« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
How come Obama is actually winning.
So many have written how come Clinton is losing what was billed by every political expert as the inevitable election. On paper it seemed like a perfect set up, except that the voters have advanced well past the leaders and have been there since well back in '05, with seeds back in '03. Actually all one has to do is simply look at the calendar to see the obvious---what century are we in?
Obama is winning because he is speaking to the 21st Century Conscience, something that has been brewing since well-the Nixon Era. The seeds began with Earth Day, the Vietnam protests, Woman's Rights, Desegregation, ADA and are now beginning to bear fruit. Those seeds were sewn to combat the divides in our 20th Century society that brought about horrendous war and suffering. Global communication and economies have challenged tribalism and nationalism where now the challenges of the 21st Century demand fundamental change in how our society is organized and valued.
It has been written by futurists and philosophers that society is no different than organisms in an ecosystem where cooperation and survival are intertwined as essential components for life. Nature finds a way and so does human society on top of the evolutionary chain. We know now that how the 20th Century organization is not working, simply look at our stresses to find out. I mean when did you ever think that America would openly admit that torture was an end that it needed to justify its means for a way of life?
Obama is winning because he is the only leader to rise and say he is going forward into the 21st Century and not back to the 20th Century. Sure there remains a Conservative backlash, reactionary forces who still are privileged who use fear and past values to challenge the uncertainty of change going forward. But many of us are products of that Nixon and post Nixon Era. We respect the necessity of the American Disabilities Act with much question. Desegregation has produced a generation now approaching their mid '30's that does not fear racial differences or dark strangers walking down the street. Woman belong anywhere they like and can live anyway they want. An outgrowth of that is we are peeling back the ugly prejudice towards homosexuality with still many miles to travel but I see this being piled on the cultural war history books before my college-age children graduate their children from high school. The Vietnam war protests showed how bad the Establishment can be and now they fear to draft our children even to support their failed wars. And Earth Day is now so deeply spread into our daily life that finally we might have a counter industrial revolution to save the planet.
Obama is winning because he is what the 21st Century needs to move on from the failures of the 20th Century.
Comments (35)
I was alive and I waited, waited...
I was alive and I waited for you
Right here, right now
There is no other place I'd rather be!
May 20, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton Leads in Clinton-Won States
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/21/11544/6652/16/519665
Hillary Clinton has won. It's all over. In states where she received more delegates, she has won a majority of the elected delegates. There's no way for Barack Obama to catch up. Not reasonably. Not quickly. Not even tautologically.
If you count the states where she received more delegates, she's ahead 1022-704. That's more than three hundred votes people! That's all 18 of the states! How can we take this nomination away from her?
It gets even worse for Obama. If you add her the ‘super delegate’ contests that she's won, she's ahead 1,315.5 to 704. That's 65.1% of the delegates, in all the states where she won and all of the ‘super delegates’ who she's won. That's a 30-point margin. How can we take it away from her...!?!?
IT GETS EVEN WORSE FROM THERE.
If you look at states where Clinton won by a 30-point margin, she's ahead 124-31. That's 80%-20%!, a 60% margin! Add in her ‘super delegates‘, that 417.5 - 31...! 93% - 7%...!
HOW CAN THEY TAKE THIS AWAY FROM HER...!?!?
The math is on her side...! Any way you look at it (from counting Michigan and Florida, but not Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington, to just counting states she's won) HILLARY HAS CLEARLY ALREADY WON.
Obama should be ashamed of how many states Clinton can't count, because she didn't win them. He's making their votes not count because he won more of them.
Shame on him. He's using Karl Rove-style tactics*.
*Also, Hillary should win because Karl Rove thinks she's the stronger candidate.
May 21, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
LisB, your great.
May 21, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is winning because of actual rational thought, something I thought long dead in American politics.
May 21, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is winning because of a well-oiled ad campaign which has invaded the mainline media. I was struck with HOW LITTLE OF THE OVERALL REPORTING on the last two primaries actually GAVE THE FIGURES:
Obama's substantial win in Oregon: 58% to 42%.
