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.

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?

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.

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.

That was easy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

But in your last post you wrote:

“Race probably isn’t the preeminent factor in why people are choosing to vote for Hillary over Obama.”

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. 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?

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.”

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.