<p>25% of WV voters said that voted for Clinton said Race was an important factor in their decision for the democratic primary. 25% ADMITTED to a complete stranger that they voted based on race. That means that it is very feasible that upwards of 50% of Clinton voters voted based on race. </p>
<p>Could this mean that the 41% margin that voted for her over Obama was indeed racist? </p>
<p>If so does this strengthen or hinder her argument to the super delegates that she is the stronger candidate?</p>
<p>I was thinking the same thing, Tyler09, that it is astounding that so many people would admit that race influenced their votes, and that there must be many more who felt that way but would not admit it. </p>
<p>I am appalled that Hillary seems to feel no shame in benefiting from these attitudes. If there is a more benign interpretation of her comments about “hard-working white people voting for me,” I’d like to hear it. Should her campaign slogan be, “Ignorant white racists R us?”</p>
<p>the three people I saw interviewed,all middle aged white women said (person #1):I won’t vote for someone who isn’t my race
(person#2) He’s a Muslim
(person#3) His name is Hussein,I’ve had enough of those Husseins</p>
<p>I couldn’t believe 1,these people could still have those atitudes and 2,let themselves be interviewed for a national audience
Remind me NOT to go live in West Virginia</p>
<p>Alice Walker says it’s about race, too, although she votes the other way because of it.</p>
<p>There was the famous case in California in which a black politician–Tom Bradley, I think–was projected to win a race by a significant margin, based on polling. On the day, he lost. Apparently voters were ashamed to tell a pollster that they were not going to vote for a black candidate. To my knowledge, it hasn’t been determined whether they lied because they WERE racist, or because they were afraid people would THINK they were racist (in other words, they had some other reason for preferring the other candidate). </p>
<p>From an electability standpoint it is a fact, and something for Democrats to be concerned about. Just as HRC’s negatives are a fact and something for Democrats to be concerned about. It doesn’t make any difference whether it is right or fair in either case. </p>
<p>Obama holds the promise of enabling a lot more people–black and white–to get over the racial divide, which is wonderful. The question is, can he successfully reach out to this segment of the population. That is his challenge. Rev. Wright did not help. His wife probably doesn’t help either, which is probably why she has been under wraps lately. (Her remarks in front of black audiences were beginning to draw attention and they did not carry the same message of unity and reconciliation that he does.) His remarks about “guns and religion” may have been enough to cost us the election.</p>
<p>There was a piece in the NYT about how JFK managed to carry WV, a state that was virulently anti-Catholic. Obama and his people ought to take a look at that. The endorsement of John Edwards will help, especially if JE campaigns for him in those places. Picking JE as his running mate wouldn’t be a bad idea either. (Although I like Bill Richardson too.)</p>
<p>John Edwards already tried the running mate game (with Kerry). I doubt he would even be interested. He may be more interested in a cabinet position.</p>
<p>that’s 25% that ADMITTED it. What is the true %.</p>
<p>Last night the Daily Show ran some interviews of voters in WVa. If these clips were “legit” it was nothing less than terrifying that these people live in this country in the 21st Century. “I ain’t votin’ for no Muslim (who has that Christian Pastor)”. </p>
<p>Apparently in WVa and in Sean Hannity’s brain the key issues here are that Obama doesn’t always wear a flag pin and that his middle name is Hussein.
I have been waiting to hear that Rhodam rhymes with Sadaam. Hmmmmm?</p>
<p>I saw one of the clips- I wonder were those people specifically chosen because they looked & sounded like the stereotypical hillbilly?
THose voters from WV who were supporting Obama sounded much more educated and intelligent.
Perhaps it was to make Hilary look bad ? ( because- ya know- she needs help on that account)</p>
<p>Yes, clearly some of those people are boors and racists. But are we now supposed to think that <em>anyone</em> who supports HRC is defective, and she should apologize for those whose motivations are not acceptable? What is and is not an acceptable motivation? Okay, I think we would mostly agree that race is a poor one. How about gender? Is Obama going to be asked to apologize for the people who support him who didn’t vote for HRC because she’s a woman? Or because they believed the barrage of slander directed at her for the last 15 years? </p>
<p>I think it is important to not put too much weight on those individuals chosen by the media to display. They aren’t going to put the normal, rational individual on the air. Obviously I wouldn’t discount the race issue, but I wouldn’t inflate it either. I think there are a lot of people in the demographic in question who WOULD vote for a black man–if, and that’s the big if, he is able to establish a connection with them. I think that Obama can do it, but he’s going to have to work hard at it. </p>
<p>I mean, consider “Wife Swap” or that segment Jay Leno does where he asks people on the street a bunch of questions that anyone who is even faintly informed could answer. Only a tiny minority of families are as eccentric as those on Wife Swap. Most people are better informed than those Jay puts on the air. (Well, at least I hope so! )</p>
<p>I had the same fears after the Ohio primary-if there are a considerable number of people who will say, out loud and to a reporter, that they would never vote for a black person, how many others secretly hold that view?</p>
<p>I am willing to bet 90 percent of African Americans are voting for Obama because of his race. Most of them are smart enough not to admit it to some poll taker. Makes me wonder how many smart people live in WVA.</p>
<p>People vote for candidates for all sorts of good and bad reasons. But Hillary is using the racism of those voters to buttress her case to the superdelegates. Google “Hillary hardworking white” to hear her comments.</p>
I assume you are similarly appalled by the 90/10 margin that Obama gets due to the “race” vote? I mean, with all the hoodwinking and bamboozling going on - I’m not surprised.</p>
<p>I find it humorous that this is somehow a revelation to some. That this election will inevitably come down to race in many states. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory…</p>
<p>I was about to say the exact same thing as Mr. Payne.</p>
<p>It’s “appalling” that white voters vote for Hillary based on race, yet not appalling that Obama’s getting 90% of the black vote? Something just isn’t consistent in that position.</p>
<p>Oh, and for the record, I consider both pretty appalling, but if I’m going to take issue with any candidate over racial bloc voting it is obviously Obama. Hillary’s race-based support in WV isn’t even the tip of the iceberg compared to Obama’s race-based victories.</p>
<p>“It’s “appalling” that white voters vote for Hillary based on race, yet not appalling that Obama’s getting 90% of the black vote? Something just isn’t consistent in that position.”</p>
<p>How so? Who decreed that the only acceptable position is a color-blind position? Race awareness and race hatred are not the same thing. The WV voters under discussion in this thread aren’t simply voting “based on race” – they’re voting based on their dislike of black people and their fear of living under a black president. If the black people voting for Obama are choosing him due to their dislike of white people and fear of a white president, they’re surely keeping it quiet. For one thing, unless this is their first presidential election, we can be certain that they’ve voted across racial lines before. The WV interviewees haven’t, and they claim they never will.</p>
<p>There it is, the implicit assumption that the folks voting for Hillary due to race are exhibiting “race hatred” while those voting for Obama due to race are exhibiting “race awareness”. Obviously we all know that there’s some kooks out there who want to “hang that **** from a tree” or whatever other ridiculous racism, but that does not in any way equate to the majority - or even a significant minority - of Hillary’s race-based supporters voting because of that kind of hateful sentiment.</p>
<p>So far, what’s come out of WV has been:</p>
<p>1) 25% of voters voted based on race
2) Some voters are hateful towards Obama and blacks.</p>
<p>Those 2 pieces of information alone do not in any way mean that Hillary’s supporters as a whole, even in WV, are racists - in the same way that the fact that some anti-white blacks voted for Obama and many blacks voted for Obama does not make a majority of Obama’s supporters racist.</p>
<p>Personally, I see the voting patterns as the exact same thing, except that so far Hillary has won only a single state based on it, while Obama has won more. Where’s the outrage there?</p>
<p>^^^
West Virginia and Blacks voting for Obama are similar but have key differences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hanna got it exactly right. MILLIONS of Hillary Supporters are voting AGAINST a black president. MILLIONS of Obama Supporters are voting FOR a black president.</p>
<p>I could agree that Razorsharp, 1of42 etc. had it right, if blacks in previous elections had sat on their hands and refused to support or embrace any of the white candidates. And if when very public figures such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ran for president you saw them with the black support like Obama has (which wasn’t the case). Then it would be exactly the same, and I couldn’t disagree. But that obviously isn’t the case.</p>
<p>No one is saying that Hillary supporters are racist. I never get why people try to say Obama supporters are saying that.</p>
<p>All people are trying to state is that many of the racist people that vote for Clinton are doing so out of pure hatred and fear, while the ones that vote for Obama are doing so in the hope of raising the glass ceiling for all minorities in future generations and in taking one more step towards equality.</p>
<p>I would say the ones on Hillarys side are racist while the ones on Obamas side are prejudiced. And their motives are so completely different that they can’t be ignored. And the same “racist” people that are voting for Obama have and will vote for future white candidates. While the “racist” people voting for Hillary will never do the same for a black candidate.</p>
<p>Proof of this is even by the campaigns of each candidate. I haven’t heard of any level of hatred EVEN CLOSE to what Obama campaigners have endured directed at Hillary campaigners. I haven’t heard of Campaign Offices robbed and vandalized by Obama supporters or people yelling “hang that b—h” from their cars.</p>
<p>That is a specious difference. Vote for the white woman and you vote against the black man, and vote for the black man and you vote against the white women. What we’ve established is that some few voters were voting based on racial hatred, but that is by no means full enough evidence to make generalizations that Hillary supporters are voting against a black man while all the black people are voting for a black man.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And since we still haven’t hit the general here, you have no idea whether - as you imply - white voters will not vote for Obama based on race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No? How about:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s just from this thread. I could go on and post the numerous headlines I’ve seen to the effect of “Hillary capitalizes on racists”, but I think you get the point. By the way, I recognize that nobody yet has said that all Hillary supporters are racist - but everyone seems to be willing to condemn an entire state’s Hillary supporters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but in my opinion - others may differ - racism is racism is racism. It doesn’t matter if it’s done by those in power or minorities, it’s still ugly and it’s still unjustified. And it is by no means exclusive to HRC supporters - indeed, Obama has probably benefited much more.</p>
)</p>