Who won? Barack won the most states. Hillary won the popular vote and California.

Thoughts?

© MBM

Original Post
Senator John McCain, and Senator Hillary Clinton.

And both of them are in a mad dash while looking over their, respective, shoulders.

I already have gotten one of my political wishes.

An American of African ancestry, and a declared African American (as in African American-American) will to into the a national politica convention with at least 1,000 delegate votes in his portfolio.

THAT IS POWER!!!!!!!!

HOTEP

Jim Chester
interesting results...

Obama won 12 of 22 states;
Depsite not claiming any of the biggies (California, NY) Obama just about broke even on delegates earned;

According to exit polling, white men (Edwards' absence?) are trending to Obama, who is also making (minimal?) inroads with Hispanics;

Dude won Dem primaries in Idaho and Alaska .....yeah, Idaho. ohsnap

Seeing that McCain won a lot of North eastern states, states Republicans traditionally have trouble carrying in November, and that he ran second in the southern primary states, usually Repub strongholds....

....this could be a really interesting November.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Who won? Barack won the most states. Hillary won the popular vote and California.

Thoughts?


According to some counts Obama has the most delegates. But all the counts put them within 100 delegates of each other.

And Obama was the underdog. That's the story that the media is burying.

He wasn't supposed to do this well.

Remember? "Jesse carried South Carolina".

Yeah ... but Jesse didn't do this.

I'd say the "momentum" (and money) is with Obama.

Especially considering the primaries coming up within the next week.
So far Hillary has the most delegates, which could make her a winner by a technicality; but, Obama has the most votes, which SHOULD make him the winner period, but you know our government - always has to complicate things . . . delegates, electoral college, the president owning voting machines, etc., etc., etc.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
So far Hillary has the most delegates, which could make her a winner by a technicality; but, Obama has the most votes, which SHOULD make him the winner period, but you know our government - always has to complicate things . . . delegates, electoral college, the president owning voting machines, etc., etc., etc.


If you don't count the superdelegates (who are not pledged to vote for anybody,and are quite free to change their minds), is that still true?
Scoring is done by delegate count and not state count. Hilary won the women (white) vote and Barak won the black vote, by majority, among democratic voters. Blacks are carrying Obama, while Hilary is being carried by white women, Hispanics and Asians of the party.

Down the line.....that formula does not seem to work that well for Obama in a General election because the majority of whites vote Republican. In 2004, about 60% of whites voted Republican. That percentage will likely be smaller in 08....maybe. There are a lot of variables and unknownsthat could change that, but still......Obama's winning formula in the Democratic primaries is diluted in a General election, as the black influence, weight, is greatly reduced.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Who won? Barack won the most states. Hillary won the popular vote and California.

Thoughts?


According to some counts Obama has the most delegates. But all the counts put them within 100 delegates of each other.

And Obama was the underdog. That's the story that the media is burying.

He wasn't supposed to do this well.

Remember? "Jesse carried South Carolina".

Yeah ... but Jesse didn't do this.

I'd say the "momentum" (and money) is with Obama.

Especially considering the primaries coming up within the next week.


It's going to be real interesting to see the actual delegate count for Super Tuesday.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
He also did better than expected with whites according to the exit polls:

40% with whites
51% with white men


No....that should be qualified!!! those percentages are a reflection of LIBERAL WHITES....not TOTAL WHITES!!! Most whites are not liberal or Democrats!!! Big difference. This is especially true in Red States where the vast majority of whites are Republicans. So saying that Barak won 40% of the white vote in a Red State is really not saying much because liberal whites represent such a small percentage of the white population in many Southern red states.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
He also did better than expected with whites according to the exit polls:

40% with whites
51% with white men


No....that should be qualified!!! those percentages are a reflection of LIBERAL WHITES....not TOTAL WHITES!!! Most whites are not liberal or Democrats!!! Big difference. This is especially true in Red States where the vast majority of whites are Republicans. So saying that Barak won 40% of the white vote in a Red State is really not saying much because liberal whites represent such a small percentage of the white population in many Southern red states.



Those are the only whites that count in this discussion.

