Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Exit Polls Show Hillary's voters are racist and ignorant.
The exit poll numbers out of west virginia are quite distressing.
Its been long suspected, but now we have proof in the numbers.
Even though Obama publicly and strongly repudiated Jeremiah Wright and his comments, 5 in 10 West Virginia voters think Obama shares his views. I guess, probably, because they're both black, West Virginian voters think they think the same thoughts. What other explanation could there be? He not only repudiated his comments publicly and forcefully, but he also had to disown the man publicly and forcefully, so you can see how people would think they share the same views.
Seven in ten Hillary Clinton voters were in favor of the much ridiculed "gas tax holiday" showing that, while the voters in Indiana were too smart to fall for that pander, the voters in West Virginia were not.
One in four (thats a whopping 25%!) of Hillary voters said race played an important factor in their vote. And that doesn't include the people who lied about it to the pollsters.
And the clincher:
Barely a third of Clinton supporters say they'd vote for Obama over John McCain in a November matchup. I'm jumping to a conclusion here, but it seems to me the only explanation is that the voters won't vote for a black guy. I mean, really, the only thing John McCain and Hillary Clinton have in common is there color, yet more than 2/3rds of hillary's voters will vote McCain over Obama.
I wish the exit polls would ask the question: Would you vote for a black person? Because that question would take all the ambiguity out of the "analysis" and we would know once and for all that the only people supporting hillary are the uneducated, ignorant hicks who don't like black people.
Comments (71)
and if the exits weren't enough there's this guy
and this lady:
"I am definitely going to try to go with Hillary," she said. "I almost feel like (Obama's) the anti-Christ from the Middle East."
May 13, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
These kind of posts are making me sick to my stomach.
I think you may be an Obama supporter???
I just think repeating the crap the MSM is laying out there is repeating the story line & keeping it alive.
We have to remember West Virginia went largely UN-CONTESTED by Obama. Eveywhere he's campaigned he's picked up support. He pretty much conceded the race. Why should it surprise anyone that he got tropunced??? Hillary campaigned her ass off there over the last week & Bill did too. If I lived in the State I might take offense to Obama's lack of concern for my vote. I'm not saying race might not have played a major role. I'm saying there are other factors to consider as well & those are the ones we may be able to affect.
As for race that's something that we've seen major progress on & I believe once Obama proves himself it will turn...
May 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even though Obama publicly and strongly repudiated Jeremiah Wright and his comments, 5 in 10 West Virginia voters think Obama shares his views. I guess, probably, because they're both black, West Virginian voters think they think the same thoughts.
Racist and ignorant, huh? It couldn't be because Obama sat in the pews for a couple of decades? Prayed with Wright before announcing his candidacy for prez? We could go on but...why would we?
Wright means nothing to me. I don't even think he should be an issue. But then, I'm one of those crazy people who saw no problem with the factual statements that JJ won SC in 84 & 88 and that LBJ pushed the civil rights bill through Congress.
Quit holding back. Just say it. 'Anybody that doesn't support Obama is a racist.'
May 13, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
not anybody.
but certainly there seem to be quite a number of hillary clinton supporters for whom that statement is accurate.
how else do you explain 66% of DEMOCRATIC voters would pick the republican over the black democrat?
anyway...this was meant to be a venting of my frustrations. nothing more.
May 13, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you explain 90%+ of blacks voting for Obama?
May 13, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhh... maybe they like him?
What freaktown is asking is "why would people who support Hillary vote for McCain in the general"?
Hillary is closer to Obama on most issues than McCain.
I think the answer is likely that many WV primary voters are somewhere between Hillary and McCain politically.* And no you can't discount racism on the part of at least 25% of the people either.
*This ought to be a pretty good clue to any Liberal that Hillary is not their candidate.
May 13, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, moron, as the dude who married lil Jenna pointed out, he was a member of the church for 20 years. He wasn't in the pews for 20. He went to law school for 3, was in Washington for a couple, and was pretty damn busy a lot of the rest of the time too.
