NYT: OBAMA Eminently Electable with NO sign of Backlash with White Voters due to Wright

[futureliveshere]

So nowadays the NYT seems to be suffering from endorser's remorse. In the last few days there seems to be more and more articles being released that talk about the inevitability of an Obama nomination as he rolls on to 2025.

Here is the latest article that talks about there being no apparent backlash being suffered by the Obama juggernaut with respect to attracting the voters of various demographics (emphasis is all mine). All this talk about Obama having difficulty attracting White voters is just NOT TRUE!!

Since January, the Clinton's have pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments and questions about his character. Hillary Clinton has questioned why he didn’t walk out on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.; why he “denounced” but didn’t “reject” Louis Farrakhan; and whether he is too chummy with the former radical Bill Ayers. She chastised his characterization of white working-class voters as being highfalutin and chided him for not agreeing to a street-fight-style debate. Bill Clinton has called Obama’s stance on the war a fairy tale, dismissed an early primary win as mere Jesse Jackson redux and recently claimed that Obama was playing the race card against him. Some of this is valid, the result of Obama’s own missteps, but some of it is baffling.

The rhetoric appears to be trafficking in old fears and historic stereotypes. The unspoken (and confusing) characterization of Obama is that he’s militant yet cowardly; uppity yet too cool for school.

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.

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).

While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clinton's (and the superdelegates) pause.

Electability cuts both ways.

If Hillary Clinton should defy the odds (and the current math) and secure the nomination, she would be hard-pressed to defeat John McCain without the enthusiastic support of black voters, stalwarts of the Democratic base.

Getting that support could now be tricky.

The article has graphed the movement of Obama's support over a longer time horizon and shows clearly that the apparent Obama unpopularity with the white vote base is just a "fairy tale". After all, numbers don't lie and that is what this race is about, the numbers, and the numbers are all in Obama's hands.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Of course, there are folks out there that believe if they say something enough

it will be true.

Good on the NYT to stop repeating the lies and the untruth.

[futureliveshere]

2. Yes, most of the talking heads seem to be following that 'mantra'

Of course it has served them well in the past. In fact in a perverse way, I think Obama has a lot to thank Bush & Rove for. If they hadn't run the most underhanded campaigns and given us one of the most hated and biased presidencies, many people in America would not have opened their eyes and looked beyond the comfortable confines of the familiar.

So their constant habit of shouting the loudest from the rooftops and constantly crying wolf has now caused us to distrust MOST of what they say and seek out the truth ourselves. That I think is a major reason why Obama is doing so well. It is the perfect environment for his style to connect with the most voters.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I agree. People are tired of hating.

And tired of politicians that attempt to capitalize on hate.

That is such a wrong message for our children....which is why Hillary is such the wrong candidate. She actually has been encourage racial division. She should be ashamed.

[futureliveshere]

8. Yes, that is so true. People are tired of having to live in hate AND fear.

Americans were welcomed with open arms almost everywhere in the world. Not anymore.

Hillary is the wrong candidate, but I think she is also a victim of the world she has grown up in. She knows no better because of her conditioning and she has seen what has worked in the past and is trying more of the same. But, to her constant amazement it just doesn't seem to be working anymore and that I think is why she is so angry and just hitting harder and harder.

She just doesn't get it.

[bhikkhu]

19. 2nd that. Its been years....

[futureliveshere]

30. Thanks

:hi:

[CoffeeCat]

48. I think Hillary miscalculated...

...and assumed that Rovian dirty tricks would win the day.

She rolled into my state with her Rove playbook---planting questions, accusing legitimate questioners of being plants
themselves, and holding staged, impersonal events where she spewed soundbytes and answered very few questions. There
was a point in her campaign, where you could tell that they had pulled the, "Let's paint Obama as a Muslim" trigger.
Emails went out from her surrogates, all over my state. Then Bob Kerrey endorsed Hillary and said, "I can't wait to
vote against Barack Hussein Obama!"

