, follows Stalin’s and Tito’s aspirations for reducing Greece’s national entity.
The pseudonym state, the so-called nation and the newly invented language of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was one of Stalin’s dreams. Both Stalin and Tito manufactured this state, back in August 1944, in the frames of Yugoslav federation.
They simply altered the name of old Vardarska in Macedonia and they baptized the multi-ethnic population of Vardaska constituted by Bulgarian, Serb, Greek Albanians and others into a so-called “Macedonian nation”. Using as a pretext the fabricated name of the state, they claimed that the inhabitants of “Macedonia” are “pure” descendants of Alexander the Great.
Today, Alexander’s descendants they call their state as “free Macedonia” and they argue that Macedonia is under Greek occupation!
They strive to find an exit to the Aegean Sea, following Stalin’s plan to absorb Greek territories and establish a new state, under the protection of the Warsaw Pact, under the name “Macedonia”. This important detail is clearly mentioned in f.YROM’s constitution and is globally transmitted through state propaganda. Their main aim is to incorporate Thessaloniki – Greece’s second largest city – into their national frontiers and proclaim Thessaloniki as their future capital! It is important to note that this kind of propaganda is not presented in the web, but is also recorded in school books.
Back in 1944 U.S reacted rational. Edward Stettinious, the then American Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that “Every discussion about Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland or Macedonian conscience constitutes unjustifiable demagogy and does not correspond any kind of national or political reality whatsoever”. And he concludes by saying that this kind of behavior is an act of aggression against Greece.
During the I and the II World War and during the Cold War era Greece helped US, and US assisted Greece through the reputable Marshall Plan. However, now Mr. Bush Jr maintains this communist monstrosity and strives to aid f.YROM stealing the unquestionably Greek name of Macedonia from their legitimate title – holder, Greece.
Mr. Bush’s wants to make real Stalin’s and Tito’s dream, put an end to a hundred years of Greko-American friendship and alliance. He supports American enemies, till some years ago. Mr. Bush must answer the following question. Who fought side by side with the American soldiers in Korea. The pseudo-macedonians or Greek soldiers, many of them originated from the ancient Greek soil of one and only Macedonia?
Traditionally, Greeks stood side by side with the United States of America. However, neither Mr. Bush Jr. nor Mrs. Hilary Clinton value this honest attitude. In order to rectify the aforementioned damage to the mentality of the Greek nation, the American President or his Foreign Secretary should admit that: nowadays citizens of f.YROM are not of Macedonian ethic roots, but they come from the Slavs. My proposal to them, if they question this historic fact, is to approach American academic historians or archaeologist. Maybe, after that they will be able to re-approach history form a valid point of view.
Maybe….
Anastasios Kazantzidis
A Greek Teacher
The Number One Republican ***hole, Rush Limpball has been behind a campaign to promote Hillary, obviously because he perceives her as the weaker of the two candidates. If there were no other reason to support Senator Obama than the fact that Rush is opposed to him, that would be enough for me. I agree with the previous posts that denying the nomination to Obama for anything other than a serious implosion would be political suicide for the Democrats.
It is time to wrestle the dem party back from those that don't support liberal/progressive ideals.
The nation overwhelmingly wants change. Obama can win in November (if there are honest vote counts) without any dead-end clinton supporters.
Anyone that has to use racism and proclaim that uneducated white voters should count more does not actually support liberal/progressive policies and politics.
The "big tent" can't accommodate racists and those that will not support meaningful change.
Most of America knows that bush-clinton-bush-clinton family dynasties will not create change. The is American democracy, not NASCAR.
Because mclame is such a terrible candidate, and because Americans overwhelmingly want change, 2008 is a historic opportunity - let the anti-progressive/liberal faction of hte party stay home or vote for mclame - THEY WILL NOT MATTER ANYHOW
The republicans will never accomodate anyone but the extremely wealthy, mostly with connections/investments in the military-industrial complex.
We have nothing to lose if we can shed the bush-dog dems.
Now if only the better candidate would get more votes ...
Did, in 2000 and 2004. SCOTUS stole the first one and blackwell and thugs in OH stole the second.
order valium online
cheap generic levitra
cheap phentermine online
online order soma
ambien online
cheap generic xanax
BUY OXYCONTIN ONLINE WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION
BUY XANAX VALIUM ONLINE FLORIDA
BUY VALIUM FROM INDIA
order xanax online
BUY FIORICET ONLINE.CHEAP FIORICET
CHEAP XANAX ONLINE.ORDER XANAX ONLINE
Wouldn't the GE polls of Clinton vs. McCain include any mass exodus of support from her due to supposed "illegitimacy" if it were going to happen? We obviously can't predict with certainty what will happen in the GE, but there is no evidence of what you are talking about in the current GE polls. See http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May20.html for the latest Clinton/McCain map. Besides, if Clinton somehow manages to pull off a comeback, Obama is going to out campaigning for her, isn't he? (Just like she's going to campaign for him.) Heck, it's likely that the only way to fix this is with a unity ticket either way.
I hope that most Democratic voters will vote for the nominee whoever it is. That's what I'm going to do. Both Democrats are far more progressive than McCain, so it's what any progressive worthy of the name "progressive" should do.
I think that most Democrats understand that the system gives a lot of power (perhaps too much) to the superdelegates in a very close election like this one. They may not like it, but that's the system we're working under. The nomination goes to the delegate leader, which is currently and most likely will end up being Obama. But if Clinton were to somehow woo more superdelegates than Obama, it would be legitimate by definition. Obama supporters might have their feelings hurt (just as Clinton supporters will have their feelings hurt by an Obama victory), but you shouldn't support McCain or sit out the GE because of hurt feelings. If you honestly don't think the other candidate would be a better President than McCain, vote that way, but no one should play the "someone stole the election that I deserved" card. There's too much at stake for that.
I am in agreement with what you said. HRC doesn't seem to want to quit but what's the hurry? We might just as well go on with it. Obama is already engaged with McCain and the votes remaining will keep him in the news.
XANAX WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION
OXYCONTIN ONLINE WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION
The fourth wow power leveling latest game in wow power leveling Warcraft series is ‘wow power leveling’. Also known as wow power leveling, it represents a wow power leveling multiplayer online wow power leveling game, the best of wow power leveling kind. Initially, it was wow gold it be released in 2001, but wow powerleveling was delayed wow powerleveling 2004, thus wow powerleveling the 10 years ofwow powerleveling franchise of thiswow gold series. The world of warcraft power leveling was not world of warcraft power levelingfulfilling, because wow power levelproblems with wow power level server’s stability power leveling wow performance occurred, but power leveling wow game still power leveling wow a financial success powerleveling wow the most powerleveling wow game of its kind. The number cheap wow power leveling users that play Maple Story mesos, exceeds 8.5 MapleStory mesos, worldwide.As a form ms mesos,recognition for mesos,outstanding popularity, the game SilkRoad Gold, received aSRO Gold, of awards. Now the question eq2 plat, why is eq2 gold, game eq2 Platinum, popular? For anyoneEverQuest 2 Platinum, played the previous EverQuest 2 gold, and EverQuest 2 plat, already initiated lotro gold, the mysterious world lotr gold, the breathtaking Lord of the Rings online Gold, this Rolex Replica nothing but an Replica Rolex adventure that continues the story of ‘Warcraft III: Frozen Throne’, four years after conclusion, in the world of Azeroth. The game is online role-playing, the previous versions being online and offline strategy games. The major thrills and unique features are present as in every Blizzard game.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home