Monday May 28, 2012

Pennsylvania loss shows Obama still struggling to win key constituencies

By Beth Fouhy

World ( 25 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

25 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Why can't barack close the deal?

    Because we doesn't want a far-left liberal to run our government.

    RR

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Because we doesn't want a far-left liberal to run our government." Hold on RR, for once I am going to disagree with you. Obama far less left than Hillary. For one, she is one of those rich white liberals and they are the worst liberals to deal with. Always thinking how the world should be. If you are a minority, feel sorry if you are part of the majority, then your problems are your fault! I was hoping Obama would have won this one just to get the .. out.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Panic, panic, panic.....

    Heh.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    skip,

    How many times does all this have to happen before democrats cotton onto the fundamentals? They make the same mistake over and over for the same reasons.

    After each post mortem of general electoral failure democrats decide that they failed not because they were too far left but because they were not far enough left and each time move the wrong way for electoral success.

    Check out who's publically endorsed barack:

    Louis Farrahkan;

    Jane Fonda;

    Michael Moore;

    The Black Panthers;

    Hamas

    The democratic leadership is totally out of touch with the American people so the result is laughable stagnation. They persecute centrists like Joe Lieberman and support fringe dwellers like barack. It's the reason why I wrote that America will never elect a far-left liberal to run our country.

    RR

  • 0

    Madverts

    Hamas have endorsed Obama?

    Heh, ramen, it's too much.

    Eeeek. Eeeeeeeek!

  • 0

    skipthesong

    RR: I hear you and please don't assume because Obama is somewhat like me, that I am for him because of that. Not the case. In the case against Hillary I am for him. Heck even with McCain and Hillary, I still like Obama.

    I think Jesse said it best a for hillary, b for Obama, c. for McCain and D - none of the above. I would choose D

    None the less, It really isn't anyone's fault who throws endorsements at them either. Louis Farrahkan holds a lot of power and so does Michael Moore. The Black Panthers are not as liked as many believe.

    In all actuality, I do believe that Obama is not as left as the left wants to believe.. Look, he is married, has kids, a good job. The left usually like those crack heads who don't take care of their kids leaving them to the system

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Hillary has been running for the presidency for a long time, possibly since even before Bill got caught with his pants down. In that time she has built a solid core of support. That support seems to be wearing away. However, it doesn't hurt her that there are more of her equal opportunity group than there are of Barack's. Another thing that does not hurt her is that she is absolutely untroubled by having to pander.

    I don't think she's going to get the nomination. I don't even think she's ever going to pull ahead in the popular vote. But she does seem perfectly willing to take her acrimony into August and put her fate in the hands of the superdelegates.

    It's interesting to me, though, that Pennsylvanians--at least according to exit polls--viewed Obama as more honest and that they preferred the ability to bring about change to the existence of lengthy experience (although this latter does not necessarily register as a vote for Obama). I'm not sure how this translates into votes for Hillary, though. Even if she should win the nomination and the presidency, I think it should be obvious that Republican distaste for things that are labeled Clinton will see most of her initiatives stonewalled or diluted. And that's assuming that she has coattails.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    The Democrats are making it easy for McCain to win. After this primary, the rhetoric between the two will really heat up. Now the Super Delegates come into play. The main problem I see is that both of them (Obama & Hillary) along with the Dem. party like to change the rules in the middle of the game. The complained how Bush stole the election in 2000, and how their candiates were getting beat, so they go and change the rules to add the "super delegates" just in case their political games don't go the way they want them (so clear in this case). But at the same time, people in Michigan and Florida will not have their votes counted.

    The way the selection of delegates for the Dems in each primary depends on so many differnt little rules, that makes it all confusing. The end result: confusion on who wins, and now we have candidates calling a loss not a loss but a "win by a differnt measure." Whereas the Republicans just go with something simple: who got the most votes.

    This changing of the rules, and coming up with bizarre methods will only hurt the Dems, and voters will get turned off and vote Rep. Then instead of blaming themselves, they will blame it on "voter fraud" or dirty tricks by the Reps.

  • 0

    jambon

    The MSM made him. They'll disown him like they did Cytnhia Shee'an.

