« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
How was Hillary supposed to win Missippi
It was hillarious to see the networks putting off calling MS for Obama. Was there a snowball of chance that Hillary would have won?
Let's do the math: more than 90% of black were voting for Obama. They accounted for ~50% of the total turnout. That gave Mr. Savior 50%*90% or 45% of votes already. He needed only get 5% from the rest of the voting population to win. Any sane perosn in this world would doubt Obama could get 10% of non-black votes?
with 90% of black votes, Obama needs only 30% of the rest votes to get 90%*50%+30%*50%=60%. Bingo, here is his 20% margin. He needs only 30% of non-black vote to round up a 20% margin in MS? How extremely difficult was that?
Here comes the observation by Ferraro. She said Obama was lucky because he was black and the nation happens catching up with the sensation of voting for an anti-war black candidate. She never said Obama was not good. She also never said that Obama had an easy time coming up as a black man. She just said in this presidential compaign, he's lucky because as a black anti-war candiate, he is able to put together a very odd alliance of rich anti-war liberal elitists who do not have to worry about making a living and the black community. There is nothing sinister aobut either her comment or Obama's abilty to put together such an alliance. Some one is lucky does not mean someone is not good. You have to be good to take advantage of your luck. Pure and simple. A lot of people in the world may well be smarter than bill gates but he was lucky enough to become what he is today. No one would say he is not good. Can anyone deny he is lucky as well?
What is sinister is for Obama to over use his blackness, to play race card whenever someone questions his qualification or his experience!
By the way, it really bothers me for people to call those low-income white people who voted for Clinton in OH as racists. Why do you call black people voting for black as racial pride but white for white as racial bigotry? I know a lot of you would argue that since all presidents before are white, for the black to vote for a black as the first should be construed as racial pride. Then when it will become racism in your opinion? next time, the time after, or after?
Comments (22)
The criterion for making the call is sample size from enough precincts. Serious observers never doubted the eventual outcome.
March 13, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"She just said in this presidential compaign, he's lucky because as a black anti-war candiate, he is able to put together a very odd alliance of rich anti-war liberal elitists who do not have to worry about making a living and the black community."
Ah, how does "luck" play into crafting a well orchestrated campaign, speaking in a resonating manner and having the good sense and judgement to oppose a war that so obviously should never have been fought?
As for the "odd alliance" of "anti-war" liberal "elitists" and the African American community, well its called the Democratic Party, the alliance of liberal college graduates and African Americans (who by the way are liberal college grads as well) which have been the mainstay of the Democratic Party for more than 60 years.
Oh, and by the way, you mischaracterized Ms. Ferraro's comments in both tone and substance.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
March 13, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you show me where Obama has "over use[d] his blackness"?
And as far your 'racist voting' theory, in OH, it doesn't hold. 80% of people who said that race was a factor in their decision voted for Clinton.
March 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You conviniently ignored the exit poll finding in MS that race as a deciding factor gets people to vote for Obama.
March 13, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I repeat myself:
Can you show me where Obama has "over use[d] his blackness"?
Or you can just say, "No, I can't...pulled that one out of my ass."
March 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey, your continued support of Ferraro's comments are as shameful as the online Obama camp's continued push of the idea that Hillary's campaign is intentionally race-baiting.
Please stop shaming rational Clinton supporters like me by posting this junk.
March 13, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read my post carefully and then draw your conclusion. Her comment has been taken as saying black men generally are luckier than others. That's simply not true. She was simply commenting on this race. Do you seriously believe on policy ground alone, the African Americans would be voting 90/10 for Obama/Clinton?
March 13, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read carefully, I know exactly what she said:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
You are defending the indefensible. Please drop it. It is an absurd argument, and as many people have pointed out, Hillary also enjoys a healthy lead with women voters. The truth is, a lot of people look at our two candidates and like them immensely, and great for women and african americans for having someone to vote for with a little extra pride.
