Summer Love, Fall Freak-Out: The Bradley Effect and Why Obama Will Lose Without Hillary
Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving through August's hot days, cool nights. Everything feels in abeyance: Obama's got the same lead--4 points--he's kept all summer. This month, however, the polls reversed. McCain led--suddenly--by two points, and among unaffiliated voters, by fifteen. The Rasmussen Report and Zogby/ATV poll found that Obama's lost major ground with women, independents, Democrats, even young voters. Polls are just that; they could change. But we might ask: why the dip? If it reflects the fact that Obama acted "uppity" and met state heads in Europe, or that McCain ran ads comparing Obama to amateur porn star Paris Hilton (implying black people are good at sex and celebrity, and not-so-good at intellectual endeavors), then perhaps race is in play after all. If so, we might reconsider the Bradley Effect. Because if it hits Obama, then unless he does the one thing that would beat it, he will lose in November, and not by a little, but by a lot.
The Bradley Effect's named for the long-time African-American Mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, who ran for Governor of California in 1982. Election-eve, Bradley was so far ahead of his white Republican opponent that newspapers printed headlines saying "Bradley Wins!" But he lost by 50,000 votes. Why? White voters who'd claimed they'd support him changed their minds--in the voting booth.
In 1989, Douglas Wilder, the Democratic black Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia, ran for Governor, and stayed nine points ahead of white Republican Marshall Coleman all through the race. Yet on election-day, Wilder won by just half a point.
Also in 1989, African-American Democrat David Dinkins kept an eighteen-point lead over his rival for mayor of New York, white Republican Rudy Giuliani; until final tally. Dinkins squeaked by with two points.
In 1990, African-American Democrat Harvey Gantt ran against white Republican Jesse Helms for a North Carolina Senate seat. Throughout the contest, Gantt (like Obama) was predicted to win by 4-6 points. He lost to Helms by six.
Why the reversals? Some white voters lie about whom they support, so as not to seem racist. But most probably intend to vote for the black candidate, and simply, on the day of election, freak out. They feel suddenly nervous about the black candidate's "competence," or "experience," and pick the "known quantity,"--the white guy.
Summer-long, white liberals proclaimed we're "beyond race." In "The Myth of a Toss Up Election," analysts Alan Abramowitz, Thomas Mann, and Larry Sabato used voting patterns from presidential elections-past to conclude that--based on a 6-point lead--Obama would tromp McCain. By using (all-white) elections as their evidence, these upbeat boy-wonders assume race matters not at all. In June, Frank Rich of the New York Times reprimanded "doubters," noting that Obama had held on to "Hillary's" constituencies: blue-collar workers, Catholics, and Hispanics. (Obama's lead with those groups has since diminished.) Rich pointed out that Obama's June lead of six points was higher than Bush's over Kerry's in 2004, and concluded Obama would win in November. Rich (who's white) acts as if ignoring race were the only gentlemanly option: his suggestion that Obama will win because his June lead this year beats Bush's in 2004 implies--with country-club-style largess--the two men are comparably electable. But George Bush was a white, dynastic, Republican whose father was President; Obama's a black newbie Democrat. And Black candidates going for historically-white top governing positions always score nine to sixteen points lower than pre-election polls say they will.
+ + +
What about the argument that we're not in 1989 anymore? It's valid. We now have black Senators, Congressmen--we're comfortable with a black man being one among a powerful group. But that comfort may evaporate when we contemplate a black man in charge. The newer the type of candidate to the position, the harder the Bradley Effect strikes. In 1982, America had never, in 200 years, had a black governor. It was precisely because of this that hundreds of thousands of Bradley's white supporters freaked out and switched allegiance on election-day. In 1989, we'd still never had a black governor, and Wilder's lead dropped from 9 points to just half a point--within 24 hours. In 1989, New York had never had a black mayor; Dinkins lost 16 points on election-day. In 1990, when the vote came down for Gantt versus Helms, America had only ever elected one African-American senator, and that guy was a conservative republican. Gantt lost.
The primary, which Obama won, is temporary and not when the effect would occur. And in the primaries, Obama ran against a woman--one seen as obnoxious. John McCain may be temperamental, erratic, and suffering from early-onset dementia, but he's nonetheless viewed as moderate. He's also charming and familiar--by his pink skin, white hair, and gruff-yet-suave demeanor alone, a 'classic' leader. 75% of white voters see McCain as "a safe choice" for President.
In fact, Obama's already experienced the Bradley Effect. He was expected to win New Hampshire--a bellwether state--by 13 points. He lost by 3. Several polls had him winning liberal California by 13 points; he lost it by 10. Obama suffered upsets in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and more.
Others who say the Effect won't occur critique polls. The discrepancy, they argue, appears not because whites switch loyalty, but because black-voter turnout is low, whites support white candidates in higher-than-expected numbers, and racists avoid answering polls. Likely true. But the result remains: every time a black male democrat tries to win a spot never held by an African-American, the candidate's numbers do a nosedive on election-day.
+ + +
The effect's tendrils are present now. In a June ABC News poll, 4 in 10 whites said they "would not feel completely comfortable" with a black president. 3 in 10 admitted to racial prejudice; more may feel it. 57% of whites said they don't think "Obama has sufficient experience to be president." Over half call him "a risky choice for the White House." Since 77% of voters of are white, these numbers matter.
What can be done?
+ + +
Nothing's analogous to "president." But "governor's" closest. The Obama campaign might ask: how did Douglas Wilder and Deval Patrick manage to become the first and second-ever African-American governors in U.S. history?
They had two advantages Obama can't replicate: in Wilder's case, a military background and conservative leaning; in Patrick's, a rags-to-riches story that gave his audience a clear, pleasing narrative. Obama grew up middle-class and is a mixed-race, hard-to-place, cosmopolitan elite. So he really needs the key thing Wilder and Patrick both had--an active partnership with a highly familiar white sponsor.
Wilder was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 1986 by Gerald L Baliles, the then-Governor. Baliles ushered unprecedented prosperity into Virginia. Then he campaigned hard for Wilder. Wilder's partnership with Baliles, who Virginia's voters knew well, was undoubtedly key to the election of America's first black governor. Deval Patrick also had a prominent white sponsor, who stumped for him when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, and who hired Patrick as his lawyer (twice), and appointed Patrick to be the Assistant Attorney General to the Civil Rights Division of the national government--and that man was Bill Clinton. Patrick became the 2nd African American Governor in history in 2006.
To do as Wilder and Patrick did, Obama must partner with a figure who conveys tradition, competence, familiarity. Even if they're disliked by many--and by Obama--the Clintons convey that. More than her 18 million votes, Obama needs Clinton's household name. The Clintons ushered prosperity into America. One need not like them--or Hillary--to feel she's authoritative and familiar. Her presence on the ticket--like a well-known name-brand on an unknown product--would reassure swing voters.
An August Fox/Opinion poll found that Clinton's name--(and that of no other mate)--gives Obama an 8-point boost. Obama needs the boost.
Other considerations:
1. If Obama runs with a white man, he is by contrast a black one. If he runs with a woman, he is by contrast a man.
We perceive race visually. It's counterintuitive, but refuge in the traditional authority--the white male--may highlight what Obama's not.
2. It will offend middle-America to see a black man positioned prominently above a white one.
The nominee and running-mate stand adjacent during speeches, rallies, and in commercials. Low-income Whites may recoil when they see a black man positioned over a white one.
3. Most successful black candidates have undergone a "hazing"--military service, an impoverished upbringing, etc.--which makes them acceptable to whites. Tolerating Hillary could be that hazing.
Those who despise Clinton may find new sympathy for Obama if they watch him having to put up with her. And by playing off each other, the two could add much-needed levity to the campaign. They could also make themselves more likable.
"Don't worry, Barack," Hillary could say, "the restaurant we're eating at tonight has arugala."
He'd respond, "Oh, by the way, Hill? I'm the nominee."
"Yeah, well," she'd say, "not everyone's as tall and skinny as you."
4. Most low-income whites will not vote for a black man, but they may vote for an absurdist joke.
Clinton's being a woman may cancel out Obama's being black and render the ticket just crazy enough to be sane. "It's crazy--" the blue-collar worker might say, "it's lunacy, why the hell not? Don't I want change?"
+ + +
Obama may loathe Hillary. But he says he wants to be president. No one knows who Tim Kaine is. No one will be reassured by his presence. And with him beside Obama, Obama's still what he is now: a diffident, perplexing, cosmopolitan, slightly arrogant black man. With Hillary beside him, Obama's the new guy on the team, and a hot ticket.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hey Rebecca, thanks for pointing out the obvious. The spoiled rotten brats who make up the majority of the Obama's base would rather stick to their principles (i.e. hating Hillary) than win the election. We're all doomed.
