home

The Louisiana Primary Vote

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:29:52 PM EST
Tags: Louisiana (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: From the Louisiana exit polls:

Blacks were nearly half the Democratic primary electorate and Obama racked up one of his largest margins yet among them. He won nearly nine in 10 blacks, male and female, according to the exit polls for The Associated Press and television networks.

Most other Democratic voters were white and Clinton won them by about 40 points, a margin she has met or exceeded only in Alabama, Tennessee and her former home state of Arkansas among 19 Democratic primaries surveyed this year. Continuing a pattern seen in other Southern states, Obama won only three in 10 white men and did no better among white women.

The networks have called Louisiana for Obama. But, check out the counties Hillary won or is leading in substantially: Acadia, Allen, Avoyelles, Bearegard, Caldwell, Cameron, Catahoola, Grant, Jeff Davis, Lafourche, Lasalle, Livingston, Sabine, St. Bernard, Terrebone, Vermilion, Vernon, Washington, West Carroll and Winn. Map showing her counties and original post below the fold:

***
Original Post

The polls are closed in Louisiana. CNN says it's too early to call it for Barack Obama...when they talk about the Republican race, they say it's too close to call. What's the distinction between "too early" and "too close"? I don't get it but they've repeated that phrasing at least five times.

Louisiana went for George Bush over John Kerry in 2004, 57% to 42%.

Also on Louisiana, even though Obama should win by big numbers, particularly with 50% of Democrats being African American, the delegate count will be closer because (according to CNN) Obama's support, like in Alabama, is split among several Congressional districts.

Voter turnout, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, was low in Louisiana...15% or so. That might be representative of a normal year, but for this year, with turnout so much higher in the other states than in the past, it may be worth mentioning.

Any thoughts on the importance or significance of the Louisiana vote?

< TPM Continues To Misreport Clinton Letter To NBC | Hillary Raises $10 Mil From 100,000 Donors Since Super Tuesday >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Louisiana Primary Vote | 181 comments (181 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Difference (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:36:18 PM EST
    I'd say the "too early" means they expect Obama to win based on exit polls, but they aren't sure enough to call it.   The other wording I think indicates that the exit polls are too close for even that.

    That they can't call Louisiana immediately off of exit polls is, in and of itself, I think a good sign for Clinton. She's still going to lose, but I don't think it's going to be the blowout some of the other Southern states were.

    The low turnout in Louisiana is depressing.  I hate the Bush Administration.

    that sounds right (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:41:28 PM EST
    I'm watching MSNBC now, not CNN and they used the same terms and said it was based on exit polls (for the Dems.) Thanks!

    Parent
    La Exit Poll can be found at The Page (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:56:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Ding Ding Ding (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:39:02 PM EST
    Clintons Campaign claims to have raised more than $10 million via the Internet from over 100,000 donors since California polls closed on Super Tuesday.

    what about Obama (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    I wonder why he has stopped posting actual numbers.  Either he is not "beating" her in fundraising or it is getting so disproportionately high that they became embarrassed, realized it was going to work against them, and took it off.

    My guess is #2, and I refer those who might celebrate to Freakanomics.  There comes a point when a bundle of cash no longer matters.

    Parent

    I would agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:55:18 PM EST
    there is now a Katrina link...

    Parent
    funds(?) (none / 0) (#165)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:54:49 AM EST
    are good, but I just don't see how Hillary can overcome the bias of even her own party. I talked to a person over the weekend who is supporting Obama. Seriously, these people are exactly like Dubya supporters. If you try to talk to them about the dirty things Obama is pulling or tell them the facts about the Clintons they just start raising their voice and ranting about how Bill Clinton ruined the Democratic Party (?) and then finally they say Hillary voted for "to go to war in Iraq" and Obama didn't. It reminds me of the Republicans being a one issue party, only the issue was abortion. Anyone against abortion they'd vote for, even if that person's wife or daughter had an abortion themselves. It's too depressing to me what has happened to the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#167)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:47:12 AM EST
    it is not looking good for the party.

    I'm even more upset about how this whole thing started. I may never forgive Sen Dick Durbin (IL) for his behind the scene drafting of Sen Obama. Sen Durbin was really against another Clinton in the White House. He does not like the "bring your own people" that Pres Clinton did while in the White House. Pres Clinto did not go with the "status quo" so the found a young Senator that coudl run as the "Change Candidate" to protect their own interest. Hince all the OLD Dems line up support behing the NEW Dem.

    Parent

    PlayinPeoria (none / 0) (#180)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:31:36 AM EST
    Thank you so much for that information. This was my hunch all along, that the old men in the DNC drafted Obama to try to force Hillary out. They figured only a black man could really cut into her numbers. I have had running feuds with Dick Durbin all this past year. He is a pol who does whatever he thinks will benefit his position, he doesn't care about the consequences for this country or the American people. Your information is quite interesting.

    Parent
    Nov 2007 on CNN (none / 0) (#181)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:31:29 AM EST
    Durbin urges Obama to run for president

    I do not know how to link but you can google it.

    Durbin, who is set to become the Senate Majority Whip in January, has created an on-line petition titled "Run, Barack, Run!" on his webpage for people to sign.


    Parent
    Hillary does better when more people vote (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kenosharick on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    And yet the obama people are continuing to call her campaign "undemocratic" because they may get more superdelegates. Caucuses, which are IMO very undemocratic are just fine with these same obama supporters.

    Can we all agree (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    that talking about race and demographics is not racist, but rather a point of fact?  I think there is huge potential for folks to get their noses out of joint here--basically for no reason.  It seems to me that we are merely discussing what is being said on CNN, etc, about exit polling and how the demographics are breaking.

    Still, let's take it easy.  Saying aa's break for Obama is no more racist than it is sexist to say that women break for Hillary.

    The facts are ignored at our own peril.

    The demographics are what they are and (none / 0) (#32)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    we should be free to discuss them to our heart's content.  Not being able to do so would be the racist thing IMHO.

    Parent
    yes. Discussing the racial divide in voting is (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:22:08 PM EST
    not the same thing as approving it.

    Parent
    Parishes (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by lake char on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:19:58 AM EST
    Jeralyn ,We do not have counties in Louisiana . We have Parishes --
    And to you know how many (none / 0) (#162)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:41:10 AM EST
    computer programs have to make allowances because of that? :-)

    Parent
    true (none / 0) (#184)
    by lake char on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:52:41 AM EST
    Lol-
    true , However. most on the internet  are getting it right .
    Seeing the map of Louisiana  with counties listed instead of Parishes  looks really strange to me .:.Not a big deal to others I guess.

    Parent
    Aww, I relate to that from Wisconsin (none / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    where by statute, we don't have townships.  We have towns.  Eastern media always get that wrong -- but not as often, because counties (or PARISHES) are used more often.

    But we have our fun coming with our primary, when we will get to hear Eastern media mess up on our municipalities' names.  They'll do okay on the many French names for municipalities here, like yours.

    But when they get to the Menominee, Potawatomi, Ojibwe, Ho-Chunk (Winnebago), etc., names for our counties and municipalities, it'll be the usual hoot.  Almost as much fun is when they have to handle the Polish names with no vowels. . . .

    Parent

    thanks for the correction (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    duly noted,

    Parent
    thank you (none / 0) (#186)
    by lake char on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    Jeralyn for all that you do .

