True. Which is why she's asking for a re-do after the final 3 primaries. And why would the DNC have any problem with that? These are 2 huge, huge states esp in the General. The party should know who those voters prefer.
Obama was up 650K votes, but she's shaved 525K off that in a few weeks. After Puerto Rico, she'll be ahead IMO.
Maitre D wrote:
True. Which is why she's asking for a re-do after the final 3 primaries. And why would the DNC have any problem with that? These are 2 huge, huge states esp in the General. The party should know who those voters prefer.
Because its expensive and neither state wants to pay for it.
Maitre D wrote:
Obama was up 650K votes, but she's shaved 525K off that in a few weeks. After Puerto Rico, she'll be ahead IMO.
And then she'll be down once again once South Dakota and Montana vote. If it took her a few states and several weeks to shave 125k votes off his total, what makes you think a tiny territory like Puerto Rico can make up that difference in one day?
KCMax wrote:
Because its expensive and neither state wants to pay for it.
Party should pay then. This is important. besides the party has raised (incl Obama & Hillary) some 500M this season haven't they?
And then she'll be down once again once South Dakota and Montana vote. If it took her a few states and several weeks to shave 125k votes off his total, what makes you think a tiny territory like Puerto Rico can make up that difference in one day?
Maybe. But the larger point is, shouldn't Obama wait to be sure of this before he fires up his campaign?
Didn't something like 25% of white voters in KY admit that they didn't vote for Obama because he's black?
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
Here's a hypothetica question: Would the vote that was taken in Florida and Michigan have the exact same result today as it was back at the first of the year?
Considering the momentum gained over these last five months by Obama, Clinton may not want to see a redux in those states.
I missed the stats on what % of black voters in Indiana voted for Obama b/c he was black. Do you have that data?
Not sure why you think that's relevant, but it would be interesting to read if the data is out there. A better question might be, what % of black voters in Indiana voted for Obama because Clinton is white.
My problem isn't that white dem voters in KY went for Clinton, and I don't have a problem with black voters in Indiana going for Obama. With two candidates so similar, it's not surprising that the tribal mentality creeps in and people are liable to start voting for the candidate that is in their "tribe". There's nothing consciously racist about that, as far as I can tell. But when you're deliberately, actively opposing a candidate because of their race, that seems a bit different.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
kcmetro wrote:
Not surprisingly, Kentucky is also one of the least educated and poorest states in the country along with W. VA. Ignorance breeds racism.
Results from Mississippi, March 11:
Vote by Party and Race Clinton Obama
White Democrats (25%) 70% 23%
White Independents (12%) 55% 40%
Black Democrats (44%) 9% 91%
Depends. Are they voting for Obama because he's black, or are they voting for Obama because Clinton is white?
I realize the distinction may be too subtle for some to grasp.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
Maitre D wrote:
I realize it's a disctinction you make for Obama supporters - but not Clinton ones.
Nope, I make the distinction quite clear for both sides.
I note that your ability to see hypocrisy in everything whether it is there or not, is proportional to your ability to be a hypocrite.
"It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic." -- Ben Franklin
I'll start paying more attention to Hillary's racist voters, when the media starts paying attention to Barack's. That's was my only point, not sure where I made a charge of "hypocrisy" anywhere.
It's not the same if blacks are voting for Obama because he's black. It's more of an issue of trying to level the playing field, and it's obviously not level in this nation. We've had how many presidents? And they've all been white guys. I think people are seeing that it's time to elect a woman or a black man so that we can evolve as a nation to get PAST the race and gender issue in the future.
For people who don't like race playing a role in who's elected....after Obama takes office, it won't be as big of a deal from here on out. We just need to get over the first hump and get a black dude into office so people will see that the country doesn't just automatically go down the drain once he's in office.
I wonder if the media will do a "hit job" on Hispanic voters. We already saw the media ignore the voting tendencies of Obama's urban supporters for 3 months, and go straight to rural WV and Kent to run exposes on those mean old nasty white Appalachian racists.
Since Hispanics are voting for Hillary in the identical (60%) ratio.......
kcmetro wrote:
For people who don't like race playing a role in who's elected....after Obama takes office, it won't be as big of a deal from here on out. We just need to get over the first hump and get a black dude into office so people will see that the country doesn't just automatically go down the drain once he's in office.
So, racism will end the day Obama is elected. I sure hope so.
Looking at how things are now, I can't see how Clinton honestly thinks she has a chance at the democratic nomination. This may be a reach, but I wonder if she might not be rooting for a McCain victory. If Obama wins the presidency the soonest she'd be able to run would be in 2016 (which would be a stretch for her, although not impossible seeing as McCain's creaking bones are running). However, if McCain wins, she could position herself for a 2012 run which seems much more realistic.
Kind of like Mitt Romney's possible 2012 run if McCain loses.
KC Region is all part of the same animal regardless of state and county lines.
Think on the Regional scale.
