Say hello to the hot demographic of 2008: "McCain Democrats"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There have been millions of words written about how Barack Obama will win back the Reagan Democrats. This is a fantasy built on two unrelated, and ultimately irrelevant, facts. 1) Obama talks about wanting to emulate the Reagan coalition, and 2) Obama attracts non-Democrats.

In actuality, you couldn't design a candidacy more alienating to Reagan Democrats than Senator Obama's.

Reagan Democrats are not worried about all the fighting between Democrats and Republicans. Reagan Democrats are registered Democrats who are worried about a lack of corny old-school patriotism, "weak" military and diplomatic policy, and black people. The are sympathetic to militant nationalism and are somewhat racist in outlook.

For all this talk about broad coalitions, only one candidate has made efforts to return the Reagan Democrats to the fold. Hillary Clinton. And she is hated for it around here. The DLC was a project to win back some Reagan Democrats after disasters in 1984 and 1988, and it worked to some degree on the presidential level. Bill Clinton won some southern states and was the only Dem president since FDR to be elected twice. (Truman and Johnson both gained the office through the president's death and each was elected only once. Both declined to seek a second election due to unpopularity.)

The point here is not that Reagan Democrats are a good thing. They just ARE, and Democrats don't win the presidency without them. They cannot be wished away.

Barack Obama offered a new path to get the same vote totals. Since he could not win the Reagan Democrats in a month of Sundays he has attracted independent voters using the only reliable method to attract independents, which is to run against both parties, and to run against politics itself. Independents don't like politics and don't like either party... that's why they're independents.

Unfortunately, John McCain has gleaming credentials with independents.

So we have two electoral paths. 80% of Democrats will vote for the nominee in any scenario. Clinton has crafted a centrist military-friendly resume to pick up an extra 10% of Democrats who habitually vote for Republican presidential candidates. Obama has written those people off (out of necessity, largely because he is black) and seeks the same votes among indys.

Against a conventional Republican, Obama's approach would have done well because most indys are very down on the Republicans right now.

Against John McCain, however, Obama faces losing 17% of Democrats to McCain, and needing to make up that deficit among indys... a pool of voters that is no longer entirely up for grabs because independents really like McCain.

And that is why a very popular and appealing man like Barack Obama is no stronger than Hillary Clinton as a general election candidate, and probably weaker after all the cards are played. (The standard Republican smears are all aimed squarely at the Reagan Democrats.)

All that cheerful talk of Obama winning 58-60% is now in the, "would have been nice but didn't happen" category. That train left the station the moment the Republican party accidentally stumbled into picking their only candidate who could be competitive in 2008.

The moment John McCain got the nod, the 2008 election became a base election for the Democrats. McCain guarantees that we will not get 70% of independents, so we need the base. All of the base.

The Democratic hope for 2008 lies in turning out all the Democrats, and making sure that whatever Dems we lose do not vote for McCain.

Progressives are wonderful people and Reagan Democrats are a nasty lot, but the hard reality is that votes of Reagan Democrats count double. A progressive who hates Hillary and stays home or votes Nader or writes in Kucinich is a lost opportunity. A Reagan Dem who votes for McCain is a two vote swing... one less for the Dem and one more for McCain.

The best path to victory in 2008 is a base turn-out effort led by a Clinton/Obama ticket. That is probably the highest potential vote getter. Unfortunately, there's no obvious way to get to a Clinton/Obama ticket that doesn't alienate a lot of Obama supporters. (Time was, a black vice-presidential candidate would have turned out AA voters like never before, but today it looks like a demotion.)

It's a difficult situation with no clear path to a solution.

[AX10]

1. kick

[scheming daemons]

2. Offset by an equal, if not greater, number of "Obama Republicans"

....

[mmonk]

4. A true statement.

[newfie4]

5. not a chance, fewer repugs will vote for obama than did for kerry

There is absolutely no movement of repugs towards obama. Maybe away from McCain. but they're never voting for obama with his background.

[redqueen]

9. deleted

[mmonk]

41. I never ran into a republican that voted for Kerry.

I've met a republican who is actively campaigning for Obama. So that's my life experience, what's yours? Where's your evidence for your position?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

65. Most transparent post of 2008.

:applause:

[jackson_dem]

20. No evidence has been shown to prove this

He does currently do better among independents and that makes up what he loses among Democrats but it is stupid to trade away solid Democratic votes for "independents" who are far more likely to ultimately vote rethug. Obama has not really been attacked yet. As the lead up to 3/4 showed, he is a paper tiger who is hurt badly when a few punches are thrown his way. It would be a mistake to rely on him retaining independents as a strategy for the general.

