The tactics of election in this democratic nation is a psychological game. With a double digits leading of Hillary rating before the primary comes to a upset rating today to Obama's is a work of propaganda from the Obama team. Hillary's previous leading rating is EARNED by her background and her records of performances in senate for 7 plus years. The inexperiences on the subjects of military and foreign police of Obama is believed to be gained by some statements written in web sites. The cry for Obama's nomination can be urged by those vocal supports from some DEM delegates before convention, can be threatened by suggestion of breaking down the Democratic Party. Being frustrated by current American racial situation Obama's pastor called "God damn America" is understandable but out of his mind since he is still one of the Americans even he served in Armed Forces before. That does not mean a presidential nomination is a way to pay back to any black candidate as well as a presidency could not be giving to a POW if he is offering a plan to keep the war going for 100 years in Middle East.
The Democrats and the Black Vote
Buzz this article up.
Were the superdelegates to nominate Hillary Clinton, despite Barack Obama gaining a plurality among the pledged delegates, they would run the risk of alienating black voters in November.
But what exactly would that mean? In how many states do black voters make the difference? I ran some rough numbers over at Robert Emmet -- check them out. Depending on how much of a drop-off you assume, it could cost the Democrats 10 to 76 electoral votes.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Name three bills that Hillary Championed in the last three Congresses that made it into law and had a substantive impact on an issue that affects a majority of Americans. In fact, name a ONE bill she sponsored into law that had a substantive impact on the national agenda in a positive way. You can't because she hasn't.
Barack has been in the Senate for three years and has ushered 15 bills into law, three of which are huge with regards to how the US government conducts business. He was also intimately involved in the ethics reform plan that has begun to move the Senate toward a more transparent operating stature.
You candidate is an empty suit, bereft of an meaningful accomplishments and has been forced to lay claim to the accomplishments of others in order to bolster a lackluster resume that was mostly a reflected image of her husband's rise to fame.
Sorry. That's why she is losing. It has nothing to do with Barack or his supposed lack of experience that remains extremely effective in everything he has ever done.
This would certainly shape up to be a pivotal, monumental election this year,
because of Hillary Clinton & because of Barack Obama. Obviously, nothing
like it ever before. And something that may tear the Democratic party apart.
The curious thing is, though, that all this tumult is ONLY in the Demo party.
If blacks are seriously distraught over what's happening, what could happen,
are they going to desert the Demos? Not for the Repos they aren't.
Interesting aside: a lot of Repos departed the GOP over Nixon, or Reagan, or
Bush. Those still left in that party are obviously hard-core demented 'conservatives',
with no use for anyone of a leftish persuasion, or for hardly anyone of a non-whitish
complexion. Now, that is arguably what creates a truely troublesome, dangerous
condition in American politics: people are STUCK in their political parties, like them
or not. Discuss!
Obama has already changed the game forever. The days of taking the black vote for granted are over, and the Clintons are clearly bitter. I know we(blacks) may generally be slow to catch on, but we are not as divided as people think. Frankly I'm proud of how blacks have rallied around Obama and got his back. We have essentially become a swing vote. Essentially you must run a black candidate to get this kind of response, and we will scrutinize that candidate just like we scrutinized Obama. Contrary to the belief of many racists, blacks didn't just automatically vote for Obama in the beginning, we had to feel him out. Hillary Clinton had huge leads initially over Obama. Of course the racists never seem to mention that. Things aren't static either, there are many young black voters who are increasingly becoming independents, and through the process of evolution, enough people, black, white or otherwise will demand the formation of a third party, that is the danger to the so-called "Democratic party", going forward.
Boy, the Clinton supporters come up with the most bizarre arguments. What if, this article asks, what if the superdelegates ignore the votes of the citizens? No, actually, it was written as: superdelegates select Clinton despite Obama having the "plurality" of pledged delegates. What does that mean? Doesn't it mean even though Obama won the most votes in the primaries and caucuses, beat Hillary, that the superdelegates could ignore all that? Just evasive language to avoid saying it straight out.
But then, more bizarre still, is the suggestion that who cares if black people don't vote. It won't matter that much. Huh? I thought we were democrats with a small d. I thought we wanted people to vote, wanted people to get involved.
What's the bottom line? If the rich, powerful, elite, mostly white insider hacks get to choose who runs, and black people turn their back because once again they have been disenfranchised -- who cares? Is that what this article means? Well, I care. For one. I care a lot.
