home

PPP NC Poll: Obama By 12

The spread is in line with other NC polls. But PPP previously had Obama up by 25 points in NC. Now it is 51-39. The why is important:

The bulk of the movement in the NC race has come from white voters. Her lead is now back up to 56-35.

Demography is political destiny. In Ohio, PA, IN and NC, the polling is showing the same demographic breakdowns. The issue is how many white and A-A voters there are in the electorate. This is quite troubling. BTW, I wonder if Jim Clyburn will get the message now.

By Big Tent Democrat.

< Government Wiretapping Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases | Clinton Camp: Time To Move On Past Wright >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Gulp (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    Let's imagine the following scenario:

    Hillary wins by 5-10 pts in IN and loses by 8-20 in NC. Hillary then goes on to steamroll Obama in WV and KY by 30-40 (unavoidable at this point).

    I don't see what Obama survives that, and at the very least we're going to the convention.

    I put McCain's chances of winning in November at about 60% right now.

    I Think McCain Will Beat Obama (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:48:03 PM EST
    OTOH, if Hillary won the nomination and could get the AA community back on board, she would have a strong winning coalition. Unfortunately, that is a very, very big IF.

    Parent
    I've got McCain at about 80% in the (4.00 / 1) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Fall now.  Very depressing, but that's what I'm thinking will happen if people don't get their acts together - and I don't mean ending the primary - I mean changing the narrative on both sides in both campaigns - this politics of personality is going to destroy both of them - issues could save them, but they must start now or they will have no credibility up against McCain who has a clear advantage with the media.

    Parent
    Unfortunately changing (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    the narrative from the politics of personality may not be up to the candidates. The media addiction to it will not go away gently and as we know they control the the airways/cableways.
    Regardless, I agree that they both need to move away from the politics of personality as much as they can.


    Parent
    I truly think that Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:14:18 PM EST
    can take him. She can run on the economy. the Clinton 90s, and specific policies that actually help middle-class America, instead of the "haves." This horrible primary has established her as a tough, standup woman that "the far-left liberals" don't like, which is going to help in the GE. And she's got the right idea about McCain, don't attack him, respect him and attack his connection with Bush. We cannot possibly win by calling him McInsane and McNasty-- voters and the press won't stand for it.

    But if she kindly, sweetly acknowledges him as a great war hero and honorable civil servant, then undercuts him with "He wants to keep the country going down Bush's road," I think she can beat him 52-48%.

    Parent

    Seriously? (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CCinNC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    With all that Bush has done to this country in the past 7+ years, people are going to be stupid enough to want more of that?  I don't believe it.  I can't believe that we would continue to vote against our own interests.  And I'm fervently praying that whichever Democratic candidate wins the primary, the others' supporters also won't vote against THEIR interests.

    Parent
    How would Bush's trespasses matter (none / 0) (#71)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    when no one is talking about issues and everyone is focused on personality?

    I've had five reasonable people tell me in the past two weeks that John McCain wouldn't be all that bad.  I corrected them, but they are by no means alone in that view.

    Parent

    you dont see how obama surives that (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jgarza on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    but when Hillary lost 11 states in a row it was stil a close race?

    Parent
    More than 2 months since an Obama win (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    so I read -- and this is a very different time period in the primary season than it was then, not to mention that super-delegates know that the Constitution was not amended to elect presidents by number of states.  They know that some states have a lot more EC votes than others.  So do some of us.

    Parent
    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    is Obama's inability to close the deal and win the nomination. He wasn't able to do that in spite of his advantage with the media and she is not only still standing but picking up momentum. He has stalled and could be losing ground.

    Parent
    How many of those 11 states (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Leisa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    held caucuses?

    Parent
    Bush used that same "number of states" (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by abfabdem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    argument against Gore (he won more states therefore he the country wanted him for President).  Let's not forget that some of those states have quite small populations.  What was the vote count in Wyoming?  8,552 vs. 1.2 million in Ohio?  I think the "number of states" argument is not that meaningful.

