home

Demographics of Virginia Counties Won by Hillary

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:33:59 PM EST
Tags: Virginia (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hillary Clinton won several counties in Virginia, some by very large margine. What do they all have in common? They are almost exclusively populated by whites. Virginia's population state- wide is 73% white and 20% African-American.

Here are the demographics for the first half-dozen or so counties she won (all I've checked so far):

  • Allegany: 93% white, 5.5% AA
  • Bedford: 92% white, 6.3% AA
  • Bland: 95% white, 4.4% AA
  • Buchanan: 96% white, 3.2% AA
  • Carroll: 98.5% white, 0.7%AA
  • Dickenson: 98.7% white, 0.6%AA
  • Grayson: 96.7% white, 2.4% AA
This is a continuation of the Virginia/MD/DC results thread. Update: Almost 200 comments, time to close here. You can continue on the newer threads.

< Obama Wins Virginia | Hillary Clinton Presses Bush to End Torture >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Demographics of Virginia Counties Won by Hillary | 175 comments (175 topical)
    I apologize for reading it wrong (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:04:30 PM EST
    but I still find the question disgusting as you Obama folks don't want to just enjoy your win, but feel compelled to keep arguing...which is foolish...you wont convince any of us but you
    might turn us off which is also foolish if you wish to have converts.

    wait... (none / 0) (#31)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:08:16 PM EST
    ... Clinton supporters are allowed to "argue" but Obama supporters are not?  Come on.

    I am simply trying to point out why I think that Jeralyn's point it wrong.

    And I am not trying to attack Jeralyn. I just disagree with her interpretation of what the independent/Republican votes mean.

    Parent

    I've said many times (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    I really disagree with Obama's stump speech about red states/blue states and wanting a united America...and that I believe his use of the phrase "working majority" is a code word for compromising with Republicans.

    I want a fighter, someone who will go to the mat and only compromise after all else has failed and the compromise is better than no action. I think with Obama it will be routine.

    I see Obama as too bi-partisan for my taste. That's my view. Is he better than a Republican? Of course. But I'm going to continue to point out what troubles me about him until the nomination is settled.

    Parent

    I have no problem... (none / 0) (#70)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:23:02 PM EST
    ... with you pointing out what troubles you.  At all.  I disagree with you on much of it, but I have no problem with you talking about it.  And you almost always do it in a respectful and professional way.

    I just disagree about using the exit poll data on independents/Republicans to prove your point, because I feel that it does nothing of the sort.  

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#86)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:28:39 PM EST
    Interested to hear what Hillary has showed or done that made you decide this would not be the case should she win?

    Parent
    For one thing (none / 0) (#90)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:31:38 PM EST
    She said in a recent debate that health care for all is a "core Democratic value."  It doesn't sound like she's in the mood for compromise on that.

    Generally, however, I do think she's pretty centrist.  Just like Obama.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:39:35 PM EST
    they are almost indistinguishable on issues to me. Which leaves the question, which one will be better able to get their agendas through Congress? I don't think Obama has the clout and experience to do that, that's my view. It's one of the reasons I wish he would have waited until 2016.

    Parent
    You hit the nail on the head (none / 0) (#106)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:39 PM EST
    As always.

    Parent
    This is why it's depressing (none / 0) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    The agenda will get trashed. If he gets elected he will spend all his energy holding on to the story of Obama.

    Parent
    Agree completely (none / 0) (#131)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:55:09 PM EST
    He's  just not  ready.  That  doesn't  mean  he  won't  ever  be,  but  not  now.  He'll have  his  turn.  

    We  need  a  tough  FIGHTER  this  time.  

    If  Obama  fails  to achieve  anything  during  those  4 years  he  serves,  he    ruins  the possibility  of   16  successful  years  of  Democratic  presidents.    

    Too  risky....in terms  of what  he can get done.

    Parent

    Due to the Historical opposition of (none / 0) (#104)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    any Republican congress to pass anything near Universal Health Care and the way they have fought tooth and nail any attempt to implement one by any Democrat I don't believe this is an issue were compromise is possible.

    Parent
    If that's the case (none / 0) (#147)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:06:51 PM EST
    Since Republicans have fought tooth and nail any attempt and this is an issue where compromise is not possible, then no Democratic president gets something 100% progressive through with at best 54 seats in the Senate?

    Sorry but still being at 52-54 Senate seats come 08 means whether it's Hillary or Obama, there's going to be compromise. The thought that either of them will get the plans they're laying out now for Iraq, Health Care, or the economy  through 100% intact is more of a walking hope machine than Obama.

    Parent

    Unfortunately the only way Republicans (none / 0) (#158)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:14:42 PM EST
    compromise is if you give them what they want all I have seen has been Democrats "compromising" to the Administration's demands.  Now I happen to agree that the current composition of the Senate is not conductive to passing good legislation but don't expect the help from the Republicans you just going to have to win more seats in the Senate.

    Parent
    Not just Repubs (none / 0) (#188)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:50:06 PM EST
    We  can't   just  blame  the  Repubs.  We  elected  a  large  number  of  Blue  Dog  Democrats  in 2006;  anything  that   goes outside   their  budget  expectations  won't   pass, either.    Our own  Democrats  will vote  against.  

    Witness  the  FISA  legislation  today:  they totally   cratered to the  Bush administration,  granting  immunity  to   telecoms.   And  a  WHOLE lotta our 2006    Democrats  voted  WITH  the Bush administration.

    If  Obama  goes in  conceding before  he  begins, he'll  get nothing.  


    Parent

    well she says it is (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:07:51 PM EST
    a core value yet, the Cliton's were in office 8 years.  She failed in 94 and gave up for six years, never tried again, but we got welfare reform.  So as much as she thinks Health care is a  core value she must think kicking people off welfare is a more important one.

    so its so called "code" words versus a record of abandoning core democratic values.  I know what i pick.

    Parent

    SCHIP. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:14:37 PM EST


    Parent
    jor (?) asked (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:12:09 PM EST
    [What does Obama have to do].... to get women's support?

    Support the right to choose? Check
    Get the support of Oprah? Check
    Hold major rallies with star women? Check
    Get endorsements from leading female democratic politicians?   Check.

    What do you want him to do? You tell me.

    Wow, do you think that's all women want? Rallies with stars? Oprah? Endorsements?

    (I am not going to speculate on your success with women - that wouldn't be nice)

    It's been said here many, many times.

    First, tell the media to play fair and knock off the sexist/misogynist trash talk against his opponent. He's supposed to be a Democrat; Democrats are for equality and fair treatment.

    Second, stop using sexist code words himself.

    Third, stop using Clinton Rules and RW talking points against a fellow Dem.

    Fourth, come right out and say a Democratic win is what is most important. Not an Obama win.

    Fifth, both he and Michelle need to state in no uncertain terms that they will both support and campaign for Hillary if she's the nominee.

