The Demographics Of Mississippi

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

This Ras poll of Mississippi, which holds a primary on Tuesday, is startling and sobering:

It’s Obama 53% Clinton 39%. . . . Clinton leads among senior citizens but trails among younger voters. But, it is the racial divide that defines the campaign in Mississippi—Obama leads 80% to 12% among African-American voters while Clinton holds a 47% advantage among White voters.

Clinton receives favorable views from 72% of White voters and 66% of African-American voters. . . . Obama is viewed favorably by 92% of African-American voters and just 44% of White voters.

Think what you will of Clinton and Obama, there is no way only 66% of A-A voters should think favorably of Clinton and absolutely no way only 44% of White Dem voters should think favorably of Obama. Imo, this is the ugly side of the South, I am sorry to say.

Update [2008-3-8 18:8:44 by Big Tent Democrat]: Ironically, this will help Clinton in the delegate count math on Tuesday. I think that with Bennie Thompson's district, a 7 delegate district likely to go 5-2 for Obama, the three other MS district will at least got 3-2 for Clinton and maybe even 4-1. Clinton could lose by 10 and at least tie and maybe edge Obama in the delegate race in Mississippi.

< Pledged Delegates The Will Of The People? Not Hardly | What Should the Super Delegates Do? 59% Of Dems Say Popular Vote Winner Should Get Nod >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I grew up in the South. (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by KevinMc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    I'm from Nashville, spent many years in Los Angeles, and spent 5 years in Albany, NY.  I have to agree Mississippi because of the poverty level racism is more prevalent.  Having said that, after growing up in the South and living through desegregation, I was shocked at how segregated other parts of the country are.  From South Central Los Angeles to Arbor Hill in Albany; this entire country has a real problem.   I think a huge part of the problem is the media.  While concentrating and pointing fingers at the situation in Jena, Louisiana (rightfully so) they ignore the bigger problem.  If you want to witness what is really ugly about America... go to Los Angeles County courthouse on a Monday morning about 3 a.m.  The busloads of prisoners you will see arriving for court are the ones that cannot afford bail or a private attorney.  But let's point fingers at the South and protest / express outrage until the headlines disappear.  Afterwards we can go home to our gated community in Westwood and play bridge.

    KevinMc (none / 0) (#42)
    by Claw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:38:34 PM EST
    I completely agree.  The only people who have tried to convince me that racism doesn't really exist/matter in the US have been from the North.  It's very easy to look at the South, laugh at all our flag issues, and go back to believing that racism is contained in deliverance-esque Mississippi.  
    To the commenters who keep lamenting all the "race baiting" Obama has been doing...when?  Where?  Are we talking about in speeches?  Can you provide some links?  If he's actually engaged in race baiting, I've missed it.
    (BTW, admitting that you are black, or that it is unlikely for a black man to become a viable presidential candidate does not count as race baiting).

    respected historian sean wilentz (none / 0) (#47)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    has covered this.  and contrary to obama supporters' favorite belief, wilentz is NOT friends with the clintons.  i believe he has met them each once.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#49)
    by Claw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:48:58 PM EST
    I need more than that.  The article doesn't even deal with race until the final paragraph.  Then it essentially says that Obama falsely accused the Clintons of playing the race card...because he wanted to get into a race debate with Hillary.  I, and most political analysts, think that nothing could be further from the truth.  Candidates have tried to run as "the black" candidate and have not fared well.  In fact, Obama has been lambasted by black leaders for not being black enough, or not acknowledging his blackness, etc.  
    I appreciate the link but found it utterly unconvincing.  It didn't provide a single instance of Obama ACTUALLY PLAYING THE RACE CARD.  That's what I'm looking for.  

    wow. i think what you're actually (none / 0) (#52)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:36:38 PM EST
    look here and here.  look for obama's response to russert at a debate about the 4-page memo he pushed, which he claimed to regret--but which the media never mentioned again.  do your own research, claw.  at some point maybe you'll realize that what you're asking for is not evidence, but rather an authenticated memo from obama saying "i played the race card."  no such thing exists.