It was so pathetic, and so shameless.

I think she's befuddled--because she assumed that Bush, Rove and Cheney had come up with a single-bullet political theory
that would work for all campaigns.

What she didn't realize is that people are sick to death of dirty tricks, overly managed politicians and lies. That
trend has gone the way of the pet rock.

I just want all of this to end....she can't win. The media has been cowed into perpetuating the myth that this is a horse race,
when it's really over--unless she wins each of the remaining states by 70 percent.

Lately, I'm tuning out on politics--more and more.

My feeling is--wake me when Obama is giving his acceptance speech in Denver. All of this stuff from now until Denver is just
media manufactured gobbledygook.

[futureliveshere]

52. Kudos for seeing the truth!!

[MindMatter]

81. It wasn't a miscalculation. It was just what a Clinton does when desperate

Winning is more important than integrity.

They might feel differently about integrity if they had any.

It is a sad day in this country when I admire a Huckabee or a Romney more than a prominent Democrat.

[polpilot]

55. Why didn't Hillary 'walk out' on Bill?...

cookies were in the oven????

[Johnny Battleground]

68. BS Express Just Opened for Business

And there are people like you who can't see the trees for the forest. (What lies?)

They (people like you) claimed Wright was taken out of context.
Obama could no longer denounce him than he could his Granny or Black America.
OK. How did Wright and Obama fare in the past week?

Scorecard?

Wright was put out on the trail to make nice and ended up repeating what Obama's folks said was "looped comments".
Well, we find out Wright is looped and Obama sat at his side for 20-years.
Named a book after one of his sermons.
That's just the tip.
When that is run up until November you think people will stomach this light weight as president. (Ferraro was right.)

If you really think the swing voters will believe this is a bunch of lies and untruths you're going to be in for a shocking November.

And the score is?

Obama just denounced and disowned Wright.
Why? Lies and deceit? LOL. NO.
No... because Wright dropped a few bombs that jived with what was being called "snippets looped and taken out of context."

Obama in other polls, even within the party, has shown his appeal has shrunk dramatically.

Super Delegates Vote Hillary.

[MADem]

4. Does anyone know who CHARLES BLOW is?

If this is the same guy, his specialty is making charts and other designs: http://update.snd.org/news/entry/charles-blow-nyt-visual-columnist/



Charles Blow, NYT visual columnist
By Tyson Evans — April 1, 2008

Comment

Charles Blow returns to the New York Times as a “new kind of columnist.” Full memo after the jump.

When last seen around these here parts, or at least the parts on 43rd Street, Charles was in the newsroom, helping to guide the paper’s design as deputy design director for news, a position that he created.

Before that, of course, he was our pioneering Graphics Editor, introducing Times readers to the kind of ambitious, authoritative and beautiful charts, maps and other kinds of graphics that are now an ingrained part of our journalism. Charles left The Times for a new challenge, at National Geographic Magazine, where he was Art Director, rebuilding the art department and attracting world-renowned visual journalists. In addition to producing scientific illustrations, maps and graphics, his staff developed and pitched stories.

He is returning to us as a columnist, but an entirely new kind of columnist a visual columnist, if you will. Charles will do his own Op-Charts, lending his formidable skills and distinct style to that form of opinion journalism. And, equally exciting, he will create a new kind of journalistic space on our website. I’d call it a blog if I were given to using that word. Charles envisions a gathering place for visual journalists, especially those who use numbers and images and charts to express opinion. It will be just the kind of “you won’t find it anywhere else” feature that ought to be on nytimes.com.

Charles will be working from the columnist zone on the 13th floor. I was devastated when he left The Times, because he was a great colleague, a great mind and a great leader. I couldn’t be happier to welcome him back.

— Andy Rosenthal

[futureliveshere]

9. Could be, no idea though n/t

[Justitia]

11. Yeah, he writes for the New York Times & they publish him. So what? Who are YOU? -eom

[MADem]

15. I don't write for the NYT. Wow, you're a bit touchy. Passionflower tea is said to take that edge

off...why don't you enjoy a half gallon or two?

:rofl:

[futureliveshere]

23. No need to be touchy, but I am curious. Why do you ask who the writer is?

[MADem]

36. Exactly, no need to be touchy. I read the NYT often enough, I did not recognize the name.

I was wondering if anyone else had any insight into the guy.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

66. what an unfortunate name, lots of those tonight

some guy named Bonecutter with the Clinton Campaign in Indiana, I think.

Now Chuckie Blow?

And that poor race horse filly that Sen Clinton picked.

[dcindian]

5. It will be a great day in America when we prove the naysayers wrong.

And elect a person based on his honest and thoughtful approach to problems.

[davidpdx]

74. Actually it will be a great day in America

to see the Clinton supporters sit there and cry with their hands over their face yelling, "why, why, why!" Oh the humanity!

[City Lights]

6. K&R

Thanks!

And in the world of cable snooze, the talking bobble heads cling to Wright like he's their only hope. :rofl: LOSER IDIOTS!

[futureliveshere]

10. The more they go on talking about it, the more they make it irrelevant

After all if Obama continues to bring SDs over and continues to roll the numbers in his favor, AND these idiots go on screeching "Wright, Wright", then its pretty clear who is out-of-touch.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Yep.....it is obviously evident.......

and truly sad.....to have a news media that would promote racial hate. How much more disgusting could they be?

[goclark]

27. Wake me when it's over everyone

I am so brokenhearted by the dirty tricks.

i was so stunned when I really felt the Race Issue rise up.
It was when BC made the Jesse Jackson comment in Carolina.

I am numb to the continuation of it my members of our own party.

I always thought the Republicans were our opponents.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. "...obviously evident."

:thumbsup:

[City Lights]

13. Yup, and in the process they're making themselves irrelevant too.

The longer they beat the Wright horse, the more clueless they look to the public. Overpaid, out-of-touch elitists.

[jerryster]

77. Sadly, I think the opposite is true.

The more it's talked about the more it's perceived as relevant. And if it keeps getting talked about it will become a swift boat albatross.

The NYT article aside, Obama's numbers are not going in the right direction. He had leads in IN and NC. IN is now a statistical tie and Hillary has cut substantially into his lead in NC. He needs to win them both, in my opinion. I'm not looking at it strictly from a delegate count point of view. If he loses IN Hillary can absolutely make the case that he could have a problem winning big states in the GE.

Also, it appears to me that Obama is having trouble regaining his footing and getting back on message. It may feel good to vent that it's all the fault of the MSM. However, that is one of the hurdles a Democratic candidate has to face. If he is having trouble now it will only worsen after the general campaign starts.

The problems he is having with Wright and with winning certain blocs of voters are real. If he can't overcome them in the primaries it is absolutely a valid concern in the GE.

[Life Long Dem]

7. We found this out right after NH. n/t

[futureliveshere]

14. Sorry, what did we find out after NH?

That the MSM is full of idiots?
or
That Obama has lost none of his appeal due the Wright issue? Didn't that only become big news in the last month.

Sorry, but my brain has gummed up and I can't understand what you are trying to say. Will go get a coffee to kickstart the sleeping grey cells.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I'm not clear on what that totally meant

either. :shrug:

[powergirl]

17. Once again, it goes to prove that you cannot win just be bashing your opponent

you have to have something positive to bring to the table. No one has won the GE by ONLY hoping their opponent will fail. She is losing because she can't win on her own merits - they simply aren't there, her negatives are too low (or high - you know what I mean!)

[StevieM]

20. Clinton did beat Obama on the merits in 2007. That's when he began his hateful campaign

of personal destruction. He tried to inspire his way to victory and he failed.

Steve

[futureliveshere]

22. Sorry where did this happen - "Clinton beat Obama in 2007"

and how has he failed precisely?

[TheDonkey]

61. You are either mentally ill, drunk, or just lying for the hell of it

none of your post made any sense.

[powergirl]

65. She did not beat him

He beat her. He is winning She is LOSING. And she is losing because of her negative campaigning and politics of personal destruction. She chose to trash him and she began losing. It also didn't help that she assumed she was entitled to the nomination. Obama worked hard for his victories and he earned them by talking about himself and his policis. All of the polls agree that Clinton has run the most negative campaign of all the candidates and now she is feeling the backlash.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

67. Lets see, Obama 31 states, Hillary 15

she was beating him.... but got to confident I guess.

[VotesForWomen]

70. OK, let's let the GE be decided by who wins the most states. clue: it will be the repugs.

[IntravenousDemilo]

18. I can't believe the NYT editorial copy desk would ever have allowed...

"Since January, the Clinton's (with an apostrophe) have pummeled Barack Obama..."

No self-respecting proofreader would permit anything but Clintons, minus the apostrophe. Maybe the Grey Lady has fallen on hard times, or they need new copy editors.

[futureliveshere]

21. Sorry, but I think that was my doing not NYTs

Blame it on the stupid spell-check and haste to post. :blush:

[IntravenousDemilo]

24. Oh, I thought you copied and pasted it.

It would have been much easier than typing it out by hand. Well, then, 50 lashes with a wet noodle! :)

[futureliveshere]

25. I did, but the spell check corrected it (or rather messed it up)

and I just went along for the ride. I was more concerned with looking for errors in what I had written.

(hang my head in shame)

[Austinitis]

26. That poll's sample dates don't capture the Wright controversy.

See here for the actual impact:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pLYPNryKcVU1cDukmGM1_RQ&oid=1&output=image

[futureliveshere]

29. Where did you get your data from please, it has no source to the graphs?

The article is published today and do you think the NYT is going to use stale data to make such a contrarian claim (contrarian with the rest of the screeching MSM). That would kill them.

[Austinitis]

38. The data is from Rasmussen

You can get that from RCP.

[futureliveshere]

31. The silence is deafening :)

[bhikkhu]

35. The link is in the OP, dated May 3, 2008

Here it is again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03blow.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Igel]

46. The last date on the graphic that all is based on is

Apr. 2 2008.

Given it's location on the far right of the graphic, I go with there being few data after that. Note that there's less than a year from the line marked July 2007 to April 2008, so if there's another month's worth of data it should take up 1/12 of an inch ... which would be noticeable.

Now, there may be data for a week or two past Apr. 2, 2008, there's maybe enough wiggle room for that, but if it's there, Blow should have indicated it was there. He talks about the "period" under discussion, and gives the starting point, but never he never, ever says what the end point is.

My observation: Blow could have written this a month ago, there's nothing that he said that couldn't have been said then.

On edit: One should proofread one's post, esp. when one is typing one-fingered for part of it.

[futureliveshere]

51. Why are you being rude?

Where does it say Apr2, 2008. I looked but didn't find it. Since this was published today I am assuming it incorporates the latest polls.

[uponit7771]

34. Please back up your claim with NYT data and source your data. Thank you in advance

[Austinitis]

44. Check RCP for the links to the polls.

My data is from Rasmussen.

[jackson_dem]

32. Him sucking with whites, Latinos, and Asians has little to do with pastorgate

Obama sucks outside his ethnic group due to having limited appeal.

[futureliveshere]

33. err.. did you actually bother to read the OP or are you in the twilight Zone dude.

[cliffordu]

37. Ah, another negative not backed up by science.

I'll be nice when she steps down and we can get on with electing President Obama.

[NOLALady]

47. Exactly

what is his ethnic group?

The last time I checked, he was part of the white ethnic group.

[Number23]

53. Yes...

Obama sucks outside his ethnic group

I guess that's why he won places like IOWA and GUAM....

[jonestonesusa]

62. Come on, Jacksondem, you're more objective than that...

We all know that strength among black voters can't explain Obama victories in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Utah, Vermont, etc. I'm a bit surprised you would make this accusation of Obama appealing only to blacks, especially when the HC campaign and MSM makes him out to be "elite."

Not to mention that strength among black voters isn't considered a liability for white candidates; it shouldn't be considered a liability for a black candidate either, where it not for race-baiting tactics.

[Cha]

39. Yeah, how would you feel if

your home state(senator) newspaper had endorsed you and then was writing facts about the primary campaign you were trying to manipulate with your dying breath?

[percussivemadness]

40. There is no backlash because....

the vast majority of people agree with what Rev Wright is saying, it doesn`t matter whether you are white, black, yellow, pink with purple spots,gay, straight, upside down, confused, the truth is the truth, end of story.

Peace

[futureliveshere]

42. Nope the point is that most people understand that they are NOT the same person

The people have not forgotten that religion and politics MUST be separated though the MSM has. So even if people do not understand or agree they can overlook it and look for the REAL issues that matter to all of us.

[percussivemadness]

50. I disagree

Truth is truth, it doesn`t matter whether it comes from a politician or a minister. If Rev Wright stood up and said "all white people should be interned for crimes against black people", are you saying this wouldn`t have a negative effect on Obama? Of course it would. However, what Rev Wright said, struck a chord with a number of people, and the MSM can try and hype up the God Damn America angle, but people are sick to death of the MSM, as such, the vast majority of people I know went straight to you Tube and listened to his whole sermon.

I agree with your basic premise, the separation of religion and politics, in fact, Rev Wright gave a sermon called "God and Government", in what he states "people confuse God with Government", as such, the Rev agrees with you also, but do not discount the fact that a lot of people respect him for speaking truth to power, they may not agree with everything he says, but they do agree with some of the things he said.

Peace

[futureliveshere]

56. Well yes. In fact I am one of those who agrees with a lot of what he said

But I still say that this will fall off the table as the year progresses and the economy worsens.

And when they see McCain and Obama together and compare them. Its like comparing a Mustang and a Jalopy.

:)

[percussivemadness]

85. well we are definitely in agreement on your final point :)

[JanErikFl]

41. CNN: Wright have dramatically changed how Republicans look at the presidential election.

Translation: The Wright controversy is hurting Obama most but Clinton also, at the same moment McCain is burnishing his brand as a different kind of Republican.

The overall fundamentals still heavily favor Democrats, but the controversy over Wright is a source of significant Democratic angst. Watch Michelle Obama discuss the Wright controversy »

In the words of Republican pollster Whit Ayres: "Blue-collar white voters are this year's soccer moms."

Ayres said that in recent days, "we've been doing a lot of focus groups with blue-collar whites in swing states. They're open to voting for Hillary Clinton because they think they did better economically in the Clinton administration than they have in the current administration.

"But there's no way on God's green Earth they're going to vote for Barack Obama. They will vote for John McCain instead. So reaching out to those people we used to call Reagan Democrats is a very smart strategy for John McCain."

Now, Ayres is a Republican with a bias, and Obama has time to repair the damage should he emerge as the Democratic nominee.

But the remarks of many Democrats privately are not that far off from what Ayres says publicly about his findings from recent focus groups.

"Jeremiah Wright is not going away," Ayres said. "There are an awful lot of people, when you just ask, 'What do you think of when you think of Barack Obama?' who bring up Jeremiah Wright's name. They bring up the anti-Americanism. They wonder why it took him so long to separate himself from him. Jeremiah Wright is an albatross around Barack Obama's neck that he's going to have to carry all the way to the election."

Asked about his research, Ayres describes the recent groups as "blue-collar white voters. Democrats and Republicans. More Republican than Democrat but they cross party lines."


http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/03/wright.fallout/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

[futureliveshere]

43. Right and you make my point by quoting CNN.

The more that this point is beaten to death in the primaries the better it is for BO.

[psychopomp]

45. Yes we can!

GObama! :toast:

The election is about making a change for the better and I know Americans are up to the test.

[beachmom]

49. K & R

[psychopomp]

54. kick

:kick:

[starams5]

57. Obamanation

This movement can't be stopped. MSM is frustrated, the internet has ran them off the road.

[psychopomp]

60. Welcome to DU

:toast:

[jerryster]

78. Welcome to the party here at DU!! n/t

[ClassWarrior]

86. Welcome friend.

NGU.

[Carrieyazel]

58. The paper that employed the wretched Judy Miller and falsifier Jayson Blair.

Give me a break. They know nothing about electablity, just as they knew nothing about the truth in the runup to the war, with hundreds of horrendous articles, making the case for war.

This is no longer the "paper of record".

[lilyannerose]

59. So Let's Just Move On

Who will be Obama's VP pick? I'm favoring Richardson!:thumbsup:

[jonestonesusa]

63. I'm holding out for Nancy Sebelius...Kansas Governor and Red State Survivor

All Midwest unity ticket - on to victory and change in 08!

[kwenu]

64. I really didn't need the NYT to confirm this for me. The electability discussion is BS.

[VotesForWomen]

69. but..but... I thought the MSM was shilling for Hillary. guess not. nt

[Neshanic]

71. The last word in what the average voter wants. The NYT. So out of touch, so sad.

[Perry Logan]

72. The article says the Clinton campaign has been dirty--but this is a lie.

You can repeat a lie all you want, Obama people. You can put everyone who disagrees with you on hold. You can start a thread every day saying it.

But it's still a lie.

"It was the Obama campaign and some prominent Obama supporters, who from day one, have been the biggest, McCarthy-like proponents of guilt-by-association when it comes to Sen. Clinton.'
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012469.php

[greiner3]

80. I just want to say thank you Perry;

Because I get the biggest laugh out of your posts! Tell me, you're really a secret Obama supporter, aren't you? I thought so. :rofl: Keep up the good work!

[TragedyandHope]

73. Kick for Truth!

:kick:

[thevoiceofreason]

75. K&R

[reddconsole]

76. "...numbers don't lie and that is what this race is about, the numbers,

and the numbers are all in Obama's hands."

The numbers are in DIEBOLD'S hands, my friend; we're being set up for a bloodbath in November.

[futureliveshere]

79. Could be, but great change requires great sacrifice, and maybe blood.

Let us see if the RW messes with the machines (again). This race has many history making aspects to it. Lets see how that continues in November.

[meow mix]

82. K&R

[Melinda]

83. Don't know how I missed this one...

:kick:

[Irishonly]

84. Wright Isn't An Issue

I go to church and I am close to my pastor and would call her my spiritual adviser. She and I agree on most everything from raising children to politics to reading food labels, however, she doesn't speak for me. When the brouhaha started about Wright she rolled her eyes as did most people. My pastor doesn't tape sermons and we are anything but a mega church. Political views range from neoconservative to very progressive but most are somewhere just a tad left of the center. Both of us think any one of us could have a statement taken out of context which could sound bad. It isn't a rule written in cement that a church goer agree with every single thing the pastor says. That's just too freakin stupid for words. The more the pundits try to push Wright, the more disguised many people of faith become and the disgust isn't at Wright or Obama. We are one of those liberal churches the religious right says aren't Christian.

[ecstatic]

87. Despite the fauxrage in the media, honest people acknowledge that they know at least one person

who spouts unpopular views. If we now make the Wright thing into a major issue, then that makes almost every future potential politician automatically unelectable. The guilt by association thing can only go so far... The media truly overplayed their hand, but we shall see on Tuesday...

[Andrea]

88. This is not an article.

It is an opinion column. Please note that it is in the Opinion section of the paper. It would be wise for people to learn the difference between the two. It would also be wise for people to learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.