LIke most of Hillary's supporters who still can't some to grip[ with her loss, you don't make much sense.
It is Obama's decision who he will pick for VP - not his supporters. Indulge in name calling it it makes you feel any better, the decision is still Obama's and Obama's alone.
You also seem to have conveniently forgotten just how polarizing Hillary Clinton actually is. For every vote she might add, she would loose at least one other.
The choice is yours - either continue whining, sit around calling Obama's supporters names, chanting your Hail HIllaries, and bemoaning your impending doom -OR - get of your behind and help get Barack Obama into the WH.
NO!!!!! - he is NOT ready. And what is wrong with his supporters!! What has this guy done that makes him prepared to run this country? He is a light weight - with NO experience at the federal level.
We had our chance to nominate a qualified candidate, and we blew it!! Now we will wonder why he couldn't get elected. His nomination was just stupid!!
I am with you and so are many more.
From a NBC?WSJ Poll released tonight.
The Clinton factor
Yet perhaps the biggest factor keeping the presidential race close has been Obama’s inability to close the deal with some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. According to the poll, 52 percent of them say they will vote for Obama, but 21 percent are backing McCain, with an additional 27 percent who are undecided or want to vote for someone else.
What’s more, those who backed Clinton in the primaries — but aren’t supporting Obama right now — tend to view McCain in a better light than Obama and have more confidence in McCain’s ability to be commander-in-chief.
It’s also worth noting that while Obama leads McCain by three points in the poll, Clinton edges the Republican by six points in a hypothetical match up, 49 to 43 percent.
Wow Hillary does better against McCain without even running!
And many so-called Hillary supporters would rather have the country suffer through another 4 years of McBush than have Obama elected. Cuz it's time to send a lesson, dontcha know, and the mostest importantest thing about this election is to hold a referendum on the glass ceiling.
It doesn't matter who Obama chooses as a running mate so much as it matters that he sells himself AND his running mate to the public. I'm still waiting for some energy to come back that McCain seems to have sapped with his newfound, juvenile negativity.
I favored Hillary early in the primary but became dismayed (okay, disgusted) at the tone of her campaign. But I respect her political and policy chops, and could like her a whole lot if she helps get Obama in office.
This is a provoking thought-piece of writing, don't shoot Rebecca, she's entitled to air these thoughts. She does so better than us blathering commenters!
"This is a provoking thought-piece of writing, don't shoot Rebecca, she's entitled to air these thoughts. She does so better than us blathering commenters!"
It's well-written, no doubt. It does however cite and perpetuate trashy racist pseudoscience and have all the effect of your average internet "concern troll".
Nobody's saying that she shouldn't be able to say what she wants, but she should definitely be held to task for her utter ignorance of the past context of the primary and the upcoming general.
It's yet another piece claiming to benefit feminism and progressive ends, but furthering only GOP talking points (which have been invalidated by the polls and his support among jews, whites, and the latino population).
Racists are also misogynists, Hillary doesn't "fix" anything.
I cannot agree with you. I do not appreciate, and cannot condone, anyone whose words help to perpetuate racially based thinking - PERIOD. And that is just about all this article is - plain and simple.
During his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Senator Obama said, "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America." From my way of thinking, we all have a duty to help make this an everyday reality and as a nation must move forward towards this. Rebecca Curtis' article only leads us one step in the wrong direction - backwards.
You shouldn't freak out too much looking at the national polls even though the new numbers are a little disturbing. We don't elect a president based on the popular vote. You have to look at state by state polls and then relate those numbers to the electoral college. When you do that Obama is still ahead. The margin varies depending on the poll. The MSM polling seems to give Obama the worst numbers while the independent polling outfits give him more of an edge. Hopefully with the convention coming up he can solidify a lead. Who are these fence sitters anyway? Sheesh......
i don't disagree but the RCP electoral college map has 0bama down by 10 now (roughly). MAc is over 270, 0bama is 263...
Thats correct. His lead in many states is evaporating.
Better place to look is http://www.electoral-vote.com/. This guy does a much better job of smoothing and discards partisan polling. Also does a nice job of contrasting current and past election so you can see how McCain/Obama are doing in a state compared to the candidates in the last four elections. He does a kind of "Chuck Todd" look at what the numbers are saying. Does a really good job of showing how strong/weak each state is too.
