Party Identification All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Democrat 39 % 86 % 11 % 0 % 2 %
Republican 35 % 8 % 91 % 0 % 1 %

VOTE BY PARTY ID BUSH KERRY NADER

Democrat (37%) 11% +0 89% 0%

Republican (37%) 93% +2 6% 0%

Independent (26%) 48% +1 49% 1%

Republicans/Republican leaners

2004 Sep 3-5 ^†
69
18
13
*

Democrats/Democratic leaners

2004 Sep 3-5 ^†
62
29
7
2

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

I think the survey is bunk myself. I am sure there are some people who won't vote for him because of that, but so far there doesn't seem to be a huge number or it would be showing up in the polls.

If Obama were white and had a non-Muslim sounding name, he would be trouncing McCain right now.

Hillary has her own baggage though. The Republicans would have brought up whitewater, etc on her. I also think they had some dirty secret on the clinton they were waiting to use. There was no perfect candidate this year. All of them had their problems.

Can someone explain Whitewater to me? The Clintons did nothing substantially wrong and lost money on the deal. The whole thing was based on David Hale's allegations which never mentioned Bill Clinton until 1993, four years after he had given his initial statement to the FBI.

And if he were white, had a non-muslim sounding name and was a woman he'd be Hillary and be trouncing McCain.

I'm not even a Hillary fan but couldn't resist.

... lost to Hillary in those Appalachian states where lots of white rednecks refuse to vote for a black guy (and even admit it to pollsters).

Like RI, MA and CA? Interesting.

BTW, I read that poll this morning and its utter shit. I would be embarressed being the pollster and having to even ask someone over the phone if they think Black people are lazy? Talk about propagating ridiculous stereotypes.

Like RI, MA and CA? Interesting.

BTW, I read that poll this morning and its utter shit. I would be embarressed being the pollster and having to even ask someone over the phone if they think Black people are lazy? Talk about propagating ridiculous stereotypes.

And this has little or nothing to do with voting for Obama anyway. Attitudes toward generic stereotypes is not the same as the attitude toward a specific candidate. After all, the generic Dem candidate destroyed the generic Rep candidate in national polls. But once you have a name and a face with specific policies and personalities, all of that goes out the window.

I was reading these questions and wondering how I would respond, and basically just kept saying "How can you classify an entire group like that? Sure there are lazy blacks, and there are lazy whites too." It's just ridiculous.

The important thing to get from this, however, is the difference between white Democrats and white Republicans. The republicans are uniformily more negative in their opinions. Someone should remind them of this when they ask "Why do blacks stay with the Democratic party?"

I was reading these questions and wondering how I would respond, and basically just kept saying "How can you classify an entire group like that? Sure there are lazy blacks, and there are lazy whites too." It's just ridiculous.

The important thing to get from this, however, is the difference between white Democrats and white Republicans. The republicans are uniformily more negative in their opinions. Someone should remind them of this when they ask "Why do blacks stay with the Democratic party?"

Ohhh...so that's why the GOP Convention kept reminding everybody that they are the party of Abraham Lincoln.

Like RI, MA and CA? Interesting.

BTW, I read that poll this morning and its utter shit. I would be embarressed being the pollster and having to even ask someone over the phone if they think Black people are lazy? Talk about propagating ridiculous stereotypes.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

The republicans claim they laundered money or something. Foster also comes into this as there are still republicans who say they killed him. I think there are more stories out there. There were rumors that Murdoch had something on them and was waiting for the right moment. I imagine it is another affair by Bill but that was just my guess. Oh the Democrats could trounce a republican. Bill beat Dole by a good margin, it would just take the right candidate.

I disagree. The idea that he got the democratic nomination because he's black and has a muslim sounding name is ridiculous. Obama ran a much better campaign, and largely lost to Hillary in those Appalachian states where lots of white rednecks refuse to vote for a black guy (and even admit it to pollsters).

What Fallows forgot: At the start of his Atlantic piece, Fallows makes a rare admission. “Recently I did what no sane person would,” he admits, seeming to offer a self-diagnosis—“I watched the entire set of presidential primary debates, in sequence, like a boxed set of a TV show.” In short, living in China as he does, Fallows didn’t watch these debates in real time, the way engaged Americans did; he got the whole passel sent to him later and watched the whole boxed set. But if Fallows’ admission is truthful, we find it somewhat puzzling. After all, if Fallows is telling the truth in this passage, then he watched the next Democratic debate—the November 15 event, hosted by Wolf Blitzer. And if he watched that next debate, he saw what happened when Obama was asked the very same question that Clinton had been asked—the question about driver’s licenses. If he watched, he saw Obama fumble the question much as Clinton was alleged to have done, provoking open audience laughter. Let’s say it again: He saw Obama answer this question in very much the way Clinton had done. Here’s the question as Blitzer asked it. Perhaps Fallows simply slept through this tape. Perhaps the air quality got him:

BLITZER (11/15/07): All right. I want to just press you on this point, because it's a logical follow-up, and then I want to go and ask everyone. On the issue that apparently tripped up Senator Clinton [on October 30], the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, I take it, Senator Obama, you support giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Is that right?

Wow! The very same question Clinton had fumbled, “on the issue that apparently tripped her up!” And Obama had had two weeks to consider the matter—two weeks in which the nation’s pundits had pounded Clinton for her answer. (If everyone knew what Clinton had meant, very few pundits had said so.) Below, you see Obama’s full answer. Midway along, audience [LAUGHTER] occurs when the audience sees that he was stumbling in the very same way Clinton had been savaged for. If you read Clinton’s full post-answer answer (transcript below), the similarity really is startling:

OBAMA (continuing directly): When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention.

(APPLAUSE)

And—but I have to make sure that people understand. The problem we have here is not driver's licenses. Undocumented workers do not come here to drive.

(LAUGHTER)

They don't go—they're not coming here to go to the In-N-Out Burger. That's not the reason they're here. They're here to work. And so instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let's focus on actually solving the problem that this administration, the Bush administration, had done nothing about it.

BLITZER: Well, let's go through everybody because I want to be precise. I want to make sure the viewers and those of us who are here fully understand all of your positions on this barring—avoiding, assuming there isn't going to be comprehensive immigration reform. Do you support or oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?

OBAMA: I am not proposing that that's what we do. What I'm saying is that we can't—

(LAUGHTER)

No, no, no, no! Look—I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the same level can make that happen. But what I also know—
BLITZER: All right—

OBAMA: But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.

BLITZER: But—because this is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer.

(LAUGHTER)

Either you support it or you oppose it.

(APPLAUSE)

Let's go down and get a yes or no from everyone, starting with Senator Edwards.

Ouch! In perhaps the oddest moment of the whole debate season, Obama gave a fumbling answer that was stunningly similar to Clinton’s much-maligned answer from two weeks before. The audience openly laughed midway through when the similarity to Clinton’s gethsemane moment became clear—and Blitzer ended up snarking Obama due to his perceived lack of specificity. But isn’t it weird? In the wake of this debate, pundits said virtually nothing about this! How strange! Having savaged Clinton’s response, they gave a virtual pass to Obama’s! And Fallows, writing in from China, identifies Clinton’s answer as the crucial moment in the whole

Still, Obama should have chosen her in order to unite the party. It doesn't matter if they don't like each other, Reagan and Bush didn't like each other in '80 either. Biden has his good aspects though, I'm not saying he sucks.