And by the way, if the superdelegates disregard the votes of the citizens and select Clinton, she'll lose a lot more than the black vote. She'll lose my vote, and I'm not even beige.
Why do the Democrats always get such a high percentage of black votes? Is it the free handouts that are promised? It must be because in the inner-city we saw a report this week that many cities are graduating less than 30% from HS.
Exactly what "free hand-outs" are you referring to? Your comment is both ignorant and racist.
As a 40-YO Balckman I couldn't disagree any more than I do about your comment stating BOfever's is racist. It is comments like yours about racism that cry wolf that when REAL racist remarks are said no one listens anymore. Let me tell you why. Throughout the 70's and 80's the DNC's tactic to get the Black vote basically was to say if you vote for us you'll have welfare, food stamps, WIC checks forever, and Affirmative Action. As far as Affirmative Action IT IS NOT ONLY FLAWED BUT IT IS BAD LAW!! I say this because I feel we should ENFORCE the existing laws against discrmination not create a formula to determine if it was or not. You could be the BEST APPLICANT for a job but if during the interview process you come across as a jerk you probably wouldn't get the job over someone not as qualified but had a better interview. Now according to AA laws if the 1st person is Black and the 2nd White it's descrimination to hire the better interviewee than the better resume.
Thankfully in America people who feel as you do can vote for John McCain. I'm sure he'll make sure that you and your family can afford health care, keep your young people out of unjustified wars (bomb Iran as soon as we finish destroying Iraq), produce jobs paying enough for basic surviva (once all of the wealty people have been taken care of)l, leave your children and grandchildren an Earth with clean water and clean air, and many other fun perks. Vote McCain and have a fun life. We won't miss you.
P.S. I don't really think you are a 40 year old black man. Most of the African American men that I know don't seem to hold those same opinions. I think you are someone else entirely.
I hope you aren't really Black, because this is the most misguided understanding of Affirmative Action I've heard since Shelby Steele. What industry do you work in? When has this scenario played out in your experience? You need to put down some specifics when you make a broad, sweeping charge that Affirmative Action doesn't work, especially since you are claiming insider status.
It'll cost the end of the party as we know it. After the party delibarately sabotaged black america's best chance at the white house many would permanently abandon the party, which would be wide open for effective attacks by conservative blacks. many young voters, turned off by backroom politics and robbed of their revolution, would lose interest again and without those votes, and with the clinton's campaign's attitude to little states, the republicans will win once more and use shady tactics to defeat the democratic majority. bad idea.
Exactly. I sent a letter to Gov. Dean laying this scenario out. I don't think folks realize exactly how many Black voters are socially conservative and would ideologically have more in common with the GOP than the DNC if the Republicans weren't so openly racist. If they got rid of "conservative" talk radio and the likes of David Duke and McCain (with his "evolving" understanding of MLK and the civil rights movement that happened 40 years ago), they might make some inroads. We're just lucky they are still supporting idiots like Alan Keyes.
Yup. You've got it right. I'm black. If the superdelegates thwart the popular vote, I will go from lifelong democrat to green party and never look back.
Well put, and a very scary real possibility.
If the super delegates trumped the pledge delegates and nominated Clinton, not only would it alienate black voters but millions of white voters. Your assumption that only black voters would be alienated is simplistic. If the super delegates snatched the nomination from the first black man in history who has a real chance to become president, all hell would break loose. There would be a reaction of historic proportions among millions of blacks and whites all across the country. It would make the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago look like a Sunday school picnic.
Manx, I agree with you. Obama is supported by many demographics, not just the black voting bloc. He has attracted men and women, young and old, rich, middle class, and poor; and people of all races and creeds. They are watching to see if fair play prevails.
And, younger voters who have begun to realize that it is their futures that are at stake would be especially disillusioned. They are the ones who will inherit the dysfunction that our generations have created (the demise of social security and medicare, wars around the world, lack of jobs paying a living wage, soaring health care, global warming, etc., etc.) They seem to understand that they must begin to participate in the election process or the status quo will reign supreme.
So long as the race is perceived as won or lost fairly, I do not believe that there will be a rift in the Dem party. The greater fear, as I see it, is not so much crossovers to the GOP, but that disillusioned voters will simply not vote at all. We shall see.
Here's what you seem to be asking, really.
Suppose the Demos nominate Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.
What are african-americans gonna do about it anyway?
Vote for the Repo man? Not hardly.
But, that's over 12% of the electorate. Potentially, NOT VOTING.
(Alternatively, suppose the Demos were to piss off jewish-americans.
What are they gonna do it about anyway?
Vote for the Repo man? Well, yes, probably they will. That's 2% of the electorate.)
Is one of these propositions more offensive than the other?
So... I read your linked article (though I usually avoid such side trips) and
surprisingly enough, I was impressed, as I was not expecting such a well
considered statement. Indeed, this is part of what has to happen on the
way to picking the Demo candidate. I misjudged you.
------------------------------
Do Democrats need the black vote?
By Robert Schlesinger
How much do black voters matter to Democrats in a presidential election? Try 76 electoral votes worth. ...
I started with the 20 states that John Kerry won in 2000; then using CNN"s exit polls I estimated the number of black voters in each state and the number that voted Democratic. I found that black votes numbered more than Kerry"s margin for error in six states: Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Wisconsin (10), and Delaware (3).
Of course there"s no scenario under which black voters simply don"t show up. Instead, the danger is depressed turn-out. So, again using CNN"s exit poll numbers, I ran some estimates of what would happen if a smaller percentage of blacks turned out:
- At 90 percent black turn-out, Wisconsin"s 10 electoral votes slide into the GOP column.
- At 75 percent black turn-out, Pennsylvania"s 21 electoral votes go Republican.
- At 70 percent Michigan"s 17 electoral votes turn from blue to red.
- At 50 percent the GOP collects Delaware"s three electoral votes. ...
And, in effect, you are asking,
If the Demos nominate Clinton over Obama, what does it
matter how many Obama supporters of all colors & creeds
are pissed off. What are THEY gonna do about it?
Vote for the Repo man? Most likely, no.
So, it'd be ok to choose Hillary Clinton, you imply.
You're taking a big chance, that pissed off Demos &
independents are NOT going to vote AT ALL.
But I think you know that.
Let the system work its magic.
The news media keeps forgetting that Obama has more supporters than blacks....what if all of us didn't vote......you know the diverse supporters of Obama....The republicans would be up at 3 a.m. to go and vote against hillary.....
What is it with the self-appointed political analysts who keep hinting that the party is threatened by all those black people? This old white voter is happy to walk away from the bloated, self-serving, triangulating sacks of shit who have run the Democratic Party for the last 20 years, especially the ones who signed themselves over to the Clintons. If the Clintons retain their death grip on the party, it's going to lose a ton of people of all colors. But I guess it's much more comforting for their toadies to blame everything on those dangerous, disloyal darkies.
I am a 40-year old 'darkie' and I agree with you Patrice. The MSM is doing it to perpetuate and continue the growth of the cancer of race-based divisiveness of our country. After the debacle of the Carter Admin. when the "REAGAN-DEMOCRATS" went Republican the DNC saw what worked to convert them and they have been trying to do the same election after election. Hence while the MSM harps that when Black vote for Sen Obama it is race-based, but have you ever read about the women who are voting for Hillary smply because she is a woman or about Hillary TELLING women to vote for her simply because she has a uterus? NEVER!! But Sen Obama as the one that supposedly is saying the Blacks should vote for him.
good for you - it's good to know that we still have some sane real democrats left that think for ourselves and not being told by the pompous know it all analysts and DNC tell us what's up...
AMEN Patrice - I'm with you - Blacks are not to blame in this fiasco. Check your mirrors people!
This comment highlights what I think has been a serious flaw in Clinton's recent strategy. She's been pushing the Jeremiah Wright controversy in the media, presumably because she believes it helps her among white, working class voters (and thus may bring her victories in places like Pennsylvania and Indiana). Problem is, even if this tactic helps her win the nomination, it's a self-defeating general election strategy. It's alienating African American voters whose support she will desperately need if she's the nominee. As one African American I spoke to put it, if Hillary turns around and tries to appeal to them after having used these tactics, black voters will feel they've been "played," and they're unlikely to react favorably to that. Any Democratic politician who wades into this kind of racial controversy is playing with fire. I hope Senator Clinton realizes this before it's too late.
Black voters were the difference in Bill Clinton's two races for the WH. Clinton won the office without ever getting fifty percent of the vote. Imagine the result had the overwhelming majority of blacks who voted for him (88% of black voters, I believe) simply stayed home. That being said ... I think Obama has galvanized voters from every ethnic group and has been particularly effective in bringing young voter into the DP. I agree with Countess and others that the party would lose a lot more than African Americans.
Thanks for pointing this out. The Clinton's keep acting like black voters "owe them" when in fact the reverse is true.
Does anyone have any stats on how favorability and unfavorability have factored into recent presidential elections? Has a presidential candidate with lower than 50% favorability won?
Blacks aren't the only voters Obama is getting. This primary season should have been settled already, and if Hillary Clinton's dirty deals in any way have her crowned the nominee ALOT OF PEOPLE WILL LEAVE THE PARTY.
First of all, the DNC made rules regarding the primaries and two states, Florida and Michigan, defiantly (no matter what they say about Republican interference) broke those rules and now want to have their votes counted. They could have gone to the DNC WHEN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS CHANGED THE DATE OF THEIR PRIMARIES AND ASKED FOR ADVISE BUT THEY DIDN'T. They are disqualified for breaking the rules, not because they have a right to vote and are being denied, they are disqualified because they didn't care what happened in January and now they do. Or maybe they don't maybe HILLARY CLIINTON DOES!!!!
Hillary went on Jay Leno last night and spoke to this issue, saying Obama could have had his name on the ballot in Michigan, and made his choice not to do that. She continued to double speak her lies about how she believes all have a right to have their vote counted.
Hillary doesn't have anything on her side at this point except herself saying this is wrong. She absolutely would not be calling for the votes to be counted IF SHE THOUGHT SHE WOULD COME OUT A LOSER IN THOSE STATES. WHO COULD DOUBT THAT!?
People really need to calm down here. the super delegates are not going to do something STUPID. If they decide to give the nomination to Clinton over Obama, it will be because thay have a reason to believe thet she is more electible. And, I'm sure they will be able to articulate their resoning. And, I am also sure they would be able to articulate that reasoning to Obama. And that Obama would be able to deliver one hell of a speech to convince all of his supporter's to vote for Hillary.
I'm sure the same will be true if they decide to give the nomination to Obama as well.
J U S T C A L M D O W N.......
...in November??? How about forever? The Repubs would jump at the chance to get back the black voter. And what could the Democrats say to counteract such a push? Exactly. Nothing.
The Dems definitely have a problem. I will be registering as an Independent for the first time in my life because of the Hillary-bashing.
It's not Obama I don't like. I sort of like him now that he's not doing that "Yes We Can" stuff. He's more real now.
But I'm opposed to this tactic among Democrats and have concluded that the party is 50% angry people who have no sense of what's appropriate or right. I no longer identify with the party.
I also will be Independent because of the shenanigans of the party leaders to push out a very viable candidate. I won't stand by for that. I saw it. I know that's wrong. And the Democratic Party lost this long-time voter due to it.
I've always voted straight Democratic ticket. I have decided that was lazy on my part.
No more.
I switched from life-long Dem (over half a century!) to Indy when I could no longer supported ethically-challenged Bill Clinton. The man had so much potential!!
Clinton Democrat here. Ah well, this trashing of the Clintons was actually the beginning of the end for me.
No way will I stay in a party that sounds worse than the Republicans ever did.
Ann, you also said that you "agree with Pat Buchanan a little bit", so based on that, and many of your other statements, I think it's fair to point out that you are probably more of a purple Democrat than a dyed-in the wool Blue Dem. At one point in a separate thread you said you would consider voting for McCain. Not something a true Dem would consider giving his legislative and ideological background. You also supported and co-signed on previous threads with comments that explicitly state that the Democratic party has been overrun by "young people and Blacks" so I think it should be clear to anyone who persues your profile that you are a different kind of Democrat, and perhaps, rightly you ought to be an Indie.
Schles, it is like this, "same shit, different day", another round of tricks. Just because one enters the booth on election day does not mean that one has to cast a vote for the POTUS. There are always local matters at hand, assembly, council or whatever have you.
I dont see how they can justify not giving the nomination to the person who wins the most pledge delegates regardless of who it is. There will be no way to justify it and if Obama is that person and they give it to Hilary I dont see how the party can recover in time for the election in November. AA wont vote for McCain but what they will do is NOT participate and its not just AA its also a lot of young people that Obama has bought into the process. The safest choice is go with the person who has the most pledge delegates anythign else imo will result in disaster.
Carol
You have no idea what might happen between now and June. new revelations could come out about any of the THREE candidates that would change the dynamics ofthe election.
Are you suggesting that if we knew for sure that Obama would lose to McCain and Clinton would win, that we should still nominate Obama just because he may have more pledged delegates?
And, I'm not claimiing that we have that information or knowledge now. Butu, none of us know now what knowledge we will have later.
Wouldn't that be suicide?
Posted April 4, 2008 | 01:15 PM (EST)