Wednesday, March 12, 2008

The Democratic divide

When I began last night's radio podcast covering Mississippi's Primary results, Fabian Story, Ken Marrero, and myself all commented about how the early numbers seemed to show that while Barack Obama would come away with a win, the results appeared to illustrate that the vote would be much closer than the press was predicting, and that Hillary Clinton could come out of Mississippi with a significant number of delegates.

Not to fret about any major upset or even a faux declaration of victory by the Clinton camp, because when all was said and done Obama smacked Clinton in Mississippi by 24 points. Hidden in the results, however, are some frightening numbers for Democrats. African-American voters went for Obama 91-9 percent, while white voters went for Hillary Clinton 72-21 percent. The Democratic Party is deeply divided along racial, ethnic, and gender lines, and for all of the talk in the party opposite about "unity in diversity," the unity they seek is non-existent. Democrats love to talk about how "tolerant" and how "diverse" they are, but we see that no matter their color, race, or creed, they don't seem to be very tolerant of one another.

On top of the Mississippi results, we now learn (as reported by David Knowles) that Barack Obama has won Texas:

The Texas Secretary of State will release the official results of the Democratic primary on March 29th. But if initial estimates hold, Barack Obama will beat Hillary Clinton in the race for delegates. CNN confirms what others have been seeing for days. While Clinton won the state's popular vote, Obama racked up more caucus support, so that, now that the dust is settling, the Lone Star state's delegate total

Obama: 61 delegates from the popular vote + 37 delegates from caucuses = 98 delegates.

Clinton: 65 delegates from the popular vote + 30 delegates from caucuses = 95 delegates.

In spite of this, and Obama's lead in the national popular vote, the Democratic National Convention may very well throw the nomination to Hillary Clinton via superdelegates. If the convention does so, they will have succeeded in alienating entire blocs of their manufactured voter base in order to avoid alienating women and white working class voters-among whom are many Reagan Democrats who have no problem voting Republican at the top of the ticket. If the Democrats do throw the nomination to Clinton even if Obama has the lead in pledged delegates, they will likely anger the "leaders" in some of the communities to which they seek to cater. This is the result of over 30 years of the national Democratic Party playing politics with gender, race, and ethnicity-and using those factors to get votes. Now that has come home to haunt the Democratic Party since they have a black man against a woman in their presidential primary process. If one side speaks up for their candidate, they are racist, and if the other speaks up for theirs and against the other, they are sexist.

John McCain would be in a prime position to take advantage of this politically, but as the Democrats attempt to hand the Republicans the election, he refuses to accept the gift.

Labels: , , ,


At Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:28:00 PM, Blogger Kathy said...

Fully Vetted???

Tax returns

Donor list for Clinton Library

White House Calendar

Full Disclosure. Provide this information. We have had 7 (15) years of secrecy and deception and we do not want to risk another 4 years without full disclosure. Don’t ask for my vote until you disclose you tax returns, the source of funds for the Clinton Library, and the White House Calendar that will document your claim to have the experience to be President.

Reasonable request?

At Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:58:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Mississipi results may indeed have distinct racial breakdowns BUT use that to explain Obama's win in Idaho?? Or Alaska, or ...
No, the race and/or gender of the Dem candidates is an issue only to the media and Repubs.
The media because they're lazy (and, perhaps, stupid too). The Repubs because it's almost allthe have to go on. Remember the Repub candidate is John McCain. He's all you got.


At Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:41:00 PM, Anonymous Blue Collar Muse said...

Steve Mule -

You're missing the point. By definition, there cannot be much of a racial divide in places like Idaho or Alaska because there isn't a great deal of racial diversity there to be divided.

But in places where there IS an opportunity for race to reveal itself as an issue should it be present, it is doing so in a stark fashion.


At Monday, March 17, 2008 9:52:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So? African-Americans tend to like Obama. Wow. Who could've seen that coming huh? So? Republicans tend to like McCain (to some degree or the other). Who would'a thunk that, huh?
Why is this an issue? If African-Americans vote for Obama is that indicative of ... what, exactly? Most of the Dems that voted for HRC will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in November.
Most African-Americans Dems will/have vote for Obama, most Whites over 65 will/have voted for HRC. Should we start talking about "Age-ism"?
This whole issue is a creation of a lazy media.



Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map