May 27, 2008 11:56am

Democratic Voter Groups: A Second Look

Voter-group analysis in the Democratic contest has been flying thick and fast lately. Among the arguments: Barack Obama has a problem with white voters. And/or with Jewish voters. And/or with supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Each can use a second look.

Newsweek stressed the racial issue this weekend, saying Obama “is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters,” and that his race “may well explain his difficulty” because he does less well among whites who express “racial resentment.”

Maybe, but there’s other evidence worth considering, including this: Obama’s currently doing no worse among whites – a 12-point deficit to John McCain in the Newsweek data – than Al Gore did; he lost them by an identical 12 points in 2004, yet won the popular vote. John Kerry lost whites, moreover, by 17 points; Mike Dukakis, by 19 points.

Each of these three Democrats lost their elections, and Bill Clinton, who won his, did better among whites, losing them by 3 points in 1996 and a scant point in 1992. Obama surely wants to do better among whites; after all they account for three-quarters of voters in presidential elections. But the fact that he’s currently even with Gore and outpacing Kerry and Dukakis among whites would seem to militate against racism as the prime agent.

My vote’s for the socioeconomic effect I’ve covered in previous blogs. Working-class whites are not a good group for Obama; he does much better among better-educated whites. That would seem to cut more to the politics of the man, not the color of his skin.

Then there are Jews; The New York Times headlined a piece last week, “As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of its Jews have Doubts.” The piece reported anecdotally that elderly Jews have particular concerns about Obama; said Jews were “important to his general election hopes,” especially in New York, California, New Jersey and Florida; and reported that “in recent presidential elections, Jews have drifted somewhat to the right.”

The Florida exit poll, however, found that Obama did no worse among Jews voting in the uncontested Florida primary – 26 percent support – than he did among other white voters, 23 percent. The Florida sample’s not big enough to look at seniors only, but across all primaries this year, Obama in fact has done slightly better with Jews over age 65 (35 percent support) than among non-Jewish white seniors (29 percent). (See here for Jan Crawford Greenberg’s blog on the subject last Thursday.)

As far as their importance, Jews are hardly a large group, even in the states listed. In the 2004 general election Jews accounted for 8 percent of voters in New York, 7 percent in New Jersey, 5 percent in Florida and just 4 percent in California. And Jews (second perhaps only to African-Americans) are among the most reliably Democratic voting groups. They voted more heavily Democratic in the last four previous elections than in the previous four – by more than a 3-1 margin in 2004. A rightward shift is tough to see; just 13 percent of Jews in the 2004 exit poll identified themselves as conservatives.

Finally there’s the ongoing brouhaha about polls in which Clinton supporters say they wouldn’t vote for Obama in November, and vice versa. I’ve argued against putting too much of a stake in these findings, simply because of the timing: Asking Democrats their November vote in the midst of their nominating contest is like asking a married couple in the middle of a knock-down, drag-out fight what they’ll be doing for Valentine’s Day. They need a little time to calm down and try to make up.

A run through our data from past elections reinforces the point: In primary polls since 1988, supporters of a losing nominee routinely have been loath to say they’d vote for the winner in November.

In an ABC/Post poll in January 1988, among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who supported someone other than Gary Hart (the front-runner at the time), just 54 percent said they’d support Hart against George H.W. Bush in November. Among Republicans who preferred someone other than Bush for the nomination, a less-than-monolithic 79 percent said they’d support him as the nominee in November.

In February 1992, among Democrats who did not support Bill Clinton, just 63 percent said they’d vote for him in the fall; 31 percent said they’d cross over to vote for Bush. In January 1996, among Republicans who did not support Bob Dole for the nomination, just 66 percent said they’d support him in November. In March 2000, among Democrats who supported Bill Bradley for the nomination, just 64 percent said they’d vote for Al Gore in November; and on the Republican side, among John McCain’s supporters that year, just 73 percent said they’d support George W. Bush as the nominee. Finally, in December 2003, among Democrats who did not support Howard Dean for president, just 67 percent said they’d support Dean in the fall.

In our last national poll, among Democrats who favor Clinton for the nomination, just 64 percent said they’d vote for Obama against John McCain in November. That looks a lot like most of the numbers above.

The history adds some context. It tells us the phenomenon we’re seeing now is not new. We don’t have data that let us clearly parse out how supporters of a losing candidate in the primaries voted in November. We do know that partisans by and large stick with their party, and independents make the difference.

Given the stickiness of partisanship, what may well matter more than crossover voting is voting in the first place: People disaffected with their party’s nominee probably are likeliest just not to vote, rather than to vote for the other side. That suggests the endgame matters. If the winning and losing candidates hold hands and make nice, that sends a message. If it ends ugly, that sends a different one.

There’s one clue in corresponding Republican data. In an ABC/Post poll in January, with the Republican contest still underway, 78 percent of leaned Republicans said they’d vote for McCain against Obama in November. This month, with the nomination in McCain’s hands, that had inched up to 84 percent. Time, it seems, heals at least some wounds.

User Comments

ok, keep thinking that we will come to Obama, can’t wait for election night, your faces will look like they looked in New Hampshire. Shock and Awe!! you people are unbelievable. Never, ever, will he get my vote or the vote of millions. Keep fluffing it ABC, your not helping your Savior.

Posted by: Kim | May 27, 2008, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm

Kim, Whew!

Posted by: hang | May 27, 2008, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm

Obama has problems with more than just whites, Jews and Clinton’s supporters. He has problems with any intelligent, rational American who will ask him/herself exactly WHAT does Obama have to offer? Not experience. Not leadeship. Not foreign relations knowledge/savvy. And certainly NOT how to fix an economy that is going down the drain due to the oil companies.

Posted by: jeananne | May 27, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm

Better take a much closer look. No matter what the polls (mostly fixed anyway) say, obama will NOT be elected president of the USA. It won’t happen. He DOES NOT like “typical white people” (meaning the “less educated” and poor, does NOT LIKE Senior citizens and does NOT LIKE the Jewish people or Israel. Prove that the does! He can’t prove this and these “uneducated” people are not dumb and no magical speech can fix this. They know when they are being lied to and manipulated and used. And obama is doing all three. So before you count your chickens – let’s just wait until the general election. If Hillary Clinton is not nominated, you can bet that more than 50% of the Hillary voters will vote for McCain – just to keep obama from winning – and the golden saint does need those votes to take the general and he cannot.
Period – bye bye obama. At the general he will lose by a landslide. People are not dumb like obama and his campaign want you to think. Huh – only the better educated and wealthy love obama? He has succeeded in forming a cult. But that is all.

Posted by: Lou | May 27, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm

There’s a silent vote out there.
This “SILENT VOTE” will vote in
november.
This group do not vote on primaries or
caucuses but they vote in november.

Posted by: Nicholas | May 27, 2008, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm

Hillary should run as independent.
I want to see three candidates compete in the fall: Hillary, McCain, Obama. Obama is the last in my list.
It’s not good for the country, some elders forcing Hillary to withdraw. We want to elect the best candidate. The one currently heading in delegate count doesn’t mean he is the best.

Posted by: golfgirlusa | May 27, 2008, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm

Or, Obama should not represent Dem. party. He is another party, liberal party.

Posted by: golfgirlusa | May 27, 2008, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm

Maybe Hillary and Mccain should team up..Boy what a way to stick iy to Obama..

