I'm going to try one more time: What is Hillary's GE plan for winning 90% of the black vote?

[bluestateguy]

And with a high turnout? She is delusional if she thinks a Democrat can win on the votes of whites and Hispanics alone. For a Democrat to win, they need 90% of the black vote and a high turnout. Right now, I see little indication that Hillary will achieve either in November. To win Michigan, for example, you need to turnout black voters in Detroit, and majority black suburbs like Southfield. Winning 90% with a low turnout is not the same as winning 90% with a high turnout.

I have tried asking this question before, but I have yet to get an answer from any of the diehard Hillary supporters here on DU. We have spent considerable time talking about Obama and his issues with working class whites. That's fine, but if Hillary wants the nomination she has to address her own demographic issues too.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Obama for VP would be her plan

[HockeyMom]

12. I hope he turns her down,

if it comes to that.

[BeyondGeography]

17. It won't

She's done.

[jackson_dem]

2. The same one Mondale and Dukakis had after getting no black support against J. Jackson in primaries

Obama supporters act as if Obama is the first major black presidential candidate and pretend Jackson never existed.

[Windy]

4. Jesse Jackson didn't not win like Obama has won. He was out by now. There is a difference!

If you don't see, it then I wonder what your true motivations are!

AAs and many white voters will NOT cast their vote for Clinton in the general election.

If she wins the nomination by dirty politics, many will sit home or in the alternative, vote down ticket for dems but either write in Obama or not vote for president at all. That's what I'm hearing from relatives in Michigan and I'm white and 50! Allegedly HRC's demographic!

[jackson_dem]

8. Jackson was once the front runner and went deep into the process

[virtualobserver]

25. no he wasn't...geez, are you having a Tuzla moment.

[jackson_dem]

38. He had the most delegates entering April. That isn't being the front runner?

:crazy:

[virtualobserver]

58. If you want to pretend that he was considered viable, go ahead

[jackson_dem]

88. So being in first heading into April is not being the front runner?

[virtualobserver]

101. you are trying to win debating points.......JJ had no chance to win

[jackson_dem]

105. That was because his white support tanked after he become the front runner...

[virtualobserver]

112. whatever

[jackson_dem]

122. He won Michigan 55-31. That doesn't happen without large white support

[Exilednight]

29. What the hell are you talking about? Jackson never made it past Super Tuesday. n/t

[jackson_dem]

33. That's funny. How did he win Michigan by 24% at the end of March if he "never made it past" ST?

Even Gore was around in mid-April in New York.

[Exilednight]

45. Super Tuesday in 1984 and 1988 was in March, not February.

Edit: 1984 actually had three Super Tuesdays, and it was the first year the term Super Tuesday was used.

1988 had two different Super Tuesdays.

This is the first year that Super Tuesday was in February.

[jackson_dem]

90. Yeah, and what were Jackson and Gore doing still campaigning well after Super Tuesday?

Jackson entered April as the front runner after a 24 point win in Michigan. But he "didn't make it past Super Tuesday". :crazy:

[jonestonesusa]

163. Jackson Dem is right about the strength of the Jackson campaign

Jesse Jackson won around five primaries and caucuses, and he beat everyone in the campaign except Dukakis, including Gore. He had a strong populist message and his decline in that campaign was largely due to swiftboating - mass media and perhaps even mainstream Democrats marginalizing him as "the black candidate." As far as sources to read about the campaign, my personal favorite essay is by June Jordan in her book _Technical Difficulties: African American Notes on the State of the Union._ She talks about the nervousness of the party regulars when Jackson was doing so well as a nontraditional candidate - both because he was African American and because he was a minister.

The key similarity I see between Jackson and Obama is in the perception that the black vote is the only reason for their success. You could make a stronger case for the black vote being important in that way to Jackson, although, according to my imperfect memory, he did well in Alaska, Wisconsin, coming in first or second in a number of predominantly white states. It frustrates me, in fact, that whether or not a candidate is the "black candidate" overshadows issues. This narrative will keep arising until a black candidate wins the presidency, and I hope as voters we will become more savvy and resist those attempts at marginalizing effective grassroots campaigns just because African Americans, a core Democratic constituency, choose to prefer a black presidential candidate.

BTW, I'm an Obama supporter. And I had to refresh some of my memory using the always reliable Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson

[CreekDog]

36. why are you comparing Jackson to Obama?

why do you just naturally do it? if you were a blind person would you naturally keep comparing them?

[jackson_dem]

39. Only two candidates have ever gotten 90% support from a racial group during primaries

One is Jackson. The other is...

[CreekDog]

51. are you saying because blacks only vote for blacks when given the chance?

