Is South Carolina a game-changer?

Not long after the polls closed in South Carolina, NBC’s Tim Russert suggested that Barack Obama might win by 30 points. The very idea struck me as utterly ridiculous. After all, his biggest lead in a non-partisan poll was 15 points, rumor had it the race had become more competitive the campaign’s waning days, and this is a state in which Hillary Clinton had led for an entire year, including as recently as December. For Russert to even suggest a huge victory was likely to make a “mere” 12-point Obama victory look unimpressive by comparison.

But it turns out the number wasn’t crazy after all. With just about every precinct reporting, the final results look like this:

1. Barack Obama — 55.4%
2. Hillary Clinton — 26.5%
3. John Edwards — 17.6%

I think most political observers expected an Obama victory, but I’m hard pressed to think of anyone who thought he’d win by 29 points. He beat Clinton and Edwards combined. His vote totals were also more than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined. More Dems voted for Obama yesterday than voted in the entire 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary. Obama even had more votes than George W. Bush had when he beat McCain in 2000.

Whether the results have a lasting impact or not remains to be seen, but Obama’s win was a good ol’ fashioned thumpin’. John Dickerson put it this way: “Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton so badly in South Carolina it may spawn some new kind of Southern colloquialism. When Clemson spanks an opponent by five touchdowns it will be called an Obama. Fans will taunt the losing team as they walk off the field by making an ‘O’ against their foreheads.”

As for all the talk about race, there were some polls in the last few days showing Obama’s support dropping to just 10% of white South Carolinians. The reality proved to be far different — Obama over-performed among white voters, winning a clear majority of younger whites and tying Clinton among white men.

As I’m usually inclined to do, let’s consider the various spins we’re likely to hear.

Barack Obama — What Obama fans are saying: Clinton threw everything they had at us, and we won by nearly 30 points. We just got the big mo back. What Obama critics are saying: Enjoy it now, because on Feb. 5, no one’s going to remember South Carolina.

Who’s right? Well, it’s too soon to tell. Obama seemed to be losing the momentum lately, and expectations were poised to make a modest South Carolina victory look unimpressive. Then he won by 29 points and, all of a sudden, David’s slingshot is looking pretty effective again.

Hillary Clinton — What Clinton fans are saying: At least we didn’t slip to third. What Clinton critics are saying: It might have been closer if you guys hadn’t turned voters off with all the hardball tactics.

Who’s right? Probably the critics. It’s interesting that the Clinton campaign was clearly worried about slipping to third, and actually launched a robocall effort yesterday morning against Edwards. Moving forward, though, Clinton will have to decide what to do about her style of campaigning: if the campaign decides that aggressiveness didn’t work in South Carolina, watch for a more positive, issue-focused Clinton over the next week.

John Edwards — What Edwards fans are saying: We still picked up delegates and we’re not going anywhere. What Edwards critics are saying: A third place showing in a state he was born in and won in 2004 suggests things aren’t going to get better for the former senator.

Who’s right? Both are. This is the third contest in a row in which the late buzz suggested an Edwards surge, and once again, it didn’t materialize. He did well enough to win convention delegates, but he needed a very strong showing to give him a boost in advance of Feb. 5. It clearly didn’t happen. Edwards will now lack the resources to make a serious push moving forward.

Stay tuned.

As the Republican Party collapses and the U.S. becomes a one party state, South Carolina gives the U.S. a glimpse of what the future holds. Identify politics that has defined much of the conflict between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will come to define the Democratic Primaries.

Also, if Clinton and Edwards have no hope of appealing to black voters, then how can a Republican candidate ever hope to win more than 10% of the black vote?

  • Obama sounds like a preacher. SC is a bible belt state, and Obama does a lot better among regular churchgoers than the less observant.

    I don’t think he’ll roar out of SC with as much momentum as the gloating OFB expects.

    Obama doesn’t really do actual, well, issues. Some people still care about that.

  • It’s amazing to me that nobody is citing right-wing hate radio as a factor in Clinton’s loss in SC. What those of you who live elsewhere might not realize is that you can hear the Clintons demonized 24/7 over the airwaves in any southern state and that’s been true for the past sixteen years, up to and including accusations of murder (Vince Foster). Even if you’re a Democrat, it’s pretty hard to avoid since it’s everywhere on the dial. I’m not saying Obama’s win wasn’t legitimate or that he doesn’t have the full support of most African-Americans. I’m just saying that he hasn’t been vilified nonstop for a decade and a half and maybe that has something to do with his strength against Clinton in the south.

