Doubting Obama is silly. Here's why...

[graycem]

1992 – Dem. Party Primary Vote Totals

Bill Clinton - 10,482,411 (52.01%)
Jerry Brown - 4,071,232 (20.20%)
Paul Tsongas - 3,656,010 (18.14%)
Unpledged - 750,873 (3.73%)
Bob Kerrey - 318,457 (1.58%)
Tom Harkin - 280,304 (1.39%)
Lyndon LaRouche - 154,599 (0.77%)
Eugene McCarthy - 108,678 (0.54%)
Charles Woods - 88,948 (0.44%)
Larry Agran - 58,611 (0.29%)
Ross Perot - 54,755 (0.27%)
Ralph Nader - 35,935 (0.18%)
Louis Stokes - 29,983 (0.15%)
Angus Wheeler McDonald - 9,900 (0.05%)
J. Louis McAlpine - 7,911 (0.04%)
George W. Benns - 7,887 (0.04%)
Rufus T. Higginbotham - 7,705 (0.04%)
Tom Howard Hawks - 7,434 (0.04%)
Stephen Bruke - 5,261 (0.03%)
Tom Laughin - 5,202 (0.03%)
Tom Shiekman - 4,965 (0.03%)
Jeffrey F. Marsh - 2,445 (0.01%)
George Ballard - 2,067 (0.01%)
Ray Rollinson - 1,206 (0.01%)
Leonora Fulani - 402 (0.00%)
Douglas Wilder - 240 (0.00%)


1992 – Presidential General Election Vote Totals

Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) - 44,909,806 (43.0%) and 370 electoral votes (32 states and D.C. carried)
George H. W. Bush/Dan Quayle (R) (inc.) - 39,104,550 (37.4%) and 168 electoral votes (18 states carried)
Ross Perot/James Stockdale (I) - 19,743,821 (18.9%)
Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord (Libertarian) - 290,087 (0.3%)
Bo Gritz/Cy Minett (Populist) - 106,152 (0.1%)
Lenora Fulani/Maria Munoz (New Alliance) - 73,622 (0.07%)
Howard Phillips/Albion Knight, Jr. (Taxpayers) - 43,369 (0.04%)
Others - 152,516 (0.13%)

1996 – Dem. Party Primaries Vote Totals
Bill Clinton (inc.) - 9,706,802 (88.98%)
Lyndon LaRouche - 596,422 (5.47%)
Unpledged - 411,270 (3.77%)

1996- Presidential General Election Vote Totals
Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) (inc.) - 47,400,125 (49.2%) and 379 electoral votes (31 states and D.C. carried)
Bob Dole/Jack Kemp (R) - 39,198,755 (40.7%) and 159 electoral votes (19 states carried)
Ross Perot/Pat Choate (Reform) - 8,085,402 (8.4%)
Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke (Green) - 685,297 (0.7%)
Harry Browne/Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) - 485,798 (0.5%)
Howard Phillips/Herbert Titus (Taxpayers) - 184,820 (0.2%)
John Hagelin/Michael Tompkins (Natural Law) - 113,670 (0.1%)
Others - 121,534 (0.1%)

2000 – Dem. Party Primary Vote Totals

Al Gore - 10,626,568 (75.80%)
Bill Bradley - 2,798,281 (19.96%)
Lyndon LaRouche - 323,014 (2.30%)
Unpledged delegates - 238,870 (1.70%)
Angus Wheeler McDonald - 19,374 (0.14%)
Randy Crow - 5,126 (0.04%)

2000 – Presidential General Election Vote Totals

George W. Bush/Dick Cheney (R) - 50,460,110 (47.9%) and 271 electoral votes (30 states carried)
Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (D) - 51,003,926 (48.4%) and 266 electoral votes (20 states and D.C. carried)
Abstaining - 1 electoral vote (D.C. faithless elector)
Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke (Green) - 2,883,105 (2.7%)
Pat Buchanan/Ezola B. Foster (Reform) - 449,225 (0.4%)
Harry Browne/Art Olivier (Libertarian) - 384,516 (0.4%)
Howard Phillips/Curtis Frazier (Taxpayers) - 98,022 (0.1%)
John Hagelin/Nat Goldhaber (Natural Law) - 83,702 (0.1%)


This is a post just to point out to a few doubters here, that the primary popular vote total doesn't necessarily illustrate any certain outcome in General Election vote totals. To say otherwise is absolutely preposterous. So save all the "Where is he going to pick up the rest that he'll need to win?"

