Mississippi Will Be A Pyrrhic Victory For Obama

By Big Tent Democrat

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Barack Obama has a 14 point lead in Mississippi, 53-39. But because of the demographic disparity, Obama leads by enormous margins among African-Americans and trails by enormous margins among white voters, Obama is likely to suffer, at best, a repeat of what happened in Alabama, a virtual tie in the delegate count.

Because Alabama voted on Super Tuesday, the strange and troubling Alabama result flew under the radar. On Tuesday, Mississippi votes alone and its results will receive full coverage. A review of the Alabama result is instructive. Obama won the state by a very comfortable 56-42 margin in the popular vote. But he barely won the delegate count, 27-25, and in fact only tied Clinton in the congressional district delegate count.

How could that happen? Well, since, like Mississippi, Alabama has a majority-minority district, most of Obama's African American support was to be found in that congressional district. He also won the AL-3 district by a thin margin, because that district included two strong counties for Obama, Macon, heavily African-American and near Montgomery, and Lee, where Auburn University is located. Obama won the delegate count in CD-7 and CD-3, 5-2 and 3-2. But he lost most other congressional districts in Alabama and won no others. I expect he will lose all but Bennie Thompson's 7 delegate congressional district in Mississippi. And that is a bad result for Obama, because the other 3 Mississippi Congressional districts are 5 delegate districts, insuring AT LEAST a 3-2 split for Clinton.

More . . .

In addition to possibly losing the delegate count in Mississippi, you will also have a full night of discussing exit polls that will say this, as they did in Alabama:

Vote by Race

Clinton Obama

White (44%) 72% 25%

A-A (51%) 15% 84%

This is not the storyline Obama wants. And it will be discussed all night Tuesday and beyond, all the way to Pennsylvania. It will not be a good night for the Obama campaign in my opinion, despite notching another win.

By the way, this demographic breakdown was also present in South Carolina. What is the difference now? The difference is that John Edwards is not in the race and Clinton will at least tie in the delegate count and run much closer in the popular vote.

< The Will Of The People Is Not In The Pledged Delegate Count (Part 2) | Sunday Open Thread - Michigan And Florida Still Front And Center >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why do you insist (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:07:34 AM EST
    on applying justice and clarity on this process?  Leave it to be confusing and murky.  It serves partisanship much better.  

    I was just scolded for casting doubt (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:11:00 AM EST
    on the legitimacy of the process. Funny that.

    pyrhic victory is correct, change it back. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:43:09 AM EST
    obama has expended scarce allocable resources well beyond the advantage gained, the very definition of "pyrhic". the only thing that sustains him is everyone insisting, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary, that he's the deified one.

    however, in all this discussion one salient point has been overlooked: no democrat is going to win mississippi in nov., primary victories notwithstanding.

    clinton has the clear advantage, in terms of the popular vote, given her demographics. sen. obama would be lucky to pick up just the AA votes in the deep south.

    like it or not, those are facts in states like mississippi, alabama, georgia.

    do not even think of obama as VP; train wreck waiting on the tracks. his huge ego won't allow it. he needs time to absorb the reality of the primary season and let his head deflate first.

    You mean grow a beard (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:49:50 AM EST
    a la Gore?  But he would have to go back to the Senate and do that boring stuff and spend a few years voting on things and getting an actual record.  Did you read the Times article Jarelyn posted earlier?  Daschle etc, told him run when you don't have a record, when you have not done anything, then no one can pin anything on you.

    i highly recommend you go back (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    and take a long look at some of the things michelle has said. and jackson jr? definitely!

    bill and hillary are both too savy campaigners to make deliberate racist remarks. however everyone jumped up and down claiming that was so. that also came from the obama campaign. the sad thing is it doesn't work for long and grows very stale. then it can backfire as i am afraid it has.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    say that Obama carries a greater percentage of the delegates in MS than he did AL. For one, his margin of victory is likely to be even greater than it was in Alabama, since they get some personal attention and MS is 40% black instead of AL's 26%.

    Also, the black population is not concentrated in MS like it is in AL. True, they only have one majority-minority district, but all the other districts have at least one of their main cities with a black majority or a close split.

    Further, MS is a deep red state with an open primary and no GOP race to speak of. It'll be interesting to see if Republican acrimony for the Clintons can outweigh their inherent racism. After all, they may figure that there is no way the country will elect a black man, and so casting a vote against Clinton is a safe bet. You never know how somebody's twisted logic will work.

    Last, District 1 has Ole Miss, District 2 is majority black, District 3 has State, and District 4 has Southern Miss. If Obama can get a high turnout from the colleges combined with a huge turnout from blacks, he could carry each district more comfortably than imagined.

    I know he doesn't get but 10% of the white vote, and that is not only sad it's troubling for his chances. But he is leading in a dominant fashion in the polls, and that is with a dismal white vote. If turnout increases significantly, it could offset that.

    Just my opinion. We'll see what happens Tuesday.

    Yes that is a limb you are out on (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    numbers (none / 0) (#127)
    by delandjim on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    Where are you getting all the numbers and demographics from?

    There are links provided. (none / 0) (#128)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:36:43 PM EST
    The demographics come from a combo of the census bureau and wiki.

    Except the 10%. I understated the post (none / 0) (#129)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:39:17 PM EST
    the polls cited in the original post were he gets 25% of the white vote, so I'm even more confident Clinton won't be able to split the delegates with him.

    I'm not sure the press will touch this (none / 0) (#3)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:20:00 AM EST
    They will fear being accused of marginalizing Obama as a candidate, much as Bill Clinton was accused of doing so after SC.