March 13, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, ok. Hillary, and the media that is perpetuating her campaign, keep saying that Obama needs to beat her in states where she holds an innate advantage, like OH and PA, to knock her out of the race. But, since HE is the leader in this race, I think the story should be that she needs to concede unless she can beat him in states where he holds a natural advantage, like MS and NC. If she can't do that, she should bow out. Once again, she failed to compete on Tuesday....and the spread was only as close as it was because of the Rush Repubs supporting her. Otherwise he would have taken a larger portion of MS white voters.
Anyway, those of you who keep declaring that Ferraro was right, how do you explain his ability to win the whitest states: WI, WY, WA, CT, MN, KS, NE, IA? Please stop defending these racist comments. It lowers the level of dialogue.
March 13, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sean Penn look alike, you are not reading. Obama's success is based on an odd alliance of AAs and anti-war liberal elitists who happen to be the party activists. Those people do not have to worry about making a living and are more likely to show up for caucuses. Obama is both lucky and good to be in his position today. You don't get it?
March 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And who, exactly, are these "those people" who "don't have to worry about making a living" and, why, exactly, is it they don't have such worries? Do be specific.
March 13, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey, in WI Obama won working class whites as well as just about every other demographic. Just because you can't understand his candidacy doesn't mean you should try to marginalize it by assuming it is only liberal elites and African Americans that support him. Also, are you saying that African Americans don't have to work for a living so they are free to caucus? Think before you speak.
And stop perpetuating that racist bs that obama is lucky to be where he is. You are putting yourself on the wrong side of history....for shame.
March 13, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for confirming what many across the land already suspect: that Hillary Clinton and a substantial number of her supporters openly promote race hatred and prejudice in a vain attempt to accomplish their aims. The Clinton campaign has become mired in bigotry and antipathy and all those who participate in it should be ashamed.
March 13, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can people act as if there is no history to racism? It's some kind of merely non-PC talk?
Here's why it's OK for blacks to vote for blacks on that reason alone---a couple hundred years of being treated like animals.
Here's why it's not OK to do the supposed equivalent, whites voting for whites on racial grounds---whites are not a minority, were not slaves, were not disenfranchised. Get it yet?
And we're not piling on because you're white. If you don't get yet, I can't explain.
March 13, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
With your comments, I shall digress!
March 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
To add to Tom Wright's comments:
Remember back two months (its so difficult to expand past that 1-week memory, I know!). Wasn't everyone asking, "Is Obama black enough?" Why were they asking that? Because he wasn't getting a large proportion of the black vote. Who were blacks leaning toward? Hillary Clinton.
Why are blacks not voting for Hillary now?
1) Obama showed himself to be an electable candidate that brings solid reasoning and diversity to his table.
2) Clintons continue to race-bait the election. If they can make it into a sexists vs. racists campaign, they figure they can win since women make up ~51% of the population, and blacks only make up ~15%. This race-baiting, understandably, reduces her support among blacks and increases the proportion of support for Obama (a fact she can then point to to continue the race-baiting platform).
If you disagree about the sexist part, just look back at all of the whining that Hillary has done, how many times she's injected sexism and misogyny into the campaign rhetoric, and at infamous Ferraro's comments.
If you don't like sexism and racism being injected into the race, stop voting for Hillary. As soon as she's gone, it will stop happening.
March 13, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO Ferraro is jealous of Obama's success and this manifest itself in her obvious bitterness. At one time she had her "Obama 2004" moment and was hailed as a rising star in the Democratic party. In her case she ended up being on the losing end of one of the worst defeats in presidential election history. After that she lost the NY Democratic primary for the Senate in 1992 to Robert Abrams. It was a real squeaker - she lost by about 11,000 votes out of about 1 million cast. In that election Al Sharpton ran and got about 14% of the vote. Maybe this is the source of her anti-Black bias. Maybe she thinks that but for Sharpton she would have won that election.
The bottom line is that Ferraro managed to convert her start power into a series of crushing defeats. Obama has converted his into a presidential run that has been wildly successful considering he is up against a well funded candidate that is a household name.
March 13, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey May wrote:
"Obama's success is based on an odd alliance of AAs and anti-war liberal elitists who happen to be the party activists. Those people do not have to worry about making a living and are more likely to show up for caucuses."