    Parent
    Two different things (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    Obama won eleven caucuses (not primaries) in blood red states, for the most part, that would never in a million years elect a Dem in the general.

    What Hillary's doing is stripping votes from Obama and eating his lunch.  The difference is that Obama shot fish in a barrel, and Hillary is showing us exactly how she plans to hand McCain his coat come November.

    Parent

    why doesn't MSM (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by DJ on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    talk about the electoral votes?

    Parent
    No it wasn't close. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:36:39 PM EST

    Obama was one win from putting her away.   But he couldn't do it in Texas and he couldn't do it in Ohio.   And now he's taken a solid shot to the jaw in Pennsylvania.    

    If he gets clobbered in Indiana and underperforms expectations in North Carolina,  Hillary's nomination narrative could overwhelm Obama's early advantage.

    Parent

    Someones' being reading Rasmussen! (none / 0) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    LINK

    "Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Democrats a 59.9  % chance of winning in November"

    This number has steadily declined lately.

    Parent

    Interesting Kristol opEd at NY Times (none / 0) (#64)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:04:38 PM EST
     It may be snark, but here it is:

    April 28, 2008
    Hillary Gets No Respect

    By WILLIAM KRISTOL
    I normally don't claim to speak for other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy. After all, we're each nefarious in our own, individual way. Indeed, we often disagree with one another.

    But I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.

    The fact is Hillary Clinton has turned out to be an impressive candidate. She has consistently defeated Barack Obama when her back was to the wall -- first in New Hampshire, then in several big primaries on Super Tuesday, on March 4 in Ohio and Texas, and then last week in Pennsylvania, where she was outspent by almost 3 to 1, yet won handily.

    She is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. His team has run the better campaign. In particular, it realized how important the caucus states could be: Obama's delegate lead depends on his caucus victories.

    But Hillary may well be the better candidate. After all, for all the talk of Obama's extraordinary ability to draw voters to the polls, Clinton has defeated him in the big states, including California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama won his home state of Illinois, but she won Florida, where both were on the ballot but didn't campaign.

    Furthermore, if you add up the votes in all the primaries and caucuses -- excluding Michigan (where only Hillary was on the ballot), and imputing the likely actual totals in the four caucus states, where only percentages were reported -- Clinton now trails in overall votes by only about 300,000, or about 1 percent of the total. By the end of the nominating contest, she may well be ahead on this benchmark -- one not entirely to be scorned in a democracy.

    Hillary has achieved this despite much disparagement of her candidacy by liberal commentators, and in the face of the media's crush on Obama. Even those who started out being well disposed to Clinton have moved toward Obama, if only out of concern that the prolonged race is damaging Democratic prospects in the fall.

    Obama understands his advantage with the media, as he perhaps inadvertently demonstrated over the weekend on "Fox News Sunday." In the course of dismissing much pundit commentary for typically overreacting to events, good or bad, Obama explained, "Well, look, after you lose, then everybody writes these anguished columns about, why did you lose?"

    Obama chose a nice word: "anguished." You're only anguished by an Obama defeat if you're rooting for an Obama victory. Obama was tacitly acknowledging that much of the liberal media has been hoping he'd win. Now, they're rooting for him to close the deal.

    That's fine. If I were on the left I might be rooting for that too. But this focus on Obama has resulted in a refusal to give Hillary her due. It's startling how much of the commentary on the Pennsylvania results has had to do with Obama's flaws and mistakes -- rather than Hillary's strengths and successes. Maybe in Pennsylvania, they were voting for Clinton, not simply against Obama.

    Which leads to this question: Will the media this week give Obama a pass on refusing to debate Clinton before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6? Will he be chastised for his lame excuse? "We've had 21, and so what we've said is with two weeks, two big states, we want to make sure we're talking to as many folks as possible on the ground, taking questions from voters," Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."

    Will it be left to conservatives like the estimable blogger "Allahpundit" (at hotair.com) to (sarcastically) state the obvious? "What's the most efficient way to communicate with voters? Surely not at a massively promoted, televised, highly watched debate. Much better to hold a few town halls and meet and greets."

    We have had four one-on-one debates so far -- and each has been revealing. A debate without a moderator, as Clinton has suggested, could be particularly interesting. But debates would give Clinton equal time in the spotlight, and would make Obama's advantage in paid media in Indiana and North Carolina far less significant.

    On Friday in Indiana, Obama talked tough in response to a question: "I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism." And, he continued, "I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime." He's happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he's not willing to have a real debate with the real person he's competing against for the nomination.

    Will Obama pay no price for ducking? Should paid advertisements determine the Democratic victor, not the performance of the two candidates debating at length in an unscripted setting?

    Over to you, anguished liberals.



    Parent
    If this trend continues (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:53:46 PM EST
    Hillary will close the gap and lose by single digits. that spells disaster for the Obama campaign if she also wins IN...especially going into WV and KY.

    According to the Univ NC Academic Calendar (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    last days of exams are on May 6, the day of the primary.  I suspect many students will be gone or leaving school by that day (many students have their last exams before the final day).  This might have an effect on the voting.  Same thing applies to University of Indiana - I checked and it said last days of exams are on May 5.  Summer vacation occurs after that and students will be gone.

    You're right. Most of those kids at UNC, for (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM EST
    example, will probably remain in the state.

    Apparently, according to my son, Obamamania infected a large part of the UNC student population early in the primary and remains at epidemic levels. My son has made some enrodes into helping his fellow students recover from this dreadful epidemic, but he says it appears to be highly resistant to treatment. ;-)

    Obama will be speaking tonight at the Dean Smith Center, aka The Dean Dome, in Chapel Hill, and lots of people are planning to attend. But, the question remains...will they be enthusiastic enough to get out to vote right after exams? We'll see.

    Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea are also traveling around the state, but the settings for their events are much smaller than the "Dean Dome."

    With all of the new revelations about Obama, he might be overestimating his appeal by scheduling his talk there. It seats almost 22,000 people at capacity, so unless he has a very large turnout, the crowd will look diminutive in such a large space. We'll see how it turns out.

    Parent

    And faculty will be hunkered down (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    trying to finish grading and then calculating and entering final grades against a never-enough-time deadline.  Interesting.  Thanks for looking up those dates.  (Of course, there are many campuses in those states, no doubt with many different calendars -- some campuses in my state are done with finals then, some are a week later.)

    Parent
    Early voting n/t (none / 0) (#47)
    by ineedalife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    But then again (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:58:25 PM EST
    wasn't it the PPP poll that predicted a Obama win by 3 points in PA when all other polls were predicting the opposite.

    Yes... (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    so using the same methodology, HRC is actually winning NC by one point!

    ;-)


    Parent

    I like that, LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:20:02 PM EST
    About that "race-baiting" (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by wmr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    I seem to recall reading somewhere (sorry to be so vague) that Bill Clinton's statements comparing Obama to Jackson were made in response to a question about Jackson and that all the video clips have been edited so that the question is not seen.

    Does anyone know more about this?

    This is a link (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    I found in riverdaughter site detailing the racial politics and who did what. Had posted it before am posting it again:

    http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/203

    Parent

    here are a few links (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Klio on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    Sean Wilenze in TNR part I and part II.  Also see McCamy Taylor from Democratic Underground.  

    Parent
    Did you google it and read older TL threads? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    That's a good starting point.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#74)
    by wmr on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    Computer glitch kept me offline for a while.  Thanks for the tips.

    Parent
    NC (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    is interesting because it has a huge population of "latte" drinkers.

    Will they switch?

    We shall wait and see.

    Hillary needs money to compete effectively there.

    I'm hoping that won't block her from really cutting into that swath.

    They are ripe for the pickings.

    His tax plan?........HORRIBLE for that group.

    Yeah, this is key (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    The latte liberals are the swing vote in North Carolina.  If Hillary does better than expected here, I think she'll have a chance in Oregon.

