KY: Rasmussen: McCain +25 over Obama, Clinton +9 over McCain

[Democratic Hawk]

All this tells me is that many KY 'Democrats' are either a spiteful bunch, at best, or a racist bunch, at worst

Many polls seem to be showing that Obama supporters are certainly more willing to unite for the good of their party and their country, irrespective of who the nominee is, than Clinton's are. Disgusting really when you consider only Obama has a fair path to the nomination

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

All this tells me is that many KY 'Democrats' are either a spiteful bunch, at best, or a racist bunch, at worst

I'm not a big fan of the "Obama lost KY because of race analysis".... even if you look at the exit polls and say that 20% of KY voters thought race was a major factor (although there are still multiple ways to interpret that), Hillary still would have won by a significant margin.

Here is my understanding of what has been happening (from another thread):

Much of the problem Obama has had with working class Democrats, especially in Appalachia, is that they aren't so much 'visionary' in their political view-point, they could be said to be of a more 'substantialist' view-point and, IMO, good a campaign Obama has waged this primary cycle, these voters need to see more policy substance from Obama. They need to be sure that Obama is every bit as much for their interests as Clinton, who face it is no more culturally populist then he is

Bottom-line is that they trust Clinton more on the economy and quality of life issues, like healthcare; while Iraq may not be of such primary importance to these voters; and this may well explain why Obama has been unable to build on the breakthrough he achieved among Clinton's base in Wisconsin

Just because race was not a factor in the Democratic primary, it's plausible that base spite and prejudice could be working against Obama in the general

Polls suggest that Obama's base would be more solidly for Clinton as the nominee than hers would be for Obama, which is disgusting when you consider only Obama has a fair path to the nomination. That's the point I'm making

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

All this tells me is that many KY 'Democrats' are either a spiteful bunch, at best, or a racist bunch, at worst

I'm not a big fan of the "Obama lost KY because of race analysis".... even if you look at the exit polls and say that 20% of KY voters thought race was a major factor (although there are still multiple ways to interpret that), Hillary still would have won by a significant margin.

Here is my understanding of what has been happening (from another thread):

Much of the problem Obama has had with working class Democrats, especially in Appalachia, is that they aren't so much 'visionary' in their political view-point, they could be said to be of a more 'substantialist' view-point and, IMO, good a campaign Obama has waged this primary cycle, these voters need to see more policy substance from Obama. They need to be sure that Obama is every bit as much for their interests as Clinton, who face it is no more culturally populist then he is

Bottom-line is that they trust Clinton more on the economy and quality of life issues, like healthcare; while Iraq may not be of such primary importance to these voters; and this may well explain why Obama has been unable to build on the breakthrough he achieved among Clinton's base in Wisconsin

Just because race was not a factor in the Democratic primary, it's plausible that base spite and prejudice could be working against Obama in the general

Polls suggest that Obama's base would be more solidly for Clinton as the nominee than hers would be for Obama, which is disgusting when you consider only Obama has a fair path to the nomination. That's the point I'm making

Dave

So you seriously consider it "disgusting" that voters do not support your preferred candidate? I would consider that a pretty undemocratic and condescending view. One of the points of democracy is that people can decide for themselves who to vote for, without other people telling them they're disgusting for doing it.

No...whats disgusting is not supporting a candidate because they beat their candidate fair and square in the nomination process so they'd rather defect to a candidate that shares little to no opinions and views at all with them just because they are sore losers. Seriously? Just hand the republicans the election in November....lets not even vote.

Exactly

[Democratic Hawk]

So you seriously consider it "disgusting" that voters do not support your preferred candidate?

Not at all

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I find disgusting is the possibility that a significant number of Clinton supporting Democrats could defect to McCain out of spite, or worse, given that only Obama can win the nomination fairly

Clinton and Obama do, of course, appeal to some demographics more than they do to others; while both have regional areas of strength. For example, in Appalachia, Clinton runs stronger against McCain; but in the Rockies signs are that Obama may well run stronger against McCain. All this should account for some variance in the level of support for Obama and Clinton against McCain

As for the nomination, Clinton's only chance is by having the rules changed re-MI and FL and for her to win that way is not something I consider fair at all. Obama did not campaign in FL, while he wasn't even on the ballot in MI. Clinton won those primaries, to the extent to which she did, by default. Nevertheless, these delegates, someway, somehow, need to be seated in Denver

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I also consider it amusing that Dave later on argues that it is disugsting because Clinton can only win unfairly by doing something he supports - seating FL and MI!

I said that delegates from MI and FL must be seated someway, somehow - but that does not mean that they should be seated in a way that would give Clinton an unfair advantage. She won those primaries, to the extent to which she did, by default

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

What would be the point of seating the delegates if you don't let the actual popular will of those states count?

My point is that there were factors, which may have skewed the results in those states in Clinton's favor. Firstly, Obama did not campaign in FL (neither did she or any one else for that matter), which may well have contributed to her winning handidly by default as the candidate with whom voters were more familiar; secondly, Obama was not even on the ballot in MI - a state in which he'd likely have had a fair shot at winning

I'm not for one minute suggesting Obama would have won FL given its Clinton-favoring demographics; indeed, it's highly unlikely that he could have

Furthermore, given the fact that turnout in the Republican primaries in MI and FL exceeded those of the Democrats, I'd go so far to say that turnout was suppressed as a consequence of voters not seeing any point in voting given that, whatever the rights or wrongs of the DNC's decision, the results weren't going to count for anything. This may well have impeded Obama rather than Clinton. But there are never any cast iron proof answers to the great unknowns

It may well be that Clinton's aggressive stance, however retrospectively opportunist, to have MI and FL seated, which explains why she is running much stronger in FL against McCain; given that Obama is bearing the brunt of many Florida Democrats' anger

Dave