dajafi wrote:Yeah, shocker that voting in the south would be more racially divided than elsewhere. The whole "whites won't vote for Obama" thing doesn't seem to be borne out by all his wins in the interior states.

Besides, it won't be an issue since we all know the Republicans would never try to win with implicit appeals to racism. Right?

A) Has he won a primary in a "white" state yet? I'm serious. Primary not caucus.

B) Whether or not we make implicit appeals to racism, will that make Obama any more or less black?

The Red Tornado wrote:well, supposedly McCain wont run negative against Obama...

You've got the inside scoop from LaEx?

Keep making an issue out of nothing. It's fun.

pacino wrote:Keep making an issue out of nothing. It's fun.

I know, Hillary ran 54% better among white people and Obama ran 56% better among black people...

IT'S PROBABLY A FLUKE!

Let's all say it together folks, caucuses don't count even though they do because they don't support my pre-determined point.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Yeah, shocker that voting in the south would be more racially divided than elsewhere. The whole "whites won't vote for Obama" thing doesn't seem to be borne out by all his wins in the interior states.

Besides, it won't be an issue since we all know the Republicans would never try to win with implicit appeals to racism. Right?

A) Has he won a primary in a "white" state yet? I'm serious. Primary not caucus.

B) Whether or not we make implicit appeals to racism, will that make Obama any more or less black?

I'm not sure I get the point of these questions--though the answer to the first one is yes, unless I'm misinformed about the process and demographics of Delaware, Missouri and Connecticut.

Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that people are explicitly or implicitly racist, so it's only sound tactics for the Republicans to play that up. ("After all, he *is* black, and it helps us win, and we like to win.")

I hope that isn't the case, and that you're not implying all the ugly things one could see in what you wrote here.

He's simply pointing out that Obama has black skin. black black black he's blackkkkkk

pacino wrote:Let's all say it together folks, caucuses don't count even though they do because they don't support my pre-determined point.

Caucuses have lower turnout than primaries, yes?

The idea is that people like the folks on this board who are very engaged in politics will go to caucuses or primaries. The white dude who shops at Wal Mart and hunts and has a wife who bakes apple pies doesn't care that much about politics wouldn't spend a few hours at a caucus, but will go and pull the lever for Hillary at a primary.

The apple pie vote is crucial, I will give you that. Good night

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Yeah, shocker that voting in the south would be more racially divided than elsewhere. The whole "whites won't vote for Obama" thing doesn't seem to be borne out by all his wins in the interior states.

Besides, it won't be an issue since we all know the Republicans would never try to win with implicit appeals to racism. Right?

A) Has he won a primary in a "white" state yet? I'm serious. Primary not caucus.

B) Whether or not we make implicit appeals to racism, will that make Obama any more or less black?

I'm not sure I get the point of these questions--though the answer to the first one is yes, unless I'm misinformed about the process and demographics of Delaware, Missouri and Connecticut.

Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that people are explicitly or implicitly racist, so it's only sound tactics for the Republicans to play that up. ("After all, he *is* black, and it helps us win, and we like to win.")

I hope that isn't the case, and that you're not implying all the ugly things one could see in what you wrote here.

Apparently I did a pretty good job of forgetting Missouri. Delaware and Connecticut as well. So I feel like a bit of a moron, and my point has been largely disproved, but it's not like Louisiana didn't happen as well. There's definitely a yawning racial gap there. I'm not calling people racist any more than I'm calling women who vote for Hillary sexist. It's just the way things go. I'd vote for someone from New Jersey. Am I Jerseyist? I dunno, I think it's sort of natural to support someone who is like yourself, especially if you're from a disrespected group.

I like how I'm the asshole for pointing out that Democratic primary voters are breaking down along racial lines.

A quote to chew on as I call it a night...

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." - Howard Dean

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:well, supposedly McCain wont run negative against Obama...

You've got the inside scoop from LaEx?

A year ago or so, the two of them publicly announced they wouldn't do negative campaigning if they were the nominees. That makes a lot of sense. McCain's number one draw to voters is being principled and having integrity. Obama's number one draw is his vision of the future that unites people across party lines. People say they like McCain even though they don't agree with him on many issues. If Obama went negative he'd have to run on his experience and legislative accomplishments, which he doesn't have, and that he's the most liberal senator. Neither can afford any taint.

When I think of negative I think of pulling what the Republicans did to Harold Ford. If McCain says Obama is too inexperienced for the war on terror that's not negative campaigning. If Obama says that McCain is from a previous generation and they need a new generation that's not really negative either.

Caucuses aren't good measures because they largely reflect a candidate's grass roots organization. Primaries are a secret ballot. In caucuses people get up and tell why they are voting for a candidate. The votes aren't secret. If a candidate can get his local people to have eloquent opinion leaders at each caucus and make sure that they get their people out to the caucus the candidate will do well.

Ron Paul has a great grass roots organization. He hasn't managed to get more than 8% in any primary but he's gotten more than that, once even 25%, five times in caucuses. McCain doesn't have strong local organizations and hasn't won any caucuses but has won 60% of the primaries. McCain could break that string if he wins Washington.

jerseyhoya wrote:LA Exit Polls for the Dems:

White (46%):

Clinton 72
Obama 26

Black (49%):

Clinton 18
Obama 82

Just out of curiosity's sake, how did the Republican black vote shake out in Louisiana?

I think a lot of this is overblown. Hilary has a strong draw to women and Obama has a strong draw to Blacks. That's not racism or sexism. Whites appear to be going heavily for Clinton because she does so well with women. When it's only White men it varies state by state.

According to state-by-state exit polls, Obama handily defeated Clinton with white males in California (52 percent to 34 percent), Connecticut (57 to 40), New Mexico (59 to 34), Utah (64 to 29) and Illinois (59 to 37).

But Clinton swamped Obama with white males in New Jersey (58 to 39), Missouri (55 to 41), Oklahoma (55 to 32), Tennessee (58 to 32), Arkansas (74 to 20) and New York (52 to 43).

Meanwhile, in Delaware, Arizona and Massachusetts, the white male vote divided evenly between the two.

Just out of curiosity's sake, how did the Republican black vote shake out in Louisiana?

CNN thinks it's not important. They're much more concerned with age, abortion, and religion.

Laexile wrote: When it's only White men it varies state by state.

According to state-by-state exit polls, Obama handily defeated Clinton with white males in California (52 percent to 34 percent), Connecticut (57 to 40), New Mexico (59 to 34), Utah (64 to 29) and Illinois (59 to 37).

But Clinton swamped Obama with white males in New Jersey (58 to 39), Missouri (55 to 41), Oklahoma (55 to 32), Tennessee (58 to 32), Arkansas (74 to 20) and New York (52 to 43).

Meanwhile, in Delaware, Arizona and Massachusetts, the white male vote divided evenly between the two.

.

That's really weird. Not a lot of data points, but that's not a very normal looking distribution. I wonder what's causing such disparity.

Or maybe it's obvious and I just can't figure it out because it's 3 am.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:LA Exit Polls for the Dems:

White (46%):

Clinton 72
Obama 26

Black (49%):

Clinton 18
Obama 82

Just out of curiosity's sake, how did the Republican black vote shake out in Louisiana?

I am high-fiving you in my mind right now, swish.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:LA Exit Polls for the Dems:

White (46%):

Clinton 72
Obama 26

Black (49%):

Clinton 18
Obama 82

Just out of curiosity's sake, how did the Republican black vote shake out in Louisiana?

Republican black vote? I think Gary liked McCain.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:B) Whether or not we make implicit appeals to racism, will that make Obama any more or less black?

Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that people are explicitly or implicitly racist, so it's only sound tactics for the Republicans to play that up. ("After all, he *is* black, and it helps us win, and we like to win.")

I hope that isn't the case, and that you're not implying all the ugly things one could see in what you wrote here.

I was just saying that some people are racist and won't vote for a black guy. It's not a huge chunk of people, thankfully, but it's real.

Unlike the Mormon thing or something that the ignorant can't tell at first glance this particular bit of bigotry doesn't really need to be exploited or played up. Since they'll probably be able to figure it out all on their own.

swishnicholson wrote:Just out of curiosity's sake, how did the Republican black vote shake out in Louisiana?

Har har.

We've got our own problems/divisions. Probably would have been worse if they did it by ideology.

Vote By Church Attendance

Weekly (63%)
Huckabee - 51%
McCain - 36%

Occasionally (30%)
Huckabee - 32%
McCain - 48%

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:Just out of curiosity's sake, how did the Republican black vote shake out in Louisiana?

Har har.

We've got our own problems/divisions. Probably would have been worse if they did it by ideology.

Vote By Church Attendance

Weekly (63%)
Huckabee - 51%
McCain - 36%

Occasionally (30%)
Huckabee - 32%
McCain - 48%

That on top of the fact that they'd never vote for a black guy.