MyDD :: Question for non-Hillary supporters

John McCain wants you to be poor!

Was that a joke (about Jews) or did you actually mean that? Please answer, b/c if I don't hear from you within 24 hrs. I'm going to assume you were serious.

by nklein on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: favorability (2.00 / 1)

Am Jewish, am working class, for Obama. I hope that last line was a joke, although a poor one if it was.

by mady on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bitter voter for change.

sometimes the pink from hillaryis44 bleeds onto other sites.

All voters matter, no one is going to weight your vote when you go into the voting booth in November. Right now Obama is tied in head to head matchups with McCain and Hillary is losing. Whatever voter he's losing in the base he's picking up elsewhere.

by Hope08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:20:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by swissffun on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:29:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oh now that last line is just too much.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

TR for the prejudice comment about Jews. I hope that others will do so as well.

by nklein on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:31:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

How about winning the nomination without a floor battle, that might convince me.

Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!

by Drewid on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

Neither of them are going to win the nomination without a floor battle.

by Little Otter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

This is my first post here so I hope y'all will take it easy on me. As many others have alluded to in the comments, the comparison of Hillary to Obama in judging electability isn't properly framing the real question.

I have no idea which of the candidates would be stronger, if the Democratic party would be equally able to coalesce behind either candidate -- and nobody else does either. (I'd lean Obama, but then I am an Obama supporter; I'm wagering that most of you here would lean Hillary.)

But none of that matters. What matters is, if Hillary wins the nomination without winning the delegate count, there is unfortunately no way the party will fully coalesce around her. You can't take the election away from what many view as the most promising politician in our lifetime's and expect his block to fall in line behind a candidate elected by what increasingly appears would have to be the will of the non-elected portion of the superdelegates. It's just not going to happen.

This is why there is so much chatter about the race being over. In some respects, it's over because we say it's over -- a self fulfilling prophecy. I don't think Obama supporters under any circumstances, sans Hillary miraculously winning the delegate count, will accept her as party nominee; and I think that would be true in reverse.

So, I guess my answer, could be summarized as the following: imagine the situations were reversed and Hillary had the overwhelming pledged delegate lead. What would it take for you to fall in behind Obama if the election was given to him by non-elected Superdelegates? That's what it would take for me (and us) -- and why Hillary, no matter what happens, is not more electable.

I'm don't doubt that Hillary supporters will not rally around Obama with the same devotion they gave Senator Clinton; which is somewhat understandable. You love your candidate, and it's not hard to see why. But at the end of the day -- in terms of pure fairness -- I can't really see any reasonable reaction that Obama hasn't won this election fairly. At the most, Hillary supporters can claim that Obama wasn't willing to break the pre-set rules and award Hillary contests in which he didn't campaign, or wasn't even on the ballot.

by such sweet thunder on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:03:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

coalescing (2.00 / 1)

Yes, I feel that my curiousity is a bit different than your framing. Who would better coalesce the Dem voters is an important part of electability in my interest also. I don't want to bog this thread down in too much transient detail, or bring up sore points. But as has been said, we're all speaking to the hothouse here. Coalescing the much larger number of voters outside the hothouse may be different.

Just for a little perspective....

From a Rasmussen poll early in March:
Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view.[....]
45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/39wm8d

Of course there are large numbers outside the hothouse who will not pay attention to the details of how the nomination was decided; they'll just vote according to how much they like the candidate (or dislike the GOP).

But of those outside the hothouse who know a little about DNC procedural issues -- I think the Obama side would have to do a lot of convincing to make them feel permanent outrage about the SDs following the popular vote and considering FL/MI as part of the popular vote.

To put it mildly.

I know polls say both sides are hardening and may not support the other nominee; but there are a lot more obvious issues for them to be hardening around. (Let's not go there?)

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:45:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: coalescing (none / 0)

1950,

Thanks for the nice response. I know what the polls say now, but history predicts the response outside the hothouse would be different if it comes down to a convention which overturns a delegate lead.

It's easy to cast the riot's of 1968 as ancient history from a more volatile past. But the Rodney King riots weren't that long ago, and I think that's what we would be looking at. As your poll notes, people outside the hothouse probably wouldn't be any of the wiser . . . until South Central, Philly, and Detroit started to go up in flames.

Never mind the fact that brokering/stealing an election would play directly into the real and manufactured questions of Hillary's trustworthiness, the pictures of stores being mobbed would be enough to kill her run all by themselves.

by such sweet thunder on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: coalescing (none / 0)

I don't think anyone would be worried about riots in support of the delegate lead -- if it were Hillary who had the delegate lead and Obama who had the popular vote.

I also have too much respect for Obama to think that he would let his supporters go that far.

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:40:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He might not let his supporters go that far (none / 0)

but they would go that far, and I'd be one of them.

If you can't already see the likely reactions to this, then I'm not sure that I can explain it sufficiently for you.

A case could be made that if Hillary were denied the nomination after winning the popular vote but losing in the elected delegates that in such a case, many women or die-hard Clinton fans would protest or boycott the general.

But a much stronger case can be made that if the opposite happens, if Barack Obama, the first black man to win the majority of the elected delegates, were to lose the nomination because of superdelegates (choosing Hillary based on her higher popular vote), that the narrative would be set in stone for generations that "the fix was in" as far as primaries went to keep a black man from winning fairly. You could argue all day about Hillary winning the popular vote, but that narrative would not carry through. The resentment among many American blacks -- and I won't say all or most, necessarily, just many -- would be such that it would hurt the Democratic Party for a generation. The fact that the Clintons are so well connected and friendly with big people in the party, as well, doesn't help to create the impression that they would have won fair and square. Recall, they entered this cycle with more than a hundred superdelegates already committed to them, before a single vote was ever cast in Iowa.

If Hillary were to win the nomination that way, a number of things could be done to try to alleviate the situation. They could offer the running-mate position to Obama. They could offer the running-mate position to any other black Democrat. Obama could speak on the floor praising Hillary for her win and asking his supporters to get behind her for the general. You can try to pad this scenario out to give it the best light. But whatever you do, you enter the general election with a gigantic stigma attached to the Hillary campaign that will haunt it all the way until November.

And don't forget, the Republicans have things they can do to rub salt in the wound. McCain's short list for his running-mate reportedly already has black Republicans like J.C. Wyatt and Steele. And black Republicans like Keyes would love to make a big whoop-te-do about such a situation at the RNC convention, accusing the Democratic Party of sixty years of hypocrisy. You can imagine it yourself.

Would Hillary win? I don't know. But it wouldn't be easier for her than Obama, not if she had to win that way. Seriously, if she had won the nomination fairly and clearly, by wiping him out on Feb. 5th, as was their campaign plan, then I think she would be the likely winner in November, maybe even a more electable candidate than Obama will be this November. But things have changed. The fact that she has to engineer a victory through superdelegates makes her a weaker candidate for the fall, and I don't see how that can be seriously questioned.

by Dumbo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:07:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He might not let his supporters go that far (none / 0)

They both need some superdelegate votes to get to 2025. Hillary supporters are seeing bigwigs like Kennedy, Pelosi, Dean, Brazile rigging the decision against her.

He might not let his supporters go that far
but they would go that far, and I'd be one of them.

A previous poster had brought up the possibility of destructive riots in Denver by O supporters. I said Obama wouldn't let them go as far as burning down Denver. I assume you're not saying that you yourself would destroy property there, and not even Obama himself could stop you?

Imo such destruction would destroy Obama's political career, and make even liberal guilt whites reluctant to help another Black get anywhere near an important nomination in future. Even the threat of rioting may be already having that effect with some SD's, though they may bow to the threat this time (expecting the GOP will win Nov08).

I'm not sure either Dem could win in Nov after footage of real riots -- but the advantage would be to the candidate whose supporters were not the rioters.

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He might not let his supporters go that far (none / 0)

I thought about that post last night, and I wish I wouldn't have posted. Of course I would actively advocate against any riots. You're dead on one you say it would destroy Obama, other African American candidates, and in all honesty, it is the biggest threat to the Democrats in this election cycle, with a real possibility of alienating voters for election cycles to come.

I do unfortunately still think that it is a possibility. And the reason I wish I wouldn't have posted is because I think even the discussion of such -- if it hit the MSM -- could influence voters.

I think we're beyond lucky this election cycle. We have three exceptional leaders who actually have enough power to carry a general election for a minority or woman candidate. Obama is the most articulate and personally engaging candidate we will nominate in my lifetime. Clinton plays debates and politics as a game better than only but a handful -- and that's no slight; I'm not one of those pansy voters who thinks politics is for the weak of heart. And, we shouldn't discount what Bill Richardson will be able to do. He can singlehandedly can put Texas into play. Texas. The Dems can win Texas.

Let's make this happen. I am thrilled. We should all be thrilled. This long primary season has been a brilliant boon for whomever is our nominee. Game on.

by such sweet thunder on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:26:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

most promising politician (none / 0)

what many view as the most promising politician in our lifetime's

I hope this doesn't take us too far afield, but I wonder why some Obama supporters act as though this nomination were his only, once in a lifetime, chance? Hillary offered him the VP, which would be a direct path to an easy nomination in 2016 and a run with her support.

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:02:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has said as much (none / 0)

Not that his position can't change (as he allowed himself to be convinced to run this time around when he was originally going to serve out his first senate term beforehand), but he's said that one of the reasons that he doesn't want to run later is because, in 4 or 8 years, his children will be teenagers or nearly so, and it would be particularly difficult to navigate the media circus while maintaining some semblance of a normal life with his children getting nagged... he learned from Chelsea's problems.

There are other reasons, but that's a big one.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

It would be a long shot. Here are a few things:

- Her perceived trustworthy numbers go way up.

She starts to appeal to more independents.
Obama is caught in bed with a 12-year-old.

"There's something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power. People who don't want the meeting to end."

by campaignmonitor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:50:57 PM EST

Independents vs Dem base (none / 0)

I think there's been some sign of Obama losing Independents, though I don't recall who he is losing them to.

For a total November vote turnout, you can attract more Independents or you can turn out more of the traditional Dem base. If we had some figures showing Obama would get X more Inds but Y fewer Base, and Hillary's turnout would be the other way around -- wouldn't the important thing be each candidate's total turnout, rather than whether it came from Inds or Base?

by 1950democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neither party can win simply with their base. Sorry, bud, it's the truth. If we pick up Independents and lose some of the traditional base, we starve the Republicans of their only way to win.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:22:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

However, we need to have that base, too, because we have to build a majority in Congress, too. I'm not knocking anyone; we all need to be at this party to really win.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Doesn't that depend on what the absolute numbers are? If you get 100,000 Inds but lose 500,000 Dem base, aren't you worse off by 400,000?

One advantage to Dem base, is once they get registered and active, they stay Dem (or stay home); Ind's are by definition fickle, and may vote GOP next time, in spite of whatever you've invested getting them.

If their committed Dems then Obama won't lose them (2.00 / 1)

If you ignore the independants John McCain will not.

by DSloth on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your logic says we ought to consistently ignore them. Heck, why bother trying, they're fickle.

by ragekage on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:36:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

LOL! That's disgusting.

If Hillary's actually decreased her unfavorables instead of increasing them while running in the primary, that would have convinced me. The repubs will be merciless and her negatives are likely to shoot up into the 60s.

I always thought Hillary was the least electable of all the candidates but I thought she'd win the primary nomination.

Bitter voter for change.

by Hope08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

I second Magilla there, but I'll answer you for kicks.

-Evidence the Republicans didn't think that she was the weaker candidate.
-Higher trustworthy ratings, as well.
-An indication she consistently cares about the Democratic race, and would support Obama if he was the nominee.
-Demonstrated ability to appeal to geuine independents and Republican crossover voters.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:55:45 PM EST

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

There's a newstory on yahoo where they now say Obama is the weaker candidate due to his associations.

Obama's trustworthy rating is nearly identical to Hillary's.

She has said that her voters should vote for the Dem nominee. Too bad Obama won't do that.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:21:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

Heh. Georgia, you really show your true colors here, buddy.

There's nowhere that says Obama is as trustworthy as Hillary. He beats McCain. Find me one place that provides evidence otherwise.

And since you missed this several times, starting from right after Texas and Ohio:

"Even if I'm not the nominee, I'm still going to be somebody who cares very deeply about the Democratic Party winning in November."

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

Survey USA did a poll on it. I guess you dont' want to believe it and would rather use an old poll right? LOL!

And that quote, is not saying that his voters should vote for the eventual nominee only that he cares about the party winning but in reality his actions show that he doesn't care about the party winning.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

PRINCETON, NJ -- Hillary Clinton is rated as "honest and trustworthy" by 44% of Americans, far fewer than say this about John McCain (67%) and Barack Obama (63%).

Just FYI, before you make a jerk out of yourself, Obama said that in reference to his Obama Fellows network- a network of activists specifically to build grassroots support for the Democratic nominee. Obviously hopefully him, but he was saying he would still run the program for the Democratic nominee.

Now, who the heck do you think he's referring to there, if not him? Britney Spears?

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

Search Results for trust
Can I Trust SurveyUSA?
SurveyUSA - 10/08/07 11:58 AM

You were saying?

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmmm (none / 0)

Lots of assertions, allusions to polls and newstories, but no links.

As to the diarist's original question: It's not really complicated. A dramatic and consistent change in head-to-head polling. Also, some evidence that "swing voters" care about issues.

Also, your question begs another one, it assumes that there is some objective evidence that Clinton is more electable against that Obama supporters refuse to see. I quite simply do not believe this is true. Your tags suggest your bias, and some issues that are huge on MyDD but not, according to just about every poll, outside of this site.

I could play a similar game, but the tit-for-tat and accusations of trolling get pretty boring, pretty quick. In fact, in the interest of not dragging this discussion down to that level, I've deleted quite a few allusions from this comment. But don't kid yourselves that al Foxeera, Ari Fleischer, Rush Limbaugh, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts and the rest of the gang and the rest are going to share my genteel sense of decorum.

by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:03:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hmmm - objective evidence (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for a (mostly) thoughtful answer.

That's getting to the point I'm after. I'm thinking now it may be time for us Clinton supporters to start looking for objective evidence that may not yet have been presented to you Obama supporters, or not presented well enough. I'm thinking of evidence such as demographic showing in recent primaries, and in PA when that's available.

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:27:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hmmm (none / 0)

Also, some evidence that "swing voters" care about issues.

Huh? Did a word get left out of that sentence?

Did you mean 'care about her issues'? I've seen a lot of polls saying people rate her higher on experience, capability of being CIC, economic plans, UHC, etc. -- Often followed by a remark that although they rate her higher on various issues, they're voting against her anyway. Are you suggesting that 'swing voters' don't care about any issues at all?

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

Stories that come out immediately after a bad news cycle are not enough to base an electibility argument around. I would need to see a consistent trend of polls showing Hillary to be more electable by an amount outside the MOE.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:45:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

Sure, polls would have to show a pattern over the next couple of months, or between now and decision time.

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For a start (2.00 / 3)

Her winning the primary would begin to convince me.

by TheSilverMonkey on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:57:21 PM EST

This I agree with (2.00 / 1)

She needed to make a stronger and more positive effort, the same way Obama did; fighting for every state instead of just gloss over her losses and try to make stands at the big states.

I'm tired of 50%+1-style politics. I need someone who will go to every state and actually fight for my vote, instead of just expect it on name recognition.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

She can't do anything. Her last name makes her unelectable IMO

by Cheebs on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:59:01 PM EST

except (none / 0)

her husbands retrospective job approvals are in the 60's. Its not her name, its the fact people think she is a bitch, which I don't but others do. If Bill could run, he'd win a landslide on an unimaginable scale.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

fav's that are at least even with her unfav's...as well as polls that show her doing significantly better than Obama against McCain... as well as a path to the nomination which will not be framed by some (especially on AA radio) as overturning the pledged delegate lead

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:03:12 PM EST

McCain, unfav's, overturning (none / 0)

Polls showing her doing better against McCain are already coming out.

Does it matter whether the unfav's count RW GOPs who would not vote for any Dem, and/or who are unfavorable to Obama also?

What if Obama's path overturns the popular vote, and/or leaves out FL/MI?

by 1950democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain, unfav's, overturning (2.00 / 1)

Right now RCP has Obama vs. McCain tied and McCain up over Clinton by 2.5.

When we started the primary season, when everyone was planning, the DNC said the winner of 2025 pledged delegates would win the nomination. The Obama campaign, being the planners that they are, planned a campaign based on the rules set forth by the DNC. If it was going to be based on the popular vote, they would have run a different campaign, a campaign based on large states with big populations. But the DNC said that delegates are what determines the nominee, it can't change the rules now. We can't make up new metrics as we go along.

There are only so many voters in the country if 50% find you unfavorable and 60% find the other guy favorable, it makes it difficult for you to win an election.

Bitter voter for change.

by Hope08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

Some solid evidence for that case would be a start.

Beat McCain!

by thezzyzx on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:04:52 PM EST

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

By the way, a new poll out tonight has Obama and Clinton tied in PA http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pre s08/padem8-704.html

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:05:08 PM EST

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

Oh, and I forgot one- will she help get Firefly back on the air, and does she think it's a total cop that all those cool characters turned out to be Cylons? If yes to both of those, I'll vote for her in a heartbeat.

;)

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:12:54 PM EST

If Obama was kidnapped by Magic Ponies. (2.00 / 3)

Or if Obama were hit by a meteor.

McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.

by Lefty Coaster on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:15:00 PM EST

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

Obviously, the key metric would be her doing MUCH better than Obama against McCain. And I'm not talking "3-5 points in a few states after Obama gets bashed by both her and McCain" better. I'm talking significantly better, like 10 point leads over a long period of time, the same kind of advantage McCain consistently displayed over Romney that indicated he would be a better candidate for Repubs.

by animated on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:15:08 PM EST

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

If she would stop trying to pretend that only she can save the party and the world. She's staying in to vet Obama; only she can carry the electoral votes of the states she's won (Massachusetts??). blah, blah, blah. Her whole campaign is so "her" focused. It's always "me, me." Only another Clinton can clean up the mess from a second Bush, blah blah, blah. She was far better in my book when she emphasized her "work horse, not show horse" credentials. Now she's nothing but show, hyperbole to carry a thin resume: sniper fire, blah, blah, blah. She's like Sybil -- I'm honored to be in this campaign, shame on you, blah, blah ,blah. Talk about the issues -- Paul Krugman of the NYT, whom I respect greatly despite his obvious distaste for Obama, makes solid points about the value of her health plan and economic plans, but that's not what I hear her talk about when she shows up for editorial conferences or news shows, it's blah, blah, blah, walk out if my minister said those things. Her combativeness is tiring, and NO it's not that a woman can't or shouldn't fight, it just feels like she's fighting to show she can go toe to toe like any other asshole. Sorry, you asked.

by crabby tom in md on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:15:42 PM EST

higher favorability/trustworthy (2.00 / 1)

numbers. whether we like it or not, these elections often come down to character/personality issues.

by highgrade on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:16:21 PM EST

Re: higher favorability/trustworthy (1.00 / 1)

Then we're sunk with Obama too. People think he's a liar.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. You, the hardcore Clinton supporters here, Hillaryis44.org, NoQuarter, Taylor Marsh, et cetera, think he's a liar. More Democrats and Republicans/Independents view him as more trustworthy, by far.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

Nope. Rating is 38%. Get out of the echo chamber.

by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh huh. Source it.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: higher favorability/trustworthy (2.00 / 1)

I think Ga is referring to these Survey USA favorability numbers:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=81b5fdd3-fbda-4580-8169-3a89e9 f40a05

Which is a poor argument for a couple reasons:

1) That's measuring favorability, not trustworthiness (a different question).

2) Those numbers are widely out of whack for every candidate when compared to all other polls (most have each with favorables 15%-25% higher).

3) Obama's number is actually the highest of all three candidates.

by davisb on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the poll that shows Obama's approval at 38%

That's the highest approval number on the list:

SUSA Approval Rating 03/25/2008

Hillary: 35
Obama: 38
McCain: 34
Bush: 22
Cheney: 15
Spitzer: 4

by Ddeele on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops - sorry (none / 0)

"Favorability", not "approval"

by Ddeele on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm. Seems we've lost Georgia.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by tired of dynasties on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:23:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

According to the poll that number came from he has the highest favorability numbers of the 3 candidates.

Re: higher favorability/trustworthy (2.00 / 1)

You seriously need to spend some time outside of this hothouse.

by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 2)

Is this truly a diary?

I'm sorry, but regardless of who we support, this is NOT a diary. It belongs in an open thread.

It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce

by Gabriele Droz on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:26:54 PM EST

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

Again, I second this. Gabrielle, for a Clinton supporter, you're likeable enough.

;) j/k. It's people like you who remind me that we don't agree on some things, but we're both human and it's not worth all this petty bullshit between us.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

I think it's a good question, and it would get lost in an open thread, but there should be some case made for HRC's electability, other than the (frankly tiresome) allusions made by the tags.

by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd be convinced for (2.00 / 2)

$20,000

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:30:55 PM EST

Re: I'd be convinced for (none / 0)

I'll do it for 15.

by ragekage on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a six pack (none / 0)

by omar little on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:11:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a six pack (none / 0)

How dare you underbid my vote?

by ragekage on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:27:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

40oz (none / 0)

beat that.

by omar little on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:19:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (none / 0)

I live in Texas, and we're done. What I think doesn't matter going forward, as far as the nomination is concerned.

However, I assure you that if Hillary wins the nomination, I'll vote for her, and I'll encourage others to do so too.

If she wins the nod, I don't think there will be any question that she's more electable. For that to happen, there will have to be some circumstance that completely changes the current dynamic, but even if that were not the case, I'd throw in with her in the GE. She's great.

I just like Obama better.

by Ddeele on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:34:36 PM EST

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 1)

For one, a sense that she could put all of her previous mistakes behind her. The type of problem-filled campaign she has run to date does not give me confidence that she would run an efficient GE campaign.

by rfahey22 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:37:30 PM EST

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 2)

How 'bout:

1) She get more of the pledged delegate count than Obama

She get more of the popular vote
Maybe she could stop exaggerating every story, and try to be somewhat honest
Perhaps if they changed the voting age to 45

by demfromfredneck on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:48:56 PM EST

Hello 1950Democrat (2.00 / 5)

I'm a 61 year old feminist. I loved JFK, and some of my hope died on 11/22/63. I was a civil rights and antiwar activist in the 60's, and a VISTA volunteer.
I supported Bobby in '68, then later McGovern, Jerry Brown, Teddy, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Bradley, and Dean.
During Clinton's 1st term I always said that Hillary was the smart one and would have been a better President. I was dismayed when the right wing smeared and pilloried Hillary as the poster girl for right wing haters. It was unjust and despicable, just like the right wing made 'liberal' a person deserving contempt during the Reagan years.
Sadly, those labels became assimilated and held dear by a huge number of ordinary American voters. That hate, in huge numbers, persists today.
When the 2008 campaign began I hoped that Hillary would not go for the Democratic nomination. Not because I didn't like her a lot (I did), but because she had (unfairly) become the lightning rod for ignorant and irrational blue collar and right wing hate.
Then Obama emerged and his challenge to Hillary brought out the worst in both Bill and Hillary.
So, not only do I think Obama is an outstanding person and candidate, I also believe that Hillary would get destroyed in a GE, even against McCain.
Not only does Hillary have the huge number of voters that hated her before. Now she (and Bill) has a significant # of Democrats against her, who supported Bill (and Hillary) up until 2000, but no more.
I don't mean to be disrespectful when I say that my generation had their chance with Bill in the nineties. That's in the past.
I'm still a progressive, and Obama is the progressive candidate for this decade.

Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie

by toyomama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:02:37 AM EST

Re: Hello 1950Democrat (2.00 / 2)

toyomama,

I am a fellow Obama supporter. I'm a 27-yr-old mixed-race male. I respect your liberal experience and positions on the issues. However, as it currently stands I disagree with you that Hillary should not have run because "she had unfairly become the lighting rod for ignorant and irrational blue collar and right wing hate." In the same vein, I disagreed with those blacks who did not want Obama to run for President (before Iowa) because they felt that America wasn't ready for a black president. I believe it is always right to challenge the status quo when the status quo is wrong. I am curious, however, to know more of your reasons for not wanting her to run. I don't think you are wrong -- I think the issue is a matter of opinion -- and being who I am and given my life experiences, it's hard for me to understand your viewpoint... I would like to understand more if you could share your experiences and views a little more.

I do agree, however, that Hillary has changed. I don't know if it was her experience in the White House, her experience in the Senate, or in this campaign, but the worst has been brought out in her. I believe she wasn't always this bad and that at her core she's a better person. I think she's very smart and I respect her fight. But she's not the right person for what we need now.

by itsobamastupid on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:49:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0)

As I said, I really like Hillary.

But if I told you here some new reasons why I can't support her, especially since early February, it would just hurt more good people here that don't deserve to have me adding to their disappointment and bitterness.

Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie

by toyomama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:03:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hello 1950Democrat (2.00 / 1)

Hm. You might take a closer look at the Dem base and blue-collar support Hillary is getting now.

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:02:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cripes, '50Dem I wish I knew (2.00 / 1)

what the base of progressive Americans of good will is, any more.

All I know is I didn't take Obama very seriously until I watched him speak on TV a few times.
He was head and shoulders over any progressive I've seen since RFK. His race didn't even occur to me. (good for me, that's the way I raised my 'color blind' children).

I decided to go to the Dem caucus here in Anchorage, (which usually has had around 70 party faithful in attendance for the past 30 years). But holy shit, the traffic was backed up for 2 miles (in Anchorage, remember) to get to the middle school. After parking almost a mile away, there were at least 3-4000 people, all pressed together and wishing they'd brushed their teeth earlier.

Even though a bunch of us lefty activists took over the '72 Alaska state convention and got a lot of McGovern delegates, I was still amazed at the 2008 spontaneous turnout for Obama in this, 'normally', very, very red state.

Do I have any 'evidence' for you? Probably not that you'd like.

But this 'cranky old culture warrior' is sick and tired of the old DLC crap.

And this Toyomama is goin' with Obama.
Q.E.D. That's all she wrote.

Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie

by toyomama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:38:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are You Talking To Me, Skippy? (1.75 / 4)

So what's your resume of progressive achievements?

Besides nasty blogging from your bedroom, in your bunny pajamas?

It's easy to be rude and courageous when you're hiding who you really are, behind the anonymous shield of the internet.

Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie

by toyomama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:03:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are You Talking To Me, Skippy? (none / 0)

heh. Bunny PJs. :)

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:30:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Video. (none / 0)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:03:45 AM EST

hillary could be electible if she won fairly.... (2.00 / 2)

but she has no path to being a viable general election candidate at this point. Obama will be perceived as the one who earned it before Clinton stole it away with party influence. our base will stay home, period.

she could have a surprise swing with women voters that isn't showing up in polls though.

still, not more electable.

by omar little on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:10:26 AM EST

to answer your question more specifically- (none / 0)

i would need to see evidence that Obama is incapable of winning over large segments of the Latino population and older democrats. (her strengths) that would be the only way that i would see her as more electable, but i just think they will hop on board once Obama is the nominee.

by omar little on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:15:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: to answer your question more specifically- (none / 0)

What would you consider solid evidence that these strong Hillary demographics would not jump aboard for Obama?

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:32:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0)

latino leaders talking about McCain, polling.

Hillary has got to have higher approvals than 36% though, that is just awful.

by omar little on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:22:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well... (none / 0)

Hillary has got to have higher approvals than 36% though, that is just awful.

Higher among whom? Are there any groups you could leave out of that, such as extreme RightWingers?

And suppose Obama's approvals fell to meet hers?

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:30:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

his wont fall that far (none / 0)

higher generally and specifically it MUST rise among AA, working class men, and the youth. I'm not sure how old you are, but the 18-25 demographic WILL NOT show up for Hillary.

as much as I am tempted to agree that we shouldnt care about extreme rightwingers, they are what put Bush over the top in 04, im not thinking nominating a candidate who energizes them to come out for the guy they ALMOST werent gonna come out for is a good idea.

by omar little on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:39:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: his wont fall that far (none / 0)

That's what makes this fascinating. The traits that give a candidate high 'fav's among Group 1, can give him/her high 'unfav's among Group 2. So we have to balance how many Group 1's are likely to turn out to vote FOR vs how many Group 2's are likely to turn out to vote AGAINST. (And whether the other candidate might get as many or more AGAINST votes from Group 2 or Group 3 or ....)

So does a single nationwide, all demographics 'fav'/'unfav' rating really tell us much about electability?

And if a candidate has both high 'fav's AND high 'unfav's -- ie draws both strong supporters and strong opponents -- is that better or worse than someone whose figures are closer to the middle?

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:14:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well... (none / 0)

I am not sure that you can leave right-wingers out of the metric. There are a number of conservatives who would vote for Obama this time as a protest against McCain but would never vote for Hillary.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

RW for Obama? (none / 0)

There are a number of conservatives who would vote for Obama this time as a protest against McCain but would never vote for Hillary.

First I've heard of them. I've heard a lot about some of them preferring HIllary over McCain. Not to bog this diary down in transient details, but do you have a site where RW for O hang out or an article about them or something?

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: RW for Obama? (none / 0)

Admittedly, a lot of reports of Republican support for Obama are anecdotal. My landlord, a long time Republican, watched the Iowa results come in with me and told me that he was going to vote for Obama if he won the primary. After Obama's race speech, I got a call from a Republican friend who told me the same. etc. I travel in very political circles and I have never heard a Republican say the same for Hillary.

There are objective indicators that Obama will do substantially better among Republicans than will Clinton. For example, take the fact that he had been securing the larger chunk of Republican votes in all the contests until Limbaugh started to spur his supporter to vote for her to mess with our election. Also, take all of the Republicans who have endorsed him. Susan Eisenhower (Dwight's granddaughter), Linc Chafee (former Senator), John Anderson (former Congressman), come to mind. Then there are those Republicans who, while not endorsing him, speak very highly of him like the Republican governor of South Carolina. I have not heard of any Republican endforsements of Hillary, if you know of any please let me know. I think its relatively common knowledge that the Republicans, by and large, despise Hillary while they may not have as strong feelings against Obama.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A 10 contest win streak with large margins (2.00 / 3)

And having Hillary supporters stop questioning my intelligence/calling me an elitist, and an end to the bashing on my state's electoral traditions.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:30:44 AM EST

Re: A 10 contest win streak with large margins (none / 0)

...and an end to the bashing on my state's electoral traditions.

You're from Minnesota, correct, Student Guy? Well, there's nothing to bash about our state's electoral traditions. When another state hits 80% turnout, 69% turnout among voters 25 and under, 60% turnout in an off-year election, and hasn't vote for a Republican for president since 1972 and only 3 times since 1932, then we'll talk.

by RP McMurphy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:39:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A 10 contest win streak with large margins (none / 0)

Darn straight but I am told that MN doesn't matter.

Glad to see another MN person.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question for non-Hillary supporters (2.00 / 2)

When the campaigning started, I thought that any combination of Hillary and Obama would be great. I didn't care which candidate was on top. As the campaigning went on, I steadily began disliking Hillary more and more. I began liking Edwards more and more. Then I wanted Obama and Edwards. My support of Hillary eventually turned into disdain. The first thing that tipped the scales was her blame of the Iraqis, categorically, for their situation... saying that we've done everything and gave them everything we could. I wholeheartedly disagree with that position. Then Hillary began to deceive voters about Obama on important issues. For example, check this out on how she deceived voters on Obama's position on reproductive rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Then more lies, more deceit, agreeing to rules in MI and FL and then wanting to change them in her favor, not congratulating Obama on primary wins while he always congratulated her, dismissing the importance of states won by Obama, pretty much endorsing McCain and questioning whether Obama had crossed the "Presidential threshold," attacking Obama for Rovian tactics that were actually applied by her own campaign against Obama, etc.... there's so much more... just look at headlines from the past week (more lies, more deceit).

There's absolutely nothing Hillary can do to regain my support. If by some miracle she wins the primary, I'll vote for her in the general election because I'm not an idiot -- I know what's at stake. Unfortunately, I don't think many of the less educated Hillary supporters understand the situation. They'll continue to believe that Hillary is someone she's not and because they believe her campaign's (including Penn's) lies about Obama they'll either not vote or vote for McCain out of spite. I just hope they don't complain for the next 40 years while we have a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court, a growing military industrial complex, no universal health insurance (if CA didn't pass a similar plan, she won't get one through nationally), and an even more partisan country than we have now.

by itsobamastupid on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:31:10 AM EST

volunteers and small donors (2.00 / 2)

at the level of 70-80% of the Obama campaign would be a start.

But honestly, if HRC was a strong candidate in the general she would have parlayed her early advantages to winning the primary much earlier than this.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:42:21 AM EST

by 1950democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Such figures might be findable -- but what sources would you accept?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

What does a Black man have to do to get your support besides win the Dem nomination?

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:02:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by interestedbystander on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:03:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If they were findable we would have heard about them, this has been a big issue and there have been attempts to put a good spin on Hillary's donor stats, but it just isn't there.