Originally Posted By jonvn Well, I'm surprised. Obama won in SC. 55% he got. Half the voters were black. They were chanting race doesn't matter, and of course, it did. They voted basically as a block, with him getting 80% of their vote. So I was wrong. He did win one primary.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Since Clinton was the only big name on the Michigan ballot, you can't count that one... which means now clinton has won two (NH and NV) and Obama has won two (IA and SC). Note that Iowa is about 3 percent black, and that they're saying Obama won more white men than Clinton did, and also won more whites under 30. Nothing succeeds like success, as they say. They seem to me to be pretty much tied going into the big super Tuesday, Obama having more momentum, but Clinton having better organization in the Feb. 5 states. Edwards says he's hanging in, and why not. He's well enough known that even if he runs out of money he'll get some votes, and pick up some delegates from the states that award proportionately. He's probably hoping that the other two sort of split down the middle and no one has more than half the delegates, making him a potential kingmaker. It's interesting to watch.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Actually, obama has surpassed clinton in the count of committed delegates. For now anyway - lots can change. But that's as valid a measure as any as to who's "winning".
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< He's probably hoping that the other two sort of split down the middle and no one has more than half the delegates, making him a potential kingmaker. It's interesting to watch. >>> ... which he might use to clinch the VP slot on the ballot.
Originally Posted By DlandDug So when Obama doesn't win a primary, it's because of institutional racism, and when he does win a primary it's because of institutional racism. Noted.
Originally Posted By jonvn Glad you noted it. Because that's what's going on. Over half the voters were black, and they voted 80% for him. Note that.
Originally Posted By Mr X I think it makes sense for a black person to vote for a viable, black candidate honestly. Note I did say "viable"...it'd be ridiculous for Rodney King to run and get votes because he's black (though I'm sure he would from some morons), for example, but I have to say that Obama does seem to represent the kind of mainstream yet "issue sensitive" guy that could help to represent a significant part of the population that has been marginalized for the most part by the leaders of America. I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet, but if I was black I imagine race would enter into my line of thinking quite a bit more than it does now. Granted I'm a white guy and that DOESN'T mean I'm looking to vote for the best available white guy, but on the other hand I've not been in the same position of disenfranchisement the black community has had to endure for centuries.
Originally Posted By Mr X And besides that, looking at Obama compared to the current guy, it's a no-brainer who I'd vote for (sure wish Obama was around in 2004 honestly).
Originally Posted By jonvn I'd vote for Rodney King. Hopefully, Clinton and Obama will split the votes, no clear winner showing up. Then Edwards or Gore can step in, and actually win.
Originally Posted By jonvn If no one else has a majority of delegates to win, and no one will change their votes such that you get a brokered convention, he could step up and just get the nomination. The delegates pledged are only for the first vote, I believe. After that, all bets are off, and the Democrats can nominate anyone they please.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I think Hillary is going to get the majority based on the Super Delegates.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Note I did say "viable"...it'd be ridiculous for Rodney King to run and get votes because he's black (though I'm sure he would from some morons) >> You mean like the morons that keep voting Marion Barry into positions in Washington, DC?
Originally Posted By jonvn She might. I hope not. I really don't want to see another Republican as President right now. These last eight years have been a disaster, and I don't think they should be rewarded with another term in office. On the other hand, if the democrats do nominate someone like Hillary or Obama, they probably do deserve to lose. Maybe it will smarten them up some to be more practical. Right now, they are in la la land with their two leading candidates. SO, for me, the dems deserve to lose, and the repubs don't deserve to win. I think I'm going to vote for Bazooka Joe.
Originally Posted By onlyme Maybe you should vote for the Green party candidate. I'm sure that Ralph will get the nod, again.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper What is more telling from SC is that Obama won almost every demographic of voter: young, old, middle age, white females, blacks, Independents, etc. The only demographic he lost, I believe, was the white mail. Also, if you look at who is voting for Edwards right now that will tell you exactly how troubled Hillary's campaign is. Watch for Bill to come out swinging this week. It has only just begun. And, I think that will be quicksand for the Clinton's. The more he swings the worse it is going to get.
Originally Posted By BigJim89 WilliamK99 said: <<think Hillary is going to get the majority based on the Super Delegates.>> I agree just look at the delegates she has already <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html" target="_blank">http://www.realclearpolitics.c om/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html</a> Even though Obama has the most state delegates the Super delegates she already has puts her over the edge jonvn said: <<On the other hand, if the democrats do nominate someone like Hillary or Obama, they probably do deserve to lose. Maybe it will smarten them up some to be more practical. Right now, they are in la la land with their two leading candidates>> While I agree they are certainly easier to beat I have to say there is one way that the will allow the Dems(Hill or Barack) to surey win: Mitt Romney, aka Mr. unelectable.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I agree - any dem can beat romney. And the funny thing is, romney's the candidate of the GOP 'old guard' - the proverbial smoke-filled room types. To them, mccain as the candidate is their worst case scenario - even though mccain stands a (slim) chance of being elected in november.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< To [the proverbial smoke-filled room types], mccain as the candidate is their worst case scenario >>> Why do you suppose this is?
