Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted

Barack Obama on his ability to win in November vs. Hillary Clinton (transcript via TPM, emphasis mine):

Brody: Will Hillary be a drag for down-ticket races as a presidential candidate?
Obama: I think there is no doubt that she has higher negatives than any of the remaining democratic candidates. That's just a fact and there are some who will not vote for her. If you look at the results in Nevada, for example, she eked out the popular vote victory over me, but I ended up winning more delegates because she got almost all of her votes from Clark County, Las Vegas and some of the traditional democratic areas. We got votes there, but we also got votes in northern Nevada and rural conservative regions of the state that traditionally don't vote Democratic, but were excited about my campaign.

I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward.

Don't be so sure Senator.

As Kevin Drum notes, the most recent LA Times poll shows that Clinton does better than Obama against McCain because she holds onto more democrats.  As Kevin points out, the Times poll indicates that Clinton would beat McCain by four points, 46-42.  Obama loses 42-41.  These aren't that big a difference and clearly either Clinton or Obama have a chance to win (or lose) against McCain as things stand now.

However, the reason why Clinton polls better is that she wins 83 percent of Democratic primary voters.  Obama only wins 74 percent.   Clinton and McCain evenly split the independent vote (39-39), Obama and McCain also evenly split the indy vote (37-37).  McCain beats Clinton among Republicans 74-13 and Obama by 81-12.  

Interestingly, more Democrats are undecided with Obama than they are with Clinton.  More Republicans are undecided with Clinton than Obama.  There is a fairly large pool of undecided independents with Obama (much more than with Clinton) and perhaps he would pick up some of these voters.  

Personally, I think Clinton or Obama are electable and whoever the nominee is will have my vote in November.  However, there's been a lot of chatter about how Obama can win voters that Clinton cannot, but will automatically keep Clinton's voters.  That's not necessarily true.  Obama will need to win over Clinton's voters every bit as much as Clinton will need to win over Obama's.


Poll
If your candidate is not the democratic party nominee will you:
Vote for the Democrat
Vote for the Republican
Vote for a 3rd Party Candidate
Stay Home

Votes: 14
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

A pretty petty thing for Obama to say; it almost sounds like a threat. Maybe he should look at why he clearly is not the choice among registered Democrats in the Primary. It's not just because of Bill Clinton's popularity among Democrats.


by Christopher Lib on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:11:45 AM EST

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

Democrats have not warmed up to Obama, and seemingly are cooling off as we go deeper into this process.  Obama can be excused that he believes that they would move on over to him, but I don't think that is very certain.  Obama would lose a lot of the women who have come out just for Clinton, many voting for the first time in their lives.  A lot of them would remove themselves from the process again, especially given that their choice remaining would be Obama, the guy who bashed Hillary and Bill as liars.  That will definitely leave some hard feelings amongst her most loyal supporters.  There are also many Gays and Lesbian voters who have no use for Obama for reasons already discussed.  He would not just take them all over, some would just not bother.  Hispanics as a group are not very interested in Obama, and the lunch-pail Democrats (making under $50,000) are also very apprehensive about Obama.   On the other hand, Obama has what groups?  Youth voters?  Hillary is very strong in that segment in her own right, for a good chunk of the year she actually led in the youth voter demo.  She should have no problem getting most of them to come over to her.  The same is true for AAs, who have always had a special affinity for Hillary and Bill Clinton and should come to us in numbers we have seen in the past (94% or so voting Democratic.)  Leaves Indies, and it remains to be seen how they react to a Hillary candidacy.  

Overall, it looks as if Hillary would be more likely to pick up most of Obama's support, with the natural Clinton constituency groups somewhat less likely to be as reliably "there" for Obama.  


by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:14:03 AM EST

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

I think many of Hillary's new voters (not all, surely) would stick around to vote for the nominee, because Hillary's message emphasizes the importance of electing a Democrat and the fact that any of the Democratic candidates would be far better than any of the Republicans.  If Obama campaigned on the same message, maybe more of his supporters would be interested in voting for Dems other than himself.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

I know what is being emphasized, but to many of us Obama has an aloofness about him that makes it extremely hard to like the guy.  I would have a very hard time pulling the trigger on him (although I would in the end,) and that from a guy who votes every cycle, always Democratic (aside from a few local races for agricultural poohbah or some such thing.)  I can imagine that many who are new to the process, usually never go out and vote, would be turned off and just go right back to not voting.  Obama has pissed off a lot of the typical Democratic voters with various items.  Perhaps that was unavoidable if you are going to run as a post-partisan "split the difference" kind of candidate, but true party people are going to think very hard, swallow twice, then perhaps pull the trigger on someone they are quite uneasy and uncertain about actually being willing to fight for them, their health care, their kid's education.  Some won't.  


by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

I assume that Hillary would continue to beat the drum for any Democratic candidate in the general.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:31:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

I am sure she would, but we have to understand the historical nature of what we have seen so far in this process.  We are talking records being shattered by leaps and bounds, and not because of Obama per se (the "movement" candidate,) although he shares in the overall excitement we are witnessing, as after Iowa he has not been that successful in turning the youth vote out in massive numbers, and the AA vote is of course always reliably with us.  No, the true historic aspect of this cycle is the enormous number of women coming out specifically for Hillary, and (like in NV) we may be also seeing a historic number of Hispanics for her (and with that the Democratic party.)   I am wondering if Hillary were to lose the nomination (which I don't believe likely at this juncture) if some of the historic turnout would be lost in the shuffle, if future turnout would conform closer to typical patterns.  Maybe Obama could re-excite the youth vote again to come out in droves, but I just don't think the driving force of the historic nature of this cycle, the tremendous women vote, would stick it out in the numbers or close to the numbers we have seen.


by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:41:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

Well, Obama can take this loyal Dem for granted, to be perfectly honest.  But still, it's a rude thing to say.

I do think the people who are like "all my friends will stay home if Hillary is the nominee" need to look more closely at the actual numbers.  All the candidates have very high approval numbers among Dems.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:14:04 AM EST

Mine, Too (none / 0)

I honestly don't get the "I would never vote for X" where X is any one of the leading three Dems.   I prefer Clinton, but I'll gladly vote for Obama over any Republican candidate.  It's not even close.


by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:04:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the video (none / 0)

Here's the video:

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/308380.aspx

The guy just oozes arrogance when he says it.


by hwc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:31:30 AM EST

Re: Here's the video (none / 0)

BTW, in the video, Obama smugly notes that Clinton "eeked out a win" in the popular vote in Nevada.


by hwc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the video (none / 0)

Thanks for posting that link. I hadn't seen the video before, and it's worse than just reading the quote. The arrogance is really astounding.


by LakersFan on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

Obama is proving himself more and more to be an egotistical ass.  

I have never in my life heard a Democratic candidate even HINT that his supporters would not of course support the nominee.

It's a tacit threat, an attempt to strongarm the party, and shows all the pure selfish ugliness that is under all that pretty speech.

He is losing support with Dems like crazy.   The Party needs to wake up, or they are going to have an Independent running with a token D beside his name.  Liebermann, anyone?

He is NOT the choice of the Democratic party. Oh, and he's also lying.  The latest Rasmussen has his negatives HIGHER than Hillary's.  He's at 51%, She's at 50%.  


by WMCB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:33:11 AM EST

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

The Obama family also has deep ties to WAL-MART.  In fact, their Rezko slumlord mansion was purchased with WAL-MART money.


by truthteller2007 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

I'll still vote for him, but the comment still rankles me. Is it too much to expect someone running for the freaking Democratic nomination to tell people why Democratic ideas are better than Republican ones? As Howard Dean would say, I want someone who represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. If he talks like this now, what's he going to sound like during the general election?


by OrangeFur on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:36:58 AM EST

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

Shudder.  Hopefully we never have to find out.


by georgep on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:44:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

That really irked me- as if he's saying he won't campaign for her if he loses or ask his supporters to forgive and forget and support the Democratic nominee.  It was just very pompous- of course we know his standard procedure by now and if he is criticized for it, he'll say "that's not what I meant."


by reasonwarrior on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:27:22 AM EST

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

I seem to remember Dean saying something similar in 2004. It is quite commom but usually amounts to nothing. Many people said they wouldn't vote for Kerry but did. I am quite sure the take-my-ball-home crowd won't be big enough either way to matter - most Dems will come home in the end no matter what they are threatening now because they will remember the Nader mess in 2000 and what that meant for these last 8 years.


by conspiracy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:15:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

I remember the debate where they gave each of the candidates a chance to ask the other candidates a question, and Howard Dean chose to pledge to support the eventual nominee and ask all the other candidates if they would take the same pledge.

I'm awfully curious what you remember Dean saying that was supposedly similar to this.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Should Not Take Dems for Granted (none / 0)

He was thinking out loud to a reporter. Have Googled it but can't find anything. It was very similar to what Obama said. I also remember that debate moment - he definitely made it clear towards the end that he would support the nominee.


by conspiracy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:04:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.