  • it may spawn some new kind of Southern colloquialism. When Clemson spanks an opponent by five touchdowns it will be called an Obama.

    Heh. Actually, when my wife got up this morning, my comment to her was “Obama spanked Clinton like a cheap suit.”

    I’m not sure what it means, but it sounds good.

  • dalloway,

    The Clinton-bashing is not limited to the south; it’s nationwide. I hear it out here in Oregon, too.

    Here’s the thing about Hillary getting elected: We are going to have to suffer another 8-9 years of this bashing if she is the prez. Is anything else going to get done other than her dealing with frothing Republicans/the VRWC? Also those Republicans left in Congress, along with conservative Dems, blocking her every way possible?

    I think, in a parallel universe without all the fake scandals whipped up during the 90’s plus all her real baggage, she could be a good president, (though she can’t say no to a war vote). But here and now I think the country is too screwed up to have her at the helm. We need somebody who won’t have those distractions.

    And dang it, Edwards isn’t looking too good right now. Hope I get a chance to vote for him (our primary isn’t until May 20). If not, Barack is my man.

  • Speaking of spin:

    Barack Obama won 24% of white voters in SC. “Over-performed” isn’t the first word that comes to mind.

  • PS: It would be completely fair to say that Barack Obama over-performed among young voters in SC, regardless of race. I have to regard that as a very positive sign for the long term.

  • It was interesting to me that Obama did very well with younger white voters (under 30, 52%), but not so well with older white voters. Older white voters were the only group that Hillary won. This makes it seem that Hillary’s greatest appeal is to those looking for the Restoration. It also looks like more of a divide between age groups than a racial divide. And it’s another reason why Bill Clinton’s remarks (discussed at the previous post) are so irritating.

    It’s too bad that younger voters don’t actually… vote! How can Obama’s campaign boost the turnout among younger voters with only ten days left before February 5?

  • Given the degree of racial divisiveness the Clintons attempted to interject in this race, 24 percent of the white votes in a three-way race is not bad at all. And if you break down the numbers further, you’ll find that Obama performed very well indeed with white voters who are young and/or issue oriented.

    The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves, except for the fact that they both seem to embody the very essence of shamelessness. The Democratic Party — and, indeed, the country — can do so much better than the melodrama and polarization that seem to be such an integral part of the Clinton machine.

  • Obama doesn’t really do actual, well, issues. Some people still care about that. -Horselover Fat

    Look out! Bogus talking points falling!

    Considering that every rational Clinton supporter acknowledges that Obama and Clinton are only a shade different on most issues, I’d suggest a new line of attack.

  • Okie,
    “More Dems voted for Obama yesterday than voted in the entire 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary.”

    Well, somebody (probably quite a few groups of people) made a bunch of last minute decisions to come out and vote at much greater than expected levels.

  • Boy—when this guy says “its time to turn the page,” he does it in such an eloquent fashion that it’s hard to determine whether he’s just turning the page, or dropping the whole damned library—books, shelves, building and all—on Fortress Hillary. I think this one’s going to still be on people’s minds in nine days—and in ten days—and right on through to Spring. How can it not be? Everyone—even the overseas media, like BBC, Reuters, and Asia Times—are citing the fact that Obama beat Clinton and Edwards—COMBINED. The word outside the US is “Crushed.” “Trounced.” “Routed.”

    And if “youze HRC guys” wants to play on the global field, then global POVs are going to be a part of that.

    Obama Slamma-Jamma——–that from my almost-ten-year-old son who calls Bu$h “the dummy in the White House….”

  • As the next round of voting goes in 10 days it will be Hillary doing the routing. The average african american voting block on Feb 5 is 20% of the vote so count Obama out if he can’t get at least 45% of the total white vote. CA, NY and NY make up almost 1000 delegates.

    p.s. Obama needed SC or the race was over.

