I woke up this morning worried. I like Sen. Clinton but I'm not sure she can win.

People on the right AND Left hate her guts. I'm not sure she can win no matter how great a campaign she runs.

I don't care what the polls say, Middle America is not ready for a Black President, so I KNOW damn well Obama can't win. I think, almost know that Gore can win if he runs, but he's NOT running.


Somebody please un-worry. I/us/America can not live though another 8 years of the GOP stocking the Supreme Court. And as far as Congress goes with the way America is almost split 50/50 I don't we can foresee winning many more sets then we have right now. WE NEED THE PRESIDENCY


Un-worry Please

as the top dog. Maybe as a Vice-president on the ticket ..........maybe.

I work with many red state right-leaning moderates to out right Conservatives. They don't know I'm a lefty, because I learned long ago what the federal prosecutors just learned. If you're not righty enuff in your personal politics, your gone the first chance the wing-nuts gets to push you out. They would never say to a poller that they would not vote for Obama because of his color.

But Obama does not have a chance

That might have been an issue before Nixon's southern strategy. Today, it's a might slim slice of the electorate that is giving you the heebie jeebies.

:hippie:

That's all it takes to win the nation.

Your threads are 99.8% FLUFF.

Don't act like you're the only one on this board who knows "red states", "CONS" and "Thugs".

Because -------- you are not. Not even close.

:hug:

He's electable.

I like Obama but I have my doubts re. electability.

I don't like Clinton and doubt her electability as well.

A lot depends on whom the forces of darkness ( i.e. GOP) nominate. It's *concievable* that Clinton could win but there's a lot of things that would have to break in her favor.

Obama is my second choice and would be my 1st if Edwards wasn't running.

it's Congress who has to pass anyone's plan, and it seems to me goals and character are more important at this stage than detailed plans. Plans will change, and the reality today won't be the reality in January 08'.

What exactly will you be voting for? Someone who speaks of change without ever stating what that change is?

I personally want to know what it is that I'm voting for, not just who I'm voting for.

It's character and intent that counts. It's quite to conceivable that the most detailed plans could be put out by the worst possible candidate...even if the plans are good ones. There will be plenty of opportunity to write legislation...now is the time to chose the one best suited for the office.

I just don't understand your position here unless you support someone who hasn't put out any plans. If that is the case, then naturally you will think they aren't important. I think that is blind support.

There is nothing wrong with that, but I vote on the individual best suited to handle a crises who shares the same values as myself.

To each his own, I guess. I think reading plans and voting for plans is silly. We vote for the candidate. There is nothing wrong of course with a candidate having detailed plans at this point, but that doesn't make them a better candidate necessarily, in my view....even if I agree with the intent of the plans.

No candidate's plan will ever become law. It's not the details that count, it's the vision...the details will come with the political will and a new Congress.

"I won't vote for the black guy because other people are too racist to vote for a black guy."

Brilliant.

This thread is on the electability of our "frontrunner" candidates. Racism in the electorate
is certainly is a factor in that.

You appear to be accusing the people who consider Obama unelectable of being racists.
I do not think you have any basis for making such a claim.

Which states do you believe Obama can win, beyond the ones that went for Kerry in 2004?
Seems like the only possibility is Ohio (Why does it always come down to Ohio?).

I'm not talking about the Edwards supporters who think he's the best guy for the job. I'm talking about those who think Obama is the best candidate but don't support him because of his race. People who say the reason they are not voting for a candidate is because of his/her race is racism. That's the bottom line for me.

I do certainly want to give people here the benefit of the doubt. I believe that many of them *really do* think it's ok to use race as a factor for not voting for someone because of the racism of "other" people.

But to me, it's still racist. It's still discriminatory. And white people aren't the only ones guilty of it. And it's a damn shame. Those who *would* want to vote for Obama but *don't* and vote for the safe, white guy because of "all the racist people" will find themselves in an unfortunate position when Obama is elected in the Primary. Unable to feel the same type of joy and personal pride of the people who actually played a role in making this type of history possible.

Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama in the General Election because of his race is clearly racist of the worst sort. I do understand there is a difference, as you point out.