    Parent
    I so agree (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    and I'm looking for her to cut into that next "core" Obama group.

    I keep posting.  His tax talk?  Devastating.

    That IS the group he's talking about taxing heavy.  Dual income....above 100,000 grand.

    Excuse me....that gets you a 3 bd house in a lot of areas.

    That's a devastating tax plan.

    We already know the middle-class can't even afford to buy gas, groceries, and hit Kohls.

    His tax plan will put the next level into the same bracket.

    Buy cars, clothes, or even salmon?

    Kiss it good-bye!

    Parent

    There goes my arugula (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    and $99 ham!

    Parent
    Who would be ahead today (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Saul on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    I say the true test of a candidate is where you are after one or several controversies have hit you hard.  Did they hurt you or not.  So the question is where would we be today in delegate counts and popular vote if all the current controversies on both sides had occurred in Jan of this year.

    Troubling? What about any of these poll results (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    was not foreseeable way back when, there are no surprises here with any of this. The troubling part is the knowledge that the Democratic National Committee and Party Leadership are not up to the task of running a primary or guiding their Party to present a nominee that is electable in Nov...

    They choose to attack Clinton.

    It is what happens (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    You start a election blurring the lines and people are not overly concerned. Then you pull the race card in SC because you panic after NH. It works, but unfortunately, it comes back to haunt you. Now, you can not put it back in the jar.

    So then you have Wright and Jim Clyburn and let's not forget Al Sharpton threatening to close down the city tomorrow over a verdict (like it or not)You throw in Louis F and bells are going off in people's heads. They are saying, will a Obama Admin put civil rights first or attend to the top issues at this moment. And that is what makes them change their vote. You know the rest.


    It's all about race (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by makana44 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    Donna Brazile allegedly said yesterday that "there would be blood" if Obama was not handed the nomination. Ms. Brazile is playing the race card openly, loudly, brazenly and nobody is saying a thing about it.

    Why are 90% of African Americans voting for Barack Obama? Because of his progressive leanings? His speech on Iraq? Hardly. They vote for him because he's black. Whenever anyone points that out, they add, "that's understandable."

    So whenever whites vote for Clinton is it just because she's white? Are women voting for Clinton just because she's a woman? I think it's far more complex and nuanced than that.

    If the AA vote were not so overwhelmingly tilted in favor of Obama, he wouldn't be leading in this primary race at all. Even if it were 65%-35%, as it is in some states with the white vote in favor of Clinton, it wouldn't be tilted as it is.  

    It is all about race, and has been since South Carolina. And who really was the one who played the race card there? Not Bill Clnton...the Obama campaign - very successfuly, too.

    Obama is leading because he is black. And everybody is afraid to say it (except Geraldine Ferraro. :)


    Donna (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    is nothing more than a fear-mongerer.

    Frankly, that tactic has been used, is worn out, and the public doesn't care anymore.

    Parent

    such a contradiction (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by kimsaw on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST
    Brazile openly throws out "there will be blood" and then somewhat assailed Clinton for throwing the " terror card" in the same interview. According to Brazile a snippet of Osama in an ad is called fearmongering. What is threatening a bloody riot an invitation to the Democrat party? Does she even know what she's saying anymore.

    Parent
    The More Brazile Appears On TV And Implies (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    that the AA community will take violent action if Obama is not the nominee, the more likely Obama will lose the GE. This is a lose - lose strategy for the GE, for the party and for race relations in the country.

    Parent
    Two comments on that: (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Jim J on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    First, the African American community has by and large been remarkably peaceable given their very real grievances over the years. I don't see a riot happening.

    Secondly, if somebody really wants to riot -- let 'em. We'll see how far that gets them in the court of public opinion.

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    but I think the problem here isn't as much the AA community as it is Brazille, Clyburn and a few other surrogates. I think there is a reason the media continues to have her on repeatedly and it's not because they wish to be fair to Democrats.

    Parent
    Let's see if Kos... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    jumps all over this one.

    AA 33% (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    looks like a strong turnout.  I was estimating 30%.  Questions 2 and 3 could reflect on downticket results... #2-Senate race 41% are undecided.  #3-47% support Beverly Perdue for Governor.  Has she endorsed?

    90% of 33%AA  and 37% (my prediction based on past) of 67% white would give Obama... 12 pts.  

    I think 12 pts is realistic but not good for Obama?  Some drop for current events, but a push for open primary and a decent college grad base.

    College Grads
    IN 19.4
    OH 21.1
    PA 22.4
    NC 22.5

    Both Dem governor candidates have endorsed Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    that is why the NC GOP ad on Wright is running against both.

    Parent
    and, this just in: current Govenor, Mike (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:40:48 PM EST
    Easly is to announce Clinton endorsement.

    Great pickup for Hillary!

    Parent

    If the Dems go all in with Obama on these numbers (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    The cataclysmic loss is all on the boneheaded braintrust propping Obama's ego-fest.

    Who knew his massive ego would be such an infinite vortex of resource-suckage it will likely turn what should have been a surefire Dem win against the least popular admin in history and take down potential Dem gains well into the future.

    Howard Dean's an idiot for making a bad thing worse by pushing, yet again, for HRC to take a dive so the same old perma-loser Dems can keep replaying this disastrous farce -- (what new way can we find to suck?) -- for a long time.

    Sorry J & BTD, you're far better Dems than I, but I'm just incredulous about how this has unfolded.

    Yeah, except (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by makana44 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    Dean said over the weekend (finally!) that super delegates are not bound by popular vote or pledged delegates to vote in any way. They can (and should) vote for whomever they feel is the best candidate to win in the general election.

    Hillary needs a leg to stand on. If she wins by double digits in Indiana and loses by single digits in NC, then all bets are off.

    She can keep it close in Oregon (perhaps win?), lose smaller primaries in Montana and South Dakota, and win Guam.

    That leaves Puerto Rico. I hope the Clinton campaign is organizing big time right now in Puerto Rico. They're predicting about a 1 million voter turnout there. If she wins 65%-35%, she can pick up 300,000 votes. She can win the popular vote overall...and that would give the super delegates all the cover they need to vote for her.


    Parent

    IIRC BTD Said That Hillary Has The Support (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:46:04 AM EST
    of all the influential politicians in PR.

    Parent
    What does he know that we don't? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    White college voters will go overwhelmingly (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    for Obama. The non-latte liberals will split 2:1 for Hillary.

    I predict a 15% Obama win.

    What about (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    the lactose-intolerant liberals?

    So confused, so confused. ;-)

    Parent

    They will go for Clinton because of healh care! (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:16:27 PM EST
    Those lattes are very fattening as well.

    Parent
    Children (3.50 / 4) (#58)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    There are posters here that are saying that people are voting for Obama because he is black as if the history of the United States began at the beginning of this primary season.

    Clinton is definitely getting votes because she is a woman. She is definitely getting votes from racist whites because Obama is black.

    Stop being children! If Obama gets the nomination (and the only way he doesn't is if progressive whites stand in his way at this point since he will be leading in pledged delegates at the end of this primary season) people on this site will be the first ones saying that the reason McCain might win is because of the racists in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc...

    The Democratic Party (rightly or wrongly) has made gender and racial politics part of their legacy for the past 50 years. Now it's coming home to roost.

    Have fun over the next six months dealing with that legacy while people who need help from progressive government go without...

    Nobody is complaining. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by makana44 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    We're having a discussion here, pointing out a fact that African Americans are voting along racial lines. What is disturbing is that some people, like Donna Brazile, are using threats and two sets of rules to further their case. And she's supposedly neutral (hah).

    And yes, gender and racial politics are part of the Dem's legacy. How awesome. How many blacks do you see voting in the Republican primaries? Finally, blacks and women have real a voice. That's those crazy Democrats for ya.

    Parent

    Obama talking points (none / 0) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    If this holds, can Hillary say, "Well, she managed to come from behind when she was 25 points down..." (like the Obama argument from PA that she was always 20 points ahead and he cut it to 10, so he's the one making progress?)

    Seriously.... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    ... I'm sure the Clinton camp will claim a relative victory by some logic, no matter what happens. But I'd say anything in single digits would be a very solid showing for her, if it's combined with a win of any margin in IN.

    Parent
    Demographics (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Davidson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    I'm betting that if she claims any success in NC it'll be with regards to demographics and how they'll play out in the GE.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:51:51 PM EST
    why would they get the message? It's worked before so why dump what worked?

    I've read if Hillary gets 70% of the white vote in NC she can win. I don't think that she'll win but it might be close. I think your analogy to Dinkins the other day might apply here. Playing the race card will only work for so long with the wine drinkers.

    Racial politics (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    The racial politics worked previously before Obama had solidified the African American vote (they were still split early in the process).  Continuing to play this game no longer helps him.  He's already alienated the white working class, and NC (sort of) and OR will be a test as to whether this has also put off the wine drinkers.

    Parent
    driving up votes (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    I tend to agree that South Carolina marked the onset of the obvious "race card" by the Obama campaign.  The movement in North Carolina indicates that Obama move to drive up the number of AA voters in that state to avoid any potentially embarassing single digit win.  (Please check the somewhat declining numbers of AA voters--not percentage of AA votes for Obama, but actual numbers in later primaries such as Texas big cities and Philly. At least, thats what I remember hearing.)  The way to drive up those numbers in North Carolina (and Indianapolis, Indiana) may well be why such emotional claims have been made in the past week by SC's Rep. Clyburn and Rev. Wright.  I was particularly interested in the timing of Wright's latest public claim that criticism of him means criticism of the Black Church.  Is that by accident...or does the timing suggest an emotional appeal to every AA voter to get out and vote and prevent that.  Fascinating.

    Parent
    I hate to be off topic here, but... (none / 0) (#8)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    I was wondering if someone could explain to me what the significance of  the "rate all" button is.  Also what is a "1" vs a "5"?  Are the numbers next to the header the number of people who rated, and the average rating?

    I reviewed the "comment policy" and "about", but did not see anywhere where this was explained.

    Thank you.

    Rate comments (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    You can rate a bunch of comments on the page and, when you click "Rate All", all those ratings will register.

    Parent
    Cumulative Ratings points can be used to (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by jerry on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    purchase items from the TalkLeft gift catalog.

    Parent
    Ha! 100 pts and $8.99 (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    gets you a BTD coffee mug!

    Parent
    Points in this thread show Obama is way down in NC (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    His campaign has really slowed down, hasn't it? I wonder how his supporters are going to deflect from discussions about that.

    Parent
    Ha! Loved the catalog comment! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:47:25 PM EST
    But, really, a 5 is considered the best rating and a 1 is the lowest. Most people tend to give a five to a comment they especially agree with or one that they consider especially well reasoned. A 1 is probably equivalent to a troll rating. I try to avoid them myself, unless in response to a grievously false post, as it tends to personally offend the poster who gets them, but YMMV. By hitting any "rate all" button on the page you can register all your chosen ratings. And yes, the numbers next to the header are average ratings/number of people rating. If you click on header rating you can see exactly who rated the comment and what their ratings were.

    Comments will tend to move up in the thread if they get a higher rating, if you have that as your preference, but you can turn that feature off if you wish. Unlike at other sites(dKos for example), a low rating will not hide a comment.

    Parent

    It might as well mean nothing (none / 0) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    Ratings have been turned off for some time now.

    Parent
    Yeah, but (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by echinopsia on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:10:31 PM EST
    I still like getting multiple fives. Makes me feel appreciated. Inspires me to write gooder.

    Parent
    I like giving fives, easier than helping (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jerry on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    people cross the highway.... :(

    Parent
    It's like applause :) (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:17:21 PM EST