2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

57% of 20% is 11.5%, i.e. 11.5 of Hillary's 54 voted on the basis of race (15 if you use the AP numbers), which is well outside the margins of error and victory both.

lol waht?

Readers have been asking about why the Texas caucus results from last night have been so slow coming in. As of this moment, only 39 percent of the caucus precincts are reporting.

Eric Kleefeld called down to Texas, and the Democratic Party tells him, in so many words, that the caucus reporting was voluntary.

Precincts were not required to report results to the state party, but they set up a voluntary reporting system so that the media would have results to report. Nice of them, no?

In their defense, Texas Dems didn't go the route of the Washington State GOP and make a wild-assed election night pronouncement of a winner based on incomplete returns. But at least in Washington State, they promised a final count, and as far as we know, they got one, eventually, one way or another.

But in Texas?

We're told not to expect too much more in the way of caucus returns. Sort of makes sense. If you were going to comply with the "voluntary program," you probably would have done so by now.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181717.php

Actually based on the MSNBC poll, racists were only negligibly more likely to prefer Hillary than the average voter:

Amnong all Ohio voters she beat Obama 54-44.

Among those who said race was "important" in that exit poll, she beat him 57-43.

That's only a net swing of 3 points - which I'm sure is well within the margin of error of that poll.

-- o. nate, Wednesday, 5 March 2008 23:09 (3 minutes ago) Link

Except the "average" voter pool includes the subset of "racist" voters (I don't endorse that word here, BTW), so that skews the comparison you're trying to make.

Actually based on the MSNBC poll, admitted racists were only negligibly more likely to prefer Hillary than the average voter

per the CNN exit poll, about 7% voted for obama because gender was important.

14% were 65 and older. 20% were white and over 60.

interestingly, Clinton basically tied among OH indies (winning white indies) and repubs, unlike many previous states.

Haven't posted to ILX in a while but having been lurking on this thread in particular.

I think it's naive to dismiss race as a factor in Obama's white vote (or lack thereof) in some places but I don't think it's just a Southern issue (for the record: I'm a white Southerner and strong Obama supporter).

It's interesting that Obama seems to be doing best either in states with a large black vote in the democratic primary (where he wins so overwhelmingly that he only needs 25% or so of the white vote to win overall) OR in relatively racially homogenous states with a very small black population (Idaho? Nebraska? even Minnesota).

What this says to me is that it's easier for white voters, in mass, to support a black candidate in states with very small black populations, not because white voters in these places are less "racist" (a loaded word best avoided in most circumstances) but because their political thinking is less rooted in reacting to race or race-based identity politics.

In other words, white voters in more diverse areas are more likely to feel threatened by a black politician (or, more to the point, that politician's perceived constituency) or uncomfortably implicated in the effects of racial discrimination that politician makes people confront than white voters in heavily white areas.

The idea that only "racist" or Republican white voters are affected by race (if even unconsciously) is wishful/simplistic. As is the notion that this is only a Southern dynamic.

My two cents

-- Hubie Brown, Sunday, February 10, 2008 6:48 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark

I think this argument about the statistics is getting off track. If you take the exit poll result as your given and use that to adjust the vote count, then you'll come to one conclusion. If you take the vote result as your given, and use that to estimate the statistical significance of the exit poll result (taking sample size into account), you'll get a different conclusion.

In any case, I think the real reason the exit poll's disturbing to people is not so much the margin. Which is the more disturbing statistic: the 20% of those polled who said race was a factor, or the 57% of that subset who voted for the white candidate? I would guess it's the second subset that bothers people more than the first. It's hard to believe, with something like 90% of African-Americans voting for Obama, that race was not a factor in at least some of that support. However, if you voted for the black candidate, no one is going to get too upset if you admit that race was a factor in your decision. But if you voted for the white candidate and say race was a factor, you will probably be labeled a racist. There are some historical reasons for this, not all of which are bad. But there's a fundamental psychological asymmetry in how these results are interpreted, which goes beyond quantitative considerations of statistical significance. None of which is to say that racism isn't a very real and troubling psychological force, or that it doesn't affect the election in potentially unfair and destructive ways - but I do feel that these exit polls are a rather blunt instrument with which to measure it.

xposts to jhoshea

each precinct was given a folder with voter sign-in sheets and materials to conduct the caucuses. among them was a sheet with a 1-800 number to send the figures from your precinct in after they had been decided.

the sign-in sheets are due within 72 hours of the caucus' close (friday) so that counties can verify that all the voters were primary voters (had to vote in the primary to caucus).

official numbers won't really be determined until the summer anyway as there are a couple more rounds of this shit before it's officially determined who gets what delegates from the caucuses.

remember, democracy is perception.