Posted by: JC | May 27, 2008, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm

Kim…I’m with you and there are millions of us. It sure isn’t his race..it’s HIM. Most liberal unknown to ever be nominated. I lean right anyway, and McCain isn’t your typical Republican….so voting for him instead of Hillary, will NOT be a problem. What the survey didn’t explore is WOMEN, and the phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”.
This race should have been the two candidated closer to middle…McCain to the right and Clinton a little to the left = close race. Now you’ve got a guy so far out left against a moderate Republican. Hello Pres. McCain.
I don’t think racism will be the biggest factor against Obama….it’s just regular 40 something women (and men) like myself who don’t like his poor judgement in bedfellows and his dubious past and lack of experience. HE DOEN’T DESERVE TO BE POTUS.

Posted by: Debra | May 27, 2008, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm

We’ve all been in school before. We all know there are some students really capable, but they just can not get top scores in the exam, due to carelessness, ignorance, or other factors. But there are some sudents who are NOT top, but they are good at taking exams, because they just focus on the exams. They practiced a lot, prepared well, prepared all kinds of questions in the exam, don’t do outside or social activity, utilized all their time for preparing the exams.
Obama is that kind of student, only good at taking exams.
I don’t see Obama’s many achievements in real world. His only big achievement is in the campaign. Because the campaign, he doesn’t want to spend time running a single meeting for NATO, he doesn’t spend time attending Feb. black union’s party.
It’s very dangerous and risky to elect someone who is ONLY good at taking exams.
We should watch a candidate’s long-term career, what did he really do.
Just like a high school student, we can not focus on his score in ONLY one exam to determine which University he should go to; we should see all his records, all kinds of records in his whole student life, to see if he can enter the top school.
Obama wants change, right? This is a change we should have:
Change the election process.

Posted by: golfgirlusa | May 27, 2008, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm

Obama has problems with more than just whites, Jews and Clinton’s supporters. He has problems with any intelligent, rational American who will ask him/herself exactly WHAT does Obama have to offer? Not experience. Not leadeship. Not foreign relations knowledge/savvy. And certainly NOT how to fix an economy that is going down the drain due to the oil companies.
Posted by: jeananne | May 27, 2008 12:18:14 PM
========================================
Your post is 100% correct.
Millions upon millions voters believe
and share the same exactly views.

Posted by: Nicholas | May 27, 2008, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm

Does anybody think the DNC is looking at all the numbers and states Obama will lose and voters he will never get, and really think they youth vote/black vote and radical liberal will put him over the top? Who is doing the fuzzy math. Still can’t believe because of the 11 wins in Feb., before anyone knew Obama, he rung up his delegate lead, yet Hillary has the popular vote. And the super delegates can chance their minds right up until August.

Posted by: Debra | May 27, 2008, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm

I agree with almost everyone here! Hillary supporters WILL NOT RALLY around Obama no matter how much he pays the media. This is why Hillary will get her FL and MI votes fully seated! With that she’ll be within 65 won delegates of Obama. With the last three primaries it’ll inch even closer! The DNC knows this. They know Hillary supporters are patriotic and have long memories. We NEED the Clintons. Go Hillary!

Posted by: jeep395 | May 27, 2008, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm

the republicans are scared !!!!
lol
look at you people?
Obama has inspired a nation, for change, he represents an america that no longer works on fear, but works to better US, and the World…
Its funny when people use his middle name as if its indicative of something..
You can play word games all you want, but saddam hussein has no relation to Barrack Obama…
saddam also had nothign to do with 911
Obama will be our next president because he can lead america on a better course, a logical course, and a healing course.
He is the only candidate that can heal the wounds of George W. Bush
while mccain will only continue the path of bush…
Obama 08

Posted by: bhrandon | May 27, 2008, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm

look at you people was suppose to be an exclamation point!

Posted by: bhrandon | May 27, 2008, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm

How many primaries did Dean win? Bradley? Who ran against Dole? anyone, bueller? bueller? We are almost in June and Clinton is winning primaries with 67%. How many of the examples were actually still running bot to mention cleaning the leader’s clock?

Posted by: geevill | May 27, 2008, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm

Let’s get this clear. I am a Clinton Supporter. I will never ever vote for Obama. I don’t care if he’s the last candidate standing. I will vote for Howdy Doody before I vote for Obama. You can expect my vote for him in November, BUT YOU WON’T GET IT ! so, don’t hold your breath.

Posted by: Shiloh | May 27, 2008, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm

Reasons pundits will give out after Obama getting whacked in November:
1. Iraq war stopped being an issue.
2. Obama did not speak to working class white voters the way Hillary did regarding their economic distress.
3. McCain moved to the center more quickly than Obama could because of the protracted nomination fight.
4. GOP used racial tactics and wedge issues.
5. Obama did not address his stance on symbols of patriotism sufficiently.
6. The prolonged nomination fight damaged brand Obama.
7. Blah Blah Blah
8. Blah Blah Blah
They will never say “we promoted an unelectable candidate and we are not really pundits”.

Posted by: Roger Miller | May 27, 2008, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm

I think the anger against Obama is not something that will go away come November, but it goes further than Obama. Clinton supporters, of which I’m one, are angry at Obama, the Media, and the DNC in the way this primary election has gone. It exposes the raw side of politics and we want very much to prove you pundits WRONG. Our vote in the GE will be the vote of an electorate no one cared to listen to during the primary season. McCain will be the happy beneficary of our anger.

Posted by: Get Real | May 27, 2008, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm

I always laugh out loud when pundits, usually in the DNC, say that , oh, all the Dems will come together in Nov and vote for our candidate, no matter who it is, like we’re all one happy family and will sing “kum ba yah”! You don’t seem to get it, do you? It is not a party issue, it is what is safe for this country. OBAMA IS A DANGEROUS LIAR. Can you get that into your feeble pundit head? Millions of people agree. I, a lifelong Dem, WILL NEVER EVER VOTE FOR OBAMA. And if you decide to disregard and ignore our voice, you will hand the election over to the GOP with a big red bow. Count on it.

Posted by: doublestandard | May 27, 2008, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm

It’s a mistake to focus solely on resentment on the part of Clinton supporters. We believe she is the more experienced, tested candidate. Obama just isn’t.
the Obama campaign’s treatment of Clinton throughout this process hasn’t been seen before in a democratic contest, so, yes, the resentment is higher.
It’s not the main factor concerning my turning away from Obama – it’s just the icing on the cake.
If it comes to that, I’ll vote the other experienced, tested candidate in this race – John McCain.
Many of us have gotten tired of repeating it in the face of a condescending media, so expect us to just go underground. Think of us on election night though if the match up turns out to be McCain/Obama.

Posted by: s. valenti | May 27, 2008, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm

I have heard rumblings that in addition to the groups that are mentioned above, the AA community is also showing some reservations about Barack. As his anti-american, enemy appeasment stances start to shine through, more and more americans in all demographics are becoming nervous about what this candidate really stands for.
But make no mistake about this one thing. The DNC will not heal before November if Barack becomes the nominee. Most Hillary supporters are more than willing to take a stand against Barack Obama. He is far too radical, inexperienced, and his involvement in the Chicago Combine will continue to get ever increasing coverage and show that he is not the new shiney politicain he has tried to portray. This guy would put Al Capone to shame.

Posted by: SadStateOfAffairs | May 27, 2008, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm

Obama can’t win?
That’s funny!

Posted by: Whatever you say Nostradama | May 27, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm

Whatever you say Nostradama
I guess you’ll be cracking up come November. Not only will he lose, but he’ll lose by an electoral landslide. This year the Republicans won’t NEED to steal the election. We’re handing it to them on a large silver platter.

Posted by: Get Real | May 27, 2008, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm

I just don’t think Obama is a true change candidate. He is Rev. Wright/Ayers kind of guy. I simply cannot vote for an anti-american candidate.
Of course, pundits think anti-americanism is enlightened internationalism. Luckily, they each have one vote.

Posted by: Roger Miller | May 27, 2008, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm

Obama has been most liberal senator. He has problem with moderate dems. There is no evidence that he can unite this country. What he has done is the opposite. Only Hillary and McCain can cross the divide line.

Posted by: JP | May 27, 2008, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm

That’s right ABC polling “expert”. dismiss the Jewish vote. Hmmm, CA, NJ,NY,FL -what do they all have in common?

Posted by: geevill | May 27, 2008, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm

It appears to me Hillary Clinton supporters are just as divisive as she is! Your hateful and angry rants won’t win the nomination for her.
Some of you voted for Bush because of the Bush name. Now look at the mess we are in! He is the worst president of all time! So some of you are willing to vote for another Bush in the likes of John McCain! If that isn’t insane I don’t know what is!
The elder Bush chose Quayle for his running mate. One paper noted that Dan Quayle was a Robert Reford look-a-like. How stupid! And he WAS stupid.
It’s time for a Democrat in the White House. IT WILL BE OBAMA!!!

Posted by: Shay | May 27, 2008, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm

Please… everyone who posts that Sen. Obama will lose the general election by a landslide… who say that he cannot win… who say that he could only win with Sen. Clinton as a running mate, etc… please copy and paste your remarks into your calendars and refer to them on the night of November 4, 2008. That way you’ll have something to read as you eat crow. Yum Yum

Posted by: Great Caesar's Ghost | May 27, 2008, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm

You forgot Barack Obama has serious problems among Hispanic voters impacting negatively in several states.
John McCain who was born in Naval Base in Panama only need to match George W. Bush in 2004 election with 44% of Hispanic voters while John Kerry received 53%.
George W. Bush (286 EV Total) took Hispanic voters in key states:
44% of Hispanics in NM winning 50% to 49%(5 EV)
43% of Hispanics in AZ winning 56% to 44% (10 EV)
39% of Hispanics in NV winning 51% to 48% (5 EV)
56% of Hispanics in FL winning 52% to 47% (27 EV)
30% of Hispanics in CO winning 52% to 47% (9 EV)
49% of Hispanics in TX winning 61% to 38% (34 EV)
This primary in CA (55 EV) Barack Obama received only half of the votes of John Kerry in 2004 among Hispanics.
Hillary Clinton received 900K votes exceeding Kerry votes in 2004 among Hispanics.
There is already a poll with Barack Obama showing 2-1 advantage over McCain among Hispanics. However, a poll of July 2004 indicated John Kerry having a 2-1 advantage over Bush which was not correct as per the 2004 election results (exit polls).
washingtonpost.com
Quote: “At a time when Bush and Kerry are running about even among all registered voters, Kerry enjoys a 2 to 1 advantage over Bush among Latino registered voters. Hispanics give Bush lower approval ratings than the overall population does, and the poll shows that the bulk of the Latino community continues to identify with the Democratic Party.”
Democrats should not “dig their heads in the sand” on Barack Obama electability troubles among so many Democratic Voters Groups.

Posted by: Angel | May 27, 2008, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm

i think one out of ten of you is actually a hillary supporter
if you support hillary and her ideas, then there is no reason to not support obama…
you can say the race is unfair, but that is simply untrue
hillary failed to pull the trigger, she thought she was going to win by default
she only recently discovered that she could bank on the white working class as a group of supporters that could sustain her campaign
she is a liar
plain and simple,
you can try to portray obama as unamerican but his history is ultimately the closest to a normal american as it comes…
i call all of you out as closet republican who cant stand the fact that you are going to lose BADLY to an african american
if you woudlnt have elected the worst president in the history of america perhaps things would be different
my god you people are silly

Posted by: bhrandon | May 27, 2008, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm

It is NOT the color of his skin, it’s his character and experience. He should NEVER be the leader of the greatest nation in the world. People are supporting him because he is “black” that is NO REASON to elect him.

Posted by: Anne | May 27, 2008, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm

I am writing-in for Hillary.
Period!

Posted by: Stacey | May 27, 2008, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm

America IS ready for a black president….
just not this one.
Michael Steele 2012 – a black man who doesn’t hang around terrorists and isn’t a Marxist and loves his country.

Posted by: Jo | May 27, 2008, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm

I have nothing against Hillary but does anybody can say what Clinton’s experience is? Age? Wife of a president?
Did she try to “push” her health plan before and I don’t remember what happen with it?;(((
If W. was elected and survived 8 years, how it can be worse with Obama?
Think a liitle bit more about your country and democratic party, than your own self-importance in cheer-leader fashion. Or go and vote for “Grandpa Monster” and wait to see how many more guys and girls die in Iraq and how much oil company and republicans from “brown-nose coalition” will get richer..
Use your brain, people!

Posted by: ghost | May 27, 2008, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm

Obama has the vote of Blacks, for the reason of Solidarity and promised made to them. Making history of the first Black President.
He has a few whites, whom some wish they could take their vote back.
He has a few minorities, that have fallen to his mind manipulation.
He has a problem with the Jewish people, who do not trust him. evident by his friends, and church lobbying sanctions against Israel.
The lies the people have seen him constantly portray in the media.
His platforms being socialist or fascist.
His inflated ego, arrogance, and stupidity of the government, foreign relations.
His lack of experience with the exception of running for office.
His voting present on most issues and not committing or fight for anything for the people
His best friends, closest people to him in life, being everything this country does not stand for.
His inability to with stand any pressure, with out falling apart, getting flusters.
His refusal to answer direct questions. evading, eluding or two stepping or changing the subject.
His lack of knowledge, and only knowing what his camp scripts or makes cue cards for. Evident by his interviews and interviews on plane and buses.
Him being irresponsible making comments, statements and mandating to other countries, in speeches, interviews and to the press.
His efforts to divide this country, incite racism and racial problems. evident by what he has said, done and how he has acted.
His disrespect for this Country, the Government of this Country. Constantly condemning it and putting it down.
His Defiant disrespect for the office of President and the president, with his words, actions and deeds, breeching on the verge of treason.
His lack of honor and defiance to serve this country and the people.
Obama should never, ever be President of this Great Nation.

Posted by: seah | May 27, 2008, 1:44 pm 1:44 pm

Obama stated his resolute love for America by saying we are spoiled —-spoiled; “the days where we can just drive where we want to drive and eat more than we have to, eat all we want; and keep our thermostats at 72 degrees; those days are over; the rest of the world doesn’t look at us favorably like that,” Barack Hussein Obama. He is preaching “less” for America. He is not the uplifting person that his speeches spout. The part where he says “the rest of the world doesn’t look at us favorably like that”….Obama is telling us that we need to be like the “rest” of the world. Maybe he hasn’t noticed that the rest of the world is trying to be like America? We have problems but nothing that American’s can not solve together by working together. We are different than the Middle East, different cultures, history, ethics, morals, values, unless Mr. Obama plans to throw these in the waste paper basket along with the flag pin that he proudly wears now after the election is over.

Posted by: Anne | May 27, 2008, 1:44 pm 1:44 pm

Anne, great post. The rest of the world wants to be US, Obama has it backasswards, as usual.

Posted by: Jo | May 27, 2008, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm

S.N.: Your post of 1:44:53PM was incorrectly attributed. I believe that comment was made by Sen. Clinton…

Posted by: Great Caesar's Ghost | May 27, 2008, 1:49 pm 1:49 pm

Great Caesar’s Ghost,
WRONG. Those guys would love someone like Michael Steele for president. And he could win. He is a patriot and not a radical like Obama.
You don’t know America at all. But keep on losing.

Posted by: Jo | May 27, 2008, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm

America will elect a black president someday, but it WON’T be Obama. He’s a radical Marxist who loathes this country.
Give us a normal black man, and we will elect him president.

Posted by: Jo | May 27, 2008, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm

Obama is not qualified, period.
Hillary Clinton is the better candidate and electable.
I will never vote for an inexperienced newbie know nothing. He knows nothing
about what is needed to be president, never will the party dictate my voting for a loser!
I will write in the candidate Hillary Clinton the QUALIFIED, politically smart and savvy WOMAN!

Posted by: HP Boston | May 27, 2008, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm

“Obama has the vote of Blacks, for the reason of Solidarity and promised made to them. Making history of the first Black President.”
Okay you do realize that up until February 5th, Hillary had over 60% of the “black” vote. She lost it not because of “racial pride” but because Obama won Iowa and then Hillary and Bill proceeded to put their proverbial feet in their mouths in South Carolina and on Larry King. Please use facts when making an argument its makes for a much effective approach.

Posted by: gammaraygus | May 27, 2008, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm

Here’s some more number crunching I just received from a Talkleft reader as to electability in November, based on the past five Presidential Elections…
There are FIVE “BELLWETHER STATES”. These are states who have voted for the WINNER in ALL FIVE of the most recent Presidential elections. They are: Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Number of these that HRC has won? FOUR (80%)
HRC’s Average Margin? 13.2%
There are THREE “VERY SWINGY STATES”. These are states who have voted Democratic in either 2 or 3 of 5 of the most recent Presidential elections. They are: Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Number of these that HRC has won? THREE (100%)
HRC’s Average Margin? 21.3%
[More...]
There are SIXTEEN “STRONG REPUBLICAN STATES”. These are states who have voted Republican in 5/5 of the most recent Presidential elections.
Percentage of HRC’s wins from REP-States? 15% (3/20)
Percentage of BHO’s wins FROM REP-States? 41% (12/29)
There are NINE (9) “STRONG DEMOCRATIC STATES” (Democratic in last 5/5).
Percentage of HRC’s wins from DEM-States? 10% (2/20)
Percentage of BHO’s wins from DEM-States? 07% (2/29)
BOTTOM LINE: HRC “Kicks Serious Booty” in Bellwether and Swing States, and BHO has relied on winning states that have not shown ANY inclination of voting Democratic for President.

Posted by: Mike | May 27, 2008, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm

You see what they are doing? They think if they say it to us enough that they can make us do it. Well it will not work. We will NOT vote for Obama. We have reason that are real. Hp Boston hit the nail on the head ..Obama is not qualified, period.
Remember people, don’t listen to the crap until you start to smell like it. WE WILL NOT SWITCH TO OBAMA.
McCain 08!!

Posted by: Vickie | May 27, 2008, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm

gammaraygus’s post at 2:00:09pm is correct. Sen. Clinton lost support from black voters for those very reasons.

Posted by: Great Caesar's Ghost | May 27, 2008, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm

The Process Must Continue
The process by which we, as Americans, nominate candidates for the Presidency has been a long-standing and core element of our democracy. It is steeped in the principles of representation – one of the reasons our forefathers fought an incredible battle, died for, and established a new form of government, one that defines the United States of America above all other nations.
Their victory is ours to protect. Faced with daunting challenges, skepticism, and at times less than popular public opinion, these great men forged ahead. Their cause was bigger than their opposition. Their belief in their principles was profoundly strong, and despite all odds, despite the formidable forces they faced, they were victorious.
These qualities are as defining of character of the United States as any others.
Many of our nation’s greatest leaders have come from conditions where it appeared they could not recover. Yet they have risen to their challenges, persevered, and are now in the annals of American history as our most revered.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Ella Grasso, and others are legends in their own right. They are people who have come to define and re-define American Democracy.
The presidential nominating process, while reformed over the course of American history, has a consistency that has endured: the Convention. History shows that the betterment of our Democracy occurs best when the principles upon which it is founded are allowed to flourish, rather than being stymied by self-serving interests and political elitists.
The presidential preference primary conducted in each State is fundamentally based on the principle of representation. Voters in each state cast ballots for Candidates and delegates are awarded to them based on ballots cast in a representative manner. Recently, however, the media and our elected officials confuse the presidential preference primary process with the nominating process.
The nominating process is endeared to delegates. Delegates nominate the candidates. The nomination process begins at the national conventions of respective political parties.
Recent calls for the presidential nominating process to end before it is has begun sets a dangerous precedent – one that could potentially change the context in which our Democracy operates. Every candidate has the right and the moral obligation, based on his or her believes and principles, to remain part of this process until it terminates. That termination occurs with the nomination.
If our current notion of the Democratic presidential nominating process were to play out, at least two American legends may not have become so revered. Had we snuffed this process in 1860, Abraham Lincoln would not have been President. Today, he is known around the world as one our countries greatest; the now-historic statesman nominated on the third ballot of the Republican National Convention went forward to hold this young Nation together during a most uncivil war and produced the Emancipation Proclamation.
Had we snuffed the process in 1934 Franklin Delano Roosevelt would not have been President. A healer of our nation’s woes after the Great Depression this Democrat was nominated on the fifth ballot at the Democratic National Convention. The only three-term President, he guided the country though a great global conflict and defeated a tyrannical dictator the likes of which the world had never seen.
To call for the early termination of the democratic process, to call for a presidential candidate to suspend his or her quest to be potentially one of our countries greatest, is an insult not only to our Democracy but also to the electorate. The Democratic Party is appearing less than democratic. Not only does the Party lack the ability to adhere to the principle of fair and just representation demonstrated by the current situation in Florida and Michigan it is an abuse of power is akin to an autocracy, not our founders’ vision of democracy.
If the Democratic Party deems the presidential preference primary and subsequent nominating process to be inadequate, it should identify specific elements requiring change and implement them after the current election cycle, not midstream. The leadership of the Democratic Party is inept at best and autocratic at worst.
The unwillingness of the Democratic Partly leadership to embrace the voters of Florida and Michigan so their voices are represented through the full and complete seating of their delegates is a assault on representation. Calls for any candidate to leave a long-standing democratic process is an insult to our form of government.
Simply put, let the process continue. Allow us to be true to our Democracy.

Posted by: FL_Soldier | May 27, 2008, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm

Great Caesar’s Ghost—-sorry Jo is correct. America should have a person that is uplifting and supportive of our culture, history and traditions. Obama has his own culture thing with the Trinity Church, he doesn’t know his history, he thinks we have 57 states, and well for traditions—”I will not wear the American Flag pin” out of his mouth, not mine. Now he is wearing the pin because his campaign manager said to put it on! I want a President that listens to the public, has tears in his eyes when he thinks of the thousands that have sacrificed their lives to keep America great and know that it is his job to protect and nurture America during his term of office—-not announce that the rest of the world dislikes us because of the way we live and therefore WE MUST CHANGE. His idea of “change” is not American.

Posted by: Anne | May 27, 2008, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm

May 18, 2008 Obama speaks – Iran is a “tiny” country and not a threat to the US”.
May 19, 2008 Obama speaks -Iran is a “grave” threat to the US and I’ve said this all along…….well not yesterday, since the press caught my mistake. Oh yes, the press is the cause for me losing Indiana…when I am President there will be changes to the “free” press too.

Posted by: Anne | May 27, 2008, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm

This election is now up to the DNC to win or lose. It’s up to the Super Delegates to win or lose. It’s really pretty simple stuff. A community organizer does not a President make. The man, Barack is quickly becoming a fatally flawed candidate. His rise to fame is no accident. In 2006 the republicans started a “Be a democrate for a day” movement. Designed to propell Barack and subvert democracy via a flawed caucus system. The far left bought into the idea and wala! We’ve invented a candidate with no experience, problem solving abilities, little background, ect. In other words, a perfect little puppet. Hillary supporters ain’t gonna buy it.

Posted by: SadStateOfAffairs | May 27, 2008, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm

It’s a shame that the press has focused on race, gender and religious differences instead of issues. We should be choosing our leadership based upon the issues not their race or gender! I large blame the media for this “loss of focus” because they are ones to have changed Democratic voter groups from “working class voters” to “white working class voters” and from older voters to “white older voters.” So if there is anyone to blame for emboldening descrimination, it is them!

Posted by: Gerry, Denver | May 27, 2008, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm

Obama says “I will not wear the American Flag pin” and there are several pictures on the internet showing him with his hands at this side when EVERYONE else has their hands over their hearts in “respect” for the nation’s flag. Yesterday on Fox News there is a picture on the cover Obama Ready to Wrap Up Primary Season by Fox News.com , Tuesday 27, 2008, showing him wearing the flag pin, his hand over his heart, facing a veteran wreath. They have to sell the image now to wrap up this primary season. What everyone has seen, witnessed and heard must all be put away now because Obama is portraying the patriot roll. What was it last week, oh yes the messiah roll with him standing in front of huge cross. Obama chief strategist David Axelrod is good. Maybe we should vote for him for President.

Posted by: Anne | May 27, 2008, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm

There is nothing wrong with McCain..He is the only sensible alternative. He has experience, he is more center then far right, he is a WAR HERO!! He is a great option if we can’t have Hillary.
I’m with Debra. I will also make sure I influence every person I know to vote the best candidate into office. If not Hillary, then McCain.

Posted by: Vickie | May 27, 2008, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm

ghost:
If we can’t have Hillary, YES we DO deserve McCain, who is a much more qualified candidate than Obama. He also a true unifier vs the “Unifying Liar” Obama. Get it in your thick skulls, Obama is an INEXPERIENCED, Divisive, Arrogant, Flip-Flopping up-start whom we’ll NEVER vote for. Let him take his speeches to Iran, North Korea,Hamas and Cuba where he’ll degrade the office of the US presidency to meet unconditionally with terrorist states. He’s a make believe IDIOT, living in a fairy tale world and drinking his own Kool-Aid!

Posted by: Get Real | May 27, 2008, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm

FL_Soldier, great post, I agree with you 100%.
The problem is that SDs are so intimidated by the DNC leaders and they will help Obama become the nominee next week, even though people have been voting the other way overwhelmingly one state after the other. It is shameful our party is hijacked by these radical liberals.

Posted by: JP | May 27, 2008, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm

hillary’s experience….she was bill’s wife. That’s it, that’s all.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm

“Obama says “I will not wear the American Flag pin” and there are several pictures on the internet showing him with his hands at this side when EVERYONE else has their hands over their hearts in “respect” for the nation’s flag.”
Nice out of context there Anne. Actually what Obama said was that he would not wear the pin as a symbol of patriotism. His point was that whom is more patriotic, the one who wears the pin and does nothing for our veterans or the one who doesn’t wear the pin and actually helps our veterans? One is for a photo-op and the other is truth. The reason Obama wears the pin now is because other vets have asked him to. These vets said they were tired of it being a ridiculous non-issue and a distraction. Obama along with a conservative Republican senator helped pass legislation to help vets and he supported the recent GI bill. As someone whom has actually worked with the DAV I agree with Obama in that we (US citizens) talk the talk, but we don’t walk the walk when it comes to our nations vets. Plenty folks wear pins and fly flags but do very little if anything to actually help our veterans. It is a crime in some places how these brave men and women are treated. Do some volunteer work at your local VA hospital and you’ll see the light pretty quickly. Before you go spouting off perhaps you need to check yourself and your patriotism to see how far it reaches.

Posted by: gammaraygus | May 27, 2008, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm

You can wrap up Obama with a cherry on top, and he still won’t get elected. Wright, Ayers, Michelle, Farrakhan, etc., will have to slither back into the cesspool from whence they came.

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm

Great post gamma, and so true.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm

JP! what a pleasure!;)))
Liberal comes from LIBERTY! Are you ashamed of being a liberal? And what is radical liberal anyway? Too much freedom or what?
Liberty means freedom! Am I right? And what is USA spreading around the world? I guess it is LIBERTY!
But after JP comment I am so confuse ;)))

Posted by: ghost | May 27, 2008, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm

Mack!
How about all the people who vote for Obama? Do you think they all (millions of them) are dead wrong?
If Clinton can sell her case to the supers maybe she get the nomination! I’ll vote for democrat – Obama or Clinton!

Posted by: ghost | May 27, 2008, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm

Mack, show me the connection between Obama and Farrakhan.
Michelle is his wife.
Jeremiah Wright was his pastor, not his political advisor.
Ayers…another person he knows. Did you write the university asking why they hired him, knowing his past?

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm

“if you support hillary and her ideas, then there is no reason to not support obama…”
If you believe that Obama supporter then there is no reason Clinton should not be the nominee.

Posted by: geevill | May 27, 2008, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm

Obama shares Jeremiah’s radical views.
Mainstream Americans know it.
Obama supporters deny it, but Obama’s actions for the last 20 years speak much louder than his recent words.

Posted by: USmarine0331 | May 27, 2008, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm

Mr. Michelle Obambi will NEVER get my vote and some people need to stop thinking otherwise. The Quiet Riot will hit in November.

Posted by: believeme | May 27, 2008, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm

credit to “mark” on another blog. Yet another LIE from BHO. How much more evidence do you need?
Barack Obama spoke about Auschwitz back in 2002 in his speech against the Iraq War:
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.
Newsmax reported on this back in April:
All this would be great if it weren’t pure fiction. For starters, the Nazis destroyed the Treblinka death camp in 1943 after shooting the last prisoners, a group of Jewish girls.
Then there is the problem of the locations of Treblinka and Auschwitz. Both Nazi death camps were located inside Poland. Thus, no American troops ever entered the camps until years after the war was over.
Auschwitz was taken by the Soviet Union after the Nazis evacuated most of the prisoners. The retreating Nazis left those too weak or sick to walk behind. The 322nd Rifle Division of the Red Army liberated them on Jan. 27 1945.

Posted by: doublestandard | May 27, 2008, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm

Debra!
I see you don’t care too much that Colin Powell helped Bush to sell a war and gave that “famous” speech about weapons of mass distraction in front of a whole world. What a LIAR! And YOU LIKE it, I guess.
Nice try, Debra! Keep you republican flag pin high!;)))

Posted by: ghost | May 27, 2008, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm

“Ayers…another person he knows”. He decided to associate himself with radicals and other nefarious characters. No one else did. He’s too smart to claim he didn’t know what these people were about.

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm

This is for Gary!!!! Gary, why do you think we will vote for Mr. Michelle O? Can you imagine the depth of our feeling? Some will vote for him, but the majority of Hillary’s supporters have signed pledges not to vote for Michelle.

Posted by: believeme | May 27, 2008, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm

USmarine, explain Obama’s actions over the last 20 years. What has he done that says he believes the views of Jeremiah Wright?

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm

I hope the remaining super delegates wake up before it is to late. Obama,is a disaster. He can brag about his good judgement, but remaining in Rev. Wrights church 20 years does not sound like good judgement to me. I am 76 years old, I have always voted on the Democratic ticket, but if I have to choose between Obama, and McCain, then McCain is my man.

Posted by: BARBANEL | May 27, 2008, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm

Debra, have you forgotten about the states that hillary got trounced?
Also, what is the percentage of black americans in Oregon?

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm

He may have a hidden agenda that is line with Wright and Ayers’ vision of a new America…he may not. I’m not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm

Mack….’no one else did’?
What does that mean? Ayers is a professor at a University. Are you concerned about his views being taught to young impressionable minds? Isn’t that a concern to you?
Or are you just concerned about slamming Obama for knowing him and living in the same neighborhood? His acquaintance is a nonissue.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm

My friend told me today that Obama said at a Memorial Day event yesterday that his grandfather or uncle freed the Jewish people at Auschwitz? Is this correct? Did he really say that??? I haven’t seen it on the news anywhere.

Posted by: unstoppable 08 | May 27, 2008, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm

He’s a big boy. He doesn’t need apologists to interpret his mis-steps for him. He just needs to have the courage to stand up and explain why he associated himself with people that have a radical agenda.

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm

If a priest stood at the alter, and defended that type of abhorrent behaviour, I’m sure that the people that were awake at the time, would have gotten up and walked out.

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm

You’re right Mack. And I believe he has explained his associations. Remember, again….he was ‘introduced’ to Ayers by other political bigwigs in Chicago.
Again, Ayers was hired by the University, and I believe he now heads one of the Departments.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm

Oh, and Mack….in all fairness to William Ayers, he HAD a radical agenda, so many years ago.
Has to be past tense, otherwise he would not be the head of a department at a major university.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm

“And I believe he has explained his associations.” If he has, then it was insufficient. I can’t recall him explaining it to my satisfaction. He’s running for President, so he’s guilty until he proves himself innocent. Just like McCain had to prove that he doesn’t have cancer. If he believes in a new style of politcs, then why hasn’t he been forthcoming about his relationships?

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm

Mack!
Are you asking the same kind of honesty from every candidate or you have your favorites? How about McCain friends?
Any interest in any of them? Or Hillary friends?
And how about Iraq where our country ls loosing billions on top of billions?
And can you tell me the exact meaning of words “Iraqy freedom” and “We win in Iraq!”? I can not find this answer in Mr McCain agenda.

Posted by: ghost | May 27, 2008, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm

boopme
its not a wasted vote if you feel a vote for Obama wil delegitimaze the election and therefore the wrong candidate will win… I will never vote for Obama even though I have been democrat all my life… and the majority of democrats think that so good luck getting Obama elected its not goin to happen!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm

It’s not enough to say that he wasn’t there. He’s too smart for us to believe that he didn’t know what that church is all about. Does the new style of politics also include the same old double speak?

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm

From now on, every time someone makes a comment even remotely political to me, I’m going to ask them if they VOTED. Not whom they voted for, but IF they VOTED! If the answer is no, and they were eligable to do so, I’m turning off my hearing aids.

Posted by: AlchyDave25 | May 27, 2008, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm

dem38!
You just like Clinton that much or you are going to vote for Grandpa because he is such an “excellent” guy?

Posted by: ghost | May 27, 2008, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm

Mack
the whole thing is that Michlle O made him be in that church as well as a lot of other things… like mayeb running for president… because that would be”the first time she was ever proud of her country” the man is a whimp and Hillary is right on every issue… he needs a babysitter in the white house and cant get there without the help of Hillary!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm

ghost
well I didnt say I was defnitely going to vote for Mccain but I will not vote for Obama… that judgement has been passed by the country … Obama will not win the GE period!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm

dem38, if the “majority” of democrats were voting for hillary, she would be winning. Remember, she was the inevitable candidate, with an ex-president husband, started out ahead with over 100 superdelegates…the clinton political machine.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm

He put himself on the pedestal, claiming to represent a new kind of politics, with his superior judgement and unimpeachable character. We’re just knocking him off of the pedestal.

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm

Mack!
We are not electing a personal pastor this November. We are electing somebody else!
don’t mix politics and church too much!

Posted by: ghost | May 27, 2008, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm

LA
if you hadnt noticed.. or bothered to research it… almost every primary /caucus was open and the ones that voted for CLinton were mainly democratic… what is it they are now runnign for… the democratic nomination! Independants and Republicans should not have a voice in that process… you are way wrong in your support for Obama and we will not relent!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm

Soetoro give it up, you won’t find many that believe that manufactured bs.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm

ghost
you know wright is a problem and you aare like Chris Matthews with a Chill running up his leg wanting to get Obama in and its a mistake!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm

dem38, I’m wrong? Hmmmm, and why is that….because she’s a woman?

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm

LA
it probably is true… that church was politically expedient only and nobody can dismiss that as religious bias or racial bias we will not give up Obama is wrong for the country!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm

well it benefited your candidate and those are the facts and more democrats voted for Clinton there is not any polling data anywhere that disputes that!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm

LA
you are just wrong period! thats it you will see!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm

dem38, just so you understand…
I voted for bill twice. hillary being in the white house doesn’t make her more qualified than anyone else.
I DID research the candidates, which is why my support goes to Senator Obama.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm

politically expedient?
You call 20 yrs politically expedient?

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm

LA
your research I guess was infulenced by your political leanings not who is bets for the country… and your still wrong! and Sen Clinton is more qualified and Mccain is more qualified than Obama thats a no brainer

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm

LA
yes because he was looking to get into politics at the time… only the people that dismiss it and site his soaring rhetoric that has no substance can not see it and you will be let down eventually… period… you are still wrong!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm

Obama is a FRAUD & a LIER with a RADICAL questionable background.
He is NOT Qualified to be President of the USA.
The Hillary Supporters will NEVER vote for Obama! So – without the MILLIONS of Hillary VOTERS obama may win the nomination BUT NEVER the White House!
The DNC caused this mess – now they will loose – again!

Posted by: Molly | May 27, 2008, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm

dem38, apparently you believe every word coming out of her lying mouth.
When hillary started acting like a republican, that is when her campaign started falling apart.
You could hear the gasps across the country as she attacked a fellow democrat in the manner in which she did.
bill isn’t the one running for office. Remember, no third term. Tell him (and her) to go back to Arkansas.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm

Wasn’t it bill clinton in 2004 that said vote for the candidate that appeals to your hopes, not your fears?!
His wife wasn’t paying attention.
And she has you scared dem38….I’m sorry.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm

God will punish us if we elect Obama as our president. Not because of his race or his religion. We will be punished for being stupid enough to elect a man with those political views and who chooses his friends so unwisely. …. I am neither Christian or Jew and I’m only part white. They don’t include me on any pole.

Posted by: Royce | May 27, 2008, 4:28 pm 4:28 pm

LA
um all Obama has is the words Hope and Change and they are just words..Obama will not be able to deliver! I was invited to Bill Clintons first innauguration in 93 and votd for dukkais in 88 … Obama is No Bill Clinton and will not receive his mantle .. he will lose in the GE!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm

And $10 gas, overturning of Roe v Wade, 100 years in Iraq, are not fear tactics? Do as I say, not as I do.

Posted by: Mack | May 27, 2008, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm

I have re-registered Independent dem38. I have become disappointed by the racism coming out of the democrats.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

LA
well I can stay Democrat and vote for who I want in Nov and they arent being racist when legit things are brought up by Obamas past.. face it … these arent stories about obama philanderign they are stories about asssociates criminal activity!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm

LA
what do you people that are military have against the clintons Obama beign commander and chief would look more silly than Sen Kerry! Hes not the messiah and the answer!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm

Interesting reading on the qualifications for the office of POTUS:
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
Notice that there are no requirements for number of years served in any office… so all arguments about qualifications are null and void.
Funny, but this may be the only section of the Constitution that the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration hasn’t stepped on…

Posted by: Great Caesar's ghost | May 27, 2008, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm

dem38
bill clinton disgraced OUR house, so I don’t believe he should be anywhere near the white house again.
hillary….she’s a deceitful, dishonest liar.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm

LA
I was one of the people that said he should resign and let Al Gore be president then elected legitimately in 2000 but Hillary is not Bill and Obama lies as well… its been documented!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm

This is the first time I have ever been so involved in a primary process and I just wonder if there has ever been this kind of passionate hatred/support for any prior candidates before Obama/Clinton. I think the Dems ARE in trouble, because the Republicans are NOT arguing about McCain and some other Republican, except BUSH who McCAIN IS NOT. Seriously, McCain is the most liberal Repubican which makes him even more appealing to the DEM defectors who will never be as Liberal as Obama. What a perfect fit.

Posted by: Debra | May 27, 2008, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm

Great ceasears ghost
there are questions if whether or not Obama is trully naturally born since HI hadnt become a state till just that year! qualifications that are not written… Obama simply hasnt done anything

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm

debra
you are right… the obama lefties arer just out for their agenda … they even think that sending protesters to Mccains speech today was a good idea! The war is a non issue now.. whats donr has been done … it wasnt Hillarys fault for starting the war and Obama since being in the seate hasnt tried to stop it that is all!

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm

Right Debra, and when he appoints those justices, tell me then what a perfect fit he is. When they overturn Roe v Wade (cuz they will), tell me then what a perfect fit he is.
McCain is a lot more conservative than one might think. He’s gone out of his way to woo the religious right….
yep, perfect fit.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm

LA in Indiana
and the Supreme court issue is a nonstarter as well! nobody cares abotu Roe v Wade etc anymore there are more pressing economic issues

Posted by: dem38 | May 27, 2008, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm

As a woman, I believe a woman should have the right to choose. That is just as important as all other issues dem38.
The economy might be front and center right now, but a womans right to choose her own family planning, will always remain paramount.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm

Roe v Wade will not be revisited. We do not turn back the hands of time on moral issues…look at our society…sex on every channel, morality in the toilet. I am telling you Pro Choice will always be available to women in his country.

Posted by: Debra | May 27, 2008, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm

Ok Debra, you have a right to believe that if you want.
Me, I will remain vigilant. Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas have another plan. They already plan to chip away at it. Turn your head or fall asleep, you or your grandchildren will regret our ignoring them.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm

dem 38…I agree, they sent protesters into McCain’s rally today, and it’s stupid. The war is out, and McCain handled it great with humor and strength. Media turning away from Iraq, because Americans don’t like defeat, and McCain is the man to bring this thing to a close, in the right time. Our servicemen are behind McCain.

Posted by: Debra | May 27, 2008, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm

I don’t agree with totally banning pregnancy terminations, it’s a touchy subject and area, but there are women that use abortions are a form of birth control and I think that is wrong. I think terminations should be illegal after eight weeks of gestation as well.
On another note entirely, I agree with the poster who said many of the problems we have today are as a result of Bill Clinton’s terms in office.
In closing, I feel sorry for the Democratic party: These two clowns are the best you have to put forth? I mean talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Posted by: Lisa Again | May 27, 2008, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm

Ghost..I am an American first, who usually votes Rep., but voted Hillary, as I feel she is the brightest, hardest working candidate and I like the two for one theory. Wouldn’t hurt to have a political genius as spouse.
I also donated to Hillary’s campaign and have never donated before. However, I will be working for McCain in the fall, because I can’t stand Obama as president. He’s fine as a person….JUST NOT POTUS.

Posted by: Debra | May 27, 2008, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm

Yes I’m a woman, sheeesh.
Obama couldn’t vote on the war because he was not yet in the senate. However, he was against the war….not politically expedient at the time.
Obama said we would be exactly where we are back in 2002. It was a mistake. And that mistake has already cost us 4,078 lives. Yes, withdrawal is not going to be easy, but Obama is a step in the right direction. McCain said 50-100 yrs, then changed his tune because it was “politically expedient” (again) at the time.

Posted by: LA in Indiana | May 27, 2008, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm

They need a little time to calm down and try to make up.???????
This is his quote.
Are you kidding me apparently the author doesn’t know women well.
Hell Hath No Fury Like A Woman Scorned.
I know this Voter will Write in Hillary Clinton , WHY because she is the most qualified, I REFUSE TO VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, I still have a choice and its still HILLARY>

Posted by: Really | May 27, 2008, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm

Hillary fans,
Now that the “Clintons” are finished, it will be easy for Obama beat McCain in the Fall.
In fact it just became a whole lot easier, since Bob Barr joined the race this weekend as the Libertarian candidate. He is a STRONG Conservative candidate, and he should easily suck away at least 5-10% of the right wing Republicans from McCain in the General…
Hey McCain, can you say Nader?? Ha, ha!!
So all you die hard Clinton fans that want to vote for McCain, go ahead, because I don’t think that really matters anymore…. It will be a wash.
President Obama in 2008!!!

Posted by: Davis | May 28, 2008, 12:09 am 12:09 am

I want you to think as the United States of America as Yourself,your beloved child or your Spouse.
Your United States of America has a Medical condition that will suely kill it if you make the wrong choice in the General Election this fall.
Put yourself in this scenario;
Your United States of America, You, Your spouse or child are critically ill and will die without a blood transfusion or a Organ Transplant.
We know scientifically that the Blood and DNA of Minorities is the same as a White Person. The only Donors available are Minorities.
Would you refuse the available Leader/Candidate, Blood or Organ, That would save the United States of America, You, Your Spouse or your beloved Child? Just because you were mad that it did not come from the same Race you belonged to or the same Gender?
If not? Then how can you reject the Only available Democratic Candidate? Who is the last hope for this United States of America during this General Election?
I think that we need to get off of the Negative Rethoric and join together to do what is best for the United States of America and for ALL of it’s Citizens.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL OF IT’S CITIZENS.

Posted by: Ted-Zee-Man | May 28, 2008, 12:40 am 12:40 am

That’s right Ted-Zee-Man….my blood and organs go to the guy who was willing to give his blood and organs for this great country he loves……SENATOR JOHN McCAIN!

Posted by: Debra | May 28, 2008, 1:13 am 1:13 am

Except, Davis, there are 17 million Hillary supporters and a majority of them WILL NOT VOTE OBAMA, so the Bob Barr is a non issue for McCain will all that Hillary love.

Posted by: Debra | May 28, 2008, 1:16 am 1:16 am

I am very very happy to see that all of the Hillary fans will not vote for Obama. As a matter of fact I actually encourage you to vote for McCain to ensure that Obama does NOT become the President of the United States. He doesn’t have the foreign policy expertise, nor expertise of ANY kind worthy to be President!

Posted by: Joel | May 28, 2008, 4:06 am 4:06 am

The many comments made here by misguided people describes the prejudice that exists in their own hearts and minds.
So how do we know that a candidate is ready to be a president?
1. Good Judgement.
2. Leadership
3. Humility
I am a Greek citizen from a nation that founded Democracy and once believed in th American Dream Not American policy, that affects the world so I vote for
1. Barak Obama!+Real Americans fighting for change.
I do not look at his color of skin but instead at the content of his character that is rigorously put to the test by a very cynical nation. Once a beacon of the world may now vote for change. Well the future rests in the hands of those willing to search their hearts and minds for ‘the truth’ will set Americans free to lead the world once again or maybe not we shall see…
My love goes out to all those haters in America that need it the most – Change is in the Air. Give in to love as love knows no boundaries or color it brings people together forever by that I mean God’s love for all its creation. God did not only choose to love white people or black people he made us all equal despite the limited experiences that we may have had to exercise this shared value of love. Now is the time to embrace it and never look back to hate is the enemy to LOVE IS THE FUTURE!