He's going to do what every other candidate before him has done, CAMPAIGN, and earn the votes. I do not want to hear how "he's no Bill Clinton" ever again. He's already won more votes than even Bill Clinton did in a primary by quite a few million. Finally, this should make any Democrat feel awesome for the record turn out if nothing else. We're in a great position, so shhh all you doubters. Deafeatism is just silly at this point. :)

[papau]

1. Win without Hillary supporters? - or at least w/o 10% of them? - unity? - good luck

[graycem]

2. There will be no "without Hillary supporters"

true Democrats realize what's at stake even if your pettiness doesn't allow you to. :)

[OzarkDem]

12. They've already lost at least half

and will probably lose more.

People don't like candidates who call them inbred, racist, KKK etc. They may not vote for McCain, but will likely stay home from the election. No Dem voter should ever be called those kinds of names then be ordered to support the candidate responsible for it.

Real quick way to undo all the good that's been done in getting Dem voters active again. Is Obama really that stupid or did he do it on purpose?

[democracy1st]

16. which candidate called people that ?

"People don't like candidates who call them inbred, racist, KKK etc" who said this ?

[graycem]

29. lol

they're ad-libbing just a tad.

[GoesTo11]

22. Did Obama do it on purpose?

That's your question.

I'm not sure whether Obama called voters inbred, racist and KKK on purpose. In fact, I'm not sure whether he called them that at all?

Can you please provide a link to when he said any one of these things?

[graycem]

26. lol

Of course Obama didn't do any such thing, this person is just upset about things said on DU, and things the media pointed out on exit polls. I don't understand how any Hillary supporter can be upset with Obama when a t.v. personality interprets exit polls. It's just anger talking.

[graycem]

27. Oh come on!

You know better than that. I understand you're angry but this is just flat absurd to say that Obama or his campaign referred to ANYONE let alone a group of people in anything even close to those terms, especially that inbred or KKK talk. You're just being completely misleading and that is NOT nice. You shouldn't make such false charges against people if you don't like them against yourself.

You are maybe upset about some things said on DU or from t.v. talking heads when they interpreted the exit polls, and in either case I don't know how you can lay the blame on Obama. Even the t.v. personalities aren't to blame when they were merely citing exit poll data. Why on earth would that be Obama's fault?

[MH1]

3. Over half a million people voted for LYNDON LAROUCHE?!? (1996)

:wow:

Yikes.

[graycem]

6. Guess I better go find out who he is..

I honestly don't remember the '96 elections at all. I didn't even vote that year because I was hospitalized at the time, so didn't really pay attention.

[MH1]

23. Heh, if you've made it this far in life without making the acquaintence of L. LaRouche,

then you are just as well off. :)

You haven't missed much except yet another version of political whacked-out-ness.

[seaglass]

4. The thing I find great about your numbers is how many people

got to vote in this primary. Shame on those who are/were clamoring to take that away from the voters.

[graycem]

5. I certainly am not one of those people.

I have been frustrated at some things, sure, but I think that for every state to be allowed to really be involved in the primary this early will benefit us in the Fall. People are more likely to have at least a little emotional investment and I think that will make them more likely, especially the youth vote, to turn out for us in November.

[seaglass]

7. I wasn't accusing you. But you are probably in the minority. n/t

[graycem]

9. I know.. I was just agreeing with you.

:)

[Art_from_Ark]

8. I'm not sure what the point here is

'92-- Clinton, governor of Arkansas for 12 of the previous 14 years, gives keynote speech at '88 convention, wins '92 nomination despite neverending allegations of infidelity, etc.

'96-- Clinton is incumbent with no real opposition

'00-- Gore is incumbent, with token opposition from Bradley

'08-- Obama is relatively unknown, has three years in US Senate

[graycem]

10. You're not sure what the point is?

The point is the numbers. They speak for themselves. You can post your opinion about how well known or liked Bill was, but the numbers do the talking. And since Obama has about 17 million votes, I would say at the very LEAST, he's AS popular as Bill was. :)

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from the 13th District, which then spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn. Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained.

Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, and again in 2002


After winning a landslide primary victory in March 2004 to become the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.



2004 - Obama gives keynote
2008 - wins the 2008 nomination despite neverending allegations of unpatriotic activity, a scary black preacher, and being an elitist, etc.


The point is still, the numbers speak for themselves, and this is with your label of "unknown," then wow, I can't wait to see how awesome his numbers look the more he's known, since all signs point to an increase in popularity once people get to know him. :)

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Being elected to a state senate

is like being elected to student council. Being governor of a state can give national exposure, while almost nobody knows even their own state senators, much less the senators of another state. Clinton got national exposure in '78 after being elected the youngest governor in the nation, and he once again became a media darling after he mounted a comeback against Frank White in '82, after having lost to White in the Reagan washout of '80.

[graycem]

13. What is it about the numbers you're not getting?

He's already 7 million votes MORE popular than Bill was. C'mon, I know you don't want him to win, but you cannot deny these numbers. They're right here in easy to read fashion.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. It's not that I don't want him to win per se

I'm just not crazy about him, and he seems to be resurrecting a lot from Reagan's substanceless "Morning in America" campaign. And I don't know if you can call him "7 million votes more popular than Bill Clinton was" when Clinton wrapped up the '92 nomination long before Obama, reducing enthusiasm in later primary states. And how many votes did Kerry get in '04?

[graycem]

15. But when his policies/plans are

so close to Hillary's, how can we say he's substanceless? And rather than Reagan, what about Clinton? Hope was part of his appeal too. :)

And maybe I can't "prove" he's more popular, that's why I said at least AS popular, allowing for more involvement at this late stage in the game. I used the Clinton numbers to make my point with you since Clinton won, even though I technically believe Gore did and perhaps Kerry did too, that's another matter.


But just for the record the primary numbers from 2004 are:

John Kerry - 9,930,497
John Edwards - 3,162,337
Howard Dean - 903,460

[democracy1st]

17. trust me guy ,they don't even see anything wrong with Clinton supporters going on Fox

bashing Democrats and praising Fox News,there's noway you'll get thru

[graycem]

25. Well, maybe you're right

but on the other hand there's no point to stop trying especially when it's a respectful conversation, and it's not hurting anything. :)

[Art_from_Ark]

18. Hope was part of Clinton's appeal

because that's where he was from (Hope, Arkansas, that is :) )

But, just to let you know, here's where I'm coming from--
I'm a Democrat, and have voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1984. (I voted for John Anderson in 1980, but that's because I thought he was a bona fide progressive candidate, not a stealth candidate like he turned out to be). Anyway, my image of the Democratic Party is based on my experience in the '60s, the last time the Democratic Party had firm control and was actually trying to do things to help both the average citizen and the disadvantaged (On edit-- there was another Democratic effort in the late '70s, but that was snuffed out by Reagan in the early '80s). At one time I had met most of the main Democratic office holders in Arkansas and was quite happy to be associated with their work and always turned out to hear them when they came to my part of the state.

To make a long story short, in 2000 this country was royally screwed when the Supreme Court took the election away from the rightful winner, Al Gore, and handed it to you-know-who. I have been bitter ever since then-- not only because a total doofus was allowed to occupy the White House (and to this day, I have never referred to him as "President"), but because it looks like the rightful winner, who was and is far superior to the current occupant in every way imaginable, will never be allowed to assume the office he was rightfully elected to, despite his immense qualifications.

For the past 7 years, this country has been led down the primrose path, and right now it is in desperate need of a major housecleaning, to put it mildly. It is going to be a huge job to clean up all the elephant shit that has been accumulating during that time. This job requires every bit of experience that we can get. And yet, the one with the most and best experience has not even applied for this job. What we have are two relatively inexperienced applicants who both say that they can handle the job, but I, as a personnel manager of sorts, am not sure that either of them is up to the task. Nonetheless, either one would be better than the third applicant, who just promises to spread even more elephant shit around in the house.

[graycem]

19. You know in many respects

I agree with you probably, about his progressiveness. But maybe he will at least succeed in moving us back a little to the left. We all know the real progressives like Kucinich get marginalized and nudged out. You have to be absolutely charismatic and appeal to the largest groups of people. Unfortunately, far left progressives won't do this for a long time, if ever since the Bush junta drug the country far to the right thanks to their fear tactics.

On the point of experience though, truly what experience does one ever have to prepare you for this particular job? Yes I'm sure being a governor could help, but look at Mitt Romney, he was a hideous governor, so in his case experience means nothing. Bush was the governor of Texas and look where that's gotten us. I mean, there's no real training program for it in my opinion, Lincoln is just one example of one of our greatest who didn't have any experience to speak of. I think other things like just the particular way their brain processes things can make a great leader. Willingness to listen to varying opinions on a subject and take all viewpoints into account before making a decision is also a sign of a great leader, in my opinion. I think Obama does that. I've read several articles done from interviews inside of his camp and it's pretty much all glowing about his constant, stable, steady leadership. There is no infighting and he welcomes everyone's opinion at his table. Quite a curious mind he has, and that is one of the most important reasons Bush has been a failure. He isn't curious in the least about anything. He just flat thinks he's right about everything. I think the experience comes from being in office, and surrounding yourself with excellence. That is another reason I have high hopes for him. I believe he will surround himself with some of the brightest in our party, and I think that a Democratic majority in the house and Senate will help him achieve our agenda.

And to get there, it's back to being charismatic, which I believe Obama is, and no matter how much some may mock the idea of people voting based on personality, George Bush proved that they in fact do. I think Obama's personality will carry him a long long way especially when juxtaposed next to McCain. Add in his fundraising and crowd drawing ability, and he has very long coattails that will give us a majority and we will be the better for it. And inspiration isn't all that bad, hope, with some decent ideas and a public that believes in you, can forge a great Presidency. As you said, your generation had it, so let mine have it, pretty please. :)

[Art_from_Ark]

21. Granted, my generation had it, but just for a short time

That's one reason why I want it again-- because (except for Vietnam, which was always a concern until 1973), those days were special because there was hope, not just an allegory, but real substance. I don't begrudge you for wanting that. Not at all. But I'm afraid that if Obama does get in, it will be "four downs and turn the ball over to the other side", like the Carter years. I really don't know if the man is up to the job-- he's got a Herculean task of cleaning out 1000 stalls of elephant shit, and playing nicey nicey with and giving in too much to the other side won't cut it. And I'm wary of the way he has been approaching the Reagan "legacy", which was the beta version of bu$h 2.0. He does not seem to have a real understanding of just what was happening in the '60s, or what has brought us to the precipice we are staring at today.

[graycem]

28. I can see how you might be

apprehensive about that since you don't believe he has enough experience, however, I think his way of thinking and looking at the world will serve him well. And as long as he has good people in his cabinet, they will help him make good choices. Anyway, I hope before November, he will give you a reason to have more confidence in him and his abilities.

Not being sarcastic at all, do you think there's anything he could do to make you have more confidence in him? Or will you just have to see what he does in office before you judge him?

[Art_from_Ark]

30. That is, of course, a very important consideration

Who is Obama going to choose as advisors/Cabinet members if he does get in? He would need to hook up with not only the best and the brightest, but people with experience who genuinely want to reverse the disastrous course that bu$h has taken this country on.

That said, if Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him, even though my state of registration, Arkansas, will likely go for McCain.

[graycem]

31. It will be interesting to see..

Who would you like to see in his administration?

Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, Biden... who else?




I have to vote in Texas this year, so it's not like my vote matters technically, but, I do hope to help the camp out in other more important states.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. I think Al Gore would make a great Secretary of State

I think in that capacity, if not President, he could do a lot not only to patch up foreign relations that bu$h has damaged, but he could also use that as a stage to get other nations to cooperate in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and tackle other environmental concerns, among other things.

[graycem]

33. Do you think he would accept?

I've seen him a few times deny that he would inject himself back into politics, but I wonder if he could be persuaded. He just seems so above it all now. He's gone on to be such a statesman in the world eye, which I guess would make him perfect for the job, I can just see how our divisive politics might tarnish that.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. I would certainly hope that he would consider

That is something that could do a lot to ease my apprehensions-- a true statesman as head of the State Department!

[graycem]

36. I do love the idea too...

plus, that would help heal so many wounds we all still feel from one of the greatest crimes of this nation. *sigh*

[jespwrs]

20. Thanks for the numbers

You know, Obama was my fourth choice in the beginning. Hillary was eighth on my list.
As time went on and the nomination process played out, it became clear to me that I would line up with Obama. I know that some Hillary supporters are really disappointed with how things have turned out, and I understand that.

I just wanted to say that I am not frustrated with Hillary because she is still in the race, or because I disagree with her about some issue or anything-it's the endless manipulation and deception that is so frustrating to me. Especially when she is poking holes in the credibility of our nomination process, and thus in any nominee selected that is not her. It's hard for me to understand how you can't be appalled by her behavior. She's just so transparently deceptive and fake it bothers me to no end every time I hear the next press release. I don't think people would feel it so urgent that she leave the race now if she wasn't continuously escalating her rhetoric regarding the moral credibility of the nomination process and thus, any nominee selected that is not her.
She now feels that our process is morally reprehensible and utterly horrible, on par with slavery and universal suffrage? She espouses the greatness of the "popular vote". For those who say the popular vote is the only thing that matters this year, keep in mind the process provides no way of accurately tallying all participants' votes. Also, before you jump on the pop vote bandwagon, keep in mind that the process used has been developed over decades, and there are reasons it is the way it is, many of which are quite good I might add, and Democrats from all states have added input to this process, again, over many decades. {Aside: There are no credible arguments that the MI and FL elections provided a fair chance to any candidate involved and thus are irrelevant. This is so obvious that it warrants no further discussion.} So please, before dismissing the current process consider all the work and all the people's input you are throwing out the window, based on an argument that is so ridiculous, I can't even type it without laughing.

Thanks for listening.(reading I guess).

[graycem]

24. I appreciate your opinion..

and I can tell you that maybe I have the same feelings as you about a lot of things regarding the tone of the race, there's probably not a day that goes by that I don't either verbally or physically give the finger to my t.v. :P And even if I find it abhorrent that she would say and do some of the things she has, and her reasons for doing so were not to neccesarily help Obama, I'm not going to spend a lot of time bashing her here, it only spreads the anger and bitterness. I will defend Obama and join in good-natured mocking if a post is so over the top, but bashing her at this point, is just well, pointless. The end result will still be the same.

And, while I know it has not been her intention, I think it has allowed Obama to sharpen his abilities when it comes to countering attacks, and he's done it without getting himself terribly dirty in the process. He has walked an extremely tight line of countering without really attacking, so I am even more confident that when he's up against a Republican candidate, he will be able to counter and with much more force than he's used to date.

All that said, I am not arguing for the popular vote. I started this thread in response to someone on another thread about how Obama won't win because the numbers aren't there. I strongly disagreed with that, so I wanted to show that so far, he's gotten more votes in a primary than anyone in recent election history. That is a cogent point when we're talking about his popularity. I am not saying we use it for our nominating process, so I think you've misunderstood the point of my post. :)

[CaptJasHook]

35. K&R