    Okay, okay, there are the pit bulls named Bill and Hillary to consider.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Sez:

    "I don't think she's going to get the nomination."

    And I think the same way about barack. The Super Delegates will make sure of that.

    When you've got the comletely screwed up system that democrats use to nominate their presidential candidate -- the Super Delegates are needed. And this campaign is the perfect example of why they could/would serve an important purpose.

    Look at what we've seen in the past six weeks (Since Super Tuesday) regarding barack:

    • Michelle's anti-patriotic statments

    • "Rev." Wright

    • typical white person

    • Bitter Middle America cling to guns and religion and antipathy to others not like them

    • defending the "bitter Middle America cling to guns, etc." comments

    • Ayres

    • defending Ayres

    • severe uneasiness on important debate questions about taxes and foreign policy

    • Whining about being treated like a presidential candidate for the first time in 15 months

    Had the democrats and the media done their jobs and properly vetted barack in the first place, he'd have never won on Super Tuesday. But they didn't. They were stupid enough to think this stuff would stay buried or to think it will have no effect on general election voters if barack gets the nomination based largely on votes he got LONG before the truths came out.

    Their job is to preserve the chance a democrat wins in November. With all that has taken place, one would think they'd be taking their jobs seriously if they do, in fact, hope to win in November.

    RR

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    What really worries me is just how desperate posters like Jambon, RomeoRamenII and redacted have become.

    They will pick up *anything *- anything - to attack about Clinton or Obama, just to try and stay above water.

    The Republican reaction to the Rev. issue was embarrassing, "Michelle's anti-patriotic statements" - give us a break - she was speaking mind - and the Republicans laucnch yet another mindless assault.

    It's just ridiculous, but, heh, it all makes sense when you look at the candidate they are left supporting - John McCain.

    the

  • 0

    redacted

    "They will pick up *anything *- anything - to attack about Clinton or Obama, just to try and stay above water."

    You just don't get it, do you sushi.

    Obama and Hillary - with a little help from the media - are going to do more damage to their party than Karl Rove could have dreamt possible.

    Google it - - Rush Limbaugh + Operation Chaos - - to see the sort of fun hardcore Republicans are having with the mess the Dems have gotten themselves into.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    redacted - you just don't get it, do you?

    McCain - the man you never would have supported if you had the choice - may be level with Obama in the % support stakes.

    Only problem for types like you is that 3 to 4 times more Dem voters are coming out to play.

    Rush Limber and his Operation Kay-os - yeah, is that the best you've got?

    I mean, I agree with you, McCain's not much so anything is better than nothing, right?

    You can ridicule Obama all you like.

    But get back to us when you compare the number of votes he is pulling compared to those of your Last Choice candidate.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sadly for the Republicans, this is going to be a numbers game regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination.

    Um, and there's going to be a truckload more Democrats voting.

    But there's still time for more mindless taunts and baseless accusations from the Republicans, bring it on! :-)

  • 0

    SezWho2

    RomeoRamenII,

    You may be right about the nomination. I don't think so, though. I don't think the superdelegates are going to subscribe to the nomination of anyone they think can't win the presidency. I don't see how many people can think that Hillary can possibly get that job done.

    As for those examples from the Obama campaign, I think you should try to lead from strength. Otherwise, your litany of complaints tends to become diluted. For example, I don't think Obama's wife ever made any "anti-patriotic statements".

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Anyone who's listened to or read barack's stump speech knows that the number one thing he's focused on from day one is how everyone is suffering, struggling, disenfranchised, etc.

    But a a 5% national unemployment rate that means 95% are employed. And with a 2% national foreclosure rate, 98% are not losing their homes.

    Contrary to barack's rhetoric, the majority of people in America are not struggling or miserable.

    This is yet another reason why barack does not connect with the electorate and why he is unable to win key American states.

    RR

  • 0

    SuperLib

    This really sucks... I'm boycotting the entire state of Pennsylvania...heh.

    There's just no way Hillary can get the nomination without winning the popular vote. It's disastrous for a lot of reasons.

    It's going to remind people of how Bush got into office. It will disenfranchise some Democratic voters and open up the possibility of them switching to McCain. I think there's less of a chance of Democrats switching to McCain if Obama is the nominee since Bush in 2004 will not be an issue.

    She has fewer votes to begin with, so she's already starting the race in second place even tho she'll be the Democrats #1 man (woman).

    McCain has some moderate views that he'll most likely promote during the election which makes him an attractive alternative to Clinton if he plays his cards right. If Republicans know what they're doing, and during elections they generally do, I'd imagine they'll form their plan of attack around going after Obama supporters if Hillary is nominated.

    Clinton is already a polarizing figure. It will be even worse if she gets the nomination this way. Her one biggest negative will become even more of a liability for Democrats.

    The fact is that nominating her will make it more difficult to get a Democrat elected president, period.

    Really the only thing the Democrats can do now is to have the superdelegates start making their votes public and come out in support of Obama. Essentially it would make waiting for August moot. If she extends this until August with her only chance being winning without the popular vote it's just going to suck. Really.

  • 0

    WhiteHawk

    It's too late for Clinton can "turn the tide" at this point, but it does make something about the '08 election entertaining.

    Something that may have been missed in all of this coverage is that Obama is actually losing a constituency that he previously had wrapped up: The religious vote. Clinton did better among Christians than Obama in Pennsylvania. Obama can thank Wright for wrecking that.

    Maybe the DNC convention should be pay-per-view...

  • 0

    Badsey

    your U.S. Dollar is worth 40% less, food prices are at an all time high, gas prices.

    And what have your politicians been doing to correct these issues?

    People need to get serious quickly. -seriously.

    Japan/China/USA = only a fool can't see it getting more dangerous very quickly.

  • 0

    WhiteHawk

    Badsey, you're quite right. Unfortunately, we're run by elitists who make rules for us, not them. They don't care about our problems, because they've insulated themselves so well. If they lived in our neighborhoods, for example, they would care about things like illegal immigration.

    On the international level, the fear of being criticized prevents anything substantive from being done about Iran/China/North Korea. This extends to the UN, of course, not that they can do anything anyway.

  • 0

    Badsey

    if they would just limit the Presidency/House/Congress to one term you wouldn't have these powerstruggles and payoffs. Judges also I guess.

    Just seeing Ted Kennedy having to get a real job for once would be worth it.

    If these politicians don't start fixing this country people will start leaving just like they are leaving California.

    How much oil money did Hilliary get this year? How much is in foreign accounts? Why does Bentonville,AR look like a mini Washington DC?

  • 0

    SezWho2

    SuperLib,

    I think you're absolutely right. From what I understand, Obama supporters are more open to supporting Hillary than Hillary supporters are to supporting Obama.

    McCain is certainly positioned to appeal to Obama supporters. I'm not sure he would need to do that, though. The elephant in the room is Bill. I don't think Hillary can win with him and I don't think she can win without him. Photos of Hillary and Chelsea are just not going to get the job done.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    WhiteHawk,

    I think it's true that the US was established by elitists--either that or I've mislaid the deed to my old Virginia mansion. I think that is why Andrew Jackson was such a breath of fresh air to so many. The problem with populists is that sooner or later they all begin to look like South American leaders that we delight in reviling.

    It is natural to look for leadership among the elite. That is precisely the class of people who are more comfortable with the responsibilities and duties of leadership. This doesn't change just because we have a democracy as opposed to, say, a monarchy.

    That being said, I have often heard the claim that Obama is an elitist. However, I think the same could be said about Clinton and McCain and about most of the presidential contenders now fallen.

  • 0

    redacted

    Hillary's people, as Libs like to say, are claiming she is on pace to pick up 10 million dollars in 24 hours.

    http://time-blog.com/realclearpolitics/2008/04/clintononpacefor10_million.html

    "Follow the money"

    That's what the clever people like to say, yeah?

  • 0

    presto345

    Romeo said it. Obama is focusing too much on the idea that the people are suffering, while Clinton is zeroing in on issues she wants to fix. Both candidates are very clever with rhetoric. Obama the better orator, but lacking substance. I would vote for Hillary. I am worried however that these democratic candidates are engaged in a too fierce a battle, one that is hurting the overall target: to get a democrat to lead the country.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all