<p>Are you saying the 70% of white democrats who said they voted for Hillary were not answering the question correctly? That’s not how they voted? What about the 55% of white independents? What is a “true Democratic voter”?</p>
<p>Just curious.</p>
<p>Oviously, Obama has energized a significant share of white voters; I just don’t see that it’s as dramatic as the effect he’s had on black voters. Or young voters.</p>
<p>“If a candidate energizes an interest with a particular group and motivates them to actually go vote, isn’t that in the best interest of the party ?”</p>
<p>Are you limiting this to one group? (It’s just grand if white women come out to vote, not quite as much “in the best interest of the party” if a different group is energized – say, young people, etc.?)</p>
<p>msjhop, thanks for that considered post.</p>
<p>Let me reframe my own thoughts, because I know I’ve been harsh toward HRC:
I want, and have wanted, to support her – despite my personal aversion toward her. My own personal feelings are neither here nor there, & I judge it irresponsible of me or anyone else to base such an important civic vote on personal taste, shall we say.
My concern is for her workability as an inspiring CEO, if you will, leader, and commander in chief – not just inspiring for females as a whole, or for older females in particular (many of whom have faced exclusion of opportunity), but inspiring in a way that cuts through class, race, and gender.
I think Obama is much more that person than HRC is. If you look at his cross-appeal, he is much less segmented in his voting base.
But in addition, I have grave concerns about her becoming ammo for eager enemies still existing in the Senate, and among male Senators’ friends. I want my chief executive to be effective.</p>
<p>“However, the last two states that Obama won were Wyoming and Vermont. Both states are greater than 95% white”</p>
<p>This implies he’s drawing in huge numbers of white votes. In Wyoming he got 5,378 votes, so even if you assume they were all white, that less than a blip on the radar. But it does count for carrying a state I suppose.</p>
<p>ps- Obama is a phenomenon, no doubt about it.</p>
<p>So if Obama received more delegates than Clinton in Texas, how can she be said to have won Texas? Particularly since he won more votes in total in the state.</p>
<p>exactly, what did she win in Texas. Obama now has been credited with more delegates in Texas than she and they are still counting. He also has picked up a couple delegates from the ongoing count in California. He seems to have also picked up one or two in Ohio.</p>
<p>It’s all just about the spin.</p>
<p>This morning’s ABC lead story was boasting about Hillary’s “resounding” wins in Ohio and Texas. Hopefully, they have since modified their rhetoric.</p>
<p>(This was the same article that failed to mention the Mississippi blowout. It was simply a win.)</p>
<p>What Clinton won in Texas was lots of votes. She beat Obama in the main vote by 101,029 votes. In the caucuses he got 5,298 more votes than she did. That’s cause hardly anyone came out for caucuses.</p>
<p>Main vote: Hillary 1,459,814
Obama 1,358,785</p>
<p>Caucus: Hillary 18,620
Obama 23, 918</p>
<p>Delegates matter as to who the nominee is. Votes and in which states (battleground states, for example) matter as to predicting what will happen in the general election.</p>
<p>Since caucuses are such a weird proceeding, I don’t think they have much predictive value as to what people will do in a general election when all you do is show up and pull the lever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am attempting to explain party affiliation in Mississippi, for those who aren’t familiar with it. We have no party registration system as yet, although that is coming. The state tends to vote very heavily Republican in presidential elections. For example, in 2004 GWB received 60% of the vote.
In answer to your question, I believe the untruthfulness came not in the vote cast, but in identifying party affiliation. I have not participated in exit polling, so I do not know how the question is framed. While Clinton does enjoy some support among the party faithful, primarily due to the popularity of Bill Clinton in this state, there is no way that support is of the magnitude implied by the exit polling.To the extent that the commentators have implied that Obama does not have substantial support among white Democratic voters in Mississippi, that is simply not the case.</p>
<p>Really?? Mississippi has no party registration system? Nobody is registered as being in either party? Pretty amazing.</p>
<p>It is interesting that the Clinton campaign claimed a major victory in Nevada , and suggested something about that was “how the west was won.”</p>
<p>Oh wait, Nevada was a caucus state.</p>
<p>According to CNN, she got 5355 votes and Obama got 4773 votes.</p>
<p>(There was also some scandal about Bill Clinton and the culinary Union.)</p>
<p>“Votes and in which states (battleground states, for example) matter as to predicting what will happen in the general election.”</p>
<p>This is conventional wisdom, but it’s not the unquestionable truth it is sometimes suggested to be. No one’s come up with a better metric for predicting performance in the general than head-to-head polls with the other party, and those are pretty unreliable this far out.</p>
<p>^ Yes, and in addition, the vote tallies in primaries are always very accurate and non-controversial. There have never been issues with ballots, counting, or counting machines.</p>
<p>In fact, there would probably be no corruption at all with a mail-in vote for Florida and Michigan.</p>
<p>Ok, back to reality…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s cause hardly anyone came out for caucuses? Mercymom, I’m afraid that your mathematical references do not reflect the nature of a caucus. The numbers you posted are simply not comparable. This almost amounts to presenting the total number of voters and the resulting number of delegates and make a COMPARISON. The reported numbers for the caucuses are not an illustration of the NUMBER of voters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ABC must be afraid to be the next satirical victim of Saturday Nigh Life. So, ABC did not want to be caught fluffing up Obama’s pillow and reverted to an All But Clinton from one year ago. Of course, there is always the ulterior motive to keep the race in the news. Covering a horse race needs to have competitive candidates. Looking at 6 weeks of nothing but PA polls and discussions is not that appealing, so there is an incentive to make PA yet another MUST win state. No matter how one plays with the remaining primaries, the tally of delegates will not benefit Clinton, even is she finds a way to win with a double-digit difference in PA. Obama will take most of the remaining states and his losses in PA will be mitigated by a win in North Carolina. In the end, Obama will storm the convention with more delegates than he had on March 5, and probably more Super Delegates, as they continue to move towards Obama. </p>
<p>As far as Texas, even the ultra Pro-Clinton AOL discovered a bit of integrity:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is a Texas Circus story:</p>
<p>Democratic Circus in the Bayou City</p>
<p>Forrest XXXXXX</p>
<p>Mass chaos reined at two precinct conventions I attended in Houston Tuesday night. Hard not to conclude that the state and local party could have done a much better job. Confused voters, traffic jams, overcrowded polling places, election officials tossing the rules, and -let’s just say it was not democracy at its finest. My evening started at Precinct 157 in the Acres Home area, an overwhelmingly African American part of north Houston represented by Sylvester Turner. At 6:50pm traffic around the polling place was at a virtual standstill, with cars snaked around the block in pursuit of a parking space. I finally found a spot in a soggy field not too far away.</p>
<p>By 7:15pm the tiny Highland Park Recreation Center was packed with voters. The rec center was at least a third the size required for the number of people attending the convention. Long queues formed almost immediately. Many people, including the elderly, simply left rather than stand in the chilly evening. “It’s like they say - Don’t Mess With Texas,” said an exasperated Charles Nelms while waiting in line. “But it looks like Texas is going to be a mess tonight.”</p>
<p>Conspicuous in the crowd was Bob Meals, an attorney from Seattle working for the Obama campaign with a sign on his chest that read “Obama Voter Protection.” He carried with him a marked-up 32-page manual on the precinct conventions issued by the Obama campaign. His job was to make sure the rules were followed, he said.</p>
<p>Volunteer poll workers shouted contradictory instructions to the waiting voters. Many were confused about whether their vote would count if they left after signing-in. It would, but one man didn’t help things by yelling to the crowd about Hillary “propaganda.”</p>
<p>The actual sign-in process went quickly once people were inside, but tallying the returns proved messy. Caucus organizers huddled around a table quickly realized that many people hadn’t filled in all their identifying information. Some hadn’t registered a presidential preference. Someone suggested calling out the names of those with missing information. That idea was shot down. No one could find a calculator to add the totals. The attorney for the Obama campaign was handling the sheets (at least until an official noticed it). Some people were still trying to sign-in despite the fact that the sign-in had been closed. I never got a clear answer on how voters without a stamped registration card or receipt from the primary were verified to make sure they were in fact eligible to vote in the convention.</p>
<p>The election judge finally hustled the remaining caucus-goers outside and into the bleachers of a nearby softball field. He said he would be going through some of the outstanding problems with everybody, but that never happened as far as I could tell. “This is like a high school fire drill,” remarked a man. A precinct chair was elected and the returns announced - of 291 votes, Obama received 271 and Clinton got 20. Of 31 delegates at stake, Obama got 29 and Clinton two. “That’s all?,” called out a man in the bleachers. “Aw, come on now.” It did seem to me that more than 291 people had attended the convention but who really knows.</p>
<p>The new precinct chair took nominations for delegates but then hand-picked those he thought should go on. “You gotta do this the democratic way,” he said. “You gotta have some youth. That’s what Barack Obama is all about - the youth. Let me do my job.” Not to be a stickler, but the rules require that a vote be taken on each nominee.</p>
<p>Finally, by 9:45 p.m, the voters had all left and the poll workers sat around trying to figure out how to get the required paperwork to the state party. No one could find the sheet with the preference totals. Someone had taken it home with him. There was also the matter of voter certificate numbers missing from the sign-in sheets. The election judge decided to have a meeting the next day to finish the verification. It was 10 p.m. and he still needed to take the primary returns from earlier in the day to the tabulation office downtown.</p>
<p>As I was driving back to the motel, I heard a live radio report that chaos had also broken out at another Houston polling location located in Precinct 325/327. I rushed over to find the aftermath of quite a scene. Two precincts had tried to cram into a small courthouse annex named for the late Congressman Mickey Leland on North SHepherd near Little York. A constable said that earlier in the evening organizers had been blowing on whistles in an attempt to corral the crowd. KHOU estimated that 3,000 people had shown up. It was hard to sort out whether the rules were actually followed. One of the temporary chairs claimed that when she showed up to run the caucus, names were already on the sign-in sheet. Another man immediately shushed her, saying “you’re going to negate the whole process.” Other observers said the caucus began before the primary had concluded.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p>Unless I am mistaken, the BIG win in Ohio only amounted to a difference of about 7 total (pledged and super) delegates as well.</p>
<p>“(This was the same article that failed to mention the Mississippi blowout. It was simply a win.)”</p>
<p>The blowout is a difference of 5 delegates.</p>
<p>See Ohio comment. That was a huge (bigger and better than a blowout) win of 7 delegates. It is bigger and better because it is a big important state that only Clinton can win. There are only a few really important states according to the Clinton campaign.
She’s banking on Pennsylvania to be the next only important state. How many delegates is that worth I wonder?</p>
<p>Also, as xiggi noted, Hillary’s huge “momentum” tally of 3 wins, was actually a net loss of 15 delegates. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary. What experience did Hillary have to become elected Senator of NY State (btw, the other Democrats who were already running conveniently withdrew once Hillary threw her hat in the ring) – much less have any connection w/ the state.</p>
<p>Oh, right – her qualifications to be elected a Senator of NY had verything to do w/ her being married to a former President of the United States.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL!!! I love how Hillary and her supporters have used her SPEECH on women’s rights in China as “proof” of her “experience” in foreign affairs. Did she meet w/ Chinese leaders and negotiate a deal? No. </p>
<p>She gave a SPEECH – and hmmmmm, isn’t that (to borrow a phrase from Hillary) - ”JUST WORDS”?</p>
<p>It’s really ludicrous how she tries to spin that as real experience, not to mention her embellishing her “contributions” to the N. Ireland peace process (again, she only gave speeches and had nothing to do w/ the negotiations) and to the Bosnia conflict (which was really nothing more but a photo op w/ celebrities such as Sheryl Crowe and Sinbad - btw, the attempt to dismiss Sinbad’s contrary recollection of the events by insinuating that as a comedian, Sinbad’s differing account couldn’t seriously be taken was pathetic).</p>
<p>Obama, otoh, did pass legislation while serving as a State Senator of Illinois – and unlike Hillary, Obama had the ability to work w/ Republicans on the other side of the aisle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What experience did Reagan, Clinton or Bush II have? (Btw, Bush II surrounded himself w/ cronies who have all the experience in the world – Cheney & Co. – and look where it led us.</p>
<p>Heck, we can go further back and pick out FDR and Lincoln – and they turned out to be pretty good Presidents.</p>
<p>But again – sorry, but you seem to be blinded by the charade that Hillary has any ACTUAL substantive experience (not even McCain has any real experience which is similar to that as serving as President of the US).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry – but the fact is, more independents support Obama than Hillary.</p>
<p>As for Hispanics and Asians – yes, the majority support Hillary, but that’s b/c there is a generational/educational divide in those groups as there is in the general electorate.</p>
<p>While the majority of Hispanics and Asians do support Hillary – they are older and less educated than their younger counterparts who, overall, support Obama. Plus, being older and more conservative – they tend to go w/ a “known name”.</p>
<p>Btw, do Asian-Americans in Hawaii not count (a state w/ a majority Asian pop.)? They voted overwhelmingly for Obama.</p>
<p>You seem to be making the same mistake that many other do – lump all Hispanic or Asian-Americans altogether, when they have varied views.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, the same Hillary who supported NAFTA when she was “in the White House” and then when was called out on it – she replied that **“she wasn’t in the Senate at the time” ** and so couldn’t do anything about it (hmmm, I guess her support of NAFTA when she was in the White House, unlike her other “actions”, doesn’t count as “experience”).</p>
<p>And I just loved her faux anger before the Texas and Ohio primaries. She, of all people, had the gall to blast Obama for “Karl Rove tactics” (for having a pamphlet which pointed out their differences on NAFTA – which btw, was a policy argument), when she and her campaign have been throwing the kitchen sink at Obama - photo in Somali dress, 3 am telephone commercial, etc. – all classic Karl Rove tactics (not to mention Clinton tactics during Bill’s 8 yrs in office).</p>
<p>And let’s not forget Hillary’s wanting to change all the rules/regulations of the primaries/caucuses simply b/c they are “inconvenient” to her winning the Democratic nomination – give me a break.</p>
<p>And oh, btw, a big chunk of her support in Louisiana and other states came from Republicans – and not Republicans who are seriously considering voting across party lines, but Republicans who just rather see a Democratic Hillary ticket (since that would siphon off the independents to McCain and the Republican base).</p>
<p>Another BO advisor talks some nasty trash.</p>
<p><a href=“Home - WND”>Another Obama pastor under fire for racist talk;