They would likely continue to feel the same misgivings about the outcome of the general election as they felt before the primary.
They would nonetheless support Obama in the general election if he wins the primary. As would I and pretty much everyone here.
If Obama becomes President we will all celebrate. Some of us will be relieved that our country is not as racist as we feared.

I have actually been considering voting for Obama if Gore doesn't get into the race,
but your demand that I put aside concerns of Obama's electability gives me pause.
If I do that for Obama, I should also do so for Dennis Kucinich and if I did that I would vote for Kucinich.

If I vote for Obama, it would be because the other candidates seem even more unelectable.

My opinion is my opinion and you can take it or leave it, as you well know. If you choose not to vote for Obama because of my opinion on this matter, then I'm truly sorry to hear that. I would never want to hurt his candidacy by things I say, nor would I want to have that much negative influence on anybody here. But my opinion on the matter is how I honestly feel. I think a lot of people are afraid to examine the issue from the perspective I bring up because the truth really does sting a little.

And none of this has been directed at you, personally. I tend to speak in broadly and forget to mention that beforehand.

Anyway, I feel like the people here that help perpetuate the fear of Obama's electability due to "others racism" are, in fact, hurting his chances of winning the primary. It's difficult for me to see any other point of view than that being a racist reason if WE, HIS OWN PARTY, killed his chances of becoming President. If we don't elect him because of his race, it *feels* ok because we can blame the racist "other people" for his electability in the GE. But the bottom line is that WE didn't elect him BECAUSE OF HIS RACE! Do you see?? We can't blame "the racists" in the other party if we don't give him a chance, either, when the reason is based on his race.

But I have to say that I disagree altogether on the idea of voting for the most electable candidate. I'm not making any demands or anything, but using your example, I think that people who think Kucinich is truly the best person for the job should vote for him. This is OUR party. I don't think they should have so much power over our chosen candidate. We need to raise our collective self-esteem and sharpen our marketing skills, to be sure. But we should start by electing the best person, not the most "electable" person. IMO.

Let me ask you this.

If an owner of a large manufacturing company doesn't hire a man for a sales job because he's black, even though he thinks he's the most qualified for the job, is that considered discrimination? I believe it is, because the reason he didn't hire him was due to his race.

Well, what if the employer insists he didn't discriminate, but that his CLIENTS would be the ones with the problem. He explains that he chose to hire a less qualified white man for the sales position because most of his clients are white southerners and many of them appear to be pretty racist. He's afraid his clients would start buying from his competitors if he sends a black man out to sell his products.

Maybe you can kinda see the employers side a little? Maybe many people can. But from what I understand the law doesn't allow for loopholes like blaming other people's racism when it says you cannot discriminate based on the color of someone's skin. The law is rigid and inflexible, the way justice should be.

I hope this example helps you to understand my point of view on this issue and how I define racism and discrimination.

I think is as wrong as was the over 50% disapproval poll reported a few days ago.

She runs around 41 to 45% "will never vote for her" in the vast majority of polls of "adults" (much lower numbers in registered voter and the sieve applied can make "likely voter" results go both up or down)- and if that holds for the general - she wins in a landslide.

Indeed after 6 months of campaigning it seems all the Dems are looking better to more folks than they did in January - our group of candidates appear to be wearing well with the public.

that is what the guest said, it is the only thing that will unite them now.

Could be that it's a "reverse psychology" operation. If they say they want her often enough, then we react by saying "if they want her, then we don't", so we do their dirty work for them and destroy her ourselves!

Isn't it the RW pundits who have been saying she is "inevitable? If this is the fight they want and have been preparing for, then why are they scaring us away from her?

to beat us again.

There have been so may memes on shy not to vote for her I lost count (they keep changing). At this point all I can do is laugh at them.

NOT the general election!

I am just telling what they are planning, we will have to run around any and all swiftboaters this time, we will get nowhere but
ignoring their gutter politics.

Seems like people have a very short memory at least or a selective memory at most.

I like Edwards I just don't see him getting out of where he is at right now, that hole seems a little deep.

Unfortunately, there are a hell of a lot of really stupid repiglickins.
They will never vote for a Democrat until they day they die,
but they might stay home if we nominate someone else.

Is that what you mean by a stupid meme?

"Leaving office with an approval rating that of only two other Presidents in our history." Like thats ever going to happen. :eyes:

politician and unite us at the same time. We NEED him. Run Wes Run!

Edited to say I meant to reply to the OP. Sorry

And you don't have to make a decision today.

How is Gore going to separate himself from "The Clintons"? He's more tied to them officially that she is. Or is it just a personal "hatred" of her? If so, it is based on nothing, which reveals the path to overcoming it, which she seems to be well on the way to achieving.
And we shouldn't let the rabid 28% on the extreme right bother us- they will show up no matter who we nominate, and they will not vote for the Dem. Everybody else is persuadable. Even the most pessimistic evidence that Team Clinton can't win over enough voters is disappearing.

We don't have to vote tomorrow. If you like Clinton, give her some time to convince you she can win. If you want to help somebody now, perhaps pick a Senator or Representative. If you have $100 burning a hole in your pocket, maybe send some to the DSCC or the DNC. Or start your carbon-offset program:
http://www.carbonfund.org/

No need to write her off yet.

And never fall asleep with CNN on.

I can see all kinds of Dem candidates in the South and Mountain West and Midwest running away from her.

And Al Gore, for the same reason, needs to step up.

BUT, if Hillary wins the nomination, I WILL be voting for her.

Actually,I think nearly all our candidates can win against any of the ones the Repubs are running,but of those three I think she'll bring out more of the Right,while causing more on the Left to not vote for her,taking what should be a walking away victory to a close race.And close races have a way of going to the Right (legally or otherwise).

I think there are certainly some people who wont vote for Obama because of his color,but those people wont vote Dem regardless,even if it was Jesus' name after the "D".

Edwards offers the fact that he isn't Obama or Hillary,who are basically cut from the same political cloth and offer pretty much the same thing only in different clothing.

Gore would clean house if he entered.

She may or may not win. But that's a chance we just can't take. We need someone who the repubs can't beat by fucking with the machines in one district. they can't fix a landslide (easily).

He's a revolutionary, yet he's got a real shot at being elected. Hillary's just another part of a dynasty--if we pick her, that's 24 years where either a Clinton or a Bush has run the country. I'm sick of dynasties.

At this point, anecdotally, I know of no one who "hates her guts".

Some RW acquaintances I know actually admire her war hawk :-( stance and her fighting spirit. Quite a few lefty liberals, including myself, are wary of her politics, but certainly don't hate her.

MKJ

do it! Once you are in her presence, the power will be evident.

Here is my experience at the Ohio Democratic State Dinner in May 07.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=172x22165

National and state polls show her competitive with the Republicans. I suspect that the image that a lot of people have of her is a cartoon version bolstered by the RNC and the media which depicts just a cold hearted bureaucrat. If anyone can overcome this, it is the Clintons. I think that she could get a boost after the convention. Someone who could be a big help here is Chelsea, by aiding her to portray her as a loving mother. All that being said, I would still be more at ease if the nominee were Obama or Edwards.

If Senator Clinton is only "competitive" with McCain or Guiliani at a time when the
Repiglickin administration is running at Nixonian popularity levels or worse,
how can that be good news? It's close enough so that if the election were held
today and she were our candidate, the Repiggies would "win" again, the same way
they "won" the last two elections.

Factor in the full-time Clinton hatefest that the Repiggie media will engage in
after the Democratic convention and we'll be lucky to hold onto the House.

Before the nomination was over, etc. We see now how that race turned out.

I think we shouldn't be looking at "absolute" numbers at this point, because so much can change from now up until the election. She or the eventual Democratic nominee could gain a lot and win in a landslide or lose.

I think the important thing to focus on at this point is what do these candidates stand for (and how well those stances represent the core values of our party), and what trends will work in ones' favor or against a given candidate.

For me:

1) Hillary of the three is the lowest at representing our values. She's still better than anything the Republicans would put up, and I'm sure most would have her instead of them, but I think a lot would feel like we're sacrificing a lot to still have a big uphill clime of ridding ourselves from corporate dominance with her in charge.

2) As noted, she rallies the right wing against her more than just about anyone else, and she also for the reasons cited in item 1 (which the right wing or independents don't seem to care much about as anything in her favor) whe will alienate a lot of the core of the Democratic Party who feels she's too much of a compromise.

I think Edwards and Obama have a lot of ground they can gain or they can lose depending on what happens between now and the election. For me with Obama, more important than his skin color (which might be an issue, though one that I think can be overcome), is that he's not taking any big risks in challenging the corporate status quo elements of both parties which scares me when I speculate where his true allegiances lie. He IS cosponsoring Durbin's bill on public campaign financing that's in the Senate now, but I wonder how much of that bill is more for show than a serious effort to get some legislation passed, and if it were, how much support he'd give to it. I do credit him for cosponsoring it though. He just needs to talk about it more in my book than being some sort of "bipartisan" uniter, which is a loaded term these days, which doesn't always mean what many expect it to mean with corporate influence being so heavy everyplace now. Obama also was helping to drive the coal lobby's sponsored efforts to put forth coal liquification on the map as a new energy strategy, which I think many here feel is a big mistake and a sellout to the coal lobbyists.

Edwards I feel has spoken out more outspokenly on these more challenging issues, but still one wonders if he has enough power to overcome Hillary's lead or not. I think Gore's got a better shot, but perhaps if Gore were more quickly to decisively back out of the race, then Edwards' chances would get a shot in the arm.

Yes, they're ahead. They're not enough ahead to win, given what we are up against.



That goes to demonstrate the power of the media when they are really pulling for one of their own.
(Yes, Thompson does scare me).

Just wondering.

And it works. Just look at the 2006 election. I'm just not not sure "Middle America" will buy Hillary. I believe in the DLC's strategy to run in the middle and govern from the left. The GOP been playing this game AND WINNING for 12 years now. Run in the middle and govern from the RIGHT

DLC has the right plan just not the right person. AL, take one for the Team.........Please :)

Fluffdaddy Knows Middle "Red State" America :P

I suppose that trying to get the racist vote does fit the philosophical model of "winning is everything." I just never thought anyone would come out and say it.

can survival another 8 year GOP rule fulling the Supreme Court with wing-nuts

I am what you could call "neutral" in my feelings about Sen. Clinton. I don't really get what it is about her that gets people so worked up. She is a run-of-the-mill politician to me. I think she is smart and would make a good president. As far as Sen. Obama, I fear that those who think Americans can only bring themselves to vote for a white man for president may be right. I know people who really have negative feelings about minorities that they keep to themselves, but I think would surface in a voting booth. We as a nation have not come as far as I and many would have hoped.

as much as she tries to be a feminist crusader, there is NO WAY she would be the frontrunner for our nomination if not for her being married to bill. I'm sure she'd be successful in private life, but i seriously doubt she would have been able to win her seat in new york had she not been mrs. bill clinton. sure, she seems smart, but i don't think she would have any chance at being in her ridiculously inflated position without Bill's presidency.

I agree with you about Obama though. People say they're ready to vote for a black person to the pollsters, because who wants to openly seem racist? When they're alone in the voting booth, with no one watching, things could change very quickly and very badly for us. which is why i think he would be a good VP for edwards, and then running after edwards' term is up, so he has the power of incumbency behind all the good things he has now.


just my $0.02

If they were going to win, they should be showing double-digit leads over the likes of McCain and Gouliani.

The people want a Democrat in the White House, but it will have to be someone other than Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, or John Edwards.

We really need Al Gore as our candidate. I don't see how anyone else can beat the Repiglickin Slime Machine.

It would be interesting to see some polls matching Gore against the Republican contenders...I think it would open a lot of people's eyes to the reality that a Gore candidacy may not be the best course of action.

Yes, no matter who you put up, the hardcore Republicans won't vote for them. I don't care how so-called "moderate" (aka corporate) they are. Gore has the numbers to win as much as any Dem AND more I believe.

a black man than a polarizing wife of an ex-president.

But I have more confidence in Edwards (or even Richardson) myself. If we get stuck with Hillary as th nominee, I won't let her supporters forget how wrong they were for one second...because this country just will not vote for her.

It amazes me that so many here think Gore would be a winning candidate....they are mistaking their own enthusiasm for the man for who would have the best chance of winning.

That said, I like Obama's chances better than Hillary's, but am uneasy with all of our choices at this point and their chances of winning the GE.

the corporate media and the corporations themselves will choose who the candidate is. We have no say in the matter.

Vote for HRC, BO, or JE, in the primary (or even Gore if he runs).

Then in 08, vote for which ever Dem was then winner. The repubs beat us because they suck it up and vore for the GOP member, veen fi they don;t really like him.

We have to get comfortable with that.

only you can make up your mind as to who to support.
There is alot of false info out. go to websites and see what the candidates have to offer and go with who you want.
Obama's electability is very high.

And his support in southern Il and all the farm areas around here is high. He has a 73% approval rating here. We are middle america

:rofl:

That is a real show of electoral strength!

The fact is that Obama has never won a competitive election. We may throw him into a competitive situation with the repukes for the first time at a national level and against the repukes A-team, including Rove. How will he respond? At least we know the Clintons can respond to repuke attacks, Edwards has proven he can win as an underdog against a repuke in a red state, and Richardson has a ton of experience that should allow him to not falter during the intense heat of a general election for president.

That is a scary number. If 8% admit it what is the real number? 15%? 20%?

I am a minority and it is sad so many racists would write-off a presidential candidate (minorities have broken through the glass political ceiling in races for governor, mayor, and Congress, with Obama being a great example) due to his color but when we discuss electability it is naive to ignore this issue. Obama brings other assets to the table that could offset his racial disadvantage, though. We disect HRC's electability in 2-3 threads on a good day. Let's not ignore Obama's electability hurdles and wind up being rudely awakened if he loses the GE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

==The term Bradley effect or Wilder effect refers to a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate.<1><2><3> Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.

Researchers who have studied the issue theorize that some white voters given inaccurate responses to polling questions because of a fear that they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced. Some research has suggested that the race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor into that concern. At least one prominent researcher has suggested that with regard to pre-election polls, the discrepancy can be traced in part by the polls' failure to account for general conservative political leanings among late-deciding voters.==

I wish more democrats came to the same realization.

The 2006 landslide was quite a wipe-out for the Republicans at the state level, where much of the election fraud, voter suppression, voter intimidation, and gerrymandering occur. And you know the Republicans absolutely can't win without cheating.

We're not likely to hear it on the news, but I think much of the GOP machine--not to mention its voter base--has up and disintegrated. Those boys have really screwed up over the last seven years.

I know optimism might seem dippy, after twenty years of getting reamed by a crooked system. But I don't think the Right can clobber us so easily this time round. I'll keep my fingers crossed anyway.

And don't forget to take a strict fast from American media. It'll give you an unimaginable morale boost--plus you'll be much more likely to know what's going on.

but not broken. By all means, '08 is ours for the taking. I think any of the three frontrunners, and probably even richardson too, would win the election. But as someone else said in another thread, hillary gives up the most of our generic edge. This shouldn't be a nailbiter election, and thats what a hillary run would be.

I think the Republican lineup is weak - but I thought that of Reagan, W and GHWB (because I really thought that Iran/Contra was a killer. I have learned not to assess Republicans.

A Republican with a stellar record on corruption and who is not too linked to Bush on Iraq could be a challange. look at their voting blocks that broke up in 2006. The evangelicals were horrified by the corruption issue. (In fact, if we have a candidate who is good on this - we need to worry about swiftboating on this strength.)

There is also the immigration issue that could turn into the new "gay marriage". There is also abortion. The reason it was a big issue in 2004 was the number of judges that would definately need eplacement - now they need 1 more and there is a liklihood that at least one might retire. I may be wrong, but this is not "framing", but a black/white issue for the people voting just on this.

I think we have the easier job to win, but I also think that it may not be as easy as it seems. It bothers me that generic Democrat vs Republican does substantially better than the best pairs of real people. I don't know if this shows that people who vote differently on generic vs named races are responding that way because they like the specific Republicans better than their label or the Democrats less than their label;. What is good is that, even though the margin is smaller, all top three win most polls.