    Well (none / 0) (#59)
    by Claw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:17:07 PM EST
    That was better...but you sent me to one site referencing a comment John Lewis made when he was supporting HRC (y'know back when he was good), and one really poorly constructed site actually titled "Stop Obama."  
    The reason I'm asking for links is
    1. Accusing someone of race baiting is a serious charge.
    2. I've tried to find credible examples on the internet and have failed.  So far, so have you apparently.  

    poorly constructed? (none / 0) (#68)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:27:10 PM EST
    several weeks ago when i first came across it, i wrote it off too, primarily because of the domain name.  after having followed this election closely for a while now, i've gone back to the site, poked around, and gradually realized that it's not a hit-job site at all.  it's just a repository of inconvenient facts that reveal obama for who he really is; they do a pretty decent job of getting into the media propaganda, too.  again, i'd rather be wrong than right about all of this.  the truth so far is pretty damning for obama, though.  ignore it all you want, but it doesn't look like it's going away.

    Really? (none / 0) (#64)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:13:51 PM EST
    Okay, well, the memo was wrong, and coincidentally, Obama chided his staff for it. Not that I expect that to matter to you.

    The other site you referenced was a joke. Would you like it if I linked this site to support my claims?

    Well, Obama chided his staff for the memo. Donna Brazile has not endorsed Obama; she speaks as a DNC official. Charlie Rangel is, and John Lewis was, a loyal Clinton supporter. The people in SC and around America who got pissed at the Clinton comments had their own reasons to disagree with both of those respectable AA men.

    It still comes back to the Clintons causing their own downfall with the black community.

    Does Hillary chide her staff for throwing the sex card around? No. In fact, she plays up her womanhood at every chance.

    Just to further point out the ridiculous nature of you sourcing the stop-obama site: that author actually ridicules Obama for the existence of an African Americans for Obama group. Not that Hillary would pander like that, right?

    Facts, as they say, can be a real pain.


    Do you have any other evidence? (none / 0) (#51)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    The only thing mentioned in that column is the Somali picture, which was actually started by Drudge, not Obama, and a bunch of empty opinions on the part of Wilentz. He doesn't point to one single thing of any specificity attached to Barack.

    As best I can tell, the race card debate came up when Bill Clinton said Obama was likely to win SC because of the black vote.

    Or was it when Sen. Clinton supposedly diminished Dr. King?

    Either way, those were both comments by the Clintons. And WaPo ran an article from SC saying his surge in AA support was a response to his IA win. CNN said the same, and noted Edwards benefited from the SC back-and-forth.

    And it was James Clyburn--neutral at the time--who created the initial flap over both the King comments by Hillary and the fairy-tale comment by Bill.

    Furthermore, WaPo noted that Obama had tried to avoid race as a topic until the AA community got PO'd at the Clintons. Even then, he only called her statement about King "unfortunate" and "ill-advised," The NYT article linkd to Clyburn even pointed out that Sen. Clinton knew she had made an unfortunate comment and re-addressed the topic later in the same day.

    It may be popular to accuse Sen. Obama whenever things go wrong for the Clintons, and trying to turn him into the race-baiter may sound like a good idea, but it is wrong, and--imo--ignorant.

    He did not start any of this.


    look at my links above, halstoon. (none / 0) (#53)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    do you really want to go down this road?  because you are trying to make it ugly and i am friggin pissed.

    And because this poster has taken (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:55:41 PM EST
    us down that road before, and has been presented with other evidence, but just likes to keep asking . . . why? who knows?

    you're right. i'm going to take a (none / 0) (#67)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    cue from you, cream city, and not bother responding to people who aren't willing to see anything that disagrees with them.  the fact that anybody would even compare a multiracial democratic site that uses FACTS with a right-wingnut hit group is laughable.  nuff said.

    I read the link, and there was nothing (none / 0) (#61)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    there, just like the other person pointed out. The Somali garb thing wasn't even racial, it was religious. The rest--which was only a paragraph--was mere editorializing void of any evidence at all.

    I don't care how pissed you are. You can either dispute the argument I laid out--one that I included several citations in--or you can choose not to.

    Accusing Sen. Obama of being the race-baiter already made it ugly, btw. Because he is not, has not, and doesn't seem to want to focus on his race.

    Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, had no problem throwing down the sexist gauntlet early on, accusing all the boys of ganging up on the girl in a debate. Not that the ganging up--if it were in fact true--had nothing to do with her being the prohibitive favorite to be the nominee or with treating her as an equal who could stand up to the scrutiny.

    Oh, wait. When a prominent feminist backer of JRE called her on it, she admitted that it was because she was winning. Nevermind. Just one more thing she was for before she was against it. Like Iraq. And torture.


    No, actually (none / 0) (#62)
    by desert dawg on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:43:46 PM EST
    the race card came into play when the Obama staff said it was the Bradley effect at play in NH, and when Jesse Jackson, Jr. accused HRC of shedding tear for herself, but not black people in New Orleans.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by tree on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:31:29 PM EST
    The poster you responded to put up the comment

    "It may be popular to accuse Sen. Obama whenever things go wrong for the Clintons..."

     but the points you cite are early examples of the Obama campaign accusing Clinton and the voters in NH of being racists just because Obama didn't do well in NH.  


    I was able to verify the JJ Jr. remarks (none / 0) (#66)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:32:07 PM EST
    but I could find absolutely no mention of the Bradley effect from anybody but a bunch of "pundits." Obama himself made it clear that Sen. Clinton deserved to win NH b/c she ran a good campaign.

    It's important to distinguish the candidates and their staff from mere supporters. Just b/c somebody at the bar who claims to support a candidate says something does not make that the official stance of the campaign. There may have been supporters of Obama who took NH and ran with a Bradley theory, but that is not the same as Obama himself endorsing said theory.

    I'll give you that Katrina is "code" but in return I would need a concession that "shuck and jive" is also "code." I seriously doubt it's an every day part of Cuomo's vernacular.


    Huh! (none / 0) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:16:57 AM EST
    Apparently you've chosen to ignore the comments made by JJ Jr the day after the New Hampshire primary.

    Commenting on Ms. Clinton's eyes welling up, JJ Jr. said that he didn't see her shedding tears for the victims of Katrina.

    Now if that isn't a deliberate attempt to inject race into the campaign then it never rains in Seattle.

    So far as Bill Clinton's remarks about SC are concerned since when is it considered a negative racist comment to cite factual demographics? You've got to want it real bad to twist that one.


    If you'll notice in the thread, I did (none / 0) (#72)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    acknowledge JJ Jr's comments, admitting what they were.

    What's wrong with citing demographics? Well, I highly doubt Sen. Clinton would appreciate people saying, "Well, of course she's gonna win X state; the female vote is disproportionate."

    Is she winning just b/c of the hardcore loyalty of white women? Is there something wrong with putting forth that notion?


    halstoon (none / 0) (#74)
    by auntmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    So,  why  wasn't  JJJr   immediately  fired  for playing  the  race  card  after  NH?  

    If  Obama  really  was  what  he  claims  to be,   his  common  decency  would have  required  FIRING   JJr   immediately.  

    But  Obama  didn't  have  the  courage.  

    Speaks  volumes,  halstoon.  


    Speaks volumes to a Clinton supporter, sure. (none / 0) (#75)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:30:54 PM EST
    Y'all would love it if he just fired everybody. He's not an over-reactive hot head, and I like that. Sen. Obama has made clear in public that he does not want his race to be the focus of his campaign.

    Tell you what: I will write an email asking Obama to fire JJ Jr. if you'll write an email asking Clionton to fire Wolfson for comparing Obama to Ken Starr.

    Also, as I pointed out, if "Katrina" is code for racism, then "shuck and jive" is certainly a racist phrase.

    What also speaks volumes is blatantly endorsing the qualifications of a GOP nominee while undercutting a fellow Democrat. That says a whole lot, and that's where we are now.


    Lord have mercy. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    I'm in Alabama, which is progressive considered to mississippi in 2008.

    Even here, in my 'enlightened'part of the world,  I have heard people refer to Tiger Woods as  "supern*gger'" because of his domination of the golf course.

    Mississippi and those who live there, in genereal, don't see the world as people NOT living (or from) there do. It IS a black and white world. This separation still plays, or did as of 18 months ago, when I lived next to Mississippi, and had black students ask me, "Are you really white? you don't talk like it."

    Mississippi is a special case.

    I'd actually like to write about these deep-south states, from a sociological, legal, and political standpoint... I think I have some street cred here.

    I won't extend this comment, but I would expect from Mississippi 90 percent of the AA vote for Obama.

    However, Following the latest diaspora (KAtrina-caused), the in-migration of whites (as well as some, SOME mind you,of the long-time) are more willing to support Obama, not on race, but on hope.

    This isn't racism, but 1970's style racial identity.

    The message of hope does play here in Alabama and Mississippi-- the underlying message that maybe we can get away from this white/black identity politics. Mississippi is some years behind Alabama, and the economic problems there are more severe and more pronounced than in AL.

