About Jesse Jackson Jr's so-called ' Electability' Problem

We've been discussing over the past week, the appointment of Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate by Gov. Blago.

Friday, it was revealed that Senator Harry Reid had his nose all up in Illinois Politics, deeming 3 Black possible candidates - Danny Davis, Emil Jones and Jesse Jackson, Jr. - 'Unelectable'.

I have written in this post HERE, why I thought this wasn't about anyone BUT Jesse Jackson, Jr.

I have always thought the ' electability' argument was bogus from the get go.

Here is Harry Reid on MTP:



IF Jesse Jackson, Jr. wasn't strong enough to defend himself as a sitting United States Senator, in a Democratic Primary in 2010, then so be it.

I have always believed that there would be a Democratic Primary in 2010. And whatever candidate emerged as the victor would be in good shape for the General Election, because the GOP bench is still weak in Illinois, and I don't see it gaining that much strength by 2010.

Our poster NMP said:

This is real trouble for Democrats! True enough Bobby Rush's recent statements were over the top and too heavy handed, but he wasn't lying about the hypocrisy of white Democrats. This is some Dixicrat shit! It's one thing to oppose a racial appointment, but it's a whole different matter to block African Americans from appointment. This is a George Wallace move. Reid all but stood in the doorway of the Capital. I've said it a million times before, but it deserves to be said a million more times. The Democratic Party is a plantation party and Black folks have been far too willing to enslave themselves to it. Whether it's the Democratic political establishment or the so-called progressive arm of the Party, Black folks, whom they depend on, are not well represented in the leadership ranks. They talk at us, down to us or dismiss us and every four years come up with excuse-after-excuse as to why it's not political prudent to run African American candidates statewide.

I agree with this. This is the same old BS that Black folk hear all the time about WHY they can't be considered for statewide office. Instead of the STATE Democratic Party getting BEHIND Black candidates, they decide from ' on high' that 'these Blacks cannot be elected. '

Neither Carol Moseley Braun or Barack Obama was the 'Machine' candidate. They were 'unelectable' outsiders from CHICAGO no less, who won the nominations.

And, about the ' unelectability' of Jesse Jackson, Jr.

I was reading on OpenLeft, and someone brought up a fabulous point about the ' electability' of Jesse Jackson, Jr. The likes of Harry Reid, et al, backed Harold Ford, Jr., and damn near everyone in his family had been arrested, indicted or convicted. But, they supported his DLC behind.

Jesse Jackson only has his father, who, by my account, had never been arrested (on anything other civil rights issues). His brothers are solid businessmen. His sisters have led quiet private lives.

Quiet as it's been kept, Jesse Jackson, Jr. has shown a strong independent streak beginning with his quest for his Congressional Seat. There have been some moves by him that I have questioned over the years, but he's been willing to take risks on candidates that were NOT machine-approved. Some won, some lost, but he still was willing to do it. And, he's been building bridges and reaching out to other communities from the moment he entered Congress. Jesse Jackson, Jr. wasn't the 'Machine' candidate when he ran for Congress. Neither was his wife the 'Machine' candidate when she ran for Alderman. They won IN SPITE OF the 'Machine', not because of it. And, there are those who haven't forgotten that either.

I'm not buying the 'electability' argument. In fact, I believe it's just the opposite. They were afraid of him WINNING the seat in 2010. And once he did that, it would be hard to get him out, unless HE wanted to leave it.

Just call me a tinfoil hat wearer.

Operation Anti-Chaos: The Narrative on ' White Voters' is FICTION

It's time for those of us who remotely consider ourselves Pro-Obama to fight back and push back on these false narratives that the MSM is trying to spin.

One of those is " Obama can't win the White vote", all the while, NEVER asking Clinton how the hell she intends to win the BASE of the Democratic Party -Black folk - when her standing NOW with them is 59%.

Al Giordano, of the blog, The Field, has come up with an attack plan - use THE TRUTH.

Operation Anti-Chaos: The Narrative on “White Voters” Is Fiction
By Al Giordano

I turn on the TV, read the political columnists (and a significant number of analytically-challenged bloggers, too) and all I hear is a bunch of white folk prattling on about their favorite narrative: “Obama’s losing white voters!”

They’ve swallowed the Clinton racially-obsessed spin, hook, line and sinker. Some, because they are gullible, haven’t an original idea in their little pea brains, and follow the pack of what everybody else is talking about. Others, because they like to toss around knowing falsehoods. Nary a superdelegate can go on Fox News without being berated by an anchorperson screeching (this is pretty close to an exact quote): “But your duty as a superdelegate is to select the most electable and that’s Hillary Clinton!” That these anchorpersons are Republican partisans openly cheering for Senator Clinton is our first clue of the game afoot. One of the major successes of Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos is that it has got all the right-wing pundits and reporters marching lockstep behind the effort to give Clinton enough oxygen to keep slashing away at Senator Obama, who remains the prohibitive likely Democratic nominee.

And when Clinton wins state primaries that, because of demographics, she was always going to win - last week, Pennsylvania and next week, Indiana - they then wave that event up like a blood-soaked flag as proof of their narrative: See? See? We told you so! White people won’t vote for Obama!

