Senator Obama has already lost the GE, not his fault though, it's ours

[Taxmyth]

Look, this is America. Land of the free, home of the brave and filled with some of the most ignorant people on this planet. Did TV increase the level of ignorance? Do video games perpetuate ignorance? Maybe, but the fact is, the ignorance can't be denied. We elected George W. Bush, twice. That's right, WE did. Point proven. I applaud Senator Obama. He's bright, charismatic, a skilled orator and he's brought people into the political process. Another fact that can't be disputed. But he's inexperienced at this level and the ignorant masses don't want that. We elected GW Bush maybe because we wanted to have a few beers with him. But he had management experience that could be pointed to - well, maybe not pointed to as many of us tried to show the nation, but management experience nonetheless. Governor, Business owner, baseball team owner. Of course he had failed at all of these endeavors but it was experience in a leadership role and that's what the masses are looking for. Yes, it was an illusion.

Many say the same about Senator Clinton. That her attempts at management and leadership were failed attempts but the illusion is still there. She is seen as having experience. Sure, First Lady of Arkansas and the United States, being a junior Senator, these might make anyone with half a brain question just how solid this "leadership experience" is but you have to have half a brain to even think about these things. To look past the illusion. 'Nuff said as you can see where this leads.

Senator Obama doesn't have that illusion of management and leadership experience. Being a community organizer IS leadership experience to anyone that has ever been involved, but to the great unwashed masses, it's not. State Senator is leadership experience, but again, it's not seen that way by many. He doesn't have the illusion of being a leader.

And then, on to the big pink elephant in the room. Senator Obama is black man and Senator Clinton is a white woman. Americans have dealt with sexism and countered it for far longer than they have racism. Yes, sexism still exists in the US but for the most part it has been bred out of us. That's how you get rid of it, you breed it out. Children grow up in homes where the parents don't use slurs against women and their children grow up in homes that practice the same approach and so on and so on. The word "bitch" has become a compliment of sorts to some. We are at that point in this country where sexism has, for the most part, been bred out. It's just not acceptable in the home in most of America. Not so with racism. I grew up hearing the racial slurs, I hear them at work when someone of a different race is perceived as having gotten ahead. Ask the Mayor of Detroit if racism is still a part of America. Ask the news crew from WSPA in South Carolina if racism is still part of America. I was alive when racism was openly practiced and was viewed as the law in places in this country. Racism has not been bred out of the homes in the United States. Not yet, anyway. And you can criticize people for being racist all you want, it doesn't do any good if they're just being like Mom and Dad. It probably will just encourage them more. The change will come but it is definitely not here yet.

The illusion of leadership and racism will doom the chances for a President Obama. The illusion of leadership and the breeding out of sexism will help the chances for a President Hillary Clinton. Is it right? No. Is it fair? No. But it is what it is. This is America.

[skooooo]

1. ignored list

[Bicoastal]

2. I thought Obama was winning BECAUSE he was black.

But then, I thought Hillary was the only one who could triumph over the media bias against Democrats.

I'm all mixed up.

[pdxmom]

5. No, Obama is LUCKY because he's black. He's actually not winning, at least

in the states that count.

[Bicoastal]

8. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

If you're serious, I would ask WHICH, pray tell, are the states that count? And if there are states that don't count, why do we have elections in them?

If you're being sarcastic.....:hi:

[pdxmom]

16. Sarcastic. Definitely sarcastic. N/T

[Bicoastal]

18. WHEW.

[Taxmyth]

13. He's winning the Democratic Party primaries

The Democratic Party has been very progressive in it's treatment of racism and racist policies during the last 30 years but we do not represent the vast majority of Americans. We are a microcosm of what this Nation should be like which is why I'm part of it. WE are what America should be like, in our attitudes towards racism and our desire to help our fellow man. At least that's my opinion.

[bhikkhu]

3. Rove? Is that you? C'mon - we won't tell anyone you've been hanging out here!

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Obama will win the nomination and he will win the GE. Watch and learn.

[Taxmyth]

7. If he wins the nomination

I hope he does win the election. I'll vote for him, I will tell everyone I know to vote for him, but it is an uphill climb.

[Bicoastal]

10. It WILL be an uphill climb, but it'll be worth it.

[Carrieyazel]

15. It could be over now. This bitter divisiveness doesn't give Obama a chance.

McCain has to be the favorite now, unfortunately. I thought Obama may have had a chance, but it isn't going to happen in a general in 2008 America.

[stillcool]

22. I disagree...

every time the Clinton Campaign has used these tactics the boomerang effect brings it all back on them. We will not win this election on the voters of the past.

[saracat]

6. What "breeding out" of sexism.? The remarks posted on DU alone show how much sexism is

tolerated in contrast to racism.

[Taxmyth]

9. I thought about that

and maybe the term "breeding out" isn't really the correct term to use as it's not really related to the genetic makeup of the family but the dynamics in the household. If it's confusing, I apologize.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. I'm afraid that's not good enough. You may have to resign.

Seriously, I think it's a combination of nurture and nature.

If one looks at the great apes, the only group that is female dominant are bonobos. They and chimpanzees are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Among Chimps, males are dominant.

In a lot of respects we are kind of a synthisis of both groups in a lot of our behaviors.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Secret program of human/bonobo gene splicing.

[Kali]

11. Well we aren't in Saudi Arabia, but if you think sexism has been "bred" (wtf?) out

you are not very aware (and probably male)

[Taxmyth]

19. Yes, white male

Above I noted that using the words "breeding" and "bred" might not have been the most appropriate. I apologize if it seems confusing and it most certainly is not meant to be demeaning. I actually see the Nation moving towards a Saudi like mindset, complete with the mandatory religious and imposed moral statutes as long as the GOP right is in control. That's why I'm here and that's why I am vote for the Democratic Party. To keep us moving in the opposite direction of a Saudi like nation.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. In my life, I've seen just as much sexism among females as among males.

And they tend to hang out together, but not always.

It's like skin toneism. It hapens all over, but it's sometimes much worse some places than other places, and even where it's widespread, it's not universal.

[Gore1FL]

12. Well he ran a multi-million dollar campaign

and didn't go broke. He hired a much more competent staff. (of course the bar was pretty low there) He had a much better strategy.

That is an example of management,leadership, and experience.

[Taxmyth]

21. Can't argue with that

And I know that and you know that and that IS good management and leadership. But to the people who get their news from soundbites at 6PM and 10PM that is something they are never going to know. Again, the illusion factor.

[Cha]

14. So where's your screwed up

crystal ball? Like you or it knows something or something.

[Moochy]

17. "This is America"

what a load of fresh crap... she can't win.

[Taxmyth]

23. neither can he

but I think she stands a better chance. And I think my reasoning is sound and backed up by my life experiences. Maybe I'm wrong, Lord I hope so especially if he wins the nomination. I've been wrong in my thought processes many times before and I learn from my mistakes. But I've also been right and that's the part that scares me.

[Moochy]

24. Your life experiences

Are yours, but its easy to let your life experiences limit your view of what is possible.
Can't you see the damage that a superdelegate victory for Hillary would do to the activist base that is backing Obama?

How can you HRC supporters cling desperately to the undemocratic safefy valve of the oligarchy? At least have some intellectual honesty and admit that superdelegates are anti-democratic, and any victory that she obtains will be pyrric in the extreme.

[Taxmyth]

26. If that happens

If Hillary is nominated against the will of the majority of Democratic Party primary voters it will be very damaging to the Party. It will turn off many of the new people coming into the political process directly as a result of Senator Obama, maybe turn them off to the Democratic Party altogether. And that will hurt. And a Senator Obama as nominee will also hurt the Democratic Party by dividing the long time base of the Party against the newcomers and having yet another popular nominee get defeated in the GE. Either way, the Democratic Party suffers, only which scenario causes it to suffer more?

We've lived in a 2 Party system for far too long and maybe this is the impetus for change that is actually needed. The Republican Party actually addresses some of my concerns but the Democratic Party addresses more of them, hence I vote Democratic. But there could be another Party, a combination of the 2 majors platforms, that addresses even more of my concerns.

The economy is a disaster, reading these boards one sees that even simple civility is difficult for many Americans, at least when it comes to politics, we've lost respect around the world and are laughed at for our elected "leaders"......things are going to change but for the better or for the worse?

[Moochy]

30. The two party system

Can't be changed at the ballot.

If you are a conservative democrat you are backing the right candidate. However she can't win fairly.

You know that, I know that.

You claim he can't win in the GE. You know that. I don't believe that.

Thanks for the civil exchange, but please vote for Obama in the general.

Oh and please don't use GD : P as any sort of metric on the civility of the nation. :evilgrin:

[Oleladylib]

27. and vice versa...activist base backing Hillary..is looking around ..

sick of waiting for a clear plan of attack against Washington politics and how to beat McCain..Third party candidate will get my vote..not Nader, though

[Moochy]

29. Your Third Party Candidate

Wont get elected, and McCain will appoint more conservative judges.
How do you like Alito?

[AZBlue]

31. Nice Clinton/Rovian talking points.

I hope they're paying you well!

[Taxmyth]

38. Speaking of Karl Rove

What I wrote isn't flattering to Senator Clinton or Senator Obama or the American populace. It's an opinion that I've held since the race came down to two candidates. You disagree with my opinion? Fantastic, let's let the dialogue begin. I've been persuaded to change my opinion in the past because I was shown facts contrary to what I believed.

And to address the first line in your response, what you wrote is more in line with a Karl Rove like action. Attack the messenger, ignore the message. How much are they paying you to throw the election to the GOP again this year?

[MaryCeleste]

32. Some will trash you for your post, but one can not ignore the Tom Bradley effect

Still, I think its unduly negative

[Taxmyth]

39. The Bradley effect

Being from the other side of the country, I wasn't entirely familiar with who Tom Bradley was. I've heard the term "Bradley effect" before but in all honesty, didn't really know what it meant so I did some reading.

Bingo

Even though this is 25 years later, the same forces are in effect though probably not to the same degree they were 25 years ago. Once that curtain closes behind a voter on Election Day, will the "Bradley effect" play a part in the process? My answer is yes, it will. I wish it weren't so but what I know and what I wish are usually two different things.

As far as the negativity goes, America is in a negative mood - me included. It's unfortunate but I guess that came across in the posting though it certainly was not my intention. There's not a lot to be happy about or satisfied with in the US today. Changes need to be made to lighten the mood in the Country. End the war, have affordable health care, create new jobs, lower energy costs, end torture and once again be a beacon of human rights in the world. Sounds kind of Pollyannish but those are some of the pressing issues that need to be addressed. A President McCain isn't going to address those issues only a Democratic Congress will and then be approved by a Democratic President. President Obama, President Clinton, either is fine by me if they are going to grab the bull by the horns and wrestle it to the ground. In fact, it's more likely that a President Obama will be the one that can at least make an honest attempt but getting him installed in the Oval Office will be very, very difficult.

Thanks for enlightening me on the Bradley effect.

[MaryCeleste]

47. I think both HRC and Obama will suffer from it

How much is truly TBD, and both sides here at DU are claiming that their candidate is more electable, infering that their candidate will suffer less from the Tom Bradley effect.

I personally think that both will have serious issues with it. Unlike caucuses or polls where people believe they could be indentified, in the polling booth, they are truly anonymous. That is where fears, doubts, and prejudice can be given full sway.

McCain has not really been slagged by the media yet, his turn will come one we decide on our candidate, but until then, its no surprise how competitive he is in the polls.

While I have a favorite, I will stand behind whoever the party nominates. We have to otherwise its another 4 years of Republican rule

[Taxmyth]

48. Right behind you

My favorite candidate didn't make it to this point nonetheless I too will stand behind whomever the Party nominates. While I don't think having a Democratic President is as important as having a clear majority in the House and Senate it still would be better and make change easier.

[StevieM]

33. Obama will lose the GE because he trashed his opponent on a personal level, thereby alienating

Democrats. And because he injected race into the campaign, in order to win.

Steve

[meow mix]

34. Ignored.

[papau]

35. I agree

[earthlover]

36. So your basic arguements are:

1) Obama does not have the experience needed to win in November with the electorate

2) Because he is black, the electorate will not elect Obama

So we need to nominate Hillary.

I think your logic is fatally flawed. If experience is the critical issue, Hillary will lose to McCain as well. She doesn't have as much elected experience as Obama! ANd much of the vaunted 35 years is being a wife of someone with experience.

The second arguement is racist by nature. Of course, like most racists, it is denied and blamed on the big bad racists out there. Sorta like the person who says they are not racist but tells their daughter not to marry a black man for fear of the big bad racists out there and what they would do.....

It is also specious. Obama does better than Hillary vs McCain on almost every poll. Obama also has brought with him hordes of new voters, among youth and independents. Obama attracts the independents in a general election, McCain gets them against Hillary. Obama has shown the ability to add to the Democratic vote totals by a much larger margin than the racists out there would decrease them. Since it is my observation that a lot of racists wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway, especially someone like Hillary Clinton, I don't think we are losing that many votes that are not lost already.

Hillary Clinton has extremely high negatives. She also has fundamental weaknesses in her positions. She cannot attack McCain on Iraq, since she supported the IWR. She cannot attack McCain on lobbyiests since she has received more lobbyiest money than any candidate Republican or Democrat. She cannot attack McCain on race issues because her campaign has itself been involved with race baiting. She cannot attack McCain on experience, since McCain has much more experience than Hillary. She cannot attack McCain on national security, since he is a war hero and she doesn't have a lot of national security experience. Hillary has flip flopped on just about every issue facing America, and this will be an opening for McCain, to exploit Hillary's reputation for triangulation and talking out of both sides of her mouth. And then there are all the scandals associated with the Clintons that will be dredged up again, and the unlikeability of hillary that is pretty much an established fact outside her inner circle of supporters.

Hillary Clinton cannot be elected in the general election. With her alienation of AAs, she cannot even count on high turnout of AAs in the general election, without which her candidacy would be doomed. Add to this a divided Democratic Party if she gets nominated against the verdicts of the primaries, and you get an even grimmer prospect.

It is time to make a sober assessment of Hillary's chances in the general election. Slim to none. They are even lower than her realistic chances of being nominated. Either way, she loses.

[Taxmyth]

40. Excellent

First, thanks for an informative, rational and respectful rebuttal. To address the points you've made, #1 was that Senator Obama does not have the experience needed to win in November with the electorate, with which you disagree and have provided reasons, good reasons why. And your reasoning is probably correct as to WHY Senator Obama should be the nominee and win. But it is going to be difficult getting the masses to accept that reasoning. Semator Clinton has the ILLUSION of being a manager and leader. She has been in the public eye for many more years than Senator Obama and that provides an illusion of leadership. She was a First Lady which provides an illusion of leadership. She's seen as being tough having gone through the scandals and emerging relatively unscathed and that provides an illusion of leadership. You're not going to get GOP men voting for her in large numbers but GOP women WILL cross Party lines to vote for her and will be able to because of the aforementioned illusions. Sexism, albeit reverse sexism, would play a role in the election of a President Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama does not have this advantage, in fact, his relative newness to this stage will be seized by the GOP slime machine and work against him. 8 years as VP would counter that in my opinion but that's a topic for another day.

#2 yes, the argument is racist in nature and to deny racism exists in the United States, in large numbers and in the North as well as South, East as well as West, is to deny a basic fact. Racism occurs around the world, racism exists everywhere. As Democratic Party supporters we take pains to attempt to counter this ignorance but we deny it at our own peril. In an ideal nation, an ideal world, everyone would be treated equally regardless of race, religion or sex. Here in America that is a Democratic ideal. We are working towards an equality amongst everyone but we are not there yet. And, in my opinion, not even close to being there yet. And that works against a Senator Obama becoming President.

As someone pointed out to me earlier, the "Bradley effect" is possible.

Bradley effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term Bradley effect or Wilder effect refers to an explanation advanced as the possible cause of a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate.<1><2><3> Specifically, there have been instances in which such elections have seen the non-white candidate significantly underperform with respect to the results predicted by pre-election polls. Researchers who have studied the issue theorize that some white voters gave inaccurate polling questions because of a fear that by stating their true preference, they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced.

The theory suggests that statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but that those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the non-white candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.

Could this possibly be why Senator Obama is shown leading Senator McCain in a opinion polls? A very real phenomonen that must be considered.

As far as the "hatred" of Senator Clinton, it is my theory, mind you I have only anectodal evidence to back this up, exists mainly in GOP men and, for right now anyway, supporters of Senator Obama. Traditional GOP female voters WILL push the button for her in numbers sufficient to get her elected. Should this happen I'm going to write my thesis on the subject and call it the "taxmyth effect". My attempt at humor for the day.

Your assessment of Senator Clinton's weaknesses are spot on and I can't argue with them. And again, this is where the dumbing down of America comes into play. Besides us, meaning the people who actually care enough about elections to study the fact patterns and factor them into our decisions on who to vote for, nobody cares. Look at the popularity of TV's American Idol (and similar shows). In this day and age whoever has the best soundbite wins. Senator Clinton will get the chance to give those soundbites, because like Brittany Spears, people are interested. The scandals have been dealt with already and she's come out of them in relatively good shape. They made her popular and the media will cover her, she will be on the 6PM and 10PM newscasts. And compared to Senator McCain, she wins the beauty part of the show. A Senator Obama running for President will NOT generate that type of media coverage even though his message and it's delivery will definitely be superior to Senators Clinton and McCain. Call this the Senator Edwards effect.

Senator Obama has brought new blood into the process, new voters who have gotten involved. He has won Primary and Caucus alike. But these are Democratic voters, hardly indicative of the nations voters as a whole. It's still very close between them. He would get the AA vote in overwhelming numbers but would he get the GOP crossover needed to win? A Senator Clinton as nominee might not get the AA voters, might not get the new voters excited about Senator Obama. But she WILL get GOP crossover, especially from women.

[earthlover]

42. thanks for your respecful reply!

I do think that Obama is more electable than Hillary. There are dangers in both. I believe Hillary's nomination would bring out hordes of GOP voters to vote against her. I think this would counteract any Republican crossover women. Also, conservative women tend to have a highly negative view of Hillary too. They don't like the type of woman that she is, so they are highly likely to cross over to vote FOR Hillary. Moderate REpublican women may crossover, but not the conservatives.

Earlier polls have shown that about 50% of the electorate would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. This demonstrates the negatives Hillary would have to overcome if she were to win. Many, many people just don't like Hillary. Maybe for stupid reasons, but we are dealing with the same American people you mention. This disdain for Hillary is not just with Republicans, it is with many indepenents too. Being well known is a disadvantage here, because many have already formed their negative views of her.

As to the race issue, in a retreat the Republicans were discussing their strategy against Obama. There seemed to be a large fear among them that any criticism of Obama that might have a racial tinge would backfire on them. I think that there may be some truth to that. I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that race will break significantly against Obama. Obama has demonstrated the ability to excite large numbers of new voters. I think this will counteract any losses to race.

Ironically, I think the experience issue makes Obama a stronger candidate than Hillary. Yes, Hillary has more "perceived experience" even though much of that is more perceived than reality. Regardless, Hillary has based much of her campaign message on experience. Problem is, McCain has much more experience than Hillary. So much so, that if experience is the issue, McCain wins! How does she counteract this? Obama, on the other hand, has an appeal to judgement,etc that can counteract the experience arguement more than what Hillary has to counter it with. Obama can clobber McCain on Iraq, for example to counter the idea of experience. Hillary cannot. Obama has demonstrated that he can hold his own against the experience argument by winning the primaries so far against Hillary. He obviously has more to offer than experience that is appealing. Hillary, on the other hand, would have to reinvent her campaign against McCain.

Well, that's my 2 cents which is enough to buy a coffee with an added buck.

[Taxmyth]

49. I've got the coffee

And thanks for your input as these are excellent points that need to be taken into consideration. The new voters Senator Obama has added to the mix plus a significant number of Independents pushing the button for him could possibly overcome the problems that I see with electing him President. These are variables that are truly unknown at this point in time. Will these new voters actually show up in the numbers needed? Will a significant portion of independent voters push that button when the curtain closes? We won't know the answers to these questions until November. You and I and others will have to work hard to have the answers to these questions be yes.

[cooolandrew]

37. So Barack ahead of HRC is an illusion, ohhhh ok. erm.

[Taxmyth]

41. No, not an illusion

Senator Obama is indeed ahead of Senator Clinton in the Primary race but he has not won the nomination. The nomination should and will go to the candidate best suited to win the General Election. I see that as being Senator Clinton for the reasons listed above.

[cali]

43. Another stupid prognostication from another DUer under the delusion

that they have a working crystal ball. I have such contempt for people why are as delusional as to think they're actually oracles.

[Hersheygirl]

44. Ignored

[blogslut]

45. I see different

I think Obama will win the presidency.

[seabeyond]

46. how do you get thru a day with your defeatism. didnt read you post. ridiculous

to state lost before it started bullshit

[Taxmyth]

50. Thank you for playing

Didn't read the post but still have a comment on the "soundbite" at the top? You've proven my point.