Clinton's landslide in Kentucky : 65% to 30%.
In addition, to belittle the Clinton victory, the focus was turned on the racial bias of white voters and nothing was said of the extremely racially aligned African American vote in Kentucky: 90% pro-Obama. No figures given for possible racial motivation for this constituency.
This kind of skewed coverage bodes ill for democracy.
May 21, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to be kidding me. Are you watching American television?
Every channel, local and national, all morning long was all about the Clinton "blow-out" last night. No mention of the multiple Obama blowouts (50 points in Idaho, 40 points in Alaska, 30 points in Virginia) earlier in the campaign. No mention of his attaining the 50%+1 of pledged delegates. The corporate media is the only reason the corporate candidate is still in this.
I'm not saying she should quit, but there is every indication that it is over despite an impressive 35 point victory in Kentucky.
May 21, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vaughn,
Your equating of Clinton's strong white vote in the Appalachian regions with Obama's strong black vote is wrong.
Exit polling in W. Virginia and Kentucky those showed that about 1 in 5 of Clinton's voters admitted that they were voting AGAINST Obama because he is (half)black. Who knows how many voted the same but didn't admit that to the pollsters.
Blacks have showed no such inclination to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton because of her race. Remember, Bill Clinton was so loved that he was widely thought of as the first black president.
Blacks have never shown an unwillingness to vote for white candidates. Even against black opponents. Just look at Ed Rendell's gubernatorial race against Lynn Swann, where Rendell says he got 94% of the AA vote!
So, especially given the long and deeply ugly racial history of this country, a solidified black support behind the candidacy of the first serious AA presidential candidate should come as no surprise or concern.
Black SUPPORT of Obama is very different in nature than Appalachian white support of Clinton, or, more correctly, their REJECTION of Obama's ethnicity.
May 21, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
as an obama volunteer in KY, I came across at least 10 or 15 people who would not vote for a black or a muslim (because my state is credulous for things like that). It was a small number, but I think for the most part I was just calling undecideds and such.
I would like to say that one aspect of why this campaign is winning is that I and other people feel that Obama is willing to listen to everyone, and that lets us talk to people. I've had four or five half-hour or longer conversations with people, listening to what they had to say, and I always walked away with those folks liking barack more. When I was with Kerry or were I with Clinton, all I could say was policy. But with obama, people come to see a guy who isn't just forcing his shite into everyone's mouths.
May 21, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You highlight perhaps the biggest part of this campaign story that will never be told in the corporate media. There are huge trends and indicators that speak to a national shift in perceptions that will play out in November.
For me, it is the open primaries and caucuses that tell this story. Democratic turnout was double and triple the republican turnout. Barack got more votes than all the republicans combined in some very early, very red states.
Statistically, the general election turnout is many magnitudes higher than the primaries for presidential elections. The chances that the percentages seen during the primaries will shift significantly simply isn't in keeping with the historical record.
A record that doesn't include any of the shifting dynamics in play this year.
You're so right that the seeds planted forty years ago have born fruit in the generations to follow. The children of the Baby Boomers are exactly what they hoped to create. It just took time for us to actually get ready to fulfill our part in this American Renaissance.
May 21, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Jason, it took the unconscionable war in Iraq for your generation to start taking your rightful place in our society.
Of course, your place would be a different thing if there had been no draft for my generation.
I often wonder whether you guys would have come out sooner if there had been a draft for this fiasco too. And I wonder whether your ethics are actually a reflection of Mr. Obama's, or whether there's still a large group of you mired in the me-me-me culture.
What do you think?
May 21, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can only speak for myself in that I never really saw the importance of politics, even while being deployed for ten years as an arm of America's muscular diplomacy.
I would agree that it was "me, me, me" for my 20s, but I hardly think that is an uncommon for any generation. For Gen X the issue isn't even education, because we were one of the last generations to get a good public education without being medicated to the gills. My wife has voted in every election, national and local, since 1992, so there isn't even a perfect record of apathy.
I think Gen X is every bit as varied and variable as any generation before or since.
I think what it really can be traced to is our Boomer parents and what we learned to value under their tutelage. Like most relationships of that nature, it took me a number of year to realize that my folks were right. Strangely enough, we agree on most things these days, which makes conversations much more pleasant.
Baby Bush's appointment to the presidency was enough of a wake-up call to me that something wasn't right. 9-11 followed not long after and has never really been investigated and probably never will be. Another wake-up call. Then came a war that sent many of my former comrades to die in the desert. The final wake-up call for me.
As to my ethics and ideals being a reflection of what I find in Barack, I find that mostly to be a matter of age and experience.
I have lived through a lot of crap and seen a lot of what makes America and much of the world tick over the last 40 years. Once I was able to synthesize all of that information via the simple passage of time, a common sense view of our world emerged and possible solutions presented themselves. This included things I could do personally and things I could work for politically.
I am evolving as much as the country is and am still a work in progress.
May 21, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The war in Iraq is a great benchmark and highlights why 40 odd years ago how the Vietnam War was that generations flash point. The war (or invasion and overt conquering of Iraq) demonstrated clearly how the current Establishment (powers that be) had lost their relevancy, their legitimacy to rule effectively---and illustrated clearly the need for the 21st Century Conscience to come forward. This war of conquest is and was all about oil, a 20th century power commodity and core element in the 20th century industrial and financial society. Yet going forward when, not if, but when the new energy economy emerges, one that is decentralized and quite varied, oil will be greatly reduced as a critical commodity. Thus the cost to society, the human, financial, social and moral costs are being rejected for this kind of decision and demonstrated clearly that those who either allowed or promoted this war are irrelevant to leading the new century.
Clinton represented a tactical person who came forward saying she could best manage and lead the still 20th Century ways, while Obama has come forward---no we reject the 20th Century paradigm and think, it is done, it is not working and we have to find a new way, new paradigm, new worldview, new cooperative model domestically and abroad.
This stuff does not come easily or over night. The American Revolution did not come easily or overnight, it was seeded well before the French Indian Wars, it was seeded as the American Colonies became self-reliant and self-governing. The same came true with Lincoln and the Civil War, which was much more than merely saving the Union but reforming the Union into a new society. FDR's "New Deal" was not just a cabinet strategy or a catch phrase like a "thousand points of light", it was a pragmatic review of how the Federal Government was to be relevant in the 20th Century.
This is a big change year. And yes there are still those who are saying what about us. Appalachia is saying we were left behind in the 20th Century and we will not be left behind again. They look at a biracial considered Black American candidate as bring up the other left behinds, and not them as a tribal competitor. The issue is that the 21st Century cannot leave those left behind.
May 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a member of the "me me me" generation, I'm wondering how motivation by conscription is anything other than self-interest.
May 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong about the race issue (except Vaughn B). Whites not voting for Obama because of race is pretty much the same as blacks voting for Obama because of race.
Do you really think that 20% of the electorate in South Carolina didn't vote for Obama just because he's black?
Or will you stick to the lame argument that Clinton voters are stupid, old, and racist, but Obama voters all vote rationally and nobly?
May 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, new 10:
"So, especially given the long and deeply ugly racial history of this country, a solidified black support behind the candidacy of the first serious AA presidential candidate should come as no surprise or concern."
A very shrill and strident, but also huge, contingent of women support Clinton, the first serious woman presidential candidate. Why is this so hard to understand? Given the long and deeply ugly history of sexism and misogyny in America and all.
May 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
new10,
Can you post a link to that data. The polls that I have seen are from CNN and the questions that are asked are not that conclusive because of the questions.
Kentucky exit polls
W.Virginia exit polls
W.Virginia exit polls
With that said, I feel that race does play some roll but I think it is being overstated. I think people vote for lots of reasons, including race. MSNBC, aired a bit of historical data that seems to weaken the race factor in Kentucky. A higher % of white democrats defected over to the GOP side when it was Bush vs. Kerry than in a match up between McCain vs. Obama, according to the exit polling. It would suggest that there is more than race at play.
May 21, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The figures I heard were reported on MSNBC during their coverage. My recollection is that they reported 19% of W. Virginia and 17% of Kentucky Clinton voters admitted to exit pollsters that Obama's race had an role in their vote. That's why I say about 1 in 5.
May 21, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The MSNBC poll is not that conclusive. Asking whether "Obama's race had an role in their vote" does not translate to "Clinton's voters admitted that they were voting AGAINST Obama because he is (half)black."
May 21, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't lose track of what Vaughn and dnorman76 are asserting. Which is that there's no difference in the racial motivations of black voters and Appalachian white voters. Essentially, asserting that there's either no racism involved, or that both are equally racist.
My point is that I can cite multiple examples of evidence, some objective, some subjective refuting that assertion. All I'm asking them to do is cite some examples that support their assertion.
Also, notice that I didn't cite HRC's strong white voter support in that region as self-evidence for my refutation because its not. So, please, no one cite Obama's strong black support as self-evidence to the contrary.
May 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take your point and I take vaughn and dnormans point.
May 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Identity politics (as in black voters for Obama, women voters for Hillary) is NOT the same thing as racism or sexism. By that logic, you would be saying that black voters look down on white candidates and will not vote for them as a matter of prejudice, also that women look down on male candidates and will not vote for them as a matter of prejudice -- which is utter nonsense. What isn't nonsense, and would be racially biased voting, is a white voter looking down on a black candidate because he is black and refusing to vote for him. What would be sexist is a male voter looking down on a female candidate and refusing to vote for her. Interesting we have no exit polls on the latter because there's no doubt sexist voting is going on this season. Or maybe it's getting lost in that, when the choice is between a black dude and a white broad, the white broad's going to wind up with long end of the stick. And then we hear about it as her great popularity among the blue collar workers.
May 21, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just took a look at the CNN exit poll data link you provided. Thanks.
CNN exit poll question shown on page 4 asked: Was the race of the candidate important to you?
21% of whites voters answered yes, that's 1 in 5.
1% of black voters answered yes.
May 21, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, no problem but I do want to point out something about those numbers.
If I am reading those numbers correctly:
Total AA vote in KY = 9%
Total AA vote, where race matters = 2%
That is over 20% of AAs that says race matters.
Total AA vote in WV = 3%
Total AA vote, where race matters = 1%
That is 1/3 of AAs that says race matters
But again, the question does not in itself prove racism.
May 21, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
dnorman76,
The available evidence says that you are JUST AS WRONG as Vaughn.
Please cite some evidence to support your assertion that there is no difference in the national black support for Obama, and the APPLACHIAN white support for Clinton?
I have cited Rendell's race against Lynn Swann. I have cited Bill Clinton, a white man, being so loved by the AA community that he was widely seen as the first black president. I have cited W. Virginia and Kentucky exit polling.
Where's your exit polling showing blacks have voted AGAINST Clinton because of her race, as the 1 in 5 Appalachian whites did to Obama and were brazen enough to admit it?
The simple fact that blacks have voted so strongly for Obama is by itself not sufficient evidence. Again, just look at the 94% AA vote Rendell got running against the legendary Steeler great and AA, Lynn Swann. Rendell's AA support was as strong as any that Obama has received.
Please explain why those Rendell results alone don't disprove your assertion?
May 21, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
new10,
I don't understand why you insist on arguing that the AA vote is not based on race and that the white vote in KY and WV are based on race. We can cherry pick any number to make our respective case.
Intuitively, I think it is more based on cultural identity. Who we relate to the most. Race plays a role in that equation, but so does political positions, who we think is listening to us, and so on...
May 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must try to understand the difference between the long struggle of blacks for racial equality ( to be seen not as inferior, or superior, just equal), and the equally long struggle of SOME whites to sustain racial inequality (to see blacks as inferior and themselves as superior). THAT DISTICNTION IS ALL IMPORTANT.
There can be no question that America has a long and deeply ugly racial history. We're talking, what, 400 years of slavery followed by systematic oppression of blacks?
While slavery was abolished in 1865 it was another 100 YEARS before the LEGAL oppression of blacks - sanctioned by the STATE, for goodness sake - was finally declared unconstitutional. Is it really so hard to believe that vestiges of such a long and violently racist national history might still linger in some quarters?
What remain before us is the hearts-and-minds phase of racial reconciliation. The last phase. As Obama has said, the greatness of our country lies in our willingness to continue perfecting it.
Why are blacks so excited about Obama? It it black racism? No. It is Obama's success with WHITE voters nationally that has so energized blacks. Black voters didn't move to Obama until after they saw white voters supporting him.
It gives blacks hope and pride that our country MAY be on the threshold of passing through that hearts-and-minds phase.
May 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the distinction is one of a positive vs a negative motivation for voting choice. While a significant percentage of Black voters may have favored Obama for reasons of racial pride (a positive emotion), the percentage who admitted or implied that they were voting against Obama for racial reasons show bigotry, a negative emotional trait. So while one can make the case that both candidates benefit from identity based voting, it is only Obama who has people voting AGAINST him for those reasons. I have seen no data indicating that anyone voted AGAINST Clinton because she is White, or FOR Obama because she is a woman.
The importance of this distinction is that in the general election, most voters who preferred Clinton for gender solidarity or pride will likely gravitate to Obama since he supports their agenda, while those who voted AGAINST Obama for racial reasons will gravitate to McCain, even if they voted for Hillary in the primary.
May 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with sumbodhi, I think.
What I'm trying to get at, with zero statistics behind me, is that it's sophistry to pretend that racial issues had no part in voters' decisions, except in those backward Appalachian states.
I am sure many more voters all across this nation are racist and sexist than will admit to it. But identity sure has had something to do with this Democratic primary season.
Race matters to black voters AND IT SHOULD.
Gender matters to women voters AND IT SHOULD.
(I don't think I need any statistics for these assertions, do I?)
I'm in West Virginia & I approved this message.
May 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
dnorman76
"Race matters to black voters AND IT SHOULD.
Gender matters to women voters AND IT SHOULD.
(I don't think I need any statistics for these assertions, do I?)"
I have to quibble with your "agreement" with me (although I appreciate the sentiment).
I would change "and it should" to "and it will". I personally don't think "it should", but I do understand that it does, so I was attempting to articulate the reasons for and implications of that reality. But I would much prefer that group identities did not play a significant role in voting decisions. Hopefully that will be the case in November.
May 21, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter.
May 21, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is silly. There are some black voters who are voting for Barack primarily because he is black. There are some women voters who vote for Mrs. Clinton primarily because she is also a woman. That is not and has never been the issue.
There are very, very few black democrats who won't vote for a white nominee of the democratic party. Empirically we know this to be true.
There is some fraction of white democrats who declare at this point that would refuse to vote for a black democratic nominee (that this is *correlated* geographically with some historical patterns of racism is hard to deny) . We don't know this empirically , because they have never had a chance to vote for a even a half black candidate in the general election.
Why is this so hard to understand. The only real question is, are there some white self-identified democrats who would vote for a white nominee but not for a black nominee (assuming they had roughly the same political positions on issues)?
May 21, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, that's not something you need answered, is it? (But if you do, yes, there are some who won't vote for him because he's black.)
Here in West Virginia, no one I know has admitted such. But I lived in California & Oregon a pretty good while --over 10 years--and I remember a lot of OVERT racism there--not empirically speaking, of course, because I wasn't keeping count.
I'm just keeping y'all from making us all racists, as though it's an Appalachian phenomenon. What about the deep South? Or did something change there since the turn of the century?
May 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, dnorman76, is your point that, if racism isn't overt, it doesn't exist?
May 21, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry won 4 years ago, and he would have been a good President too. Would have been.
May 21, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Right here, right now
Watching the world wake up from history...."
Indeed.
May 21, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment