<p>“Once the OPEN MINDED members of these communities get to know him better, the split will become closer to 50-50, just like the whites, IMHO.”</p>
<p>So are you saying that those who support Hillary now in the community are not open minded?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess you must not be aware of the competitiveness between blacks and hispanics. Hispanics have always been accused of taking jobs from blacks, and hispanics do not like it! The relatively large group of hispanic voters (40 +) tend to be conservative.</p>
<p>“because most presidents had 10 years + of senate experience.”</p>
<p>Who? Hint: there’s only two that served in the Senate and went directly to the presidency.</p>
<p>Erewhon, i refuse to answer anymore of your questions. Its getting really annoying when i feel that you are often in the offense. You just come here to attack everything i am saying. I would rather hear what other people have to say because they have input on the situation, rather than just attacking certain words or phrases.</p>
<p>" i refuse to answer anymore of your questions"</p>
<p>I’m not attacking you, but you should be able to defend your statements. If you can’t, don’t make them. Any college would expect no less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He does in Virginia; 5% of the vote will be asian.</p>
<p>And washington- 8% <a href=“http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2005-03-53.csv[/url]”>http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2005-03-53.csv</a></p>
<p>^ ^ </p>
<p>And Obama is ahead. What’s your point now?</p>
<p>You don’t know that yet. Polls indicated Obama would win new hampshire and california.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So are you saying that those who support Hillary now in the community are not open minded?>>></p>
<p>No, quite the contrary. </p>
<p>I am saying that once Obama becomes better known to the Hispanic and Asian communities (most of whom are open minded), then their preference will be based on non-ethnic/racial factors, producing the 50-50 split we see among white voters (most of whom are open minded too).</p>
<p>The black voters are fired up for historic reasons. A certain percentage of them are obviously voting because they want to see a black man become President. That would do wonders for the community. Little kids would have someone other than black athletes and movie stars to look up to. </p>
<p>There was quite a lot of support in the black community even for Clarence Thomas even though his judicial record was pretty hostile to blacks.</p>
<p>Edit: The point of emphasizing OPEN MINDED was because it appears that the OP is being closed minded.</p>
<p>“You don’t know that yet. Polls indicated Obama would win new hampshire and california”</p>
<p>I know he’s ahead. But you’re correct, I don’t know he’ll win. Good job :)</p>
<p>What makes you think that their voting is based on non-ethnic/ racial factors?</p>
<p>Could it be that they have studied the platforms and have decided that Hillary is the better candidate?</p>
<p>Demanding that other people talk “talking smack” is not a good way to promote your candidate.</p>
<p>You don’t get to tell other adults what to do. Trying to do so just makes us assume that you’re more interested in bossing us around than in changing our minds.</p>
<p>tega: The only way to determine that would be to take a random sample of Hispanic/Asian voters and present them with Hillary’s platform and tell them it is actually Obama’s and vice versa, and then poll them. That could tease out whether the preferences are based on the PERSON or the PLATFORM. </p>
<p>I think most people of all races/ethnicities vote for the PERSON, not the platform. Hispanics and Asians are no exception. Hillary is simply more well-known and popular among these groups. As they get to know Obama more, there will be some (not all) who will like Obama more.</p>
<p>“only way to determine that would be to take a random sample of Hispanic/Asian voters and present them with Hillary’s platform and tell them it is actually Obama’s and vice versa, and then poll them”</p>
<p>Good idea, but for that to work all population samples can’t know either platform or there’s a predetermined bias. i.e. All participants need to be clueless.</p>
<p>Just to add to the discussion about ethnicity, gender, & region, white men in CA voted for Obama over Clinton.</p>
<p>As to his supposedly being set to win CA, no; he was never expected to win over Clinton. The <em>traditional</em> Democratic base in CA is very strong & has been for decades. Clinton is way more aligned with party tradition & party regulars than Obama. Her victory in CA was hardly a surprise. Obama is considerably stronger with Independents, particularly nationally, where it counts ultimately.</p>
<p>Economic divide on the vote in CA was those making <$50K going for Clinton; the bulk making >$50K going for Obama.</p>
<p>Obama also took the lead in the educated population, with higher levels of education more correlated with him than with Clinton.</p>
<p>“only way to determine that would be to take a random sample of Hispanic/Asian voters and present them with Hillary’s platform and tell them it is actually Obama’s and vice versa, and then poll them”</p>
<p>You’re assuming we voted for the platform. I’m a white woman who likes Hilary’s platform and experience better, but I didn’t vote for her. I think NPR had someone on today who said Obama beat Hilary only among African Americans and people with a post-grad education. Heh, that latter would be me. :)</p>
<p>
Well, I can guarantee you that my wife couldn’t do what I do and I can’t do what she does despite being married to each other. And I wouldn’t want the ‘husband’ of the leading surgeon to operate on me - I’d want the leading surgeon to. And of course, first Lady’s (maybe first ‘Sirs’ soon) are expected to stand up for certain causes like school children reading or standing up for children somewhere or the other but that doesn’t qualify them as experienced in executive matters and often is mostly symbolic with a trip or two and some photo-ops.</p>
<p>Hillary and Obama have about the same level of ‘experience’ and neither has held an executive political role (governor). Neither has McCain.</p>
<p>mathmom: agreed. the experiment I suggested needs a few control groups to turn up useful data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? You seem to think you have some insight in that regard. Care to share?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And Hillary has only 4. You can skew and spin Hillary’s years as First Whatever all you want, but she only has 4 years as an elected official, which doesn’t amount to a substantial amount more than Obama—and she certainly has EONS less “experience” than John McCain. Remember him? He’s the one she’d be up against in November. At which point, the current red herring of “experience” won’t amount to a hill of refried beans.</p>
<p>Thats why i would vote for mccain over obama. Thanks for reminding me.</p>