This might seem to not make sense, but the results Tuesday night made me realize how much I really want Obama to win. Sen. Clinton is great and all, but Sen. Obama is the one that makes me get that magical feeling I haven’t really felt since President Clinton ran in 1992. It’s why I’ll be putting my money where my mouth is.
Fired up. Ready to go.
Same here Oliver. I’ll vote for Hillary over any republican, but i want Obama to win the primary and make it to the general.
Quite a few reasons for that — Obama is more progressive I believe, Will likely be bolder and less cautious, and is tempermentally more of the sort I’d like to see as President now.
I’m a white guy, btw: since so much is made of Obama’s race (though not by you I notice, Oliver, just in general) it’s worth mentioning it’s not dispositive for me. For me, the first black president would be a nice bonus but I wouldn’t vote for anyone for that reason. I’m supporting Obama for many other reasons.
Fired up!
Lemonade, anyone?
Please think twice about your Hillary-bashing in the near future… think unity… (Because the late Barack Oblique would have wanted it that way!)
Well it’s obvious that the Democratic party is filled with racists who made sure after Iowa debacle that somebody from the master race was going to win New Hampshire. (sarcasm off)
But seriously, what will it say about Democratic voters should they choose the white candidate over the black one in the primaries? The question I have been seeing is, “Is America ready for a black President?” The real question is, “Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?”
Jay sure got up early to bring teh stupid today.
“somebody from the master race” Hmmmm. Even in sarcasm mode, that’s pretty racist.
I really think the baggage Hillary brings (being Hillary and being a woman) roughly cancels any factors relating to Obama being black (whether direct or residual racism, or fear of electibility), at least at present.
Having said that, the gender and race factors are, in the substantive world, nonsense. The Clinton factor (’Clinton fatigue’, the general sense that Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton is more suited to a 3rd world country, etc) is real.
Fair or not, a Clinton presidency will be a slog through all that’s behind us, or ought to be behind us. In addition to his many other positive characteristics, Obama lets us turn that and many other corners, here and abroad, and get on with all of it.
As the only commenter on this board to pick Obama to win Iowa I probably tipped my hat as to my preference (IOW, I can’t discount that I picked him for the same reason I pick the Tar Heels every year in every pool to win the NCAA). I’m with you, Oliver. I was really looking forward to Obama getting that win, and felt it when he didn’t.
Having said that, it’s time to snap the chin straps and move on. A win in SC brings momentum, a win in Michigan makes it serious. My prediction is that Obama takes both of those, while HC takes Nevada.
On the other hand, a hard fought, (relatively) cleanly fought campaign will benefit either candidate.
It’s a grand day for those of us who resent the Andrea Mitchells, the Chris Matthews’, the Howard Finermans, the Joke Kleins, the Andrew Sullivans, the Maureen Dowds, the Matt Taibbis.
These scumbags have been busy trying to stick a shiv square in Hillary’s back for years, but she just keeps getting up and keeps moving and jabbing and hitting hard.
Last night she got up off the canvas after these “pundits” had already counted her out and raised Obama’s hand, moved well and somehow delivered a crushing left hook that has staggered both her enemies and the Obama campaign.
Hillary has a great chance to win Michigan. If Hillary can split the big other three with Obama, SC, Nevada, and Florida, Tsunami Tuesday, February 5 will see Obama in a heap of trouble.
Hillary’s base is in California, New York, PA, MA and the other big urban states that vote Feb 5.
Remember CA alone has 441 delegates.
Obama had to win every early primary to be in the running after Feb 5, and this loss in NH is a lot tougher than it looks, especially because it was so close.
drinkof, question:
If Edwards drops out, where do you think those votes are going? Will they tend to go to Hillary or Obama?
And when should Edwards get out? It’s obvious that he doesn’t have a chance at this point.
“But seriously, what will it say about Democratic voters should they choose the white candidate over the black one in the primaries? The question I have been seeing is, ‘Is America ready for a black President?’ The real question is, ‘Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?’”
Yeah, cause it’s the Democrats that holding up a black president. Never mind the GOP and their incredibly racist Southern Strategy, it’s the Democrats that are the big racists out there.
Fucking asshole.
You know CS, you truly are a marvel of science. Scientific American should do an entire series on you alone because it’s amazing how a person so stupid can actually function on a day to day basis.
The “southern strategy” has nothing at all to do with the Democratic primaries. So you can rant, rave, and spittle all you want about the GOP, but that doesn’t come close to addressing the issue of Democrats.
All I have been reading for the last couple of years is how America’s views on issues are aligned with that of progressives and liberals. Clearly, Obama is a more progressive candidate than Hillary Clinton. I’ve read and heard enough about the core of the Democratic party being fed up with the establishment candidates. Clearly, Obama is not an establishment candidate.