Can't we PLEASE lock this thread till Pennsylvania?

I believe it is said that memories are lost in reverse order.

The subtitle of this thread is looking bitterly ironic now.

what it do hubie? you're def doing work right now on this suns-nuggs game right now

Wait, so caucus != primary? Obama won the Texas Caucus and lost the Texas Primary, apparently, so I guess they're not the same thing :-/ (I R 1 stupid european thought he knew what was going on but is now totally stumped again)

well tx does it all fucked, you had it right to begin with but we went and confused everyone.

Bugger me, I am going to the RNC in september.

uh, why??

Install and support the prompting system.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/ drums fingers together sinisterly

Ah well, at least you'll know where to go when you're not working. STATE FAIR.

Clinton gameplan

HRC'S GAMEPLAN IS FOOLPROOF.

Actually, it's pretty damn rational. Win most of what's left, close the pledged delegate gap to a small margin, win the "big states," take the shine off Obama, and charge into the convention with a message for the super-delegates about perseverance and loyalty and toughness.

Yeah but there's no way for her to win w/o using superdelegates to undermine a popular vote / delegate count Obama lead. That's a reprehensible 'victory' in my view... and probably the GE voters who, you know, have a deep appreciation for the most basic definition of 'democracy'.

lol i was with you til the last part

haha fair enough. I think the Clinton camp is underestimating the amount of blowback that these backroom deals will generate in the modern media landscape.

Is there anyway to spin that other than Obama voters were cheated?

If she can get a majority of the popular vote it's not that hard to spin.

yeah plus if shes close enough and something happens and obama bombs in some way, shes there to pick up the pieces

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2308/2314168404_b0d9e2cdb9_o.jpg

lol

yeah plus if shes close enough and something happens and obama bombs in some way, shes there to pick up the pieces

I don't think her strategy is to hope for Obama to bomb and then to pick up the pieces. I think her strategy is to bomb Obama to pieces.

Obama doesn't have to have some spectacular crash for Clinton to get the nomination. She has keep beating him, but the margins don't have to be great. If she can front up to the convention saying the momentum is definitively with her, and has been for months, then I don't think Obama's slim lead in pledged delegates will make a difference as to which way the superdelegates swing. I mean, what is even the point of superdelegates if their voting criteria is solely the popular vote?

Margins do have to be great.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

I wouldn't lol much at the idea that the Democratic party wouldn't want a nominee who wins through superdelegates. As with so much with HRC's campaign, just because Bush got away with it doesn't mean she can too.

but once its popular vote vs. pledged delegates 'the will of the people' is up in the air

another denial about obama's rumored bank of 50 superdelegates:

obama spokesperson Bill Burton: This is just a rumor. There is no secret stash of superdelegates that we are sitting on waiting to roll out.

:(

well it wouldnt be a secret...

hey can we knock it off with this idea that the press is easy on obama? considering the nafta flap was cooked up by canadian right wingers and was initially floated about hillary, but that didn't stick well enough apparently (you can fault obama for not defusing the former well enough, but it was manufactured from the outset.) oh and the farrakhan business, for which we can thank one tim russert -- in the context of giving mccain a complete pass on his nutcase racist pastor.

er some odd syntax due to editing there: "you can fault obama for not defusing IT well enough"

Clinton Camp: Obama Attacks Suggest Campaign is “Unable to Make the Positive Case”

Getty

Senior adviser Ann Lewis scolds Obama on media conference call for stepping up attacks against Clinton after Tuesday’s votes, says instead he should talk about his “positive ideas” on the issues.

“I did not realize that their version of new politics is to recycle some of the same old Republican attacks on Hillary that have failed for years.”

Howard Wolfson says he doesn’t “believe imitating Ken Starr” is a way to run a nomination campaign. Permalink

YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO BUY THIS SHIT

something happened in NYC today that will only help McCain in the GE:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/06/times.square/index.html

hey can we knock it off with this idea that the press is easy on obama?

yea. i think whatever "free pass" or favoritism the press presumably gave obama before no longer stands.

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO BUY THIS SHIT

EVERYWHERE. They are the kind of people who elected GWB twice.

its just such a transparent attempt to reframe an apple as an orange

and thats not even touching on the hypocrisy of it

Again, she's using Rove's strategies -- audaciously blame the other guy for doing what you're doing.