He shows McCain and Obama both short of 270, with Obama just dropping below 270 today, with VA as a toss up.
Given the "outrage" over John Edwards can just imagine if Hillary had been the candidate or VP and info. came out about Bill's various relationships (that was starting prior to her dropping out of the race). Not to mention Bill is still acting passive agressive with regard to Obama (was praising McCain yesterday) While I agree Hillary would make a good VP in a perfect world; however I think she did too much damage before for Obama to feel comfortable with her in the White House; he's better off not winning than getting in and having to fight the Republicans and Clintons. My hope would be Hillary will drop Bill and teh old group of advisors and start over. She got nothing but bad advice - while part of that shows a lack of managerial ability on her part - it's also a learning process. As long as she's associated at teh hip with Bill she won't be able to move forward. Just too much baggage and risk. If the Clintons are sincere they will help Obama win; if not then it's a good thing Hillary lost anyway because she and Bill are only out for themselves and not the rest of the country.
The reuters/zogby poll released today is very troubling..It now shows McCain with a 5 pt lead among likely US voters..His choice among his potential VP's has just gained even more urgency.
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-takes-lead-over-obama/141577?icid=200100397x1207639031x1200429890
Nice try. Hillary supporters just won't give up. The bottom line is that Republicans HATE her. Choosing her as VP will mobalize the Republicans and McCain will sail into a win.
"The bottom line is that Republicans HATE her. "
But McCain patted my head and told me she's a very nice lady! Surely he will continue this streak of being nice to me and her!
OK LET'S GET REAL! do we want to win??? HILL & BILL were the best thing going way before anyone of us ever heard of Obama...and yes the Republicans HATE HER because the Clintons know how to win...and if you haven't noticed the Republicans are already mobilized. so get REAL.
This is the fight of Obamas life and ours as well....the STAKES ARE HUGE...HUGE!!!
Half of the Democratic party was scared that Hillary couldn't WIN!!! but at the end Hillary showed strong....strong enough to make many re-think the Bradley effect ...put nothing past the 52% of this country that put Bush back in the W.H. As much as I want to rise above the race issue and go on as if its not in our world...IT IS... electing Obama might erase much of it, especially if he does a good job...like oh..let's say like the last Democratic President ..but we have to get there first. I believe Hillary's STAR-POWER sponsership would do just that; not to mention erasing some of that whole woman is weak crap. GOD help Romney if he gets the VP spot..lol.. this is a Power-House ticket that the Republican party... FEARS... and so it should; for its called a WIN-WIN.
So Obama has the ball now,its his call,if he can't mend the fences in his own party, how will he ever fix Washington?
Sorry M. Curtis but we live in different times, I believe the opposite is true. I do not know about the polls and who they are, but everyone I know cannot and will not continue a 3 term with GW. Let the politic run its course and have everyone running around telling us the sky is falling, but it's not, so get a grip. Record numbers of people will get out and turn this election into a rout, most of polls only reach older voters because they are at home and get calls. Most Americans are having to work hard and work 12 to 14 hour day and have no time for pollsters. New era M. Curtis, you will see a change in your lifetime where the American people unite against Big Corporations and there cronies. I myself am sick and tired of high oil prices, wars with no end and absolutely no vision. If we have to fight our enemies then lets do this thing right and give them hell and brake there backs when we have the opportunity and stop having wars just to line the pockets of the Dogs of War. Obama will be our next President with or without you.
Obama will lose if he doesn't choose Hillary as his VP. She has the organization, intelligence and voter power to help him into the White House. There is NO-ONE, Bayh, Biden, Klaine that can even come close and this is from someone who didn't support her for President. This is the biggest political decision he'll ever make, if it's not Hillary, then no-one will care who it is and then you can otherwise kiss it goodbye.
We all look forward to you publicly eating your words on November 5th.
I hope you're right, but I fear you may be wrong and so do many experts. This election is NOT a done deal (did you even read the article?) and Obama needs all of the help he can get. I would love to see him choose Clinton as his VP and I think it would help him win.
I am with you and so are many more.
From a NBC?WSJ Poll released tonight.
The Clinton factor
Yet perhaps the biggest factor keeping the presidential race close has been Obama"s inability to close the deal with some of Hillary Clinton"s supporters. According to the poll, 52 percent of them say they will vote for Obama, but 21 percent are backing McCain, with an additional 27 percent who are undecided or want to vote for someone else.
What"s more, those who backed Clinton in the primaries " but aren"t supporting Obama right now " tend to view McCain in a better light than Obama and have more confidence in McCain"s ability to be commander-in-chief.
It"s also worth noting that while Obama leads McCain by three points in the poll, Clinton edges the Republican by six points in a hypothetical match up, 49 to 43 percent.
Wow Hillary does better against McCain without even running!
Unfortunately these articles pushing for a Hillary VP only seem to point out that GOP trolls are still working hard to try and divide the democratic party in general and Obama supporters in particular. HRC supporters will respect the lead of HRC and support the democratic nominee. Anyone and every one else should be looked at as "FALSE" detractors speading a false message to fan a "FALSE" sense of failure in the Obama campaign.
NOT THIS TIME! OBAMA 08
That is Naive!! You can live on the east or west coast & believe that way. We don't think the same way as the rest of the country, and the democrats must learn to come up with a candidate like Clinton who can stand as strong in the center of this country as they do on the coasts.
and you are wrong about HRC members, I know alot that are not supporting the candidate.
"We don't think the same way as the rest of the country"
Those states proved differently in the primaries.
You are wrong! I'm in North Carolina (a state not exactly known as being in the forefront of liberalism) and from where I stand, Senator Barack Obama is a proud and strong leader for ALL OF US!.
Any supporters of HRC who refuse to get behind the Democratic nominee will be knowingly helping to elect someone who supports unending war, has little understanding of our current economic crisis, no understanding at all of a middle America who are is forced to 'save up' for necessary dental work, and has a record of consistently NOT supporting a women's right to choose when, or if, she will become a mother. I refuse to believe that my fellow Democrats would be so foolish with our nation's future and I look forward to working with them to put Barack Obama into the WH!.
I was for Clinton. When she dropped out, I threw my support behind Obama. That said, I'm not sure Obama can win without her and we HAVE to win. We have too much at stake. And, I am not a "FALSE detractor" - I am a REALIST who wants a Democrat in the White House.
I have to agree with a comment Sak posted here earlier. Obama has lost some ground partly because he has followed conventional political strategy by moving to the center once the nomination was assured. But in this case, that strategy may hurt more than help. The wild card in this election is Obama's popularity with young people (who, in general, don't care one iota what color a candidate is) and his ability to get them excited enough to actually vote. But his vote on FISA and statements on other issues have taken much of the wind out of that sail and may hurt more than appealing to the middle will help. In this blog, Ms Curtis gives far too much weight to the VP choice. People just don't vote based on the VP. It may make a difference in one or two states but others can help out Obama more than HRC there. Only if the HRC supporters are so stupid that they would vote for McCain or not vote at all because their candidate was snubbed will it make ANY difference if she is on the ticket in the general election. I certainly do not believe that the HRC supporters are stupid (some PUMA leaders notwithstanding) so I can't see that it will matter in the elections outcome.
"people just don't votebased on the VP"
Maybe not in the recent past, but then we have never made it as great of an issue before. Read all of the comments on the first few pages here, and you will see there are great many people here that believe it DOES matter. Isn't this evidence of the flaw in that line of thinking?
"I have to agree with a comment Sak posted here earlier. Obama has lost some ground partly because he has followed conventional political strategy by moving to the center once the nomination was assured."
How would Hillary be any different? Her entire career is based on centrism.
Yeah, that was a very "centrist" attempt to provide universal health care back in 1992.
I agree. Obama needs to remember that it is the young progressives who put him at the top of the primaries, and it is THIS definition of "change" that has inspired most of us. The more he moves to center, the more he looks like politics as usual--it's understandable, and it may even be perceived as necessary, but it's very important that Obama remind everyone of how he can be different than all the others. It's not about color. It's about taking back our country--and Obama has to keep standing high above McCain on these issues.
So far, every time I listen to him actually speak-he does exactly that. We've got to counter the right wing framing and keep him in front of the People.
Oh no bad news!
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.
I am ordering busses to get out of the US send me your mony and I will e-mail you where to meet your buss to the Promised Land! Germany! They love O there.
Ps bring your diving gear or you may not survive the trip. I already have enough for 1000 busses.
"likely U.S. voters "
likely?
Source?
How much do you want to guess it's not factoring in for any minorities.
Reuters/Zogby poll. Try Looking for your self instead of believing what left media tell you! Google is a great place to start!
Germany? Isn't that where Hitler is from?
Writing an article like this will not change racists. What it will change is how other people see Obama. You purpose no doubt is to provide support for Hillary Clinton. If you were truly supportive of the Democratic ticket, you would not put this out there. We all know about racism, especially hidden racism. I think Obama transcends that. Shame on you for adding fuel to the fire.
You are naive to think that it is not apart of this election, in the same way as sexism.
"You are naive to think that it is not apart of this election, in the same way as sexism."
So in other words, adding Hillary adds no benefit.
If Hillary is, as it is claimed, onboard with Obama, how about her's and Bill's friend and former employee, James Carville being asked to confront his wife, Mary Matalin, about publishing Corsi's book of lies about Obama? That should be the test as to who is on board and supporting President Obama..
Well you can kiss this dream goodbye, Obama will pick a VP (NOT HRC) and we will move on to the convention.
I cannot wait until November 5th when I can say President Elect Obama... and the puma kitties can shut the hell up!
They'll still be meowing about something or other. I am sure something at the convention will disenfrancise someone. Hope there are enough bathrooms.....
You are dreaming! Wake up to reality. Look at the latest polls.
Your dreaming, WAKE UP... Hillary lost and will not be VP
LOL-- Look at the lastest poll....IT'S AUGUST 21st... the lastest poll means nothing
We have two conventions, three debates, and a laundry list of other thing to happen before November 4th.
Obama has twice as much money as MCSAME. I have always believed that the candidate with the money will win. Don't buy that... look at 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 (shall I continue)
You vote for McBush if you want, but what you kitties fail to realize that in your dreams of Obama losing, the MILLIONS of obama supporters will not be voting for HRC.. she's done baby.
This is an excellent analysis. Thanks. Obama's not getting it. Maybe he's never lost at things before, but he's losing now. There is a deep well of bigotry in America and general hostility (much worse after Bush) toward minorities of any kind. The Repubs are masters of hate of all types, and they know how to turn it on & not let up -- that's why there were so many Republican candidates in the primaries. And if you can't beat George McCain, whose senility increases daily . . . but that's what we said about Reagan, and about Bush II, and we'll be saying it as President McCain pushes the red button.
Obama needs a street fighter and McCain doesn't know how to go after her, and Hillary could make up for what Obama is lacking. But he somehow seems to think that his principles will save him. I'll say it again -- he's brought his knife to a gun fight. Hillary knows how to fire a bazooka!
I totally agree with your assessment Obama need not to like Clinton either. At this point it is about winning and reversing the eight years of Bush.
The Clinton's have been fighting these Repugs for almost 20 years. If anyone is prepared for them it is the Clinton's.
"The Clinton's have been fighting these Repugs for almost 20 years. If anyone is prepared for them it is the Clinton's."
That may well be, but the Republicans are prepared for the Clintons, and that is why she is not being chosen to lose it for Obama.
What planet are you on? The GOPers wanted her to win because they already had a Clinton attack play book....It consisted of Do you want 4 more years of Bill in the white house?
"Obama needs a street fighter and McCain doesn't know how to go after her, and Hillary could make up for what Obama is lacking. But he somehow seems to think that his principles will save him. I'll say it again -- he's brought his knife to a gun fight. Hillary knows how to fire a bazooka!"
LOL, but hillary cannot win the primaries when she has:
1) Been a national figure for two decades
2) Had 200 million in the bank before the first vote was cast
3) Had a former president as a central figure in her campaign
4) Already had over 100 superdelegates before the race begin
But you said she can defeat McCain -- LMAO!!!!!
1,3,and 4 seem to be better used as resons to nominate her as VP, than to belittle her primary loss. (see: experience & political networking )
A sad but true article - even sadder because Obama will NOT win with Clinton. She will turn off many of his supporters and many young people will simply not vote.
I do not know of any Obama supporters who will drop him based on his running mate. None.
Actually, his supporters are so focused on Clinton that Obama winning or losing is secondary.
Wake up!!! Have you seen the latest polls? McCain is ahead by 9 points when it comes to the economy. This is something that he admits knows nothing about. What does that tell you about Obama? Obama's worst problem is his supporters.
source?
They don't vote anyway
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
