Here’s an interesting theory on why Clinton won’t win the Washington caucuses tomorrow:
With Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama engaged in a fight for delegates to the national convention, the state of Washington’s 78 pledged delegates are highly coveted by the two Democrats. Mr. Obama has been organizing in the state for nearly a year, with five offices here. Mrs. Clinton has spent as much time here as he has, and began running a television advertisement this week, focusing on health care.
But Mrs. Clinton, who has not done as well in the caucus states as Mr. Obama has, winning only two of nine so far, suggested that she did not expect to win in Washington, as many of her supporters would be too busy working to break away from their schedules and spend the time to caucus for her.
“If this were a primary, where everybody could vote all day, I’d feel pretty good about it,” she said. “But it’s not. It’s a caucus.”
The caucuses are taking place at 1pm on a Saturday afternoon. I don’t know what it is about Hillary’s base that makes them disproportionately more likely to be at work at that time than Obama’s base. Your guess is as good as mine. On the surface, the comment doesn’t make any sense at all. Yet, the clear implication is that Obama’s voters are all unemployed.
I understand the need to lower expectations and all that, but this just continues a pattern of disrespect that I long ago found worse than troubling, but disqualifying. What is it about Obama, after all, that makes Clinton think that his base doesn’t work? Do you have good explanation for that?
I’ve been thinking about it and I don’t know what she could possibly mean other than black people don’t work. Of course, were talking about 1 o’clock on a Saturday afternoon. A lot of people don’t work on Saturday afternoon. But you know who does? Service workers…waiters, dishwashers, line-cooks, hotel maids, taxi drivers, mailmen, etc. These are the kind of people the Clintons tried to disenfranchise in the Nevada caucuses. And they don’t necessarily prefer Clinton over Obama.
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers spent Friday trying to lower expectations for her performance not just in the Washington caucuses, but in nominating contests throughout February.
“The states in play this month do favor Senator Obama,” said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman, during a conference call with reporters. He cited Mr. Obama’s endorsements and his lead in the polls in states like Virginia. “We feel considerably better about the states on March 4.”
Presumably on March 4th it won’t make any difference that Clinton’s supporters have jobs and Obama’s don’t.
Both Clinton and Obama are evenly matched from a demographics standpoint. Each have built a coalition but its not yet a majority coalition.
I believe that whoever wins the nomination the other 50% will be quite unhappy. The Republicans are in the same boat this year.
Similar to the Red/Blue divide we now have the equivalent divide in each party. This could lead to a very fractured polity over the next President’s term.
I agree since I like both candidates very much and dislike to see Hillary’s words being twisted to put her in the wrong and make her look like a fool. Only a fool would think that Obama’s supporters don’t have jobs, and I’m sure that’s not what she meant. It’s fair to back your favorite and point out their strengths, but I think for the sake of the future of the party, and our own peace of mind, it’s best not to go negative on either of our Democratic candidates. They are both great candidats in their different ways and whoever gets the nomination has my total support. I want us to win this time.
I’m willing to listen to a good faith explanation for her comments.
At first I thought, ‘Maybe Hillary thought the caucus was on a workday.’
But, first of all, that’s ridiculous. Of course she knows that it is a Saturday. Then I tried to come up with some explanation for why she would think her voters would be at work and Obama’s wouldn’t. And I couldn’t come up with anything other that that she thinks Obama’s voters just don’t work at all.
It’s even worse than that because it should be obvious that white voters are much less likely to be working at 1pm on Saturday than black voters. That’s because black voters are much more likely to work in the service industries and less likely to work 9-5 M-F jobs.
So, actually, it’s Obama that has the disadvantage. And that’s precisely why she fought the casino workers caucuses in Nevada. As it turned out, she did just fine with those casino workers, but those workers were employed, which was the problem…the reason they needed a special caucus.
In any case, I don’t know that I am twisting her words. What else could they mean?
She didn’t do as well with the casino workers as you might think. She packed those open caucus sites with nurses from nearby hospitals who worked close enough to the casinos to qualify to be there.
well, that was her right, and kudos to her for pulling it off.