Of course, all of this is a moot point if Obama does win the nomination, but if he doesn’t, what does it mean? Either the people who have been talking about how voters are strongly aligned with progressive and liberal viewpoints were wrong, or it’s something else.
Perhaps somebody with some intelligence will choose to engage on the issue.
Of course, all of this is a moot point if Obama does win the nomination, but if he doesn’t, what does it mean? Either the people who have been talking about how voters are strongly aligned with progressive and liberal viewpoints were wrong, or it’s something else.
It’s something else. There’s plenty of X factors in play, some of which we saw in 2004 as well. Dean lost the nomination in 2004 not because the Democrats as a whole were less progressive, and not because of the Dean Scream, but because Democrats mistakenly bought into the narrative that Kerry was more “electable” against the Bush cabal. Democrats backed Kerry because they believed that an establishment candidate was a stronger horse, during an election they felt they couldn’t afford to lose.
That’s different this time. I believe that Obama’s candidacy would have floundered in 2004 for the same reasons Dean’s did–his unknown quantities seemed too high a gamble against a tenacious incumbent like Bush.
This year, the GOP field is a mess of poor candidates stuck with the albatross of Bush around their necks. Democratic voters feel, with good reason, that most of their candidates can beat any one of the jokers the GOP is looking to nominate. That includes the inexperienced Obama and the much-harangued Clinton.
If Obama fails to get the nomination this year, it doesn’t mean a “black man can’t win a Democratic nomination.” (It does mean that a woman can win the Dem nomination, which already says decent things about progressive values.) It means that other variables came into play for voters.
Jay:
While I know the Edwards’ very slightly from working on their son’s memorial some years back, I have no insight from that point of view. I do know a lot of his original inner circle here in Raleigh quite well, and they believe, for what it’s worth, that he’ll keep going. Only a few of them are also in the current inner circle, I think, but …
Does that matter, if he’s drawing less than 10%? I think not much. That’s the definition of a wasted vote (not that 3% here and there doesn’t matter).
So, bottom line, how does it break? Right now, I’d say, somewhat favoring Obama. But I really, really don’t know.
It means that other variables came into play for voters.
Ok, and that still leaves my question open. What other variables?
Hillary is the 2008 John Kerry. The fundraising, ties to business, being hawkish on foreign policy, and having advisers from the first two Clinton administrations around doesn’t seem to jibe with this supposed progressive ‘revival’ Democrats have been talking about the last couple of years.
Just look at New Hampshire for instance. The tide seemed to turn in a mere 24 hours. What was it that turned what looked to be a sure Obama victory into a Clinton upset?
(Because the late Barack Oblique would have wanted it that way!)
Dude! That ain’t cool.
For one, I tend to believe the analysis that says part of it was a media backlash–that people came out and voted for Clinton largely because the pundit class that was declaring her finished was so gleefully mean about it.
Beyond that, who can say? If professional pollsters are boggled as to what happened, who am I to speculate?
I will say that it’s the same reason I so enjoyed this past football season–upsets and comebacks galore, even with a perfect team in the mix.
Jay: “You know CS, you truly are a marvel of science. Scientific American should do an entire series on you alone because it’s amazing how a person so stupid can actually function on a day to day basis.
The ’southern strategy’ has nothing at all to do with the Democratic primaries.”
Oh my god. Oh my fucking god! This is the black whole of irony. You attack me for being stupid, then proof 100% that you are too fucking stupid to live.
Did I once say the Southern Strategy had anything to do with the Democratic primaries? No I fucking did not. I brought it up because it shows that you attacking the Democrats for being racist is merely projection.
From MSNBC:
“So how did the polls get it so wrong? It’s likely a confluence of events: 1) the emotional Clinton; 2) the ganging up factor from the debate; 3) the stubborn nature of NH voters to reject what Iowa recommends; 4) race; 5) more independents going to McCain; and 6) complacency among young voters. Could one of these factors erase a double-digit lead? Probably not. Could each of six cost two points each? Perhaps.”
Howard Fineman also notes she got more support from women this time and also credits her contrasting her health care plan to Obama’s as more inclusive. Several commentators have noted Obama doesn’t appear to perform as well in the debates as he does on the stump.
Most of the polls before Iowa showed Hilary winning NH (didn’t they?). Obama got a bounce from his Iowa victory that didn’t put him over in NH. It doesn’t mean the party has rejected progressivism. And Republicans are going to paint Hilary (or whoever gets the nomination)as someone to the left of Mao in any event.
And what about the converse: Does Huckabee’s showing in NH mean Republicans won’t really embrace an evanagelical Christian?
Stop fishing Jay. We understand that you have to stretch and look for racism in the democratic party to excuse the rampant racism in your precious Republicans and how that racism might reflect back to you because of your unwavering support, it is getting old.
How about we talk about the Republican party rising up and showing it’s inherent anti-christian attitudes because Mike Huckabee didn’t do so well? I mean, sure, the party likes to pander to the evangelical base, takes them for granted, they like to bash gays together even, but at the end of the day the rank and file members hate Jesus because of his liberal anti-big-business stances and these are the Republican voters that came out in New Hampshire.
Jay: “What was it that turned what looked to be a sure Obama victory into a Clinton upset?”
… A sure Obama victory.
Independent can choose to vote in the Democratic primary, or the Republican. Not both. Obama was seen as winning this thing with ease, so independents voted in the Republican primary instead.
And by the way, Clinton is establishment candidate, because the establishment is not a liberal as the part as a whole. She also gets a lot of support because she is seen by many as the most electable as she’s the one most suited to stand up to the mud-slingers.
What was it that turned what looked to be a sure Obama victory into a Clinton upset?
I think it has to do with the stubborn Swamp Yankee mentality. New Hampshites want change, they just aren’t sure how much.
The Clinton factor (’Clinton fatigue’, the general sense that Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton is more suited to a 3rd world country, etc) is real.
Totally agree. Let someone else have a turn.
It’s a grand day for those of us who resent the Andrea Mitchells, the Chris Matthews’, the Howard Finermans, the Joke Kleins, the Andrew Sullivans, the Maureen Dowds, the Matt Taibbis.
Also in agreement. Anything that shows up Chris Matthews as wrong is a good time.
She also gets a lot of support because she is seen by many as the most electable as she’s the one most suited to stand up to the mud-slingers.
So, what, is it gonna be 2004 all over again?
Clinton only won by 7500 votes. That’s not much of a lead.
Just curious, in past elections, how many of the winners in Iowa lost in NH?
Too hilarious.
Everybody’s chasing their tails trying to make sense of the world this morning.
Just two weeks ago, if anyone had suggested that Obama would come within 2 points of Clinton in NH, that would have been predicting a major win for…Obama!
Yet this morning, when we look at that very same result it’s a major win for…not Obama!
How did this happen? How is it possible to interpret a single result in such radically different ways? Why, in between two weeks ago and last night, the press predicted Clinton’s political demise! And because the press prediction was wrong we need to explain that.
Could it be because the press narrative was stupid?
No, no…that can’t be it. It must be because the voters all changed their minds and it was a stunning upset by Clinton!!
@ Jay:
And when should Edwards get out? It’s obvious that he doesn’t have a chance at this point.
As long as neither Clinton nor Obama emerges as the clear winner, it’s to Edwards’ benefit to stay in. If no Dem candidate goes into the convention with enough delegates to win, Edwards is, at worst, a broker. At best, he’s the compromise candidate.
I brought it up because it shows that you attacking the Democrats for being racist is merely projection.
I never attacked them for being racist. You’re reading into things and by getting all pissy about it doesn’t change anything.
We understand that you have to stretch and look for racism in the democratic party to excuse the rampant racism in your precious Republicans and how that racism might reflect back to you because of your unwavering support, it is getting old.
We’re not talking about Republicans. We’re talking about DEMOCRATS? Comprende?
And Spider, I don’t buy the line that nominating a woman is any leap forward for progressive values. Americans have become comfortable with women being positions of power. There are 16 women in the Senate, and 8 women serve as Governors across the country.
Again, all one has to do is look around and see people talking about the “progressive revival” going on. Constant harping about polls that show the majority of Americans support the progressive viewpoint on issues ranging from the economy to foreign policy. You have this “rock star” candidate in Barack Obama that people and the media are fawning over and who progressives have embraced.
All of that, and yet there’s a good chance that Democratic voters will nominate this year’s version of John Kerry. The question is: Why?
Let me make it simpler: If you’re supporting Hillary for President, why are you doing so over Barack Obama?
I think there is one emotional issue everyone seems to have missed. I like both Obama and Clinton, but her loss in Iowa seemed to leave her obviously contrite and humbled. To me though, Obama seemed emboldened to the point of being brash. I suspect some voters picked up on that and were influenced it to Hillary’s favor and Obama’s loss.
Here’s a real simple answer, Jay: “Democrats” and “progressives” aren’t one and the same.
And Spider, I don’t buy the line that nominating a woman is any leap forward for progressive values. Americans have become comfortable with women being positions of power. There are 16 women in the Senate, and 8 women serve as Governors across the country.
There’s “positions of authority” and there’s President of the United States.
People have also been comfortable with black folks in positions of power for some time, in some cases moreso (I don’t hear about the Congressional Women’s Caucus having any influence over anything these days). But while you “don’t buy” that nominating a woman is a step forward for progressive values, you claim that NOT nominating a black man is a sign that progressive values aren’t making any inroads.
This makes no sense.
I have put my money on Obama, and I’m more fired up than ever.
You’re to much of a gentlemen, to be as blunt as I can be -so let me give my impressions of the outcome.
History has taught us that we’ve been dead right every time we thought an election was tampered with. This election was tampered with.
Many narrow minded people in the media and in the blogosphere have thrown race in the picture rather than face the absurdity of the outcome.
-It wasn’t race.
Many say ‘oh its just those darn contrary New Hampshire voters bucking the polls’.
-it wasn’t the polls.
-the voters weren’t that contrary.
I offer the following facts to encourage an honest inquiry by election officials.:
1. All of the Republican poll numbers -taken by the same pollsters -were dead right.
2. The Democrats -less than a third of the voters -leaned only slightly more to Hillary.
3. Obama received 60% of the independent vote -more than a third of all voters -a much larger percentage than expected and more than enough to counter the extra women Democratic voters spurned into action by Hillary’s blubbering.
4. The youth and new voters preferred Obama 4:1 over Hillary.
More details are yet to come -but no way in hell do all of the above details equal a Clinton victory.
-the voters didn’t buck the polls tha
t much
People have also been comfortable with black folks in positions of power for some time, in some cases moreso (I don’t hear about the Congressional Women’s Caucus having any influence over anything these days).
Spider, the Congressional Black Caucus is merely a group of black Congressmen and women. They have no official authority or power. No caucus in Congress does, so that’s a poor example. Deval Patrick became only the second black governor in the history of the United States (as opposed to 29 women). Since reconstruction there have only been three black Senators (as opposed to 35 women), one of which was a Republican. 170 females in the House compared to 90 African-Americans.
All I am saying is that nominating a woman to be a presidential candidate is not that big a leap. It would be historic, but given how many female governors and senators we have had, especially over the last 20 years, it’s the next logical step, even at this point.
Hazmaq, I saw some bloggers said the results were in large part due to the . To be honest, I had never heard of it before.
That link goes to something called the “Bradley effect.”
Jay seems to miss that there is a woman and a black man as the top two democratic candidates. There is also a white guy, a hispanic guy, and an elf. Compared to the various white male geezers, jesusers, lobbyists and game show hosts on the Republican side, I gotta wonder why you insist that Race is the overwhelming concern for the democrats, why aren’t you concerned about a lack of diversity on the other side?
Maybe democrats can get past the vagina or the dark skin and look at issues, records, presence, oratory, experience, positions, past performance, recognition etc. There are a host of reasons things changed from Iowa, Hillary got even more of the female vote and a captured a larger percentage of the youth vote than she did in Iowa. Edwards ran a bad debate strategy hence his drop and McCain drew some independents away from Obama.
And, it’s still an open race. I believe the delegate count is something like 25,24, and 17 for the dems while Romney actually leads the pub count over Huckabee and McCain.
Bradley schmadley.
First race, then the women voters did it’.
They just don’t dare say -’somethings fishy’.
Just got in more results from BlackBoxvoting.org that’ll make your skin crawl:
-In 128 towns using hand counted methods, 83 went for Obama, and 45 to Clinton.
This follows the poll ratios, as do the Independent voter turnouts -remember it’s 60% for Obama.
**Now watch:
In the bigger towns and cities that use optical scan machines, 38 went for Obama and 59 for Clinton.
A sudden reversal of the ratio. A well known trick easily done on the Diebold machines -which counted 81% of New Hampshire votes.
So it’s either a. the ‘live free or die state’ is actually filled with nothing but pussies, and/or b. Diebold is backing Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Or that maybe New Hamshire voters -the ‘live free or die’ state
In other words, Diebold thinks the Republicans would rather run against Clinton than Obama?
Oh, I was wrong about the delegate count. I just counted the delegates captured from the actual voting in the two states. Adding super delegates and such Hillary is smoking Obama.
Yeah, but the super delegates are not a “hard” number. If Obama or even Edwards were to start having decisive wins, they would move quick.
Jay,
Could you explain how the so-called Bradley Effect comes into play in this instance? The wikipedia article you link to defines the Bradley Effect as involving “statistically significant numbers” between pre-election polls and final vote tallies.
Looking at the polling data noted here it appears that pre-election polls were very accurate in predicting Obama’s ultimate vote count. Certainly it’s within the margin of error, which hardly counts as “statistically significant numbers.”
Me: “I brought it up because it shows that you attacking the Democrats for being racist is merely projection.
Jay: “I never attacked them for being racist.”
Jay you lying son of a bitch. Everyone who can read can see you did.
You are a moron and a liar.
CS, GFY.
Thanks.
Way to go CS, I’m with you.
Jay, you’re a lying, dissembling scumbag. Everyone here knows it.
“There is also a white guy, a hispanic guy, and an elf.”
i told pollster I was voting for the elf because I didn’t want to appear elfist. When I get in the voting booth though I’m writing in the unicorn.
Jay, you’re a lying, dissembling scumbag. Everyone here knows it.
Wellstone, your opinion of me is worth about as much as a squirt of piss. CS’s M.O. is pretty standard. Once there is an actual need to use any semblance of intelligence, he reverts to “YOU’RE A FUCKING LIAR!! FUCK YOU!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH!! FUCK THIS AND FUCK THAT AND FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!”
All I did was ask a very simple question:
Why Hillary and not Obama?
You people shouldn’t get pissed off at me because you cannot answer a simple question. If it makes you feel better to call me names, go ahead. You’re no different than any other chickenshit I’ve seen on the Internet that talks like a big bad ass from behind a monitor, so don’t expect me to get all worked up over it.
Jay -
You’re being a little disingenuous. That isn’t what you first asked. What you first asked was:
“But seriously, what will it say about Democratic voters should they choose the white candidate over the black one in the primaries? …The real question is, “Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?”
That’s a pretty loaded couple of questions because you have so obviously emphasized race in their formulation. Would you care to illuminate your thoughts on what it says about Democratic voters?
In my opinion, there are any number of reasons why someone would vote for Hillary over Obama or vice versa that have nothing to do whatsoever with race. If you had simply asked, initially, why Hillary and not Obama, race might never have been raised in the discussion. But you didn’t. Why is that?
I would add that you also interjected race into the discussion by bringing up the Bradley Effect when clearly the pre-election polls fairly accurately predicted Obama’s final vote count. As Matt Y pointed out, the real discrepancy was between the polls prediction for Hillary and her final count. If you want to suggest that at the last minute undecided white voters broke for Hillary because of race, fine. Go ahead and make the argument. If you don’t, why bring race up in the first place?
That’s a pretty loaded couple of questions because you have so obviously emphasized race in their formulation. Would you care to illuminate your thoughts on what it says about Democratic voters?
I don’t know. That’s why I asked, and then I clarified that (if you scrolled down) by going more direct and asking people, “Why Hillary and not Obama?”
I would add that you also interjected race into the discussion by bringing up the Bradley Effect when clearly the pre-election polls fairly accurately predicted Obama’s final vote count.
Actually, I didn’t. Another blogger did. An African-American blogger at that (I saw it in passing and can’t remember what it was offhand) who wrote the results off to the “Bradley effect.” In addition, I did so in response to that guy who was claiming the Diebold messed with the voting machines and that’s why the restults were so off from the polls. Like I said, I hadn’t even heard of such a thing and the link that you posted would obviously indicate that wasn’t the case.
Jay,
You have no idea what it would mean if democratic voters chose “the white candidate over the black one in the primaries”? None whatsoever?
It was just an innocent question that happened to foreground race? You weren’t trying to inject race into the discussion in a backhanded attempt to accuse Democratic voters of being racists? You were genuinely shocked when commenters assumed this is what you were doing? Your later ‘clarification’ was simply a way to correct this grievous misunderstanding and not a weasley attempt to play the innocent victim? Really?
because i don’t know, you know. I’m just asking.
“Actually, I didn’t.”
But Jay, you did. No one mentioned the Bradley Effect in this thread until you brought it up. You also simply repeated what you heard elsewhere without fully researching the facts of the situation. I would not want to assume that you blindly regurgitated something that allowed you to bring race back into the discussion. I would also hate to assume that you are now refusing to take responsibility for doing so now by blaming some other blogger who wasn’t even a part of this discussion and who’s name you can’t remember. I would never assume that.
because i know how much importance you place on facts and independent thinking …
It’s funny fararoo, I go to other liberal blogs and I see the race factor being discussed without any problems. Why everybody here is afraid to discuss is I suppose is a mystery.
You were genuinely shocked when commenters assumed
Key word being ‘assumed.’ When people assume something, that is their problem. Not mine.
Again, since 2006 all the hot talk has been that Americans want progressive/liberal leadership. That they’re tired of the establishment politicians running the country and that more Americans than not want more liberal policies enacted and they want the troops home…now.
Obama certainly fits that bill. Hillary does not. She’s an establishment candidate, she’s hawkish on defense, and she has ties to business interests.
So either the chattering class has been wrong about this progressive/liberal groundswell or they have different reasons for voting for Hillary instead of Obama.
The SIMPLE QUESTION I am asking is:
Why?
Now, if you guys would rather call me names, and get into semantics about what I meant and who’s calling who what, fine. Just fucking say so and stop wasting my time. Otherwise, just answer the fucking question already.
But Jay, you did.
Uh, no I did not. The first comment mentions race, so I was not the first person to interject race into the discussion.
You also simply repeated what you heard elsewhere without fully researching the facts of the situation.
Oh well I didn’t realize that I was being paid by OliverWillis.com to fully research things before O posted them.
I would not want to assume that you blindly regurgitated something that allowed you to bring race back into the discussion.
Guess what fafaroo? Race is part of the discussion! Simply because people here are being cowards and not wanting to discuss is not my problem.
Jesus Christ, what are you people so afraid of?
Jay,
The first comment in this thread mentioned race in the context of dismissing it as an issue:
So here’s a democractic/progressive voter clearly stating that Obama’s race is not a central factor in his decision-making. Was this statement so ambiguous to you?
But, Jay, you were indeed the first person to mention the Bradley Effect in this thread. If you aren’t willing to take the time to understand the facts of any situation because Oliver isn’t “paying you” would you mind telling me why anyone should pay any attention to you at all? I’m not being paid by Oliver either but I took the time to look other posts elsewhere to see if the Bradley Effect was indeed a factor. Turns out it wasn’t.
I’m not denying that race isn’t a factor in this election. The question is to what extent is it a factor. The first comment plus the actual poll results are indications that it may not be a significant deciding factor in the minds of democractic primary voters. It is one factor among many but not the preeminent factor at all. Policy and personality would seem to be greater concerns.
Do you disagree?
Americans want progressive/liberal leadership. That they’re tired of the establishment politicians running the country and that more Americans than not want more liberal policies enacted and they want the troops home…now.
Obama certainly fits that bill. Hillary does not.
That is my answer, summed up nicely Jay. Race does not enter the equation for me. I would vote for a Kryptonian if I thought they could get the job done.
I for one agree with the first comment. Whatever historic precedents would be set by an Obama presidency because of his race is only tangentially important to his commitment to a progressive agenda.
Obviously, progressives in the democratic party want the most viable progressive candidate possible. There are, however, a lot of centrists in the democractic party who find Hillary appealing based on their policy preferences.
To suggest that the Democratic Party is dominated by its progressive wing is simply overstating the case by miles.
I am forced to ask what might motivate someone to so overstate the influence of the dem progressive wing. Care to enlighten us, Jay?
And just for the record, jay, I haven’t assumed anything. I am just asking questions.
I’m not being paid by Oliver either but I took the time to look other posts elsewhere to see if the Bradley Effect was indeed a factor. Turns out it wasn’t.
Somebody made the claim the vote was rigged because of the difference in the results vis a vis the polls. I linked to what somebody else speculated. And if you do a search, you’ll see that a lot of people were discussing the possible “Bradley Effect.” I found it to be an interesting theory because it’s something I hadn’t heard of before. It’s really not that big a deal. If it makes you feel more comfortable assigning me more sinister motives for saying so, go right ahead.
And you’re right. Race probably isn’t the preeminent factor in why people are choosing to vote for Hillary over Obama. I just get the feeling Democratic voters are falling into the same trap they did with John Kerry. The whole “electable” factor along with “experience” and somebody who will be tough enough to “withstand the GOP attack machine.”
Hillary according to this entry by Matt Y. is going after Obama for being too liberal. One of the things she has gone after him on is his support for putting an end to mandatory minimum sentences. That’s actually something I agree with him on, so I find it a little odd. Edwards meanwhile, went after Obama because he was supposedly too closely aligned with “corporate interests.”
“I found it to be an interesting theory because it’s something I hadn’t heard of before. It’s really not that big a deal.”
And yet it’s also a theory that places race at the center of democratic voter decision-making. That is a big deal is one wants to start running around asking questions such as, “what will it say about Democratic voters should they choose the white candidate over the black one in the primaries?”
You also found it an interesting theory even though it isn’t actually an applicable one. I won’t assign any other motives to that other although I wonder if you are prone to following under the spell of bright, shiny object.
You’ve also now asserted that “Race probably isn’t the preeminent factor in why people are choosing to vote for Hillary over Obama.” It would seem to me that someone with this position would stop suggesting that democrats and progressives are afraid to talk about race. Right?
Okay, Jay. Answer one more question for me. Not a few posts up you wrote:
But in your last post you wrote:
If race isn’t a factor, why would you assume people are afraid to talk about it? Maybe they aren’t talking about it because it isn’t a factor for them. Would you care to explain how in a few posts you went from accusing progressives of cowardice to actually agreeing with commenters here that race isn’t an a significant issue in their decision making?
And yet it’s also a theory that places race at the center of democratic voter decision-making.
Did you actually read it? It has nothing to do with democratic voter decision-making, but rather how they respond to polls. If the theory fit, their decision was already made.