Posted by: Michail Papatzimas | May 28, 2008, 4:41 am 4:41 am

Senator Obama has belittled or insulted 2 out 3 Americans. I don’t see how he can win. He does not care about America. He cares about Barack Obama.
His change for America would make it a Socialist state with racism and hate at its core.

Posted by: Mary | May 28, 2008, 5:04 am 5:04 am

Are you all serious? You sound like some petty, ridiculous children!! Obama has done nothing to insult women or other Clinton voters. Let’s face it…the problem is that Clinton lost to an unknown, and you refuse to accept it. Obama and Clinton have virtually the same policies! For women democrats to say that they will vote for McCain is insane (there’s no other word for it). He is strictly pro-life, willing to put VERY conservative judges on the Supreme Court and is adament about staying in Iraq. What is wrong with you people!! If you were for Clinton’s policies, wouldn’t you still vote for the candidate who is as close to her policies as possible?? Why would you vote for someone who is completely against everything that she stands for…just to prove what?? It will only make your lives crappier. I refuse to believe that there are this many idiotic people out there! I feel as if I am in the playground and you CHILDREN are mad because you lost a game of tag. GET OVER IT and GROW THE HELL UP!!

Posted by: NC Attorney | May 28, 2008, 8:02 am 8:02 am

Come november my vote will speak for itself when I vote against the corrupt DNC, Howard Dean, Pelosi and Reid. If dividing the party is what you wanted, you have done your job.
I have never seen a more polorized electorate in this party than what I see now. For all you people thinking
these are closet republicans making these comments on this board, you are in for a rude awaking come nov.
For all those “bitter”, “losers”, “racists” and “bigotted” people that have been thrown out of the democratic party, it is time to start a third party.
REGISTER INDEPENDENT and you can free yourself from the party mentality that makes you vote for someone you don’t want.

Posted by: '68 VNvet | May 28, 2008, 8:05 am 8:05 am

It is amazing how many people will vote against there own economic interests because of political spin from a party or persons who have gained from their ability to divide and deceive the American people.
So i hope that every last Clinton supporter votes for McCain, so that you can continue to benefit from the same misinformation that you have been swallowing for tha last eight years.

Posted by: Lucious | May 28, 2008, 9:07 am 9:07 am

Of course Hillary supporters will vote for Obama, or perhaps Nadar… we’ll never know. Clinton should by all accounts win, as I see it.
Elections are not something you gamble away on an impuls. Senior Dems might like the Obama downside, their best friend McCain as POTUS? Younger superdelegates cannot afford to be this frivolous, especially if you look at the Kennedy track record of picking Presidential winners.
Superdelegates are like polls, don’t trust them until election day. Winning the popular vote and the electoral vote should give Clinton a good argument why she should be the superdelegate favorite in August.

Posted by: Sylvia Johnsen | May 28, 2008, 10:47 am 10:47 am

Wow, so much for a country coming together in order to solve a problem. I for one am not in favor of being in the same war in five years. I would enjoy having a candidate who doesn’t reek of dirty money from large corporations who play him/her like a puppet in the white house. If by “experience” you mean years of being sucked in to what we now precieve american politics, then yes I am looking for the candidate who has no experience. And which candidate is the only one who hasn’t been attacking the others and playing on their every mistake? Oh, that’s right the only legit human being on the ballot.

Posted by: Sad Youth | May 28, 2008, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm

If the DNC feels that a second carter, all fluff – is needed, then by all means…lets throw all our money into those caucus states in the General Election. Most Americans now vote outside party lines in the primary and return for the election. The democratic primary in 2008 is between the “haves” -people that have had an easy ride or have been given everything(Obama supporters) and the “have nots” the group that had at one point in their lives faced great adversity, crisis or continue to not get a fair shake.(Clinton supporters) That is how I break it down outside of race. Let’s remember, the Catholics all supported Kennedy because he was Catholic. Don’t begrudge a person to support his/her race, gender, creed or national origin – they can discriminate when they cast their ballot. DNC leadership has really screwed it up for 2008. It is likely that if Obama loses the general election, it will not be because of race – it will be because at the last second of indecision, the lever will be pulled for the other candidate.

Posted by: Oversseas voting | May 28, 2008, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm

This comment is #141 so maybe the author won’t see it. But I have a numbers-crunching question.
I’m a Clinton supporter and the Clinton supporters I know, including myself, do not appear to have any intention of ever supporting Barack Obama.
I see the numbers of what it looked like in the past. But I think the divisions that have been revealed in the primaries are the major divisons in the Democratic Party itself.
The fact that Clinton has 17 million supporters and the DNC is going to simply ignore them is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Has that ever happened in politics? How many supporters did Bill Bradley have in 2000? How about Paul Tsongas?
Why does anyone actually expect Clinton supporters to support the DNC? I can’t think of a single reason.
Gary Langer has given us the numbers of how many voters moved over to the eventual candidate in the past. I think this year, all those stats can be thrown out the window.
I’d love to see the numbers crunched that show a risk analysis of just what percentage of Clinton supporters Obama needs in order to carry the nomination.
The exits polls say about 50% will do something other than support BHO.
If those figures actually bear out, can he still win?
10% of 17 million is 1.7 million.
If 1.7 million Democrats vote for McCain, can BHO still win?
If 1.7 million more Democrats write in Clinton’s name, how does that shake out? If another 1.7 million stay home, does that affect it?
Whether they know it or not, I believe the DNC is in a major crap shoot right now, and they are naively depending on everyone “coming together.”
It’s pretty obvious now that we are not going to come together. So I just think it would be interesting for someone to start crunching numbers, as if the Clinton supporters like me really will not be voting for a Democrat in the general, after voting for a Democrat in the primaries.

Posted by: Jan | May 29, 2008, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm

This is crazy. HC people saying they won’t vote for Obama and vice versa. You all are talking crazy!!! You are cutting off your nice to spite your face. If you are an HC supporter, do you really want McCain as your President? For all his hoopla about “independence” he is a conservative. He is NOT pro-choice. Can you really support someone with that POV?
If you compare where McCain/HC/Obama are on the issues, there are only 2 people who are very close on the issues and that would be HC and Obama. Anyone who is an HC supporter and says they will vote for McCain in the fall is either:
1. Not being truthful on the outside, or
2. Not being truthful to themselves.
Any rational look at this says HC supporters have to vote for Obama if he is the nominee and vice versa if HC is nominee. So let’s stop all the blood letting and crazy talk.

Posted by: Brad | May 30, 2008, 10:49 am 10:49 am

I am astounded at the number of Obama supporters who think the slander, the “God Damn America”, the Hillary crying priest, and the attitude of Axelrod (is anyone else puzzled why they keep putting a guy who for all the world looks exactly like Hitler on the TV to give their pitch?) to the “stupid white people” will be forgotten in November. In 40 years I have never voted for a Republican in a state, local or national election. I was an Edwards supporter this year.
It appears my first vote for the darkside will be for a white guy…jeesh. Too much Facebook, and not enough Book of Life in our Party today. Well, not my Party anymore. I guess I have just become an independent or something. Well, Libertarians at least get high, I hear….

Posted by: Dennis | June 1, 2008, 3:09 am 3:09 am

The ignorance of racism in this country makes me ill.

Posted by: Tom | June 4, 2008, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.