:shrug: :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

61. They vote 90% for JJ and Obama for the same reason Mormons voted 90% for Romney

And Catholics 80% for JFK and Smith.

[CreekDog]

67. you ass

then who does Obama vote for? Is he conflicted because he is bi racial?

[jackson_dem]

71. Romney got 90% Mormon support. Does this mean Mormons won't vote for McSame?

Let me guess: you are naive enough to think he got 90% Mormon support because of his top secret "for Mormons only" platform. :eyes: McSame got 5% in Utah. That was because of the issues? Romney was just that much better on the issues for Mormons?

[CreekDog]

78. i dislike your constant pigeonholing of voters

especially by race and religion.

you caricature people.

i'm sorry you are involved in politics.

[jackson_dem]

82. yeah, Romney winning Mormons 94-3 over McSame in Utah was all about the issues

:rofl:

[CreekDog]

93. but you accept identity politics

or you accept them insofar as they produce a result you like. (kinda craven actually).

[jackson_dem]

97. Really? Is this why I decried them sinking Edwards from the get go?

[CreekDog]

114. when it came down to Edwards and Obama for me

I thought Edwards would have an easier time because he wouldn't be tagged the "black" candidate, but I thought Obama was the stronger candidate. the only thing that made Obama weaker in comparison to Edwards was other people's racism.

Obama's support has always had the brakes on. Many people in their gut worry that he will be held to a higher standard than the other candidates and so far that's true.

Black people don't identify with that because they are black, they identify with it because it happens so frequently to them.

[jackson_dem]

119. If Gary Locke or Bobby Jindal run for president should I vote for them because I identify with them?

[CreekDog]

123. no, but if there are racial attacks against them

and you vote against the candidates who spur them, go for it. vote against those using racism to win.

[jackson_dem]

129. What racial attacks were made after Iowa? That is when Obama's black support went to the 70's

What religious attacks were made against Romney by McCain or Huckabee? What religious attacks did Humphrey make against JFK?

[CreekDog]

142. shuck and jive and Jesse Jackson

and "Hussein" Obama.

it should be noted that Obama's white support also increased by huge margins.

[jackson_dem]

160. Neither happened the week after Iowa

Obama's white support did not increase by "huge margins." He got 33% in Iowa. Was there a "huge increase" afterwards? He got 36% in NH, 34% in NV, 24% in SC, and 23% in Fl. Where was this "huge increase"? Do you mean the increase that occurred after Edwards' white support moved to the remaining candidates? He got 24%, 17%, 10%, 40%, and 20% in these respective states, considerable shares aside from his 10% in Nevada.

His black support doubled overnight after Iowa. His white support remained about the same, as did his Latino support.

[CreekDog]

147. what percentage of the black vote do you think was based on race?

i mean you keep saying 90% supported Obama, of that percentage, what is the percentage that voted for him because they thought he was the best candidate? why don't you take a guess if you don't know.

[terrell9584]

136. Accepting means recognizing that it exists

and it works and by in large, it dictates the politics of this country. It always has and it probably always will, that's what happens when you have a very diverse country where people seem to show a preference for staying around people like them. As proof of this, the fact that New York City is still combined of ethnic communities, many of which have fairly concrete boundaries, and apply that to any city in the Northeast. Just follow population movements in metro areas, generally, you will find that there is a plurality number, of people in any area of a metro, that trace their origin back to a specific section of the city, and when everyone left that section, they just ended up relocating in this new area and doing everything as they had before a few generations ago

[CreekDog]

146. i'm in the Bay Area, people may start out in certain neighborhoods

but in a generation or two most of them are living in the burbs with everybody else.

and that's in the Northeast too.

you can't lump 1st generation Chinese with Chinese Americans who are here because their great grandparents came here.
as I once said to a friend who made it sound like someone Chinese American we knew was less American, "her family's been in America longer than yours has!"

[CreekDog]

98. nice going

[EffieBlack]

165. Really? Then how do you explain that a much smaller % of blacks (20% or less) voted for

Sharpton or Wilder or Keyes? If black people are voting for black candidates because they share the same African heritage, would the other black candidates also have gotten 90% of the black vote?

Until this year, 99% of white voters voted for white candidates when black candidates were in the race. Do you believe that they voted for white candidates because they were white? Or do you think that they had some other reason, aside from skin color for voting for those candidates and voting against the black candidates 99-1?

[tritsofme]

43. Jackson is the only other major black candidate in the primaries.

And this is a thread about how Hillary would regain black support in the GE.

Although flawed, this is the only comparable situation.

