Are Hillary and Barack REALLY electable?

Let's be honest here people.. I am very interested to hear what everyones opinion here is.
I have discussed this issue with friends and family, and basically everyone I talk to worries about the same thing I do: their electability.

I am going to come out and say it.. I have been all over the south and midwest, and there still remain many ignorant, racist, and biased people in our country- unfortunately.

I worry simply about Barack's electability due to his RACE, and Hillary's due to her SEX.
This thread was not created to start a Clinton/Obama debate.. and I am also not saying they will get the nomination or that I support them. I just want to know:

is Barack electable? is hillary? SOLELY based on race and sex.


I say its a disappointing truth.

I honestly believe we have reached the point where voters are willing to consider candidates without disqualifying them because of race or color.

Sure there are a percentage of bigots who wouldn't vote for them for that reason. But I believe they are a minority at this point.

This report card on racism in America is very telling because it approaches things from a different angle. I think the truth is somewhere between what people *claim* they will do and what they think others will do:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/report-card-on-prejudice-_b_57558.html

know for sure is if one of them were to be the nom and see who won the GE.

An interesting thing I've heard is that when people are questioned, they say THEY individually have no issue with either of them because of sex/race, but they don't think the COUNTRY is ready for a woman/AA man.

It would be very telling. I'm think there is far more racial and sexual discrimination still rampant than we like to admit to ourselves. Ugly little secrets we keep and hope we're not called on them.

alot of people who say Obama isn't experienced enough are simply covering up their uneasiness about a black president. I am not saying he is the most experienced nominee ever, but I do feel that alot of people who say that fail to acknowledge alot of other candidates shortcomings on experience.

...and neither do other blacks I've spoken to about him. However, as we all know, "experience" is a relative thing - look at who currently occupies the White House. He wasn't "experienced" either. More important than experience is common sense and the people you surround yourself with. You're Barack Obama, and you've just been elected president; you name Joe Biden as your Sec. of State and appoint Al Gore to head an energy task force, you are way way WAAAY ahead of the game.

Everywhere I go I'm hearing people say they're ready for someone like Obama or Hillary and I'm hearing it from people that I never would dream would be saying that about any Democrats before.

So yup, either of these two people will kick Republican ass. Voters really are sick and tired of Republicans ruining everything.

I believe that both are electable if people actually get off their asses and go vote.

Many, including myself, do not.

George H.W. Bush
Ross Perot
Michael Dukakis
Walter Mondale
Jimmy Carter
Gerald Ford
George McGovern
Hubert Humphrey
George Wallace
Barry Goldwater
Richard Nixon
Adlai Stevenson

and dozens of other white men have all lost the presidency. There are all sorts of reasons that people have lost presidential races, none of which had to do with race or gender. If Obama or Clinton were to be the nominee and were to lose, race or gender would be only one of many, many, many reasons for their loss. But it is certainly a convenient excuse for continuing to argue that blacks or women should just stay out of the way so that white men can continue having the entire field to themselves.

....to a white woman or an African American?

White men have been losing presidential elections since 1789. Obviously, people lose elections for all manner of reasons unrelated to race.

So if a woman or a black person loses the election in 2008, it will hardly be proof positive that a woman or minority cannot win the presidency. It could simply be that they lost for one of the countless reasons that white men have been losing elections all of these years.

But I think Hillary's sex is considerably less of a handicap for her. I think she's got bigger problems for her "electability"-- she's not attractive to left-leaning independents, but she will be a magnet for the GOP base to GOTV. I sense Guilani vs. Hillary will be tough on the Dems b/c Rudy can draw "swing voters" and even though the Christian Right may be lukewarm towards him, they will show out in force to support him if the alternative is the much-reviled Hillary Clinton.

This whole Dem primary season is even more depressing than most-- or maybe it's just me.

The last 5 words of your sentence tell a lot about you.

or a GOP troll. Obviously those are the only two options for someone who finds this crop of candidates, and who's leading the pack, in a time when the Dems should be showing strong, principled leadership, to be extremely depressing.

As I've written previously, I DO think we at least have to acknowledge that racism and sexism will play *some* role in this election depending upon who the nominee is. As progressives, we can't on one hand claim that racism, sexism and xenophobia are problems (and I believe they very much are) in America and on the other hand pretend that these issues magically vanish during elections.

With that said, I do think there is truth to the statement that a lot (but not all) of the people with these regressive beliefs wouldn't have voted for a democrat anyway.

But do I still fear there might be *some* negative impact? Yes. But that wouldn't stop me for voting for Hillary/Obama/Richardson in a primary IF I thought one of them was the best candidate.

Neither have the experience. Hillary has much too much baggage, and she just plain isn't likable.

Man, it sucks eggs down here, truly. I wish I could report that I'd never heard someone lean over and whisper, in that sickening passive-aggressive, southern gossipy tone: "I just don't know if people will vote for a woman, 'course it'd be nice 'n all, but you know.." Alternatively, the same about Obama & race. All whilst denying any complicity in the notion THEY might be the ones "not voting for..". It is sickening. I feel they are both eminently qualified, capable and electable. But what do I know? I thought after people got a boatload of Shrubya for four years, we'd run away with the election in 2004, so evidently I don't know much.

comfortable with him, and Hillary's gender is not really a problem.

that Kerry was going to burn their bibles....

There are some pretty shallow people out there.

I would LOVE to see it happen, and this country is in desperate need of a changing of the guard, if you will, but I think it will definitely be a challenge. I think it will be worth it.

Probably not. Let's put it this way, I think that Obama, HRC, and Kucinich are all no-gos. Edwards may also be in that category. Richardson probably would be electable, and Biden as well. But everyone else? I'm just not sure. I don't think so. And I think we're all kidding ourselves if we think that hatred of Bush automatically translates into votes for the Democratic party next November.

You don't think that there are racist and sexist Democrats? LOL! Come on over to Philadelphia, a tremendous Democratic stronghold, and I'll show you the folly of those words within ten minutes of your arrival. The problem on DU is we assume that since we aren't racist and sexist that everyone in the party isn't either and that is a farce even bigger than Chimpy's Presidency. Most of the Democrats here are far more interested in the economics, the labor and health issues than with the social issues of the party. They would throw minorities and gays into the fire in a heartbeat if the Democrats weren't better then the Republicans on the issues that really matter to them and effect them.

I guarantee you if either Obama or Clinton are given the nod their percentage in this city will not even be close to what it was for Kerry in 2004. And the turnout will be a lot smaller as well. We might have gotten better on these issues as a nation over the past 40 years but we are nowhere near where we ought to be. It's a shame because both would be decent candidates, far better than any of the Republicans, but it would be a disaster for the party, and the country, to nominate either.

HRC is not well liked. Obama is too young. IMO, Richardson has the best chance in the general election.

For Clinton, it's because she is extremely polarizing, not because she's a woman (imo). Obama, it's because he hasn't been around long enough for those who might just be a tad bit racist to trust him. Just my opinion. Both as nom's scare me.

....if they've cut good deals with corporate America, then they won't be mercilessly smeared....if not, no....does it matter?

Sorry, they don't go to the back of the bus.

The republican party is in tatters. I have my doubts about Hillary's electability, but they have nothing to do with her gender and out of respect for the spirit of your post, I'll refrain from going there. The bottom line, though, is that most people who won't vote for her because she is a woman won't vote for the democrat, anyway.

I strongly believe in Barack's electability, based on the number of people who are willing to jump ship just to vote for him. Will there be some racists that won't vote for him? Sure. But the same types might not vote for Giuliani or Romney, either. And they sure as hell won't vote for a woman.

If there were ever a time in recent history to challenge conventional wisdom and stereotypes, that time is now. We can't decline to nominate competent leaders out of fear that they will lose. Instead, we need to put up a leader we believe in, and one that can heal and repair the damage to our society and global image. The 2008 election is ours to lose and there are only a couple of ways we can manage to do that. Nominating a minority isn't one of them.

I've been guilty in the past of overly examining the electability factor myself, however I refuse to allow fear to influence my vote in this election. Fear has already done enough damage to this nation, and to the credibility of some in our party. It's time to move on.

I do believe that there still exists racism and sexism in this country. I think much of it is still hidden.

The bottom line is this:

You can poll a million people and ask them if sex and race play into their decision. Most will say no. However, once they draw that voting booth curtain closed, it's a much different story.

I'm sorry, I wish our country was more progressive than what it is. The one thing I have learned from the re-election of George Bush, is that this country is far more regressed than I had ever imagined. I would have never dreamed that Bush would be re-elected. I thought that the American people were smarter than that. Apparently they weren't.

As a result, I cannot believe that the American people will vote for a woman or an African American in numbers enough to not make this election a risk for the Dems. We can't afford to risk this election.

It's too bad too. Both Clinton and Obama are outstanding civil servants and would make good Commanders-in-Chief.

Just my two cents.

-Paige

The die is cast.

We have to play the cards we were dealt (we dealt to ourselves).

If the country were polled in 1946 about whether the armed services should be integrated, the overwhelming answer would surely have been NO. But Truman ordered the service integrated and within a few years, no one even noticed the difference.

If the country were polled in 1965 about whether a black could be appointed to the Supreme Court, I'm sure they overwhelming answer would have been NO. But Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Court a couple of years later and, despite plenty of objections and threats from Southern Senators, he was confirmed and served with distinction for 25 years.

If the country were polled in the early 1980s about whether a black man could be a viable presidential candidate, the answer would have been NO. But Jesse Jackson just a few years later gave Michael Dukakis a run for his money and came in second in the presidential primaries.

If the country had been polled in the late 1990s about whether Massachusetts would elect a black governor, the answer would likely have been NO. But it happened.

I don't buy the arguments about whether America is ready to elect a black or a woman. The country is NEVER ready until the choice is put in front of them - and we are often very surprised at the results.

Besides, buying into that argument means accepting a perpetual status quo. Assuming that a black or a woman can't win means pressuring them to stay out of the way, which means they'll never give the country the opportunity to find out that it just might be further along than we give it credit for.

EDIT to say

Welcome to DU! :hi:

I look forward to "seeing" you again soon and hopefully often!

:thumbsup:

anyone. I think most of the country is open to listen when the stakes are high. If we behave cynically we will reap what we sow.

Of course they are electable. Look at the trouble the repubs are having right now raising money. The Dems aren't having trouble. Look at her numbers - they are strong. Dems know who they want (its either her or Barack.) Barack has a chance. And, I will support him if it comes to pass.

But by putting out this post you are feeding into the line of thinking that in America in 2007 we still want white male presidents. And its not true. The dems need to be strengthening the prevailing notion in the country that an african American and a woman can be president. That's positive. That gets votes.

Let's pull together not apart.

Unfortunately there are still many voters who would NEVER vote for a woman or a "black" person. Most of America still subscribes to the theory that White Males are better leaders. I'm not saying this is the way it should be....just the way it IS. The South & rural West would NEVER go for either.

This is why MSM & Repukes are pushing HRC & BO so hard. THEY KNOW THEY CAN BE DEFEATED IN THE GENERAL ELECTION because of this backward thinking. Notice there are neither on the Repuke side. They KNOW that voters want White Males. They let the Dems ACT progressive by recognizing there is a woman & a Black running for Pres., just to keep the media stirred up. But they safely stick to the White Males. Just watch & see.

One need not provide evidence of one's opinion.

However, I base this opinion on what I see around me and in the culture in general. I live in the South, so I have a pretty good feel for what the tempo is here. Oppression of women & people of color is still the status quo, although it isn't openly "acknowledged". Actions speak louder than words. Racial profiling, good ole' boy networks, and mild sentences for perpetrators of crimes against women & children are just a few examples.

The rural West is traditionally very conservative & red, i.e. keep things the way they are, don't rock the boat. Doubtful that they will change that dramatically.

I would love to see our country become more progressive. I just don't feel that it will happen at this point in time.

and gender equality, or if they're willing to tell women and black people to sit in the back of the bus out of political cowardice.

it has nothing to do with race or gender. the 30 some percent of people that will not vote for them because of race or gender are called Republicans and wouldn't vote for any Democrat anyway.

But if we are going to be honest, we all know that a Hillary presidency was the natural next step after 8 years of Gore.

But that was stolen from us

Further, we all know that 8 years from now that Barack, if he stays on the national seen (hopefully as VP) will be our first non white president.

I live in Philly, which is a huge Democratic stronghold, and the comments I hear from even my union co-workers lead me to believe that no, they are not electable. If hardhats on union jobs in a fairly liberal city are saying there is no way they'd vote for a woman or a black guy (and believe me, they did not say it that way) then what do you think Joe Blow in Bumblefuck, Indiana is saying? I think we are writing our own death warrant if we nominate either of the two. It might be another 50 years before we get past that bullshit as a nation, maybe never if Republicans keep winning.

in the face of contradictory evidence, is just sad.

But it's just the way it is. I hear the N-word thrown around casually all the time and it sickens me. The excuse I always hear after I object is "well that's the way I was brought up" and I always say "You're an adult now, can't you think for yourself?" If we all just believed everything our parents told us as absolute truth we'd never advance as a species. There is a long, long way to go on these issues in this country.

I believe we've come far enough. In any case, we'll find out. One or the other will be the nominee, unless something unforseen comes up.

The thing that really pisses me off is that I'll have to actually work for Hillary to get elected should she get the nomination. If Obama were to get it I wouldn't mind so much even though I'd have to do the same amount of "talking him up" to the many closed minded people around here. I wish I had your optimism. Good luck to us no matter who gets the nod.

because of the fact that they are both corporatist hacks which turns off the base.

So we don't lose much. With Obama, we gain an increase in black turnout that will help in several key states. The South will be more competitive than people think if Obama is the nominee.

But we'll never know until one of them ARE nominated. People have hang-ups about all kinds of things. I always wonder whether or not Obama would get the level of support he's getting if he weren't mixed and 100% Black. Let's not be so jaded to believe there aren't Democrats who are bigots. At one point in time, the Dem Party was just as racist as the Republican Party. But at the same time, I think a Black or Woman Democrat running for President is much more likely to succeed than a Black or Woman Republican running.