It’s Hillary, big time, in West Virginia
Here’s Hillary’s win in West Virginia as covered by the NYTs. (my bold)
The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.
I find this interesting.
Yeah - 20% of those who answered exit polls said race was a factor. Then again, there are between 20% and 30% who favor George Bush.
I’m not implying anything there other than there is a certain percentage of people who can’t or are unwilling to see or view change in a positive manner or, in Bush’s case accept that the Bush Administration- in the understatement of the day - really wasn’t/isn’t that good.
Yes,
I think you’re right. I guess the part that struck me most was the:
“number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight.”
But, in retrospect, this is really the first time that race has been a significant issue in the primary, so probably a moot point.
I can’t help but wonder, when comparing this post to the one you wrote just prior, is it still; “a good day to be a Democrat”?
It is about values and given the resultant record of the National Republican party as enabled by what “they” value - of course it is a great day to be a Democrat.
Of course if, as I believe you are, implying that that 20% of the voters who voted in Democratic Primary are racist - And these are Democrats - I say no.
West Virginia is a semi open primary. So, I suppose Indy and Blanks can vote. There does not seem to be a correlation registered Democrats to who those 20% who answered the exit poll.
I say the poll is not representative.
Frankly, McCain in a closed Republican primary only got 76% of the vote with Paul and Huckabee getting 14%. That is interesting to me.
I’m not implying anything. I’m stating what can be found on the record-from AP this AM…
“Nearly a quarter of the voters in West Virginia’s primary were 60 or older, and a similar share had no education beyond high school, exit polls indicated. More than half were in families with incomes of $50,000 or less, and the former first lady was winning nearly 70 percent of their votes.”
Both Clinton and Obama acknowledge he has real problems with blue collar democrats. There have been numerous stories written about the underlying racist feelings and voting patterns demonstrated in the 60+ Democrat voting bloc. Since this is consistently the most reliable group of voters there are, and they are voting in overwhelming numbers for Senator Clinton, I’d say that’s pretty representative of the fact Senator Obama has an uphill climb come the general election.
That’s probably a good reason to have Hillary second on the ticket.
(oh-and to DFE who may come swooping down on me and say it aint gonna happen, let me just quote Billly Joel, “You may be right, I may be crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you’re looking for”)
w00t! I’m flattered.
But I prefer “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, cuz baby only the good die young!” Apropos of nothing. . .
Sorry ‘dood I don’t buy your argument.
Your original bit was tying two anecdotes together. A Dem win in a Red District in MS-01 and Clinton blowout in WV because she received the vote of people who believe race matters
You responded, basically questioning if it is a good day to be a Democrat and how that comment is reconciled, given these two diverse events.
So, racism is not a Democratic or democratic value. Do some small group of people view race as important? Sure. However - Does anyone actually believe that in the general election the Democrats are not going to unite behind the candidate?
I beleive they will. I believe that if it is Obama - he will not take folks for granted and will actively reach out to people who need a reason to back him.
Sure, there will be some people who won’t make the trip. Will they automatically vote for McCain - these rabid Dems? Probably not. I mean, like you said:
This bit does not mean McCain automatically gets a pass and can count on these voters. Especially after the the nominee and the Democrats focus on McCain as opposed to each other.
The race card is counter productive and people will ultimately pull for Obama or won’t pull for McCain.
Oh - did I mention those newly registered Democrats - yeah - they will show up in force.
The election is not a cake walk for the Democrats, but, given record money, outstanding organization, record turn-out in the primaries, and approach to the issues, there is a decent chance of retaking the White House.
I’m worried about the race issue for November because, let’s face it - people are idiots. But, we can’t give in to the bigotry and choose a candidate because of that or we’re just supporting that way of thinking.
I think that the racism and the “blue collar Dems” argument is a bit of a wash. After all, if Obama really had a genuine problem with whites, this would all be long over by now. He would have gone the way of Jesse Jackson: “nice try, maybe next time.”
I rather think Josh Marshall’s analysis of the Appalachian connection is more instructive. This doesn’t mean that racism isn’t a part of it, but it does mean that the racism is by no means across the board for white populations everywhere.
Someone on MSNBC pointed out an interesting notion, too: that if the Clintons deserve anything, it’s credit for Obama’s rise, inasmuch as Bill Clinton’s diversity cabinet made non-whites in power more palatable than it had ever been with more people than it had ever been before.
I mean, the Republicans toyed with the idea of a Condi presidency.
“I mean, the Republicans toyed with the idea of a Condi presidency.”
Huh? She has been adamant every single time she has been asked, for the past numerous years, she has zero interest in being President of the United States. It’s not as if the some elite group in the party thought about it and then decided against it because of her race or gender. It’s just the opposite actually. There was a movement to draft her and she put an end to it herself. Now Senator Clinton on the other hand, anyone who doesn’t think she’s had her eye on the Oval Office for a very long time is kidding themselves.
Indeed, dood. And what you’re saying is, “There was a movement to draft her,” which is nominally the same thing as saying, “the Republicans toyed with the idea of a Condi presidency.”
Unless of course you mean that the movement was created in a Star Trek convention, somewhere, and not the Republicans?
You go, DFE!
Wormwood made your point for you.