[democrattotheend]

35. A narrow majority of independents voted for Kerry in 2004

I believe he won them 50-49. So to say "most independents" will vote Republican is wrong. McCain does have cross-over appeal that will hurt either Democrat, but I think Obama has more crossover appeal than Clinton.

[jackson_dem]

44. I agree on indies, at least right now. I don;'t buy the "obama republican" hype, though

My concern with Obama is what his numbers will look like after the rethug machine is through with him but right now he is doing well with indies.

[mmonk]

38. Yes, evidence. I'm attending an event on May 1st

being given by a lifelong Republican who is for Obama.

[jackson_dem]

47. That happens every year. Clinton won 13% of the rethug vote, Gore 8%, and Kerry 6%

Bush won 11% of the Democratic vote both times while Dole won 10%. Did anyone talk about "Gore Republicans" or "Bush Democrats"?

[BzaDem]

56. Nope. In the latest Pew poll, McCainocrats outnumber Obamicans 2 to 1.

[MagsDem]

82. And where do these Obama rethugs live?

http://hominidviews.com/?p=1325

[New Dawn]

94. And there definitely will be no "Clinton Republicans"! n/t

[newfie4]

3. The only reason we have McCain Democrats is because Obama and his cult hijacked the primary

And unfortunately, the rational democrats who care about experience and are somewhat moderate, are vulnerable to mccain. They won't rally around the eventual nominee (looks like obama) because they can't trust him...and this "movement" that has erupted has kind of creeped them out. mccain is a viable alternative because they don't see him as right wing. McCain will be out there campaigning with schwarzenegger and giuliani and lieberman and tom kean...that's pretty scary.

[democrattotheend]

37. Hijacked the primary?

Are our votes some how less legit than those who voted for Clinton? How is winning a majority hijacking?

[last_texas_dem]

102. All primaries not won by the "Goddess of Peace" were obviously hijacked.

There's just no legitimate reason right-thinking Democratic primary voters wouldn't support her on the issues or not think she's our strongest potential candidate for the general election.

:smoke:

[MagsDem]

84. Exactly (n/t)

[last_texas_dem]

101. Any Democrat who is seriously "vulnerable" to voting for McCain is not "rational"

and has no business calling themself a Democrat. His voting record is nearly as right-wing as Bush's, regardless of the fact that he has made some moderate noise on a handful of major issues. He used to at least "talk moderate", but this has changed substantially with him selling his soul to the right this time around. Why would such voters be untrusting of Obama but somehow be soothed by flip-flopper extraordinaire John "100 More Years in Iraq" McCain?

[Krashkopf]

104. I agree.

McCain is going to go down in "Bob Dole-like" flames.

Only the die-hard neo-cons, and a small number of VERY GULLIBLE "centerists" are going to vote for him.

[Fovea]

6. "The standard Republican smears are all aimed squarely at the Reagan Democrats."

Yes, and their inability to get sufficient numbers to help in 06 is the harbinger of doom for dixiecrats and their enablers. And really, they won't vote for HRC either.

For them, God ordains the role of slave for brown people and women alike.

Fortunately, they are neither numerous, or motivated enough to make a difference.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. "Reagan Democrat" is a largely presidential category

Democrats held congress throughout the Reagan era while losing 49 states in the 1984 presidential election.

Reagan Democrats want their congressman to be somewhat populist, but want the PRESIDENT to be tough and somewhat nationalistic. The "commander in chief" thing means a lot to Reagan Dems.

So 2006 was not a test of the Reagan Democrats the way a presidential year is.

[Fovea]

54. A venn diagram of Dixiecrats and Reagan Democrats

would show the former as a subset of the latter to a great degree.

The latter key group will not stop being the Republicans who did not vote in 06, I think. If anything, Republicans have far less to vote for in 08 than they did in 04. Even a McCain Huck ticket will not really energize the traditional coalition of bigots, nationalists, crooks, and snake handlers. Besides, they won't be able to drive their Hummers and Escalades to the polls.

You may see it differently, I understand that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

64. I don't think of Dixiecrats as Reagan Democrats

To me, the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon is a northern and midwestern thing that's separate from the Republican "Southern strategy."

The former Dixiecrats are now almost all just Republicans with no "crat" in them. The deep south is solid Republican.

The Reagan Democrats are the white downscale voters in places like PA, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, NJ, NY, WV, who elect Democratic governors and congressmen, but often vote Republican in presidential elections.

Essentially, everyone who voted for Clinton in 1996 but voted (or would have voted) Reagan in 1984.

[eridani]

98. And they hate McCain for being soft on immigrants n/t

[vi5]

7. Clinton DEFINITELY won't win them..

I'm not saying your premise is incorrect but there is just no way in hell Hillary will win that same group of people anyway so if this is a pitch for Hillary it doesn't make any sense.

If someone (democrat or republican) thinks Reagan was a great president to the point where they identify themselves with his name first and party affilliation second, then it's no more likely that they would vote for a woman president than they would a black president.

[BenDavid]

12. and when obama loses then what ya gonna do? Holla again

4 more or 8 more years and say we need a fighter that will get down and dirty with the rethugs?

Well, I voted for the fighter in this campaign, who happened to be a woman....

[vi5]

26. Well if he loses and you can provide proof...

that Hillary would have won then by all means I'd like to see that evidence.

Much like everyone wanting to overlook this Spitzer thing I'm just not interested in "Me too!" politics. Just because they do it doesn't mean I think it's o.k. if we do it. Whether thats cheating on wives, treating women as commodities to be purchased, going against the constitution, stifling free speech, or fighting dirty and low that's not what I'm interested in.

And it also can't be both ways. I hear the whining from people about how Obama is playing dirty in the primary. Well if he's playing dirty and he's winning then wouldn't that same logic your using say that he's the better one to play dirty against McCain? And if he's not playing dirty then what is everyone in the Hillary camp complaining about?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

97. .

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Well, she's winning then so far. They seem enthusiastic about her.

Racism and sexism are complicated and often subtle.

Almost everyone who voted for Alabama's first female governor was a racist. (She was George Wallace's wife. He was term-limited, so she ran in his place.) Tribalism favors "our" women over "their" men.

One can be quite sexist and still vote for Hillary. One can think that women in general are "not tough enough," yet view Hillary as very tough. (British conservatives are sexist, but loved Margret Thatcher because she did not embody the female traits they despise in most women.)

The primaries do not perfectly predict GE performance, but the fact that the Reagan Dems are Hillary's strongest demo in the primaries means something. Those same Reagan Dems had five white men to chose from in this process, but went with Hillary.

So sexism and racism are not interchangeable prejudices.

[Armstead]

42. I think many of them were really going with Bill

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. Indeed. People vote for a lot of reasons.

The key isn't why they vote, but HOW they vote.

[XemaSab]

8. If people are bigots or sexists, fuck 'em.

If we're afraid to nominate someone based on race or gender, we'll NEVER have a president who is anything other than a white man.

[Ganja Ninja]

10. It's been 20 years since the Gipper left office.

Considering the fact that at the time a lot of them were retirees, Reagan Democrats are literally a dying breed.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. "Reagan Democrat" is more than a literal measure of who actually voted for Reagan

White blue collar lower income lower education registered Democrats outside the deep south who are not very offended by racism. (It's not that they are all arch racists. It's that they did not find Reagan's arch racism disqualifying.)

And conventional "national security" types.

Reagan Democrats vote for Democrats for congress and governor, but not always for commander in chief. They are ticket splitters in presidential years.

Keep in mind that Dems held congress in 1984 despite losing 49 states in the presidential race... massive amounts of ticket-splitting.

[Perry Logan]

11. The country is turning left. Today's young voters are the most Democratic generation in U.S. history

[rndmprsn]

13. flawed logic...

"The DLC was a project to win back some Reagan Democrats, and it worked."

you gotta be out of your mind if you support the DLC...what the DLC did was to make strong progressives in the dem party an endangered species and we were left with the likes of the clintons...careful, cautious and center-right in their philosophy.

we need more proud progressives this is the route to electoral victory in the future, not the 90's do-over.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. The observation is not a blanket defense of the DLC

It is an historical observation. The DLC was designed to woo Reagan Democrats.

The Reagan Democrats are everything people at DU hate. They are a bad bunch.

Anything designed to woo Reagan Democrats is bound to be offensive to progressives.

But they are real, and numerous.

The OP is about what is, not what should be.

[eridani]

99. And it cost us congress, governorships and state legislatures n/t

[Frances]

14. Good points

I like to read an analysis that isn't pushing one or the other candidate

[goldcanyonaz]

18. Me too.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Obama does not aim for the Reagan Democrats. He aims to create Obama Republicans.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Very true. It's an interesting and promising approach.

Against Tom Tancredo or Mike Huckabee it would have been gang-busters.

But few strategies are optimal in all circumstances.

John McCain is the historical standard-bearer for the "Obama Republicans."

The Republicans alienated by Huckabee are moderates will would be pleased to vote for Obama.

The Republicans alienated by McCain are arch conservatives will never vote for Obama.

[Time for change]

16. You paint a gloomy picture of Obama's electoral chances against McCain

How then do you explain that polls have consistently shown, occasionally McCain and Obama tied or, much more frequently Obama with a moderate or sizable lead? -- And they're moving in his direction.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Where is the evidence for all that pessimism?

Also, keep in mind that primary results have consistently suggested that Democratic turnout is likely to be better than Republican turnout this fall.

[jackson_dem]

23. Those polls mean nothing

Once the "new" candidate is attacked by the other party's machine his numbers almost always drop.

Carter 76': +35 to +2
Reagan 80': Went from +30 to +10
Dukakis 88': Went from +17 to -7
Bush 00': +11 to -0.4
Kerry 04': +8 to -3

Obama 08'?: +4 to...

Obama starts from a much worse position and is far more undefined, unvetted than everyone else on the list. He is incredibly vulnerable and I would not be shocked if he wound up being another Dukakis.

[anigbrowl]

27. Whereas McCain's numbers are sacrosanct

You think hi won't drop when the Democratic party opens up broadsides against him? It seems most of the arguments for Hillary's candidacy now depend on painting McCain as bigger and better than he actually is. He's made it to the nomination, but in case you hadn't noticed his party is already suffering a severe ideological split, and he is deeply disliked by the partisan wing of the GOP. Look at the pattern of political donations this year. 'Old reliable' conservatives don't want to put their hands in their pockets for the GOP this election cycle, because they feel they've been left holding the bag.

[jackson_dem]

43. Yes he will drop

But against Obama it will be a race to the bottom: who will drop more? The answer is likely Obama. Obama has received a grand total of 3-4 days prior to Ohio and Texas of negative msm coverage. He is undefined. McCain has been around on the national scene for a while and already has weathered some negative coverage (the msm love affair of him briefly ended when Giuliani was riding high) and more importantly folks have some idea of who he is. He won't drop as much as Obama. The real question I have is whether Obama can battle back after suffering a big decline. Thus far he hasn't shown he can take punches and get back up off the canvass. He is only great when he was the msm rigging the game for him.

McCain has the same problem Obama has. They both will lose more support from their party than a typical candidate would and they "hope" to make up for it with independents. That is a risky proposition since indies are less reliable to vote for you than folks of your party who can be persuaded much more easily. If we nominate Obama it will become a battle for indies with McCain. If we nominate Hillary we keep our base and won't have to gamble on hoping that we get a big share of indies against McCain. There is also the experience problem Obama has. As that becomes a bigger issue his numbers will drop. Look at what happened in Texas and Ohio after one ad. What is Obama's response going to be? He is vying to be the least experienced president ever. How can he win during a time of war? That is why we need Clinton. She clears the security threshold and beats McCain on domestic issues.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

69. Tough, of course, a key element of our base is in an unusual position

Simply put, with AA support Hillary cruises past McCain in a base election.

Unfortunately, we are in a situation where both Reagan Dems and AA Dems are in play in unprecedented ways.

The outrage over Hillary openly seeking Reagan Dems by dissing Obama and positioning herself vis-a-vie McCain is warranted.

But only if one reserves the same level of outrage over the Obama camps attempts to paint Hillary as a racist, and to pre-emptively paint the concept of Obama not winning the nomination as a racial injustice.

Both candidates are playing hardball for elements of the Democratic party. In the process, both are alienating big blocs of voters we need.

And those who obsess about who's to blame for our current situation are being childish. Presidential elections are seldom won by the candidate "deserves" to win them.

[Time for change]

91. You've defined no time period for those numbers.

You just took a maximum and compared it to a final results. In contrast, Obama has been fairly consistently ahead of McCain over a long period of time.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. Kerry and Dukakis were 10-20 points ahead of where Obama is today

The outsider in a change election should have a 15-20 point lead this early. Then that buffer of hope is chipped away at throughout the process.

All human decision making tends toward hope the further away the final decision is. Then as the point approaches, caution and fear increase. That's who we humans do everything.

Ideally, a candidate like Obama should be up by 20 in March and then hang on to win by 3-4%.

So being tied is not a wonderful place for Senator Obama to be. It's not hopeless, at all. But not optimal.

[jackson_dem]

48. Don't forget Carter was up by 35 in 76' and Reagan 30

They both won but only after bleeding 33 and 20 points respectively...Really the only exception in the modern era is Bill Clinton in 1992. He gained ground but it should be remembered that was against an incumbent president who started off as being popular and faded fast through 1992 as the economy tanked. It wasn't so much Bill gained as it was Bush dropped.

We can add Humphrey to the list too going back to 1968. I don't remember the exact figures but he gained a ton of ground on Nixon, the "change" candidate that year, as well. I think it was something like 15 points in the final two weeks.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

52. Excellent points.

And Nixon was, hilariously, the "peace and change" candidate in 1968, and bled away a gigantic cushion to Humphrey late in the race.

The only change candidate that comes to mind who didn't bleed away his support was Clinton in 1992, but that's probably because Ross Perot was getting all the "change at any price" voters early on, so Clinton never had that change cushion to lose.

People trend towards the status quo late in Presidential elections.

[Time for change]

79. Kerry was 10-20 points ahead of where Obama is today?????

That's not my recollection at all. And if he was that far ahead, it was for a very short period of time -- Obama has run consistently ahead of McCain over a long period of time. Bush and Kerry traded places in the polls periodically over a long period of time.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

83. Kerry was well ahead of Bush at roughly this time, but I don't recall the number

Then Kerry faded quickly once he wrapped up the nomination.

I do not recall the exact Kerry polling high-point, but I think it was around ten or eleven points. Dukakis peaked at 23 points. That's why I used the intentionally vague 10-20 to describe the two men.

Carter peaked at over 30 points ahead in 1976.

[Time for change]

90. According to the Rasmussen tracking polls -- which is the only long term tracking poll I could find

If there was a "peak" for Kerry, it was small and short lived:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2004/week_by_week_numbers

Obama's performance over an extended period of time has him beat by a long shot.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

93. Everyone's "peak" will tend to be in one-shot polls, like ABC or Newsweek or NYT

The tracking polls damp down variation with their immense cumulative samples.

I take your point that Kerry was never a BIG favorite in the way Dukakis was. But there were major organization national polls pre-swiftboat that had him distinctly ahead--outside the MOE.

Democrats are the bigger party, and the people tend to favor the Dem until the pugs tell everyone what scum he is.

Even Mondale was within the margin of error with Reagan at one point. I remember that well because I remember telling myself not to take it seriously, in psychological self defense. I am glad I didn't.

[Time for change]

96. If you look at the Kerry/Bush tracking polls, Kerry on average was not a favorite at all

There was never a point in the campaign, starting in January 2004, when Kerry was ahead for more weeks than Bush. And his biggest lead in the whole campaign, over the course of a single week, was 2.8%

Much the same thing can be said about the race between Gore and Bush in 2000. Obama is a big exception compared with those races.

[Time for change]

88. Self delete -- wrong place

[DJ13]

21. Im sure this is your honest opinion

But I've got to say it sounds like your pro-Hillary bias has clouded your judgement.

[anigbrowl]

24. I don't really buy this...

although many independent voters do like McCain, a great many of them like Obama as well. This has been evident since the early primaries, where a strong McCain presence does pull some votes from Obama but nothing like the vast majority you seem to be suggesting.

I don't think Clinton has an especially military-friendly resume for that matter, but has just been pushing her military affiliations in recent weeks. Obama long ago showed himself to be popular with the military (more so than any other candidate) and his platform has not been anti-militaristic in any way; his criticisms have been directed at those managing the war in the administration. As for the silly hysteria over his remarks when he stated himself willing to pursue Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan, with or without the cooperation of the Pakistani authorities (who, under Musharraf, have been very much fair weather friends), I think most military and veterans are quite cognizant of the of the difference between his actual position and the scarifying criticisms leveled at it, and will support him for that.

Nor do I agree with your argument that this has become a base election for Democrats. McCain has no such attractive force and while respected for his long service is viewed by many as needlessly militaristic, lacking on economic issues, and deeply uninspirational.

As for the canard about the vice-president slot being viewed as a demotion...if Obama were trailing Clinton, and showing support from a large but minority portion of the Democratic party, your point would be valid. But the fact is that he is the front runner by a considerable margin. This does not diminish Clinton as a candidate, but the idea of the 2nd place competitor offering to share the the prize with the 1st place contender just speaks ridiculous hubris, and an overweening sense of entitlement...which is what Republicans and those who lean republicans hate about the stereotypical Democrat. Obama, by contrast, is readily perceived as someone who aimed at, fought for, and captured the lead position in the race. He will likely widen his lead slightly today, making Clinton talk of a VP slot for him even less credible.

Besides the fact that Clinton is radioactive to many Republicans - who would probably not vote for Obama anyway, but might well sit out the presidential contest rather than vote for a man they perceive as an extreme RINO - her arguments that she is more electable and should therefore be at the top of the ticket, despite the fact that voters so far have shown they believe otherwise, are leading many people to conclude that her administration would be characterized by the same sort of management she has displayed of her campaign and campaign issues. She strikes me as a demagogue, and I think we have had quite enough of that in recent years.

[dodger501]

63. I agree with you

McCain is not going to get any Democrats. At all.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

71. Then he will be the first.

Millions of Dems voted for Bush in 2004, which was as clear-cut a "right vs. wrong" election as one could want.

[newfie4]

77. oh really?

I've got 3 Democrats in my family alone who will vote McCain over Obama. The only way they vote Dem is if it's Hillary.

[BringBigDogBack]

85. bingo.

[susankh4]

28. Spot on.

:kick:

[cooolandrew]

29. You'd be so surprised. On paltalk there is a room called Republicans for Obama 24/7.

Heard lots of Repubs on the radio and on youtube said they will flip parties for Obama in the GE. I ain't really heard that for HRC in fact I just hear of her losing votes left and right.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

103. I don't dispute that he will do okay with Republicans

The issue is doing well with Democrats. He is unusually weak within his own party.

People minimize that by saying that anti-Obama Dems are racists or backward. I don't dispute that. I am willing to stipulate that a lot of Democrats are racist and/or backward,

But their votes count nonetheless.

In fact, their votes count almost double because those racist and/or backward Dems will be voting for McCain, not Nader.

[featherman]

30. Not sure after a real campaign that many "Reagan Democrats" in key

states like MI, PA, and OH would support such a rabid pro-NAFTA Republican like McCain. Not to mention one whose staff is filled with lobbyists and ex-lobbyists that among other things seems to have convince him to swing a gigantic airplane contract from Boeing to European-owned Airbus resulting in the loss of yet more thousands of American manufacturing jobs.

This is why we have campaigns. Voters' vague media-hyped positives about McCain, "straight-shooting maverick", can be changed to "yuck...Bush II".

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

81. Yes, McCain's NAFTA stance is a help in Ohio and Michigan

[Liberal Dose]

32. Why vote for someone who is a fake Republican when there is a real one to vote for? The DLC is

delusional, obsolete and unnecessary.

[jackson_dem]

51. Let's look at how DLC candidates fare

In 1996 Clinton beat Dole 84-10-5 among Democrats and in 2000 Gore won Democrats 86-11. Clearly most Democrats don't share the conspiratorial view of the DLC that the blogosphere's denizens do.

[Liberal Dose]

67. Bill is the only win the DLC has ever had, and he'd have won without thier "help". Not an impressive

track record, imho.

[Zynx]

33. The idea that Obama will bring back Reagan Democrats is nothing short of absurd, I agree.

I will say, however, he does appeal to the post-graduate crowd to a great extent and does bring in new Democrats in that area.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Many Independents are against the war......

i.e., not all Independents are alike, and to think so is what is absurd and nothing short of ridiculous.

[Zynx]

55. The war is not the single issue that drives all voters.

Not even close as a matter of fact.

[FrenchieCat]

62. With Independents the war as an issue looms larger than you are estimating....

The Independent Vote - Is it monolithic? Are they really choosing between Obama & McCain?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4126073

The new survey underscores the Republican Party's problems heading into 2008. Fueled by dissatisfaction with the president and opposition to the Iraq war, independents continue to lean heavily toward the Democrats. Two-thirds said the war is not worth fighting, three in five said they think the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and three in five believed that the campaign against terrorism can succeed without a clear victory in Iraq.
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/fighting-over-t.html

[eridani]

100. The war and the economy are inextricably linked, and the economy is going straight to hell n/t

[SeaLyons]

34. K&R

:kick:

[Armstead]

36. A Black or a Woman -- Pick your "problem" with bigots

To hell with anyone who would not vote for a woman or a black.

To hell with those who are stupid enough to equate a destructive and needless war with "national security" and who believe that tough talk is the same as actually defending the country.

IMO there are enough Republicans and Independents who are not bigoted macho men and frightened "security moms" to win a majority for a reasonable Democrat against John "get Off My Lawn" McCain.

Let's stop being craven political wimps and actually stand for something. That's what people ultimately respect.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

45. Racism and sexism are complicated and often subtle.

Almost everyone who voted for Alabama's first female governor was a racist. (She was George Wallace's wife. He was term-limited, so she ran in his place.) Tribalism favors "our" women over "their" men.

One can be quite sexist and still vote for Hillary. One can think that women in general are "not tough enough," yet view Hillary as very tough. (British conservatives are sexist, but loved Margret Thatcher because she did not embody the female traits they despise in most women.)