May 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe because Obama doesn't even speak to them or their concerns. He stops in their state for a couple of hours and goes on his merry way because who cares about those people of WV - he's going to lose anyway!
His own campaign person David Axelrod said : "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes." The first part is a lie. Bill Clinton did well with working class white voters and won them including in WV. But he is just dismissing them because they don't matter see! Obama will just jack up the african american and liberal elite turnout and all will be good. His coalition is different and does not include these voters apparently.
WV is full of swing voters - democrats on economic issues; conservative on military & foreign affairs. Obama is not speaking to them economically. McCain speaks to them with military strength and experience. Is it any wonder they will not vote for Obama?
May 14, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. You're a racist.
May 13, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concerning your distress (which I share) over the fact that 1 in 4 Hillary voters said race factored into their decision, I would add that 1 in 5 of Obama's supporters said gender played a role in their decision. That's not good, either.
May 13, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anybody given any thought to this constant line of racist talk only reinforces the argument that Obama has an electability problem. Ok so the people of WV are behind the curve, give it rest.
May 13, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh thou race card that you playith
May 13, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is that "playing" the race card. Why is it illegitimate to bring up the racist anti-black vote in WV.
And before you ask, the 90% vote for Obama isn't anti-white. It's just euphoria about having the chance to vote for a viable black candidate (check out the 2004 SC primary results).
May 13, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A loud whoop rose from the crowd when it was reported that Clinton won among the uneducated.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Uncolleged_and_proud_of_it.html
May 13, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you feel superior to the racist, gas-tax holiday loving rubes out there in West Virginia. Ask yourself whether your attitude will help bring the country together and heal our racial divisions. Maybe you could learn something from Mr. Obama.
May 14, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
to adapt the phrase regarding Muslims:
Not all Hillary supporters are white racists, but virtually all (democrat) white racists are Hillary supporters.
May 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well played!
May 14, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am black and not a racist. i will vote for mccain over OBAMA. i like hilliary and i like mccain. a predominantly democratic congress and senate will keep mccain on a short leash so i am not really worried. mccain won't be able to do anything stupid as we will have the democratic votes to stop him. i have also always been a strong believer in divided government. that is how you maintain the middle ground. up until 3 years ago i could have easily voted for mccain without any question as well as any other moderate democrat.
for folks here to say if we choose not to vote for OBAMA and select mccain that we are racist is just wrong, racist in itself arrogant. as i have said on many occasions it is the OBAMA camp that has played the race card harder and more often then the clinton camp. again, this post is another flaming example of how often you folks turn to crying "racism" to influence this election.
by the way, all african americans are not necessarilly racist for supporting barack in the strong numbers we have seen. they are just expressing pride in one of their own. it is not as if we have had an opportunity to support an african american that really had a chance to win before. i have the luxery of supporting woman who i happen to feel is better for the country and more experienced as well as will actually win. it's the OBAMA camp who keeps stocking racism by saying blacks will be lost to the democratic party or riot in the streets if OBAMA does not win.
those here who keep beating the racist drum need to honestly look within yourselves for a deeper answer to your motives/intentions.
May 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really need to stop conflating a candidate's "camp" with random internet blog commenters, or media talking heads.
May 14, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Obamans, Michelle is right on this one. For every person you find in West Virginia that you consider stupid and rednecked because they did not vote for your guy, I can find one I can consider equally stupid in another part of the country because they did vote for Obama.
To his credit, Obama has not played the race card as much as his supporters -- particularly the lovebirds in the media -- have.
West Virginia is merely a snapshot of one part of the country -- nothing more, nothing less. For people like Josh and Keith Olbermann to simply brush it off and ignore it is a major mistake -- the kind that cost elections.
I am a Clinton supporter who thinks Obama will get the nomination. When he does so, he will need to reach out to us and tell why we need to get in line. What we do not need to hear is people like jsfox telling us who is behind the curve and who isn't. I expect that out of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I don't expect that out of rational human beings.