    Parent
    Nebraska delegate breakout (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:32:11 PM EST
    Jerome Armstrong estimates:

    " Nebraska looks like it will break down as the following:

               Obama        Clinton

    CD 01-     3            3
    CD 02-     4            2
    CD 03-     2            2
    At-Large-  5            3

    Total      14           10"

    Interesting (none / 0) (#15)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:47:31 PM EST
    The Obama Memo projected a 15-9 split.  So if this holds up, Clinton picked up a delegate.  Which isn't as good as a win, but every delegate helps.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:49:59 PM EST
    It highlights the absurdity of this nonsensical primary system we have.

    Obama should have at LEAST 16 out of the 24.

    Parent

    No Argument Here (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:58:08 PM EST
    The entire thing is a travesty.  

    All you had to do was look at the Iowa numbers where Clinton got one more delegate than Edwards.  Or the NH numbers where Clinton and Obama got the same number of delegates.  Or the Nevada numbers where Obama got more delegates.  There's no reason to think the allocation in bigger states is any fairer or better.  

    Which is why I'm not all that persuaded that Super Delegates must follow the pledged delegates or else the entire thing is undemocratic.  It isn't designed to be democratic.  So all this gnashing of teeth over Super Delegates seems ridiculous to me.  

    Parent

    I have to agree. I'm for Hillary but the (none / 0) (#39)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:11:29 PM EST
    apportioning of delegates in all these contests makes no sense at all. Obama should get more than that for getting more than twice the votes.

    Moreover, if  we followed the Republican method, Hillary would have practically won already and we wouldn't be sitting here biting our fingernails and worrying about how Obama is going to bring off the GE, if  he gets the nomination, when he wins mostly small states and caucus states, most of which are going to go Republican in the general.

    Well, I can't believe I'm praising the Republicans for anything. Excuse me!

    Parent

    Washington State v. California (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:24:05 PM EST
    Washington State was estimating that if its turnout doubled this year, it would have 200,000 participants in its caucuses.  That's for 78 pledged delegates.  California had about 4,000,000 voters for 370 pledged delegates.  

    That's one pledged delegate for approximately every 2500 Washington State caucus participants (assuming participation doubled from last time).  

    In California, there was one pledged delegate for approximately every 10,000 voters.

    Why the disparity?  Caucuses.  They just don't bring out the same number of democrats and the delegates aren't based on democratic participants, they are based on registered dems.  

    A travesty, I say.

    Parent

    Something to Keep in MInd, BTW (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:25:02 PM EST
    When people talk about the sanctity of pledged delegates.

    Parent
    "Pledged delegates" (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:00:29 PM EST
    Agree  completely, BDB.  

    But  I think  this  was  Obama's  campaign  strategy  from the gitgo...knew  they  wouldn't  take  big  Dem  base  states,   worked  for  smaller  caucuses  (especially  red  states  he  won't  bring  to the party in November), pump up  delegate  numbers,   create  a  furor  that    he  "WON"  because  of  "pledged  delegates."  Which actually,  aren't  even  pledged----state  conventions  must   conduct  another  vote,  and only  then will  caucus   delegates  be pledged or  certified.    

    I'd  say  thank  GOODNESS  for  the  superdelegates  now.....they  have  every right  to  look  at  the bigger  picture in terms of  large  states  representing  the  true  Dem base.

    Parent

    "Pledged delegates" (none / 0) (#91)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    Agree  completely, BDB.  

    But  I think  this  was  Obama's  campaign  strategy  from the gitgo...knew  they  wouldn't  take  big  Dem  base  states,   worked  for  smaller  caucuses  (especially  red  states  he  won't  bring  to the party in November), pump up  delegate  numbers,   create  a  furor  that    he  "WON"  because  of  "pledged  delegates."  Which actually,  aren't  even  pledged----state  conventions  must   conduct  another  vote,  and only  then will  caucus   delegates  be pledged or  certified.    

    I'd  say  thank  GOODNESS  for  the  superdelegates  now.....they  have  every right  to  look  at  the bigger  picture in terms of  large  states  representing  the  true  Dem base.

    Parent

    i find the whole delegates/superdelegates (none / 0) (#99)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:11:07 PM EST
    jabber wierdly reminiscient over the furor of whether waterboarding constitutes torture.  i mean that in the sense that the talking points came out from the administration, then suddenly everywhere you looked progressive blog comment sections were overflowing with self proclaimed experts steeped in the ins and outs of interrogation parsing the torture out of waterboarding.  

    but on to my point, which is that i find it disturbing that obama is trying to make a run for the nomination and threatening to force a protracted battle for the nomination in a situation where he has never polled higher than 42% nationally and finished with about the same number in big states that are representative of the population at large.

    he has been unable to win over support from clinton voters, and her numbers have remained solidly just above fifty percent.

    it's not a decisive consideration, but it is another to keep in mind.  if obama wins the nomination, it will be the elevation of a person who never won a majority in any key big state and who polled consistently under fifty percent nationally over one who did.  

    from that perspective an obama nomination seems to me highly problematic.  

    Parent

    english teacher (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
    Agree,   english  teacher.  

    But  I  DO  think  this  was  his  strategy  from  the  beginning.    The  confusion over  delegates   is  what   he  wanted...he'll  CLAIM  he's  the  better   national  candidate,  but  it's  not  true.  None  of  the  red  states  he  wins  will  cross  in  November, so it's  a  false  and  hyped  claim on his  part.  

    You're  right...he's  never   polled  as   high  nationally  as  Clinton,  and  hasn't  won a  majority  in  any   major  Dem  base  states.  

    And  his  whining  about  the  superdelegates, which  have  always   existed  without  any whining,   and which  he  KNEW  about  from  the gitgo  and  KNEW  they  could   vote  how they pleased,  is  just  another  way for  his  campaign   to try  to    game  the  system.  

    He's  not "uniting."   He's  MANIPULATING.  

    Parent

    Let's try to keep the... (none / 0) (#133)
    by doordiedem0crat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:12:15 PM EST
    looniness within tolerable levels. thx

    Almost on par with Ron Paul supporters here.

    Parent

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#135)
    by djork on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:18:44 PM EST
    At the rate he's going, wouldn't this put Obama on track to win in pledged delegates but lose the overall popular vote. Seems like that would be something the superdelegates would take under consideration.

    Parent
    djork (none / 0) (#143)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:35:04 PM EST
    Of  course  the  superdelegates  will take  that  into  consideration;  that's  what  they've  always  been for.  

    Obama's  wins  are  mostly  caucuses  in red  states  that   aren't  going  to  vote  Democratic  in   November  anyway.  

    The  superdelegates  will  make  sure  that  such  small  red  state  wins  are  not  given more  weight  than  major   blue  state  Dem base wins.      

    They're  interested in  what's  best  for  the party as  a  whole  in  the general,  not in  "Dem  for  a  day"  Republicans  who  cross over  in  caucuses  but   won't  vote   Dem  in  November.    

    Parent

    And Hillary (none / 0) (#166)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:57:21 AM EST
    should get more in the states in she won.  Or should everything work to the benefit of Obama?

