Hillary Clinton can reach 270 Electoral Votes with the help of her broad coalition that includes Rural America.
Hey Texas. Are you a rural voter? You seem to care about this population so much, will you help the democratic bring in the vote here when the democratic nominee takes on McCain?
See downthread, was born and rasied in a rural small town.
Um...just an idea -- focus on the issues raised in the diary rather than me...?
I'm flattered, and all, but I'm not the one running for POTUS.
I was born and raised in a small rural town, and currently live in a small town.
Why you care about where I live, though, seems like misplaced interest.
Hey "duende", are you a ?
Cheers!
Aren't we all?
Are you? Any clues to the hand inside the sock. My clue has a BRITish connection. What's your excuse?
Whomever is nominated, we need to put the Democratic coalition based on working class voters of all races, genders, and ethnicities back together. That actually matters more than the identity of the nominee to me. That is, beating McCain is more important than either Obama or Clinton.
1/2 of the Democratic coalition will not do it. We need the urban and the rural; men and women; blacks and whites; Hispanics and Anglos; Asian Americans, European Americans, African Americans, gay and straight. The common denominator holding together the Democratic coalition is a desire for fairness, an end to the great economic inequality that has been growing. The Democratic party is the party of working people.
Tom is precisely right. You're breaking this down into an us-versus-them between Obama and Clinton on who's got the neatest "coalition", and what's more important.
I say to you something I think many people are missing- every single voter is important.
I don't care if they voted for George Bush twice, have eighteen American flags, play that Toby Keith 9/11 song nonstop, listen to Rush Limbaugh only when they're not watching Fox News, and picket abortion clinics in their spare time. We need to reach out to them, at the very least. We need to let everyone know that they are important parts of our coalition, no matter their background, race, color, creed, social status, income, etc.
"I say to you something I think many people are missing- every single voter is important."
Unless they live in Florida or Michigan....
Unless they fall late in the cycle after many many many Obama supporters have called for Hillary to drop out of the race...
Unless they live in Texas where the voters clearly voted for Hillary but Obama got more delegates...
The new found belief in Democracy from Obama supporters is not real.
I agree, but after sentiments like Obama's 'religion, guns, and bitterness' comment, underscored by Donna Brazile's 'we don't need them' comment, if Democrats don't ultimately coalesce, we'll know why.
Donna B did not say we do not need those voters, as you well know, she said we don't have to rely on only those voters. See the difference?
We don't need them.
We don't have to rely on them.
Same difference.
Dude how dare you trust your own eyes and ears.
She didn't say that.
You must be bitter.
No one in the Obama camp pretending to be neutral could ever say anything intended to sway voters for Obama.
Right Dean? Right Pelosi? Right Donna?
Nope. Not the same difference at all
I repeat, "we don't have to rely on ONLY those voters". Do you really not see the difference, or do you need help with comprehension?
"Paul, you're looking at the old coalition.. and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics."
So if she said that we don't have to rely on only AA support, would that mean that she no longer wants them in the party? That would not be correct, and you know it.
The fact of the matter is she didn't say "we don't have to rely on only AA support", for obvious reasons, which only serves to underscore my point regarding the constituencies she did single out, and you know it :)
That's dependent on who's running. If it's Obama expect 60%+ of gay and lesbian voters to stay home. You can also count out those millions of dollars that wealthy gay and lesbians give to the DNC. There's been some growing discontent within the community made worse recently by comments made by Donna Brazile and several Congressional Black Caucus members. The cats out of the bag regarding the lack of support on behalf of the DNC in defeating ballot measures. There is also the troubling problem of Howard Dean recently firing two of the gay and lesbian outreach liaisons because they could not control the gay press. Which has been none to complimentary towards the DNC lately and with good reason. There should be no place for this in the DNC but alas here is where we are.
Really - got any poll data for that, or are you just making stuff up?
Wow, are you serious? My experience with gay and lesbian voters isn't vast, but around here (Seattle) I've seen a huge amount of enthusiasm for Obama, and no intention whatsoever of sitting out the election. Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people!
One of the interesting things I've found about this site is that what people are reporting voters think and feel is so often so diametrically opposed to what I see in my daily life, where I know both Obama and Hillary supporters well, and live in a city but have deep and continuing ties in rural areas. I suppose it could be that as a pretty blue state, people aren't quite so rabid about their positions here, but it does strike me as strange how different life seems to be in other communities. I've never once, for example, met a single Democrat on either side threatening to vote for McCain - it would never cross most regular people's minds to vote against their own interests in that way after we've all suffered under 8 years of Bush.
these rural voters picked Clinton over Obama in a primary. It does not follow they will pick McCain over Obama in the general.
Say, for example, most of them are hard-left on economic issues and they found Clinton's more progressive. If they're only voting their pocketbook, they're all likely to go for Obama anyway since he's better than McCain. Add Obama's appeal to independants and Republicans, and he might well do better in those areas then Clinton would have.
I'm not saying that's especially likely. I'm saying that losing any demographic in a primary does not translate to losing it in the general.
Yeah, it's so easy for Obama to do better than Hillary among her very own supporters than she would his supporters. Boy, you Obama folks are really driving it hard--let up a bit and get some sleep.
Hillary doesn't own these people (and I'm quite well-rested, thank you).
Bush won Iowa in the 2000 primaries, but lost NH. In the general, he lost Iowa and won NH, both by very close margins. Correlations between primary and general support are weak at best.
Hillary supporters, wherever they are, can vote for Obama or McCain in the general, or stay home. I don't know for sure what they'll do, but neither do you. I simply try not to cloak my ignorance in arrogant snark.