"Those people"?? So African Americans don't have to worry about making a living? And I hate to tell you but 70% of the country is anti-war at this point--not some tiny group of rich Bolsheviks as you imply. I know a lot of Obama supporters, of all colors, race, and ethnicity, and all of them work for a living, and worry about that, as well as the state of our nation.
Why do I suspect that the real grievance is that the groups you name are the very ones the Clinton campaign assumed would have nowhere else to go and would be supporting her?
March 13, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing my point. I was saying Obama was supported by the AAs and people who do not have to worry about making a living. I'm not saying the AAs do not need to worry. In fact, I know they are having a very hard time and that is why it was called an odd alliance. You go tit now?
March 13, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey,
First, I agree with your point that it is very wrong to suggest that white voters in Ohio chose Senator Clinton simply because they were racist. To categorize all white voters like that would in itself be a racist statement! I am certain that some cast votes for Senator Clinton because they truly think she is the better candidate.
Similarly, I would not suggest that all black voters cast ballots for Senator Obama just because he is black. Again, the categorization of all black people would be equally racist, and I am certain that some cast votes for him because they truly think he is the better candidate.
However, it is incorrect to think Ferraro's comments were innocuous.
"She just said in this presidential compaign, he's lucky..."
It is true that she implied there are lucky advantages for him because of his race. However, this is not "just" all she said.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position..."
Here, Ferraro is saying the *only* reason people are voting for him is because he is black. Her claim is equally racist in content to the claim that white voters in OH chose Senator Clinton just because of race.
March 13, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may not sound good to you but I will give it a try. If he were white, do you seriously think he would be running for President with two years of Senatorial experience under his belly? When he jumped into the race, he had made the correct assumption that he would have the majority support of AAs and his anti-war speech will get him a long way with anit-war liberal elitists. He's very good for making these assumptions. Honestly, were he not black, it would be highly, just highly unlikely, he would be receiving this kind of support for the black community. I'm not blaming the black community or Obama for being black. This is the simple fact.
I know her comments could be easily be interpreted as Obama is no good. He's here because he's black. Her points could also be construed as he's very good and his blackness helps out a lot as well. Why being lucky has to imply not being good?
March 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not immediately disagree with any of your points in the first paragraph. Specifically:
>> If he were white, do you seriously think he would be running for President with two years of Senatorial experience under his belly?
I don't know. It has been done before by white men, though.
>> When he jumped into the race, he had made the correct assumption that he would have the majority support of AAs and his anti-war speech will get him a long way with anit-war liberal elitists.
Again, I don't know. I am not so naive to believe that such thoughts do not cross a politician's mind, but I can not guess what he was thinking.
Please note, though: If anti-war voters are elitists, it would mean that something like 70% of Americans are elitist! :) I certainly know that I for one am just a regularly working joe, and I very much opposed invading Iraq.
>> Honestly, were he not black, it would be highly, just highly unlikely, he would be receiving this kind of support for the black community.
True, but only halfway... Bill Clinton's support among the AA community was comparable, and despite claims to the contrary, B.C. was not black! :D So I would not say it is *highly* unlikely.
However, when looked at the other way - does the AA community tend to support him (instead of other candidates) because he is black and they are not, I would concede that argument.
Now, to address your second paragraph. I can only reiterate what I have already said. To me, it is plain, simple evidence.
Here is Ferraro's whole quote on this particular topic. I have e-mailed her to confirm its accuracy (but alas no reply):
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Where in this statement does she possibly indicate Senator Obama is good?
And you're right, being lucky does not necessarily imply not being good. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," directly implies he is not good.
You seem like an extremely logical person, and I just don't see anyway such a person can cogitate the statement isn't racist. It may be difficult to *accept* because Ferraro is a Clinton supporter. But it is somewhat a moot issue now anyway because Senator Clinton FINALLY rebuked her. For the record, though, this does not mean Senator Clinton can allow her to continue making such racist remarks. If Senator Clinton truly wants to represent the ideals of the Democratic party, she must continue to rebuke Ferraro every time she puts forward her racist remarks. If Senator Clinton does so, then I can say I would be able to vote for her should she win the nomination. However, I morally can not support a supposedly Democratic candidate who ignores racist behavior of her supporters.
March 13, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment