This post is a long comment on this post by Mary Davis:

"It is the reporting by the older generation that have experienced these real divides in the past that perpetuates these artificial divides into the future.

So truthfully, we need to get away from the reporting on which group is voting for what. We really are not as divided as the MSM suggests. The walls need to be broken or else it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy."

I agree with the sentiment, I would like to point out that there are very strong reasons behind the MSM's perspective,  is  a reflection of decades of 50%+1 politics where a candidate "locks" a core demo of voters  and goes after a "few" swing voters just enough to "win", I suspect as an unintended consequence of the electoral college in a massive country, the 2000 elections a prime example, from Reagan's Democrats to George Busch II's Latinos. For decades a campaign electoral success depended on attracting a relatively  small demo to add to their core support and that is the way the MSM "score" the success of a campaign  today.

I suspect that one strong reason behind the huge disparity of +76% (over 6M votes)  between those voting on the Dem side and those on the republican side, is  that both HRC and BHO  as a consequence of the proportional apportionment  of delegates on the Dems primary, are appealing and actively campaigning (personal appearances, GOTV, Ads, email) for 100% of the Democratic party voters, male, female, rich, middle, poor, white,black (AA), latino, gay, straight, single, married, young, old and most combinations thereof, they have a message for them. HRC is not ignoring the AA voter nor BHO the women vote,
The republicans by sticking to the winner take all system perpetuate the MSM' meme of slicing and dicing the electorate, minorities are demonized (browns and LGBT), the poor and AA are ignored and what is left is further sliced into neo-cons (USA Uber Alles), teo-cons (dominionist) and money-cons (tax cuts, deregulation) and their candidates reflect that, John McCain just happened to be able to eke out an sliver of moderates that gave him  victories on states that  have a larger proportion of them. i.e., the 50%+1 strategy when it is executed between 3 candidates.

By following closely the political analysis  from CNN and MSNBC is esy to perceive how comfortable they are with the Republican race, it follow their preconceptions to the letter and when it doesn't fit they make it fit somehow particularly if related to JMC. BHO on the other hand is killing them by winning in lily white states like Iowa and Idaho,  in this election season nothing made Pat Buchanan happier than Bill Clinton pre SC's primary comments that caused the AA vote to align massively  with BHO, you can see the glee on his eyes ...see the negr#$ are voting for the black candidate!!!!!!!!.

Add to the MSM's myopia that fact that most analysts  and hosts  have an agenda from professional relations with campaigns and parties to close ties with PACs, or are woefully  unprepared. There is a reason why you don't see often on TV somebody like Prof. Larry Sabato or Mark Blumenthal, because compare to them their highly payed talking heads will look like what their really are  dilettantes and partisans.

TIA for your comments

E

PS: webmaster would it be possible to make the signin cookie last at least 24 hours?

First time poster anywhere, please be kind

In re to Hillary Clinton 24 hours 3 Mill fund raising extravaganza, I have a few questions:
1) How much of that amount is online? you know people that actually pull out their debit/credit cards?
2) How much is "pledged"? that is people that promised to send money.
3)
How much of that money came from "bundlers"? that is people that
promised to get x amount of money from y amount of contributors (a
common lobbyist practice)

Anyone could follow Barak Obama money tally online, 100% online donations, His campaign will get the 8+ million dollars 48 hours take.

On Clinton's side only taylormarch.com acting as a press secretary is publishing some numbers with only campaing sources as supporting evidence.

What
I don't understand is, if her campaign is able to rack that kind of
money why they didn't do it after Iowa, or South Carolina? Obama's best
fund raising days were after he lost NH, why wait after the
announcement of Mrs.Clinton $5M loan to her campaign and that many
staffers are working without pay to do it, with all the negative
publicity connotations, this outcome let me to ponder, either:
1)
They could do the money bomb in January but refused to do so for some
germane reason, such as fail to match Obama's numbers or to avoid
looking desperate.

2) They couldn't do it, it is technically very difficult to process such outpour of money Obama's website was overwhelmed last night and a phone banking operation to process 1M/Hour is not easy or cheap to setup.

I
don't doubt HRC will be able raise that amount of money, in 2007 she
raised 15M+ more than BHO, albeit with a fewer contributors and more
maxed-out ones but she got 7.3M votes two days ago just like Obama.
My concern is that this 3M+ announcement might include a large amount
of "pledges" to make it look good on a press release to counter the 5M
loan flap.

Regardless of their intentions Obama supporters are determined to beat the 5M+3M the last figure 7.5M before 11am EST
Best

Ernesto