May 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My only question on all this is - does any poll ever ask whether these working-class white voters would ever consider voting for Obama if Hillary were VP candidate? I'm thinking no, and it would be nice if some poll data came out supporting this, to start letting the 55% dream-ticket supporters down easy.
May 14, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>>>My only question on all this is - does any poll ever ask whether these working-class white voters would ever consider voting for Obama if Hillary were VP candidate? I'm thinking no, and it would be nice if some poll data came out supporting this, to start letting the 55% dream-ticket supporters down easy.
The fact such a large number of them admit admit they would rather vote for McCain than Obama, when Obama has nearly an identical platform to Hillary, indicates that the Hillary voters were voting more anti-Obama than pro-Hillary.
Not only would they not be more likely to vote for a Obama/Hillary Ticket, my money is on they would likely be less likely to vote for Obama with a woman running for VP.
May 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
WV the home of the un-educated pawns of the Republican party who still don't have enough sense to vote for their own self-interest and to vote their dumb way out of ignorance and poverty. Oh, I forgot those people haven't learned to read, go on line or have the money to purchase televisions---that is the kind of Republican that will stay loyal to the party.
May 14, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a bunch of crap on this thread. WV is 3 to 4% Black population. Knowhere else did she win so convincingly and you have people only wanting to diagram how that affects Obama in the negative. How bout examing all effects of what that means and yes some of them are something is wrong with those people. Totaly fair to argue that!
May 14, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I laugh every time I see the title of your post. Haven't read it, but thanks for the laughs. By the way, saying that a group of people acts or thinks a certain way is known as prejudice.
May 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until they tell you that they're acting that way. Then it's postjudice.
May 14, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am guessing that Michelle (above) will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, because she wants Hillary to have a chance again in 2012.
The idea that McCain can't "do anything stupid" is absurd. He will get some of his judges confirmed. And not just on the Supreme Court, but on the lower Federal court benches as well.
If you are pro-life and think this isn't a problem for you, be aware that much more is at stake than Roe v. Wade. Bush has already gone a long way in weakening the legal protections of Americans. In order to pacify his base, McCain will do the same.
Republicans say they are against "frivolous law suits." No, they aren't. Most frivolous lawsuits are thrown out of court. The Republicans fear valid lawsuits with large payouts against companies who support their reelection. If your surgeon removes the wrong kidney, the Republicans want you to suck it up--if you sue, they say, it will make healthcare more expensive.
If the people of West Virginia choose to support McCain, then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. No more griping about losing their homes, jobs, healthcare, and chance of a better life. Maybe it's worth it. At least we won't have an elite, highly educated, arugula-eating half-black man in the White House.
May 14, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polls show that the racists vote for Senator Clinton, not that Hillary supporters are racists. It's an important distinction, since not all Hillary supporters are racists.
May 14, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having trashed Hillary as a vile, racist witch (and worse—far worse) for the better part of a year and snarlingly dismissed myself and other Hillary supporters as racist, white-trash goons, how do you propose to convince us to vote for BO? Or do you believe, as does the essentially unemployable Ms. Brazile, that you can win without Catholics, blue collar whites and Latinos? And please, please, please in your response, don’t hesitate to be arrogantly self righteous and insulting (why change now?)
May 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either you will vote for the best interests of the Democratic party, or you won't. What do you care what one TPM reader has to say about Hillary. Guilt by association is a flawed argument. It doesn't work for the GOP against Obama, and it won't work for Hillary supporters to diss Obama simply because of the statements made by some of his supporters.
May 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
what will "work" is for us to say no thank you in the Fall because of aggessively obnoxious jackasses like you and the endless number of BO supporters who can't simply support BO but are much more anxious to venomously attack those who are not quite ready for the Rapture...
May 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have followed campaigns most of my life. In every presidential election I got to vote in, my primary first and sometimes second choice did not get the nomination - the party always picking a more conservative candidate - as it has this time yet again!!!!
Never in all those years have I come across such an obnoxious, elitist privileged collection of yahoos as I have seen here. You have monical who thinks its humorous to demonize the Democrats of West VA. You have this pustule who thinks calling all Clinton supporters racist and ignorant is just so clever.
You have vicious allegations drummed up in the fevered imaginations of paranoics persisting for days as when the Clintons released their tax returns. Every statement is parsed for any possible racial subtext that can be used to gin up another accusation of racism. Statements made by Clinton to defend Obama are criticized because the self-righteous can think of better statements she could have said if she had only consulted them.
I have had my preferred candidate lose the primary every time, but this is the first time I feel real animosity about it - and all that animosity has been generated by folks here. Half the animosity comes from the anti-Clintonism that leads people to ascribe any and all things to her. This also leads them to repeat endlessly the utterly ridiculous and false statement that she is Republican lite. It is so utterly ignorant that people's ability to reason has got to have been short-circuited by hatred. Honestly, if you had a tenth as much to say in support of OBama as you do against Clinton - I might actually believe you know something about him. But as it is, the topic is Clinton hating 24/7. This is not a pro-obama site, this is an anti-clinton site.
The rest, though, is generated by the self-righteous, we are so not-racist cause we're voting for a black guy condescension that actually reeks of tokenism and exoticism - two manifestations of racism that whites often ignore. I am sure he will take your vote, no matter how you come around to casting it, but voting for Obama no more proves your anti-racist credentials than having "a best friend who is black."
A person can prefer Clinton to Obama without being racist as a person can prefer Obama to Clinton without being sexist. But that just won't give you all that self-righteous frisson of pleasure, will it?
No,I won't vote for McCain. But, just so you know, for the first time ever I will not be donating or volunteering for the presidential nominee. And who can OBama thank for that? Freaktown and all the rest of you bandwagon jumpers.
I had not made up my mind on that until today. But Freaktown just put me over the edge. Next time the Obama camp calls me up, instead of saying call me back in two weeks, I will point them to this post and monical's little attempt at humor and say no.
May 14, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel you pain. I'll be writing in for Hillary too - but I am from NY not a swing state. For those in a swing state or red state I hope that you will bring a post it called not mccain if you must and pull the lever for Obama. Because this election is too important to allow president mccain to happen digging us further into war in iraq rather than withdrawing; getting us further into hock to china with unaffordable tax cuts; another alito tilting the sc to the far right. It's scary. I don't believe Obama will win anyway, but at least you can not blame yourself and instead blame these idiots who elected an unelectable nominee after the whole reverend wright fiasco who will get trounced in the general election.
May 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't vote for McCAin. I will vote for Obama. But I won't be working for his campaign and I won't be donating. I have no enthusiasm for spending time with a bunch of ignorant haters who think they are the coolest thing in town.
May 14, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you there (except I won't actually vote for Obama since NY is reliably democratic so and my non-vote for him won't have an impact). I refuse to contribute time or effort or a single dollar to a campaign that has been so dismissive and vicious against Hillary and her supporters. Besides didn't Obama pledge to use public financing if McCain did as well? Oh that's right - it was before he started making tons over the internets. As usual, that pledge was just words.
I'll save whatever politically contributions I can spare that haven't already been funnelled to Hillary to try to dethrone my esteemed congressman Vito Fossella.
May 14, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
What is interesting, considering your last question, is that if one did ask bluntly "would you vote for a black person?" the 'Bradley effect' or some stirring of progressive conscience might kick in and disguised what the periphery of existing questions have made clear: West Virginians by and large were not interested in considering Obama beyond their racial assumptions.
The exposing of something rotten from these exit polls will perhaps help other Democrats to realize that the 'pragmatic rationale' of certain Democrats that 'a black nominee just cannot get elected' is just another way of keeping our party beholden to a very low common denominator when we are on the verge of a major leap forward. We can win without WV this year.