    Quite apart from the demographics of the Alabama and Mississippi delegate allocations, the MSM has been derelict on this subject in virtually every primary or caucus state, failing to explain why the delegate allocation results have so often diverged by the popular vote pecentages. Such differences are generally just "explained" as a result of the delegate allocation process, without any explanation of that process.  Which is kind of like saying, "because of the intervention of the tooth fairy."

    What will they discuss then? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:21:06 AM EST
    Change? I think you are wrong there.

    Kos commenters (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:11:44 AM EST
    are already calling TLers racist, apparently.  I just read this on another thread, because I don't go there, but I'm sure someone can check it out.

    It's because of posts like this--because they can't argue on points, so they just throw that word around.  They have no idea what they are doing and the damage they are rendering.  It's the same thing that happened after SC.  The media elite (or in this case, blogger elite) stirs up the mess and then leaves everyone else to clean it up.


    the kos bloggers are calling (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:22:57 AM EST
    everyone that doesn't agree with them ugly names. racist is just one. i am disappointed that they have not been corralled as they should have been. but that's another story!

    as i have stated before obama blew the dog whistle on this and continued to try and blow it in a number of ways. i have always thought the monster comment was over the top, but my feeling is his supporters were maybe not told to say negatives to the press but certainly not told to be circumspect. he has been complaining about how that mean, bad hillary is picking on him. his supporter then calls her a monster. hmmm!


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    Someone called me a racist? Pretty funny. I used to get grilled for allegedly being too sensitive about race and gender issues at daily kos.

    The wonders of candidate love I guess.


    Hey they've been calling Latinos racists (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    ...for a while there. That's why I had to pick up and go. As a Puerto Rican who grew up on 63rd and Woodlawn in Chicago (and the only white people I knew were cops, nuns, and priests) I have to laugh at being called a racist by some of these folks.

    Maria (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:56 AM EST
    have you noticed that it's usually white men working in predominantly white fields who are calling folks racist?

    That's what cracks me up--Russert, Tweety, Oberman, etc, who are white as white can be (look up "the Man" in the dictionary and you'll see Brian Williams' perfectly coiffed head), are making these specious charges.


    It bothers me a great deal. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM EST
    Especially since they never called Patrick Buchanan a racist, and in fact defended him from such attacks because "they knew him."

    Not just you (none / 0) (#55)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    TL and the commenters.

    WHat does this latest polling do to your electability argument?


    It makes it less tenable (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    I posted a response there (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:41:54 PM EST
    last night.

    I hope I am wrong (none / 0) (#5)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:00 AM EST
    It's just that they haven't focused on this up to now. I will be happy if you are right.

    It seems unavoidable to me (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:59 AM EST
    There will be no other election to cover that night.

    Pat Buchanan has brought ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:06:31 AM EST
    this up before on MSNBC.  So I'm sure he'll bring it up again.  But not sure he's the best messenger for this information.

    It is hard to ignore (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:28:17 AM EST
    Alternative Storyline (none / 0) (#7)
    by jb1125 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:59:17 AM EST
    There has been an increasing animosity towards the Clintons within the African-American community. Obama's win in Mississippi demonstrates his ability to increase turnout and appeal to African-American voters

    If a Democrat wants to win in the general election, they will need to rely on the African-American vote. The Clinton's once loved within the African-American community are now disliked because of their increasingly vicious negative campaign.  

    The white voters that are voting for Hillary will support Obama in the general, but the black voters for Obama will not support Hillary.

    That narrative is untenable (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:02:53 AM EST
    IF Obama can not win the white vote in the primaries, why would he win them in the general and why then would Clinton not be able to win A-As in the general?

    You can not have it both ways.

    Indeed, the biggest rpoblem with your argument is that in fact A-As have been 90% voters for ANY Dem candidate forever.

    White voter have been majority GOP voters for a while now.

    The argument you make cuts against Obama.


    Since Obama has won the majority of white voters (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:14:43 AM EST
    in many states, this argument is just dumb.  He won in Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, etc.

    He has won caucuses in which there probably wasn't one black vote ie Wyoming.

    White people have and will vote for Obama.  The problem is that Obama needs to reach the working class voters too which he hasn't.  It isn't about RACE but it is about CLASS.

    Since Obama is a community organizer from Chicago, he needs to return to that down home message.  

    His campaign has made him into John Kennedy.  Now it is time to make him a fighter for the common man too.


    He lost whites big (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:27:55 AM EST
    in Ohio, Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Maryland, etc.

    He will lose whites in PA, FL, North and MI.

    Please stop with the insults. Do not call me dumb please.



    I wasn't trying to call you dumb and I apologize (none / 0) (#29)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:37:46 AM EST
    Well the best thing for Obama is if he loses the nomination is to just wish Hillary good luck and go back to the Senate.  

    He is a young guy and can run again for the Presidency in 2012 or 2016.

    It will be interesting to see if Hillary will win the presidency without the African-American vote.  I predict that if Obama has the most pledged delegate votes at the end of the primary season but doesn't get the nomination because the superdelegates swung to her, African-Americans will probably just stay home in the general election for they will feel that Obama got robbed.


    He will be on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    one way or another.

    Obama says he won't be the VP (none / 0) (#38)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    so he won't be on the ticket afterall if Hillary wins.

    Hey Maritza, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    ...Obama did say that he wouldn't run for the presidency  when he won Illinois Senate, so I'm not inclined to believe that this is his last word on the issue. That's not to say that I think he would accept a Vice Presidency. I'm just saying he is perfectly capable of saying what needs to be said at the moment regarding such things. It's politics.

    By the way, I love your name. I have a cousin named Maritza who was my BFF growing up and I miss her.


    yeah and obama also said he wasn't (none / 0) (#50)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    running for the presidency either.

    ALL Presidential Candidates say that. (none / 0) (#120)
    by vicsan on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    It's campaign rhetoric.

