Originally posted by BackFireIt's necessary in that Democrats need to keep their loss margin to a minimum. Which is sad, considering the Democratic party platform is much more friendly to working-class voters than the GOP's.
Clinton's comment about working class whites wasn't so much racist as it was simply clumsy and poorly worded.Besides, the Democrats never carry white votes. Bill Clinton never carried white votes and he won. It's not a necessary block in order for the dems to win.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Stop playing Angry Black Man.Blacks have equal rights.
Segregation never happened.
Racism is long gone.
*Yes, I caught what you said. I giggled. But this is for those people on KMC like xyz 😆
Oh come on. The Rev. Wright crap didn't have anything to do with Obama. All that flak came for no reason and then it flared back up for no reason. The media couldn't wait for Wright to open his mouth for that second time. I can't recall a minister's beliefs in the church becoming important to the campaign of a politician.
Obama is seen as the one who opens the doors for race relations as if the discussion should not have been had 40 years ago. All the race stuff is thrown in the lap of Obama. I don't see anyone asking Clinton or McCain how they feel about minorities.
Black radio stations spent the first part of this year blasting Obama because he didn't go to every state talking about "the Man" and how black people need reparations.
Ideally, everyone is more liberal but it would be foolish to say that he could say verbatim what Clinton said without that twenty second clip being replayed continuously on each media outlet for the next month.
Originally posted by BackFire
Clinton's comment about working class whites wasn't so much racist as it was simply clumsy and poorly worded.Besides, the Democrats never carry white votes. Bill Clinton never carried white votes and he won. It's not a necessary block in order for the dems to win.
What bugs me about Clinton is her constant attempt of changing the goal line. First the number of delegates needed is 2025, everyone is fine with that number, Clinton included. Now that it looks like Obama will reach that number possibly next week she's lying and saying that the number that needs to be reached is 2210 because of Florida and Michigan. It's like she's just going to just keep making up rules and metrics in order to keep herself in a race that is all but over. What she's doing is akin to playing a game where both parties say "okay, first to score 10 wins" and then someone scores 10 and the loser says "no we need to go to 15".
This idea that she cares about the voters in Michigan and Florida and THAT's why she's championing for their votes to get counted is so bogus that it's insulting. She knows it's the only way she can attempt to spin a win, by acting like this is Cuban politics and bringing up the popular vote counting Michigan (where Obama's name wasn't on the card, and thus he didn't get a single vote) and acting like that's fair. It's such shit and really is a shameful and utterly desperate ploy to simply not lose a race that she's completely blown, through no one's fault but her own.
Hmm, that just summed up a lot for me. Although, I think that it's working class whites of that region that Dems never get votes from, not neccesairly across the nation
Originally posted by chithappens
Hmm, that just summed up a lot for me. Although, I think that it's working class whites of that region that Dems never get votes from, not neccesairly across the nation
No, it's the nation.
Democrats never get the majority of white people.
For example - Bill Clinton only got 40% of white votes when he ran against Bob Dole. The ironic part of all this is that he won largely because of the black vote.
And Strangelove. Yes, she'd probably get more white people than Obama would. Just as he'd get more black people and young people than she would. They both have their groups. Point was simply that you don't need to win whites in order to win the election if you are a democrat. Obama could, and very easily would, win if he got just 40% of the white vote in November. In fact, because of his overwhelming support from black people and young people he could probably get away with just getting 30%.
Well I agree that if Obama isn't going to fight for the working class whites - as his chief strategist David Axelrod is suggesting - he need to significantly outperform McCain in blacks and young people - something he will certainly do. But Democrats also usually need Hispanics to form a winning coalition, but Obama has had a hard time getting them to vote or him, and that's a bloc that's shown it's willing to vote Republican, especially one with a "moderate" image as McCain has.
My argument is that Hillary Clinton will win (or at least out perform Obama) the working class whites, while still winning 80%+ of blacks and performing well among Hispanics as she always has. Plus, I don't think that young people would up and vote for McCain if Hillary got the nomination. So in summation, Hillary Clinton is a better general election candidate that Barack Obama.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Incorrect again. Clinton did not campaign in Florida. She held closed events in Florida, yes, but that's not technically campaigning. She was within the rules. And there were no rallies, that's just plain not true.While we're on the subject, let's point out that Obama ran ads that reached Florida a few days before its primary.