That is a big deal is one wants to start running around asking questions such as, “what will it say about Democratic voters should they choose the white candidate over the black one in the primaries?”
It’s a fair question. It’s funny how asking such a question is not out of bounds when talking about a general election. That’s easy of course. Because conventional wisdom tells us that when a black Democratic candidate loses to a white Republican candidate, it must have been because of racism (see Harold Ford’s loss to Bob Corker). But to even hint that race might be factor in races between Democrats is taboo? Why?
You also found it an interesting theory even though it isn’t actually an applicable one.
Neither was the Diebold one, but I didn’t see you taking issue with that.
I am forced to ask what might motivate someone to so overstate the influence of the dem progressive wing. Care to enlighten us, Jay?
Don’t turn this on me. I would say that bloggers such as Oliver, media talking heads, other pundits and other bloggers (such as Kos, Arianna Huffington, etc) that have been going on for several years now about this apparent progressive revival going on who have overstated what the mood of the country is. The choice of Hillary wouldn’t seem to fit within their view that America as a whole wants the strong liberal agenda they support.
It would seem to me that someone with this position would stop suggesting that democrats and progressives are afraid to talk about race. Right?
Not necessarily. Because while it may not be a preeminent factor, it will be a factor.
Not necessarily. Because while it may not be a preeminent factor, it will be a factor.
And let me just be clear about this. For people here like Duros or Quaker (and others), race wouldn’t even enter into the equation. However, there are going to be a number of Democratic voters that will STRONGLY factor race in how they vote. And that is something that people are afraid to talk about.
I just get the feeling Democratic voters are falling into the same trap they did with John Kerry.
Yeah, I get that feeling too, and it burns my toast.
Hillary according to this entry by Matt Y. is going after Obama for being too liberal. One of the things she has gone after him on is his support for putting an end to mandatory minimum sentences.
Yeah, you know whats really funny about that? Hillary said the same thing a year ago.
“what will it say about Democratic voters should they choose the white candidate over the black one in the primaries?”
It’s a fair question.
Well, actually it’s more a “fair and balanced” question. Meaning it’s more akin to a Fox News minefield.
Jay,
Of course some voters will vote for Hillary over Obama because of his race. The question is how widespread is this? The Bradley Effect refers to statistically significant shifts between what voters tell pollsters and what they actually do in the voter booth, specifically, when choosing between a white and a minority candidate. But there was no statistically significant difference between polling for Obama in NH and his final vote count. Based on the evidence, it’s irresponsible to suggest that race played a significant factor at all in Hillary’s win.
I don’t think anyone is afraid to discuss the fact that some voters will make decisions based on racial preferences or stereotypes. I think people are reacting negatively the inference that this some how says something or would say something about progressive voters or the Democratic part in general. It doesn’t because the evidence is clear that race is not a significant factor in the primaries and where it is, it’s a tangential positive factor.
I also don’t think you read many progressive blogs all that closely. I think the discussion in progressive circles is dominated by frustration that the Democratic Party is not responsive to its progressive wing, even as the Republicans again and again, paint the party as a band of crazed, radicals. It isn’t. And the reason why most Dem leaders are not responsive to the progressive wing is because the majority of dem voters are center left. Not left.
So it isn’t “cowardice” that you are seeing. It’s irritation that you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Yes, race is an issue. It is not, however, an issue of any significance. For the few dem voters for which it is an issue, well, I don’t think you’ll have any trouble finding progressives and most dems who would say that’s fucked.
I really don’t know what your beef is here, man.
I think people are reacting negatively the inference that this some how says something or would say something about progressive voters or the Democratic part in general. It doesn’t because the evidence is clear that race is not a significant factor in the primaries and where it is, it’s a tangential positive factor.
There’s been one primary. You cannot possibly reach such a conclusion based on the results one primary result.
I think the discussion in progressive circles is dominated by frustration that the Democratic Party is not responsive to its progressive wing, even as the Republicans again and again, paint the party as a band of crazed, radicals. It isn’t. And the reason why most Dem leaders are not responsive to the progressive wing is because the majority of dem voters are center left. Not left.
You’re half right. In 2004, I would say you were correct about that frustration. But going into 2006 and especially since the 2006 elections, that talk shifted. The liberal blogs (this one included) have all been saying, “Now it is our time.” Apparently that is not the case. You admit that most Democrats vote center. Add them to the Republicans and conservatives, and there isn’t this progressive tidal wave we’ve been hearing about for the last 18 mos to 2 years.
Yes, race is an issue. It is not, however, an issue of any significance.
Once again, you’re reaching a conclusion without any evidence to say otherwise. Just because race won’t be a preeminent factor in who most Democrats vote for, the issue of race itself could be a significant factor in the outcome based on how tight a race could be – NH was only decided by a little over 7000 votes. In addition, it could also have an effect on the general elections.
He brings up Corker/Ford? I seem to recall some semi-racist ads aired by Corker and some push polling targeting Ford that may have helped turn the tide. THink about it this way, Jay, was the racism on the part of the democrats who ran a tight race in a red senate race or on the part of the racist voters that ran out to happily support the white Republican?
Give it up. I understand you don’t want to face the reality that your Republican party is the overwhelming refuge of the racist voter. It’s an ingrained party national strategy. Sure there are racists in the democratic party, but I think most of them will come out and vote for Obama if he is the nominee because, quite frankly, Bush has shown that race matters little compared to how bad the current crop of Bush clones can continue to fuck up the country.
You’re just expanding on the typical Republican talking point that the democratic party does nothing for the blacks so why do they vote for the Dems? They’ve taken the black vote for granted, now will they support a black candidate?
Look at the flip side. The republicans have pandered to the evangelicals for years, now there is a serious evangelical candidate, the Republican machine is panicking.
I would say the race issue is much smaller for the Dems than the distaste for the evangelical on the part of the mainstream republicans.
“Once again, you’re reaching a conclusion without any evidence to say otherwise.”
I’m sorry. What the fuck? Jay, you cited the Bradley Effect despite the fact that the FACTS show otherwise.
You say that Dems are afraid to talk about race but then turn around and say that you agree with me, race probably wasn’t a factor in NH.
You tell me I can’t make any assumptions based on one primary but after one primary you started in on race as a factor in Hilary’s win.
I think I’m done with you, dude. You’re simply not honest enough to waste time with.
Jay, you cited the Bradley Effect despite the fact that the FACTS show otherwise.
Dude, you need to improve your reading comprehension, ok? I did not “cite” the Bradley Effect. To ‘cite’ something is to offer it up as proof or confirmation of something. Stop making it seem as though I said, “Hillary’s win was the result of the Bradley effect.” Stop engaging in such blatant intellectual dishonesty. I merely claimed it was what somebody else speculated in response to some guy who was claiming it was Diebold acting on behalf of the Clintons.
You say that Dems are afraid to talk about race but then turn around and say that you agree with me, race probably wasn’t a factor in NH.
I said race wasn’t the preeminent reason why most Democrats would vote for Hillary instead of Obama.
You tell me I can’t make any assumptions based on one primary but after one primary you started in on race as a factor in Hilary’s win.
First of all, you didn’t make an ‘assumption,’ You stated something conclusively. If you had said, “I assume it won’t be a significant factor in the primaries”, that wouldn’t have elicited a response, but you said, “race is not a significant factor in the primaries.” Go back and show me EXACTLY where I said, “Race was a factor in Hillary’s win.” Show me.
I think I’m done with you, dude. You’re simply not honest enough to waste time with.
Horseshit. You’re the one being dishonest.
Well it’s obvious that the Democratic party is filled with racists who made sure after Iowa debacle that somebody from the master race was going to win New Hampshire.
That was easy.
“Go back and show me EXACTLY where I said, “Race was a factor in Hillary’s win.” Show me.”
But that’s exactly it Jay. This whole thread you’ve done nothing but try to goad people into a discussion of race as a factor in Hilary’s win. Then, you deny you’re doing it. That’s how you operated in the gay marriage thread as well. Inference and innuendo seem to be your preferred modes of discourse. You state nothing directly but ask leading, loaded questions such as “Nut seriously, what will it say about Democratic voters should they choose the white candidate over the black one in the primaries?” When people dismissed the question you accused them of being afraid to discuss race. Then you denied you even asked that question. Then you pointed to a theory positing race as a significant factor in the results, then you back away from that.
If you want to accuse dem voters of breaking to hillary because they don’t want to vote for a black candidate, just say it. But quite with the bullshit dancing around. You’re just being a jackass.
Case in point, this little bit of bullshit:
You overstate this “groundswell” of progressive sentiment to suggest that Obama should be the runaway candidate except for some factor X that can’t be policy related. Hmmmm … what could it be guys? Tell me please, i really don’t know …
This after a series of posts about race … you’re just totally dishonest.
Rovian at it’s finest.
Just to add, Jay, in your first post you asked the “real” question: “Is the Democratic party ready to nominate a black presidential candidate?”
You asked this question, why? Based on what? Just because Clinton won NH? After one primary result you felt there was some indication that Obama’s race was a real problem with Dem voters and this somehow manifested itself in Clinton’s win?
You raised the issue of race as a factor in NH and then spent the rest of the thread calling people cowards for not wanting to discuss it only to end the thread denying that you ever insinuated or suggested that race was at play in Clinton’s victory. What bullshit.