  • It’s too bad that younger voters don’t actually… vote! -OkieFromMuskogee

    I’ve debunked this myth more times than I can count, and since I’m on a different computer, I don’t have links handy, but suffice to say that the percentage of youth voting increased dramatically in 2004 and again in 2006 and based on the trend would make up more than 20% of the vote in 2008.

    I would imagine having a candidate like Obama, who obviously inspires under 30s to vote would drive it even higher. I expect, should Obama win the nomination, that under 30s will make up over 25% of the total vote.

    Given the degree of racial divisiveness the Clintons attempted to interject in this race, 24 percent of the white votes in a three-way race is not bad at all. -George Colombo

    I’m sure that some will dance around the issue and others will outright say it, but my guess is that among most Clinton supporters the thought will be South Carolina doesn’t matter because it has a large African American population. That will be the mantra going into February 5th. I have a feeling a lot of them will overlook what you wrote about.

  • Great analysis, Carpetbagger! I have no ideal how it will work out, so I just enjoy reading your take on this…

    Steph @ 3 said:

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

    All three of the Dem Presidential candidates are going to have a problem with their healthcare plans. These plans, like Communism on Paper, look and sound good for the short-term, but what about the long-term? Have these Presidential candidates seriously studied their plans, or are they just telling potential voters what they want to hear?

    Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

    Doctors are calling for (Britain’s) NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

    Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

    Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

    Anyone here ever see the movie – Soylent Green? If you are elderly or close to it, and never saw it, then I suggest that you go and watch it.

  • This makes it seem that Hillary’s greatest appeal is to those looking for the Restoration.

    Actually, Okie, the age-skew may be too old for that to be the explanation! Those 60 yr olds were hardly in their formative political years under Clinton-Gore. Part of it may be that she is a more “traditional” politician running a more “traditional” campaign. Some may actually be turned off by Obama’s emphasis on the youth vote – they may see their interests not perfectly alighed with youth (particularly on issues like Social Security).

    doubtful, there is no question the youth vote has been increasing (wars have a way of getting their attention), but per exit polls in the last three contested states it still has been about 15% at best. it would have to grow a long ways before the rate of turnout (i.e. the bang for a campaign’s buck) matches the seniors.

  • CB, stop inhaling that Obama intoxicant and start “handicapping” (ah, the MSM loves the “horse race”) the “Super Tuesday” races. Off the top of my head, Obama wins Illinois and any southern state with a large African-American electorate (love those identity politics), meanwhile Hillary has the edge in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey (no Podunks there). What’s the full list for “Super Tuesday”?

    Also: Obama’s rhetoric is like walking into a restaurant and having your nose delight in smelling the food cook; unfortunately, his campaign has been like a meal that no matter how many forkfuls I put in my mouth, it just doesn’t satisfy.

    Why can’t Obama convince me he’s not a DINO?

  • (to clarify in the last post, because i mixed measures, the 15% figure referenced was share of the vote in that race not turnout rate among eligible voters in the age group, which i talk about in the rest of the paragraph)

  • so seaberry, lets start at the beginning – are you suggesting our current health care system is not broken and therefore needs no fixing?

  • Hi zeitgeist,

    Can we meet online to knock around some issues? When it comes to Obama closing the deal, we seem like-minded.

    My teenage daughter IM’s, my interests are mainly elsewhere on the web.

  • There’s a good-sounding analysis of the significance of the South Carolina results at http://www.electoral-vote.com/
    White voters weren’t fired up about Obama, but black voters were.
    Poor people weren’t fired up about Edwards (race trumps income)
    Clinton got a gender boost
    Edwards did his best among white males.
    In other words, it looks a lot like group-identification politics.

    The website reports a nationwide poll of hypothetical pairwise presidential contests (with the provise that this is too early to be meaningful):
    Democrat Dem pct Republican Republican pct
    Hillary Clinton 47% John McCain 45%
    Hillary Clinton 47% Mitt Romney 42%
    Barack Obama 46% John McCain 41%
    Barack Obama 47% Mitt Romney 38%

    Basically, either Dem wins narrowly, and more Republicans & Independents claim to have decided to vote against Clinton than against Obama (i.e., more of them remain undecided in match-ups involving Obama).

  • …per exit polls in the last three contested states it still has been about 15% at best… -zeitgeist

    Granted, the trends I’m talking about was from the general elections. If what you and I both say is correct, that only bolsters Obama as a good general election candidate.

