I think what the media and other political observers still aren’t getting is that there has been an untapped network of support among black America for a political candidate. Sen. Obama just happens to be the first viable black candidate whose candidacy is coinciding with the network’s maturity.
In some ways, Mr. Obama’s donor base differed from those of his rivals. An analysis of his Federal Election Commission filing using census data by ZIP code found that in the 3,210 ZIP codes with the largest proportion of black residents — at least 25 percent — Mr. Obama led the other candidates for both parties in money raised in the first half of the year. He received $5.2 million from those ZIP codes in the first half of the year, while Mrs. Clinton received about $3 million.
I stand by my prediction that if Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, you will see people voting who the voter prediction models never accounted for before (in states like Ohio and even Virginia this could lead to a win far beyond the razor-thin margins of the past).
Obama can only win the black vote. Hillary can only win the female vote. Edwards can win the vote from everyone, everywhere.
I don’t really see how powerful an argument this is.
Given how strongly African-Americans vote Democratic, I guess Obama would have to bring in African-Americans who have never been touched by other outreach programs. Same for Hillary vis-a-vis women.
If we’re playing “vote for my candidate because of their bloc”, then let’s just nominate the first serious candidate from a growing and swingy bloc — Hispanics.
Tom: That’s a simplistic and dumb conclusion to make.
Sabutai: I’m saying this more as a black person than as a political analyst. I think the MSM and the political establishment takes for granted and underestimates the potential of the black vote, and I think Sen. Obama could change that. I don’t think Sen. Clinton would bring aboard more women - though she would probably convert independent and Republican women to vote Democratic. And the hispanic bloc is still not organized enough to be decisive in a general election, they will be but the black vote machine is a 50+ year work in progress.
The polls will be off because the polls are ALWAYS off this far out. But given how adept the African-American machine is (104% voting rate in Detroit anyone), I’m not quite sold on there being this vast untapped source of black votes. We’ll know in about 6 months.
This is what I have been saying for a long time. Obama is reaching folks who are not your typical voter. They are young, and outsiders to typical politics. Honesty I think there are more than get accounted for especially as far as polling goes. How many under 25 voters get any of those phone calls? How many young professionals?
And Tom, you are single minded, people who wouldn’t vote for a black or a woman probably wont vote democrat anyway.
One thing Oliver overlooks, though, is the typical negative trend for black or woman candidates: the fact that people will tell polsters they will vote for the non-white-male candidate and then switch sides in the voting booth or simply stay home. In a high-profile race like president it’s possible the two trends might cancel each other out, though.
(104% voting rate in Detroit anyone)
What are you yammering about, Farris?
Detroit’s voter rolls overstated by 150,000. Given that the dead have always been a key constituency of Democratics, I’m keen to find out who they favor in the primary.
One of us is failing arithmetic.
If voter registrations are overstated, how does that translate into an overstatement in voting rate?
Rate is equal to X/Y where X is the number of voters and Y is the number of registrants. If Y is overstated, the rate is understated.
So I repeat: 104 percent? What are you yammering about?
The Republican bigot backlash vote will be strong unless they are so discouraged by their leadership and candidates, they don’t turn out to vote. At a certain point, even the most rabid of Hillary Haters and Reagan Democrats (Northern anti-black voters) will feel their concerns are not being met by the current crop of loser candidates.
Obama is reaching the ‘cool’ voters: the Bradley vote, the Eugene McCarthy vote. These are college educated, tend to be dispassionate, intellectual and centrist. They also tend to lose out in primaries or, if nominated, like Adlai Stevenson, lose elections. Woodrow Wilson was the only successful one I can think of offhand. In general, passion and likeability are what sell.
Even if the voter registration lists are not current or purged of deceased citizens, the dead cannot vote. Republicans are always screaming voter fraud and yet they can show scant evidence of any.
…Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.
Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.
In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.
In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting….
Scream loud and long enough, and you will believe your own propaganda.
“And the hispanic bloc is still not organized enough to be decisive in a general election, they will be but the black vote machine is a 50+ year work in progress.”
What an odd way to dismiss the single most important voting bloc to the future of American politics.
Funny, the 500,000 people protesting in Los Angeles in March 2006 sure looked organized. Must have been my imagination.
What about a Clinton/Obama ticket? Would that still bring out the undercounted voters?
I think Hillary has the nomination locked up, and I don’t even see Obama or Edwards trying to attack her (probably because they want on her ticket). I think Obama would be foolish not to take the VP slot, as Clinton has a very good chance of winning it all. In 2016 Obama would still be only 57 and he’d have a great launching point for winning the presidency.
Nels,
Right now I don’t see Hillary nominating Obama, simply because adding him to her ticket would mean much, MUCH less limelight for her.
Between Hillary and Obama as Democrat front-runners, I think that Obama is the most electable. He is a fresh face, he doesn’t have the baggage that Hillary does (including her husband) and he seems positive about the future.
My sense is that congressional and presidental approval ratings are so low right now because people are tired of the same faces, the same policies, the same partisanship, and are looking for something different. Obama can offer that, Hillary can’t, and probably the only Republican who can is Fred Thompson.