May 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so insightful. Did you know the Cklintons are enormously popular in WV? Did you know Hill has a 72% favorable rating among WV democrats (which would imply they are voting for her rather than against Obama)?
If it was a Colin Powell or a Harold Ford - a conservativedemocrat / independent they would have done better becaus ethey connect to the values of WV voters. they are pro military & very conservative. Moveon.org may applaud Obama's willingness to personally meet with world's worst dictators with no preconditions in his first year of office. WV voters likely think that's a bad idea.
You call the WV voters bigoted, but your own bigotry is exposed when you declare a whole state as racist simply because they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. Are there racists in WV - of course. there are racists in Vermont & Maine too and Obama did just fine there. He can't speak to the lower income voters and something tells me putting them down calling them uneducated and backwards and racists rather than genuinely trying to understand their issues is not going to get him far in WV or the general election.
May 14, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a moment, if you would, just imagine that the two candidates were two fictional candidates, and not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Imagine if we looked back at a primary season and noted that Candidate A was winning 2:1 among a segment of the population that had a high school education or less, but Candidate B was receiving a clear majority of the votes from a segment that had a college degree or more. In these challenging times, is it better for America to led by the choice of the less educated, and dispense with the candidate that the more educated people preferred?
Imagine that.
And, imagine if Candidate A and Candidate B were in a close race that was seperated by less than 5%. Imagine if 20%-25% of the vote for Candidate A was influenced the skin color, or mistaken understanding of the religious convictions of Candidate B. Is that the kind of United States we want?
I don't care if "Candidate A" is Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, this is a very damning statement about country. I am so depressed.
May 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should we even let those ignorant people vote? Maybe there should be literacy tests? Prove that you're smart enough to vote right before you can vote.
May 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
WV votes red, right? So who cares?
It's like arguing about what voters in Texas think.
May 14, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong WV is a swing state. No democrat has won the nomination without winning WV since 1916. Clinton carried. Carter carried it twice (but lost anyway). JFK won when Cathollic was still a dirty word in WV. They are economic democrats. Hillary speaks to their bread and butter concerns - as she has done nationally. WV is no exception. They are also very pro military and conservative on foreign policy. Obama's cache with the moveon.org crowd does not serve him well in WV.
May 14, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
First is it unreasonable to think Obama was buying what the reverend wright was selling. ABSOLUTELY. This is not some tenuous association. That's your reverend of 20 years not in a church that you were born into, but you actually chose to belong to because of your connection with him as reverend. If Pat Robertson were McCain's pastor for 20 years, I'd assume McCain was buying what Robertson was selling to.
46% of voters in IN also thought Reverend Wright was important.
Obama's problem is that he didnt distance himself when he originally heard controversial things in the church (even if he wasn't in the pews he was well aware pf them when he disinvited rev wright from his convocation). He tried to pass the blame onto white folks being scared of black churches in his grand speech on race (which was a slur to the vast majority of black churches where you don't find such hate from the pulpit). He didn't denounce reverend wright until rev wright as much as admitted that Obama's distance was politically motivated rather than by principle. In other words Rev Wright's opinion that Obama was only criticizing him because it benefited him publically outrage Obama much much more than the substance of what rev wright originally said.
He has given them much reason to doubt his character and this will continue to play on to the general election.
May 14, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll
May 14, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize the sum total of Wright's "rants" is twenty second, right?
Of course there's also this statement from another man Obama has stated he admires:
"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place...And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."
Yes folks, Obama admires the man who said these things: Martin Luther King.
May 14, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did MLK say America created AIDS? Where did he say God Damn America?
Give me a break. Do not slur MLK by trying to defend a nutjob. MLK was trying to lift America to greater glory and unity. Reverend Wright revelled in division and anger. He's far closer to Malcom X that to MLK as evidenced by his affiliation with the black liberation movement. Pat Robertson is white christian nutjob. Jeremiah Wright is a black christian nutjob. I have no respect for someone who spent 20 years in a church listening to that garbage. Oprah had enough and left. Why did Obama remain?