    Parent
    GE (none / 0) (#174)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:13:33 AM EST
    I think Obama will have a steep hill to climb in the GE. The Democrats are assuming that Republicans will vote for him because Americans are tired of the Republicans, but lots of Republicans will revert back to their own party in the GE. Also, the DNC is assuming that they can put whoever they want on the ticket and all Democrats will fall in line and vote for that person. The Republicans in my family tell me the Republican Party wants Obama because they have a ton of dirt on him and they believe they can defeat him. They are scared of Hillary Clinton because the evangelicals will not vote for McCain, but they will vote for Hillary.

    Parent
    Updated By MYDD (none / 0) (#80)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:46:42 PM EST
    To project a 16-8 split, which beats Obama's memo.  But again, take that memo with a huge grain of salt, it's accuracy depends on how inadvertent its release really was.  And who knows?

    Parent
    At first it was inadvertent. Now its (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:24:18 PM EST
    usually "inadvertent."

    Parent
    Time (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    Dems: Clinton 41%, Obama 40%

    I saw those #s on MSNBC and (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:39:38 PM EST
    it was called a clear win for Obama.

    One percent.  Exit polls.

    Pffft.  I switched channels again.

    Parent

    Grain of Slat but wow this is Race based (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:34:47 PM EST
    Blacks were nearly half the Democratic primary electorate and Obama racked up one of his largest margins yet among them. He won nearly nine in 10 blacks, male and female, according to the exit polls for The Associated Press and television networks.

    Most other Democratic voters were white and Clinton won them by about 40 points

    Coming from Harold Ford Jr country... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:23:35 PM EST
    this dynamic is nothing new. Racism is alive and well here in Memphis and the further south one gets to the Delta,through MS, the more pronounced it becomes. There are still segregated towns (by choice and sheer lack of choice)  along I-55 on down to New Orleans. The poverty in the area is breathtaking and the old southern social order still holds sway.
     I can totally understand identity politics.

    Parent
    am I the only one here (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:40:30 PM EST
    concerned that Obama only wins heavily in areas with large aa populations and caucus voting?

    Yet the trend is for Hillary in most democratic trending states that have closed primaries.

    This is my fourth time saying this in as many weeks: he could very well win the battle and lose us the war.

    Just saw Hillary's speech streamed from Virginia.  MAN, is she on point!

    Parent

    What's wrong with Obama winning the AA vote? (none / 0) (#12)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:43:42 PM EST
    Huh?

    Parent
    It won't win the White House (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:46:01 PM EST
    AAs are 12 percent of the population nationwide.

    That's all.  Nothing more than that.

    Parent

    Thank you, Cream (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    That's exactly what I meant.  I am talking about how Obama needs to break out his base.  Exit polling (which should be taken with a grain of salt) shows that in LA, his white, middle class numbers are back to SC percentages.  I certainly don't have a number for latte dems, but they probably make up around 10-15% of the party.  Even if you throw in the college voter, that's still not a huge majority.  College kids can spend all day caucusing.  Middle class workers have to go to their jobs.

    Hillary is polling extremely well with working class whites, older blacks, Latinos and Asians.  Based on that, I draw the conclusion that her base is wider than Obama's.  This gives me real concerns about an Obama ge.  Especially taking into account that some women and minorities might take the Michelle Obama approach and say they cannot support him.

    Parent

    Obama's "base" (none / 0) (#95)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:06:47 PM EST
    Agree  completely, Kathy.    And  just ignore   Andrew;  he's   very young.  

    Obama's  base  IS  limited:   AA,  wealthy white  male  young  yuppies, college  kids.    

    Pat  Buchanan  calls him  the  Republican Party's  "George  McGovern dream,":  exactly  the  guy  they  want  to run against  as a latte-drinking  ultra-liberal  Teddy  Kennedy  protege  with  no  national security  experience  or  military  background.  I think he's  right.  

    Obama's   wins  in   red  states  that will never  join  the  Democratic   team in November  are  really  illusory;    all hype.  

    Doesn't  help   the  base  in   NOvember.  
     

    Parent

    Because AA are minority nationally (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jonathan3 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:47:40 PM EST
    AA may be majority among the Democratic electorate, but they are clearly the minority in the national vote. Secondly, caucuses don't exist in the general. This means his current two largest advantages will not exist in the general election.

    Parent
    Whaaa? If AAs are majority of Dems (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:57:58 PM EST
    say hi to President McCain.

    Did you mean majority of the Dem electorate in some state?  Which one?  Hard to imagine, even in the most AA states like SC -- still just 29% AA.  So if AAs were the Dem majority there, hardly any whites voted for BO.  And that sort of racial divide would be even worse for the future of this country, and this campaign, than I thought.

    Parent

    2004 by Race (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:11:43 PM EST
    VOTE BY RACE    BUSH    KERRY   
        2004    2004    2004

          TOTAL           

    White (77%)    58%    41%   

    AA     (11%)    11%    88%   

    Latino (8%)    44%    53%   

    Asian (2%)    44%    56%   

    Other (2%)    40%    54%   

    I dropped Nadar

    VOTE BY RACE AND GENDER    BUSH    KERRY

              TOTAL       

    White Men (36%)            62%    37%

    White Women (41%)    55%    44%

    Non-White Men (10%)    30%    67%

    Non-White Women (12%)    24%    75%

    Parent

    Stupid white men. :) (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:15:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Well White Women Didn't Do Such A Good Job (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:36:00 PM EST
    either in 04. In fact, IIRC Kerry got a lower % of women than Gore and that was one of the factors in why he lost.

    I think Hillary could definitely pick up quite a bit in women, Latino and Asian voters. Let's just hope she gets the chance.

    Parent

    Yep, the only times since 1980 that a Dem won (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    the White House were when women voted more for a Dem than for the GOP candidate.

    Those times were in '92 and '96.  For a Clinton.

    Parent

    I think it's ok to debating race in politics (none / 0) (#130)
    by cannondaddy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:05:18 PM EST
    but that's uncalled for.

    Parent
    Well. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    That's sobering.

    Parent
    Totals 2004 (none / 0) (#47)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:16:17 PM EST
           CANDIDATE        VOTE    VOTE %
        Bush           62,040,606    51%

        Kerry           59,028,109    48%
        Nader              411,304    1%


    Parent

    whenever somebody talks about... (none / 0) (#53)
    by mike in dc on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:21:46 PM EST
    ...how a black Democratic candidate can't win the white male vote, I say "so?  A white male can't either."  
    If he's the nominee, AA voter turnout will be up by at least 20-25%, and he will get a record-high percentage of it.  I think he could actually do a little better among white males than Kerry did.  Clinton could potentially win a majority of white females, which would be a big electability point in her favor(I don't know whether that's true or not, though).  

    There is probably some side benefit for our candidates of increased exposure in many states due to the enthusiasm and tightness of the race.

    Parent

    I think she can win women period. I'm not sure (none / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:27:39 PM EST
    either can win the white male vote. It comes down to can HC bring out a bigger female vote (in numbers not percentage) than BO can in increased black vote. There are a lot more women to pull from so I say advantage Clinton.

    I think white men will think McCain has more and better experience than Obama.

    Parent

    I Think That A Lot Of Older Folks (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:38:11 PM EST
    will think McCain has more and better experience than Obama.

    Parent
    I hear that already from a lot of older (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    neighbors and others.  I have found one who is thinking of voting for Obama over Clinton -- but she prefers McCain, if it comes down to him vs. Obama.

    Btw, she's in her '90s, has been through a lot of wars, lost her husband in one, and almost lost her son, her only child, in another -- McCain's war.  That and 9/11, for her grandchildren, have made her really focused on defense, security, as well as on the side of the military and ANY Viet vet.  (She voted for Kerry.)

    Parent

    Almost, but (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    you've also got to consider the absolute increase among young non-african americans that Obama brings in November.

    Parent
    So AAs were 11% of the voters? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:53:07 PM EST
    if I read this correctly (the columns aren't coming across in line for me).  That hardly would make them the majority of the Democratic voters.

    Sadly, it's not even up to their percentage of the population.  So it is good to see that going up this time.

    Parent

    Yeah...well I have... (none / 0) (#137)
    by doordiedem0crat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:20:47 PM EST
    republican coworkers that would move to another country other than Hillary be elected.

    But a number of them would toss a vote to Barack instead of McCain.

    Parent

    In Many Places, It Was Very Difficult (none / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:17:24 AM EST
    for AAs to vote in 04. Remember how long the lines were and how few polling booths there were in predominately AA communities. Many just couldn't stand in line for hours to vote and had to leave. Their participation rate would have been better without those conditions.

    Parent
    I think the point is the vote is racially split (none / 0) (#19)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:50:17 PM EST
    in a significant way -whites for Hillary, blacks for Obama.

    Parent
    Pretty sad commentary I think. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:54:41 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm Not So Sure (none / 0) (#30)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:00:42 PM EST
    I think folks presume that people are voting out of hostility instead of affinity.  I don't think AAs are hostile to Clinton.  I'm not even sure white voters (who are mostly older and mostly women in Louisiana) are hostile to Obama.  Oh, sure some of them will be, but I'm not convinced that what we're seeing are people acting on negative emotions so much as positive ones.

    Parent
    Well, you can look at the exit poll results on CNN (none / 0) (#48)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:16:19 PM EST
    Whites of all age groups went for Hillary. Blacks of all age groups went for Obama.  

    Parent
    from MyDD (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:27:14 PM EST
    I find the color divide pretty disturbing for both candidates:

                     Clinton      Obama

    White Men        66            28
    White Women      73            24
    Black Men        19            80
    Black Women      16            84

    One other polarizing split shows that 28% of Clinton supporters, and 24% of Obama supporters, will be satisfied only if their candidate is the nominee.

    Parent

    This split (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM EST
    just makes me angry at the party. In such a crucial year, what are they thinking to pit a white woman against a black man? Of course it's going to divide the party. Rahm and the boys should have talked to Obama and said, you're young, we cant afford to divide the party this time, wait another cycle. But instead they put Barack out there, do everything to promote and protect him, then Howard tells us one of the candidates has to drop out by March 4. Three guesses who that will be.

    Parent
    That Polarizing Split Worries Me Quite A Bit (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:04:50 PM EST
    Hopefully, it is just the heat of the moment kind of thing.

    Parent
    I'm an idealist who would prefer (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:24:44 PM EST
    each voter decide on the basis of the merits of the candidates.

    Parent
    I Think We Will Have To Break The Barriers First (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:35:02 PM EST
    Meaning we will have to actually elect the 1st. black president and the 1st. woman president so that it becomes an accepted practice.

    At least I hope that will be the results anyway.

    Parent

    You'e not the only one in that I've been concerned (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:10:40 PM EST
    about this since South Carolina.  I don't have a clue how this plays out in the general election but it's a worry.

    Seems to me it gives the republicans another point of attack and they won't hesitate to do it.


    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#176)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:18:52 AM EST
    really starting to worry that if Obama is the candidate, we'll have another Republican in the WH. If that happens, I'm done with the Democrats. I guess I'll have to get apolitical or move to Monaco. I have days when a benevolent despot starts looking good.

    Parent
    No, you're not the only one... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Camorrista on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:26:24 PM EST
    Kathy, please my post in this thread.....

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/9/202743/3726

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Race, maybe, but not necessarily racism (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    I don't know that I'd read racism into it entirely, although Louisiana does have an ugly history.  Most Louisiana voters appear to be older and women, that's Hillary's wheelhouse for white voters.  Although I'm not going to say that at least some white voters wouldn't vote for a black man (just as I'm never shocked when Clinton loses white men to Obama, which I think is probably about sex to the same extent).  But to the extent race decided elections in Louisiana, I suspect it does so in the form of Republicans.  In fact, that's why such a large percentage of the dems are AAs, most whites are Republicans.  Those are the voters most likely to vote on race, it seems to me.

    Most AA's I think are more enthused by Obama than turned off by Clinton.  I don't think they're voting against the white woman, I think they're voting for the black man.

    Parent

    maybe I framed that incorrectly (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:45:27 PM EST
    I'm not worried about race.  I am worried about winning.  Sweeping Utah might look good on the map, but unless the second coming occurs and the Mormons were right, that state is never going to go blue.

    I agree with your last paragraph, but I worry that he is not breaking out of his base.  There are more whites and more middle class whites, Asians and Latinos than there are latte dems and aa's in this country.

    Parent

    Super Delegates (none / 0) (#34)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:08:19 PM EST
    With all the talk about Super Delegates, I think Nancy Pelosi made a good point which is that Super Delegates are part of their state delegates.  And if you think about it, the bigger and bluer the state, the more Super Delegates it has.  Idaho isn't going to have a lot of Super Delegates because Idaho doesn't have a lot (any?) democratic Congressman or Senators.  

    One argument about Super Delegates is that they have to support the leader in pledged delegates.  Given how screwy the system is in picking pledged delegates, I'm not sure that's an automatic winning argument, although I certainly understand its appeal and the intent behind it.  

    But if you look at Super Delegates as folks who are supposed to look out for the best interests of the party, it might make more sense for them to vote for the candidate who won their state or district.  In that way, they could be seen as a way to ensure that the candidate is someone who is popular with the Democratic base.  In other words, it's in the interest of the party to nominate the person who wins Ohio, not Montana (to use two states that haven't voted yet).  Notice it probably also gives swing states more of a say than red states because they probably have at least a few democratic elected officials in the swing states.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#37)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:10:23 PM EST
    Really super delegates only come into play in close races.  So when there are two candidates that are almost equally popular with Democrats, Super Delegates could be an opportunity to choose the candidate most popular in states where Dems need or want to win.

    Of course, that presumes those states aren't split, too.  Heh.

    Parent

    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#177)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    I believe that if the Superdelegates try to nominate Hillary, the Obama people will raise such a ruckus they will have to change to Obama or risk a third party.

    Parent
    Somebody made a superdelegate page here: (none / 0) (#90)
    by zyx on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:00:17 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/yuy7ws

    I don't think it's exactly official, but it's really interesting, and you can search for your Dem state officials by name if you aren't sure if they are on one side or the other...it's quite something.

    Parent

    Well, one interesting point in the exit polls in (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:47:52 PM EST
    Louisiana is that the old people over 65 and the very youngest voters -are more for Hillary than middle age groups.  She  got 49-50% of the 18-24 year olds and 26% of the African Americans that age.  

    Parent
    Watch your language. (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    Couldn't you just say voters 65 and older?

    Parent
    Sorry. But 'm headed to that demographic (none / 0) (#50)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:18:36 PM EST
    very shortly.

    Parent
    I figured you were closer to 20! (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:27:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Gosh. Thanks! (none / 0) (#67)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:33:42 PM EST


    Parent
    I Prefer The Term Mature Adults (none / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:07:29 PM EST
    rather than old people since I'm within striking distance of that age group. (tongue in check)

    I'm surprised about the 18 - 24 year olds going to Clinton and about the middle groups going to Obama.

    Parent

    Youth vote went to Clinton in California (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:12:45 PM EST
    did I read?  And some other state(s) -- apparently more so as we go along.  Iowa set the narrative about the youth vote, but it was an anomaly in so many ways.  

    Parent
    Youth vote (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:14:16 PM EST
    Yes,  Clinton  took  the  youth  vote   by  a  large  margin  in both  California  AND  Massachusetts.   KEY   general  election  states.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#70)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:35:48 PM EST
    But it was driven by young latin@ voters.

    Check out my new PC typing ability - using an @ at the end of latin to indicate latino/latina all at once.  I love the intertubes.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#125)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:53:15 PM EST
    I know I'm impressed!

    Note: not a clue-Mac user.

    Parent

    Mac User as well (none / 0) (#142)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:33:42 PM EST
    I meant Politically Correct, not Personal Computer.  Abbreviation ambiguity, sorry.

    Parent
    Thought (none / 0) (#178)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
     I read that Hillary got the white male vote in southern states in Super Tuesday, Obama got the white male vote in CA. My Obama friend says that Obama got the white male vote everwhere? Anybody know what's really correct?

    Parent
    Unless I'm wrong that also happened in CA (none / 0) (#49)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:17:36 PM EST
    I hope that it's because the youngest among us are less likely to be race-centric or sexist.  In much the same way they just accept gay marriage as a fact of nature, maybe they are also more tolerant in general.

    If that's the case, it's a very good thing going forward.

    Parent

    I Think One Factor Is The Older Generation (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:22:33 PM EST
    place a higher value on experience than younger folks.  Many of them from what I saw in a couple of exit polls perceived Hillary to have the most experience. One breakout (don't remember which state) for those who valued experience, Hillary won something like 83% to 3% for Obama. That worries me in the GE.

    Parent
    Older Generation (none / 0) (#114)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:42:28 PM EST
    I  think  you're  right  about  the  older  generation   (I guess  that's  us  Boomers now....when did  that  happen? lol)

    Especially  older  white  men.  

    They  see no  experience   in   national  security,  Armed  Services, or  military service in  Obama.    It  matters to them.

    Parent

    Experience favors Gravel. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:28:38 AM EST
    Expereience in resisting bad wars and policestate legislation, not voting for it.

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:53:33 PM EST
    Where can I find the Primary totals to date of party designation the split between Dems, Is, and Republicans, for Hillary and O anyone know?

    Measuring voter turnout (none / 0) (#29)
    by muffie on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:00:25 PM EST
    How do they measure voter turnout?  My impression is that a lot of people have left the state within the last few years.  If they were still registered to vote in LA, but didn't submit absentee ballots, this could explain low turnout.

    absentee (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:10:20 PM EST
    was around 17,000 people, I think.  Y'all can check me on that.

    I agree with what someone said about affinity vs. hate, though.

    Are y'all see what's going on with Huckabee?  If he gets the nom, we can pretty much run a turnip against him.  The election would be right up there with Cheney being defeated by a dead man.

    Obama projected winner in LA (none / 0) (#43)
    by mike in dc on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    MSNBC calls it.  Looks like it'll be close to a 15 point margin.

    Wonder if Obama will get a big enough bounce to win Wisconsin on the 19th.

    It's an open primary, so I'd say yes. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:16:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Wide open in Wisconsin and (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:19:18 PM EST
    largest paper in the state, conservative paper, today on its front page reminded voters of the long history of GOP crossover to pick who they want to beat.  Plus Wisconsin is not accustomed to voting women into political office -- no governors, no senators, first woman in the House only 8 years ago.

    Parent
    Well, if it's true they want to run against (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:23:04 PM EST
    Hillary (their mistake, if so), maybe they'll come out and help us. :)

    Parent
    fat chance of that, they've got their target (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:28:45 PM EST


    Parent
    And watch for word on Waukesha County (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:05:28 PM EST
    in Wisconsin, so red it glows in the dark.  The fourth-reddest county in the country in 2004.  And one of the largest counties in the state now, as it was the fastest-growing county in the country as the conservative revolution began -- because it's just west of Milwaukee, so Waukesha County is full of white-flighters, a massive evangelical church (along with smaller others), lots of fundamentalist schools and such.  

    The city of Waukesha, within the county, is more interesting -- lots of Latinos/as.  But not anywhere near enough to outweigh the rest of the county.  It follows orders from the state GOP well, so it may bring in lots of votes for Obama.  

    That's how weird it is here in Wisconsin, where nothing ever is as it seems -- making it fertile ground for eastern-based media types to make lots of stupid summations.  For one thing, it confuses them when they wander through town and see signs about its history -- when it was a stop on the Underground Railroad toward freedom in Canada.

    And it's not far to Madison, which is a whole other state . . . of mind.  In Wisconsin but not of it, lots of New Yorkers and others who still haven't really settled into Wisconsin decades after coming to school there and not being able to leave, because of its beauty and cooooolness.

    We always look forward to media coming to the state and seriously screwing up in reporting on the state, because they don't want to get too far from the main airport to get out again.  

    Parent

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#115)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:44:08 PM EST
    Ok,  big  GOP  crossover  to  "defeat  Hillary."  

    But  keep in   mind,  those  crossovers   cross  BACK  in the  general, and  won't  be   voting   for  any  Democrat.  

    Parent

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#119)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:48:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep, they never do here -- (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:54:51 PM EST
    they're diehard GOP in this state that was where the Republican Party started, after all. . . .

    Parent
    I rented the "Birthplace (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:58:54 AM EST
    of the Republican Party," the Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, for an agricultural hemp event last fall. The folks who run it were so impressed they're giving us space for a permanent exhibit in the historic hemp industry in western Fond Du Lac County.

    At the time of it's founding, the avowed mission was to "stop the spread of slavery.'

    Parent

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#179)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    I'll be surprised if WI doesn't go the way of MN.

    Parent
    He does not need a bounce (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:23:53 PM EST
    He will win Wisconsin easily.

    The question is the delegate breakdown.

    Parent

    why will he win easily? (none / 0) (#85)
    by nycvoter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    Is it a caucus, and can you give me some information on why he should win so easily on Tuesday?  

    Parent
    I think you're correct, but the first poll (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    in two months for Wisconsin came out yesterday and predicted Clinton at 50, Obama at 41.

    It's from ARG.  As I recall, that's about as reliable as Zogby?  (No aspersions on the integrity of ARG being as low as Zogby -- I just mean doesn't ARG also have a mixed record re good results?)

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#113)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:37:46 PM EST
    are you so gruff and irritable all the time, BTD?

    May I suggest a latte? Some wine and brie, maybe? How 'bout a skateboard?

    Parent

    I'm calling a fairly solid Obama popvote win, (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:05:15 AM EST
    but not a huge delegate margin. Only 2 Districts with odd number of delegates, in the rest it's hard to get enough to avoid even delegate split.

