New Poll Shows African American Community Abandoning Democratic Party

Please Susan, I'm tired of that shitty argument that somehow the Democrats in 2005 who were in a 55-45 minority should have forced the Republicans to use the nucelar option and shut down the U.S. Senate rather than accept the compromise from the Gang of 14. The fact of the matter is, if you have a Republican president and a Republican senate majority, you're going to get conservative Supreme Court nominees. Laying down in front of that train would only have damaged our party further. 

I blame Terry McAullife for not adequately planning for the loss of the Southern Democrats who retired that year. 

white voters' support for obama is elastic, and will come back as this reverend wright nonsense is digested and expelled as the nonsense that it is. 

on the other hand, black voters' support ain't coming back if a race-baiter is the nominee.  it's gone.  possible, for good.   and i can hardly blame them.

Do you have ANY evidence that white voters' support for Obama is elastic while black support for Clinton is not? Not even Jerid was willing to go that far in his post.

After post after post after post after post about how Wright was a non-issue and wouldn't hurt Obama, you've got some stones to talk about misleading.

Obama is losing support among independents and white voters in large numbers.  That's a fact and there is no objective data to suggest otherwise.  Whether those voters may later return?  That's speculation that is going to take time and polling data to establish. 

You've yet to articulate how what I just wrote is "misleading" when you just simply wish to disagree with (or ignore) it.

just ask yourself, modern.

if you were black, and the Democratic Party nominee got the nomination by race-baiting for months, and then made her final argument for overturning the will of the electorate by superdelegate by saying that the man's pastor was too racist, and therefor the candidate was unelectable, would you ever vote for that Democratic Party nominee?  

i'm sure you'll say you would vote for such a nominee if you were black, because that's how HRC's campaign works.  just say anything.   

i'm gonna take this as you deciding you want coup by superdelegate so we can lose African Americans for a generation.  consider the peace talks over.   

Modern and Russo, cool it. If Hillary somehow pulls the nomination out she'll be all but forced to put Obama on the ticket as VP and that will quell this racial nonsense. Obama is only 46 and after 8 years as Veep would be in a good position to run for President. Black voters know that, too. 

And Modern, if Obama is the nominee he'll be forced to pick a white male from the south with good national security credentials. I'm thinking Wes Clark. That will help him with the independents and the white voters. Then he should hire Rahm Emmanuel to be his campaign manager (he's from Chicago too, isn't he?) so Rahm can force him to grow a spine and start calling this bullshit what it is. 

That ain't happening.  I'm black.  I live in the Cleveland area and although my evidence is merely anectdotal, African-Americans do not want Obama on the down side of the ticket.

In fact, we generally don't want him on a Clinton ticket at all.  She is political poison.  You see, Dr. Truth in all sincerity the Clintons have found a way to alienate the African-American vote.  If she steals the nomination, it won't be coming back for a long, long time.  That includes me.  I can exercise my right to vote by showing up at the polls, voting for what's down ticket and leaving the president's slot blank if Clinton is the nominee.  My conscience will allow that.

Sorry, but there are just certain lines you cannot cross.

And you know that.

The poll shows that a majority of a demographic which has almost universally backed Obama (African American voters) would vote for Hillary in the general election.  However, the same poll shows that only 36% of the white vote, a demographic that Obama has not done well with in the primaries, would vote for Obama if he's the nominee in the general election.

The poll numbers themselves suggest you've got the elasticity backwards.

Obama's poll numbers lately suggest he is unelectable.  You want to ignore that just as much as you keep on wanting to believe that this Rev. Wright stuff is a non-story.

And second, we weren't having "peace talks."  You, Jerid, and others were  trying to get me to switch my allegiance from my candidate, who actually carried this bloody state this blog is supposed to be about, for yours.

And I hope that you remind yourself about your distaste for coup by superdelegates as you push Ohio's superdelegates to ignore the will of Ohio's voters and vote for your candidate, so that he gets more of a share of the Ohio delegation than he actually earned in the election.

Do you seriously believe white voters will leave either party for the longterm. I'm going to guess you don't believe that (if you do, please, spell out your argument).

As far as 36% goes, I think that will change in a general election. Also, I don't think we're at 36% because of anger, more likely because of a whole host of reasons. I think the 55% number does represent anger that could hurt our Democratic majority.

No need to get angry over this post or claim dishonesty. I tried to approach it in a pretty open way. We have a problem here, regardless of whether Hillary is the nominee. If you don't recognize this problem, it'll spell long term problems for our policy ideals and common goals. 

No, not any more than I believe that the African American vote will abandon the Democratic Party longterm. Might they sit this one out? Some may. According to Rasmussen, a minority of African Amercians right now claim they will abandon the Democratic Party in the general election if Hillary is the nominee.

However a substantial majority of white voters say they will abandon the Democratic Party in the general if Obama is the nominee.

Which hurts the party most in the general election? Losing the 64% of the white vote.

If you want to ignore the fact that Obama's favorability ratings have nosedived by ten points in the last month and now his unfavorability ratings are equal to or perhaps greater than his favorability ratings, go right ahead.

Right now, Obama as the nominee costs us OH, MN, MA, and MO.  You talk about how badly Clinton loses to McCain, but ignore that the same poll shows Obama loses by statistically the same margin.

Your headline is called misleading because it is, Jerid.  It's no secret that Obama has had nearly 100% of the African American vote in the primaries.  The Rasmussen poll says that 55% of African Americans say they would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee.  Now, generic Democratic performance with African-American voters typically is about 80%. 

So, you're taking a poll that shows a majority of African Americans would vote for Hillary Clinton in the general in margins larger than she does with other demographics and conflating it to say that the entire African American community, in a monolithic fashion, will abandon the Democratic Party on nothing more than the fact that, right now, Hillary does 25 points worse with the African American community than Democrats normally, even though she still carries the majority of the African American vote by margins larger than she does with rest of the general election vote.

Then, with absolutely no data to back up your claim, you brush aside any concern that only 36% of white voters say they would vote for Obama in the general election.  Hillary gets a majority of a demographic that hasn't been supporting her in the primary, and you write that the African American community (which the poll shows a majority supporting her in the general) is ABANDONING the party if she's the nominee.  Then, when that same poll shows that Obama does not get a majority of a demographic that hasn't been supporting him in the primary, and in fact does much worse (36%), you claim it's not a problem.  64% of white voters, according to the poll you cite as credible, say they will not vote for Obama in the general election, and you want to focus on the minority of African American voters who say they won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee??

What?!?

The Dems are screwed all right, but instead of parroting rightwing talking points that blame everything on the Clintons, maybe people should open their eyes and see that it's Obama himself and his quasi-evangelical movement running amok that are indeed taking the party down. 

Inconvenient truth, but we'll have plenty of time to rehash everything while President McCain keeps the fires burning in Iraq.  Hell, maybe even some of you holier than thou elitists will end up in Iraq with my son. Now, that's what I call bringing us all together. < /snark>

And Brody, I'm not unloading all this on you personally, your post was just a convenient jumping off point.

I was going to stay off this site till after the primaries, but hell, it's ALL over at this point as far as I'm concerned, the Dems have committed suicide AGAIN.   Thanks for nothing, you guys.

maybe even some of you holier than thou elitists will end up in Iraq with my son

When did your son join the military?  I'm an Army vet who would like to know since you like to bring the subject up so often. 

signed his papers when Clinton was still President and before we landed in neocon hell. He has by some bizarre set of circumstances managed to stay out of Iraq for the past four years, but that is going to change now that the Army is keeping him on active duty beyond the required four years. If you pray, please remember him.

On edit: oh and, thank you for your service.  Those who serve are in a real minority these days. 

Those who serve are in a real minority these days

I know.  I joined in 1981 against the advice of family and peers.  NONE of my friends from a parochial high school joined the military.  I joined out of a sense of duty and obligation to my country.

I wouldn't have made the same decision today.  If I were still in the military at the time of the first gulf war I would have deserted.  That's what anybody in the military right now should do.

your sense of duty to at least those you serve with is too strong

Most people in the army during my stint in the 80s were there because they had few, if any, other options.  I didn't relate to most.  As a matter of fact I didn't like too many of my fellow enlistees.  Outside of the officer corps I'm sure the same is true today except magnified tenfold.  I'd have had no problem being a New Zealander if asked to fight for this country in any conflict beginning with Gulf War 1.

about us letting our military down by not having a better handle on what our government is doing in our name.

And I have to struggle to understand the whole duty thing. It's something my son chose, even though he had a million options open to him. Maybe I taught him too well that it's good to serve others, but I'm not sure I'll ever understand why he chose this particular way. 

The military is simply a tool of the government.  I no longer have any respect for my government or my "fellow" citizens who long ago abdicated their responsibilities in regard to the government. 

I felt a sense of duty to a country that seemed like a cohesive whole.  If that was the reality at the time, I don't know.  I was young.  What I know now is that the country is a diseased, fragmented shambles.  That's fine.  The people of this country deserve nothing less.  Let's just do something about our country's desire to spread the diseases elsewhere.  That's my only true political motivation anymore. 

I can't say I disagree with you. I think my son (because he's young) still clings to some belief that we the people are the government and we can turn this thing around. I hope he doesn't die thinking that.

The only reason  I've stayed involved in national politics this long is because I feel it would be a betrayal of him NOT to be engaged and try to do something to change the policies he is a pawn to.

But I really don't believe we have the power to change things at that level. Our sphere of influence includes our families and friends and neighbors and we might catch a few interested bystanders along the way. We have to be actively engaged in changing our neighborhoods and our schools and our cities before we can affect our foreign policy; we can't grab the tail of a nominal movement and expect to change the world if we haven't done our homework and built our foundations. And I DON'T see large numbers of people doing the hard, slow work of engaging and making things happen, so I'm not optimistic. 

I hope he doesn't die thinking that

It is for this reason I've chosen to support Obama.  I don't give a rip about domestic issues, as explained in a previous post, but his call for change resonates most deeply with me on the international front.  I appreciate his desire for diplomatic relations without preconditions and the fact that he is not (currently) in the back pocket of AIPAC.

I view Hillary in the same light as her husband and Joe Lieberman on the international issues.  I haven't forgiven Bill the bombing of Yugoslavia for reasons that also proved bogus.  More of the same?  I think not.  Although I would expect to be proven naive even if Obama gains the WH.

I'm fine with his call for change, I just don't think he has enough international experience under his belt at this point to pull it off.  But any Democrat will call for an end to the PNAC policy and then suffer the consequences of disentanglement.  McCain won't. So we're screwed. 

And secondly, we have radically different views of what happened in Yugoslavia, which I believe Obama would have supported wholeheartedly, based on his choices for foreign policy advisers.

See, we did that without name calling. :)

We will never agree at this point on which of our candidates offers the greatest potential for change on international issues.

In the meantime, I will just glow in the humorous fact that the U.S. military claimed to have destroyed over 200 Yugoslav (Serb) tanks during the bombing of that country.  Independent sources verified the killed tank count as.............  EIGHT! 

Oh, and a rhinocerus at the Belgrade zoo that went crazy from the bombing and killed itself by ramming its own head against a wall. 

it's probably a moot point. (which of our candidates offers the greatest potential for change on international issues) Because we'll never find out.

One thing I'm 99% sure of is that I will never in my lifetime get to vote for a president I'm truly excited about.

That's awful about the rhino! Any time the war genie gets out of the bottle, there are always unintended bad consequences. Much better to avoid it altogether, but I'm afraid that goes against human nature.

it's probably a moot point... Because we'll never find out.

One thing I know for certain is that the average American has the attention span of a house fly.  Public opinion can shift wholesale in a day or two.  Yeah, right now I'd have to agree that it's not looking good for the semi-sane half of our nation.  I'm not ready to write off the Dems chances yet tho.

I won't even express my opinion about what should happen between Clinton and Obama to get things moving in the right direction.  Part of me says that they can continue to bloody each other until the convention and then Obama (hehehe) can take advantage of the American house fly syndrome to still pull off a general win. 

Anything goes.

The Democrats lost control of the Congress in 1994, not 1996.  Second, to say that the Clintons didn't care when we lost Congress is blatantly untrue or that they don't care now.

The Clintons worked incredibly hard to erase the the Republican majorities in Congress which grew smaller and smaller until 2006, when we were able to take back control.  How many millions of dollars have the Clinton raised for the DCCC the DSCC and the DNC, even after they left the White House?

In 1996, the Clintons personally campaign and fundraised for a freshman Democratic Congressman who lost his seat in 1994.  That Congressman is now our Governor. (Perhaps you should read the article I linked, and think before you write again.)

You think the Clintons have no part in the fundraising advantage those organizations have now?

There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize the Clintons, but to say that they didn't care about our party losing control of Congress, didn't care about our party when they were in office, and don't care know is the rantings of a person who has put his own candidate's future ahead of rational thinking.  It is categorically false and baseless.

The fact that you don't even know what year the Republicans took over control of the Congress demonstrates how ill-informed you really are.