May 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the sum total of Wright's statements is twenty seconds, none of which Obama heard. You can't wright off a good man for twenty seconds out of context, as this quote shows.
And if you knew anything about the Black community, you'd know that they have good reason to think that the government has afflicted them with diseases: because it has, in Tuskegee.
May 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
>
That's an invention.
May 14, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
First - this was not the only controversial stuff he said - that's only the stuff they got on tape. Obama want even come forward to let people know what he has heard that was controversial in public because he knows the questions will on;y grow louder why he didn't leave (I totally expect a fuller expose of rev wright in the general election. If they can make up outright lies about John kerry a war hero, they'll find out the truth about Obama and wright and if they can't they'll make up stuff).
Second I know the black community because I am a part of the black community. And the black community & churches I know don't sound like reverned wright.
PS - The tuskegee experiment was not a case where the us invented a disease - they took men that were already suffering from syphillis and pretended to treat them while just giving them fake medicine - they wanted to see the disease progress until death. They were being treated as lab animals. They used the black sharecroppers because they were disposable & uneducated. Racist - absolutley. Appalling - absolutely. Invention of a disease intended to kill a whole race of people? No.
May 14, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way in terms of the gas tax "pander". IN is in the middle of national median income. WV is 49th. Indiana has a poverty rate of 12.6 & WV has a poverty rate of 15.4. The lower someone's income is, the more valuable the savings would be. Even in IN folks were in favor of the gas tax holiday.
Something tells me $70 to someone from WV (probably more since rural folks drive more than city folks and I'd save about $70 under the gas tax holiday).
But why even be concerned about thos ein poverty and less fortunate when you can live in your ivory tower and mock those less fortunate. This is the type of shit I expect from republicans not democrats.
May 14, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Obama's support comes largely from economically privileged whites is not in question. They are quite proud of it. In fact, one of them even shared his opinion that if the educated (economically privileged) support one candidate and the un-educated (economically disadvantaged) support another, that's proof that the first candidate is the better one. Well, with reasoning like that, we never would have had FDR. But you know, I don't think many Obama supporters would support FDR. In general, they don't seem to give a damn about economic issues, they care nothing about health care reform, they have utter disdain for the working class and mostly are just pretty much in love with their own bad selves.
It's as though supporting Obama is hip - a coolness factor. It's not about issues (except the war which is not a liberal-conservative issue) hence their blithe support for uber conservatives like Hagel.
May 14, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I don't even think half of them understand his positions. I have had lengthy arguments with these folks who try to argue that Obama's economic plans are more progressive than Hillary's. I don't even think many of them get what progressive is! If FDR had made Social Security voluntary, the system would have broke down long ago & the number of elderly folks under the poverty limit would be astronomical. But they try to defend Obama's healthcare plan against mandates using republican talking points.
I am hopeful that the party will come to it's senses before it is too late, but I fear for my party with Obama as the nominee and even more for my country after we are stuck with President McCain ebcause Obama can't win.
May 14, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am fairly hopeful that any Democrat can defeat any Republican. Heck, we should try running someone in Cobb Country, GA, wouldn't that be a hoot if we picked up that seat?
I know it's been said time and again that people ascribe their beliefs to the candidates they support despite ample evidence to the contrary. Clearly some of that is in play with complaints about Clinton being conservative from the same people who suggest Hagel for VP. Some people have either a) a vast capacity for cognitive dissonance or b) a vast empty space where most people have a brain.
I have friends who at least are smart enough to acknowledge that his platform is alarmingly conservative for a Democrat and civil libertarian enough to be worried by his adopting religious right memes on church and state, but they all say that after he's elected he will move left.
When has that ever happened? I have seen plenty move right? But who has moved left?
May 14, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many times I think it does our party a disservice if both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters attempt to boil each other down into a block of racists or a swarming cult.
I do believe there are some difference between the two candidates in style, governing philosophy, and even on some issues. The primary process is supposed to give us an opportunity to make a choice of who should lead the party, not an opportunity to divide each other.
I vehemently disagree with your assertion that "It's as though supporting Obama is hip- a coolness factor" just as much as I disagree with the subject of this post that Clinton voters are racist and ignorant.
It is true that both Obama and Clinton have a "rock star" quality to their candidacies: he gives great speeches and inspires and she is one of the most powerful political thinkers in U.S. history. Additionally, it's also true that there are sexists who support Obama and would never support Clinton and racists who support Clinton and would never support Obama. That is pretty obvious. These will unfortunately be constant aspects of our political process until we can find away to come to terms with our sexist and racist society.
But, to generalize segments of support to characterize the whole glosses over the diversity of our party, and does a disservice to whomever will be the nominee by painting them as caricatures rather than independent political minds coming together to support the end of Republican White House rule.
This post harms us and your response harms us. I hate to put it so bluntly, but that's how I feel.
May 14, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF you spent 1/3 as much energy objecting to the classism of the original poster and all his bandwagon elitist compatriots as to my supposition about the cool factor you might have some credibility. But you didn't.
Moreover, your objection ignores the reality that Obama's central campaign strategy was to harness the power of social networking (to harness the cool factor) - so do object to that is to object to his primary campaign and fundraising strategy.
May 14, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I certainly don't mean to single you out as the only perpetrator of such crimes. I don't think you should be used as an example, I suppose I thought that after reading your post it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I should've been clearer and I apologize for that.
It's true, if I had more energy and time to give equal grievances to all I thought should do something different I would have no sleep and no friends.
My objection ignores what you consider "the cool factor" because from reading your post it appears that you essentialize the support for Obama as a pop culture fad rather than an actual grassroots movement. Which, again, degrades the work that he and countless others have put in during this campaign.
Since you bring it up, I won't deny that Sen. Obama has been instrumental in gaining the support of young voters by using social networking websites and "Rock the Vote" type rallies. But of course, it behooves any candidate to try to each every eligible voter with the legal means available to them. I know that many of the other candidates on either side has attempted some form of the platform that Sen. Obama has used, but they have not seen the same results.
If Sen. Obama has a lot of young people who are enthusiastic about politics as a part of his campaign, does that mean they are only a part of it because they think he is only cool and hip?
If Sen. Clinton has many elderly supporters who are enthusiastic about politics as a part of her campaign, does that mean they are only a part of it because they have no concept of what is within 18-45 mainstream American culture?
In my personal opinion, the answer to both of those questions are a resounding "NO" and it again essentializes the candidates and the diversity of their support that is usually relegated to the Republican party.
May 14, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It says something about Obama's supporters that they think he is so much more progressive than she is when he is the one whose health care reform proposal is toothless, who said "everything is on the table" in regard to social security when SS does not even need reform - but no he continues the right wing anti-social security lie, and who mocked immediate action to block foreclosures, and who also panders to the religious right by criticizing liberals on religion.
He's also one who ran away from the word liberal - alas.
So, you know when I say that they support Obama for the coolness factor, I do it because they seem to not know anything about his policies.
May 14, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exit polls show Obama's voters smoke reefer, have their heads inserted in their rectums and have sex with their art history professors.
May 14, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oilbama gets what per cent of the Black vote?
Over 90%.
Did Hillary get 90% of the white vote?
Of course not.
It is obvious who are the racists here and it is shameful. Thank god most voters actually try and make the best choice for the country unlike over 9 out of ten black voters who apparently vote based on the color of ones skin.
May 14, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just two things:
In past Presidential elections, the Black vote has gone overwhelmingly to the Democratic nominee and not to the Republican nominee when both of the candidates have been White.
The Black vote has been one of the most consistently Democratic votes in Presidential races.