So imagine my pleasant surprise this morning to see a New York Times columnist, Charles Blow, who did what none of these chattering lunkheads have done. He looked at the hard data of how voters, white and black, view the two Democratic candidates - favorably or negatively? - and how those views have progressed over time. The data is based on multiple CBS-New York Times polls (among the most respected survey outfits among competing pollsters) over two years and more. Check it out:

Nobody - not blogger, nor superdelegate, nor cable news anchor - should open their mouths with another word about this contest until they’ve studied those graphs and the numbers upon which they are based. Blow explains:

Since January, the Clintons have pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments and questions about his character…

The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

Wait. The numbers show that the cynical effort to turn the 2008 campaign into a race riot has hurt the popularity of one candidate among an important demographic, and it’s not Barack Obama:

On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

So, to sum up: Look at the damn graphs. You can see that Clinton is in a staggering free-fall among African-American voters, her favorability is down 36 points while 17 percent view her more negatively than before, while Obama’s favorable and negative ratings among whites have paired at five point increases. You can even see the small dip - about two percentage points - in his popularity among whites that can be attributed to the news cycles about his ex-pastor, and see that it has leveled out and is now on a straight horizontal line (meanwhile, Clinton’s numbers among blacks continue on an extreme downward precipice). The greater context is that even including Obama’s slight dip, he’s more popular today among white voters than he ever was prior to February.

Not since Ronald Reagan has an American presidential candidate withstood such an assault in the media and seen his popularity not hurt by it, but, rather, galvanized by it. That’s what is meant, in politics, by the term “Teflon.”

Those facts won’t stop many media (and Internet) talking heads from continuing - whether out of gullibility or intentional dishonesty - to prop up the “white voters” narrative, but it ought to inoculate you, kind reader, from believing it.

Don’t let yourself get upset when some idiot repeats the false media narrative. Don’t plead with them to tell the truth (they won’t; remember, they’re either stupid or dishonest). Mock them. Ridicule them. Expose them as the lightweights they are showing themselves to be, with all the confidence that understanding the hard data ought to provide you.

Let Operation Anti-Chaos begin!

**********************************

We need to spread the truth: DIGG this, go to The Field and DIGG the original; Post this on your own blogs; spread the links to this in emails. Send it to the local columnists in your town. Stop the Clinton LIES with THE TRUTH. Electability is a two way problem, and Hillpatine's got SERIOUS Electability issues.It's time to go on the offensive; do something pro-active, instead of re-active.

Flipping the Script: WHY Can't Hillary ' Tonya Harding' Clinton CLOSE THE DEAL?

We've heard, ad infintum, the BS about why Obama can't 'close the deal'.

But, why can't Hillary " Tonya Harding" Clinton Close the deal?

As John Cole so aptly puts it:

Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?

I'd like to know the answer to that myself.

We talk about electability. With the exception of New Hampshire, every state that Obama's gone into, his numbers have gone UP from where he began....and Hillary ' Tonya Harding' Clinton's have gone DOWN (thanks Keith Olbermann for that tip). ...and OBAMA is unelectable?

GMAFB.


And, I'll put it out there...how the hell would SHE get back the DEMOCRATIC BASE - Black Folk - if she STEALS THIS? How come nobody asks THAT question? Don't be under any delusions...Blue States are Blue because of Blue CITIES...and Blue Cities are Blue because of BLACK FOLK. Try being a Democrat running for President trying to win Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and contest Florida and Virginia WITHOUT THE BLACK VOTE. I'd love to see that jujitsu.

McCain Losing Votes to Obama in New Hampshire

Hat tip: Prometheus6

McCain losing votes to Obama in N.H.
By Maeve Reston and Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
December 30, 2007

NASHUA, N.H. -- Like many New Hampshire voters, Dave Montgomery considers himself a dyed-in-the-wool independent -- which in this state means he can vote in either the Republican or Democratic presidential primary when he goes to the polls Jan. 8.

This year, the semi-retired school bus driver from Milford finds himself torn between two candidates, one from each party: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama of (D-Ill.).

Montgomery likes McCain, he said, because "he seems to be enough of a rebel." He likes Obama for pretty much the same reason -- because he seems to be "his own man."

"I think either one of them could do the job," he said.

Independents like Montgomery may be the decisive factor for both major parties when New Hampshire holds the nation's first primary next week, hot on the heel's of Iowa's caucuses on Thursday. And the choices these nonaligned New Hampshire voters make almost assuredly will shape the nation's later primary races.

"This big group in the middle . . . has a chance to really transform the election," said Tom Rath, a veteran New Hampshire Republican strategist who is advising former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). Describing the efforts to woo independents, he added: "It's more like a general election here."

If Obama bests national front runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), he probably will owe his New Hampshire victory to independents, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll suggested last week.

Among the state's registered Democrats, the survey found Clinton led Obama, 35% to 28%. But among independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama led, 37% to 24% -- turning the contest into a virtual tie.

Rest of the article is HERE.

The reason why this article is important, is because it points out the fallacy of Barack Obama's ' Unelectability'.

In the last month, poll after poll has consistently shown that Barack Obama polls well, against every major GOP Candidate in the General Election. He consistently polls BETTER than Hillary Clinton.

Why?

Because of his appeal to independents and some Republicans.

You see in this article that Hillary wasn't remotely a choice for him. It was Obama or McCain. Independents have already told the pollsters that they aren't voting for Hillary Clinton. They will consider Obama.

You win elections by trying to appeal to the broadest possible constituency. Of course you CAN win with '50%+1', but what has that brought us in this country the past seven years? Nothing but bitterness upon bitterness. Why set ourselves up for that AGAIN (with Clinton), when we don't have to. When you have a candidate that can gather a broad coalition to govern.

Barack Obama is electable.

He's NOT the one that HALF THE COUNTRY says they will NEVER VOTE FOR.

I have said it before; I'm not naive to think that Obama couldn't be victim to some sort of Bradley Effect. But, I stand by this: for him to catch up to where Clinton is RIGHT NOW?

It would have to be the size of a tsunami.


Cross-posted at BrownIowa

John Edwards On NPR

John Edwards takes part in a radio discussion about his campaign and the issues facing voters. Listen Here

The program (onpoint) unfortunately devotes the first 15-20 minutes to pundits, clearly attempting to shape the discussion. They should have spent the entire hour speaking with the candidate. There are enough pundits on CNN and FOX distorting his message. But there seems to be filters and pundits everywhere these days.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama continue to get all of the attention.....(especially Clinton... the corporate media is clearly attempting to tell voters who to support).

Hillary Clinton and Electability

Every now and then I like to go over to the Daily Kos...and smack folks around. :-)

It's fun.... I can't help it. I love stirring the pot, especially on such an important subject (who will be the next President).

The Democrats have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton; so much so, that they don't even question her positions anymore. And when someone does challenge her, they are accused of working for the enemy. She recently scolded an Iowa voter just for asking a question about her Iran vote in the Senate. See Video.

They also hate raising the issue of "electability". I raised the issue of her policy positions and her electability at Daily Kos...and the Clintonians didn't waste time ganging up to attack me. You would have thought I said something bad about the Pope at a Catholic Convention. But they couldn't dent my armor.

See My Daily Kos Post on Hillary

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Hat Tip: Daily Dish

Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most


While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?
%

Clinton (D)
50%

Kucinich (D)
49%

Gravel (D)
47%

Paul (R)
47%

Brownback (R)
47%

Tancredo (R)
46%

McCain (R)
45%

Hunter (R)
44%

Giuliani (R)
43%

Romney (R)
42%

Edwards (D)
42%

Thompson (R)
41%

Dodd (D)
41%

Biden (D)
40%

Obama (D)
37%

Huckabee (R)
35%

Richardson (D)
34%

Not sure
4%


At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed.

The Zogby Interactive poll, conducted Oct. 11–15, 2007, included 9,718 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/– 1.0 percentage point.

In a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in March, 46% said they would never vote for Clinton. In that survey, she finished in second place, behind Republican Newt Gingrich, a divisive figure who has since announced he would not seek the presidency and was not included in this new online survey. In that earlier poll, 54% said they would never vote for Gingrich. This recent survey included only the 17 candidates who were at that time running for President in one of the major parties. Former Vice President Al Gore, who like Gingrich was also included in the earlier Zogby survey of who would never win voters’ support for the White House, was excluded from this latest survey because of his insistence that he has no interest in a run for the presidency.

Interest in a Gore candidacy has been rekindled after he recently won the Nobel Prize for peace in connection with his work on the issue of global climate change.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who announced Friday he would end his campaign, was included in the poll. He might have sensed the nationwide opposition to his campaign, as 47% said they would never vote for him for President. The survey showed he was tied as the third most objectionable candidate, behind Clinton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (49%). Tied with Brownback was Democrat Michael Gravel, a former Alaska senator, and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.

Opposition to Clinton among Democratic and Republican women revealed mirror opposite attitudes, the Zogby Interactive survey showed. While 83% of Republican women said they would never vote for her, just 17% said they could possibly cast a ballot for her. Among Democratic women, just 17% said they would never vote for Hillary, while 83% said they could.

Democratic women appear smitten by former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois – just 11% said they could never vote for them for President. Republican women, on the other hand, find former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney most attractive – just 14% said they would never vote for him. Tied for a close second was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who were found to be objectionable by just 15% of Republican women.

For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1223

This isn't the first poll that says this. So, I don't want to hear anything about Clinton being a 'realistic' choice for President and Obama being an 'idealistic' choice. If you want to talk to me about being ' realistic', don't bring up a candidate who, 13 months out, HALF THE COUNTRY TELLS YOU THEY'LL NEVER VOTE FOR.

If folks told me that they were supporting Edwards because they were being ' realistic', I'd buy that. But realism and choosing someone that HALF the country will never be persuaded to vote for - DO NOT MATCH. Obama might have a ' Bradley Effect', but it would have to be tsunami-sized to catch up to Hillary right now.