Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

Another “boutique state” votes for Obama

I guess if we go by the Clinton team’s pattern and SOP so far and try to predict what they say after tonight’s results, Mississippi is another one of those latte-sipping boutique states that doesn’t matter. Oh, and it’s a small state.

By the way, one of Clinton’s establishment Democratic supporters, Geraldine Ferraro, who was the Vice-Presidential nominee in 1984, has gotten into some very hot water over her comments that Obama is only doing as well as he is in the Presidential race because he’s black. I saw this video at Daily Kos which highlights some of the stuff she’s been spewing. We’ve heard that some Clinton supporters are resentful because they feel Hillary is entitled to be the President and shouldn’t be losing to Obama, but this stuff by Ferraro is totally over the line.

Share

11 comments to Another “boutique state” votes for Obama

  • me

    in a general election..

    (Sorry me, I need a valid email address from you if you want to post your opinion at this blog. I don’t mind if you disagree with me, and if you want to be anonmyous, thats fine too..but I insist on at least a valid email address – Scott)

  • in_the_centre

    This is race has been over for a while. The only way Clinton stands a chance to convince superdelegates to come onside is if she can pull "70-30" like margins in revote’s that take place in Michigan and Florida, or, Obama has his "Quebec is a nation/Qana was a war crime" moment.

    However, barring all that, the question is, how long will Clinton continue her "scorched earth" policy? Which I already believe has increased McCain’s odds of winning in November 2008.

    I also think the race thing has been overblown greatly by the media and been swallowed by a lot of participants and surrogates. There is no "general" white vote bloc, as Obama’s victories in central/northwest US would suggest.

    This is ultimately about class and generations…. something that is too complicated for most people to cover.

  • KC

    btw Steve you really should come out and admit you prefer Clinton.  We arent going to judge you… too harshly 😉

  • KC

    I don’t think the 2/3s of whites for Clinton in Ohio had much to do with race (although the 90% of blacks for Obama unquestionably was).  Clinton’s win in Ohio–and consequently a larger share of the white vote–had more to do with Clinton’s appeal among certain core Democratic groups (most notably labour).   Mississippi’s result on the other hand is quite clearly a demonstration of lingering racism in that state.  Its also important to note that there is evidence of a gender gap in this race as well.

    I think its important to remember that Obama’s surge started with a win in the overwhelmingly (91%) "white" state of Iowa.    While the "race gap" is evident in most of the states that have gone so far Obama has also done quite well in some pretty white places–Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Conneticut, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Maryland, Wisconsin all come to mind.

    Both Clinton and Obama will face challenges in overcoming prejudices against them in a general election.  Lots of people won’t vote for a black man, and lots of people won’t vote for a woman.  I dont think one or the other is more detrimental (particularily given the concentration of the real race problems in the reddest of red states–not that I dont think the Dems should work to win every state)   That is something that Democrats implicitly accepted when they elevated these two to front runner status and their bravery in that respect should be commended.

  • The republican crossover to Hillary is exactly why I think Dems – and Dems who support Obama – need not be concerned.

  • Just for reference, Ohio also went 90% black for Obama, 2/3 rds whites to Clinton.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/04/730736.aspx

  • Scott, you don’t have to buy it, the numbers speak for themselves.  What about Ohio?  What about the latino/black disconnect in Texas? 

    There was no Republican contest really, the numbers are particularly impressive, it’s natural to see crossover when the other contest is irrelevant.  Again, the reason Repubs might have went for Clinton isn’t because of Limbaugh (not sure why we elevate him, he’s already been proven a paper tiger on the Republican side), but because she’s WHITE.  White Republicans, crossing over and voting for the white woman against the black man, shocking.

  • Sorry Steve, I don’t buy it. Mississippi is a state that still has a racially charged population, and this vote didnt particularly surprise me at all.

    Limbaugh irrelevant? Maybe he is, but check the exit polls and look at the sizable minority of voters who were Repubs who voted in the Democratic Primary election.. and they massively went for Hillary.

  • Scott, the ethnic lines have grown more distinct as this thing moves forward.  Limbaugh is irrelevant (see McCain), very few Rep voted in on the Dem side, despite no real contest on their ticket, there are worrying signs developing.  It started in SC, we saw more of it Super Tuesday, it was VERY evident in Ohio and now we see blocks.  Miss is not a trend, it’s part of a pattern, this is just another threshold.

  • Steve:

    This is Mississippi. This is also an open primary, and this is also where Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners there to vote for Clinton – just to play havoc with the results. Mississippi is an exception, not a trend.

  • What should be particularly troubling to Democrats, it would appear the racial divide was staggering in Miss.  Obama won 91% of blacks, Clinton 72% of whites, which represents the biggest racial gaps we have seen in any primary/caucus.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.