I'm so tired of saying it, but it's true. This country is too ignorant, too uneducated, too sexist, too racist, and too easily led by the nose by idiots to vote in a black man or a woman. I WISH it were not so, but let's be perfectly honest, most people don't read the paper, most people were busy laughing at the Repugnican lies and quips about "Hillary" being a "lesbian" or having "big ankles, most people in this country don't read the paper, but they do know who won American Idol. It's wonderfully idealistic to want a woman president. I'm a woman, I WANT a woman president! But it's not going to happen in the U.S., not now, not for a long time. Not till this country has a great deal of education and maturity.

next POTUS is.

candidacy. THAT is a move against American's having good technical jobs....favors foreigners over us. My friends and I in Connecticut have just gone thru 4+ years of hell because our jobs were outsourced. I just sent money for a fellow programmer who's losing his home over no longer having a good technical job in IT. I'm now in the Edwards camp and want to see Wes Clark run with him --- unbeagable.

..from a populist candidate that WILL siphon off a considerable number of votes from the Democratic Party.
This is NOT being factored in the current polls.

I also guarantee that the whiners and gnashers of teeth will blame the 3rd Party for their own stupidity.

We're going to self destruct because people don't want to win. They'd rather vote for a loser with no chance, and end up with another republican than to vote for a goddamn winner.

Bush, Clinton Clinton, Bush Bush.... Clinton? I think at least a few folks are just sick of these two families and want Somebody Else from some other family.In a coutry of three hundred million people its just wrong to keep going to the same well over and over.
With that being said she's a damn good campaigner and she's getting better. I think she certainly has the wisdom and toughness to be president.Clinton fatigue is hard to guage.

Obama sparkles on TV. The camera loves him. He's charming as hell in a way the Hillary just isn't.
But like I said she's getting better.

when it comes right down to it Sen. Biden has what it takes to beat out the Repubs come general election time. Put Biden against any Repub in a debate and he will destroy them. Has everyone forgot how much experience Biden has?? Or his plan for Iraq?? Or how about getting rid of that enormous tax break for those w/ income over 1 million and using that 60 billion to get Homeland Security, etc. taken care of?
Biden also has an onscreen charisma and he's a Moderate so he would appeal to both Repubs and Dems. Hillary and Obama WILL NOT win this election. The Repubs WANT Hillary as our candidate because they already know that they can beat her. Same as Obama.

The 26 minutes where he went on a strange monologue rather than grill Alito on real things like signing statements and Unitary President, instead speaking about how he was Irish Catholic, did not go to Princeton, how his kids did not go to Princeton etc.

Put your efforts behind a candidate that is neither Clinton nor Obama.

What is so difficult to understand about that? :shrug:

Are your possible candidates determined by who is on the ballot, or who you feel is worthy of a vote, or who you think can "win," regardless of their record or platform, or who gets the $$$ and therefore the polling numbers, or...?

My list of possible candidates is based on record and platform. I won't be making a decision until I see who actually shows up on my primary ballot. Since I have a "late" primary, I'm figuring that the nominee will already be all but decided on before I ever vote.

If there is no one on the ballot I feel is worthy of my vote, I'll write one in.

no doubt about it.

"the other candidate is worse!" That doesn't inspire voters.

NONE of the GOP candidates can beat the front running Democrats.

Remember this... Dumbya managed to form a coalition with the Christian Fundies and the "traditional" (cloth coat) conservatives, and he only won (with the help of some election fraud) by a razor-thin majority. Since then, that coalition on the right has been severely fractured, and none of the GOP candidates has a chance of repairing it. The GOP candidates either don't love Jesus enough for the Fundies, or they love Jesus a little too much for the now-sober traditional conservatives who are gun-shy of voting for another Bible-thumper.

Will Hillary energize some GOP voters? Yes. Sure she will.

Will it energize enough GOP voters to win the election? No. Not nearly enough voters to win.

IMO.

At some point in the process people ought to be able to at least signal what they endorse rather than just what they reject.

She's not my first choice, but if she is yours, vote for her!

She'll be demolished by her history, and Bill's. And she should be. She's just more of the same. She's a special interest whore. Too many people are scared of her. Go Obama.