  • slip kid – badzeitgeist (at) hotmail (dot) com

    doubtful – i think he would do well in the general; if the young ‘uns would actually start participating reliably and not just sporadically (i.e. show an interest in politics, not just personalities) it would greatly refocus much of policy debate in this country in way that I’ve spent most of my life arguing would be for the better. alas, i’m now reaching that age where i am not so sure. . . 🙂

  • …the trends I’m talking about was… -doubtful

    Trends was? Sigh. Look at us Democrats! We can’t even get our subjects and verbs to agree. 🙂

  • Dalloway: It’s amazing to me that nobody is citing right-wing hate radio as a factor in Clinton’s loss in SC.

    The right-wing hate radio has been constantly anti-Clinton for 16 years and counting, as CB points out, Hillary led in South Carolina polls last month. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think the Rush Limbaughs of the world had any part in this, they became white noise many years ago.

  • zeitgeist,

    I see that you wanted to change the subject, i.e. from the Democrats’ plans for a NHC or NHS, and back to the current problems…

    Eventually, state run systems fall back to the bread line model, as they did in the Soviet Union, and someone has to start making choices about who gets the bread.

    The Democratic Party has been systematically destroying privatized health care since before the Clinton’s had arrived on the scene, by promoting the NHS of Europe and other countries over our privatized system. The Clinton’s were so scary, that they basically stopped the “evil Drug companies” in their tracks. Edwards made a fortune by suing Doctors and Hospitals for enormous sums of money.

    The Democrats need to stop trying to turn America into a Socialist State, and just get out of the way, since their plans lead to D-O-O-M…so to speak.

  • Speaking of skating on issues, if you missed Barack Obama on This Week today, you missed a display of political weaseling that would have to warm the cockles of even Ari Fleischer’s black heart. I watched him for 15 or 20 minutes and in that entire time I don’t believe I heard him actually answer a single question he was asked. I was in awe.

    At one point I was reminded of the time John Edwards said of John Kerry in one of the 2004 primary debates: “That’s the longest answer I ever heard to a yes-or-no question.” Stephanopoulos actually restated his minute-long answer to a question about possibly seating Florida delegates as “OK, so that’s ‘no'” (or something very much to that affect).

  • Shalimar: “They became white noise many years ago.”

    Really? Then why is the mainstream media paying so much attention to Rush’s hatred of McCain? Because they believe Rush could impact the race. And his hatred of McCain is mild compared to his loathing of Hillary.
    Also, it enables to Obama to don the mantle of the “good” Democrat — which my wingnut Republican family believes. Though they dislike Bush, they could never bring themselves to vote for Hillary (because of the long-term sliming) but are willing to consider Obama. I’m sure there are “blue dog” southern Democrats who feel the same way.

  • seaberry, i’m not sure why i bother, but pray tell how is actually trying to engage you in a discussion about your post, and explore your position further “ducking your points”?

  • Just out of curiosity—can anyone who’s promoting the idea that “Obama can only win where there’s a dominant black vote” explain Iowa? Or is the purpose of the coded message to throw some red meat at the white vote in the 2/5 states? It’s coming across as though you’re wanting Dems to play the “scary black man” card—just so we can beat the ReThugs to it.

    Let’s face it—Hillary tanked in SC because she tanked in SC. She went in there with her pit-poodle of a husband, yammering and baiting to beat the band, and it blew the bottom out of her campaign. That’s the kind of damage that can’t be repaired overnight, and it’s the kind of damage that can’t be camouflaged by changing the message. Too many people have video access to what Fortress Clinton tried to pull off. You think that stuff’s going to magically disappear in 9 or 10 days? How? Will Hillary play the RIAA gambit, claim copyright privileges on everything, and send out legions of lawyers to round up the offending parties?

    Obama was supposed to get 10% of SC’s white vote. He got 25%—two-and-a-half times the projected vote. How did that happen?

    Now, extrapolate that number onto all the 2/5 state polls. You don’t even have to increase his numbers by 150%—just measure 15% of the total vote moving from Fortress Hillary to Obama. Mathematically, that’s a compounded swing of 30%. I don’t see any 2/5 state with a 30% lead for Hillary right now; they’ve pretty much all been falling from pre-Christmas highs in the mid/upper 50’s to low/mid 40’s—and a lot have even slipped into the 30’s, with Obama only a few points behind.

    The Clinton spin, from Day One, has been “Obama can’t win.” That spin is beginning to look rather shaky right now—and I imagine that a lot of people who were going to support Hillary because “she can win in November” are starting to re-think their positions right about now….

  • Game-changer? Hard to say. In SC, 20% of Dem voters decided in the last three days, and among those Obama got something like 51 to Clinton’s 29%. In NH, a roughly similar percentage decided in the last 3 days, with Clinton picking up most of those. In both cases, last minute events played roles (the cry with no tears, and the Bill effect). In addition, black voters who hesitant to support Obama, not knowing whether he was really viable, may now throw their support to him. Edwards supporters, realizing he’s nothing but a remote mathematical possibility, will choose among HRC or Obama, probably varying in their choice by state.

    With so many variables, I’d place no faith in polling conducted prior to SC. And if we continue to see large numbers of people deciding in the last couple of days. Even 3 day out polling could be useless.

  • Posted this on another forum, and it is still true here. Many people who don’t look closely enough at the numbers will only see that Obama got a paltry 24% of the white vote in SC. But if one chooses to go beneath the surface and do a little more digging, you will see how truly remarkable this is. First, among young white voters, Obama won flat out, with 52% of the vote (18-29 year olds). That is remarkable in any state. Next, in South Carolina, one of the first of the colonies to implement slavery, the first state to secede from the Union, one of the last states to repudiate slavery, the state that still had an avowed segregationist for a Congressman all the way until 2002 (Strom Thurmond) when he chose not to seek re-election, a state that still has a Confederate flag flying on the grounds of a government building, for ANY African-American candidate to get 24% of the overall white vote in a state with the History of SC is simply amazing!!

  • ok, seaberry, i gave you a chance to prove you aren’t a troll. but you have no interest in dialogue, which is the whole purpose of a blog. no more feedings.

  • Steph at 3,

    Anyone can put stuff up on their site. After campaign is over, no one cares. The guy doesn’t care about that ghostwritten stuff.

    You think that was a good “gotcha,” no? Feeling kind of smug?

  • Steve @ #34: “Obama was supposed to get 10% of SC’s white vote. He got 25%—two-and-a-half times the projected vote. How did that happen?”

    It happened by cherry-picking a single unrepresentative poll. Other recent polls, from Zogby, SurveyUSA, Insider Advantage (FWIW) and Mason-Dixon’s previous poll taken the week prior to that one all put Obama’s white support somewhere between 18-25%. The one Mason-Dixon poll that had him at 10% among white was obviously an outlier.

  • Okie at 10,
    “t was interesting to me that Obama did very well with younger white voters (under 30, 52%), but not so well with older white voters.”

    If you look closely, she looks like an old lady. Another dimension of identity politics

  • Why can’t Obama convince me he’s not a DINO?

    Because you seem to be the sort of partisan who can be satisfied on the subject of partisan bona fides only by a pledge to drink the blood of “the enemy.” That plays well on Daily Kos, and I guess even here. But most people would prefer leaders who govern rather than endlessly settle old scores–as the Republicans’ 2006 losses showed.

    They’re not “the enemy”; they’re just idiots capable of doing a lot of harm. Political realignment is the best revenge. And I would suggest that the record indicates the Clintons, those great champions of partisan warfare, are the real “DINOs.”

  • I just checked the American Research Group site and they also put Obama at 25% among white voters in their last poll. That’s everyone.

  • Identity politics:

    Looking closely, the competition is bound to be an elderly white guy in the general. Hmmmm.

  • Actually, it’s the Democrat party that is imploding. Dividing the races and genders have long been their liberal strategy. Live by the sword and die by the sword. Meanwhile, Obama would sell our security for a vote, Edwards would sell our economy for a vote and Hillary would sell anything for a vote. Racist blacks will vote for Obama, feminists will vote for Hillary and the economically challenged will vote for Edwards. Change is sometimes good, change for the worse is not. The Democrats have endangered our country for politics. The enemy plays hardball, the Demos play politics. Their trashing of Bush will have long term ramifications for all of us. Who do you think Bin Laden would vote for. Yep, one of those three. Why do think it so?

  • Actually, schmuck troll @ 47, I think bin Laden would vote for whatever Republican hews closest to Bush policies and governance. It’s almost impossible to imagine how any president could do more to advance the cause of Islamic terror–providing it an endless supply of recruiting pitches and pushing MIddle East governments closer to crackup–than your gunslinging cowboy moron hero.

  • “All three of the Dem Presidential candidates are going to have a problem with their healthcare plans. These plans, like Communism on Paper, look and sound good for the short-term, but what about the long-term?”

    My bullshitometer just cracked.

    You’re seriously trying to use an anecdote that reflects the terrible damage done to Britain’s National Health Service by decades of US-style ‘reforms’, failed privitisation and good old corporate greed to ‘prove’ that ‘socialised medicine’ doesn’t work?

    Teh Stupid, it burns!

  • “Who do you think Bin Laden would vote for.”

    That’s easy. George Bush, for a third term. After all, he’s caused more turmoil at home and abroad than Bin Laden ever dreamed of doing on his own.

  • Seems like Hillary “lost her voice” again yesterday. With 35 years of experience, how can this be happening?

  • Don’t count HIllary out yet — she is smarter wiser and tougher then most people are willing to admit — I think that is what bothers some people about her. The interesting fact is that those of you who are concentrating on the per centage of white voters fail to admit to the fact the black voters out numbered white voters by a considerable number and at the moment this is Senator Obama’s core constituency. No one should forget this — in a two way race with McCain it would not be inconceivable that a majority of those borderline Democrats would consider shifting allegiances rather then vote for the Senator whose matra is pretty much the same old same old — a vote for me is a vote for change — Been there and done that as they say.

  • Horselover Fat@2

    Obama sounds like a preacher and doesn’t do issues, huh?
    You’re the second guy I’ve heard make that exact same complaint.
    Is there a right wing chain email going around I haven’t heard about?

    Have you ever heard Al Sharpton?
    Do you honestly tell me Obama talks the same way as that half-wit?

    Obama does issues just fine if he’s talking to an audience that wants them.
    You can hear him speak on any topic you like if you just enter the keyword and “Obama” on YouTube.

    Perform that exercise for me.
    Punch in “Obama ” and “Clinton ” three times.
    When you’re done, if you still think Obama has no substance, fine. Vote for Hilary “the Listening Tour” Clinton. Bet you don’t walk away so sure of yourself.

  • Seaberry: In regards to your post
    “Doctors are calling for (Britain’s) NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.”
    I assume that you don’t like that premise, and that you prefer a free market based model. In your ‘free market based” model, provided it was a TRUE free market model, that is exactly what would be happening. When you do not have the money in order to pay the premiums to be kept alive long past your ‘natural’ ability to maintain health. Seaberry, can you tel me that in the American Health Care system, when someone without any money walks into an emergency room, that I will not have to pay more in premiums because I’m (according to Republican logic) someone who takes responsibility for my own well being? Quite frankly I would much rather live with a Health care system, where I do not have to pay double premiums because the ‘social conservatives’ feel that every life is precious and we should maintain it at all cost (Shiavo comes to mind) Those social conservatives belong to the same party that feels that we should cut more social programs, and cut more taxes. IT’s about time that you make a decision about all this so called “free market” dynamic. You can’t have it BOTH ways: either you are free market and that means you do not cover any person who can’t pay for it… OR you have EVERYBODY pay a little bit so that all can have decent health care. What is wrong with requiring smokers, obese people, and people who life unhealthy lifestyles pay more for their behavior? Isn’t that what FREE market is all about? Isn’t that along the Republican mantra of ‘taking personal responsibility”?

    “Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.”
    That is exactly true. We can not afford to have people showing up in emergency rooms for all their needs, while they do not contribute to the cost of health care. That is reality, and also a Republican misguided talking point by wanting Free Market but at the same time not addressing the issue of people getting health care for free without paying for it. Why is it that under Republicans there are more free loaders?

    I could go on and on, but most of those issues will fall in the Republican excuse when invoking their ‘moral’ standing… Why do Republicans not talk about their morals with their check books? Why don’t they pay for the services they demand (Shiavo) but refuse to fund through programs? Why do we keep hearing about the wonderful Free market approach from Republicans when none of the Republican candidates would be able to get coverage under their very own plan. Every hypocritical Republican politician receives socialized medicine. Democrats receive the very same health care, but at least they don’t run their agenda against it.

    I’m interested in hearing what you have to say, other than more ‘troll republican’ behavior?

  • Obama supporters wake up. Obama is running a racist campaign.

    Obama’s camp compared their victory over Clinton in Iowa to OJ Simpson’s murder of his white wife. “The natural reminder here is O.J. [Simpson] — how does an African American candidate attack a white woman?” said Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), a fellow Black Chicagoan whose father ran for president twice in the 1980s.

    That was waaaaaay back in January. And the media covered it up!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU

    This is how Washington Post buried the information by ignoring its racist tone.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010400117.html

  • Horselover Fat,

    How does the fact that church goers supported Obama support the notion that Obama ‘doesn’t do issues’ and ‘sounds like a preacher?’

    Clinton supporters are getting as starry-eyed and hate-filled as the supposed Obama supporters they rail against.

    I’ve asked several Obama-haters the same thing several times today and I still haven’t gotten an answer: what issues isn’t Obama taking a position on and what about his record doesn’t show he will fight for Democratic issues?

    Are we going to label every well spoken candidate who gets support from church goers as ‘preacher-like’ or just the black ones?

    So much for the reality based community. Some of you people are so hate filled and delusional, it’s embarrassing to call myself a Democrat.

    Obama has a well documented history that supports Democratic ideals. He’s qualified to be President, just as the remainder of the Democratic slate is. He does do issues. He’s also a great speaker and a likable guy, to most. I don’t know what about that turns people into spite-filled propagandists, but seriously, it’s time for some growing up.

  • “How does the fact that church goers supported Obama support the notion that Obama ‘doesn’t do issues’ and ’sounds like a preacher?’”

    Those are separate points and separate statements. To me, his speeches not only consist of stuff like “yes we can” and “we can do it,” they sound a lot like what I hear on Sunday morning religion TV while I’m clicking past it. Or like motivational speakers.

    CNN put up exit polling showing him doing well with churchgoers. I am speculating that that comes from him using the sort of language they relate positively to.

    He recently circulated in SC a four page color brochure on how very Christian he is, which except for the name and photo looked like it could have come from the Huckabee campaign. Perhaps that helped him with churchgoers, just speculation.

  • “what issues isn’t Obama taking a position on and what about his record doesn’t show he will fight for Democratic issues?”

    Perhaps his penchant for using right wing frames and talking points when he discusses things like Social Security and health insurance?

    Perhaps his tin ear to how calling Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign transformative would play to Democratic partisans? Or how calling the GOP the “party of ideas,” to the point we have to hear, yet again, some explanation of What Obama Really Meant?

  • Perhaps his penchant for using right wing frames and talking points when he discusses things like Social Security and health insurance? -Horselover Fat

    Haha, see I ask about his record and get supposed conservative frames and a statement about Reagan as an answer. How are his supposed conservative frames different than some that Clinton has used, like her fear-mongering mailer sent in Nevada?

    But really, you’re just skirting this question with talking points. What about his actual record makes people think he’s some sort of sell-out? I don’t think you answer it because you can’t; it’s just a desperate talking point for Obama-haters to cling to.

  • “it’s just a desperate talking point for Obama-haters to cling to.”

    Would you like an opportunity to do some real concern-trolling? Here is some red meat you can clutch your pearls and wring your hanky over:

    I don’t much like Bush, either. And I wasn’t much impressed eight years ago by “compassionate conservatism” or the “uniter not divider” shtick or “I used to get on great with the Democrats in the Texas Legislature.”

  • Horselover Fat said: I don’t much like Bush, either. And I wasn’t much impressed eight years ago by “compassionate conservatism” or the “uniter not divider” shtick or “I used to get on great with the Democrats in the Texas Legislature.”

    The problem with this comparison, horselover fat, is that most of us in this forum NEVER believed Bush. Many of us here, however, DO believe Obama.

    Look, I’m not blind. No candidate is without faults. Obama is clearly a better Orator than debater. But there is more substance to him than some people give him credit for. Plus, he has the added bonus of widespread appeal.

    I think it is safe to say that most people participating in the forum strongly want a Dem in the Whhite House. Some of us think that person should be Hillary Clinton. Other feel it should be Barack Obama. And others fell it should be John Edwards. I personally believe Obama has the best chance in the General election.

    If Hillary is the nominee, then we all better hope McCain dosn’t get the Republican nomination. I believe a Clinton/McCain matchup does not favor Clinton. An Obama/McCain matchup clearly favors Obama because Obama will take more of the independent vote.

    A Clinton/Romney matchup would be better than Clinton/McCain, but given Clinton’s high negatives this is not a shoe-in either. But again, an Obama/Romney matchup favors Obama.

    But these are just horserace comparisons. On substantive issues Clinton and Obama are very similar. So, on a pragmatic level I have come to the conclusion that Obama is the best candidate to reclaim the White House for Dems and also most likely to attract a broad spectrum of support among the voters.

    Now, getting back to the theme of this thread, does Obama’s S.C. win change the game? I don’t know. With such a decisive win it is hard not to think so, but I just don’t know. I think it helps him shrink the leads Clinton has enjoyed in many of the Super Tuesday states. But will it be enough to put him over the top? Probably not in all of those states. But I think it makes them all competitive. I think the deligate count coming out of Super Tuesday will be very very close.

  • “The problem with this comparison, horselover fat, is that most of us in this forum NEVER believed Bush. Many of us here, however, DO believe Obama.”

    I don’t know what the demographics of this forum are. It appears, though, that a lot of Obama’s support comes from people who were not of voting age eight years ago. Eight years ago, young people did not turn out to vote much, mostly because of disinterest in politics. I’m guessing a lot of today’s Obama supporters didn’t bother voting eight years ago even if they were old enough.

    I’m just saying that some of us, for whatever reason, perhaps experience, are more sensitive than others to the possibility rhetoric may not correlate well with future performance. Obama like to allude to MLK, JFK, FDR etc. But just saying you wish to emulate someone doesn’t mean you could or would deliver.

  • Would you like an opportunity to do some real concern-trolling? -Horselover Fat

    First, I think you need to look up concern trolling, and I would suggest being more reserved in throwing out the troll label. Nothing will discredit you faster than losing your cool like that.

    Second, I can’t help but notice you’re still dodging my question: what parts of Obama’s record make you think that he’ll sell-out Democratic ideals?

    I’ll reiterate; I don’t think you can answer that.

  • We seem to have a new “beastie” aboard the blog. Someone who’s ardently complaining about Obama, pushing Hillary like it’s a crack addiction, playing the “religion-is-bad” card, freely suggesting that people are trolls because they don’t agree with him, and using multiple posts in rapid succession to get a single point across.

    Now, who does that remind everyone of?

  • “what parts of Obama’s record make you think that he’ll sell-out Democratic ideals?”

    It is not his record, his record is very thin, not much to go on. Fairly typical Dem voting record. It’s the way he campaigns, his speeches, the things he talks about, or doesn’t talk about, the perspective he seems to operate from, the right-wing talking points he keeps injecting.

    That, plus his campaign tactics, which I find much less benign than many of you do. I don’t KNOW that he’d sell out anything, I have the opinion he is too unprincipled, and insufficiently competent, to be the guy I want confronting the major challenges we face.

    “pushing Hillary like it’s a crack addiction,”

    Actually, Edwards is the only one I have sent any money too. I switched to HRC when it became apparent that JE was having problems fundraising and getting traction. To me, NotObama is more important than picking between JE and HRC.

  • Does Obama pick up significant (“game-changing”) momentum out of SC? I think not, because…

    Momentum is for the early contests, when voters are trying to seuss out should they switch to a more viable candidate or not. A voter who switches will switch to a candidate who looks more viable, usually.

    The democratic field is already too narrowed for this effect to continue. The 15% threshhold rules mean Edwards will not be picking up many more delegates, and many of his voters would prefer to vote their second choice instead of helping JE be kingmaker.

    I can’t imagine many HRC supporters will say ZOMG BO is the real deal, I’m on his bandwagon. There have been too many accusations of lying and racism for that.

  • Comments are closed.