The primaries do not perfectly predict GE performance, but the fact that the Reagan Dems are Hillary's strongest demo in the primaries means something. Those same Reagan Dems had five white men to chose from in this process, but went with Hillary.

So sexism and racism are not interchangeable prejudices.

Almost all of the Republicans in Maryland voted for Micheal Steele over a white candidate in 2006. He is black, but he was "one of us" in the Republican vs. Democrat tribal conflict.

Millions of racists would vote for Colin Powell over Dennis Kucinich. And so on...

[Armstead]

53. I respect your analysis but my point is that basing on what we do...

on conservative white men, and the women who love them, is not what eitehr the Democratic Party or the nation needs.


And I believe our fear of "alienating" those people who are already alienated enough to self-destructively vote for a Reagan or a McCain is why the Democrats have been so politically unsuccessful.

That's not a reflection on either Obama or Hillary, because they both have positives and negatives that could either push people away or win them over.

I realize that both sexism and racism are complex. That's why IMO Democrats should downplay the "identity politics" in terms of the candidates and look in sex-and-race-neutral terms at which candidate has the best chance to win over a reasonable minority on the merits of actual positions and personal leadership qualities.

That includes making the case for basic liberalism and SMART national security. What we really could do is make intelligent populist progressive economics appealing to average people because it is in their own self-interest.

The approach of Bernie Sanders (as referenced in my sig line) is what we need to do, instead of trying to parrot the GOP and hold on to people who would vote for McCain for stupid reasons.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

95. I love me some Bernie Sanders!

[mmonk]

49. What's your answer to this?

Empower Our Communities (Community Service)
Hello,
I am a Sergeant with the Raleigh Police Department and lifetime Republican who believes Obama is our answer to heal our Nation.
I have invited Obama to Raleigh in May to get his political support for a crime prevention program and assist his bid for the White House. The program, I am asking for his support, is one which gave a community a way to take back their streets and lowered violent crime 38% in just 300 days in one section of our great City. This is a non-traditional law enforcement approach which aims not to criminalize youth drawn to the drug market. Instead this program gives participants the resources such as education, role models and guidance to get them out of destructive antisocial behaviors which lead some of America’s youth to the path to prison instead of a path to being productive citizens of our society.
Please add me to your friend list so in the future we can work together for Obama's fight for North Carolina.
Thank you,
Sgt. xxx xxxxxx, MSc

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4rphj

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

58. Sounds like a good thing that requires no answer.

A lot of people are excited about Obama. There is no doubt of it.

But there are also people who are turned off by him. They may be horrible people, but they are a bloc that swings presidential elections, cycle after cycle. Whoever wins those folks tends to win the election.

I would rather hang out with Obama supporters than Reagan Democrats. I'm sure they are better people. But their votes don't get counted more just because they're better people.

The shocking number of the year is that Obama is viewed favorably by only 40-50% of Clinton voters. "Favorable" is the most minimal standard in polling... everyone has the option of saying they have a "favorable" view of both candidates.

But the majority of Clinton voters (confirmed in many different polls at this point, all showing the same effect) will not even say they have a "favorable" view of Obama. That's nuts... I have a "favorable" view of Obama and I don't even like him!

And only the thinest majority of Obama voters have a favorable view of Clinton. (50-55%)

[Avalux]

50. "Reagan Democrats are a nasty lot" - that's offensive and untrue.

My father, who would be categorized as a Reagan Democrat, is eager and ready to vote for Obama as are many of his friends. They will not vote for McCain because they think he's a "loose cannon".

They also live in that part of PA that's supposedly like Alabama.

Your post doesn't hold water. Sorry.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

57. Anecdote doesn't trump demographics

There are some Reagan Democrats attracted to Obama, and some net-roots anti-war people attracted to Clinton, and some fundamentalist Christians attracted to each...

All candidates win SOME people that defy demographic generalizations.

Clinton keeps getting 10-20% of the black vote. That's MILLIONS of black people voting for Clinton. But that datum wouldn't lead me to question whether Obama wins the AA Vote as a demographic category.

[Carrieyazel]

59. Good analysis. With McCain as the (R) nominee, and us with Hillary or Obama

makes this election quite difficult to win nationally and broaden the 2004 map. DINOs will go to McCain, even some that may have voted for Gore or Kerry before. That's huge. A lot of them don't like Shrub, but when you talk about McCain they say "That's a Repube I could vote for".

My uncle, who is in his 70's, and hasn't voted Republican for President since 1972, is now seriously thinking about going with McCain, (and he opposes the war vigorously). This looks like trouble.

[robertpaulsen]

60. I've heard about this before. Rove calls them McCainocrats.

Karl Rove, former adviser to President George W. Bush, observed in The Wall Street Journal: "The interesting intellectual phenomenon is the emergence of the 'McCainocrats' - Democrats backing McCain ... In three recent polls, almost twice as many Democrats support Mr McCain as Republicans support Mr Obama."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031008E.shtml

Three recent polls, yeah that's the ticket. Funny how those numbers don't match up with primary results, Turdblossom!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

61. How could those numbers match up with primary results?

Primary results cannot confirm or contradict national numbers that include all voters.

People who vote in Democratic primaries (including indys and pugs) are a distinct group that is not representative of all voters.

Put a simpler way... McCain has not been on the ballot in any Democratic primary, so, by definition, primary results are the worst possible datum to consult looking for McCain support among Dems.

[robertpaulsen]

66. They don't. That's my point. Primaries are real. Polls are imaginary.

Especially when Pigboy is doing the cherry-picking. Bottom line: support for McCain among real Democrats is as negligible as support for Nader among real Democrats. Your 17% of Democrats that Obama will lose to McCain is imaginary.

[npincus]

68. Independants & dems hate the war- wait until BO starts pounding him in the GE

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

70. Unfortunately, anti-war sentiment is way down

Everyone agrees it was a mistake, but the enthusiasm for withdrawal is much lower than it was in 2006.

[ProSense]

73. That's just not true:

[tomreedtoon]

72. DINO's aren't just elected officials.

Disclosure: My uncle was the Democratic Sheriff of Saint Louis for years. He was one of the most conservative, racist guys there ever was. He absolutely loathed the McCarthy/McGovern branch of the party in 1968.

And my parents switched away from voting Democratic in 1968 because they thought Humphrey - HUMPHREY! - was a hippie lover.

Need I tell you what a bunch of racist goobers were in the South, where I now reside, who were Democrats until Lyndon Johnson decided to make things fair for black people? They didn't all go to Nixon...some of them remained in the Democratic Party to help sabotage Dean and the idea of an honest primary season.

Of COURSE there are Democrats In Name Only out there. And just because they want to crawl under our big tent doesn't mean they must be pandered to.

[ProSense]

74. "Against John McCain, however, Obama faces losing 17% of Democrats" That's hogwash!

Sorry, 17% of Democrats are not going to vote for McCain.

[newfie4]

75. You're right, that number may be as high as 20-25%

and he won't be able to make that up with "independents" (who love mccain as well) and Republican voter (a sheer fantasy that they'll ever vote for Obama)

[ProSense]

76. Enjoy

delusionalville!

[BzaDem]

80. Prosense, did you see the Pew poll that had him losing 15% of democrats?

[MagsDem]

86. Nope, not hogwash

The Pew Research polls have been saying 20% of awhile, and the exit polls at the primaries show the same thing. 20% of Clinton voters consistently prefer McCain over Obama in the GE.

You BO supporters just don't get it -- people aren't going to swarm to the polls for a guy that was a state senator 3 yrs ago. I wonder if you realize how many Obama voters in the primary don't even know that fact? I assure you they will know come Nov.

[Beacool]

78. Very well said!!!

And that's why in NJ the polls show that 25% of Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, plus add those who would vote for Nader or not all.

Clinton 50% - McCain 39%
Obama - McCain would be a toss up

Also consider that NJ is a blue state and essential for the Democrats to win the WH.

:shrug:

[K-Check]

87. Inconvenient Facts:

Interesting reasoning and numbers being thrown around here, but they're not all in line with the latest poll numbers, which show Obama leading McCain by 1-11% (depending on the poll, but 6% on average) and Clinton beating McCain by 2-3% (2% on average).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Wherever those votes are coming from, Obama has more of them vs. McCain than Hillary does right now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

89. A fair point, but the Obama gap has been closing for two months

Obama was crushing McCain two months ago, in absolute terms and relative to Clinton.

Today there's no strong reason to see them as separated on the question.

I try to include the totality of polling in my thinking, including LV vs. RV and such.

The Newsweek poll did show Clinton by 6 and Obama by 12, and that's a worthwhile data point.

But the overall of recent polling suggests that both our candidates are fairly close to McCain and to each other vs. McCain, and that the trend is toward closer, rather than further apart.

The is a prospective aspect to the OP. If the election were held today, Obama would probably win. If it were held 6 weeks ago he would have definitely won in landslide fashion.

None of us knows what tomorrow will bring, but I don't think my analysis is out of line. As with all predictions, it may not come to pass. But it is food for thought.

[HeraldSquare212]

92. A clinton/Obama ticket just neutralizes the main appeal of each of them.

It will subtract supporters from each.