    Mr. Hope is obviously ambitious. If he has a choice of being VP or going back to the Senate where he may have to actually work for a living, Michelle will surely insist he be VP. THEN he can run for prez in 2012.


    zyx (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    please redo your comment without the explicit term in it. It won't pass the censor software.

    I used to be more convinced about caucus victories (none / 0) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    ...simply because I didn't know more about them. Now that I know more, the more I am believing that they are a mechanism by which activists choose the nominee. Good arguments can be made for that and I am not putting down caucuses as a means to pick a nominee. However, I do not think that one can extrapolate a GE victory from strength in a caucus state.

    Motivated activists who attend caucuses (none / 0) (#96)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    Don't elect the nominee, Democrats do.

    The Dem base does.

    If it turns out that the activists get to pick the nominee, you will see alot of Dems sit out this election and move away from the party.

    I, for one, will.


    As of today (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    Obama has captured 39% of the white vote.

    that is not good.


    It's very not good (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:06:20 AM EST
    if we can extrapolate at all to the GE.

    Your media darling advantage hasn't meant a whole lot in the primaries, and it could mean even less in the GE.

    Is this not why you were concerned about Obama's paper thin margin in VA--the state that gave us the Wilder effect?


    I am very worried about the whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:19:28 AM EST
    right now.

    a race-baiting comment has been deleted (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM EST
    in response to this comment.

    My rating of this comment (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    was erroneous....but I can't unrate it; so, I rated it a three....

    I agree with the idea that Obama won the white vote in Virginia....I disagree with other aspects of it....

    Perhaps the admins can delete the rating...  


    That "Alternative Storyline" (none / 0) (#9)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:04:01 AM EST
    is the same narrative we've been hearing from the MSM; one of the many that hasn't been true -- "Clinton Fatigue," "losing the Af-Am vote," etc. Maybe poll data will prove you right though.

    It may be (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    your sentence construction, because I've puzzled through it a couple of times now.

    But -- I'll ask: Please provide examples of the AAs' "increasingly vicious negative campaign."  (I really don't think that's the source of the attacks, other than the Obama camp, but that's politics, and that's not the AA community.  So is it from, as a poster stated here, "urban radio" or where among AAs?)


    please! (none / 0) (#45)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    if we are making massive generalizations here (none / 0) (#72)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    i would just interject that lots of white folks are pretty pissed at the way BO has stoked the race differences also and are done with him. i for one feel the way he has treated hrc with ugly sexism is something i will never get passed... so bo can put one minus under white woman.....

    the assumptions he will get her voters is a seriously dangerous one...


    stop the race-baiting (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST
    it's not acceptable.

    re: alternative storyline (none / 0) (#130)
    by delandjim on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:40:06 PM EST
    pollsters show 25% of Clinton supporters go to McCain while 10% of Obama go the McCain. Apparently she is bringing back the 'Reagan democrats'

    I would be interested to see a poll of African Americans in how much their support drops off if Obama loses the nomination.

    I think it may be less than some people think it does.


    Please stop generalizing about black people (none / 0) (#136)
    by sonya on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:36:01 PM EST
    It is offensive.  We are not children.    

    When the general election comes around, black people will vote in their own best interests as usual.


    What to watch for in Mississippi (none / 0) (#11)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:06:33 AM EST
    The purpose of Mississippi in my book is not if Obama is going to win for he will win it or by how much, but what will be Obama's victory speech.

    This speech will probably be one of the most important speeches he will give in his life IMO.  It may be only second to the 2004 Dem convention one.

    It is important because it will set the tone for Obama's campaigning in Pennsylvania.  Listen carefully to his speech.  That speech will tell whether he has re-tooled his "hope and change" speech to one that speaks to the heart of the blue-collar worker.  It will tell whether Obama plans to fight like crazy to win Pennsylvania or re-treat and downplay Pennsylvania.

    I say the best thing that Obama can do for himself is if he looks like he is fighting HARD for Pennsylvania and trying to win this state even if he doesn't win it.  He has to make that state CLOSE as possible.

    One of the differences between Hillary and Obama towards the end of the Ohio primary was that she looked like she was fighting for it while Obama looked like he was doing prevent defense, just hanging on waiting out the clock.  Late-deciding voters voted for who they thought fought harder and wanted it more.

    Thus in that Mississippi victory speech we will know if Obama is going to be fighting for Pennsylvania on Hillary's turf which is the economy.

    The bottom line is if Obama can't reach voters on the economy he ain't going to beat McCain any ways so he better go toe to toe with Hillary on that subject now.

    I disagree, too (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:45:26 AM EST
    From here on out I don't think ANY Obama speech will change the dynamic anywhere, least of all PA.

    We have all heard this rhetoric over and over and it appears his oratory is running out of gas, except among the faithful such a you.

    It will not turn another Dem from the base towards him.

    Hell, his rhetoric is not intended to turn the base which is his key and, I think, most sgnificant strategic blunder.

    I think he has irretrievably turned the Dem base to Hillary.


    and also (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:15:43 AM EST
    we know that his speeches are not his words.

    They had much more power when folks thought that he was standing out there alone.


    i agree about the speech (none / 0) (#79)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    i also think - and this narative is starting to sneak out - that he needs to WIN PA. he has to win at least one dem pivotal state before this is over to seem to be the best candidate in nov. regardless of whether he says the 'i have won more states' thing  ny  nj  texas  ca  ma  fl  are not the same as small red caucus states...

    Do not agree (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:10:52 AM EST
    Let me explain (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:11:30 AM EST
    I do not think any speech by Obama means that much anymore.

    I disagree (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by maritza on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:26:09 AM EST
    Obama's speech WILL matter after Mississippi if it is an amazing one that gets to bread and butter issues and is framed in the way that reaches blue collar voters.

    The press will go wild and say that Obama will take the fight in Pennsylvania.


    I still disagree (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    It simply will not be followed that closely.

    Besides, why has he not made that speech already?


    Yep, I'm Sure That A Good Bread And Butter (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    speech by Obama will offset all the media talk by his supporters that Obama voters are the educated and "Creative Class" and the working class, uneducated, low information voters are voting for Clinton. One speech by Obama and he will suddenly lose his "elitist  status" and make all these dumb folks see the light.

    Oh, and how will that work for YOU? (none / 0) (#101)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    Obama's every rhetorical argument is counter to the needs and wants of the disaffected "blue collar" class.

    These voters are NOT post-partisan.

    They were the folks John Edwards was fighting for ... and that Hillary is now fighting for.

    So, tell us all again how this is going to sit with the Obamaphiles who are for "unity" and "hope" with the Republicans across the aisle who have screwed this class for the past 7 years (and long before that as the majority in Congress)?


    100% agree with you on this BTD (none / 0) (#25)
    by MMW on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:28:28 AM EST
    Surely the delegates don't matter? (none / 0) (#15)
    by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:15:48 AM EST
    Even if Obama only ties on the delegate count,  if he runs up a 15% margin then surely that pads his crucial popular vote lead.

    The media reported Texas as a win for Clinton due despite a very narrow popular vote win, and delegate loss.  The focus in terms of the narrative will be on the win in terms of who "wins" the contest.

    If you are right though on Hillary even winning the delegate contest it will be interesting to see how Obama's web time update their site graphic.  i.e. They counted Texas as a win due to the delegate win.  If they use the same standards then they should potentially be marking this as a Hillary win if she gets the delegates.

    You miss my point (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    He wins, loses the delegate count and then the whole notion of the pledged delegate count as the manifestation of the "will of the people," already under assault, is further eroded.

    Second, HOW Obama won will of course be a major story, that demographic divide simply can not be ignored. I explained why it was overlooked in South Carolina and Alabama. Mississippi is stand alone.


    Possibly. Depends on how the media play it (none / 0) (#19)
    by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    as I think Hillary's surrogates will be careful to stay out of it if they are sensible.  Attempting to "define" Obama as the black candidate after South Carolina didn't exactly come off well.

    Watch Eugene Robinson (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    for one, as it will be the media defining it -- not anything you will be able to blame (well, some will) on "Hillary's surrogates."  They have not been the ones who defined this race as about race, so don't let that distract you from watching where it is most likely to come.

    It was the media, and specifically Robinson, who first raised the "Bradley effect" -- racist voting -- and that was 'way back on the night of New Hampshire's race, just because Obama didn't win it.  So he and the media made it about race in a state that is almost all white.  And, of course, he and they did not report any of the followup analysis of the data that entirely discounted any "Bradley effect" there (it didn't fit the model, anyway, but media often don't grasp theory).

    So: If the results in Mississippi are as BTD sees they may be, and if Robinson and other tv commentators  don't raise racist voting in that state -- that will be truly telling.  And sad, in so much that would say about the media and about this country and any hope of confronting problems and making progress.


    this. They have to do something with those exit polls.

    hillary didn't define obama as (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    the black candidate. he did!

    That is just silly (none / 0) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    Obama has done everything he can to avoid being labeled the black candidate.

    Except in South Carolina (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    South Carolina was very ugly (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    Especially what was done in order to win.

    I think if people looked at that situation honestly they would come away with serious question about Obama's claim to be a unifier. Frankly, they should anyway.


    He certainly (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    tried to appeal to african-americans in SC.  Why wouldn't he?  

    But that isn't the same thing as running as the black candidate.  


    Hmm (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    I think his appeal to A-A voters was as the black candidate.

    It is interesting that he did so there. He need a big win. He DID run as the black candidate because Hillary was still perceived as having significant A-A support at the time.

    That campaign impacted the A-A vote for the rest of the race. And now it has impacted Obama in a negative way for the first in Ohio and Texas. And I think going forward.


    This did not need to be a problem (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    for him, as there is a difference between being a black candidate and declaring the other candidate a racist.

    For example, in areas that are heavily military -- bases, retireees, etc. -- McCain definitely will run as the military candidate.  That does not require that the Dem be painted as anti-military (and if it is Clinton, that would be extremely difficult to do, considering her committee service, veteran bills, etc.).

    See my other post on this at more length, but -- the Obama campaign began well in SC by reaching AAs with the message they had not believed but wanted to hear:  After Iowa, an AA could win in this country.

    The Obama campaign ought to have left it there, and it would have been enough to bring out the AA vote he got, anyway, and thus win SC.  Instead, JJ Jr. turned Obama from a black candidate into what used to be called "a race man" -- a candidate running against racism rather than transcending race to be just a candidate who is black, and white, and symbolized a future that AAs wanted to see rather than the past they have seen too much.


    Cream City is very smart (none / 0) (#140)
    by Redstar on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    I love your comments!  (I hope this one turns up in the right place in this thread)

    Last November (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    Long before Iowa, and before race was seen to be playing a big role in the campaign, Michelle Obama broached it first by declaring on MSNBC that "black America will wake up and get it." That is, wake up and vote for Obama, simply because of race. So, I don't buy that Obama has been doing everything he can to avoid being labeled the black candidate -- for quite some time, he seemed adept at playing both sides -- being above race, and yet predicting that once black Americans "wake up" they will vote for him simply because of the fact of race.

    "there ain't no black people in Iowa" (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    I mention that (none / 0) (#89)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:08:48 AM EST
    Michelle Obama made this comment before Iowa simply because Iowa was first to cast any votes and thus was the first time we had actual verifiable results (as opposed to polls). She brought up the issue of race long before we could say with any certainly how people were voting based upon racial lines.

    Iowa has problems never looked at (none / 0) (#143)
    by gabbyone on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:31:34 PM EST
    My niece who lives in Illinois goes to University of Iowa and voted for Obama in Iowa and Illinois.  Many of the caucuses in Iowa were so overwhelmed they didn't even check to see if the people voting were from Iowa.  Along the Iowa/Illinois border, people drove over the bridge and voted.  The election that sent Obama down the path toward the Presidency has many problems that were never addressed. Your are right there is a very small
    black population in Iowa but lots of college
    kids who come from all over the country could vote because they were not made to prove residency. In New Hampshire, Obama didn't get much of the college vote because it was a primary and most of the college students were from out of state and not registered to vote. If you remember
    the election night coverage of Iowa, they talked
    about how many college age young people voted.

    Fine (none / 0) (#99)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:05:49 PM EST
    And would you like examples of Hillary saying that women should vote for her because she is a woman?  Heck she did it this week.  

    Identity politics are part of the American political landscape.


    Ah, no. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    I bring up the example of Michele Obama only to show that 1) it was the Obama campaign that made the first overt claim that black voters would vote for Obama based simply on race, and 2) to counter the argument that you made upthread that
    Obama has done everything he can to avoid being labeled the black candidate.

    Clearly this is not true, and it seems to me that much like the Obama campaign, you are trying to have it both ways.


    You need (none / 0) (#119)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    to separate the media, Obama supporters, and the Obama campaign.  These 3 things are completely separate entities.

    Obama would be foolish as a Dem (none / 0) (#141)
    by Redstar on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:45:33 PM EST
    if he did not try to appeal to African-American voters, esp. given his own racial status, and his African-American family and work in Chicago as a community organizer (presumably in AA communities, I don't actually know where he worked).  

    Furthermore, one thing that frustrates me as a Clinton supporter is that her gender DOES matter to me, and I don't want to be ashamed of that, particularly given that their policy stances are not especially different (though I believe their leadership styles and depth of experience are).  For those of us who like both of them, gender and/or race and/or any of a number of cultural or identity variables become relatively more important factors than if they were ideologically opposed.

    Also, so what if people weigh identity heavily as a factor?  If you believe that it is policy v. politicians that matter (as I do), you may also be inclined to support the candidate that you think breaks historical barriers, provides an important role model to future generations, etc. because that becomes relatively more important than the modest differences b/w two centrist candidates in a two party system.  

    FWIW, I think Obama has treaded the line of racial politics rather delicately, as overdoing it with one particular cultural group is not part of the "post-partisan" or "unity" message.  


    Agreed (none / 0) (#137)
    by Redstar on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:34:12 PM EST
    that is, i agree with Kathy (none / 0) (#138)
    by Redstar on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:34:57 PM EST
    that Obama has tried to avoid being labeled the black candidate.

    oops, i mean flyerhawk (none / 0) (#139)
    by Redstar on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    wow, i'm not very good at commenting here!

    BTD (none / 0) (#36)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    is exactly right on this. The "how is won" should and will be a major consideration of superdelegates with their eyes in the November GE.

    And I hate to say, but.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Fredster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:18:28 AM EST
    it won't matter who wins in the Dem primary in MS when it comes to the G.E.  States like MS, AL, GA, and possibly SC will go red, red, red in the general.  I'm a Clinton supporter and would say the same thing if she won in MS;  won't matter for the G.E.  Obama will win MS, naturally because of the large AA vote which will go to him and the fact that the white Dem voters will be split between B.O. and Clinton.

    The Obama narrative though will be (none / 0) (#16)
    by JoeA on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    another "win" for them

    Even if the delegates are shared out,  it will be another state down and Hillary's task to overtake him on the Pledged delegate count becoming ever harder.

    She is running out of states and instead of blowing out Obama and winning 65% of the delegates (which she needs to do), she is losing them and the percentage required from the remaining states keeps increasing.

    If he loses the peldhge delegate race in MS? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:23:13 AM EST
    That seems hard to fathom to me.

    Indeed, project forward to North Carolina and people start rethinking the delegate math TOO!

    Besides the other big issues swirling in the campaign, this would most definitely be a Pyrrhic victory for Obama.


    Get over the Delegate "Math" (none / 0) (#32)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:54:47 AM EST
    No one is gonna win this on the pledged delegates alone.  So, that math is somewhat irrelevant.

    Clearly they are just an indication of a candidate's viablility in the GE, not THE indication as you Obamaphiles like to think ... and force the rest of the world to think.

    The Super Ds will decide this and they should be looking at electability in the GE and their calculus should take into account this clear problem that Obama has with white conservative voters everywhere.  Not to mention, his problem with Hispanics, Asians and white women.

    These are major Dem constituencies Obama has ignored at his peril.


    Good points, but I think it's worse than that (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    as I don't think Obama has ignored them at all.  If so, then just fix his campaign strategy to do so.

    Worse is that he has tried to reach them.  That he hasn't been able to make major inroads with those groups is what the smart super-delegates will have to worry about, as they attempt to calculate whether it will be the "Dem" with his name that will bring them out in fall, anyway, if his name still does not.


    BTD (none / 0) (#33)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:56:28 AM EST
    This was directed to JoeA ... don't know how it became a reply to your post ...

    Just to counter (none / 0) (#40)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:04:08 AM EST
    The non-stop factual error: she does NOT need to win 65% of remaining anything. Her most likely game plan is to win PA and other major states, end up with a lead in popular vote, then hope to make an argument on electibility.

    You do realize this whole "has to win 65%" is a made up talking point right?


    the 65% solution: (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mostly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:15:44 AM EST
    well, it is and it isn't.  Does she have to win 65% of the remaining states to catch Obama in elected delegates?  Yes.  Does she need to catch him in elected delegates to win?  No.

    The problem is that the Democratic party is going to be very squeamish about a result that looks anti-democratic (small d).  If she wins the popular vote and loses the delegate race she probably doesn't have a problem, but if she loses both, I don't see a way that she can win the nomination and not lose the general.

    All the polls that currently show most Obama supporters voting for Clinton if she's the nominee are assuming that she wins it in a non-controversial way - which brings us back to 65% again.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#34)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    sound analysis. Thanks BTD.


    Not a Pyrrhic victory (none / 0) (#37)
    by desert dawg on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    Not arguing with the substance of your post, but "Pyrrhic" has been getting a raw deal around the blogosphere lately. A Pyrrhic victory is one in which the expenditure in manpower and blood far outweighs any advantage on the field.  

    Mississippi would be a "moral" victory or a victory in name only for BO.  But he will still have vast resources to continue, and campaigning in MS will not have "cost" him irrevocably.

    Just being persnickity.

    Criticism accepted (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    Title unchanged because the meaning of the adjective has been changed in the blogs.

    Hollow victory (none / 0) (#39)
    by desert dawg on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    is probably most accurate.

    Somewhat (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    but worse than that,I think the result will hurt Obama's campaign.

    as i recall around the time of (none / 0) (#56)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:33:37 AM EST
    sc vote and the bruhaha about racism, you and others commented then that if obama became the black candidate it didn't bode well for the ge. well, here we are. the comments that obama's supporters such as donna brazille, jackson, and sharpton have made about marching on the convention and walking out doesn't help in the general either.

    correction: (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mostly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:09:22 AM EST
    Sharpton and Brazile are not Obama supporters.

    I know you mean well, but when you assume they are, you're sort of making it worse.


    Now to substance (none / 0) (#65)
    by desert dawg on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    I think what you're getting at here is electability-these MS results you cite, and the even more devastating demographics in the post-OH anlyses.  

    Jay Cost, a poli sci geek I hadn't read before, has a great post up about the small state (and Repub) bias in caucases at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/

    But I think the arguments over caucases being undemocratic are just going around the mulberry bush--Obamacans are soon going to lose the media  narrative over the de-legitimacy of the SD's, and the real issue, electability, will move front and center.  

    I hope someone will start a thoughtful analysis of exactly what the variables are for determining that.  If it's who won more "big states", then what does that mean?  Kos recently had a diary up called The Big State Myth http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/161218/6821

    Something tells me it's just more spin, like his "BO won TX", but it's going to take more than just a casual look.  Should the emphasis only be on swing states? Total EV's? Non-caucus?


    The Deep South is racist! News at eleven. (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    I think you are really giving this race far too much credence.  

    No one is going to be shocked that there is a huge racial divide in MS.  Some people will talk about it but they will dance around the issues because the media really doesn't want to point that MS is a racist state.

    If Obama can pick up a 50-100,000 vote win, MS is a victory.  

    Race (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    I thought from the beginning the race issue was a very thin line that could go either way.  Obama had to destroy Hillary's creds.  He did it I think brutally by making her out to be the "bamboozler" as the same time he had to tread the line of not being the "black candidate" and still appealing to whites.  They tried to pin it on Bill and Hillary being racist.  Destroying all their support.  

     Well that works with the white demographic he does well with anyway, but not with the whites he had to convince that this was a transcended candidate.  I think he blew it.  Cause you cannot have it both ways.  You cannot be transcended, accuse people of racism and percolate all the race issues all the time.  Of course the AA lock helped him get the multiple state wins.  


    With This Strategy Obama Also Ignored The (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    fact that Bill Clinton was a very, very popular president with the Democratic base. Many of us didn't particularly appreciate Obama depicting him as a racist.

    even more than that, obama dissed (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM EST
    the clinton presidency every chance he got all the while complimenting saint ronnie.

    Maybe he was making a play .. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:01:18 PM EST
    .. for the Reagan-Democrats?

    Likening the most popular Presidency since WW2 to that of Nixon's administration was a bit over-the-top too. Maybe the youth vote are too young to remember, but some of us Democrat base lived through those admins, and know which one we would prefer if given a choice.



    well you know, those who don't (none / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    remember history are doomed to repeat it.

    Exactly. Bill Clinton gave us real hope (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    and actual progress for the poor, including AAs -- but because so many AAs did make progress in the '90s, it was hope of a decline in the racial divide in this country as well as hope of defusing it.

    Obama's campaign has not transcended race as an issue; it has worsened the racial divide.  A lot of voters won't know why or how, but they do know that it was better for everyone under the Clintons.

    Bottom line: It's an internal security issue for a lot of voters.  They may or may not be racist.  That's not the point.  They don't want racial conflict.  


    devil's advocate (none / 0) (#142)
    by Redstar on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:52:16 PM EST
    I generally think Clinton was an excellent Pres, esp. considering the political climate at the time (post-Reagan, Newt, etc.), but I have to point out an argument (that I don't agree with) that Clinton DID NOT help low-income folks because he signed welfare reform.

    I study social policy as a grad student, and I find welfare reform to be much more complicated than Clinton's final signature (much like I find HRC's AUMF vote), but we should acknowledge that under him we demolished the social safety net for low-income pp as we knew it since the New Deal.


    i have to wonder why people vote (none / 0) (#145)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:51:51 PM EST
    in groups often against their better interest. witness joe sixpack voting for bush and aa groups voting for obama when much he says doesn't bode well for their economic advancement.

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:48:16 AM EST
    as usual, I agree with you.  Here is another thing that people tend to not mention, which is that there are some white Americans who are not racist (inasmuch as anyone can not be racist) who are simply tired of talking about race, and being painted as racist-or not-for their opinions.

    Many of my liberal friends in Atlanta were horrified when SC started to get nasty, and their response was to totally tune out to anything going on because it was just too much.


    Negative campaigning (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    What amazes me is the allegation of negative campaigning by the Clintons. What have they done:  talked about his lack of experience, his voting record, the fact he did not vote against the war, (he was not there) that his judgement is questionable due to his boneheaded deal with Rezko etc.  But he, he painted an ex president and his wife as racists and everyone goes along cause race is so touchy.  Cause white liberals are so scared of being called racist that they  trip all over themselves and say stupid things.  

    actually, it sickens more than amazes (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    it's a republican trick to take someone's strength and make it a weakness.  And even though he  admitted it in the debate, people still don't know that his campaign sent out those talking points.  Has that woman been fired? No.  Of course not.  Obama wasn't even going to fire Powers, and now her fellow elitist advisors are barking about how it was unfair to make her leave.

    good, thoughful post! (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:07:27 PM EST
    you are missing the point (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    which is that it's not just the deep south.  It is the nation.  Go back and read the polls.

    Really? (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    So the reason why he is ahead is because he isn't popular among whites?

    Who knew?


    opinion from Virginia (none / 0) (#66)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    There southern results are sad, I agree. And there's no getting around this ugly issue.

    The south usually goes for the GOP in the general as we know. There are a few states that go differently sometimes. Florida for one. A candidates "home" state for another if they have a southern connection. And then a couple of states that are getting bluer, Virginia and North Carolina are the main examples.

    I think Hillary could take Arkansas as her "home" state. I think both Virginia and North Carolina could have gone democratic this time around with a candidate like Edwards. That is, a white southern democrat. I don't think Obama can win those states, no matter who his VP is. I think Clinton actually has a chance at both with the right VP. Namely, you guessed it, Edwards, or someone like him. This is a pessimistic, saddening opinion for me to give, but that's what I think.

    I think Florida, though it can be quite different, will be very much the same as VA and NC. I don't think Obama has any chance whereas Hillary has some chance with the right VP again.

    So what does that leave us with an Obama win. The usual battle ignoring the south again. That means OH and PA and a couple other states will decide the election.

    Just one persons pessimistic opinion. It doesn't make me happy, but there it is.

    please don't hang this on the south (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    Look at how many southern states have voted (TX and FL are not the south).  Obama only captures 39% of the white vote.  This is an AMERICAN problem, not a southern problem.

    I agree (none / 0) (#77)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    It's not just a southern problem. I think you'll probably find the same percentage of people with hate in every state (like the same percentage of stupidity in every state, no matter how rich or poor).

    I guess the point here is with normally conservative states, the margins for a dem victory are always very thin. And the racist factor can tip the scale the other way.

    This is not to say we shouldn't nominate Obama. We should do what we think is right for the dem party and full steam ahead and launch the torpedos. And if we do, even if he doesn't win, I think it would be good for the country in the end to go through  it. But I'm saying this as a bit of a heads up to what I thin the results will be.


    Kathy, I think it's not "hanging it (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:39:56 AM EST
    on the South" to see that AAs are a far more sizeable voting bloc in Deep South states than in most states, and they have been so significantly Dem.  

    If 90% of women in one or two states were going Dem, imagine the impact.  If 90% of women in one or two states were going for Obama, imagine the impact.  It would matter, and it would lead to a (much-needed) discussion of gendered politics.  

    So I think this is a discussion not of racism, per se, but of racialized politics where that exists, simply because the numbers matter more there.

    I say this from a Northern city and state that are among the most segregated in the country, where a massive percentage of AAs also voted for Obama.  It's just that they're only 6 percent of the population in my state.  That it is a state in the North that is as racist as any in the country does matter immensely -- i.e., it matters morally.  It just didn't matter as much numerically, i.e., politically.

    That is, sadly, moral issues rarely are motivators in politics simply because they are moral issues.    The way they become political issues is when the numbers of voters who may be motivated by those issues matter to politicians.


    What? (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    Did you read the diary?

    It's states like Alabama that are skewing Obama's numbers.  

    He WON the white vote in Virginia.  

    Racism is pervasive across the country but to suggest it isn't worse in the deep south is to ignore reality.


    i agree dandytiger (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by neilario on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    it will ultimately be about who can carry the marginal states   and BO has carried strong red states alot and if the resuts were pointing to an actual possibility he could deliver them blue  that would be different. but they are not. then it is who can flip them  and i agree about fl - they are seriously pissed at BO. and she is driving new grous to come out and vote [ latinos  women]  the msm gives this to bo as if he is the only one and they are seriously wrong. she is also for a different constituency.  it is an important point  the one you make

    The only thing? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    I am pretty sure she did not say it.

    Your absolutist position is he NEVER played it. He clearly did in South Carolina.

    I have to agree with BTD (none / 0) (#94)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:44:53 AM EST
    What Bill Clinton said isn't / wasn't necessarily racist on its face ...

    However, since it was BC that said it, particularly as the opposing candidate's spouse and the savvy politician we know him to be, I think it was contextually a racist remark.

    Nevertheless, JJ Jr got the race baiting going full swing even before that remark.


    Not at all (none / 0) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    I'm sure he's used it on occasion.  Just as Hillary as used the gender card to her benefit.

    BTW (none / 0) (#104)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    what did Hillary not say?  that Obama was a sexist?  When did Obama accuse either Clinton of being a racist?

    get off the race-baiting (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:44:10 PM EST

    What? (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    I am not the one making accusations, Jeralyn.  

    Obama can win southern states (none / 0) (#91)
    by Grandmother on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:34:09 AM EST
    in a primary but he will never win Mississippi or Louisiana (the two southern states I know best) because the majority of people in those states are white and won't vote for a black man.  

    I live live in St. Louis but my husband is from New Orleans. We have a home on the Mississippi gulf coast (Bill was in our town yesterday yeah!).  As Democrats we are definitely in the minority, particularly in Ms.  In New Orleans you will get a lot of Obama supporters but go beyond the Crescent City, it is hard to find someone who admits to being a Dem.

    It's worse in MIssissippi even on the coast, which is much more "liberal" than the rest of the state.  They do elect Gene Taylor, a Democrat, every two years to the House because he is conservative, grew up in Bay St. Louis and has lots of friends and family there.  But he is an exception.  

    People in Mississippi just assume you are a Republican.  Even my somewhat liberal minded mother-in-law maintained that she was a Republican because she needed to get along with her neighbors (these are small, small communities down there along the Gulf).

    In my 25 plus years of going south, I sure don't recall any Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore or Kerry bumper stickers or yard signs. If either of these states go Democratic in the General, I will certainly be surprised and of course this is just my epxerience.

    Louisiana (none / 0) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM EST
    Louisiana is 31% black.  Assuming that turnout is equal among races and Obama gains 90% of the AA vote, which is almost certain, that means he would only need to accrue 32% of the white vote to win the state.

    MS is more favorable with a 37% AA population.

    So yes Obama could win both states.

    Of course those numbers are based on equal turnout which is hard predict.


    Are You Citing Percentages Of The Total (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:26:25 PM EST
    population or eligible voters. Big difference if you are citing population.

    Total population (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    Without evidence to the contrary I don't see how it makes much difference.

    Louisiana (none / 0) (#121)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    I asked about Louisiana also.  Dem turnout was 384,000.  Republican turnout 161,000.  That is a serious gap.  I wondered about the other demographics and asked for an explanation of the turnout as I thought Dems might be able to take it.  Even Clinton had 131,000.  If all the AA vote stayed home (142,000) that would still leave a high Dem turnout.  Any ideas?

    most southerners are Democrats (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mostly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:55:52 AM EST
    who vote Republican.  That's true nationally, but especially true in the old confederacy.

    Hi, I'm Jesse, and I'd like to be your guide to the deep south: my old home.


    He HAS used race to his advantage (none / 0) (#92)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:39:01 AM EST
    to split the AA vote away from Hillary (and Bill, the "first Black President") ...

    Had he not done so, I don't think he would be viable for the nomination today.

    Don't get me wrong, it was a brilliant winning stategy to win the Primary in the deep south and collect all those pledged delegates, but it may stand in the way of his winning the GE ...

    I think everyone underestimates the power of Race - both positive and negative -in this race (no pun intended) at their peril.

    I truly wish it were a non-issue, but that is THE fairy tale in America still today.

    That is NOT (none / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    using his race.  Not matter what else, when he wakes up he is still black.  It is silly to think that the AA vote wasn't going to go his way.  

    agreed (none / 0) (#147)
    by Mostly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:51:57 AM EST
    Bill Clinton made the same point in South Carolina: viable black candidates always always always win southern Democratic primaries.  What's unusual about Obama is that he's attached that vote to the old Hart coalition.

    I'm not persuaded that Obama played the race card any more than I'm persuaded that the Clintons were race-baiting.  There's no evidence for either, and for the former it's such an incredibly counter-productive way to win a demographic that was always going to be his.


    Get over it (none / 0) (#105)
    by Chango on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    <<Mississippi Will Be A Pyrrhic Victory For Obama>>

    It will also be the 31st state he has won (including Texas).  He has the most states, the most delegates, the most popular votes, the most money, the most individual contributors, the most new voters, and the most Independents and moderate Republicans.

    All Hillary has is speeches.  

    Including TX? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:36:08 PM EST
    Is that like Bush winning FL? A persuasive argument for Democrats, I'm sure.

    Yes, including Texas (none / 0) (#125)
    by Chango on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    He got the most delegates, and that's the purpose of the primary election.  As for the popular vote, we know it was distorted by Republican hijinks.

    The most states, the most delegates, the most votes,  the most money, the most new and young voters, and the most independents and sincere, moderate Republicans.


    Actually (none / 0) (#144)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:36:40 PM EST
    The purpose is to hit the magic number which he won't. So he can't "win."

    I am not sure I would be so thrilled by the "most money." When did it become such a great thing, specially for a candidate who says there is too much money in politics.

    Did I miss a memo?


    Not sure I agree (none / 0) (#107)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    I think Obama has won far too many "white" states for this narrative to make sense to people.  Maybe after SC, if he had won less of the white vote there.  But at this stage, most people are persuaded by the argument that he's been winning in places like Iowa and Wyoming.

    All Obama Victories Are Great Victories (none / 0) (#115)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM EST
    "Mississippi Will Be A Pyrrhic Victory For Obama"

    that's not what TPM, Open Left, Buzz Flash, MyDD, and other so-called lefty/progressive political blogs will call it. They'll call it something more akin to what TPM has done for Wyoming and other red states like Mississippi that Obama can't win in November: "Obama in a Blowout"

    Don't lump (none / 0) (#151)
    by desert dawg on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:16:48 AM EST
    MyDD in with those other Obamablogs

    delandjim (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:45:51 PM EST
    posted a link to a new Insider Advantage poll in North Carolina, the lead is down to 4 he says. I had to delete it because it wasn't in html format and so long it skewed the site.

    I think you're wrong about the media storyline (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mostly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:45:40 AM EST
    Mississippi will probably skew the way LA, SC, and AL went - Obama will get a small portion of white voters, Clinton will get a smaller portion of black voters.

    But... it's Mississippi.  I don't see how the media reports this as a failure to win White voters; that wasn't their story when the vote in Louisiana was similarly skewed, because... it's Louisiana.  

    All eyes are on Pennsylvania anyway.  They'll report a win for Obama, and then have lengthy talks about what the candidates' strategies are going to be going forward.  The end.