    I broke down each District here

    Parent

    mike (none / 0) (#101)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:16:07 PM EST
    Close  margin  is  good  for  Clinton.....gets   close  to  same  number of  delegates  going  into  huge    March wins in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.  

    Parent
    With almost all of LA in, BO got 55% (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:53:55 PM EST
    and I thought it was a shoo-in for him.  Shouldn't his share of the vote be higher?  

    So he will get a bit more than half of the delegates then, and Clinton will get about 4 in 10 of them?

    Btw, "other" is doing surprisingly well on both sides -- leading on the GOP side in Washington State!

    Parent

    55% (none / 0) (#146)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:45:04 PM EST
    Ummmm......that's  not  very   high  for  Obama.  

    And   his  so-called  "delegate  bump"  to pad  him   against  losses  in   Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania  won't  be  big  enough.

    Parent

    Bounce is no longer relevent. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:30:23 AM EST
    Obama was always winning Wisconsin, not by much. He'll still win Wisconsin, not by much.

    Parent
    its not just some objective discussion (none / 0) (#52)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    of race. It is a pointed charge that Obama is somehow only able to win african americans. Which is part of what I sense (and excuuuuse me if I am wrong) is an effort on your part to say anything to tear down the opponent of your favorite candidate.

    It is an absurd notion that somehow Obama has a problem with attracting white voters, which is what is implied by your comments. So what that in many of the instances where he has won big, it was in caucus states. Do you have any semblance of a serious argument that Hillary would have won KS, NE, CO, ND, Iowa etc etc if only they had had primaries?

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:33:48 PM EST
    The comment was that Obama tends to do well in states with high African American voter percentages and states with caucuses.   Given his strong showing in the deep Southern states, which are heavily African American, and his going 9 for 10 in caucus states, I'd say that's a fair general assessment of his wins to date.  

    I don't believe anyone said Obama couldn't win white voters.  That's clearly not true.  But he does do better in democratic primaries in states with large AA populations and caucus states. At least so far.

    It's the same as noting that Clinton tends to do better in states with   certain demographics.  That doesn't mean she couldn't win other demos in a general, but she's not doing it in the primaries/caucuses.

    The fascinating thing about the entire race is the unchanging nature of the demographics.  Obama picked up some white men after Edwards dropped out, but their primary bases have remained the same in most contests.  I wonder if that's because they now target those voters and so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy?

    Parent

    jeebus, (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:01:33 PM EST
    yes!  she obviously would have done better based on other data which you keep denying exists.

    you are being dishonest here by failing to mention that hillary won bigger red states with a more representative population distribution by huge margins where primarys were actually held.

    for obama supporters it's as though ok, tn, and ar didn't vote.  

    it is dishonest, and i am sick of it.  

    Parent

    English teacher (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:22:51 PM EST
    LOL!   But  of  course,  teacher,  for Obama  supporters,   Arkansas  and  Tennessee  and Oklahoma  were  flukes,   and  Michigan  and  Florida  were  just  "beauty  contests."  

    And  Obama  is  going  to  ride  into the  White  House  on his wins  in   Alabama, Georgia, Kansas,  North  Dakota,  and  Utah.    

    They  DO  live  in an  alternative  universe.

    Parent

    And Idaho. Don't forget how many (none / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:00:31 AM EST
    presidents have been elected by Idaho. :-)

    Parent
    What's Illinois? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:32:31 AM EST


    Parent
    Land of Lincoln and one of Obama's (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:43:09 AM EST
    many home states.

    Parent
    I just don't get the fixation with dismissing (none / 0) (#169)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:08:03 AM EST
    the black vote as unimportant.

    In a multivariate regression (details here) reveals that Clinton cleans up on the Southern Baptist vote; in non-Southern Baptist states the white vote is roughly split (excepting caucus states).

    Clinton wins among naturalized citizens (mostly Latinos, Asians). Obama wins among those under 35, Clinton wins older women; young women, older men are split. The key battleground is the 35-45 voters.

    What does that tell us about electability? Not much. So I don't see a need to single out one part of Obama's winning coalition to note that their votes "don't matter". Why can't you say the same thing about Clinton's southern baptist voters or her Latino voters in red states?

    Parent

    First, they weren't my comments (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:34:56 PM EST
    that got you into your usual tear.  Read carefully.

    Second . . . you're not worth engaging on this.  I usually just ignore your unfounded, unresearched stuff, but you went over the line, and I call you out on that.  So now, I'll just ignore you again.

    Parent

    Tano, watch it (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:36:32 PM EST
    Your previous comment was deleted. You're on thin ice. Do not insult other posters here or misrepresent their comments.

    Parent
    apologies.. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:09:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Well I guess (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:43:54 PM EST
    it can be a grudge or a fact each can choose.

    Parent
    Maybe this helps (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM EST
    CNN Exit Poll Results:

    Black voters: Obama 82%, Clinton 18%

    White voters: Clinton 70%, Obama 26%

    Attended College: Obama 57%, Clinton 41%

    These are from today

    Parent

    Maybe this helps (none / 0) (#103)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:20:44 PM EST
    Exactly  what  I said.    Louisiana  is  a world unto  itself,  folks---I  lived  there   most of  my  life.   It  is  a DIEHARD  red  state....no  liberals ,   all   right-leaning  moderates  and  conservatives.      

    Whether  it   angers   Tano  or  not,  the  demographics  and  history of  Louisians  are  such that  without  that  AA  vote,  he  would  never  have  won.  

    And  even if  he won the  Dem  primary, LA  will not   go   blue  in  November.  They just  elected  a    Republican governor   by  a  landslide.  

    Parent

    Here's BO... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    I wonder how much of Obama's speech we'll see? We saw about five minutes of HC's.

    CNN played almost all (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    of Hillary's speech I think.  Rachel Maddow gave it a great review.

    Parent
    MSNBC you mean? CNN didn't but they (none / 0) (#76)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    are so far with BO. It's good speech though. He's attacking Bush and McCain and praising Democrats. A big improvement Jeralyn.

    Parent
    oops, now he's back on red states. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:42:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Time has a direct link (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:41:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama's speech (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    He  did his  normal  schtick  about  being   the   underdog   during  the whole  campaign,  and  how his  "load" is  so  heavy   to  carry, but    his  "hope"  has   kept him  going.  

    Thought  for  a  second  he  was gonna  break out into   "Ole Man River."  

    Then  I   turned  the  channel  so I wouldn't  barf.  

    Parent

    no but you are inferring it (none / 0) (#87)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    can we please have a serious discussion here without you dishonestly accusing other people of racism?

    obama is weak on national security.  hillary is not.  

    obama is weak with seniors.  hillary is strong with seniors.  

    there are legitimate concerns about obama's appeal to swing constituencies in a general election that have nothing to do with his race.

    obama and his supporters refuse to face this reality at all of our peril.

    you are the one trying to cast aspersions of racism.  is this what obama supporters should be doing?  there are legitimate concerns here.  you trivialize the process with your simplistic race baiting.  

    As someone who will not vote (none / 0) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:48:39 PM EST
    for him because of what I see as "real reasons"...no sour grapes, no racism.

    My primary reason is that his resume's too thin (essentially what Buchanan is saying).  We don't need an intern as president and we don't need someone who won't TRULY FIGHT for causes.

    I'm not thinking about the next 4 years, I'm thinking about the next 20-30 years.  The worst thing that the Democrats can do for Democrats for years to come is to damage the party name as Bush blackened the Republican name.

