Hillary deflects her losses over the weekend, saying that she lost because of the large black vote

Maine sure is a black stronghold. Just like Washington. And Nebraska. :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

WHITE MARSH, Maryland (CNN) — Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.

She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that "everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were."

"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

Clinton has publicly dismissed the caucus voting system since before Super Tuesday, seeking to lower expectations heading into a series of contests that played to Obama's advantage. His campaign features what many consider to be a stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization than Clinton's.

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

The New York senator went out of her way to say she was "absolutely" looking forward to the Ohio and Texas primaries in March, where she believes voters are more receptive to her bread-and-butter message.

She also downplayed many of Obama's Super Tuesday victories, describing them as states that Democrats should not expect to win in November.

"It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska," she said, naming several of Obama's red state wins. "But we have to win Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan … And we've got to be competitive in places like Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma."

:eyes:

im glad you got alot of blue states, guess what Obama will pick them up in the GE. Now red state wins is interesting. You sure they are gonna stay red?

It's only been a democratic stronghold since Clinton in 92. It's not as left wing as many think.

I seriously doubt McCain could pick up california.

If he puts a Latino Californian on the ticket, it's his in a walk. He doesn't even have to show up and campaign. APIL--all politics is local.

Good thing you're not running any campaigns. You don't think ahead much, do you?

that everyone in california is talking hillary or obama, I havn't heard one word of McCain and I doubt elected a token VP is gonna sway alot of people. But what do I know I'm just a dumb shit right?

McCain is in his seventies. His VP ain't gonna be a "token." His VP is going to have to be young and vigorous, smart, sharp, and engaged, a player on the national stage, someone with a decent amount of gravitas, just in case old Popeye falters.

McCain knows he has the 'age' thing to overcome, and the way to do it is by trotting out his Mamma AND getting a sharp #2 to back him up. People who pull the lever for him are going to be voting for McCain...and his Wingman.

second you stated he would probably pick a vp to get the hispanic vote which i think is a loser strategy to begin with because it will piss off his so called base. second I called it a token vp simply because you were using the assumption that it would be a big part of who he picked. third people who pull the lever will be voting for both of them, McCain still detracts alot of people.

Republican?

They're the ULTIMATE swing voters if you can speak to their issues.

McCain's VP will be a HUGE part of his campaign. Make no mistake.

The reason I say you aren't paying attention is because you AREN'T. That's not an "attack." It's an observation based on evidence which, you, yourself, provided with your uninformed commentary.

Here, some light reading:

"I usually think of running mates as a casting call, so there isn't always one person that you can settle on," said Kareem Crayton, a professor of law and politics at the University of Southern California. "Geographically, the Republicans have to look very hard and close at where they can win big states."

McCain's general-election opponent also will influence his choice in a dramatic way.

It's still unclear if he will face Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., an African-American, or Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., a woman. Either historic contender could prompt McCain to seek out a more diverse running mate, such as woman or a Latino.

"McCain could make huge waves there," said Fred Solop, a professor of political science and director of the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University. "He would be looking for someone with solid conservative credentials and someone outside the Washington Beltway, but there is a unique opportunity for the Republicans to send the message that they're an inclusive party as well."

McCain has hesitated to talk about whom he might consider as a vice-presidential candidate but did offer some general thoughts last month during a conference call with political bloggers. .... "He's so serious about the position and national security that, obviously, his first question is going to be, 'Can this person step up into the job?' " said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a McCain supporter.

"Then he'll have to survey the political situation at the time and see who he would like to work with and would help to balance the ticket in whatever way it needs to be balanced."



http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0208mccain0208vp.html


This IS a massive topic of conversation--just check Der Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=McCain%2C+VP

To "assume" that CA is "reliably blue" is a HUGE mistake.

:eyes:

If you look at California, McCain got 40% of the vote here.... that means that 60% of the Republicans wanted someone with a stronger religious message.

Putting up a Hispanic *might* get him California or New Mexico, but putting up a fundie will mobilize the fundies in Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Virginia, Florida, and other close states.

Maybe he'll find himself an Hispanic Female Fundie--a Three-Fer!!

It could also mean they simply wanted someone with a "genuine conservative" message, too.

After all, Huckie, fundie though he is, has some positions that are clearly liberal--particularly with regard to care of (illegal alien) children and education. He won't kick them out of school because their parents are illegal, and he doesn't have a problem giving poor kids school lunches. He doesn't believe catsup is a vegetable, like Reagan did. Romney is a bullshitter conservative--for choice before he was against it, for gay unions before he was against them...he's just not believable, he has the air of a craven opportunist about him, plus he had that Mormon thing going on top of everything else, and that probably did factor in more than anyone is willing to acknowledge.

My point is simply that one can't always "assume." Particularly nowadays, with all of this "unity" and "post-partisan" bullshit floating around. California isn't Massachusetts--they've got "critical mass" of GOP out that way, and they've got pesky independents who can and will turn on a dime--look at the Davis recall/Ahhhh-nuld election. They're capable of ANYTHING.

If one lets down one's guard, one could end up being clocked upside the head.

think McInsane would do too well in CA

Richardson may lack charisma, but he's got a reputation as a policy nerd. He's also from a much tighter swing state bordering Texas, Colorado, and McCain's stronghold of Arizona.

I think Richardson would be a much better choice to woo Hispanic voters.

his ticket, not fuck it!

Obama, OTOH, could easily pick Richardson for VP and that would really up his game in the Southwest.

FL is full of Hispanic Republicans, and many Cubans hold public office, but that wouldn't necessarily translate OR travel well to CA. If the GOP had their eye on CA, they'd want a homegrown candidate. I'm sure they wish Ahhhnuld was an American by birth--of course, if he were, HE'D probably have the frontrunner status at this stage.

Speaking of that, I'm surprised no one is angrily revisiting the "McCain wasn't born in AMERICA!!!" rants over on the GOP team. I thought they'd drag that old card out long before now.

You can't ever take any state for granted. Assuming California is "in the bag" is dangerous, especially in this fluid environment.

GHWB v. Dukakis:



Reagan v. Carter:



Carter v. Ford (note that BLUE is GOP in this map)


All Popeye has to do is select a popular California "native son" (or daughter) as his running mate--and to further triangulate, an Hispanic to boot-- and the Democratic nominee has a massive and expensive FIGHT on his or her hands.

I find the cavalier, "no one can touch us" attitudes here ..... interesting. Naive, certainly.

Pride goeth before a fall, ya know....

if she gets the nomination.

But not Obama.

I've got news for you, the Democratic primary in CA isn't indicative of anything that will happen in the general election, especially with the large absentee vote in the primaries.

Where did I say that CA is a given for Clinton, HMMMMMMMM?

Please. Point it out. Come on, now....money where that big old mouth is, now!!!!

You implied that Clinton had a very good chance to win in California while if Obama was nominated this would be a swing state.

You put those words in your own mouth, I just parsed them.

California hasn't been a swing state for a few decades. That won't change this year either, because the Repugs don't have somebody as strong as Reagan this election. It will be a blue state this year, and you implied that it had the possibility of being a swing state if Obama was nominated.

It's firmly a blue state today. 2004 didn't change that, 2008 won't change it either, regardless of who is nominated.

Your behavior provides clues to your character. And that's nothing to write home about, either.

I insist that you point me to where I said anything about Clinton being the presumptive choice.

Oh wait--you can't do that, because I said NOTHING of the sort.

But you LIED about that, and now you won't own up to it.

How pathetic.

then again I think most people see who mcCain is. Guess we'll have to wait and see, either way....gobama!

All of the greater San Diego area will go for him--all the USN and USMC enclaves, too.

The challenge is for the Dems to capture--decisively--the sometimes fickle, APIL Hispanic vote.

:eyes:

I specifically said this, upthread:

All Popeye has to do is select a popular California "native son" (or daughter) as his running mate--and to further triangulate, an Hispanic to boot-- and the Democratic nominee has a massive and expensive FIGHT on his or her hands.

and I understand thats what YOU think. And I am under the impression that california has changed alot since since 88 and whatever Dem wins will get california. so i guess if you want to contineu pushing what YOU think you will get this response

:P

But keep resting on those laurels, if it makes you happy.

:P

FWIW, Obama won Washington, Minnesota, Maine, Illinois, and several other solidly blue states that she forgot to mention. :P

:shrug:

:shrug:

"the only reason Barack is doing well is because he is black, not because he is a good candidate".

Low, but not unexpected.

"the only reason Barack is doing well is because he is black, not because he is a good candidate".

Low, but not unexpected.

Nebraska, Maine, & Washington... Tons.

That is so funny... and quite pathetic.

Either that, or you have reading comprehension challenges. Unless "Maine" is somehow a county of Louisiana...yeah, that's the ticket!!!!

The first sentence of your overlong excerpt says it all:

WHITE MARSH, Maryland (CNN) — Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.

But I guess we're to expect these kinds of tactics.

People who do that kind of shit are pretty damned sleazy, IMO. It's race-baiting AND it's a blatant falsehood.

That's just the way it is.

In VA, nearly 40% of the Dem primary voters are black voters, so he starts ahead of her from the get-go. Black voters vote as a block to a degree few blocs do. Women, conversely, rarely vote as a block. They lean one way or the other, but don't vote as a block.

Basic Demographics from this ex-pollster.

Her and Bill alienated black voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and from there she never recovered.

This whole 'race' issue has been blown up by the press and it originiated with the press.

of the women's vote in the primaries. Since women have been 60% of the primary voters, while Blacks have been maybe 20%, I would say she is getting more of a benefit from her "lean" than he is from his "block".

or ads?

All her campaign can do is make excuses at this point for her poor showings.

"Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community."

Don't make Obama supporters look bad by posting something that shows you can't comprehend what you read.

aloha means good-bye

:hi:

Nice.

This gets creepier every day.

It's pretty sad to see.

I just don't understand why she just can't admit she got her ass handed to her this weekend.

Instead, she needs to deflect and deflect.

I've heard this from two different sources (and now this) already today.

and it backfired. It's too late now.

Whites support Obama and Hillary 50/50, with Obama having an advantage with white men.

I'd like to see that.

she knew the system going in, she should have been able to take advantage of it and be more competitive in those states. Saying "it doesn't work for me" isn't a good excuse.

And "it's highly unlikely we will win Nebraska" but "we've got to be competitive in places like Texas, and Oklahoma."

That seems mightly selective of a statement.

I'm a little pissed at blaming Louisiana lost on there being a lot of black people. So what? She had the black vote until the post-Iowa shenanigans. They were hers to lose (which she did).

And that she will have to "make do" with the fact that more Katrina survivors have been allowed to return than many Hillary supporters were "hoping" for right here on DU (see the "I hope turnout is low in Louisiana, then Hillary wins Louisiana". We all know why people were EXPECTING turnout to be low in Louisiana. Why were they HOPING for such injustice?)

I've been learning a lot about so called "progressives."

home in the GE?? Stupid comment. These are only the primaries Hill, you ain't seen nothin yet!

Turn-out was pathetic in Lousiana (and can you blame them?).

Activists don't support her??!!!! She's single-handedly given new meaning to the word.

How are people in Ohio going to be more receptive to bread and butter than would be Louisianans?

I think she is starting to lose it. This is absurd, made-up stuff.

and I'm sure Massachusetts will flip to McCain if Obama is the nominee.... yep/

And "black votes" don't really count -- until a Clinton needs them in the general election to win against the GOP.


:eyes:

Cannot you read your own quote?

Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.

Your headline:

Hillary deflects her losses over the weekend, saying that she lost because of the large black vote...

Pretty sleazy, indeed.

Like, if we trash McCain in November (which I hope we will) if he blames the Blacks for his loss, how bigoted will that look? :shrug:

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

that is why she dismisses activism as an agent of change

Here's your next thread title: "CRIPS AND BLOODS CONSPIRE TO INTIMIDATE LITTLE OLD LADIES AND RIG CAUCUSES FOR THE EVIL UPPITY BLACK MAN!!!111!!!!"

Heavy :sarcasm:, followed by lots of :puke:ing

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

Actually, Senator Clinton, we do NOT know that. The photographs I saw of excited, enthusiastic, proud voters didn't exactly illuminate them as "activists." And I find it shameful that you are blowing off the voters in every caucus state you lost by saying they are not representative of the electorate. Does that apply even to the "activists" who caucused for YOU?

And what the hell is so wrong about "activists"? Hasn't Senator Clinton been one her entire life?

I'm not sure whether this is turning into a comedy or a tragedy, but these excuses honestly make her look awful. And if she's so full of ire about her complete inability to turn out voters to a caucus, maybe she should turn her wrath on her competitor, instead of on the voters she might actually need in November.

Good grief. I've really had about all the Clinton-Clinton-Penn-Wolffson I can handle today. So graceless in defeat, they're attacking all the excited voters who lined up, stood in the cold, and broke state attendance records. :-(

Is anyone here honestly unaware that Obama does very well with African American voters, and that in those States in which the voting percentage of Blacks is much higher than average, he tends to do very well? Obama has been winning the Black vote by a bigger percent than he has been losing the White vote in the South. That is simply a fact - both Obama and Clinton have cross racial appeal, but in a head to head that is how it has played out so far.

Clinton is doing exactly what she should do in her situation; explaining why she thinks she will end up winning more delegates than Obama even though he has done well of late, and why she thinks important future results will be different than recent disappointing ones.

Seriously, she is simply doing her job on behalf of all those who have contribited to the effort to win her the nomination. She is making her case; it is what she is supposed to do.