So in conclusion: Obama campaigned in Florida, Clinton did not.
There were no rallies in Miami?
How many "closed" events does it take before it's called campaigning?
Originally posted by Strangelove
Well I agree that if Obama isn't going to fight for the working class whites - as his chief strategist David Axelrod is suggesting - he need to significantly outperform McCain in blacks and young people - something he will certainly do. But Democrats also usually need Hispanics to form a winning coalition, but Obama has had a hard time getting them to vote or him, and that's a bloc that's shown it's willing to vote Republican, especially one with a "moderate" image as McCain has.My argument is that Hillary Clinton will win (or at least out perform Obama) the working class whites, while still winning 80%+ of blacks and performing well among Hispanics as she always has. Plus, I don't think that young people would up and vote for McCain if Hillary got the nomination. So in summation, Hillary Clinton is a better general election candidate that Barack Obama.
Here's the problem with Clinton's entire argument as to why she's better. She's comparing primary results and attempting to fallaciously project that into the general election. As if because she's winning Hispanics over Obama that he wouldn't be able to get them once she's out and he's running against McCain. Same thing with working class. The argument assumes that because she has them now rather than Obama that Obama won't get them when she's out of the picture. The general election will be against McCain, not Clinton. Most Hispanics who are voting for Clinton will probably go to Obama. Most working class democrats will end up going to Obama. Why? Because it would be in their economic interest to do so, considering her and Obama have almost identical views on just about everything. And this is going to be clarified a great deal once she's out of the picture and Obama and McCain start discussing their differences.
If Hillary Clinton were a better candidate then why can't she actually beat him, the "weaker" candidate? He's got more states, more popular vote, and he's beating McCain by a much wider margin in polls than she is. He is the stronger candidate, hence why he's going to win.
And make no mistake - If Clinton comes in and steals the nomination, all the while losing the popular vote, losing in pledged delegates, losing in states won, and then somehow winning the nomination, she would very likely not get a large portion of the Obama supporters who feel they had been cheated. They may not vote McCain, but many may refuse to vote at all out of protest.
Originally posted by BackFire
As said, it isn't necessary because the Dems never get the white vote. Hillary probably wouldn't even win the white vote in November.
I would tend to disagree. Consider this thread; it's a bunch of white guys aruing about which democrat to vote for.
As to the rest of the thread after my last comment to Strangelove, I'm a little shocked to see the politics of the news media being played out right here. Maybe I misjudged the existence of the 300lbs gorilla. The only people in this country that stand in the way of ousting the republicans are the democrats. And this group of middle class white democrats are doing just that in this discussion. I have repeatedly expressed my reason for supporting Obama, and others have done the same regarding their support for Clinton. But at the end of the day, our reasons and objectives are the same and equally self-serving.
Strangelove, Bardocks opinion matters as much as yours, and his impact on this election will be exactly the same as a person who participates in this thread or lives in this country and doesn't or can't (under age) vote. And the barrage of attack responses was unreasonable, but egged on by yourself, as well. Should Mrs. Clinton lose the nomination, will you support Mr. Obama? I think you will. And I have a hard time seeing anyone else not doing the same if the situation were reversed and Clinton got the nod.
Well, yeah, I mean, they've been the candidate of the democratic party for the last couple of hundred years. But I think in this election they're going to come out of hiding. I'm not sayng your point isn't somewhat valid. But the reason is because most of the white voters in this nation are older than we are.
And why do the republicans always win the older (50+) vote? Because they're more often than not the demographic that is easily motivated. I get in email arguments with my mother all the time and her response is always a FOX news soundbite.
But, in other news, I bet Clinton's ass is chapped over the Edwards endorsement.
Yeah, I'm gay. That's why I would be embarressed by her spread. To tie it in, Germany should be equally embarrassed. But, Frau Merkel can't claim an ass like Clinton's. (again, to be as knee-jerk as Bardock's earlier comment) If I were Clinton's P/R person, I'd tell CNN not to shoot from such low angles all the time. Her ass is 4 times as wide as her face.