[CreekDog]

only if you think black and white people only vote according to race

:dilemma:

[jackson_dem]

50. Only two candidates have ever gotten 90% support from a racial group during primaries

One: Jackson
Two: Obama

Only fools would ignore the parallel.

[CreekDog]

60. i think black folks were voting against racial stereotypes

the numbers supporting Obama only increased after the Hillary campaign began treating Obama and referring to him as "Jesse Jackson" or the "black candidate".

voting against that is not a vote based on race, it's a vote against people who play up racial fears to win elections.

or maybe you just think that when most black folks do something, it must be based on supporting a black person because they are black.

[jackson_dem]

68. That is a fairy tale. Obama shot up to the 70's among blacks after he won Iowa

That was before the racial flap. Go back and check the polls. Jamal Simmons was right when he predicted his Iowa win would cause a tidal wave to Obama among blacks because it would prove he had a real shot at the nomination. At most the entire racial flap cost her about 10% among 10% of the electorate (1% overall).

[CreekDog]

73. you are writing like a behavioralist/Marxist

everybody just does what their group membership says they will do.

of course, you never apply that to whites as one group.

whites have mormons and catholics and etc. but blacks are just blacks.

it's all bogus.

[jackson_dem]

79. It is called history. Whites have not bloc voted in primaries yet. Mormons have

Catholics did it in primaries and the GE. I don't make fairy tales up. Sorry.

[CreekDog]

89. in most primaries there have only been whites to choose from!

tells me it's history, begging the question greatly. :eyes:

please, keep your world of identity card politics out of my face. in that world, you did what you were supposed to do, voted for Hillary --i broke the rules, i voted for Obama (and I'm white), although I followed the rules because I'm a northern liberal and we like voting for black people.

this is all garbage you are peddling.

[jackson_dem]

96. Your ignorance is showing again

At some point it usually narrows down to two candidates. Kerry didn't get 90% white support against Edwards did he? Did Clinton against Jerry Brown? Bush against McCain? Dole against Buchanan?

Oh. I am white? This is news to me. Ironic for someone whining about alleged stereotyping...

Romney didn't cry when folks mentioned his Mormon support. Why can't Obama be proud of his strong support among his ethnic group?

[CreekDog]

104. you don't see color huh

:eyes:

you play the identity politics and justify it except you don't like it applied to you because it takes away your individuality and it's insulting.

but you don't mind applying it to black people, to Mormons, to Catholics.

frankly, i don't like the assumption that if you and I are white that we agree on things based on that.

to quote a great movie:

"i think we have shit in common."

[jackson_dem]

113. I am a minority and understand how this works because I have seen it

Maybe this is why I get it and you don't. For you this is academic. I have seen it personally, not to mention historical evidence supporting it.

[CreekDog]

117. and you don't spend one bit of time trying to change it here

nice going.

[jackson_dem]

124. Here? The governing dynamic here is "Clinton"

This place is 95-5 for Obama. Why did almost all of Edwards' netroots supporters go to one candidate? It is because the netroots hates Clinton's guts and would vote for Charles Manson or OJ over her.

[CreekDog]

144. no, wouldn't vote for Manson or McCain over her

but yeah, it wasn't hard to find better choices.

[terrell9584]

126. That's not entirely true.

The evidence suggests that whites bloc voted (against Obama, if not for someone else) in SC, AL and MS. There's really no other way to read it, because it is something that held consistent throughout those states.

On a less substantial level, the white community bloc votes in New Orleans all the time. For example, every single election the city has had since the introduction of black power. Nagin was initially elected as a "white" candidate. There was also white bloc voting in the John Street elections in Philly. It's never happened on a national scale probably, but it has happened before. The old Solid South was based entirely on white bloc voting, and the Republicans have always had a goal of getting the same kinds of percentages of whites to bloc vote for them as Democrats did for them. Traditions die hard, but, they are starting to get close, because the white votes for Bush in 2004 in Mississippi was an exact mirror of the white percentages that Democrats always got prior to 1952 (1948 doesn't count because MS actually did vote for their official Democratic candidate, even if that was Thurmond)

[terrell9584]

109. Whites aren't an ethnic group

In general, blacks are because by in large, all blacks in the United States, except for those who actually are of recent African or West Indies origin share the same basic culture and same basic heritage, rooted in the South, with a culture that is a mixture of the culture of Southern whites and traditions from Africa.........it should be pointed out that southern white culture borrows alot from traditional African culture too, for example, okra.

You therefore can't apply an ethnic group status to the whole of whites because they don't have it. The U.S. Census bureau says that most Hispanics are racially white, so where does that leave you? There are different subcultures and subgroups within "white society" and those can be analyzed and to an extent, religion in this country, moreso in the east than in the west, and they can be analyzed as a religious group, because in many areas of the country, religion serves the purpose of being a self-chosen ethnic group

The problem in all this is that whites have been referred to as a group at all. There is no white, only a skin color of white. That definition of white is the one that says absence of any black equals white. It has no relevance in culture today, and even in the South, it was always irrelevant because when the issue was not white supremacy, there was always bickering among religious and ethnic groups, and locality and etc.

But for the most part, black identity in the United States is rooted in a culture in which the Deep South states serve as the heartland and in which, there is a commonality whether you are in Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago or a farm in Macon County, Alabama. The same is not true for whites and so a comparison should not be made. This same issue actually exists with Hispanic, because there is no one unifying "Hispanic" culture, and, the term Latino is a false nomer because Italian and French people are also Latin cultures and their cultures, and the areas they exported them to in the United States, also embrace these "Latin influence"

[Lady-Damai]

139. African or West Indies DON'T share the same basic culture and same basic heritage. n/t

[CreekDog]

149. that's some very thoroughly thought out

determinism.

[BalancedGoat]

118. One would also be a fool...

...to ignore the potential perception that if Hillary wins it will have been "stolen" from Obama. Jackson didn't lose by having party insiders overturn a substantial lead in pledged delegates.

[cyndensco]

157. Gore won with 90% of the black vote in 2000.

[CreekDog]

159. so, if they weren't both black, you wouldn't compare them

ok, that explains a lot!

kthxbai. :eyes:

[EffieBlack]

166. He was "major" because a 90% of black voters voted for him

If 90% of black voters had voted for Sharpton, he'd have been "major." If 90% of black voters had voted for Alan Keyes, HE'D have been "major."

The argument that black people are voting race is always a circular one, one with no logic . . .

"90% of black voters are voting for Obama because he's black."

"Then how do you explain the fact that black voters in the past have not always voted overwhelmingly for black candidates, but instead more often than not, voted for white candidates? Doesn't that mean that black voters do NOT vote based on race?"

"No. They didn't vote for the other black candidates because they weren't viable."

"How do you explain the fact that 99% of white voters have traditionally voted for white candidates and against black candidates?"

"They didn't vote for the black candidates because they weren't viable."

This all boils down to a belief, against all evidence to the contrary, that:

1) When black voters vote for a black candidate, it's all about race;
2) When white voters for white candidates, it has nothing to do with race;
3) The fact that black voters more often than not for white candidates against black candidates and white voters more often than not vote for white candidates against black candidates in direct contradiction of the preceding claims will be completely ignored.

[CreekDog]

32. he just showed his cards

to him Jackson and Obama are the same, black voters who support each of them are the same, the way Hillary treats them should be the same way the white candidates in the 1980's treated Jackson.

even though everything and everybody in this election is different than then.

but there are white people and black people involved and what each member of their race did in the 1980's with respect to Jackson, Mondale and Hart, he thinks is what should/will happen this time if Hillary gets the nomination.

i'm white and that's damned offensive. please turn in your credentials.

[DJ13]

5. Yeah, but neither of them went out of their way to piss off the Black community

I suppose you just forgot about that part?

[FrenchieCat]

18. Who is neither one?

Cause here's stuff pissing me off-


"there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate"


"Jesse Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."



"He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”


"there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting."


Hillary insists denouncing and rejecting This guy

Watch Ed Rendel, Hillary surrogate endorse Louis Farrakhan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

[bluestateguy]

6. OK, now we are on to something

Hillary will follow the Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis model for the November election.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[jackson_dem]

9. It is called the "my GE opponent is white" plan

[virtualobserver]

11. you are a genius.....wish that i'd thought of that one.

[jackson_dem]

16. Edwards got 2% of the black vote in SC. What was his plan to win 90% of blacks in the GE?

Newsflash: the same as Clinton's.

[virtualobserver]

23. hardly, Edwards waged an honorable campaign

[jackson_dem]

26. Edwards' black support in SC went from 37% in 2004 (1st) to 2% (third)

Ask Edwards what changed...

[virtualobserver]

35. that doesn't counter my argument

My point is that in a GE, he would still get 90% AA support, Hillary won't

[jackson_dem]

42. That is a weird point. Edwards got 2% in the primaries, 1/10 of what Clinton got

Yet he would get 90% in the GE and Clinton wouldn't? :crazy:

Edwards' support declined from 37% to 2%. What was different between 2008 and 2004? Where did almost all that 35% go?

[virtualobserver]

65. There was not room in the race for three candidates

Any other Democrat would get full AA support.

[jackson_dem]

86. Edwards gets 2%=can win AA's. Clinton gets 10-19%=can't win AA's

:crazy:

Edwards' support evaporated because Obama took 78% of the black vote in a three candidate race. There was no Obama in 2004 taking 78% of the black vote.

[virtualobserver]

100. irrelevant, this isn't about statistics...Hillary has PERSONALLY offended a large number of AA's

your polling data can't dispute that.

[jackson_dem]

102. Even in Arizona McSame lost Mormons 8-88 to Romney

I guess Utah will be voting Democratic in November now because McSame never broke into the double digits with Mormons against the first serious Mormon candidate?

[virtualobserver]

115. no because McSame didn't alienate the mormons

[jackson_dem]

121. He attacked Romney aggressively. Maybe he did?

[virtualobserver]

133. If McCain loses the mormon vote....I will offer my humble apology to you

[jackson_dem]

161. He won't. That is the point. Neither would Clinton lose the AA vote

[NJSecularist]

125. No, that is your own wishful thinking, based on anectodal, flawed evidence.

We have polling data to dispute it. We have many years of data to confirm our assumptions. You, on the other hand, only have your own wishful thinking.

[virtualobserver]

140. I know actual humans who feel this way, and the feeling is spreading

the AA community has never felt betrayed by a Democrat in this way before.

[NJSecularist]

143. And I know actual humans who don't feel the same way, and the feeling is spreading.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

See why we don't use anecdotal evidence and instead we use verifiable polling data?

[virtualobserver]

145. only time will tell

[CreekDog]

44. apparently this is all a big play or show

the white characters do what's in the white script and the black characters do what's in the black script. oh, that script was written in the 1980's and it was based on a different time, place and people, but we have black and white people in 2008 to fill the roles and give us the same result.

i'm not saying the sentiment is racist --it's just f-ing dumb. :crazy:

[jackson_dem]

56. Yeah, race had nothing to do with Jackson and Obama getting 90% from their racial group

Jackson was that much better than Mondale, Hart, Glenn in 84' and Dukakis, Gore, Simon, and Gephardt in 1988 just as Obama is just 90% better than Clinton and Edwards.

[CreekDog]

63. why did black folks vote in larger numbers for Barack Obama

do tell since that 90% number has so much meaning for you.

[jackson_dem]

72. The same reason Mormons voted 90% for Romney

[CreekDog]

80. because Obama was Mormon?

:crazy:

[jackson_dem]

84. If he were Mormon would he get 90% of the Mormon vote like Romney did?

According to you, no.

[CreekDog]

91. you're damn right he wouldn't get 90% of the mormon vote

your assumption is that all things being equal people vote their identities.

but ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL.

your premise is flawed. you have a hole in your brain where this realization is supposed to be.

sorry :shrug:

[jackson_dem]

99. lol!!!! Romney got 94% of the Mormon vote in Utah because of the issues

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Even in Arizona he beat McCain 88-8 among Mormons. The issues, right? :rofl:

[CreekDog]

107. and if Obama were Mormon he would get 94%?

yes or no?

[jackson_dem]

110. History suggests yes

I'll make you a deal. When the first serious Latino candidate emerges I bet you h/she will win at least 70% Latino support right out the gate. $100 on it. Deal?

[jackson_dem]

116. Yes. Romney beat McCain 11:1 among Mormons (88-8) even in Arizona

Arizona. Guess who they voted to the senate? They like McCain but they voted for Romney 88-8. So if McCain is good enough to be your senator why the sudden 11:1 vote against him? What changed?

[virtualobserver]

7. unlike Mondale and Dukakis, Hillary has seriously alienated AA voters (and some others)

I can verify that in my personal sphere.

[jackson_dem]

13. The moment Obama won Iowa he shot up to the 70's among blacks nationally

It is a myth that she is to blame for losing her lead among blacks. As Jamal Simmons predicted the night of O's Iowa win, the moment he proved he could win many blacks who thought a black candidate was unelectable would flock to him and this is exactly what happened. This was long before Obama played the race card against the Clintons for SC. At best the entire racial flap cost her about 10% among blacks. r

[virtualobserver]

20. it isn't about the lead.........it is about AA's being offended by the type of campaign...

that she has waged.

[JVS]

49. It wasn't losing their support after IA that alienated them. It was her excuse making for SC...

that dismissed them. The deal with primary voters is that even if you lose a demographic of your party's base, you have to treat them with respect in case you win the nomination. Bill should have never dismissed Obama's win by saying that Jesse Jackson won SC twice.

[HockeyMom]

15. She has alienated me

I am a former New Yorker who even voted for her for Senator.

[virtualobserver]

55. Can't blame you.

I'm not AA, so I can't speak for the community but no group has shown even 1% of the loyalty to the Clintons that AA's did.
Back in 1998, I went to a anti-impeachment rally in Houston. There were 4 white people, and 150 AA's.

[rsmith6621]

10. Jackson Never Captured The Attention

That Obama has.....Jackson was more about the blacks and not about all Americans.....Obama is the first to engage America in to all issues.

[jackson_dem]

22. The bottom line is Jackson got 90% black support twice (84', 88')

When his white opponents made it to the GE they both got 90% black support against a white GE opponent.

[IsItJustMe]

111. I don't think you got the memo. Link provided

http://www.colorofchange.org/dems/

[democracy1st]

14. You're a fool if you think J Jackson is on Obama's level

[jackson_dem]

24. You're a fool if you can't see the parallel between why JJ and Obama get 90% support

Only two candidates have gotten 90% support from an ethnic group (Catholics, Mormons don't fall under this category) during primaries. One is Jesse Jackson. The other is...

[CreekDog]

28. you pretend that black voters see Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama in the same way

:spank:

what's with people saying Jesse Jackson = Barack Obama?

they are not the same person, 1984 and 1988 are not 2008. and Obama is about to really pull off a victory among pledged delegates, something Jesse Jackson did not do.

i HATE HATE HATE how you assume that black voters react the same way to Obama and Jesse Jackson.

[jackson_dem]

46. Jackson finished a strong second on the strength of 90% black support

Obama may do the same. ;)

[Lady-Damai]

127. Well, I was one years old in 1984......

My choice to vote for Barack Obama has nothing do with what happened in 1984 and 1988 or the color of my skin. All I remember about the 80's is the smurfs, transformers and ppl with big hair.


When this drama started most Black voters were not for Obama. It was white voters who were open to learning about Barack Obama. Some black voters felt he was not black enough or African American. They didn't know Barack Obama.

Jesse Jackson didn't like Obama.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/jesse-jackson-s.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/jesse-jackson-obama-just_n_92109.html


After the racist comments made by Bill Clinton there was a big shift to Obama by black voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDx4NZr2u4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUm7tkgFGYs&feature=related

[cyndensco]

156. Neither Mondale or Dukakis were as objectionable as hrc is.

I remember Jackson well, but could vote for the others because they won. At this point, I don't think hrc can win - at least not fairly - so I cannot support her. I know it sounds like, "i'm/we're going to take our ball home...," but, oh well. If she does take the nomination, I think it might be a great time - the urgency of now - that (some) black folk demonstrate that no one can count our votes as an automatic.

[Window]

158. No. We don't. and No. We won't.

[quantass]

3. Maybe she plans to go Black-Face a la Ted Danson/Whoppi Goldberg thing?

[datopbanana]

19. Oh she will get 90% of the black vote

Too bad the turnout will be about 2.5%

[NJSecularist]

21. She can win if she breaks even with the white female vote.

If black turnout is only 9% (down from 2004), and 80% of them vote for Hillary, she can win on the back of a strong white female showing and a strong Latino showing.

[jackson_dem]

30. They pretend Dukakis and Mondale didn't exist and that her low poll numbers with blacks are her faul

She is losing blacks badly for the same reason Mondale, Hart did in 1984 and Dukakis, Gore did in 1988. In the GE the dynamic would be different since McSame is not black the last time I checked.

[ecdab]

27. She has seriously pissed off a large portion of the African American

community. In hypothetical land (the fantasy place where Hillary can still win the primary) were she to get the nomination, she would still get the lions share of the AA vote, they just wouldn't turn out in force for her.

That's the thing about negative primary campaigns, they suppress the candidates own GE voting base.

[Exilednight]

31. Hillary will struggle to get 90% of the AA vote, but she will. She won't get the same turnout as O.

[quantass]

34. All AA's want is FAIRNESS!! You'd be surprised how often people forget that

So she could if she plays fair...if he loses fair-and-square she will get 90% of the AA vote but if they feel the nomination for Obama was unfairly taken away as Clinton is clearly trying to do right now then she will not get much turn-out...they will stay home.

Oh and lets not forget the racial remarks Bill made throughout the campaign....

[my3boyz]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! If she won fair and square. There is no way for her to win

fair and square. The only way she can win is convince the super delegates to top her off over the person who has more pledged delegates, more votes and more states won. If that happens most AA's (including this one) will not vote for her!

[jackson_dem]

47. "fair and square"=a scenario that has Obama winning

[FrenchieCat]

41. She'll get 72% of the 40% that bother to vote.......

Don't think it will happen any other way, cause it won't.

One thing about Black folks, they are used to be at the bottom of things. So really, the difference is minimal.

It is those White Women concerned about the Supreme Court who should be much more "concerned".

[NJSecularist]

48. What's the difference between 9% turnout and 11% turnout?

There was 11% black turnout in 2004. In the worst case scenario this year, I would expect black turnout to be 9%.

Blacks are not 30% of the vote in the general election as they are in the primaries. They are a relatively small group of the electorate in the general election. They are only 11% of the GE electorate. By comparision, white females consisted of 41% of the general electorate in 2004.

Which group is larger? The one with 41% of the vote or the one with 11% of the vote? If we can nominate a candidate that appeals more to the 41% group, then logically our chances are much better to win the general election, since the opposing candidate (Obama) has disenfranchised and annoyed many white females.

[Exilednight]

62. Kerry lost Florida by around 600 votes. Two percent higher turnout of the AA community could.....

have changed that. Same with several states where the race is tight.

[NJSecularist]

69. Yet Hillary makes up that 2% difference with her strong performances among Latinos. n/t

[virtualobserver]

83. I see, so your response is f*ck the AA's, we will just go with Latinos

[NJSecularist]

87. My point is the white female voting bloc is significantly larger than the black voting bloc.

The white female bloc consists of 41% of the electorate. The black male/female voting bloc consists of 11% of the electorate. The white female voting bloc consists of almost 4 times as many voters as the black voting bloc. And most blacks will not vote for a Republican.

Which is larger? 41% or 11%?

Some of you Obamites love to create strawmen...

[virtualobserver]

95. this isn't about comparison of the size of different voting blocks

this is about a significant number of AA's standing down for the election.

[NJSecularist]

106. No, it is about a comparision of the size of voting blocs.

Stop trying to change the subject.

41% of the vote is larger than 11% of the vote, as much as you Obamabots don't like to hear about it.

Even during Ray Gun's blowout in 1984, blacks voted over 90% for Mondale. Why would that change in 2008? The black vote has been reliably Democratic.

We need to make in-roads in a voting bloc that we have had troubles with over the past few elections, a voting bloc that is significantly larger than our reliably black voting bloc. The candidate to appeal to that voting bloc, the white female voting bloc, is Hillary.

[virtualobserver]

131. I guess we will find out in November.....but only one of our candidates will be tested

So we will never know how the other scenario would have played out.

[Exilednight]

130. Between the female, Latino and Hispanic, and AA voting blocks, which are the most loyal Democrats ..

percentage wise.


Here's a hint - shrubeney won the White House with the help of Hispanics, Latinos and Women.

[NJSecularist]

134. If they are so loyal to our party, then it does not matter who we nominate.

They'll vote in large margins for our candidate regardless of who it is. Which is why we need to work on appealing to Latinos and white females.

Who is the best candidate to appeal to those voting blocks?

Here's a hint - her last name starts with a C.

[Exilednight]

141. But now you threaten to alienate the AA voting block, and I also find your comment ........

"They'll vote in large margins for our candidate regardless of who it is." to be very condescending. After Bill Clinton's remarks in SC, they may not vote for a person with the last name Clinton. It doesn't matter? I'm sure it matters to the AA community. There's a big difference between getting 90% of a few million, and 90% of tens of millions.

[NJSecularist]

150. Nobody is alienating the AA voting block.

Obama has not clinched the nomination. He is not entitled to anything.

[Exilednight]

151. The only chance Hillary has is if the SD's overturn the pledged delegate count. I'm a .....

white male and will feel disenfranchised by my party if such a thing happens. I'm not sure how we put a system in place and then said, "but we will give power to an elite group who can overturn the vote of the people and the pledged delegate system we put in place to represent them.


And spare me a diatribe about popular vote. There is no popular vote to be counted. Caucuses make it impossible to determine who has more overall votes, hence the reason for the delegate system.

[NJSecularist]

152. The only chance that Obama has of winning the nomination...

is if superdelegates overturn the will of 14,000,000 Hillary voters.

[Exilednight]

153. What 14,000,000? There is no popular vote. Hillary is losing the election .........

and needs to win every state by at least 80% to over take Obama in the pledged Delegate count.


There's no way to tell how many people voted for Hillary and how many voted for Obama.

[NJSecularist]

154. Yes there is a way. Just look at the primary vote counts. n/t

[Exilednight]

155. That only shows states that have primaries, not caucuses. n/t

[Exilednight]

85. Only in the primaries. Shrub won the Presidency due to the Latino and Hispanic vote. There's no ..

data showing that that outcome will change. McCain is actually quite popular in the Hispanic and Latino communities.

[IsItJustMe]

120. White women are not loyal to any one party. There in lies your problem. AA are.

[MeDeMax]

37. she does not need any demographic to win in the GE

This primary will decide the next president period.

[Exilednight]

132. I hope McLame loses just as much as the next guy, but I'm not taking anything for granted.....

I heard the same thing in 2004 and look how well that turned out for us.

[Austinitis]

40. She's planning to run against a Republican.

And that means she'll take 90% of the vote. That's all she needs. The backlash talk is bullshit fear-mongering.

[jackson_dem]

59. And a bad precedent and stupid reasoning

If Clinton wins the popular vote does that mean she is 'entitled" to being VP at least, or else women will stay home? Notice how Obamites never argue the other side of this. If you accept their reasoning then Obama-Clinton or vice versa are the only possible tickets.

[Two Americas]

66. hypocritical, too

People are saying "we won't vote for your candidate of she wins the nomination, but you had better commit to voting for our candidate if he wins."

[uponit7771]

52. Instruct the MsM to report that Wright called all black people the n word? jus a shot in the dark

[2rth2pwr]

53. Obama will do what he needs to and will rally the black vote for Hillary.

It took Dean a couple months to get his supporters on board, but Obama can do it.

[virtualobserver]

75. Oh, I see, so he's shit now, but he will be a decent guy after Hillary slimes her way to victory

[2rth2pwr]

135. We will need everybody to pitch in and do their share so we can win.

[bluestateguy]

138. All she gets from me in November is a vote

A mark on the ballot. That't it. No money, and none of my time.

[cliffordu]

54. Get under the bus and beg for them to PLEEEEZE come back??

[Lady-Damai]

57. Maya Angelou will help. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

92. Yeah....like by 2%.

Maya ain't viewed as a progressive in the Black Community; more like old school.

[IsItJustMe]

64. Be quit. Hillary supporters are not in to reality. You will only piss them off and they will call

you a lier anyway.

[SoCalDem]

70. Oh, pshaaw.. don't you know that everyone loves MizzzHillary

they'll all come a-runnin' back to the loving embrace of Mizz Hillary & Massa Bill.....cuz, they don't mean no harm..and they know what's best for "their people".:puke:

exaggerrated, but that's the way the campaign probably thinks..

[VotesForWomen]

74. i'm gonna try this one more time: why are O-ists such selfish, myopic, deluded cultists? nt

[virtualobserver]

77. the real question is...why is hillary selfishly alienating her most loyal defenders

[bluestateguy]

137. I don't know

I stuck my neck out and defended her during the "Whitewater" nonsense, the Travelgate silliness, her comments about a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and the Clinton's alleged "trashing" of the White House. I defended her at many dinner parties and office conversations, often at great risk to my own reputation.

I still think all of those accusations and allegations were total crap, but I do not feel as if the Clintons ever thanked me for defending them. Maybe I should have just kept my mouth shut and let someone else be their water boy.

[jackson_dem]

76. Romney beat McSame 94-3 among Mormons in Utah. Will McSame lose Mormons in the GE?

[ecdab]

81. Did McCain offend the Mormon community?

[Buzz Clik]

94. Those who bother to vote will likely vote for her.

Turnout in critical, pivotal states will be poor.

[sfam]

162. This is the answer to be concerned with...yes, she will win the percentage but...

how many will turn out? That is really the crucial question, not the 90%.

[Yossariant]

103. What states do you think "the black vote" is going to cause the Dems to LOSE

when Hillary Clinton is the nominee?

Your question doesn't get answered because it's nonsense.

The states with the highest percentages of black voters are going to the GOP in the general election -- no matter who the Democrats nominate.

[jackson_dem]

108. Well, we will win Utah because McCain lost Mormons 3-94 against a Mormon candidate

So they will be voting against McCain in November! UTAH FLIPS! :woohoo:

[bluestateguy]

128. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio

Winning those states depends on a high black turnout in Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

I never made any reference to that states with the highest percentages of black voters (Mississippi, Georgia and SC). You are putting words in my mouth.

[Yossariant]

148. Your opinion notwithstanding, she polls better in Pa than Obama against McCain.

Obama by 4 in PA, Clinton by 9. (21 electoral votes)

Ohio?! PUHLEEZ!

Clinton by 10 over McCain, Obama down by 1. (20 electoral votes)

Michigan has Obama up by 2, Clinton down by 9. (17 electoral votes)

Wisconsin has Clinton down by 6, Obama up by 4. (10 electoral votes)

[wileedog]

164. Polls 7 months before an election are uttlery meaningless

Why are we basing our system of democratic governance on them?