Yeah, it was fair game. And clever. No problems with it. My point was that the actual casino/hotel workers were diluted by this, even though most of the Hispanic women from the casinos and hotels (a HUGE group) were already for her. She tried so hard to stack the deck in her favor that she didn’t realize that it wasn’t really even necessary. But things got pretty ugly at some of those sites as a result.
But nurses work on Saturdays.
I just ditched a comment I was going to make because at the end of it, I realized that Obama’s people are more likely going to be hurt by the voting time and not the rich white dems. I can only think that maybe she is trying to pass herself off as the candidate of the underclass workers, those who work all hours for no pay. It sounds crazy until you consider that Bush just announced that we are spreading peace and prosperity. :>)
from seattlepi.com
Have Clintons worn out welcome?
Obama’s supporters are disproportionately young compared to Clinton’s. Therefore more likely to be either unemployed (going to school) or only employed part time.
The mantra around here lately that Hillary is The Devil Incarnate is getting old.
This seems to correspond with the view of some of her on line supporters. For instance, in the thread on the Nebraska caucuses over at dKos a Hillary supporter said said they weren’t surprised for heavy turnout for Obama:
Of course this makes no sense. Most kids I know who are going to school need to work and they tend to work on weekends.
LOL!!!
This isn’t twisting of her words. She is a trained lawyer. She was the presumptive nominee for President of the United States, and probably the presumptive winner of the General election not so many weeks ago.
Her own words make her comments bizarre and open to what she intended. Please don’t delude yourself into believing that every word she is supposed to say for public consumption is vetted by a team of people.
Booman simply tried to analyze what the political purpose was for her poor choice of words. There is little doubt in my mind that the words were intended as some sort of slight or one-upsmanship in comparing her own supporters and those of Sen. Obama. Also, a crass political ploy to dampen expectations as her campaign thinks she’s getting waxed again.
She and her family and her campaign are a divisive influence on the American body politic. Life long leftist here. I wouldn’t spit in her direction come the general.
I can cut her some slack here. When you are up in front of people all the time, talking and talking, you can misspeak.
Still, she was trying to make some point. It may have meant little more than the kids who back Obama can spend all day at a caucus. She was trying to denigrate caucuses. She seems to lose most of them, so maybe she was being a sore loser in advance of the ones coming up. You know, lowered expectations.
Can we get back to discussing how CSNBC hate Hillary and how using “pimp” is the most sexist thing ever written? I think we haven’t gotten to the bottom of that one yet.
And that has been the Karl Rove stradegy all along. He did everything in his power to divide the dems but has succeeded in also dividing the repugs by being Bush’s Brain.
I think what she’s saying is that her supporters work so hard, that they even have to work hard on the weekends. Of course, she’s wrong…I gotta work tomorrow and I’m not voting her.
I don’t think so. That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Remember Super Tuesday? The narrative was that Obama was reeling in those that make more $150K, while Clinton had a lockdown on people making less than $15K a year. On MSNBC, they kept pounding that and even in the interview with Dean, whoever was interviewing kept asking, (paraphrasing)”Well, Obama’s supporters are richer and more educated. Isn’t that a disconnect from the meat and potatoes Democrats?” I should look that up…Her campaign has been running the frame that her supporters are working class people and his aren’t. I don’t know how that plays in the northern states Obama won, but that’s what the Clinton’s are pushing.
interveiwing Terry McCulliff I believe.
This was an interview with Howard Dean. I think it was Olbermann interviewing.
I saw her comment on this today and she made an example of two nurses that she spoke to who work on Saturday and won’t be able to caucus.
She just knows she’s in trouble in WA. Her voters seem to fit into a few demographic groups, but most of which are pretty ignorant toward “politics.” The low-information voters. They’re voting for her either because of name recognition or just because she’s a woman and they want a woman to win.
Problem is, these low-information voters just aren’t interested in going to caucuses. Sure, some of her older women supporters are committed enough to get a woman into the white house that they will go out of their way to show up. But most won’t bother because they really don’t like politics enough to spend an hour or two in a caucus. They’ll spend two minutes filling out a ballot but they don’t want to caucus.