    Until you've been here, you don't know how bad it can be. I'm in Alabama, and it's still incredible.

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:17:47 PM EST
    Clinton lost Alabama by 14 points in the popular vote and tied in the delegate count. Something similar or worse will happen in MS.

    Alabama's demographics... (none / 0) (#35)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    the 'black belt,' it has lost population for the past 40 years with the de-emphasis of agriculture and a move toward forestry/fisheries, which aren't labor-intensitive.

    Mississippi will exhibit less-similar characteristics, I think (Cotton and the need for laborers in chicken factories)-- more delegates and popular vote toward Obama than Clinton.

    But again, Mississippi is different. As you know, BTD, its two big cities are Memphis and New Orleans. Mississippi is in some ways a warmer, more diverse, South Dakota, but much poorer, and more evangelical.


    GOP Gerrymandering (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    Benefiting a Clinton? Oh my lord.

    Question (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:31:18 PM EST
    This isn't racism, but 1970's style racial identity.

    Isn't the result the same?


    Racial South? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:07:27 PM EST
    I have lived in every region of the country and in no other place are people of all races more integrated than they are in the South. The Great White North divides it's minorities into neighborhoods and you are expected to stay in or out depending on who you are.  LA has Koreatown, Chinatown, South Central, Echo Park.  Completely seperate but unequal. But in the south we all mix and live side by side. At least from my own experiences.  Many Yankees, me being one of them have moved down here for better weather and job opportunities. I live in a predominantly black neighborhood (Tennessee went to Clinton)even in black parts. Mine included. When I go to New York I can guess where the black people are. Down here we're all in it together. Is the part where 80 plus percent of blacks voting for Obama the raqcist part or the less than 50% of the whites voting for Clinton.  Since whites make up a much larger portion of the population the numbers of people voting are divided.  African Americans are allowed to vote along racial lines it seems.  But who am I to say why anybody should vote for anybody else.  My vote is my responsibility and yours is for you to decide and the why's and wherefore's are nobodies business unless they are trying to divide us by race.  I will say that I was disgusted when Obama had his camp, despite Jessie Jackson requesting he not do it used that out of context line by Bill Clinton to take South Carolina. The all black Gospel tour of gay haters was another racial move by Obama. And it worked and shifted the entire flavor of the campaign. I'm not voting for Hillary because she's white.  I'm not voting for Obama because he is dirty and a liar. Just my opinion and it has nothing to do with his race.  If he is so proud of his race he wouldn't have gone by Barry until he was running for office in a black community. Another tactic that worked.

    agreed. i am really pissed at obama for (none / 0) (#48)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:21:22 PM EST
    exploiting racial and bigoted tensions in the worst possible way in this campaign.  and L.A.'s my hometown and i agree with you--it's the most racially segregated and tense city i've ever lived in.

    That's geographical segregation (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:58:40 PM EST
    that you discuss, and no question it exists in the North.  I'm in one of the worst cities and states.

    However, it long has been true that the South is less geographically segregated.  That is not all there is to it, by any means.


    how does this stack up (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    against demographics in other states that have had primaries?

    On favorability? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    Much worse for both.

    so, this isn't just a southern problem? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:52:08 PM EST
    No this IS a Mississippi problem at least (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    and likely a Southern problem.

    Mississippi (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BDB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    Is the epitomy of the deep South and, sadly, not in a good way.  

    Whatever problems you have in other Southern states are magnified in Mississippi.  Economic, racial, educational.  I used to drive through Mississippi when I lived in Alabama and even though Alabama was poor, you always knew when you were in Mississippi, it's another class of poor.  It should be a national embarrassment, not the people, but the economic conditions so many live in.  If those improve, then I think the State could improve its racial problems.  But so long as its economy remains mired in the 19th Century, so will the rest of Mississippi.


    BDB (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:23:27 PM EST
    you are correct--it is an issue of poverty.  But I also agree with dissenter down thread.  When race became an issue during SC, I kept saying over and over that the NY talking heads needed to shut up, because they were going to go back to their white enclaves while we down here in the south were going to deal with the fall out.  This is the fall out.

    But, I don't think it is just the south.  I think southerners are just more honest about it.  Many of my aa friends in Atlanta who are northern transplants love it down here for this very reason: you know who is your friend and you know who is an ignert hillbilly within about two seconds.

    Lots of people don't want to talk about race up north, but they still have the same problems.


    And some really nasty negative anti Clinton (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:54:39 PM EST
    Obama Ads running, did you listen to that radio commercial it all but says she believed them mentally deficient, very sad.  Way out of context from the original intent of her quote months ago thats plain exploitation and victimization of people to inflame its sick.

    ads (none / 0) (#34)
    by dissenter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    Is there a link to the ads?

    oh god, please tell me (none / 0) (#46)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:10:38 PM EST
    he's not doing this.  not again.

    Ad Miss (none / 0) (#50)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST

    Ben Smith Politico

    March 06, 2008
    Read More: Barack Obama

    Obama on the radio in Mississippi

    CNN catches an Obama radio spot that stresses his Christian faith and criticizes Hillary for putting down Mississippi:

    In the 30-second spot, former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus, an Obama supporter, derides Clinton for comments she made last fall singling out the state's record of electing female politicians ....

    Mabus accuses the Clinton campaign of calling Mississippi voters "second class."

    "Now, I don't know about you, but I'm tired of people putting us down," Mabus says in the ad. "Tired of politicians trying to divide our nation instead of lifting it up.


    I belive I listen to a The Page link and can re find it.


    Like the Spanish-language ad in Nevada (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:00:56 PM EST
    that went under the radar of the mainstream, English-language media.  Obama called a Clinton a term that, in the vernacular, means "f**king whore."  

    The Spanish-language media didn't miss it.  And, we might note, it didn't work for him in Nevada.


    f**king whore? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:02:55 AM EST
    PLease tell me where I can get more info on that.  I'd like to see to it that the story gets a little more play.  My memory is short and my Spanish is weak at best so I didn't catch it.  I don't watch Univision or Telemundo so I never saw this story. Give me some help tracking down some info.

    and reading Grisham (none / 0) (#20)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:22:26 PM EST
    it seems so normal.

    I've been to Mississippi twice...it did seem to be backwards, quaint, stupid.

    I suspect that another 4 more of McSame/Bush, the middle class will be sufficiently destroyed elsewhere to make Mississippi look a bit less poor, backwards, quaint.

    As for racism, it's everywhere, it's just that in Mississippi, it has traditionally been more acceptable to openly profess it but that has been lessening over time.


    not sure where you get the aggregate (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    Not a southern problem--a national problem.

    The south generally gets the blame where race is concerned, though.


    A National Problem (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    For sure, but Southern Democrats are less likely to vote for Obama than elsewhere in the US.

    Most politicians and many political analysts contend that even though the South is more conservative and more Republican than the rest of the country, Southern white Democrats are not much different from white Democrats everywhere else.
    The poll numbers here in South Carolina challenge that assessment.
    While white Democrats in South Carolina give Obama a level of support in the low twenties, a national ABC News/Washington Post survey released January 14 found that among white Democratic voters across the country; Obama does much better than among white southern Democrats.

    Thomas B. Edsall (HuffPo)


    give it a few months (none / 0) (#22)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:23:55 PM EST
    of right wing, nutroots hackery and demonizing and his numbers will be comparable to Hillary's

    Yes More Complex (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    Volumes can be written on the subject. Nonetheless the problem is also dead on simple and can be accurately expressed in less words than you have fingers.

    Much different (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    ESPECIALLY among white voters.

    Last I heard the Mississippi (none / 0) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:57:46 PM EST
    Democratic Party had won a lawsuit to close their primaries.  Any idea if that decision has held and if this primary will be closed?

    If that is the case, I suspect this primary will be different in some interesting ways from the other Southern states that are open.


    agreed (none / 0) (#2)
    by deminma on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    More than the south -  large parts of our country.  That is why it would be transformational if Obama can close the deal.

    And it would be transformation (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    against sexism if Hillary can close the deal....

    definitely (none / 0) (#23)
    by deminma on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    but if you were to put them both on a scale. I would rate racism a 9 and sexism a 7.   I am sure you don't agree.  :>)

    I personally (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:41:07 PM EST
    just don't think they're "ratable", myself, and deplore any attempt to do so. They work differently, and both harm people in immeasurable ways. I say that having done a lot of study on both.

    the split (none / 0) (#29)
    by deminma on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:03:09 PM EST
    When you look at the voting patterns, it seems easy to identify the racist part of this election;   I find it harder to see that portion which is voting women as opposed to anti-clinton.

    looking beyond voting patterns (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    sexism is much, much more ingrained in our culture in some subtle ways. I refuse to say that either is "worse" or "better" -- they're different, in important ways. Racism is a very serious problem, but sexism is like the air we breathe, too -- hard to recognize, because it's all over. Voting patterns aren't the point.

    Personally, I think that either way, in the long run we're sending a very good overall message to groups of people who have been kept from the levers of power in this country. I'm deeply saddened by the degree to which some have tried to make this about "Black people" vs. "Women".

    And in the end, neither "win" will end the legacy of racism or sexism in this country. We have a lot of work to do on both of those fronts.


    Yes. The thing to remember (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:08:30 PM EST
    is that one group by race and gender -- white males -- does not have to deal daily with racism and sexism, while three-fourths of Americans do.

    So for AA women (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:05:41 PM EST
    you would average your ratings on race and gender and rate them at an 8?

    That vs the data on AA males would show you just how silly your idea of rating racism vs sexism is.  Why do so many forget that some Americans -- and the majority of AAs and Hispanics and others -- face BOTH?

    Bah.  Think.  Then post.


    will musgrove defeat (none / 0) (#7)
    by english teacher on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    wicker?  or do you see the republicans holding that seat?  i think barbour pulled a fast one with postponing the election until fall.  if there was a special election on tuesday, i'm thinking musgrove would take it easily.  later this fall, anything can happen.  

    OK. When are you going to write about Puerto Rico? (none / 0) (#9)
    by catfish on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:03:07 PM EST
    They have more delegates than Wyoming.

    After Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    oh, like you didn't just say (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:12:16 PM EST
    Clinton will get PR and gain hundreds of thousands in the popular vote.  You are such a tease!

    If you are going to wait that long (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:32:14 PM EST
    You'll have me writing about it!  

    Hahaha (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:35:26 PM EST
    Go for it!

    the ugly side of the south? (none / 0) (#16)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    racism exists across America...it is not limited to the south at all.

    If and I say if, the Clinton 3 AM phone call ad was successful, it points out the issue that the question of who do you trust to be in the White House to answer the call is a question that needed to be asked before the general election when that will clearly be the central theme of John McCain.

    The 3 AM phone call ad is vague enough to allow people to insert their own judgments, whether racist, or suspicion of inexperience or just fill in the blank.

    Your link to Rasmussen's Mississippi report had a link to their Pennsylvania report which drives home the point even further.

    In the end though, this is a state that simply won't be blue in 2008, regardless of the candidate.

    Though I understand your assessment that seems to be validated elsewhere that having Obama as the Presidential candidate means Florida won't be blue. The rest of the south won't be blue anyway.

    Perhaps Not Just the South (none / 0) (#17)
    by dissenter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:17:49 PM EST
    I think Donna Brazile and Al Sharpton are responsible for this....and I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't a national trend now.

    The race baiting that has gone on in this campaign is horrible. I worked on the 92 campaign and i can tell you Bill Clinton doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Quite the opposite. When I see Obama's wife and surrogates go on television and manufacture racism into this party, I get mad. My view of Obama changes. And it has nothing to do with skin color. It has everything to do with tactics and outrageous personal attacks.

    I didn't support Obama - I think he is unqualified and his advisers are amateurs- but I never had a negative view of him. I would have voted for him. That is highly doubtful today.

    Words do matter. Obama just didn't get how much.

    i thought this from the very beginning. (none / 0) (#43)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    will anyone tell brazille and sharton they are hurting their candidate, maybe, but i don't think they will listen.

    Gee I wonder who'll win (none / 0) (#18)
    by CentristDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:21:17 PM EST
    if there is a huge number of African Americans in the state's democratic population....

    Whispering Campaign (none / 0) (#44)
    by john horse on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    True story.  Heard this from a white couple from Georgia.  "You know if Obama gets elected, he's going to have an all-black cabinet."

    I told them that I strongly doubted that and asked where they had heard such a lie.

    My point is this.  

    If Obama gets nominated there will be a whispering campaign against him appealing to some people's racism.  This won't come from the official McCain campaign but will be an under-the-surface.  

    and I'm sure that there will also be a whispering campaign against Hillary, if she is nominated, appealing to some people's sexism.

    This is part of the reason why this is such an important election.  Prejudice is based on ignorance.  If Obama or Hillary loses, the racists and sexists win.

    it is the ugly side of the south. (none / 0) (#69)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:58:55 AM EST
    it's also why, in the real world, neither clinton or obama stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning most states in the deep south, regardless of the primary's outcome.