I'm writing two back-to-back posts today, so make sure you catch the other one.
As those of you who care about politics enough to read what I think probably know, Clinton won Indiana 51-49: far from the strong victory she really needed. But something caught my attention early on, and that was a brief conversation about "The Limbaugh Effect." This is the splash created by Rush Limbaugh's call for Republicans to vote for Clinton in order to sow chaos in the Democratic party (no guarantees that link works). CNN reported that in Indiana, voters identifying themselves as Republican went to Clinton 54-46.
This was just too good to let go, so I spent a small chunk of my afternoon - a chunk that should have been spent polishing my résumé - checking statistics and crunching numbers to disregard Republican votes for both Clinton and Obama. The final tally? Clinton 50.37%, Obama 49.63%. That rounds to 50-50. I am delighted to report that Clinton's margin would have been even more embarrassingly slim if it hadn't been for the Republicans.
Also, a word to the wise: do not leave yourself logged in to Blogger if I will be using the computer. This might happen. (Check it out now before he notices!)
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Indiana counts; Blacks do not
Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for barely winning the state that is home to the Ku Klux Klan.
Was that an unfair shot? Sorry, I'm in a really good mood.
I'll leave the political spin to other people this time. There's plenty of it out there, and I have to say it looks pretty good for Obama. I would like to address something that isn't getting any coverage at all, though it should: the blatant racism of the Democratic party.
It was no big surprise when CNN called North Carolina for Barack Obama the moment the polls closed (thus legally permitting them to talk about their exit polls). What really got to me came moments later, as they started to examine the vote breakdown by race. Hillary Clinton won 61% of the White vote, leaving Obama with 37%. By contrast, Obama won 91% of the Black vote, with Clinton picking up just 7%. The pundits tipped the hat to Obama for not performing too abysmally with White voters, and then immediately moved to discussing the obvious problem here. Can you guess what the problem was? Obama isn't winning enough Whites.
Let's look at this again. Obama wins 37% of White voters. Clinton wins 7% of Black voters. Who has the bigger problem with appealing to a demographic here? Clinton always talks about how she's winning in groups that the Democrats need (never mind that come November, those blue-collar working class white guys will be voting for McCain). Guess what? The Democrats can't win in November without the Black vote.
Now you can brush off the problem as saying Obama gets so many Black voters because he's Black. Okay, maybe he does. Why, then, is a White person like Clinton failing to win her own race as overwhelmingly? Are White people less racist or something?
Alternatively, you can say what's really being implied by all this conversation - or lack thereof - and that is that we all know the Blacks will vote for the Democrat in November anyway. So much for Democrats not taking their vote for granted. And they shouldn't: the ONLY way Clinton can get the nomination is if the Superdelegates swing strongly to her, taking the nomination away from Obama, who will have more pledged delegates and, probably, a higher popular vote total. If that happens, I can guarantee you Black voters aren't going to be tripping over themselves to support her in the Fall.
Was that an unfair shot? Sorry, I'm in a really good mood.
I'll leave the political spin to other people this time. There's plenty of it out there, and I have to say it looks pretty good for Obama. I would like to address something that isn't getting any coverage at all, though it should: the blatant racism of the Democratic party.
It was no big surprise when CNN called North Carolina for Barack Obama the moment the polls closed (thus legally permitting them to talk about their exit polls). What really got to me came moments later, as they started to examine the vote breakdown by race. Hillary Clinton won 61% of the White vote, leaving Obama with 37%. By contrast, Obama won 91% of the Black vote, with Clinton picking up just 7%. The pundits tipped the hat to Obama for not performing too abysmally with White voters, and then immediately moved to discussing the obvious problem here. Can you guess what the problem was? Obama isn't winning enough Whites.
Let's look at this again. Obama wins 37% of White voters. Clinton wins 7% of Black voters. Who has the bigger problem with appealing to a demographic here? Clinton always talks about how she's winning in groups that the Democrats need (never mind that come November, those blue-collar working class white guys will be voting for McCain). Guess what? The Democrats can't win in November without the Black vote.
Now you can brush off the problem as saying Obama gets so many Black voters because he's Black. Okay, maybe he does. Why, then, is a White person like Clinton failing to win her own race as overwhelmingly? Are White people less racist or something?
Alternatively, you can say what's really being implied by all this conversation - or lack thereof - and that is that we all know the Blacks will vote for the Democrat in November anyway. So much for Democrats not taking their vote for granted. And they shouldn't: the ONLY way Clinton can get the nomination is if the Superdelegates swing strongly to her, taking the nomination away from Obama, who will have more pledged delegates and, probably, a higher popular vote total. If that happens, I can guarantee you Black voters aren't going to be tripping over themselves to support her in the Fall.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
My theory about Obama
I think Obama means it when he talks about being angry with Rev. Wright, or when he calls him divisive. But I think he agrees with a lot of what he says. This guy is a super-liberal trying to pass himself off as moderate enough to get into the White House. No political middler is going to hang around listening to liberation theology for twenty years.
I hope he pulls it off.
And you know what? I agree with a lot of what Rev. Wright says. What's his most controversial stuff? Let's take a look.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards."
He's not wrong, boys and girls. We are hypocrites, perhaps not for being outraged at the attacks on our country, but for not being outraged by the atrocities we commit against others. By the way, did you know the United States prosecuted a Japanese officer for water-boarding U.S. prisoners of war?
As long as I'm saying controversial things, here's a comment for my old high school: Having an armed police officer in the building is not only creepily indicative of a police state, it also statistically increases the chances of a student being shot.
You may be all cozy with it now, but take it from someone living in Mexico: the next step is having to walk past cops carrying M-4 assault rifles every day, and that does not make you feel safe.
I hope he pulls it off.
And you know what? I agree with a lot of what Rev. Wright says. What's his most controversial stuff? Let's take a look.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards."
He's not wrong, boys and girls. We are hypocrites, perhaps not for being outraged at the attacks on our country, but for not being outraged by the atrocities we commit against others. By the way, did you know the United States prosecuted a Japanese officer for water-boarding U.S. prisoners of war?
As long as I'm saying controversial things, here's a comment for my old high school: Having an armed police officer in the building is not only creepily indicative of a police state, it also statistically increases the chances of a student being shot.
You may be all cozy with it now, but take it from someone living in Mexico: the next step is having to walk past cops carrying M-4 assault rifles every day, and that does not make you feel safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)