    (And again, about SC justices, if we have a majority in the Senate, McCain can't put through anyone too radical).

    Parent

    And I meant to say (none / 0) (#124)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:52:20 PM EST
    The worst thing the Democrats can do for Democrats is to elect someone who is ineffectual (ala Carter).

    Parent
    The problem is McCain is consistent (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:28:07 PM EST
    on one issue:  right to life.  And he has promised to nominate persons in the mold of Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS.  A death knell for Roe v. Wade.

    Parent
    Hillary's speech was great. (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycvoter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:57:43 PM EST
    I can't listen to Obama anymore

    I never listen to Bush, makes me want to hurl (none / 0) (#98)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:10:59 PM EST
    and now Obama does the same thing.  wow, I hate that.

    Parent
    Hillary's speech (none / 0) (#102)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:17:24 PM EST
    I didnt see it, but heard Maddow's review.

    She was waxing poetic about how Hillary was so inspirational (I guess that is a good thing now), specifically about electing the first woman.

    I dont see this really discussed much - the disparity between Obama and Hillary on this identity poltics thing. How Hillary often (and approvingly, apparantly) trumpets her election as a woman, and how Obama never stands up and invites people to be proud of electing the first black president.

    Maybe I am being paranoid here, but I sense that hillary is really driving this point to her percieved advantage. She is the one who talks about the historical choice of choosing not only the first woman, but also potentially the first black. Its like she wants to bring him into the identity frame - because, I imagine, that she wins that frame, there being a lot more women out there than blacks.

    So I guess my question is - aside from the obvious quiet pride that one would take in seeing a woman president, is it a good thing to actually make that an explicit and prominent part of your appeal? It does seem to rather directly ask for people to vote for you because you are a woman.

    Obama really seems to be trying to move beyond that, and that is actually a very big difference between the two campaigns.

    Obama moving "beyond" (none / 0) (#107)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:25:34 PM EST
    And  yet , Tano,  he  apologized   to  Tim  Russert    on national   TV  during   the MSNBC  debate  for  allowing  his  staff  and  campaign to  USE  the  race  card,   admitted  he had  done it,  apologized ,  and  swore  he  would  not  do  so  again.    

    Moving  boyond  all  that?  

    Nonsense.

    Parent

    oh c'mon auntmo (none / 0) (#109)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:29:42 PM EST
    deal with the issue, please

    His staff made up a list of supposed slights that they percieved the Clintons were using. But he decided he did not want to go there.

    Could you please respect the sincerity of my question by addressing it, rather than trying to dismiss it by dredging up some trivial one day incident?

    Do you think that constant appeals to the pride of electing the first woman president amount to asking people to vote for her because she is a woman? Is this a good thing?


    Parent

    Good grief, Tano (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:49:03 PM EST
    Oh   please, Tano.  

    A  one-day  incident?    Nonsense.  

    I   WATCHED  Obama   apologize  for allowing his  campaign  to use  the  race  card  after his  New Hampshire  loss   to whip up  the  Black vote in  South  Carolina.  

    I  WATCHED  him   admit  his   campaign staff  had  done  so.      

    Nobody's  buying  your  schtick ,  dear.  

    Give  it up.

    Parent

    thank you for ignoring my question (none / 0) (#123)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:52:08 PM EST


    Parent
    He decided he didn't want to go there after they (none / 0) (#117)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:46:42 PM EST
    had went and gotten any advantage out of it, then he didn't want to go there anymore.  That trivial one day incident drove news coverage for over a week to the SC primary.

    As far as referencing the historical signifance of electing the first woman president, I think it can't be ignored.  As a politician, you use what you've got in the best way you can.  I certainly don't think it's demeaning in any way.

    Parent

    Tano (none / 0) (#116)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:44:29 PM EST
    Both candidates play that game. It's what politicians do. Believe it or not, BHO is a politician too, not a saint.

    Parent
    who said anything about saints? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    this is not about virtue, it is about who these people are, and what kind of issues motivate them.

    Obama has never said - lets elect the first black president.
    Hillary has often said - lets elect the first woman.

    That is a real difference.

    And it strikes me that in so doing, she is rather explicitly asking people to vote for her because she is a woman.

    I am not saying that is evil - it is what it is.

    Parent

    Well Tano (none / 0) (#138)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:21:39 PM EST
    You're right that Obama would never ask to be elected because he is black, just as Hillary has never asked to be favored because she is a woman. Hillary has pointed out that, in fact, this election has historic potential either way.
    I doubt that BHO thinks we ,the electorate, don't recognize that he is an African-American and Hillary is a white woman. Why is it so bothersome to you?

    Parent
    i think she has asked (none / 0) (#141)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:32:27 PM EST
    for people to vote for her because she is a woman. It is always a great applause line for her - lets make history by electing the first woman.

    And I see her mentioning of the importance of possibly electing the first black as a way of roping Obama into an identity politics that he has no deisre to play - his campaign is the exact opposite. He counters with repeating how it is not black vs. white, male vs. female, etc. But she keeps returning to that theme.

    Its very subtle and very smart, but the effect is to frame the election as one in which voters should, in fact should feel proud of, making this kind of history. She would be thrilled if people used that as a criterion, for if they did, there is no doubt that she would win - just baesd on the relative population of those two groups.

    I guess I am just wondering if Clinton supporters are really excited about playing this type of identity poltics - whether they think it is inherintly a good thing to do, or whether they just kinda ignore it so long as it works to get them what they want.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:37:25 PM EST
    I think she says it because 1) she means it, she has a long history of dedication to both feminism and civil rights and 2) the Obama campaign and the MSM have worked overtime to paint Hillary as the establishment and diminish the history her candidacy would make so as to highlight his.  Because, of course, it's easy for a woman to be elected president, just look how many have been?

    Which is not to detract from Obama's own historical run, which is a terrific thing, but it irks me that so many want to diminish what Clinton is doing.  As if she isn't making history, too.

    Parent

    i didnt mean to imply (none / 0) (#147)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:49:58 PM EST
    that she doesn't mean it.

    My only criticism is that by highlighting it, as Obama does not, she is trying to use that historical fact to win votes, based on her identity.

    I dont see anything that Obama has done to "diminish the history her candidacy would make". And he has done nothing to promote the history that his election would mean, at least not as a black man. What are you referring to?

    And who has ever said it would be easy to elect a woman, or a black, for that matter?

    Parent

    Oh, come on. You can't (none / 0) (#161)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:37:45 AM EST
    possibly believe this?
    And he has done nothing to promote the history that his election would mean, at least not as a black man


    Parent
    In support of this (none / 0) (#151)
    by Sima on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:47:39 AM EST
    Today at the caucus in WA I heard several speakers talk about what a change Obama would bring.  One of them explicitly mentioned his race.  And they are right, that would be a change.

    But should have seen their faces when I pointed out putting a woman in the Oval Office would bring change as well.  I think to some, that had never occurred to them.  I don't know why.  Perhaps they are buying the meme that it's not really Hillary that's running, but Bill.

    Parent

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#132)
    by lilburro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:08:04 PM EST
    I didn't hear all of her speech tonight, but she often makes a point of saying how wonderful it would be to elect either a woman or an African American as president.  I think she probably has a bit more leniency in directly using her gender identity in speeches.  But I also don't think she makes it an explicit part of her appeal most of the time.  
    I think sexism and racism have different patterns of expression as well (unless you are a black woman, a latina woman, an asian american woman, etc, in which case they converge in complicated ways).  There aren't any t-shirts as offensively directed at Obama's race as there are at Hillary's gender...that I've seen at least.   Thank god.  

    Parent
    Has anyone else noticed MSNBC's (none / 0) (#118)
    by ivs814 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    regular election line-up is nowhere to be seen?  No Chris Matthews, no KO, no Russert.  It's all women with guest panaleists Pat Buchanan and Robinson.  

    Wow (none / 0) (#122)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:50:01 PM EST
    that's nice.  Sorry I haven't watched any TV tonight.  Was it better than normal I hope?


    Parent
    Nora O'Donnell is heading (none / 0) (#129)
    by ivs814 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:59:48 PM EST
    the line-up and there does seem to be a shift in the coverage. They have high-lighted some realities like Obama winning in Red states that will not go Democratic in the GE. Rachel Maddow praised Hillary's speech so that's a shift there.  She's been so pro-Obama and openly hostile to Hillary lately.

    Parent
    I truly hope you do not consider.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by doordiedem0crat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:16:04 PM EST
    yourself a democrat...if so then you do us a great disservice. Loon.

    doordiedemocrat (none / 0) (#145)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    Nonsense,   dear.    Kathy  and I--and  many others   are   concerned  about   the  party as  a  whole.   Obama's  base  is  very  narrow,  and  his  wins--most of  them---are  in  states  that  will not   go  blue  in November.  

    Those   of  us  who  have  been   voting  Democratic   for  years  and years   see   the  Obama  naivete   as  the  loons.  

    You  won't  win in  November if  you  count  on  caucus wins  in  Alabama, Georgia,  Louisiana, Kansas, Alaska, NorthDakota,  or Utah.  

    It's    REALITY.  Those  of you  who think  you can  carry those  states in November   are  the  loons,  dear.  

    Grow  up.  

    Parent

    No one's raving about this speech of his. (none / 0) (#136)
    by lily15 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:20:01 PM EST
    And the one's who are...are faking it.  One senses no excitement....rather deja vu.  However, Hillary's speech was good...surprisingly so.  Of course, no mention of that...so my conclusion is that it was really good.(I loved it) If Hillary's speech was bad, all the knowing pundits would rush to tell us so and dump on her...if its really good...they ignore it.  This is the new rule of thumb.  And it is surprisingly accurate.  

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#139)
    by doordiedem0crat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    ...........opinion.

    Parent
    Lily (none / 0) (#148)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:53:33 PM EST
    Absolutely  right,  Lily.  

    But  I  did  see    MSNBC/Norah  O'Donnell  with   Pat  Buchanan  and   others    finally  discussing  the  reality of  Obama's  red  state  wins  not helping  the  Dem party in  the  general  election.      

    And  Pat  Buchanan  openly saying  Obama is  the Republican  Party's  dream  candidate,  like   George  McGovern:   no  national security  or military  experience,   ultra-liberal   Teddy  Kennedy   protege  endorsed  by  liberal MoveOn.org,    narrowly  appealing  to   a  very   narrow   base. (John  Kerry  redux?)  

    That's  at  least  a  change  in MSNBC   coverage.  

    And  some   serious  considerations  for  Democrats    who  want to  win in November.

    Parent

    I can't wait (none / 0) (#152)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:02:28 AM EST
    until after Tuesday, so Obama can get his three big wins out of the way PURELY DUE TO AFRICAN AMERICANS in those states, so he can brag about them and get them out of the way. Obama is winning on a 9 to 10 margin among Blacks. I wish people can look beyond skin color and vote for who they truly believe would be a better president. Racism should end amongst all races.
     

    "Ignore Andrew he's very young." (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:14:49 AM EST
    don't be suprisedd then, when young voters ignore your candidate.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    Insults to other commenters aren't allowed and Andrew is welcome here. As are Obama supporters and young people.

    Parent
    This is exactly (none / 0) (#163)
    by sas on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:56:00 AM EST
    how the corporate media want this race to play out.

    They wanted to ignore Edwards, hate Hillary, and bring Obama to the fore.

    Why, we must ask has their coverage been so slanted?    They have their aganda and are promoting their man Obama.

    Doesn't anyone else here wonder what kind of ego Obama must have to think, that he as a junior senator, is qualified to be the President?

    Hope (none / 0) (#164)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:50:10 AM EST
    I've given up all hope that we'll get Hillary. Then, I don't know what she'll do. I don't think she'll run again after the treatment this time around. This is exactly why Gore won't get back into politics. The Obama people would be doing the same thing to Gore they're doing to Hillary.

    I guess what is so disappointing to me is having looked forward for 8 yrs to having a government I could feel good about again, and now we have a choice of two men who are both attacking Democrats. I will never forgive Barack Obama for trashing the Clintons in order to promote himself, he's trying to rob Democrats of the legacy of one of our greatest presidents. I don't have any confidence that he will be a good president.

    Whoever made the comment (none / 0) (#168)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:04:37 AM EST
    About people being more excited about a black president than a woman president--you are spot on.  Women NEVER matter in these things.  Remember what Douglass said to Cady Stanton when she asked for his support of women's suffrage?  "It's not your time."  How many decades passed after that?

    When will it be our time?  We have the most qualified, the most well-versed and the most supported democratic candidate right in front of us, and the cool dude who knows the secret handshake and can't do anything but inspire people to feel inspired is getting all the buzz.

    I say it again: when will it be our time?

    When will it be the black candidate's turn? (none / 0) (#170)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    You can look at it both ways. Obama is maybe the only black politician on the Democrat's bench for the foreseeable future with a shot. This is after they got screwed over by racial politics in 1984 and 1988 when a black man tried to run. They were told then to "wait their turn".

    The point is, this argument doesn't get us very far about why we should support a candidate.

    Parent

    I am talking about the disparity (none / 0) (#171)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    in excitement, which was mentioned upthread.  Everyone seems excited about the idea of having a black president, but god forbid we get excited about a woman being president.

    I stand on what I said based on the earlier comment.

    Parent

    the disparity is rooted in the person. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    I think you need to come to grips with the fact that Obama is not "the black person", and Hillary is not "the woman". They are each unique individuals. I am sure that there is some excitement about electing a black, or a woman. But the bottom line is that, at heart, we are electing one of these two individuals.

    The excitement about Obama is the fact that he is who he is, in all his complexity, as an individual. His blackness is only one part of it, and not the most important.

    I know the Clinton supporters will reflexivly deny this, because that is what they seem so prone to do, but Obama would be an exciting and forceful candidate even if he were not black. I tend to think that Hillary would not be in such a strong position as she is if she were a man.

    I think it is very short-sighted to look at the excitement disparity and attribute it, to any significant degree, to excitement over the categories they represent. Its about the actual candidates.

    Parent

    These arguments (none / 0) (#172)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    are exactly why young people don't turn out. Thanks for helping to perpetuate that.

    There is (none / 0) (#173)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:56:20 AM EST
    absolutely NO justification for NOT voting. I really do not support any justification for disinfranchised voting.

    Voting is a duty.

    Parent

    The Louisiana Primary Vote | 181 comments (181 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment