<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s what you are saying. I haven’t seen any compelling breakdowns here of how much of the white vote simply will never vote for a black man, how much of Ohio and Texas Clinton supporters were Republican ditto-head crossovers, etc. counterbalancing the black vote. The fact is Obama went from zero to 60 very quickly and overcame momentum that seemed to very much favor Clinton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did I say he wasn’t qualified because of his race. Please point that out to me! You claim I said it so my quote shouldn’t be too hard to find.</p>
<p>For the record the majority of republicans who voted in TX voted for Obama. If you wouldn’t mind quoting me where I said Obama wasn’t qualified because he was black I’d appreciate it. Otherwise quit spewing lies and putting words in my mouth :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Irrelevant statistic to this point; I’ll let you figure it out. There was a lot of anecdotal information about people who voting as dittoheads for Clinton. And I heard more numbers in Ohio. There is no way of knowing exactly how many there were of these, but what statistics we do have indicate a lot (whether or not there were more for Obama).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I wasn’t ever referring to any such that in any post I made. I never put those words in your mouth. </p>
<p>The only thing I point was making was about your seeming insistence that Obama’s success as a black person is monumentally explained by his support among black voters while apparently not acknowledging that being black works against him with other voters. That’s all.</p>
<p>I said: Nobody is doing this though…nobody is saying he’s not qualified because of his race. </p>
<p>you said: No, that’s what you are saying.</p>
<p>Maybe it was just a miscommunication. I don’t think Obama’s success is due soley to him being black. In fact I think there are numerous reasons to why he is so succesful. I’m just arguing that in the democratic primaries, especially in certain states where the black population makes up 30-60% of the population, getting 90% of the black vote certainly makes a huge difference. Sure people may vote against him because he is black, but to be honest I see those types of people being more prevelant in the republican party as opposed to the democratic party.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, you’re right. If he weren’t so good he’d be bad. But fortunately for us he IS good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just went back and reviewed these figures. In 1988, apparently Jesse Jackson garnered an even greater percentage of the black vote than Obama. This week’s Mississippi Primary resulted in Obama obtaining his highest percentage of the African American vote to date, at 90%. But if the above 1988 figures are to be believed, the average percentage of the AA vote Jackson netted was above 90%, one as high as 96%. Yet, these meteoric numbers weren’t even close to being enough to make Jesse a competitive candidate for the Democratic nomination. So what’s the difference between Jackson’s run and Obama’s? Anyone care to hazard a guess?</p>
<p>[Psst!–Ferraro</a> was right. - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2186324/]Psst!--Ferraro”>Gotcha, Obama!)</p>
<p>No huge controversy followed the Atlantic piece quoted in the article. Obama didn’t denounce it as offensive and ridiculous. So what’s the difference between then and now? Simply put, we’ve officially entered the tit-for-tat stage of the campaign.</p>
<p>
Yes or no? Do you think Obama being black has affected the campaign and vote patterns?</p>
<p>Yes or no? Has Hillary Clinton’s sex effected the campaign and vote patterns?</p>
<p>Yes, of course Obama’s race has figured into this election, in ways both favorable to him and disfavorable. There are literally hundreds of variables that have determined how the vote would swing in each of the Primaries and Caucuses to date. It is simplistic to point to a single variable, and declare that it alone was determinant in a candidate’s success. Again, if garnering 90+ percent of the black vote was all it took, Jesse Jackson would have won the Democratic nomination in 1988. I could just as easily say that, had older white women and Ditto Heads (overwhelmingly white and Republican), and Blue Collar democrats, and Hispanics not voted for Hillary Clinton in the numbers in which they have, she wouldn’t be as competitive as she is in this race. And so what? She has her demographic strengths and he has his. Neither of them can rely on a single slice of the demographic pie to win them the nomination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, obviously.</p>
<p>That’s what my point is.</p>
<p>I believe being black has been a net benefit so far in this campaign. However, once it gets to the general election I think it’s a different story.</p>
<p>“If it was Hillary against McCain; I would have to think about it. If it was EITHER against Obama; I would choose EITHER.”</p>
<p>and for that reason i would call you ignorant and immature. This election the democrats and republicans have such different platforms on the issue that if you would be willing to go against the good of you and your family for the sole purpose of spiting another candidate, you don’t deserve a ballot. </p>
<p>And once it gets to the general election the ENTIRE campaign is going to be different. The democratic party will be the one running Obama or HRC’s campaign and the whole issue of experience or race or gender will evaporate because those were just things used to distinguish between two candidates who are 95% the same. </p>
<p>The general election is going to be a past vs. future thing and an attempt to tie McCain to Bush as much as possible. The only problem the party could face is if many voters are like a few on this board who can’t switch their mindset from this inner-party squabble.</p>
<p>I think people’s memories are so very short. The reason Obama is even still in the race is because of the WHITE voters of Iowa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Should’ve been begun this quote here. That’s what I meant. Sorry, it was a miscommunication, Laxattack, and my fault. And then my statement, “no that’s what you were saying” was meant to be directed to this, not to the other thing which I never meant to suggest. I had overlooked the first part of the quote. That’s why I didn’t understand your reaction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you may be quite right, mini. Obama’s overwhelming, and quite unexpected Iowa win told America, “This man is not your ordinaryl “black candidate”. He is a viable candidate for President of the United States of America.” And suddenly, the media, which had all but coronated Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party nominee, sat up and took notice, and asked themselves, “what could this all mean? You mean we might actually have a choice?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think your reading comprehension skills leave a little bit to be desired. Nobody is arguing that Obama is a black only candidate. Nobody is arguing that he doesn’t get white votes. I’m arguing that if he wasn’t black he wouldn’t be getting the black vote in extraordinary numbers and this would be a different race. </p>
<p>Nobody has one disputed my assertation, instead they try to skirt the issue and claim I’m making different points: Lax doesn’t think blacks can vote in blocs, Lax thinks Obama isn’t qualified because he is black, Lax is outraged Obama draws the black vote. It’s a testament to the “truthfulness” of my statement when nobody can refute it but simply tries to attack me with issues that have nothing to do with the point I’m arguing.</p>
<p>I think Hillary would have gotten the bulk of the Black vote, even in South Carolina, as the polls showed, if 1) WHITE voters hadn’t supported him to victory in Iowa; and 2) the mass child-killing husband of Hillary hadn’t shown himself for the butthead he really is (that’s being charitable) in South Carolina.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s also true that if he weren’t getting the white vote in extraordinary numbers this would be a very different race. In fact it is the magnitude of Obama’s white support that is the extraordinary phenomenon in this race.</p>
<p>Damn Tyler; your rebuttal is just so educated and inspiring. I just love it when someone gets offended because their position is questioned. They either come back with data that continues to support their position; or they get personal. The “OH YEA?” response isn’t good enough, so instead you have to go personal and call me ignorant and immature. And just because I won’t vote for Obama; (Because I haven’t seen anything about him worth voting for); I am going “against the good of you (me) and your (my) family”. And because I would vote for Hillary over Obama; and if came to the general election; McCain over Obama; that I don’t even deserve a ballot.</p>
<p>Tyler; you’ve got to do better than that. That isn’t rebuttal, that’s close to taking your ball and going home. You don’t want to get into a ****ing contest; you will lose. Then the thread gets locked or we get booted off of making future posts. Really; if you’re going to respond, at least make it a useful post.</p>
<p>Oh, and for what it’s worth; I have MORE than paid my dues to deserve to have that ballot. Matter of fact, I paid those dues for 21 years. Do you really want to go there with these childish and amateur comebacks? I doubt it.</p>
<p>But, let me help put this thread back on topic for you. I don’t think that any of the 3 remaining candidates are that great of a choice. Traditionally; in the senate races and her husband’s campaigns; Hillary has almost always had an extremely large support from the black voters. That is Ferraro’s point with her comment. If Obama had not been black, he would be in quite the position he is currently in. That is true. It’s not a matter of the black vote gets you elected. As poet described concerning Jackson’s failure. In that race, no one “HAD” the black vote. Therefor, it was as neutral as many of the other groups of voters. But in THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION. It’s not that Obama got the Black vote; it’s that he DIDN’T ALLOW HILLARY to get them. These were votes she probably was counting on heavily. If Obama hadn’t gotten past the first round; and it was Hillary against Edwards, Hillary would have had most of those black votes. That would have propelled her in many more states than the one already one. She would probably be in the winning seat just like McCain is. But because Obama took the Black vote in many of the areas Hillary had been hoping for, it has made the race as tight as it is. </p>
<p>That’s what this thread is about. Unfortunately, too many Obama fans don’t want to see the truth. They want to see Ferraro’s remarks as part of a conspiracy. Part of a racist movement. The Clinton machine at work. Obama fans are about the most defensive people I have ever heard. I put a challenge out on another thread. I’d like to know who you MOST LIKELY WILL VOTE FOR; but then instead of saying why; I want you to list 3 weaknesses, shortcoming, fallacies, etc… with your candidate. Seems like clinton and mcCain supporters have no problem mentioning the bad of their candidate along with the good. The Obama fans however seem hell bent on believing the man is their savior. Which is why I would vote for Hillary over him. And if he wins the democratic nomination, I will vote for McCain over Him. If it’s Hillary against McCain, I don’t know yet. Clinton and McCain may not be the most experienced or have the most accomplishments and traits that I consider to be important for becoming president of the most powerful country on the planet; but I do believe they have more of all of that than Obama does.</p>
<p>Using Occam’s razor, I think the simplest explanation should be attempted before going on to more esoteric ones:</p>
<p>Following New Hampshire, Bill blew it.</p>
<p>There’s a reason Occam’s razor is considered a joke amongst the scientific community :rolleyes:</p>