    Then I'll think about it.

    Be careful what you wish for (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:18:43 PM EST
    If Obama winds up winning MD, Wisconsin, and Hawaii you will almost certainly see a change in tone from both candidates.  

    Regardless of what the pundits and polls say next Wednesday will harken the beginning of the Obama as front-runner phase of the campaign, assuming a sweep.  

    As an aside, watching Hillary speak tonight she has really improved her oratorical skills.  She's pandering a bit but she really has improved.

    Parent

    Brokaw, Tweety, and Russert were (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    just starting to have that conversation about Obama as the front runner when Hillary's speech started. They talked first about the disadvantages she had while she was the front runner. I hope they get back to the conversation after her speech.

    Parent
    echinopsia (none / 0) (#66)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:22:05 PM EST
    Thanks for the answer. You should re-read your own answer. Almost all of your response has to do with one particular women -- Hillary Clinton -- and has nothing to do with women's issues in general. If there is some women's issue you want Obama to address you should say it.

    Asking Obama to help Hillary win the election is rather stupid. Pick a women's issue that Obama is against.

    Parent

    You diss one woman (none / 0) (#92)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    You diss me.

    Get it?

    Parent

    frankly, that's rather silly (none / 0) (#179)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:36:08 PM EST
    identity politics to the extreme, don't you think?

    can I diss Ann Coulter?  

    or, should I answer with: you diss one Dem you dis me?

    if you diss one person you diss me?

    let's take it less personally, shall we?

    Parent

    issues vs. rhetoric (none / 0) (#168)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:21:43 PM EST
    I'd guess that most people here have few problems with Obama on the issues. But we have big problems with his rhetoric and symbolic gestures: on health care, on gay rights, on bipartisanship, etc.

    Realize that it is entirely possible to agree strongly with someone on every issue, but still be skeptical about them. I think that was a big part of Edwards' problem, because of his past votes. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a perfectly legitimate way of judging character. And so when Obama says things that demean Clinton in a certain way (tea with foreign leaders, claws out, etc), it broadly offensive to more than just Hillary herself.

    Parent
    sixth (none / 0) (#69)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:22:42 PM EST
    stop saying Hillary Clinton is polarizing and denigrating the greatest Democratic president in the last 20 years.  Oh, and the only one.

    seventh: stop attacking universal healthcare

    eighth: show some proof of your vaunted foreign policy experience.  Start with explaining what happened in Kenya

    ninth: tell me the truth about your relationship with Tony Rezko (hi, Stellaaa)

    tenth: have your law firm release records of your billable hours so we know exactly who you worked for and how long

    eleventh: tell me how you are going to make me safer

    twelfth: stop telling me that I'm the status quo and margianalizing me because I am the "base" democratic voter.

    thirteenth: DO something.  Anything.  Make a call to action--be specific about what you are going to do if you get this job.  You keep saying you want to change politics as usual.  How are you going to do that?  Who are going to be your allies?  If you think it's the democratic base, you better have been really good on #12, and I know you don't like to bother yourself with history, but Bill Clinton can tell you how screwed you are by thinking that your own party will vote with you on your democratic platform projects for the good of the party.  Not gonna happen.

    Parent

    Kathy (none / 0) (#91)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:32:40 PM EST
    You  go, girl!

    And  furthermore, Obama,   tell your  supporters  to stop  implying  that  they have a   "higher  education" level  than  Hillary's  "old"  and "dumb"  supporters.  

    I  have  2   graduate  degrees.    Don't  go there.

    Parent

    add in a couple of useless (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    ones for me.

    I wonder if jor realizes that women outlive men?  I also wonder if his grandmother is aware that he thinks that she is old and useless and shouldn't bother voting.  If she's old enough, she may have been born during a time when that was the cw.  Now, not so much.  Who does jor think is going to have the time and the proclivity to vote come November?

    "Face it, girls, I'm older and I've got more insurance."

    Parent

    Kathy (none / 0) (#130)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:50:59 PM EST
    OMG....my   favorite  line  from  any  movie!  

    That,  and  "I'm  not  crazy, Merlyn.  I've  just been in a  very  bad  mood  for  40  years."  

    God,  I love your posts.  

    MY son  knows  better  than   to say anything  close  to  the  childish nonsense  Jor  posts.  

    Sheesh

    Parent

    you should see the thread (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:55:42 PM EST
    from a few weeks back.  I wasn't the first one to bring it up.  I think a lot of us are Fannie Flagg fans (FFF's) here.

    "If I was gonna kill ya, I'd do it with my bare hands."

    Boy, that has been tempting to say lately!

    This may be off-topic, but it speaks to demographics, and I have to say that with some noted exceptions in the last few days, TL has been a nice, safe haven to talk about politics and to be able to say, without being attacked, that you are proud to be able to vote for a qualified, experienced and tough candidate for president...who also happens to be a woman.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#191)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:54:04 PM EST
    I  feel  the  same  way.   I've  had  to work  at  just  NOT  responding  to  the  juveniles...hard  for  me,  as  a  former  teacher,  but  it  IS  a  joy  to meet  strong  women  like  the  ones on this  board.    

    We  get  things  DONE.

    Parent

    That is some thing (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:10:55 PM EST
    HRC's campaign talks, about so take it up with Mark Penn.

    Parent
    Lots of closed threads around these parts lately (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by s5 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    I'm really looking forward to the end of primary season!

    Someone at another blog (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jen on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:29:26 PM EST
    made this statement and I wonder if anyone here knows if this is true?

    Curious, in every state in old Dixie where Obama does overwhelmingly well, so does Huckabee.

    The premise is that Republicans are crossing over -- instead of voting for McCain, they are participating in the "Stop Hillary Now" campaign.

    The comment was proceeded by a link to this blog post:

    Why I voted for Obama....

    It's partly for this reason that I decided to cast my vote for Barack Obama today. Although national polls give Obama a small advantage over John McCain in the general election, I firmly believe that McCain would handily defeat the inexperienced Obama. Secondly, I fear what the Clinton attack machine would do to McCain. Their ferocity would be worse than George W. Bush's ugly attacks in 2000. Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows how much I dislike negative campaigning, and a Clinton-McCain matchup would be just that.

    Because my vote for Obama will likely be ridiculed by many friends on the right, I want to explain exactly why I chose to cross party lines to back the Democrat senator from Illinois.

    1) Electability. According to Real Clear Politics, McCain would beat Clinton by 1.2 percentage points. McCain, however, loses to Obama by 3.7 percentage points using the same polling average. Despite what these polls indicate today, I predict the numbers would flip once Democrats pick a nominee.