The whites who voted for Hillary will vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

The whites who didn't vote for either of them won't vote for either of them in the general election.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
He also did better than expected with whites according to the exit polls:

40% with whites
51% with white men


No....that should be qualified!!! those percentages are a reflection of LIBERAL WHITES....not TOTAL WHITES!!! Most whites are not liberal or Democrats!!! Big difference. This is especially true in Red States where the vast majority of whites are Republicans. So saying that Barak won 40% of the white vote in a Red State is really not saying much because liberal whites represent such a small percentage of the white population in many Southern red states.



Those are the only whites that count in this discussion.

The whites who voted for Hillary will vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

The whites who didn't vote for either of them won't vote for either of them in the general election.


I think that is what Obama refers to as the Audacity of HOPE. I have heard a lot of black folks say that they will be pissed if Obama is not elected...and will not support CLinton. I guess no one stops to consider that some white women will be equally pissed if she is not nominated. I guess some people think that black folks are the only ones capable of acting childish and spiteful. What say you?
Hard to say...

With the fuzzy allocation math and various projections showing neither candidate with more than a 100 delegate lead...

and the impact of those Michigan and Florida delegates yet to be assigned...

and both candidates potentially walking into a broken convention with delegate counts to large to ignore...

19
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
Hard to say...

With the fuzzy allocation math and various projections showing neither candidate with more than a 100 delegate lead...

and the impact of those Michigan and Florida delegates yet to be assigned...

and both candidates potentially walking into a broken convention with delegate counts to large to ignore...

19


That would leave the decision up to the super delegates, which really are simply representatiave of the Party establishment...so that would go to Clintons favor....as well as the awarding of the Michigan and Florida Delagates....they are the 8th and 3rd or 4th most populous states in the nation with lots of delegates.
This point I made to HonestBrother deserves repeating.


I think that is what Obama refers to as the Audacity of HOPE. I have heard a lot of black folks say that they will be pissed if Obama is not elected...and will not support CLinton. I guess no one stops to consider that some white women will be equally pissed if she is not nominated. I guess some people think that black folks are the only ones capable of acting childish and spiteful.

Think about it and let it marinate. The audacity of black HOPE for Obama is that whites will not behave like we are. We hope that whites don't vote for the candidate who looks like them, like we are doing. Then we hope that white folks, primarily white women, will fall in line in Obamas camp if she looses, while we will not fall in line into the Clinton camp if Obama looses.

So what type of people have we become? Is that something we should be proud of? I say we....but it is not a behavior and a way of thinking that is inclusive of me. That is you Obama or bust Negroes.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I think that is what Obama refers to as the Audacity of HOPE. I have heard a lot of black folks say that they will be pissed if Obama is not elected...and will not support CLinton. I guess no one stops to consider that some white women will be equally pissed if she is not nominated. I guess some people think that black folks are the only ones capable of acting childish and spiteful. What say you?



These are the same white women who care about abortion rights.

These are the same white women who have more to lose tangibly (in terms of something that can be definitively named and definitely effected) if a pro-life Republican is elected.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I think that is what Obama refers to as the Audacity of HOPE. I have heard a lot of black folks say that they will be pissed if Obama is not elected...and will not support CLinton. I guess no one stops to consider that some white women will be equally pissed if she is not nominated. I guess some people think that black folks are the only ones capable of acting childish and spiteful. What say you?



These are the same white women who care about abortion rights.

These are the same white women who have more to lose tangibly (in terms of something that can be definitively named) if a pro-life Republican is elected.


And black folk don't have anything to potentially lose if a Republican wins because black folks did not show up for Clinton out of spite? Come on brother...you are not being Honest. A feminist backlash is just as probable as a black backlash...if their candidate is not nominated.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I think that is what Obama refers to as the Audacity of HOPE. I have heard a lot of black folks say that they will be pissed if Obama is not elected...and will not support CLinton. I guess no one stops to consider that some white women will be equally pissed if she is not nominated. I guess some people think that black folks are the only ones capable of acting childish and spiteful. What say you?



These are the same white women who care about abortion rights.

These are the same white women who have more to lose tangibly (in terms of something that can be definitively named) if a pro-life Republican is elected.


And black folk don't have anything to potentially lose if a Republican wins because black folks did not show up for Clinton out of spite? Come on brother...you are not being Honest. A feminist backlash is just as probable as a black backlash...if their candidate is not nominated.



You're being less than honest if you portray what I said (in a carefully qualified manner) as implying we had nothing to lose.

Think in these terms:

What black America on the whole has to lose isn't easy to quantify. We've had centuries worth of sh*t here. We've survived Reagan and both Bushes.

WE'RE USED TO SUFFERING.

We may suffer but we'll survive 4 years of any Republican who might be elected.

And the value of an Obama presidency (over Hillary) is arguably mostly psychological and symbolic.

We've got little to lose (perhaps so we think) and much to gain (at least so we think).

White women aren't in the same boat.

I'm not saying that we have nothing to lose (in real terms) with another Republican administration ... only that it will be much easier for white women to quantify what they stand to lose with another Republican administration.

They will not want to lose abortion rights.

But that's my guess.

You might be right.

But I doubt it.

Besides that, the margins of blacks for Obama are much bigger (percentage wise) than the margins of white women for Hillary. With white men it's nearly 50/50.

I believe that (in social terms) that's a recipe for negligible white backlash if any.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

Think about it and let it marinate. The audacity of black HOPE for Obama is that whites will not behave like we are. We hope that whites don't vote for the candidate who looks like them, like we are doing. Then we hope that white folks, primarily white women, will fall in line in Obamas camp if she looses, while we will not fall in line into the Clinton camp if Obama looses.

So what type of people have we become? Is that something we should be proud of? I say we....but it is not a behavior and a way of thinking that is inclusive of me. That is you Obama or bust Negroes.


So your thinking is that Black folk should just "blink first?" I understand your political calculus in this thread, and am not here to throw sophomoric insults your way because of your stance. But, if anything, this race has proven to be anything but conventional, and perhaps it is time to suspend at least some conventional thinking.

Putting HRC and Obama side by side there isn't really a dayum's worth of difference. That being said, Obama has managed to capture the "change" argument, however that's described by a fickle electorate. People, for good or ill (we'll see), appear willing to bet on change, probably becuase this ditch the country is currently sittin' in don't feel too good.

Obama's Super Tuesday performance may well be an indicator that an element of white folk -- I did not say all or even a majority -- are at long last ready to vote for a Black man as president. You cannot ignore that Dem primary turnout is besting Repub primary turnout by a 3-to-1 margin. That has to bode well for the Dem nominee, no matter who it turns out to be. I think I read somewhere that Obama reported $32 mil raised in January. That represents serious momentum that has to be factored in to any analysis of what happens going forward in this race.

Super Tuesday, according to the "conspiracy theorists" and the "Clinton Inevitabibility" fans was supposed to turn out the lights on Barack Obama. It did not.


it'll be interesting to see what happens.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I think that is what Obama refers to as the Audacity of HOPE. I have heard a lot of black folks say that they will be pissed if Obama is not elected...and will not support CLinton. I guess no one stops to consider that some white women will be equally pissed if she is not nominated. I guess some people think that black folks are the only ones capable of acting childish and spiteful. What say you?



These are the same white women who care about abortion rights.

These are the same white women who have more to lose tangibly (in terms of something that can be definitively named) if a pro-life Republican is elected.


And black folk don't have anything to potentially lose if a Republican wins because black folks did not show up for Clinton out of spite? Come on brother...you are not being Honest. A feminist backlash is just as probable as a black backlash...if their candidate is not nominated.



You're being less than honest if you portray what I said (in a carefully qualified manner) as implying we had nothing to lose.

Think in these terms:

What black America on the whole has to lose isn't easy to quantify. We've had centuries worth of sh*t here. We've survived Reagan and both Bushes.

WE'RE USED TO SUFFERING.

We may suffer but we'll survive 4 years of any Republican who might be elected.

And the value of an Obama presidency (over Hillary) is arguably mostly psychological and symbolic.

We've got little to lose (perhaps so we think) and much to gain (at least so we think).

White women aren't in the same boat.

They will not want to lose abortion rights.

But that's my guess.

You might be right.

But I doubt it.


Uhhh...lets say that a republican wins and a supreme court seat is opened and and another conservative is added to the bench. What do you think that would mean for black people...anything?

Moreover, white women also feel they have a history of suffering, from their perspective. Although I agree with that...theirs is different in kind and or degree than black folks. That said....white women can fall back on white men....as they always have. They have a lot less to lose than black folks. However...I am not qualifies to speak for them. However, as HUMANS can be spiteful....black should not be so naive to think that we are the only ones who are human.
Are we really supposed to think it makes a lot of difference?

It's a near certainty I'll be voting against the Republicans in the election. I don't see any way to determine who will screw up most as president.

um
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
You cannot ignore that Dem primary turnout is besting Repub primary turnout by a 3-to-1 margin. That has to bode well for the Dem nominee, no matter who it turns out to be.


yeah ... to all you just said, TS. But even more so to what I've quote above.

This is a variable that has had and will continue to have a tremendous impact on this election. It's also one that no pundit or so-called expert can predict (though some will try) and one that will make all of us 'wait and see'.

People are coming out of the woodwork for this one. Democrats, that is. And no poll is going to gage where their minds (and votes) are and/or for whom ... because these are people who were not even expected to show up in the first place! Eek Most of these folks, however, are coming out because of Barack -- whether it's to vote for or against him -- and it appears that most of them are in the "For" camp as evidenced by his popularity and success.

And, while a good percentage of these *new* folks are indeed African Americans, there's a lot of White folks and young folks, too. It's the higher (record-breaking) turnouts in these primaries that are fueling this election more than anything else. And would also, I think, make for an easy Democratic win into the White House if this type of momentum could be carried into the general election.

However, I do agree with Noah and I also find it disturbing how many Black folks have said (due to petty and ill-conceived attitudes, biases and prejudices) that they would not/don't want to support the Democratic nominee if it's not Obama. A lot of this hype being generated in the Black community over the election process is, unfortunately, without substance. And is showing we are no better off than we were before this thing started.

There are lessons being taught here .. but, as usual, we don't seem to be the ones learning them. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Uhhh...lets say that a republican wins and a supreme court seat is opened and and another conservative is added to the bench. What do you think that would mean for black people...anything?



Please stop the BS.

One more time:

It was never my contention that we have nothing to lose in real terms.

I'm guessing. And speaking in psychological terms.

It is my guess that it will be much easier, come November, for white women (as a group) to quantify (psychologically) what they stand to lose with another Republican administration.

The guess might be wrong.

You can argue with my thesis.

But please stop arguing as if I claimed we had nothing to lose.


quote:

Moreover, white women also feel they have a history of suffering, from their perspective. Although I agree with that...theirs is different in kind and or degree than black folks. That said....white women can fall back on white men....as they always have.


Yes they can fall back on white men ... who (among Democrats) are going 50/50 (or better) for Obama.

And the house that votes together stays together.

Again ... only a guess about voter psychology/motivation when it comes to the prospects of a potential backlash of white women.
Additionally, one exit poll stat is that 70% of Democratic voters yesterday said they wouldn't mind if either Clinton or Obama got the nomination in the end.

Presumably the bulk of those respondents were white.

And that's a full 9 months before the general election. Now ... when the sides are most sharply divided.

That's not looking like potential white voter backlash.
quote:
I have heard a lot of black folks say that they will be pissed if Obama is not elected...and will not support CLinton.
---TruthSeeker

I agree with support.

I will be sorely disappointed if Senator Obama accepts an offer of the Vice-Presidency..., and that is if it is offered.

An African American, AND a woman in the White House...AT THE SAME TIME...is likely to be more than America is ready to 'bear'.

Accepting the Vice-President candidacy throws away almost all...if not all...of the political currency earned.


HOTEP

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

Think about it and let it marinate. The audacity of black HOPE for Obama is that whites will not behave like we are. We hope that whites don't vote for the candidate who looks like them, like we are doing. Then we hope that white folks, primarily white women, will fall in line in Obamas camp if she looses, while we will not fall in line into the Clinton camp if Obama looses.

So what type of people have we become? Is that something we should be proud of? I say we....but it is not a behavior and a way of thinking that is inclusive of me. That is you Obama or bust Negroes.


So your thinking is that Black folk should just "blink first?" I understand your political calculus in this thread, and am not here to throw sophomoric insults your way because of your stance. But, if anything, this race has proven to be anything but conventional, and perhaps it is time to suspend at least some conventional thinking.

Putting HRC and Obama side by side there isn't really a dayum's worth of difference. That being said, Obama has managed to capture the "change" argument, however that's described by a fickle electorate. People, for good or ill (we'll see), appear willing to bet on change, probably becuase this ditch the country is currently sittin' in don't feel too good.

Obama's Super Tuesday performance may well be an indicator that an element of white folk -- I did not say all or even a majority -- are at long last ready to vote for a Black man as president. [B]You cannot ignore that Dem primary turnout is besting Repub primary turnout by a 3-to-1 margin.{/B] That has to bode well for the Dem nominee, no matter who it turns out to be. I think I read somewhere that Obama reported $32 mil raised in January. That represents serious momentum that has to be factored in to any analysis of what happens going forward in this race.

Super Tuesday, according to the "conspiracy theorists" and the "Clinton Inevitabibility" fans was supposed to turn out the lights on Barack Obama. It did not.


it'll be interesting to see what happens.


You make some very valid points. I would just remind you that the Republicans are not inspired by someone to vote for.....but that does not necessarily mean that they will not be inspired by someone or something to vote AGAINST.

I do not see things being too much different in America as you all do. I missed that radical date in history where America stopped being like itself and became this new inclusive nation that shed its old paridigms.

For me, its the audacity of Naivety to think a person is going to change the politics of America...without a radical revolution or uprising in the streets. The system has too many checks and balances and too many money interest controling the process. America is not a dictorship. If Obama was running for dictator of America...then I would believe that he can bring about the change that he talks about. However, the way our system is set up....there are too many powerful interests vested in it being the way that it is. If he were truly a threat to that...and seen as a threat to that...he would not be allowed to ascend to a position of power to threaten their power. So the "blinking" that we should be doing is to clear our eyes so that we can see".
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
Uhhh...lets say that a republican wins and a supreme court seat is opened and and another conservative is added to the bench. What do you think that would mean for black people...anything?



Please stop the BS.

One more time:

It was never my contention that we have nothing to lose in real terms.

I'm guessing. And speaking in psychological terms.

It is my guess that it will be much easier, come November, for white women (as a group) to quantify (psychologically) what they stand to lose with another Republican administration.

The guess might be wrong.

You can argue with my thesis.

But please stop arguing as if I claimed we had nothing to lose.


quote:

Moreover, white women also feel they have a history of suffering, from their perspective. Although I agree with that...theirs is different in kind and or degree than black folks. That said....white women can fall back on white men....as they always have.


Yes they can fall back on white men ... who (among Democrats) are going 50/50 (or better) for Obama.

And the house that votes together stays together.

Again ... only a guess about voter psychology/motivation when it comes to the prospects of a potential backlash of white women.


Honest brother....you are or did suggest that blacks had nothing to lose by omission, if not commission. You see...every time you talk about a black reaction, without talking about a white reaction....you are, via omission, suggesting that there is not one. Talking about how white women will be hurt by Republicans, and not presenting any commentary about blacks being hurt by Republicans, is, via omission, to suggest that blacks will not be hurt. If you believed that both blacks and whites will be hurt....then there is really no purpose of your point because it represents a distinction without a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

Honest brother....you are or did suggest that blacks had nothing to lose by omission, if not commission. You see...every time you talk about a black reaction, without talking about a white reaction....you are, via omission, suggesting that there is not one. Talking about how white women will be hurt by Republicans, and not presenting any commentary about blacks being hurt by Republicans, is, via omission, to suggest that blacks will not be hurt. If you believed that both blacks and whites will be hurt....then there is really no purpose of your point because it represents a distinction without a difference.



Either you cannot read English.

Or you are smoking something.

One more time:

NEVER did I suggest (or even imply) that only white women would be hurt by Republicans.

My only point was (and remains) that there is one very easily quantifiable issue around which they (pro Hillary white women) will rally ... to the point of voting for Obama to defend it:

Abortion.


Agree or disagree.

Just stop the bullsh*t ... please ....

After I've clarified my comments several times there really is no excuse for you whatsoever to carry on like this.

The specific question I was addressing was that of potential pro Hillary white female backlash against Obama.

I think the potential is negligible for the reason I explained.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
You cannot ignore that Dem primary turnout is besting Repub primary turnout by a 3-to-1 margin. That has to bode well for the Dem nominee, no matter who it turns out to be.


yeah ... to all you just said, TS. But even more so to what I've quote above.

This is a variable that has had and will continue to have a tremendous impact on this election. It's also one that no pundit or so-called expert can predict (though some will try) and one that will make all of us 'wait and see'.

People are coming out of the woodwork for this one. Democrats, that is. And no poll is going to gage where their minds (and votes) are and/or for whom ... because these are people who were not even expected to show up in the first place! Eek Most of these folks, however, are coming out because of Barack -- whether it's to vote for or against him -- and it appears that most of them are in the "For" camp as evidenced by his popularity and success.


Amoung the new people who are coming out of the woodwork because of Barak, I don't see any significant number coming out to oppose him. I haven't seen any evidence that he pulls any opposition out of the woodwork.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

You make some very valid points. I would just remind you that the Republicans are not inspired by someone to vote for.....but that does not necessarily mean that they will not be inspired by someone or something to vote AGAINST.



By your logic then, don't you think they'd be more inspired to vote against Hillary (the Clinton years, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, et. al) than against Obama?

I think Republican turnout will be down nationally, anyway, but think HRC would turn out more Repubs. None of that really matters though, because I think you run your best candidate, turn out your base and those favorably disposed to your candidate on election day and go from there.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I would just remind you that the Republicans are not inspired by someone to vote for.....but that does not necessarily mean that they will not be inspired by someone or something to vote AGAINST.


Nobody inspires an much irrational hate in the Republican base as Hillary.

She's the only person who can unite the Republican base behind McCain. Otherwise, alot of them just stay home.

Of course, if McCain is not the nominee, the calculations change.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

Honest brother....you are or did suggest that blacks had nothing to lose by omission, if not commission. You see...every time you talk about a black reaction, without talking about a white reaction....you are, via omission, suggesting that there is not one. Talking about how white women will be hurt by Republicans, and not presenting any commentary about blacks being hurt by Republicans, is, via omission, to suggest that blacks will not be hurt. If you believed that both blacks and whites will be hurt....then there is really no purpose of your point because it represents a distinction without a difference.



Either you cannot read English.

Or you are smoking something.

One more time:

NEVER did I suggest (or even imply) that only white women would be hurt by Republicans.

My only point was (and remains) that there is one very easily quantifiable issue around which they (pro Hillary white women) will rally ... to the point of voting for Obama to defend it:

Abortion.


Agree or disagree.

Just stop the bullsh*t ... please ....

After I've clarified my comments several times there really is no excuse for you whatsoever to carry on like this.

The specific question I was addressing was that of potential pro Hillary white female backlash against Obama.

I think the potential is negligible for the reason I explained.


Fair enough...you clarified...so I will move on to your other point then. Abortion is not one of the top concerns in this election, but if it is, you are right. That said, the economy is another issue. People remember the Clinton years as an era of good economic times which could motivate voters around her. True...Hilary was not the president...be she will get the association benefit of the doubt and Bill will not be far away. I think that the economy is going to loom larger and larger as time goes on...and that will be to the benefit of CLinton. Look for her to talk economy in the next debates....if Obama will agree to one.
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

I would just remind you that the Republicans are not inspired by someone to vote for.....but that does not necessarily mean that they will not be inspired by someone or something to vote AGAINST.


Nobody inspires an much irrational hate in the Republican base as Hillary.

She's the only person who can unite the Republican base behind McCain. Otherwise, alot of them just stay home.


Of course, if McCain is not the nominee, the calculations change.


Now HERE'S something that might piss off pro Hillary white women.

IF Obama gets the nomination ... he should arguably avoid picking Hillary as his running mate ... because she comes with so many negatives vis-a-vis the Republican base.

But if he does that, he'll royally tick off many white women in the Democratic base.
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

You make some very valid points. I would just remind you that the Republicans are not inspired by someone to vote for.....but that does not necessarily mean that they will not be inspired by someone or something to vote AGAINST.



By your logic then, don't you think they'd be more inspired to vote against Hillary (the Clinton years, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, et. al) than against Obama?

I think Republican turnout will be down nationally, anyway, but think HRC would turn out more Repubs. None of that really matters though, because I think you run your best candidate, turn out your base and those favorably disposed to your candidate on election day and go from there.


That is a valid point. I think that Repub turnout will be higher against Clinton that Obama. On the other hand, I think Obama can fall as easy prey to Republican dirty tricks. The same superficiality of thought that is making Obama viable will also make him vulnerable. I don't think it's hard to scare American of a black presidency, given the history of the fears of this nation, given terrorism, given his newness. I can see something not as bold as "birth of a nation" when there was a campaign to create fear in whites of the reconstruction political scene where blacks were ascending to political power. America has come a long way from that era, but can subliminally do the same thing today.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
That is a valid point. I think that Repub turnout will be higher against Clinton that Obama.


I don't think I agree with you there, Noah. I don't see there being more people (Repubs) that hate Hillary than there are that would rather die than see a Black man become president. They may not be the same people, but there are just as many on either side of that ill-fated coin! Eek

Again, I see a bigger problem within the electorate of the Democratic party itself. They are going to have to care more about not letting a Republican get in than they do about their personal dislike for Hillary. It will be interesting to see just how much pull Obama actually has, if he should lose this nomination. He will show solidarity and tell his people to go out and vote for Hillary ... but the question is, will they do it? 19
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
You make some very valid points. I would just remind you that the Republicans are not inspired by someone to vote for.....but that does not necessarily mean that they will not be inspired by someone or something to vote AGAINST.



By your logic then, don't you think they'd be more inspired to vote against Hillary (the Clinton years, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, et. al) than against Obama?

I think Republican turnout will be down nationally, anyway, but think HRC would turn out more Repubs. None of that really matters though, because I think you run your best candidate, turn out your base and those favorably disposed to your candidate on election day and go from there.[/QUOTE]

That is a valid point. I think that Repub turnout will be higher against Clinton that Obama. On the other hand, I think Obama can fall as easy prey to Republican dirty tricks. The same superficiality of thought that is making Obama viable will also make him vulnerable. I don't think it's hard to scare American of a black presidency, given the history of the fears of this nation, given terrorism, given his newness. I can see something not as bold as "birth of a nation" when there was a campaign to create fear in whites of the reconstruction political scene where blacks were ascending to political power. America has come a long way from that era, but can subliminally do the same thing today.[/QUOTE]

-----------

I think the key factor will be political sophistication, particularly among newer (younger?) voters. Of course, no one ever went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American electorate, but I think the new influx of voters to this mix (a group I think the media is grasping at and doesn't have a clear picture of, by the way) are more sophisticated.

MSNBC's exit polling last night suggested that among Democ. primary voters in the NEw England states, there was like a 35-40 percent increase in college graduates. Of course, some of these are Republican crossover and independent voters, but I have to think that a number of the "newly involved" can think beyond, and not be manipulated by, the surface Republican invective that so easily angers the simple.

I think Obama or Clinton need a walking tote board for every racial code word or gender slander "accidently uttered" of course, by the Rep. nominee or his surrogates.
White people hate Clinton's legacy more than they hate a Black Presidency?

iono...

feeling Noah's sentiment...

Also, heard caller today speak of back door politics in Hillary's camp re: Her promise to secure hispanic VP (Gov. Richardson )should she win... and this is what won her California...

got info. from radio caller, so unsure of validity.... wondering if anyone else heard this....
Obama won more delegate

Feb 6, 2008

In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.
The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.


With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday's contests, while Clinton earned about 830.


Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night's big winner, but Obama's campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts the delegates who will choose the party's nominee at this summer's Democratic convention. With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday's contests, while Clinton earned about 830 "” "give or take a few," Tim Russert, the network's Washington bureau chief, said on the "Today" show. The running totals for the two, which includes previous contests and the party officials known as "superdelegates," are only about 70 delegates apart, Russert said. The bottom line is that the two are virtually tied.Obama won 13 states, some of them smaller, and Clinton won eight. On Wednesday morning, the battle was on to shape public perceptions about Tuesday. The Clinton campaign said it was crunching its delegate numbers but was not sure it was correct that Obama got more.
The Obama campaign sent an e-mailed statement titled: "Obama wins Super Tuesday by winning more states and more delegates."
Campaign Manager David Plouffe said: "By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Sen. Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary." "From Colorado and Utah in the West to Georgia and Alabama in the South to Sen. Clinton's backyard in Connecticut, Obama showed that he can win the support of Americans of every race, gender and political party in every region of the country," Plouffe said. "That's why he's on track to win Democratic nomination, and that's why he's the best candidate to defeat John McCain in November." The Obama campaign attached an Excel spreadsheet containing "state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night, which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton,bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton."

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:
You make some very valid points. I would just remind you that the Republicans are not inspired by someone to vote for.....but that does not necessarily mean that they will not be inspired by someone or something to vote AGAINST.



By your logic then, don't you think they'd be more inspired to vote against Hillary (the Clinton years, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, et. al) than against Obama?

I think Republican turnout will be down nationally, anyway, but think HRC would turn out more Repubs. None of that really matters though, because I think you run your best candidate, turn out your base and those favorably disposed to your candidate on election day and go from there.


That is a valid point. I think that Repub turnout will be higher against Clinton that Obama. On the other hand, I think Obama can fall as easy prey to Republican dirty tricks. The same superficiality of thought that is making Obama viable will also make him vulnerable. I don't think it's hard to scare American of a black presidency, given the history of the fears of this nation, given terrorism, given his newness. I can see something not as bold as "birth of a nation" when there was a campaign to create fear in whites of the reconstruction political scene where blacks were ascending to political power. America has come a long way from that era, but can subliminally do the same thing today.[/QUOTE]

-----------

I think the key factor will be political sophistication, particularly among newer (younger?) voters. Of course, no one ever went wrong underestimating the intelligence of the American electorate, but I think the new influx of voters to this mix (a group I think the media is grasping at and doesn't have a clear picture of, by the way) are more sophisticated.

MSNBC's exit polling last night suggested that among Democ. primary voters in the NEw England states, there was like a 35-40 percent increase in college graduates. Of course, some of these are Republican crossover and independent voters, but I have to think that a number of the "newly involved" can think beyond, and not be manipulated by, the surface Republican invective that so easily angers the simple.

I think Obama or Clinton need a walking tote board for every racial code word or gender slander "accidently uttered" of course, by the Rep. nominee or his surrogates.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what the truth is...but it was reported that there was no big surge in 19-29 year olds as is being hyped. That statement was made when they were talking about california...so I do not know if it was specific to that state. It was stated that it was about the same as past elections. Also remember that increased longevity of life expectancy has resulted in the older demographic likely dominating the election.

I think if one is HOPEFULL, based upon this nation not being its previous self, Obama stands a better chance than Clinton in the General. On the other hand, if one is PRATICAL, based upon the best indicator of future behavior being past behavior, then Clinton has the better chance. So...its hope vs History I guess.
Hello Brother Noah and All,

I have been lurking and reading while busy with classes. I hope all is well with everyone...and yes I have to go back to Nov 17 to catch up with all posts..which I will....

Do you think an Obama presidency would awaken the black masses for mobilization issues such as economic boycotts and financial restructuring as a bloc the way we vote as one. I am hoping for a serious urban agenda that turnaround crime, joblessness and incarceration rates.....

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×