High-information voters and political junkies who can’t get enough of the stuff (like us) wouldn’t miss a caucus for the world. These people who are curious enough about politics and government to have actually studied the field and, as a result, are naturally more interested in her opponent.
well, even if what you say is true, it still doesn’t make sense of her comments.
And I don’t think we should disrespect Clinton’s older female voters. It means a tremendous amount to them to see a woman give a serious run for president. There’s nothing wrong with that.
From her comments, I did not get the impression that she was trying to suggest anything like what you inferred. Until I read this post, it had never occurred to me that she might be that Obama’s supporters are unemployed. And I still don’t see it, really.
When I watched her rally today, she got big applause for all the stuff she’s promising to do for The People when she gets the presidency. But when she “told” the audience that she needs them to go out and caucus tomorrow, not so much enthusiasm from the crowd. Her message is all wrong. She’s not “asking” the audience to be a part of this with her and do their part to make change. She’s top-down, not bottom-up.
She needed to come up with some excuse for why she won’t do well tomorrow without insulting her own supporters, who aren’t interested in caucusing. That’s just the best she could come up with I guess.
that would rather sit this one out than to ever vote for Billary, I think her “older female voters” are voting on the sole basis of her being female. And that flabbergasts me. She is so far removed from the mainstream and it is so obvious. How many times has she tried(or her campaign has done this) to reinvent herself to the new and improved Hill, the softer spoke, the emotional, I have hurt feelings Hillary. I am embarrassed to be lumped in with these women. I thought we were a smarter generation.
I would love to see a woman in the White House but just not this woman. An authentic, honest, real woman.
Yes, I have to agree. “Low information” is one way of describing this constituency.
As the early frontrunner, who enjoyed the twin advantages of name recognition and being anointed by the MSM, Clinton was bound to appeal to ‘traditional’ democratic groups, such as blue collar workers, who are less likely to stray from the Democratic mainstream.
This would almost lead one to think that Clinton’s base is lower income groups, but her fund raising figures don’t tell this story. Older women, and older adults in general, aren’t a lower income group. However, they do show an allegiance to the Democratic mainstream.
It’s also quite clear that younger voters would be influenced by this purported ‘lower-income’ effect, since they are relatively poorer, but that’s quite obviously not the case.
Explaining Clinton’s appeal as an income effect is misleading, since their is a complex interplay of income and other demographic attributes. It’s obviously self-serving (as well as possibly false), since they’re trying to appeal to these groups. But the reason she has appealed to them (in the past tense), appears to have less to do with being their champion than with they’re being the ‘trailing edge’ of the party.
The clearest distinction between Clinton and Obama constituencies appears to be an education effect, and this has been shown quite dramatically in caucus states. I expect this effect will become less pronounced in the coming weeks, as the Obama campaign makes more penetration with ‘traditionalist’ democratic constituencies.
Here’s an example of why young people aren’t interested in Hillary:
That is an official web video from Clinton for the “younger demographic.” It is so inauthentic and lame that it is actually offensive to the targeted audience. Her campaign advisers probably think it’s really hip and all, but it just shows how out of touch they really are.
Compare and contrast with will.i.am’s gift to the Obama campaign – the “Yes We Can” song and video.
okay, that’s worse than pathetic.
Everyone been talking about that video for the past few days. Talking about how lame it is. This is my first time seeing it and I couldn’t even get past the middle. That was kind of pathetic. It makes me want to cry.
Speaking of the youth, I posted this last night:
Ouch!
That was painful.
lol!
You know … I’ve been impressed by a number of Hillary’s commercials that have required to her “act” Hillary. I thought that video she and Bill made in the diner last year (a take off of the end of The Sopranos) was great. Seriously. I thought they did a great job.
And I thought she did a great job in her Christmas ad that ran in Iowa where she played herself wrapping presents. I said somewhere at the time that Hillary isn’t a bad actress – she can make these things look real.
I think this video might be a clue to her intentions if she doesn’t win the nomination. She’s going to star in an updated version of the Partridge Family.
This is REALLY from her campaign? I thought it was a spoof, a parody.
I swear, every innovation from Barack Obama and his campaign is met with desperate me-tooism. And it never quite works. Wonder why?
I had the volume down and I could tell it was lame. And I’m over 50! With the volume up it isn’t any better. Reminds me of those commercials and TV shows back in the Sixties where old, square, unhip types tried to either (1) write stuff that was new, hip, groovy and happening, you dig? or (2) tried to convince the kids that they were new, hip, groovy and happening, you dig? It just, like, wasn’t happening.
I think I really need to take a major break from your posts. You’re really beginning to sound as unhinged as our friends on the right side of the aisle.
Take a vacation.
I know Booman wears his big boy Underoos and can defend himself, but calling him “unhinged” was mean, completely off the mark and definitely uncalled for.
but i think you’re wrong and this post is actually sort of insensitive. what did she say? she said that a caucus (time specific, public, etc) worries her more than an ‘all day, everybody’ voting event. what’s so nonsensical about that? she wants everyone to vote, she saying an ‘event voting’ process is less in her favor. and that’s “wrong” somehow?
no, you’re totally missing the point, judging on the basis of what you have quoted*.
*i’ve learned never to say anything too total on the basis of “what the candidate said,” because so many times, the quote in question is taken outer-galaxy out of context. i don’t read a lot of this primary/horserace stuff for exactly that reason.
and: so what if obama’s followers are, or are not, unemployed? what the fuck does that have to do with anything, vis a vis their worth as voters? unemployed, black, poor, rich, white, gay, vagina, penis: one vote is one vote. if we take the lobby/corporate money out of the process, it’s even more fun. it doesn’t seem a point upon which to plant a “controversy,” that hillary doesn’t like the caucus process. anyone who loves democracy, the real kind, won’t either. she did ( or not) suggest that obama’s supporter are (or not) poor. so?
so what policies/voting records do both have for addressing the mortgage implosion? is that important?
but wow, this is really a good example of ‘not getting it.’
how nice it must be for you to never imagine having to work on a Sat afternoon. have you ever lived, truly “paycheck to paycheck?” do you know what that is like, to have to say, “Yes, I’ll be there” when your boss calls you unexpectedly on fri morning and says you have to cover a Sat shift? “you don’t know” about why some people work on Saturdays, well, ok then. you don’t.
i am not a fan of hillary. but even i can understand why a “vote at this time and no other” event seem undemocratic. to her, or to anyone. saturday isn’t a protected, “holy” day for everyone. some people have to work then. have.to.
Look at this paragraph in the article more closely:
Hillary is saying that there is something different about her supporters than Barack’s supporters, that more of her supporters would be affected by the caucus time than his supporters. It’s not about an inability to imagine having to work on a Saturday afternoon, having to live “paycheck to paycheck” – it’s a question of why does Hillary think that the caucus schedule disproportionately affects her supporters more than Barack Obama’s supporters.
Her point isn’t that caucuses are undemocratic, she’s assessing her chances of winning caucuses. Why does she believe that her chances are diminished more than Barack Obama’s in a caucus? I, too, am awaiting an honest answer on that.
she is “their” candidate, isn’t she?
again, i fail to see the controversy. she said (or so i assume from this quote) that some of her supporters can’t make a sat caucus. therefore, she’s not happy about that, and is speaking out on their behalf. no one is interviewing them, so it’s good that she does, so their views are represented.
caucusing is undemocratic. period. complaining about it is a good thing, in my book. sorry if the obama supporters don’t like to hear the truth of this aspect of the process. but being good at caucusing isn’t the same thing as proving broad, statewide appeal. people who believe obama will do really well in the general should keep this in mind.
gack, back to not reading or commenting on the “hillbama wars” for me.
But you still ignore the question: why are her supporters all hard at work when Obama’s are not? All you’ve done so far is misdirection.
It’s like you didn’t read what I wrote. Here’s a reminder:
Is there something in there that suggests I don’t understand what it means to have to work on a Saturday? In fact, that’s my whole point. Hillary’s voters are less likely to be at work than Obama’s. So her own argument is bullshit. But she made it. She still has to explain why she is only going to lose today because her voters have to work, and if it were a primary she would feel good about her chances. She said it, I didn’t.
Booman, your over the top with this one. I saw that whole clip of her speech and you are so very wrong in your charicterization. You can rant and rave until the cows come home, but what you have done is taken a snippet out of context and have blown it out of proportion.
This seems beneath you.
Don’t let hatred cloud your judgement or your writing.
so what is the correct context? I asked people to provide a better context. What is it?
Sorry, Boo, that’s bullshit. The biggest part of Clinton’s base is single moms, and if you’d ever been one, you’d know how exhausted you are by the weekend. But you STILL have to go to the laundramat, food shopping, homework, school projects, bake cupcakes for school, take the kids to church Sunday, go visit your elderly parents, etc. (maybe you even have an extra job – I know I did) and fitting a caucus into that schedule has to be weighed as a long-term benefit against some short-term pain. Of course it presents a problem for Clinton!
Nothing wrong with her saying so.
Actually what is BULLSHIT is Hillary.
Anyone else notice how the escalation of racist, mysogonistic rhetoric is being blamed on the fact that it is a woman is an African American that are candidates…THAT IS BULLSHIT….the escalation is due to the fact that the ClintonS are running, to gain power, to redue their failures.
The ClintonS ONLY know how to run in a climate of adversity. The ClintonS only know how to run by CREATING a climate during their campaigns based on adverse issues, they need cover up for all of the negative baggage they have collected over their friggin 35 years of experience. The ClintonS know EXACTLY what they are doing, they know reporters are working on stories about who is financing their campaign, what and WHO bigdog has been doing all over Europe while raising money. This attack on the press while at times may be warranted, is a cover up, because now NO ONE is asking questions about the latest fundraising…
is the 8 mil for the primaries or general?
Is she paying herself the 5 mil back from it?
Where are the tax forms to see IF it really is Hillary’s money?
Is someone bundling that money for her on-line?
Hey it is easy to attack Tweety and Shuster and create all the faux outrage and not want to debate on NBC. Which is also BULLSHIT, because I know for a FACT the crew from NBC is already in Ohio preparing for it, because she agreed to do it yesterday! She NEEDS the free airtime!
Anyone who thinks that this bad now, JUST WAIT …IF…IF she gets the nom.
She has creaated even more enemies now within the press, and they don’t forget. If you think her coverage is bad now, it is only a flicker of what is to come. We can all blame the press and some can say the press is just out to get democrats, maybe that is partly true, BUT…add into that mix the ClintonS and we are in for a bumpy ride indeed. Hillary knows exactly how to frame things , she also has help from her Rove’s Wolfson and Penn. As Clyburn said, the ClintonS know about CODE words and these are more code words. And Bill is backkkkk yesterday criticizing Obama and talking about how great the 90’s were…you know how great NAFTA, DOMA, DON’T ASK Don’t Tell are!….geezz what a pair!
Sorry for the rant, I am just over them!
I think it’s only a certain age segment of single mothers that support Hillary. The ones my age and younger don’t seem that impressed.
God, I can’t wait till primary season is over…will it ever end?
All the data I’ve seen suggests that single mothers are splitting their vote. Hillary’s support is among married women and older women. Unmarried women and younger women are voting 50-50 at best.
Clinton supporters are just so much more industrious than any other group. I don’t know, BooMan. Maybe she’s just saying that Obama supporters are lazy. Thet might actually be taking time on Saturdays to be with their kids, read a book, paint a painting…
And then there’s basketball and swimming lessons… 🙂
Every single bit of caucus literature I’ve read so far (flyers, web sites, etc.) makes a point of saying you can take your kids to the caucus. It’s good for ’em. Teaches ’em about democracy at work.
They also say your kids can’t vote at the caucus unless they’ll be 18 on Election Day. Well, not exactly in those words, but they do say so.
Well I tried to justify the words. But every time took the message — she’s going to lose because the people most likely to vote for her think other things in their lives are more important than “breaking away from their schedules” to vote for her – I couldn’t come up with a reason why those other things had to necessarily be “working”.
I thought maybe she meant he had a lot of young college students – but they are probably more likely to work on weekends than during the week. Maybe she meant his upper income people who usually play golf on Saturdays. Although to me its unlikely they’d break their golf schedule to go to a caucus! And you pointed out the service worker issue.
It does seem like she’s stereotyping her base as “working” on Saturdays against his base as “not working” on Saturdays.
And btw – Leaving aside exactly what she said, the real story is that she’s diminishing expectations. So if she DOES win, it’s HUGE!!!!! And if she doesn’t, well she didn’t expect to anyway.
Since a lot of what she says means the opposite, she has me worried that she actually expects to win. Like how she diminished California on SuperTuesday.
I’m with you on the dminished expectations game…she’s gaming the system to go gaga over her if she even squeaks out a marginal 0.5% win.
Well, I’m working this Saturday and next Saturday, and it’s going to be difficult for me to get to the primary on Tuesday in Virginia because of the fact that I’m working 14-hour days. But Her Majesty and her supporters never have a problem with stereotyping Obama supporters as spoiled and lazy children, as I’ve heard it over the years.
So, with all that in mind, Clinton can go fuck herself.
Well, I’m working this Saturday and next Saturday, and it’s going to be difficult for me to get to the primary on Tuesday in Virginia because of the fact that I’m working 14-hour days.
I was just going to mention that there are PLENTY of people who may find it difficult to go to vote on Tuesdays. I look forward to hearing about her proposals to make Election Day a national holiday to make it easier for more people to vote.
Whatever. Her phony “voice of the working folk” makes me want to vomit. Just completely insincere.
Anyway, I guess I had just better take my lazy, traitorous, naive, rose-colored glasses wearing, latte and red wine drinking, not-working on Saturday privileged ass out to Costco to buy water and food for the rest of the hundreds of cultists who have the temerity to think there’s a better choice for president than the inevitable one.
Cultists, right. The anti-war, anti-fraudster cultists we are in Camp Obama. I’m sickened just by the sight of Clinton. The race-baiting, the flip-flopping, the lies, the overall ugliness — it’s all got to go. I just hope Democrats aren’t stupid enough to fall for it in the end.
Ok, respectfully, I’m thinking there was no deep meaning to Hillary’s comment. She was defining herself as the underdog in WA to those that were listening, asking them to see her (ok, it’s a stretch) as the victim here of the system. She chose to put the statement out there but I guarantee it was meant to pull on the voters’ heartstrings to work for the underdog.
Yeah, as for the caucus, I’m not a fan, but my precinct has gone out of its way to help each other out with child care offered. The locals are trying to assure that everything is run smoothly, despite the obvious energy of the largest groups ever anticipated, so that families can get through the process; employers are flexible with letting people off for an hour, everyone is trying to make it all work.
But Hillary has to be reminded, all the candidates had the same opportunities to get their message out, if there’s a problem, it’s not with the opportunities.
And I’m sure she’ll say that they favor her since a majority of black folks are working class and have to work long hours. That will harm Obama there according to her logic. Right?
I saw the speech in question and didn’t for one second think she was implying anything about Obama supporters. Instead I got the impression she was preparing to lose the caucus and grabbing at straws to explain to herself why she’s going to lose. It was pathetic. Her two nurse supporters have to work. Her two supporters. har. Like those two women represent a vast underground of support that can’t come to her aid even tho they want to. Hillary sounded sad and tired and defeated. Instead of taking a slap at Obama supporters, I think she was really shaming her own.
this is the only innocent explanation I’ve seen, but it still seems unavoidable that she was disrespecting Obama’s voters by suggesting they don’t work.
This Michigan shit isn’t going away.
http://www.openleft.com/frontPage.do
I guess all those Welfare Queens for Obama don’t have anything better to do than go to a caucus. Hillary’s tin ear will be a source of endless embarrassment and anger if she makes it to the White House.
Apparently BooMan isn’t the only one who interpreted her comments in this fashion. (Warning: Link leads to the Great Orange Satan).