    As Clinton pollster Mark Penn told Chris Cillizza, "The Republican attack machine redefines the Democratic candidate." Fortunately (or unfortunately) for Clinton, there's nothing left to define. But in the case of Obama, there are millions of Americans who know little about him or his far-left views. His lack of experience makes him even more vulnerable. It is for this reason that I would give McCain the edge in a head-to-head matchup with Obama. I'm not so sure the same is true against Hillary. ... ..
    Yes (none / 0) (#152)
    by andrewwm on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    But the counties that Obama wins in Southern states are the ones McCain wins; Clinton wins most of the districts that Huckabee wins. So that analysis breaks down at a county/district level.

    Parent
    It sounds as if you think that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:35:46 PM EST
    Women only care about issues related to our anatomy. (And Oprah.) That's not what you meant, is it?

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:36:57 PM EST
    disproves this down thread--with a citation from the NY Times.  There are other citations from die-hard Clinton plans with polls to back it up in myriad other threads.

    I just don't understand why you keep repeating information that is not factually correct.

    The issues I listed are women's issues.  We are concerned about security, healthcare, etc.  There is more to our agenda than choice and reproductive rights.  To limit us to those two things is shocking, though not out of line with some of the other comments you have made.

    Each Other is NOT the enemy (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Ellie on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:56:36 PM EST
    I'm competitive by nature -- viciously, even -- so I'd love to strip away any animus about who's more "polarizing" or "divisive" as BS equivalent to insisting that the other team is being mean for showing up and playing to win.

    However, to my eye the weakness in both campaigns here is a form of myopia that runs through Dems as a whole: the combative, take no prisoners approach they gladly bring -- and even admire -- to mixing it up with each other is virtually absent when fighting the old school bigots, theofascists, and corporate criminals that have gated the people's govt into a private spa and treasure chest. THOSE *holes are the ones the Dem front-runners are vowing to work with or tame.

    Strategically weak Team Clinton seems to take for granted that Obama supporters who are going crazy now will fall in should she get the nomination (Michelle Obama, among Team Obama supporters say no).

    Meanwhile, Obama supporters (going by their statements) riding the current wave seem to regard Clinton rather than BushCo as the main enemy. I wonder if the same high energy making him the Hot New Thing will last through spring and summer after the Wicked Bad Lady is toppled.

    As an ex-wrangler for volunteers and votes during several elections, I've seen the falloff when the "name brand" is toppled. Some of the drain comes from sheer inexperience: expending so much energy in the early stages of a long haul, there's no kick left to bring it home. Some of the attrition happens after the first parties are over. There's a break in the action and people have to be RE-energized, which can be harder than getting new boots on the ground.

    NOTE: I'm not a concern troll; I'm neither concerned nor a troll and don't have a dog in this fight. Why not? Because this  (as bluntly described by Glenn Greenwald) is my enemy:

    The Senate today -- led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus -- will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration's years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans

    Sorry to be a skunk here, but the "energy gap" yawning between the wild roller coaster of the primaries and the beached-walrus laziness of Dems that allowed the above makes it hard to imagine that a Dem White House will change anything. (I'm watching Clinton's and Obama's respective speeches and the fact that this FISA crap is already tumbling down the memory hole already is unspeakably depressing.)

    "White Counties" (none / 0) (#1)
    by TheRef on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:43:38 PM EST

    These [mostly] southwestern counties in Virginia are more like Tennessee than Virginia ...very conservative [evangelical] ...some would say very "redneck" ...as redneck as many deep south "white" counties. I would not read much into this distinction.

    Well... (none / 0) (#153)
    by liminal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:10:59 PM EST
    It looks like coal country to me: mountain counties, sparsely populated, with deep ties to UMWA - and quite poor.  So: WVa and Kentucky are in the bag?

    Parent
    As a product of this general area ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by TheRef on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:52:38 PM EST
    [Southwestern West Virginia] I am always shocked that the region is so dominated by one [non-majority] group ...evangelicals. The churches have a very strong hold on the people who vote. The majority of people are not church-going folks ...but, unfortunately, the majority are not interested enough to vote.

    You correctly state that the majority are poor ...people who you would think would be more aligned with the ideals of the Democratic Party ...unfortunately, as stated earlier ...they don't make their views known by voting.

    Parent

    In the demographics do they say the income range (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    of the voter??

    yes (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:51:51 PM EST
    check the link

    Parent
    evangelical wouldnt vote for Hillary (none / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:47:04 PM EST
    would they??

    Take a look at how similar (none / 0) (#4)
    by andrewwm on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:49:03 PM EST
    the map of counties won by Clinton vs. those won by Huckabee:

    link

    Parent

    I am "those people." (none / 0) (#205)
    by liminal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:11:53 PM EST
    Podunk don't count!  I'll let Idaho know.  ;)

    By the way, you are wrong when you say it's surprising that podunk folk vote Democratic at all.  Admittedly, those are sparsely populated mountain counties, but take a closer look at the results: 2 to 3 times Democratic turnout compared to Republican turnout, even though they had very sparse turnout (around 10% - but there were storms in the mountains today).

    Parent

    Supposedly... (none / 0) (#5)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:49:11 PM EST
    ... Hillary has been leading with Evangelical democrats.  I will try to find the link/story, but it may not be tonight.

    Parent
    BTW... (none / 0) (#7)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    ... since some (like Jeralyn) say that Obama's independent/Republican support show that he is a compromiser rather than a "fighter for the progressive agenda," does that mean that Hillary is willing to compromise with and for Evangelicals?

    Parent
    Obama is going to have to pivot (none / 0) (#112)
    by sancho on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:41:53 PM EST
    at some point to address the concerns of progressives who are skeptical about his Lieberman-like odes to bipartisanship. I began as an Obama supporter but for the reasons already enumerated (beautifuly by echinopsia--i'm saving that list! thanks!) I switched to Hillary. I fear lots of dems (particularly women) are going to stay home in Nov. rather than support such a vague, unvetted candidate. And if Obama gets the nomination (still not a sure thing) and loses in November, then Howard Dean or the DNC better try to do something to get some of these states to close their primaries next go-round.

    If he wins, and is a progressive President, then Howard Dean is a genius. I'm skeptical.  

     

    Parent

    Vetted (none / 0) (#124)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:47:48 PM EST
    Oh,   he'll  be  vetted....by  the  Republican   hate  machine.  You  can bet on it.

    Parent
    I have now gained great respect for (none / 0) (#6)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:49:36 PM EST
    the NAACP....Good for them...they are practicing what Dr. King preached of "not judging a man by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character" and obviously trying to avoid voter suppression...Great Salutes to them!!!!

    Parent
    NAACP (none / 0) (#57)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:19:43 PM EST
    Agree.   Their  statement  about  making  sure  all votes  count  is  exactly  the point  I've  been trying  to make  for party unity.  

    We  can't   scream "disenfranchisement"  and then  disenfranchise to benefit a  certain candidate.    

    It  disillusions our  own voters.  

    Bravo,  NAACP!

    Parent

    No silver lining.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Bear2000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST
    There is nothing positive for Hillary in anything that happened in Virginia tonight. Look for a similar blowout in Maryland.

    He's eating into her core constituencies and will only continue to do so. As people get to know Obama, they move toward him - women, working-class whites, Latinos. After tonight, he will begin leading in the national polls.  The media, right or wrong, will begin to anoint him. Next goes Wisconsin and Hawaii. The superdelegates will see the writing on the wall and begin to shift.

    Oh, and MSNBC reports that Hillary Clinton Deputy Campaign Director Mike Henry has resigned.

    It's over. Let's hope that Hillary exits gracefully after March 4 and gets a prominent place at the convention.  She should be made senate leader and be allowed to shepherd through a health care bill. She's a great public servant, and would have been a great president.  But she will not be president, or vice president. Obama doesn't need her, and she wouldn't want it.

    One word: (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:57:12 PM EST
    Tex-O-Vania

    It's NOT over.

    Only a non-fighter would resign now.

    Parent

    Gosh (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:59:31 PM EST
    I can't wait till the media begins to anoint him.  How different that will be!

    Parent
    Nah, won't work (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:00:09 PM EST
    I don't think she can be Senate Majority Leader and President at the same time.

    She's not going anywhere. It's hardly over.

    And, seriously, she "should be allowed to shepherd a bill..."? Are you trying to be offensive?

    Parent

    I thin that's exactly what he meant (none / 0) (#133)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:55:29 PM EST
    that women have to be "allowed" to shepherd a bill after it's approved by the men.  These clowns don't know how offensive that really is.


    Parent
    It's not over (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:24:08 PM EST
    please don't spread misinformation here. You can say in your mind that it's over, but you can't post it as a fact when it's not true.

    Big Tent Democrat and I have pointed out for the last week that we don't expect her to win a single state in February -- and that it's not over until Texas, Ohio and PA.

    We have at least three weeks to go, and more if she wins TX and OH by sufficient margins that we need to wait until PA in April.

    Parent

    Obama needs HRC voters (none / 0) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:33:21 PM EST
    and vice versa. Both sides would do well to remember that point.

    The enemy is not Obama or HRC. The enemy is the GOP.

    Parent

    Molly (none / 0) (#194)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:58:55 PM EST
    Sorry,  the  Obama supporters  have  already  dissed  the   Clinton  supporters  as  uneducated,   poor,  and  old.    Not  GOOD  enough to help  Obama.  

    Parent
    Agreed many of the Obama supporters (none / 0) (#212)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:19:51 PM EST
    are jerks. Unfortunately there are a few jerks supporting HRC as well.

    I love and respect HRC. I will happily vote for Obama if he is the nominee and I will have the audacity to hope he lives up to the hype.

    They need us. We will lead them to victory, not the other way around. If we depend on them to lead us to victory, forget about it. See 2004. Watch Reid and Pelosi. We dragged them kicking and screaming over the goal line in 2006. We can drag them kicking and screaming to a blowout in 2008 if we need to.  

    Parent

    White women are standing firm (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    for Hillary in Virginia, says MSNBC and the New York Times. This isn't a sign of her being polarizing, it's a sign of votes being split among racial and gender and age lines.

    The margin.. (none / 0) (#126)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:48:54 PM EST
    ... is closing. I thought she was up by 30 pts in some states a while ago. BTW, CNN and NYT disagree on the margin, CNN has +10% white women for clinton over obama, NYT has it at 15%

    Parent
    White Counties (none / 0) (#16)
    by PennProgressive on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    Thanks for the information on the demographics. Although I am a Clinton supporter, it seems from the  CNN exit polls that Obama has indeed put together a very impressive coalition. If he  can replicate that in other big states particularly in Ohio and Pennsylvania , he will do very well there. He will then deserve to win the nominnation (although I will remain deeply troubled by the situations in Florida and Michigan). Whether these demographics  will stay with him in GE, that is the big question.

    If... (none / 0) (#22)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    Obama could win Texas and Ohio, or possibly even just one of them, then the delegates in Michigan and Florida probably will not really matter anyway.  

    Parent
    Interesting poll question (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM EST
    Do you think this country is ready to elect a woman president? Pct. of total Clinton Obama 85 Ready 42 58 15 Not ready 15 83 Do you think this country is ready to elect a black president? Pct. of total Clinton Obama 85 Ready 33 67 14 Not ready 67 32
    NYTIMES I found this interesting, 83% of the Obama voters think the country not ready for a woman, this supports the argument made earlier about not wanting to vote for women. (I think)

    Be careful Stellaaa, you'll be attacked (none / 0) (#29)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:05:44 PM EST
    next. David Gregory just asked Eugene Robinson if he thought it was easier to attack or criticize HC because she is a woman rather than AA. ER said probably because we are much more careful about coming off as racist.

    Parent
    2 points (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:13:06 PM EST
    Stella was wrong.

    I would agree that Obama has better protection from bigotry than Hillary does.  

    Parent

    I Stellaaa was wrong (none / 0) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM EST
    I was defeated, trounced, told and humiliated. I beg your pardon. How dare I think that a higher percentage of the people not ready for a woman president are Obama supporters.

    Parent
    ER (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM EST
    I haven't  noticed  that  any  of  Eugene  Robinson's  WAPO  articles  thoroughly  trashing  Hillary  have  shown   that  he understands   that principle  at  all.    

    He  certainly  pumped  the  racism issue in South  Carolina,  but never  corrected  his  MSNBC  colleagues on  the  sexism.  

    In  fact,  he   thought  Chris Matthews  was  quite  funny.

    Parent

    wrong. (none / 0) (#30)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    You are reading the poll wrong.

    What it says is that 83% of those who say that the country is not ready for a woman president chose Obama. Which makes complete sense.  Obviously if someone thought that the country was not read for a woman president they wouldn't vote for the woman.

    But only 15% of those surveyed said the nation wasn't ready for a woman president.

    Of those who said the nation WAS ready for a woman president, 58% voted for Obama.

    Parent

    You misread that (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:10:35 PM EST
    83% of voters who don't think a woman is ready to be President are supporting Obama.  

    67% of voters who don't think a black man is ready to be President are supporting Clinton.

    Pretty meaningless.

    Parent

    Results misinterpreted (none / 0) (#35)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:11:15 PM EST
    I just checked out those exit polls.  58% of Obama voters DO believe that we're ready to elect a woman president.  Out of those voters who do not, Obama got 83%.

    That being said, I would still like to see that number be much higher than it is.

    Parent

    wrong (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:13:21 PM EST
    you are also reading the poll wrong.

    The poll DOES NOT say that 58% of Obama voters think that the nation is ready for a woman president.

    The poll says that of those who think that the nation is ready for a woman president, 58% voted for Obama.

    Parent

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:16:00 PM EST
    Thanks for the correction.

    Parent
    I want the 58% higher, not the 83% (none / 0) (#38)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:12:21 PM EST
    Just to be clear ;)

    Parent
    Texas & Ohio (none / 0) (#24)
    by Bear2000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:01:42 PM EST
    The Texas and Ohio strategy is doomed.  The Obama wave now has three whole weeks to build, with one more surge before it finally comes crashing down.

    Three weeks is a long time (none / 0) (#63)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:21:57 PM EST
    Obama needs to win Wisconsin and Hawaii to keep this going.  Then, there are two weeks of no primaries whatsoever, during which there is likely to be a debate, among other news.  SurveyUSA released a new poll today showing Hillary up double digits in Ohio.  It all depends on how the narrative plays over the next few weeks, particularly after Wisconsin, but I wouldn't dismiss the Texohio strategy without any evidence that it's not working.

    Parent
    Texas (none / 0) (#82)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    Hillary is  also  up  10-12 points in  Texas.  

    Parent
    Wait till Obama starts working those states... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Bear2000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:10:39 PM EST
    Look, Hillary is up everywhere until Obama starts to become well known.  As soon as he does, people move to him.

    I would not be crowing too much about 10 point leads this far out in Ohio and Texas. They'll be halved by the end of the week as Obama surges in the national polls.  They do matter - they sustained Hillary in lots of places where Obama was not yet known.

    Also, I expect he'll raise 40 million this month.  Hillary's fundraising boomlet cannot be sustained after tonight and especially after February 19.  


    Parent

    Hawaii and Wisconsin (none / 0) (#206)
    by Bear2000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:12:26 PM EST
    Do you really think he loses either of these states? I'm guess 20+ point margins in both. And if he manages anything close to that, Ohio will not look good for Clinton.

    Parent
    Keep your comments on topic (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    I deleted an off topic comment and the response thereto.

    The media... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Bear2000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:04:56 PM EST
    The media has not yet anointed him - although after this weekend and tonight, how could it not?

    Folks, seriously - fight on. She should. Until March 4. But let's hope the tone resembles that of the Huck-McCain match-up. Stay nice, and exit gracefully.

    So... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    You think Obama should quit after he loses on March 4?

    Parent
    Yes I think he should. (none / 0) (#140)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:59:33 PM EST


    Parent
    No, and there's a difference... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Bear2000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:34:24 PM EST
    ...if Obama loses two close races on March 4, he still has a chance of winning many more.  If Hillary loses on March 4, she is done.  She probably already is. If she wins on March 4, then by all means, fight on.  

    But you can't seriously think that she should continue after a poor showing on March 4, do you?

    Tonight's losses were huge. There's no silver lining for Clinton in these numbers.

    Again, I like Clinton, think she'd be a good president, and would happily vote for her in the general. But we can all be objective about where her campaign now stands.

    Parent

    It wasn't clear from the update (none / 0) (#28)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:05:07 PM EST
    You penned the post, and the update said TL, that's how I got confused as to who wrote it.  Sorry for the confusion on the other thread, BTD.  Also, sorry if my comment was a little heated.  I know BTD took offense, and I hope I didn't offend Jeralyn.  I just vehemently disagreed with the claim that Obama winning independents reflected poorly on his candidacy.

    That said, I appreciate the analysis you both give, even if there are times when I really disagree with it.

    TL is (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:15:42 PM EST
    me... sorry, new commenters may not realize that. Big Tent is always Big Tent, I"m Jeralyn or TL (for TalkLeft.)

    Parent
    Irony (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:09:50 PM EST
    Obama get cheated out of delegates tonight.

    He'll win the votes by more than 3-2 tonight but is probably going to get around 57% of the delegates. At the end of the night, it'll add up to about 10 delegates.

    Doing this by congressional district (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:18:06 PM EST
    Makes the designation of Democratic delegates subject to the whims of the Republican legislature in 2001. Funny, that.

    Parent
    Didn't Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#49)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:17:06 PM EST
    Project a 15-20 delegate pick-up?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:18:08 PM EST
    do the math.

    Parent
    I don't understand (none / 0) (#151)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    A 20 delegate pick up does not equal a 10 delegate pick up.  That's my math.  

    Parent
    I read somewhere that Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by magster on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:21:58 PM EST
    would get significantly more delegates if he got 62.5% of the vote.  Do you recall seeing this somewhere when surfing the blogs today?

    Parent
    Check Bowers at Open Left (none / 0) (#72)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:23:33 PM EST
    He's been on top of the delegate more than the networks have.

    Parent
    Not tonight (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:25:00 PM EST


    Parent
    By CDs (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:24:34 PM EST
    and it did not happen in away that maximized his vote.

    Parent
    53-30 in Virginia. 23/83 is a break for him. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:15:52 PM EST
    He's burying her tonight.

    And he got partisan tonight.

    Parent

    Obama coattails (none / 0) (#193)
    by magster on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:58:15 PM EST
    From Bowers:

    "New Obama Voters Breaking For Donna Edwards: Here is an exciting thought for progressives: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in a progressive defeat of an incumbent member of Congress in a primary. Al Wynn's numbers are stagnant  from 2006, while Donna's have skyrocketed. There is massive movement building potential here."

    Obama is going to bring in new young voters who will register as a "D" for a lifetime, and change the face of Congress as a bonus.

    Parent

    va counties--HERE IS ONE FOR YOU (none / 0) (#36)
    by virginia cynic on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM EST

     IN A COUNTY WITH 3.9% BLACK POPULATION, OBAMA WON     52.69 TO 45.83
    OH WELL, WE KNOW OBAMA CAN'T WIN IN AN ALMOST ALL WHITE COUNTY SO THIS MUST BE A MISTAKE, RIGHT?
    RIGHT?

    2008 February Democratic Presidential Primary Unofficial Results
    View 2008 February Republican Presidential Primary

    image representing a navigation tab displaying President.     image representing a navigation tab displaying My County/City.

    My County/City>Augusta County

    partial pie meaning that the result being displayed is not the full result but result for the locality being selected. Results indicate race results specifically for AUGUSTA COUNTY, not the race as a whole.
    RACE     CANDIDATE     VOTE     VOTE%     STATISTICS     DETAILS
    President
    Last Reported: Feb 12 2008 8:03PM EST

    partial pie meaning that the result being displayed is not the full result but result for the locality being selected.    
    Barack Obama     2,544     52.69%     Precincts Reporting:
        26 of 26 (100%)

    Voter Turnout:
        4,828 of 39,959 active voters (12.08%)
        4,828 of 40,585 total voters (11.89%)     Votes by Precinct

    Bill Richardson     12     0.24%

    Dennis J. Kucinich     6     0.12%

    Hillary Clinton     2,213     45.83%

    Joe Biden     5     0.10%

    John Edwards     48     0.99%

    no one said (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    Obama can't win in a predominantly white county. I never said that. I pointed out that the counties Hillary won were overwhelmingly white. I never said she won most or all white counties. Please don't spin like that here.

    Parent
    washington/maryland (none / 0) (#44)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    so... anyone know where we can get Washington DC/Maryland results?

    it doesn't seem like anyone has them yet...

    Poll closings (none / 0) (#50)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    DC closed at 8pm but is often slow at reporting returns.  Maryland was held open late (until 9:30) due to bad weather.

    Parent
    cool... (none / 0) (#54)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    ... thanks.  Didn't realize MD's polls got held open for longer.

    Parent
    You're welcome! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    The area is a sheet of ice tonight.  Normal closing in MD is 9pm, which is great for encouraging participation.

    Parent
    Is that not the point? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:23:21 PM EST


    I delete those comments (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:25:45 PM EST


    erased already (none / 0) (#84)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    BTD already got rid of it.

    Thanks.

    Geriatric (none / 0) (#94)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    you keep using that word. It is an insult. Don't dig yourself in deeper.

    both big tent and I have deleted his comments (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:45:38 PM EST
    using that term. It's an insult. Don't do it again or you will be banned.

    Parent
    Brokaw thinks she needs to go on the (none / 0) (#95)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:35:04 PM EST
    attack some. I think she needs to at least defend herself better from things like that ad/mailer yesterday. I think she will lose if she doesn't. She is still after Bush tonight and not Obama.

    David Gregory and Eugene Robinson and Pat Buchanan just agreed.

    If she does that (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:38:02 PM EST
    the whining will start. But I hope she does.

    Parent
    I think it's time, too (none / 0) (#120)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:45:33 PM EST
    She certainly has stepped up her talk on him, saying that he's a nice guy and all, but what, really, is he proposing to change.

    I think presenting herself as a fighter to his passive, laid back style, might be the good thing to do.

    And, let's face it, it's not as if the media will give her a fair shake over anything.  Why not put some questions into people's minds?  Rezko, Kenya, pre-emptively attacking Pakistan, his bill he said he passed but did not, his ties to the nuclear industry, his "see the light," etc.

    If she can be disciplined and stay on point, two of her greatest abilities, then she can force these issues.  She just has to be careful about it.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#101)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:38:19 PM EST
    Buchanan says she needs to point out how Liberal Obama is.  LOL.  Probably not the best strategy for her.

    Parent
    Attack should be the name of her game (none / 0) (#146)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    from now on.  He's been doing it the whole time and I'm tired of politicians being too afraid of offending the WAPO editorial page to kick it up.

    Not attacking hasn't helped her one bit as they still say she's negative.  May as well make it right because even if she doesn't, the republicans sure will anyway.


    Parent

    This is the third time, once in the other thread. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:36:53 PM EST


    Cynical politics (none / 0) (#100)
    by cygnus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    Obama could have defused the "race issue" by not saying that Clinton's perfectly accurate comments about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson were
    "insensitive" (i.e Hillary = Don Imus.) He knew he could exploit race in the upcoming primaries. Now he's reaping the rewards.  I'll vote for him if I have to, but with no enthusiasm.  

    That simply isn't realistic (none / 0) (#113)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:41:56 PM EST
    Anymore than expecting Hillary to tamp down the sexism charges.

    I think it unfair to blame Obama for racial sensitivity or Hillary for gender sensitivity.

    Parent

    Sure it's realistic (none / 0) (#144)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:01:12 PM EST
    Since he's the one who circulated the memo telling his surrogates to MAKE the MKL/LBJ remark a racial issue.

    He's the one responsible for bringing race into this, with that memo. No matter what the media tell you.

    Hillary, OTOH, did not circulate a memo telling her surrogates to make an issue out of sex.

    Parent

    Likewise (none / 0) (#119)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:44:33 PM EST
    For  a  politician who  says  he  wants  to   move  away  from   the old  style  politics  and    unite  everybody,   he    and his  campaign  staff  have    sure  sown a lot of   division.    

    Dirty  politics, indeed.  

    Parent

    Unity (none / 0) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:49:15 PM EST
    Unity with what and for what? Still don't know. But what is clear, trashing the Democratic party was central to his campaign and strategy.

    Parent
    Stellaa (none / 0) (#181)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:37:29 PM EST
    Yes  it  was, Stella.  

    Lotta  Republican  talking points  were  used,  inappropriately.  

    But  he'll find out.   If  he's  now  the  frontrunner,   as  BTD  said,  he  becomes  the  target,   as   Hillary  has  been for months.  

    Did you hear  McCain's victory  speech?  You can see  the   fall  campaign  developing in  several  points  he  made  about   Obama.    

    It  has  begun.

    Parent

    CNN calls MD for Obama (none / 0) (#102)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    CNN has called MD for Obama.

    Still nothing from CNN on Washington DC.

    MSNBC called it for him right away. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I know... (none / 0) (#118)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:43:17 PM EST
    ... but CNN has held off.

    They now have Obama with 75% of the vote with 49% of the vote in in DC.

    Parent

    Man, they are really scared of getting burned (none / 0) (#123)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:46:21 PM EST
    to the point of silliness.

    Parent
    CNN error, I think (none / 0) (#109)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    check out this link (until they fix it anyway).

    If I'm reading it right, they've project Obama as the winner of Maryland but they have Hillary with 50% and Obama with 33% - Hillary in the 2nd place slot.

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

    Not an error... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:42:03 PM EST
    ... they are probably going off of exit polls, which is fairly standard.

    Parent
    That was with 0% reporting (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:43:12 PM EST
    About 200 votes in.  Sounds like he won Maryland by the same margin he won Virginia.

    Parent
    wow... (none / 0) (#122)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:45:53 PM EST
    ... lots of comment deleting tonight.

    Yes, but I'm done now (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:48:25 PM EST
    You can all carry on.

    Parent
    If African Americans Were Not (none / 0) (#127)
    by bob h on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:49:05 PM EST
    voting their skin color and dividing their votes, you would take 12-13% off Obama's 62%, giving a tie.

    Having made two colossal blunders in 2000 and 2004, I get the feeling the American electorate is about to do it again.

    That's out of line (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:13:46 PM EST


    Parent
    wow. (none / 0) (#137)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:57:24 PM EST
    Then can't we say the same thing about white women?

    This "attack" on Obama angers me.  African American voters are part of the Democratic Party also.  And they are free to vote for whomever they please.  Just as women are.  And men.  And whites.  And any and every other group that may be a part of the Democratic party.  

    Parent

    You are correct (none / 0) (#138)
    by pontificator on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:58:30 PM EST
    that Hillary does very well among certain demographics.  For example, according to exit polls, she swept the registered lobbyist vote in Washington DC.

    Tonight's speech (none / 0) (#139)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:59:27 PM EST
    marks the beginning of Obama the Front-runner.  He is taking full aim at the GOP and setting his campaign platform.

    I noticed (none / 0) (#160)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    I also notice an echo of another line from long ago

    This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny



    Parent
    MD Exit Polls: Obama wins Latinos 53-47 (none / 0) (#141)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:59:58 PM EST
    Per Markos:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/12/214414/383/19/455591

    Seems that the whole "Obama can't win Latinos" meme could be history.  While this doesn't translate into Latino support in Texas, it has to be encouraging for the Obama camp.

    With help from our friends at the Census Bureau, (none / 0) (#154)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM EST
    Maryland

    Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006:

    6.0%

    By comparison,

    Texas

    Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006:

    35.7%

    Apples, meet Oranges.

    Parent

    In other words (none / 0) (#159)
    by s5 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:15:27 PM EST
    These latinos don't count. ;)


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#170)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    The point is that Hispanics in MD are  very small percentage of the population, and likely a very small sample in exit polls. You can't make extrapolations from that to the much larger and politically distinctive Hispanic community in Texas.

    Parent
    Did you read my comment (none / 0) (#172)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:27:50 PM EST
    While this doesn't translate into Latino support in Texas, it has to be encouraging for the Obama camp.

    It's encouraging for Obama because it beats back the narrative in the press that he can't win Hispanic votes.  It also wounds the racist meme floating around that Hispanics won't support black candidates.  I wasn't making any extrapolations about Texas, only that the news was encouraging.

    Parent

    As a hispanic I can tell you (none / 0) (#184)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:42:18 PM EST
    That the Latino composition in Maryland and Virginia is completely different to the Latino composition in any of the western states.  It would be like saying that Republicans should take heart because of the Latino votes the get in south Florida.

    Parent
    Very good point (none / 0) (#202)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:10:30 PM EST
    A lot of white folks seem to think "Latino" or "Hispanic" is a monolithic category. The Latino electorate in the Potamac area is very different from the Latino electorate in the Southwest.

    Parent
    Don't get your logic (none / 0) (#165)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:18:09 PM EST
    So does the fact that MD Hispanics make up 6% of the population somehow void Obama's victory among Hispanics?

    I think it discredits the dishonest meme floating in the MSM that Hispanics won't vote for black candidates.

    Texas is a different ballgame, but considering perception had it that Hispanics were lined up against Obama, this is a significant victory for him.

    Parent

    Not necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    A lot of hispanics specially those of Caribbean extraction are black and Mixed (Mulattos) so the black/brown divide the MSM keeps harping about is a non issue for us.  I'm not even sure it is that important to Mexican Americans either but then not being a Mexican American I won't speak for them.  The problem lies in that Mrs Clinton has been active among hispanics for many years and Obama has not.  I'm talking nationally I don't know about his relationship with them in Illinois.  I guess maybe Rep. Gutierrez would know.

    Parent
    Not Meme, very complex issue (none / 0) (#175)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:32:06 PM EST
    BILL MOYERS: She did terrifically in Super Tuesday, two to one in California among your community. SAM RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. Now-- BILL MOYERS: How do you explain that? SAM RODRIGUEZ: Well, the Latino vote looks at Clinton-- Clinton, the Clinton brand reminds them of, this is pre-immigration reform debacle. BILL MOYERS: Pre George W. Bush? SAM RODRIGUEZ: This is pre George W. Bush, pre immigration, pre Latinos deported, pre the marches. This is the golden age of the Latino middle class. Latino middle class really emerged throughout the 1990s. Economy, we boomed. If the Latino community does not gravitate towards Obama in these last months of the primary season, Senator Clinton will be the candidate of choice for the Democratic Party. And Obama should be resonating. The ethnic minority experience. His Christian commitment and the incorporation of a social justice platform. H Obama should be-- there's a black-brown divide. BILL MOYERS: There really is? Right. SAM RODRIGUEZ: There really is. BILL MOYERS: Explain that to me. SAM RODRIGUEZ: You can't deny the fact that racist elements are apparent in every single ethnic group or culture. And we can't deny the fact that there is racism in the Latino-- in the Hispanic-American community. And that's the shame. BILL MOYERS: What's the fight? SAM RODRIGUEZ: It goes way beyond race. I think there's an issue here of fighting for the same entitlements, fighting for the same piece of turf, for lack of a better term. The same jobs. Immigration reform. We really-- we, meaning the Hispanic-American community, we reached out to the African-American community and said, march with us. I mean, stand by us here. You understand the story better than we do. BILL MOYERS: Those big demonstrations last year, half a million in Los Angeles. SAM RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. BILL MOYERS: Right. You're saying that the African-American- SAM RODRIGUEZ: That the African-American community was not as physically present. And you know, the gatekeepers of the African-American community did not go out and hold a press conference, and say, we support our Latino brothers and sisters on this. Is there an issue? Absolutely. I also understand that there are those in the establishment, in the white establishment, that would love to really focus on the divide between black and brown. I was present when a white politician, in a round table discussion, looked at black evangelical leaders and said, "They are taking away your jobs." They, the Latinos. These immigrants are taking away your jobs. They're taking away your subsidies. They're actually harming your family. They're taking away dollars that should go to educating your kids. Now I heard that. I was there, present, when that rhetoric was presented. So there is an attempt out there to create a wedge. If the African-Americans and the Latino population would ever come together and work in our cities, in our urban areas, we would really bring about a transformational messiology, we would transform our cities. We would transform our nation. Those two-- that partnership is unbelievably powerful, if it would ever emerge. And I'm committed to the emergence of that partnership.
    SamRodriguez

    Parent
    No, of course not (none / 0) (#182)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:41:17 PM EST
    Obama has actually won the Latino vote in a state before: Connecticut. And the Hispanic population there is larger than it is in MD or VA.

    These exit polls are being cited by Obama supporters (not you, but a lot of others) as evidence that he's making inroads with Hispanics in advance of the Texas primary. My point is Hispanics are such a small sample in these exits that it's ludicrous to draw such conclusions.

    I've also never bought the meme that Hispanics won't vote for a black candidate. Jesse Jackson in '88, running against a Spanish-speaking establishment Dem who campaigned as an immigrants' son, did far better with Hispanics than he did with whites, and I don't think Hispanic Democrats have become more racist in the intervening two decades.

    Parent

    One interesting possibility (none / 0) (#180)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:36:20 PM EST
    Is all the interest from the AA population leads to like objects in the less dominant Latino population?

    When you're TRULY the minority, you have to mingle with others of other minorities and majorities? My husband went to school in Maryland(as a white, he was a minority).  He very much adopted AA cultural conventions.

    On the other hand I know (as an example of staying within your own culture) some Asians that have lived in Seattle for years and don't speak much English.  They don't have to, with Chinatown, etc.

    I'm trying to give ideas about majority-minorities versus minority-minorities.

    Parent

    wow. (none / 0) (#142)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:00:06 PM EST
    Obama is going to get more votes in Virginia than all of the Republican candidates combines.

    Remember... GWB won VA by 8% in 2004.

    I hope you don't have to eat those words (none / 0) (#148)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:07:44 PM EST
    in November.

    Snooze. I cannot imagine listening to a (none / 0) (#150)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:08:05 PM EST
    McCain SOTU speech. His VP would go to sleep.

    Welcome to reality. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:15:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#198)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:07:31 PM EST
    It  just sets  up  the  Republican framing of  Obama    as  all "hope,"  no  experience,   yada yada yada.    

    McCain  sure   set  up  a  few  frames  tonight that  will  really  speak to those in the middle.  

    Or maybe  I'm  just  thinking   Texas-wise.   Could be.

    Parent

    Foolish of him to do his speech right after (none / 0) (#164)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    the Big O. He looks worse.

    I notice Obama said the straight talk express has fallen off its rails.

    I howled with glee. Lets see some more taking the fight to McCain.  

    Parent

    Maybe we're seeing the first (none / 0) (#174)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    of an interesting Clinton Campaign strategy?  Attack Obama from both sides?  Knock him down for 2 weeks.

    Then crippled Obama will have trouble in Tex-O-Vania?

    Parent

    The Obama crowd (none / 0) (#162)
    by kenosharick on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:15:52 PM EST
    90% -over at Americabog are gloating and calling Hillary nasty names in their usual vicious way. I promise not to behave that way if the tables turn.I will be very unhappy as Obama leads the party to defeat in Nov.

    Don't be despondent (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter, but I think either candidate will take the Republicans down in November.

    Clinton's not out of it, but don't lose track of the fact that there are two great candidates in the Democratic Party who can take it to McCain and win in November.  If Obama's the nominee, he's going to need your help, just as Hillary will need mine if she wins.

    Parent

    Here, here! (nt) (none / 0) (#215)
    by Hypatias Father on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:26:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Perhaps we will lead the nominee to victory (none / 0) (#167)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    and not the other way around.

    Parent
    Aye carumba (none / 0) (#171)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:26:50 PM EST
    I just heard that during her speech Hillary was sharing the stage with a young Latino child wearing a sombrero, please tell me this isn't true.

    She's in El Paso (none / 0) (#200)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:09:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah but (none / 0) (#217)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:37:52 PM EST
    Who wears a sombrero these days? Seems kinda old school and almost stereotyping a la Frito Bandito.

    Parent
    One thing I noticed....MSNBC didn't attack (none / 0) (#173)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton once tonight that I noticed. Very honest discussions of what she needs to do. They were all kind of subdued. Maybe they prefer a horse race and will be a little more even with their coverage.

    Maybe it was the letter to them or maybe it was Brokaw. They're always more mature when he's around.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#186)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    I  noticed   they  cut  off  Obama's  speech to hear   McCain, too.    That  surprised  me.

    Parent
    Only to show (none / 0) (#213)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:20:20 PM EST
    how stodgy and boring McCain really is.  Quite a contrast.

    Parent
    MSNBC (none / 0) (#187)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    I  noticed   they  cut  off  Obama's  speech to hear   McCain, too.    That  surprised  me.

    Parent
    MD-04: Donna Edwards looking good! (none / 0) (#176)
    by dmfox on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:33:42 PM EST
    For those following Maryland-04, it looks like Donna Edwards may just unseat corrupt bush-dog Al Wynn.  So far, the results are looking good.

    Bowers has it over at OpenLeft, he thinks new Obama primary voters are making the difference:
    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3874

    Bowers:

    Update 7--New Obama Voters Breaking For Donna Edwards: Here is an exciting thought for progressives: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in a progressive defeat of an incumbent member of Congress in a primary. Al Wynn's numbers are stagnant  from 2006, while Donna's have skyrocketed. There is massive movement building potential here.

    Update 6--Donna continues domination: More precincts. PG-13-06: in 2006 it was 463-265 Wynn, and in 2008 it went 568-513 for Edwards. PG-13-04 went 260-250 Wynn in 2006, but in 2008 it went 469-299 for Edwards. Turning into a rout. Brutal but awesome. Matt is experiencing something he feels unfamiliar with--winning. It took him a while to identify the feeling. It was vaguely reminiscent of August 8th, 2006. The Connecticut for Lieberman Party has not yet endorsed Al Wynn.
    For the good of the Democratic Party... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Seneca on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:53:55 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton should exit the race now.

    She is clearly the less electable of the two candidates and continuing in the race would divide Democrats perhaps irreparably in the months to come.

    Clinton needs to set aside her lifelong quest for power and quit.

    If you are representative of Obama supporters (none / 0) (#196)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    then I WANT to be divided from you. You are in no position to dictate terms of Clinton. Your candidate has already had TWO premature coronations--after Iowa and before Super Tuesday. He has GOT to win in Ohio or Texas, or that's three strikes and you're out.

    Parent
    YOu don't get to be president (none / 0) (#199)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    without towering ambition. I wouldn't be throwing stones about HRC's ambition. You will find Obama is just as ambitious.

    Again, Obama needs HRC voters and vice versa. Both sides should keep this in mind.

    Parent

    I am happy (none / 0) (#195)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    that this night is over. I have been b racing for this. Hillary will make her last stand at the Alomo and Ohio. Go Hillary.

    Obama's Big Night (none / 0) (#208)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:14:21 PM EST
    Tonight was big for a couple reasons.  First, the committed delegate lead for Obama is believed to be around 119 now.  Second, he made some significant headway into popular vote.  Third, momentum. These victories tonight mattered.  I previously agreed with BTD that obama had to win one of TX, OH or PA.  But with the margins of these wins, I think if he's close in them he's still in good shape.

    is this... (none / 0) (#209)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:15:43 PM EST
    ... what you are looking for:  CNN Election Center

    The problem... (none / 0) (#216)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:28:11 PM EST
    ... with trying to figure out the popular vote is that the caucuses don't give you an accurate count.  

    Chris Bowers has been trying to get the best possible understanding of the popular votes.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#210)
    by blogtopus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:17:03 PM EST
    Last I checked, Obama had 1208 Delegates and Hillary had 1185 (and this tally includes Supers), and we still have several states to go, including some of the largest that Hillary is ahead in.

    I'm still very hopeful that Hillary can win this; comparisons to Rudy are a bit out of whack.

    That said, I can see Barack winning this whole deal, hopefully he will win it enough that he can seat FL and MI with no trepidation.

    Comments now closing here (none / 0) (#219)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:10:31 PM EST
    Almost at 200, please continue on the new threads.

    Demographics of Virginia Counties Won by Hillary | 175 comments (175 topical)