White Candidate Can't Catch a Break

I was, of course, joking below about Hillary Clinton's good chances among DC's mostly female, mostly working class primary electorate. My working class neighbors and fellow Districters are, naturally, mostly black and, as such, don't count as "working class" for the purposes of the media's electoral analysis and the Clinton campaign has repeatedly emphasized that elections in states (or pseudo-state entities like DC and the Virgin Islands) with too many black people don't count.

Still, it's strange how wide this blackout net seems to have been cast. DC is one thing, but the Clinton campaign's conceit that a white person can't get ahead in the politics of Maryland and Virginia is just bizarre. Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Governor Martin O'Malley, Governor Tim Kaine, and Senator Jim Webb are all white Democrats who've had some success in the mid-Atlantic region. Cardin even had to run against a black guy in the primary. It's true that Maryland, in particular, has relatively few white people (only Texas, New Mexico, California, and Hawaii are less white) but plenty of white folks seem to be doing okay. The real truth of the matter is that Clinton seems doomed in these states just because she's chosen to not seriously contest them.

Comments

She's doomed because Obama is getting a significant amount of support from white voters as well as overwhelming support from blacks.

There's a difference between the statements (1) Blacks overwhelmingly support Obama and (2) only blacks support Obama.

Posted by gustav | February 12, 2008 10:17 AM

One part Clinton spin, three parts trying to keep the horse race going so they have something to write about for a while longer? It would be boring if they declared the whole thing over already, plus they'd have egg on the faces if Clinton somehow pulls it out. Better to go with any story line, however silly, that says she's still in it.

Posted by Not Prince Hamlet | February 12, 2008 10:21 AM

"The real truth of the matter is that Clinton seems doomed in these states just because she's chosen to not seriously contest them."

Correct. And as I've pointed out already, there's really no proof African Americans are more likely to vote for fellow African Americans except for polls and exit polls which we found out after New Hampshire is inherently unreliable.

Posted by TLM | February 12, 2008 10:21 AM

The real truth of the matter is that Clinton seems doomed in these states just because she's chosen to not seriously contest them.

I suspect it's a little more complicated than that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 12, 2008 10:23 AM

She should ask Tommy Carcetti for advice

Posted by CJH | February 12, 2008 10:28 AM

Obama's recent successes are surely well earned. He's attracted many people to his candidacy. I wonder when we'll see The Right bring up what I fear coming. Here goes: "You people couldn't even get it together to nominate your "strongest" candidate, your most experienced person late in the race. You've turned out your presumptive nominee for an inexperienced upstart, thrusting an untested neophyte onto the national stage."
I see The Right turning the loathed Hillary into an object of pity, as if somehow the big, bad bully Obama rudely drop kicked her in the hallway leading to the acceptance podium. So ungentlemanly of him!

Posted by steve duncan | February 12, 2008 10:31 AM

Correct. And as I've pointed out already, there's really no proof African Americans are more likely to vote for fellow African Americans except for polls and exit polls which we found out after New Hampshire is inherently unreliable.

I think it's pretty obvious: Clinton was doing well with black voters (according to both polls and the endorsements she was getting) until right before the run-up to South Carolina. A few missteps resulted in a large majority of African-Americans leaving en masse. Then when they (the Clintons) noticed what was happening, they tried to paint Obama as the black candidate, a new Jesse Jackson. That didn't work either and now they're screwed. Poor management, poor planning, poor results.

Posted by Craig | February 12, 2008 10:32 AM

O'Malley was also Mayor of (the 2/3rds black) Baltimore.

For governor Parris Glendening was the longtime county executive for (again, 2/3rds black) Prince Georges county.

Cardin actually beat former longtime congressman and NAACP head Kweisi Mfume. (In a game of musical chairs, Cardin's house seat went to Paul Sarbanes's son, John.)

Politics along racial lines is certainly a important factor in Maryland, but it is not determinative.

Posted by md | February 12, 2008 10:32 AM

It's nothing new. Delaware's two senators, one representative, its governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, insurance commissioner, auditor, and treasurer are all white people, but Obama's win there doesn't count either. That's why Al Sharpton won the state in 2004 over John Kerry, and why Jesse Jackson won it twice in the 80s... right?

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 10:34 AM

Well, I did get an e-mail from Hillary's campaign at 11AM yesterday for a 2:30 event with Bill Clinton in Dundalk, but I think it might've just been a cover for Bill to get some sweet Dundalk lovin'.

Posted by Zach | February 12, 2008 10:41 AM

Matthew writes "Cardin even had to run against a black guy"

Wasn't this Steele? I looked this up, and I found out "Cardin is leading with 66 percent of the black vote, 24 percent now favor Steele." Pretty good proof blacks don't blindly vote for fellow blacks.

Posted by TLM | February 12, 2008 10:42 AM

You know, actually, given that New York is 17% black (compared to 19% for Virginia and 20% for Delaware), I'm genuinely shocked that the Clinton campaign hasn't tried to spin her defeat of Obama there as a massive upset on the order of winning Massachusetts.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 10:43 AM

I think after Hillary's MLK to LBJ comparision and some of Bill Clinton's comments after the NH primary, she has all but given up on the black vote.

Posted by MS | February 12, 2008 10:46 AM

Dundalk is probably the strongest part of Maryland for Clinton. She'll probably also do well in the western part of the state - places like Frederick, Hagerstown, and Cumberland - but those parts don't have so many democrats in them. Everywhere else, she'll get blown out.

Posted by Spike | February 12, 2008 10:50 AM

There are lots of places in Maryland where Hillary could do well. She's just not really trying, IMO.

Posted by MattF | February 12, 2008 10:52 AM

only Texas, New Mexico, California, and Hawaii are less white

I assume you mean non-Hispanic white people. Given that Hillary has no problem picking up the Latino vote, this metric seems pretty irrelevant. If you just look at the proportion of black voters, its Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia that have more (and SC has basically the same).

Posted by right | February 12, 2008 10:53 AM

TLM @ February 12, 2008 10:42 AM

Cardin beat Steele in the general, and Mfume in the primary. There hadn't been a republican Senetor in MD since before Mikulski, so Steele was running uphill. (Though, there hadn't been a republican Gov'r since Agnew, prior to Steele's bosses admin.)

Posted by md | February 12, 2008 10:54 AM

So, the subtext to Hil's strategy of concentrating on Texas and Ohio is that she's too broke to concentrate on today's races? That's how I'm reading it.

Posted by Shawn | February 12, 2008 10:55 AM

"I still wake up white in a city that ain't."

Posted by digamma | February 12, 2008 10:59 AM

The Clinton 'race-baiting' stuff in SC is way, way overblown. The Clinton's are not racist and there is nothing in their long history of public service that would label them as racist. Let's get real here. I personally feel that after SC, the black population realized that Obama had a real shot at winning and rallied to him nationwide. And I don't think there is anything wrong with someone pointing that out. It is not racist to point out that Obama is black and black people like him. Whether that will help or hurt in the general, we will see. Racism is alive and well in the US. If Obama gets the nomination, it will be a barometer of how far we have come. If he loses against John McCain, I hate to see the international headlines. I think McCain should be easy to beat in a general election, but these are the things that make me nervous.

Posted by JB | February 12, 2008 10:59 AM

Just a guess: perhaps she's broadcasting the dog whistle in hopes of increasing the white vote in Texas and elsewhere.

Posted by plum | February 12, 2008 11:00 AM

JB @ "The Clinton 'race-baiting' stuff in SC is way, way overblown."

No it is not overblown. Explain to me why Barack Obama is a fairy tale. Explain to me why Barack Obama is a kid, an old word used for black slaves. Explain to me why the white male LBJ deserved the credit for the civil rights movement rather than the slain African American MLK. No one has explained it because no one can.

Posted by TLM | February 12, 2008 11:05 AM

JB -- The complaint about Clinton's SC strategy was never about them being racist, it was about them cynically using racism.

Posted by plum | February 12, 2008 11:09 AM

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here other than to twist the knife in the wounds of Team HRC, but I would make the basic point that the reason Clinton isn't contesting more states is because they've been having quite serious cash flow problems since December. If they had the money, they'd be competing harder. Since they don't, they have to pick and choose their battles. Such is the determinative role of money in electoral politics.

Further, to be fair, I think the point the Clinton campaign has been trying make is that aside from South Carolina, the Obama campaign hasn't particularly worked all that hard to win the votes of African-Americans. Sure, he does a mega rally here and there, but he doesn't spend a lot of time and effort talking about issues of particular or unique concern to African-Americans, other than the occasional odd Cosby-esque riff on Cousin Pookie needing to turn off the TV and pull up his pants. Still, he peforms off the charts with African-American voters. If you were simply looking at the racial voting patterns in many of these primaries featuring large African-American electorates, you would think that Obama was running against a Republican, that's how well he does.

So, how to explain that? Well, lots of anecdotal evidence suggests that African-Americans are uniting as a community around Obama's candidacy less because they believe Obama's an heir to MLK, or because they now think that Bill & Hillary plan to hold Klan meetings in the West Wing, but instead because the uplifting nature of Obama's campaign and its remarkably good prospects for success, allow African-Americans as a community to make a unique world-historical statement about the level of progress and empowerment and sophistication of their community. There is literally nothing Clinton could ever do or say to overcome this.

Anytime one segment of the electorate consistently performs at levels approaching 90% for one candidate and turns out for primaries at a near-general election pace, it will radically distort the electoral environment. In South Carolina and Alabama, Barack Obama literally didn't need the support of a single white voter to win those primaries.

I don't think I'm being controversial to say that white Democratic primary voters are less motivated by the prospect of using Hillary Clinton's candidacy as an opportunity to make larger statement about the progress of the white community. The historical heritage of anti-white disempowerment just isn't there to make this an urgent desire. Similarly, white women, despite the Clinton campaign's best efforts, haven't united around Clinton's candidacy as an opportunity to make a communal statement to the degree that African-Americans have with Obama (to some degree they obviously have done this).

The basic point here is that to the degree that the national Democratic primary electorate can be segmented racially into three basic groups (AAs, Whites, and Hispanic whites & blacks), Clinton has less access to the AA segment, than does Obama have access to either the white or hispanic segment. This clearly puts her at a fundamental disadvantage in states with large AA populations, and in the overall delegate race because a great many delegates are tied to majority/plurality-AA congressional districts.

Bottom-line: to the degree that the Clinton campaign is arguing that states like Maryland and Virginia place her at a structural disadvantage (I wouldn't go so far to call it unfair), I think that is a reasonable point to make it, and it shouldn't be ridiculed as simple sore-loser-ism.

Posted by dry_fish | February 12, 2008 11:09 AM

So that's the strategy? Don't play and you won't lose? It's a little late for that, isn't it?

Posted by Phoebe | February 12, 2008 11:13 AM

The Clinton 'race-baiting' stuff in SC is way, way overblown. The Clinton's are not racist and there is nothing in their long history of public service that would label them as racist. Let's get real here.

It is not overblown in the least. It was a concerted strategy to turn Obama into Jesse Jackson. Bill even called him Jesse Jackson!

And it's not that the Clintons are racists. I don't believe they are, which makes their tactics 10x worse. What kind of principles do you have if you're not personally racist but employ racist tactics yourself? That's what I find truly galling.

Posted by Jen | February 12, 2008 11:13 AM

Jen, thanks for reminding me about the Jesse Jackson comment by the Clintons. How is Obama's victory in South Carolina similar to Jesse Jackson's victory in South Carolina? I see nothing and only a race baiter could see any similarity.

Posted by TLM | February 12, 2008 11:20 AM

Well, I think that dry_fish's analysis seems dead-on correct...so I guess it must be wrong!

Posted by RKU | February 12, 2008 11:21 AM

Bottom-line: to the degree that the Clinton campaign is arguing that states like Maryland and Virginia place her at a structural disadvantage (I wouldn't go so far to call it unfair), I think that is a reasonable point to make it, and it shouldn't be ridiculed as simple sore-loser-ism.

People would be less likely to ridicule it as sore-loser-ism if she wasn't making similar-but-different arguments about other states where this reality doesn't exist but where she's losing for entirely different reasons. And she's coming up with convenient scapegoats for her losses in these other places, too, and outright saying that votes in some of these states flat-out don't count (Idaho, North Dakota, Alaska). Every state she loses she seems to have a host of reasons why it doesn't matter that much.

"We didn't contest it and the Obama campaign invested heavily."
"It's a caucus state; we can't win in those."
"There are lots of black voters."
"These states aren't going to be won in the general election, so never mind turning out Dems for congressional fights, they just don't matter."

We get to states like Maine where she, her husband, and her daughter all campaigned heavily and she ran a lot of ads, or Washington where (again) she heavily contested the state, and she dismisses those losses afterwards as irrelevant. A graceful politician will take their losses, put a positive spin on things, and focus on what's ahead -- but she's just acting like these losses are meaningless, and that's not an endearing character trait, which is why you're seeming lots of mocking.

It'd be one thing if Obama's victories were confined to the states with large black populations, but they're not. And there is, whether you want to accept it or not, lots of lingering annoyance/anger over Bill Clinton's attempt in the middle of voting in South Carolina to tar Obama as the exclusively "Black Candidate." While many of the racial stuff was overblown, that line wasn't.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 11:23 AM

Racism is alive and well in the US.
So is sexism. We're taking a "roll of the dice," to quote Bill, with either candidate in that respect.

Posted by Chaos | February 12, 2008 11:33 AM

For what it's worth, Carcetti (O'Malley) is supporting Clinton.

Posted by k | February 12, 2008 11:38 AM

I think the comparison between the Cardin/Mfume campaign and the Clinton/Obama campaign in MD is instructive. In each case, the black candidate received strong support from black voters. If anything, I expect that Clinton will get a slightly higher percentage of black votes than Cardin did.

However, Obama will win or come close to winning a majority of the white vote, whereas Mfume lost badly. And I don't think this tells us very much about the difference between Obama and Mfume. Both are charismatic speakers with solid legislative credentials and strong leadership qualities. The crucial difference is between Cardin and Clinton.

For mine own part, I liked Mfume and seriously considered voting for him. But Ben Cardin had an extremely strong record as a detail-oriented progressive legislator, and he convinced me he was the right person to succeed Paul Sarbanes in the Senate. When he played the experience card, it meant that he was an experienced legislator running for a position in a legislative body. When Clinton plays the experience card, it means that she's an experienced political operative who mostly worked for her husband, and she's now running to be President of the United States. Her seven years in elected office are mostly notable for hawkish posturing that backfired. Her only distinct portfolio in the Clinton White House was health care, and we all remember how much of a debacle that was.

It's a tougher sale, and she hasn't made it.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 12, 2008 11:45 AM

You don't see anything similar between Obama's victory in SC and Jackson's? How about one glaring commonality---both lost the white vote by a wide margin and enjoyed landslide support amongst blacks. Clinton, incidentally, made the JJ comment on the day of the election. There was no concerted effort to paint Obama with any particular brush. And on the merits, in southern states, the demographic break-down has, for Obama, favorably mirrored Jackson's own coalition. Look at AL and LA? White/Black divide is tremendous.

As for Matt's absolutely asinine argument---no one, not any Clinton supporter, surrogate, or campaign operative is claiming WHITES cannot win in MD, VA, or DC. What we're claiming is that given the ridiculous and undeserved negative press about the Clintons in the black community, given the historical opportunity that african-american's see in BO's candidacy, and given the appeal of Obama as a politician and as a man, he's is starting out with a 9:1 advantage amongst a minority group that comprises a significant proportion of the population; for Clinton, this is an almost insurmountable barrier. That is what we are saying. It's absurd to bring up O'Malley, Mikulski, or all those DE politicians that one of the later commenters does. Under similar circumstances, all of them would've wilted and lost. Those situations are in no way analogous. It's the most vapid argument I've seen made on these pages. Stop the blatant shilling for Obama...PLEASE. I come here for some semblance of objective and smart analysis. This is borderline retarded.

Posted by john | February 12, 2008 11:48 AM

LaFollette Progressive, I think your explanation is too complex and I believe a simpler answer suffices. The simpler answer is that the Clintons played the race card in South Carolina and because of that African Americans are voting for Barack in droves. By Occams Razor this is the far more likely explanation.

Posted by TLM | February 12, 2008 11:51 AM

Clinton seems doomed in these states just because she's chosen to not seriously contest them. Clinton tried to contest Virginia for a while but gave up in despair and starting looking around for excuses for herself. She gave up. She appears now to have given up on Wisconsin too and offers no reason why. Instead she she says she's looking forward to Ohio. I don't see much difference between Ohio and Wisconsin. She's giving up fullstop.

In reply to dry_fish. Clinton has high levels of money by historical standards. Furthermore money isn't of great importance to her campaign because she's already a household name and she's one of only two candidates remaining which means she gets tons of free media. As an example in contrast, Romney's campaign needed and had lots of money to introduce Romney to the masses, but McCain still won without nearly as much spending. McCain didn't need as much because he was already a household name. Also by the way Clinton won 37% of the Black vote in New York just last Tuesday. She'll be lucky to get 17% in Chesapeake today, due to her poor campaigning.

Posted by Clinton is a loser | February 12, 2008 11:54 AM

TLM, at first I thought you were a very dense conservative troll. But I'm starting to think that you're actually a clever parody troll. Occam's Razor is a nice touch.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 12, 2008 11:55 AM

The caucuses are irrelevant, as are states with large black voter blocs. Irrelevant not to the delegate count, of course, but to the larger point about who can win in the general.

If Obama wins Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, then he'll prove that he can rise above demographics. He'd have to win all of them pretty big to prove it, though.

Otherwise, Hillary points out that a guy who can't depend on anyone other than white elites and blacks is not going to win against McCain.

Posted by Cal | February 12, 2008 11:59 AM

Yes, Cardin may have faced a black man in his primary, but he wasn't the first black man with a serious chance at the presidency. And, after the Clintons' disgusting behavior in South Carolina, I don't really think blacks should vote for them. But this should hide the fact that many black people are voting for Obama because he is black. Of course, there's more to it than just that. But I think it's unfair to say that Hillary doesn't have something of a disadvantage in states with a substantially black electorate. The same goes for Hillary with women; many seem attracted to her campaign because they identify with her. But she won't only lose today because she hasn't tried hard enough, although you're right that she hasn't.

Posted by Robert | February 12, 2008 12:02 PM

You don't see anything similar between Obama's victory in SC and Jackson's?

Nope. Jackson was born in South Carolina, Jackson was the only candidate who campaigned in South Carolina (since in 84, SC was on the same day as Michigan, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Puerto Rico, and three days before the Illinois primary that Mondale and Hart WERE competing for). And oh yeah, South Carolina was a caucus then. We've heard how much those disenfranchise people like Walter Mondale and Hillary Clinton.

Of course, that was 1984... when Jackson finished in second place. Uncommitted was in first. Jackson actually won the state in 1988, but again, Gore and Dukakis were focusing on Michigan and Illinois.

And on the merits, in southern states, the demographic break-down has, for Obama, favorably mirrored Jackson's own coalition. Look at AL and LA? White/Black divide is tremendous.

No, actually, the demographic breakdown hasn't mirrored Jackson's coalition. In Alabama, Obama got 21% of the white Democratic vote and 31% of white independents. In 1988, Jackson got... 6% of the total white vote. The same holds true in Louisiana: Jackson got 6% whereas Obama got a quarter of white Democratic votes and a whopping 45% of white independents (Clinton, for what it's worth, got 42% of white independents; yes, less than Obama). How about Georgia? 6% again for Jackson, but Obama got 38% of white Democrats and 46% of white independents.

That's not what we call "mirroring" in my world.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 12:13 PM

I would like to announce my stealth candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. You may not have heard of me and I may not have won any votes - but that is because I have been outspent by $200 million dollars by my main opponents and I have not contested any states. Attributing front-runner status to them would be preposterous because they have not proven that they can win in states that I am contesting (which, so far, would be none of them). So I am telling you that though I may be an underdog, I am still very much in this race.

The states that voted for Obama or Clinton didn't count because they either have too many women, black people, Latinos or Asians - or they were caucus states. When we get to states that don't favor the Obama or Clinton demographics, you will see the Nate for President bandwagon start to fill. Believe it!

Posted by Nate | February 12, 2008 12:14 PM

John,

It's also worth noting that Jackson hadn't won the lily white Iowa by 8%, or narrowly lost the also-lily white New Hampshire by 2%. But I guess that doesn't fit into your narrative about what Jackson's coalition vs. Obama's coalition looked like.

If anyone's curious about the numbers, check Washington Post or New York Observer.

Cal,

Irrelevant not to the delegate count, of course, but to the larger point about who can win in the general. If Obama wins Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, then he'll prove that he can rise above demographics. He'd have to win all of them pretty big to prove it, though.

Wow. So the only way Obama can prove that he's capable of winning a general election is by winning Ohio, Texas, AND Pennsylvania by big margins? Clinton supporters are hitting a ridiculous new low in their desperate arguments.

Caucuses don't prove he can win and neither does winning Missouri, Utah, Connecticut, possibly New Mexico, and maybe Minnesota next week; neither does winning the white vote in California; neither does winning the independent voters by massive margins in Missouri, Arizona, California, New Hampshire, and, well, everywhere else. We sure know a general election candidate doesn't need them. The winning coalition of 65 year old ladies and Hispanic voters is one that'll win everywhere.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 12:32 PM

"Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Governor Martin O'Malley, Governor Tim Kaine, and Senator Jim Webb are all white Democrats who've had some success in the mid-Atlantic region. Cardin even had to run against a black guy in the primary. "

So did Tommy Carcetti.

Posted by Jeff | February 12, 2008 12:38 PM

Clinton has been running hard for Virginia this past week. Seen way, way, way more Clinton t.v. ads than Obama over this period. Guess we all know where that $5m went. Bill Clinton has basically camped out there over the past week. And Hillary has been focused like a laser on working the affluent moderate cookie cutter suburbs, like Fairfax and Manassas.

Posted by Bubba | February 12, 2008 12:47 PM

Carcetti for President!

Who needs Karl Rove if he has Chris and Snoop.

Posted by Bubba | February 12, 2008 12:50 PM

On the politics, Clinton's moving the goal posts to forestall the media from hounding her out of the race. That may work for tonight, if everything goes as expected.

I don't see how the strategy can work for Wisconsin, which is demographically and procedurally in Clinton's (alleged) wheelhouse. It's a primary with white, working class, beer-track voters (admittedly, it's not a closed primary . . . but, c'mon). Further, Clinton led by 9 points in at least one poll conducted after super tuesday. Yet there seems to be no serious effort by the Clinton folks to hold that lead. If Clinton doesn't try in Wisconsin and loses, I think the media forces her out or Obama runs the table.

Posted by southpaw | February 12, 2008 12:58 PM

Sooo how come Obama has won as many primaries as HRC if caucuses are where she has such a disadvantage?

Seems to me that despite having over a 100M dollar war chest HRC lacks the executive ability to run a campaign and that speaks volumes about her being ready on day one.

Her campaign started with formidable advantages, name recognition and all the fat cat money donors wrapped up. She was up in the polls by 20-30 pts nationally and yet she has barely won the primaries. She did not even get 60% of the vote in her home state of NY primary.

Yet Barack has walloped her in caucuses and primaries by garnering over 60% of the vote in WA, MN, SC, MA and LA.

I am so tired of the news media spining Obama's wins with the HRC talking points and diminishing his phenomenal accomplisments. Obama has taken on the best political machine out their with a 20 year history of running well and having a network of support, yet HRC is whinning about not winning caucuses?

All this says to me is that the fix was in. Obama was supposed to be done on Feb 5th as was any other opponent and HRC had no game plan for beyond that date. Her campaign invested heavily in IA and NH and CA...NY was considered a given. Those were the only states they had planned to run heavy campaigns in. The Clintons did not buy the 50 state strategy. They were simply going to run hard in CA, NY, OH, TX and FL...as those were considered Democratic and hispanic enough for them to win. The rest was just going to be hers on name recognition. Until Obama upset that fatally flawed strategy with his 50 state plan, superior ground organization and exceptional political skills. The story here is how the Clintons are being beat nationally from coast to coast, south and north and all in between in the Midwest.

The Clintons clung to the identity politics of the 90s and they are running the best version of a 90s model campaign ..the problem is this not the 90s. Obama is running a new millenium campaign and the Clintons do not have the cash to compete. Because they squandered it!! HRC had 2 planes one for the press and one for her? What a waste.

Obama is using new millenium techniques, with the internet, text messaging, phonebank web access and he is also running ads the to sweep the country. The Clintons are caught in his tail win and are marveling at just how phenomenal he is. Obama is making history and they know it.

The mainstream media simply have failed to give him that acknowledgement as they prefer to push the whinning storyline of The Clintons.

Go Barack. Let's change the world...check out these videos for an inspiring message the first is about 5mins and the second 7mins. It is clear the interviewer thought he could railroad Derrick but he held his own in the first, and the second one Derrick tells us his background...he is impressive and his story is moving...check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM&eurl=http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/page/4/

Obama is changing the world!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2zO5d-XZWA&eurl=http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/video-obama-supporter-derrick-responds-to-his-video/

Posted by vicissitudes | February 12, 2008 1:01 PM

Wow. So the only way Obama can prove that he's capable of winning a general election is by winning Ohio, Texas, AND Pennsylvania by big margins?

Yes. Because otherwise, he hasn't demonstrated any ability to capture the white and Hispanic vote. Caucuses don't count because they skew extremely liberal--that's the tiny percentage of the overall that shows up for caucuses.

And oops--I forgot to update the stats for Utah. So go to the exit polls and lo! The only Utah people voting for Dems in the primary are white liberals. Obama wins them. There's a shock.

The only "real" wins he's had are in Missouri, Connecticut, and, I suppose, Utah. Utah's primaries and Connecticut the state skew heavily white liberal (for different reasons) . Thus the only genuine battle that Obama has won for a demographically mixed state is Missouri--and he barely won it.

The rest of these states Hillary beat him like a drum. And don't kid yourself about the value of women over 45 and Hispanics, or about the likelihood that a lot of independent voters will go to the darling they've loved longer--McCain.

Clinton supporters are hitting a ridiculous new low in their desperate arguments.

To say I prefer Hillary to Obama is an understatment, of course. I think Obama is an empty face in a nice suit with a pretty voice. He would be an incompetent president and we wouldn't even be having this much of a conversation if he wasn't black.

But I haven't made up my mind whether I'd vote for Hillary or McCain in the general, so I can't technically be considered a Hillary supporter. I voted for McCain in my particular primary, as I'm registered Republican.

See, the thing is, this isn't the electoral college. The Dem leadership can do anything they want to. If Hillary wins TOP big, then the credentials committee will seat Florida and do some sort of partial allocation for Michigan, is my guess. It's entirely legal.

So Obama supporters should not hang their hopes on the delegate count. Dems want to win the election. If Obama can't demonstrate the ability to win, they'll seat Michigan and Florida.

Posted by Cal | February 12, 2008 1:14 PM

I want to get back to the Cardin/Mfume race as a comparison for Maryland.

Let's get back to what LP actually said: Obama is likely to get about the same share of the black vote as Mfume got.

Where Obama has the advantage is that he's doing much better in the white vote than Mfume did.

Hear that again: Obama wins Maryland, where Mfume lost, not because of his strong share of the black vote, but because he splits the white vote with Clinton.

Posted by John | February 12, 2008 1:26 PM

The problem with the Clinton campaign emphasizing their wins in solidly Democratic areas is that hanging on only to what we won in 2000 or 2004 is a loser's strategy because, if you remember, we lost those elections. "Oh, but she's making a play for Ohio and Florida." Big whoop. First of all, you're assuming we don't lose any states we won before. Second, to win over the purple states, you need... you guessed it, independent voters. They may be attracted to McCain, but if you're strategy is to completely write them off, then your strategy is to lose. Third, if all you're shooting for is a narrow victory, then it better work perfectly or else you lose. It's like in baseball: if you're playing to just score one run, that's all you're going to get.

Somebody over on DailyKos said that a can of Pringles with a D next to their name could win in November in California and New York. In other words, your ability to do well in states we can safely put in our bag doesn't mean crap. We need somebody shown to appeal to crossover voters, ESPECIALLY against John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is not that candidate.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 12, 2008 1:30 PM

Ugh... scratch my "you're" up there and replace it with a "your." Honest, it fit the first way I drafted that sentence.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 12, 2008 1:37 PM

Cal,

Obama wins in red states and blue states. Big states and little states. He wins amongst die-hard liberals and independents (he threatens to retake the Reagan Democrats). He's made steady gains amongst blacks, whites, hispanics, men and women. He has the best managed campaign and the most active supporters. He is leading in cash on hand, fundraising ability, percentage of the popular vote, and number of delegates.

His campaign has done all of this, despite facing a primary opponent who has began with massive advantages in name recognition, locking up major fundraisers and access to state party machines

I can understand, as a Republican, you'd want Hillary to be the nominee in the fall, but if she doesn't win Wisconsin AND Hawaii AND Pennsylvania AND Ohio AND Texas, she doesn't have a chance.

Posted by ben | February 12, 2008 1:45 PM

And oops--I forgot to update the stats for Utah. So go to the exit polls and lo! The only Utah people voting for Dems in the primary are white liberals. Obama wins them. There's a shock.

Liberals voting in a Democratic primary? Heavens to Betsy, someone alert the authorities! So... Obama wins in white Utah but that doesn't count because it's a primary dominated by liberals. In reality, though, when we look at the exit polls and see a liberal/moderate/conservative split of 52/39/10, that difference is virtually meaningless next to the l/m/c split we see in Clinton states like New Jersey (51/41/9), Massachusetts (59/34/7), Arizona (49/38/13), or California (50/37/13).

The only "real" wins he's had are in Missouri, Connecticut, and, I suppose, Utah.

Amazing. After next week we may have seen him win in 24 states, but only 3 count. This spin would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Have you guys prepared your explanation yet for why Wisconsin won't count?

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 1:55 PM

"Yes. Because otherwise, he hasn't demonstrated any ability to capture the white and Hispanic vote. Caucuses don't count because they skew extremely liberal--that's the tiny percentage of the overall that shows up for caucuses."

Cal,

In state after state, Obama has actually beaten Clinton among white independent voters. Moreover, while he only gathered about 40% of the white vote in the large states near NY (MA and NJ), he tied with her among white voters in CA. Moreover, Clinton's wins among white voters in states like MA or NJ are in large part to her overwhelming success in getting the votes of white women. Among white male voters in the Democratic primaries, Obama has been matching her, and in many states even beating her.

Clinton has been beating Obama among non-black minority voters, but that doesn't mean that such voters won't vote for Obama in the general election. Whatever personal appeal McCain has among Hispanics and Asians will be squandered once the Republicans began their usual campaigns against illegal immigrants. The nativist animus that the Republicans consistently put across when they begin demogoging about immigrants will alienate whatever affections that Hispanic and Asian affectons may currently feel about John McCain.

Posted by eltoro | February 12, 2008 2:05 PM

Somebody over on DailyKos said that a can of Pringles with a D next to their name could win in November in California and New York.

Then someone over at DailyKos is a moron--well, all of them are morons, so that's no surprise.

He lost the Hispanics and the Asians huge, and when the news gets out about Obama wanting to remove the SocSec cap, he'll lose a good number of whites in the general. The Republicans are running McCain. I'm not saying California will go Republican in that case, but Obama would have to work much, much harder than Clinton would to keep it blue.

(he threatens to retake the Reagan Democrats).

He's losing the Reagan Democrats by 20% or more. You haven't convinced yourself that's who is voting for him in Nebraska, have you? He's winning red states because they are caucuses.

He is leading in cash on hand, fundraising ability, percentage of the popular vote, and number of delegates.

He's not winning the third, and that's the only one that will matter when the Dems decide who they'll put up. He's lost the primary elections, and he's lost it by even more when you look at states where he wasn't helped by 30% black voting blocs.

I can understand, as a Republican, you'd want Hillary to be the nominee in the fall,

You clearly missed my comment that I was "registered Republican", which is a whole lot different than being a Republican. I'm not a party player one way or the other. I'd like Hillary to win the nomination because I like Hillary and think she's the better candidate than Obama--and because if for some reason the REpublicans completely lose their ability to run a campaign, I don't want the country destroyed by an incompetent. It's unlikely, but I want to eliminate even the smallest possiibility that Obama could stumble into the White House, even though the Republicans will smash him without trying.

People who think Obama is the better candidate in the general are seriously deluded--or, in the case of Republicans, probably lying.

Posted by Cal | February 12, 2008 2:06 PM

I haven't made up my mind whether I'd vote for Hillary or McCain in the general

I was "registered Republican", which is a whole lot different than being a Republican

if for some reason the REpublicans completely lose their ability to run a campaign, I don't want the country destroyed by an incompetent

Cal, how confused are you? In 2008, you, as a registered Republican, are worried about incompetence in government? Furthermore, you think that Hillary, who can't even manage a primary campaign with all the advantages in the world, would provide the most competent governance? If she can't manage a $100 million budget and a staff of thousands, how will she be able to manage a budget of trillions and a staff of millions? And you call her the best (and most competent) candidate?

He's not winning the [delegates]

What is the color of the sky on that planet of yours? He was leading in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday. She was trounced in the weekend contests and looks to be beaten solidly today. To even tie, she would have to win every remaining contest by very significant margins.

Posted by ben | February 12, 2008 2:18 PM

I think after Hillary's MLK to LBJ comparision and some of Bill Clinton's comments after the NH primary, she has all but given up on the black vote.
Posted by MS

It is a shame that blacks are so ignorant of who was important and did what in the Civil Rights movement. King was just one of many player. Most of the landmark moments, he had little or nothing to do with. If truth be told, instead of Saint Martin's apotheosis - the NAACP legal group, the Jewish liberal-communist moneymen and lawyers like Stanley Levinson with the funds, organizing ability, even speechwriting talent quietly backing King and the NAACP behind the scenes, LBJ, the moderate wing of the Republican Party, other critical leaders like Evers & Abernathy, black radical groups, LBJ again, and even Nixon with EEO, affirmative action (made a monster after he left office) and in vowing to implement school desegregation nationwide after the limited court rulings before, and doing so - had equal to or greater than Saint Martin's impact.
Even Rosa Parks is now cast as Saint Martin's little helper, rather than a NAACP activist that did her thing not knowing Saint Martin's name when she did it.
Hillary was being historically accurate. No LBJ forging a bipartisan consensus to defeat the Southern Dems in JFK's martyred name - no Civil Rights Act.

JB - If Obama gets the nomination, it will be a barometer of how far we have come. If he loses against John McCain, I hate to see the international headlines.

You are just playing identity politics. Where 100% of blacks voting for a black candidate is OK and has a higher claim to a true barometer of "uplifting" than women voting for a woman - in the "advancing progress" scheme of things. Where the "woman" redeemer must lose to the "black" redeemer to maximize progress and social justice.

Qualifications, stances on issues being irrelevant to group identity, of course...

And Obama loses to someone, even if it is because he is young, never done an executive job in his life but makes captivating speeches of little content? Well, obviously the non-blacks in America voting for McCain must be racist and the international Left will be hysterically mad at this and their mighty "headlines" will condemn voters. Big Fucking Deal.
Lets hope the more rational people overseas and in the US will see Obama as winning or losing on his merits, vs. making it all a matter of skin color, or why a black President is more deserving than a woman, a white woman, a latino, Mormon, etc...

Posted by chris ford | February 12, 2008 2:21 PM

People who think Obama is the better candidate in the general are seriously deluded--or, in the case of Republicans, probably lying.

There is a name for people like this--"Pollsters".

Posted by ben | February 12, 2008 2:21 PM

Otherwise, Hillary points out that a guy who can't depend on anyone other than white elites and blacks is not going to win against McCain.

Okay, well, if you want to make that argument, can't Obama supporters just come back and say that Hillary can't depend on anyone other than Hispanics and older women? I mean, it isn't like a Democratic can win a state like PA or MO in the general without strong turnout and 5:1 support from African Americans in the big cities.

The whole argument that tries to infer support in the general from support in a primary is just stupid. Most Clinton voters will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, and most Obama voters will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

Posted by Tim | February 12, 2008 3:09 PM

In 2008, you, as a registered Republican, are worried about incompetence in government?

Don't look at me. I didn't vote for Bush either time. I told you--REGISTERED. At the state level, I'm something close to a Republican, so I register Republican to vote in the primaries at that level.

That said, no matter how bad Bush was, he wasn't as incompetent as Obama will almost certainly be. But that's an indictment of Obama's incompetence, not a defense of Bush.

He's not winning the [delegates]

You either can't read or can't count. Try again.

can't Obama supporters just come back and say that Hillary can't depend on anyone other than Hispanics and older women?

Sure, they can. They have. The only problem is that it's not true. Hillary has won all the white vote in most primary states, losing the men only once or twice. She's won the Asian vote, the working class vote, the non-college graduate vote, and every other category you can think of EXCEPT liberal college graduates and blacks.

They haven't split the demographics. Hillary has annilhated Obama in every demographic overall, with the aforementioned exceptions.

If this changes, and Obama starts to win these demographics in primaries, then great. Game over. Otherwise, the delegate count won't matter.

Posted by cal | February 12, 2008 3:34 PM

Sure, they can. They have. The only problem is that it's not true. Hillary has won all the white vote in most primary states, losing the men only once or twice. She's won the Asian vote, the working class vote, the non-college graduate vote, and every other category you can think of EXCEPT liberal college graduates and blacks.

Actually, this is false.

Looking at the exit polls from Missouri, Conn, New Mexico, California, Georgia, and New Jersey (3 close races, 2 solid Clinton wins, 1 solid Obama win), Obama won:

Males in all 6 states (although within the margin of error in a few states)
White males in 4 of 6 states (all but NJ and MO)
Obama even won the white vote outright in NM.
Obama won the Obama won the under-65 vote in GA, CT, NM, and MO.

Yes, the college grad / non-college grad thing is a pretty strong demographic trend, although it might be more accurate to say that Hillary wins those with no college, Obama wins those who graduated college, and they split the "some college" demographic. Given that "no college" was 26% of the electorate in 2004, "some college" was 32%, and "college grad" was 42%, it seems like Hillary is on the losing end of that demographic divide. You might as well say Hillary is doomed because she can't win college grads as say that Obama is doomed because he can't win those with no college.

Anyway, these demographic arguments are dumb, because a primary does not equal a general election, and saying that demographic group X prefers Hillary to Obama (or vice versa) has very little bearing on whether demographic group X prefers whichever Dem is nominated to McCain.

Posted by Tim | February 12, 2008 4:04 PM

The only problem is that it's not true. Hillary has won all the white vote in most primary states, losing the men only once or twice. [...] They haven't split the demographics. Hillary has annilhated Obama in every demographic overall, with the aforementioned exceptions.

Obama:
- won white independents in Arizona and lost white men by one point (46 to 45)
- won white independents in California by 29 points (60 to 31), lost white voters overall by one point (46 to 45), won white men by 20 points (55 to 35)
- won white independents in Connecticut by 28 points (61 to 33), lost white voters overall by one point (49 to 48), won white men by 17 points (57 to 40)
- won white voters overall in New Mexico by 12 points (55 to 43), won white men by 21 points (59 to 38), won white women by 5 points (51 to 46), won white independents by 29 points (62 to 33), won white Democrats by 8 points (53 to 45)
- tied Clinton among white men in Delaware (47 to 47)
- won white men in Massachusetts by 1 point (49 to 48)
- won white independents in Missouri by 22 points (59 to 37)
- won white men in Georgia by 2 points (48 to 46)
- won white independents in Utah by 38 points (66 to 28), tied white Democrats (48 to 48), won whites overall by 15 points (55 to 40), won white men by 35 points (64 to 29), tied among white women (49 to 49)
- lost white men by 1 point in South Carolina

And that's not counting Illinois where he won white voters by 17 points and among white men by 22 points. So frankly, your claims he's getting demolished among all demographics is ridiculous; your statement that Hillary lost white men once or twice is factually false, since he won it in 7 primary states, tied in 1 state, and lost by less than 2 points in 2 states. It's consistently white women that puts Clinton over the top where Obama runs strongly with white men and kills with white independents.

Oh, and in case you're curious about Utah, he also won moderates by 9 points (53 to 44).

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 4:16 PM

You are all slicing and dicing whites into little groups. Moderates, men, and so on.

Apart from catching one error of mine--I had the white male vote in Georgia reversed--nothing you posted changes what I've said. Hillary won the white vote overwhelmingly, with very few exceptions--and the exceptions were pretty close calls, for the most part.

Splitting the white vote up a bunch of different ways won't make any difference--particularly independents, as McCain will be a strong draw for them.

Obama doesn't have the base of the democratic party, and more than usual is extremely unpopular with the vast majority of whites, Hispanics, and Asians. He has won his delegates in large part because of caucuses and black voting blocs in the south.

He needs to change that, or he won't get the nomination.

Posted by Cal | February 12, 2008 5:03 PM

Splitting the white vote up a bunch of different ways won't make any difference--particularly independents, as McCain will be a strong draw for them.

Polls show Obama beats McCain. He takes the independents. Hillary gives up the independents. Do you have any special insight that pollsters don't?

Obama doesn't have the base of the democratic party, and more than usual is extremely unpopular with the vast majority of whites, Hispanics, and Asians.

Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Can you cite a single example of Obama being "extremely unpopular", rather than less well known amongst any of the groups you mentioned? Hillary, on the other hand, is unpopular with several groups for a variety of reasons (the Iraq/Iran votes, race-baiting, Clinton-derangement syndrome, fear of a dynasty, etc).

Posted by ben | February 12, 2008 5:14 PM

You are all slicing and dicing whites into little groups. Moderates, men, and so on.

I pointed out moderates because you claimed Obama only won the white vote in Utah because they're all raving liberals. So then I showed that the breakdown between liberal/moderate/conservative in Utah was pretty similar to several of the states that Clinton won AND that Obama won moderates. You've ignored both of these things. Chalk it up to one more factual error on your part.

Aside from that, people are pointing out that Obama's running very strongly among white men because you keep harping on the idea that his primary victories are irrelevant because of the black support he has. Well, the gender gap is very real, too -- Clinton's winning whites overall primary because of her support among white women only. If you're going to keep trumpeting around Obama's weaknesses in certain demographic groups, you'd better have your own house in order and recognize where Clinton's support is coming from. It is not across the board as you claimed; she is not demolishing him in all demographics as you claimed. It isn't, as you claim, that whites don't like Obama -- it's just that white women really like Hillary Clinton.

Obama doesn't have the base of the democratic party...

That depends how you define the base of the party. You seem to be slicing and dicing data to come up with a contortionistic definition that conveniently fits the narrative you want. Unfortunately for you, blacks are part of the base; students are part of it; liberals are part of it; the party activists you claim dominate caucuses are part of it; and so on.

...and more than usual is extremely unpopular with the vast majority of whites

Zero evidence to suggest this is so. Polling has overwhelmingly suggested that pretty much all Democrats across the board like both of these nominees, are very enthusiastic by both of their candidacies, and would support either one of them.

particularly independents, as McCain will be a strong draw for them.

And yet that doesn't seem to be the case. Independents are voting more heavily in the Democratic primary and they're doing so overwhelmingly for Obama. Meanwhile turnout in Republican primaries, even for independents, is being positively dwarfed by what we're seeing on our side. And head-to-head general election polls show Obama not only winning, but winning independents.

It seems all you're capable of contributing is either skewed or factually incorrect poll and demographic data or blind assertions that are outright contradicted by polling data.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 5:27 PM

Adlai Stevenson lives!

Look, you can yap about what you think is reality all you like. But if Obama doesn't win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania huge, expect Hillary to get the nod.

Or perhaps the Dems are in a mood to be suicidal this year. Lord knows the liberals get stupid, as the blog comments (and most of the bloggers) make clear.

Posted by Cal | February 12, 2008 5:40 PM

Lord knows the liberals get stupid, as the blog comments (and most of the bloggers) make clear.

Solid rebuttal when your facts turn out to be false and your assertions lack any evidence. Have fun with the name-calling, and sorry you keep getting pushed around on the playground by the big kids after school.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 5:49 PM

I think I like this whole Cal trolling thing. Such detail that it provokes really detailed responses in return from people like jbryan and others. So now I leave this thread firmly convinced that Obama is by far the superior choice just on the pragmatics of winning states in November.

And all because of Cal. Thanks Cal!

Posted by nolaboyd | February 12, 2008 6:43 PM