May 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
African American are overwhelmingly democratic so obviously in a dmeocratic election they vote for the dmeocrat. But democrats tend to have more in common. Are 92% of black voters against universal healthcare? Are black voters agains freezing of the ARM rates that are driving people in to forecloure all over the country but especially in inner city urban minority neighbrohhods? Are they against a 90 day freeze on foreclosures so people can catch up on their house payments? Do they even care about the significant policy differences between Hilalry and Obama or are they voting for Obama en masse because he's the first viable african American presidential candidate?
Final Jeopardy question: Who in the hell has ever gotten 92% of the black vote in a contested democratic presidential primary?(insert jeopardy music here)
May 14, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that when Blacks vote, they take into consideration all that can be taken into consideration when anyone goes to vote.
My response to your question "Do they even care about the signficant policy differences between Hillary and Obama or are they voting for Obama en masse because he's the first viable African American presidential candidate?" is a fine question for a study by a political scientist, but otherwise it appears that you would suggest that Black voters are voting DESPITE the policy issues instead of because of. I don't necessarily think that is what you're asserting, but if we continue to push this campaign as if some people voting are racist or will only vote for a candidate with the same racial classification as they, then I think that approach will continue to divide this country over superficial differences rather than unite the country with substantial issues that plague us all.
May 14, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am saying the vast majority of black voters if you lined up Hillary's policy's and Obama policy's in a blind test would choose her universal healthcare plan & would choose her foreclosure policy because it is economically in their best interests.
MANY african american people who see me rocking my Hillary 2008 pin will stop me on the train and ask me why I am not supporting the brother in the race in trying to make history. I explain to them (depending on how much time I have and how anatagonistic/angry they are) why I prefer Hillary's policies. I don't vote my race or my gender- I vote my policies. How many of that 92% can say the same?
May 14, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you find any exit polls where any blacks identified race as the primary factor?
May 14, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a racist and ignorant post. Now we know freaktown is a moron.
May 14, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still laugh at the title of this post every time I see it. I try to imagine the question asked by the pollers. "Do you consider yourself to be racist and ignorant?" Lololol Thanks again.
May 14, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I Loves the Headline Over at 23/6:
"Hillary Blows Obama Out in West Virginia. Voters from other states hard-pressed to name a single city in WV!"
:)
May 14, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How in the hell did this post get on the recommended list? I'm an "Obamaniac" through and through, but this post is an embarrassment. By no means is this thinking representative of Obama supporters. Racism is alive and well, in WV, MS, CA, and NY. Obama will win despite it.
May 14, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you.
Nevertheless, you must be new. Any "Hillary is the Anti-Christ" or "Only Ignorant Racists support Hillary" will get zillions of recs. Meanwhile any neutral, but well thought out, serious posts intended to start a legitimate dialogue will quickly disappear.
May 14, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, not new (I've been reading TPM since its very beginning), but there's a reason I rarely read comments or diaries... I'm kind of sorry Josh opened up the blog -- who let the riffraff in?
May 14, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, the 90% of AA voters who support Obama do it because they like him and think he's the better candidate, but the 65% of white voters who voted for Clinton are obviously racist or ignorant or both?
See this from Big Tent:
The West Virginia exit polls indicate that he lost white voters 69-28. Astounding? Not really. In Ohio, Clinton won white voters 64-34. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won whites 63-37. Indiana? Whites went for Clinton 60-40. Massachusetts? Whites went for Clinton 58-40. Rhode Island? 63-31 for Clinton. North Carolina? 61-37. And the same in Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri and so on.
West Virginia is not an anomaly. Stop calling them racists and semi-literates because they didn't support your cult leader.
May 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are not interested in facts. They're interested in insulting the folks from Appalachia because it makes them feel better. They can counter the impression that Barack and his supporters are out of touch elitists who don't care about low income voters by mocking those who are less educated and lower income as backwards Hillbillies. I am ashamed that these folks consider themselves democrats. I though we were the champion of the poor and working class. I didn't get the memo that now we mock them and they are no longer part of our coalition.
May 14, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment