[Kerrigan]

Hillary, "hero of the white working class", can claim the support of about 50% of Democrat primary voters, and we now have significant cause to believe that a quarter of her supporters in West Virginia are unashamed, uneducated racist geriatrics (these are the people who elected a Democrat senator who was in the KKK).

Obama can claim the other half of primary voters, and his constituency isn't that much different: black voters--who vote overwhelmingly along racial lines, lack college degrees, and have a relatively low average salary as a demographic--make up a large portion of his support, as do Latinos (who again fit the description of the two aforementioned groups: working class, no college degrees, etc). It has been discussed on this forum how both of these groups can be predicted to come out solidly against gay-rights, adding a self-contradictory twist to the goals of the Democrat party.

Of course, the "saving grace" are the rich white college students (or 20-somethings, presumably still mooching off of mom and dad) who support Obama. These privileged "post-racist", "post-partisan" high brows like to think that they are representative of the party as a whole. But this primary has taught us that the actual state of affairs is to the contrary: these well-to-do voters are but the tip of the pyramid, a pyramid which is more proportionally composed of disparate factions of working class racists, be they white, black, or Latino, who are cynically manipulated as groups against one another by an elite high-brow political class intent on making sure their downtrodden constituents toe the party line.

For all their talk of tearing down the social strictures of unjust patriarchalism, the Democrat party seems to have done little more than to transform itself into a party dominated by competition between various ethnic groups within the proletariat. Well done, guys.

[besson3c]

It sounds like you've been listening to a lot of CNN and campaign rhetoric...

Yes, it can be deduced that there are some voting patterns that go along racial lines in the sense of blacks voting for Obama, and it is true that many women support Hillary. As for Hispanics, some say that they support Hillary more than they do Obama, but herein lies my point... Don't be fooled by what you hear, because there are numerous contradictions to these patterns, many which have been greatly inflated so that CNN can slice and dice people up into neat little categories to put together a narrative.

Take the working whites voting for Hillary thing. There are working whites all over the country in all sorts of states that have voted for Obama. Towards the beginning of the race, I believe that Obama was getting more of the rural vote, and now that has reversed with Clinton - I don't know what's up with that. Who can explain the fact that the western half (particularly north western half) of this country has gone strongly for Obama? There used to be a north/south divide in this country, but now east/west?

There are simply too many variables to account for to make the sweeping generalizations that many try to... I'm content to throw my hands up in the air at these contradictions and not analyze them to death. I'm certain that if the Republican race dragged on, you could find certain patterns and anomalies there too, but I have no real notion what this actually tells us.

[lefty mclefty]

when describing who makes up the democratic party, you MUST include the vagabonds, the roustabouts and circus folk....along with the gypsies and psychics, the convicts (no felons!), and two of each of gods creatures....

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

For all their talk of tearing down the social strictures of unjust patriarchalism, the Democrat party seems to have done little more than to transform itself into a party dominated by competition between various ethnic groups within the proletariat. Well done, guys.

Was there a question in there?

[CreepDogg]

It would be interesting to hear the conversation if, say, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were in a dogfight for the Republican nomination.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by lefty mclefty 

when describing who makes up the democratic party, you MUST include the vagabonds, the roustabouts and circus folk....along with the gypsies and psychics, the convicts (no felons!), and two of each of gods creatures....

Since convicts are all highly into religion such as Jesusism and Muslimism I'd expect them to be farrrr right.

Hmmm, that's weird that prisons have no atheist criminals?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Was there a question in there?

No. Why would you highlight a segment of my post which contains neither question marks nor interrogative sentence formations and ask such a thing? Is it too prove how Snarky you are? If so, it was quite a tepid attempt.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Hmmm, that's weird that prisons have no atheist criminals

You must not have talked to anyone in the prison ministry. You might hear something to the effect of; "you're not one of those are you?"

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Take the working whites voting for Hillary thing. There are working whites all over the country in all sorts of states that have voted for Obama. Towards the beginning of the race, I believe that Obama was getting more of the rural vote, and now that has reversed with Clinton - I don't know what's up with that. Who can explain the fact that the western half (particularly north western half) of this country has gone strongly for Obama? There used to be a north/south divide in this country, but now east/west?

I have not seen any information regarding rural white voters showing large support for Obama, I can only recall that black voters in rural states supported him. If you have any information in this regard, I'll gladly stand corrected.

There are simply too many variables to account for to make the sweeping generalizations that many try to... I'm content to throw my hands up in the air at these contradictions and not analyze them to death. I'm certain that if the Republican race dragged on, you could find certain patterns and anomalies there too, but I have no real notion what this actually tells us.

I would imagine that while the Republican party does not have the same problem of competing constituencies who are fundamentally connected to racial identities, the "Religious Right" would represent one group with similar aspects--namely, an annoying stubbornness, and an unwillingness to vote for candidates unless they are given lip-service and the enforcement of their precepts in all aspects of the state (creative design in schools, sanctity of marriage, funding for religious schools, etc etc).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I have not seen any information regarding rural white voters showing large support for Obama, I can only recall that black voters in rural states supported him. If you have any information in this regard, I'll gladly stand corrected.

Look at the statewide electoral maps in the early primaries.

I would imagine that while the Republican party does not have the same problem of competing constituencies who are fundamentally connected to racial identities, the "Religious Right" would represent one group with similar aspects--namely, an annoying stubbornness, and an unwillingness to vote for candidates unless they are given lip-service and the enforcement of their precepts in all aspects of the state (creative design in schools, sanctity of marriage, funding for religious schools, etc etc).

If Condi Rice ran, there would no doubt be patterns that emerge too. The vast minority of Americans are political ideologues, so geographic racial and gender barriers would trump political ideology.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Obama can claim the other half of primary voters, and his constituency isn't that much different: black voters--who vote overwhelmingly along racial lines, lack college degrees, and have a relatively low average salary as a demographic--make up a large portion of his support, as do Latinos (who again fit the description of the two aforementioned groups: working class, no college degrees, etc).

Wow. I'll be charitable and say that the above is just an astonishingly misinformed statement. First of all, to say that black voters "vote overwhelmingly along racial lines" is factually incorrect. I believe it was in W. Virginia where 25% of the whites who voted for Clinton admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their decision. So one can infer that the real number is actually higher given the historical realities of the region. And to put it bluntly, this was merely a "delicate" way of saying that they, as whites, would not vote for a black candidate. And many went on to state that they would vote for a white Republican before they voted for a black Democrat. But there is no exit polling done of African-Americans which shows anything even remotely like this. Nor is there any historical voting records that support this. First and foremost, African-Americans typically vote for whites in presidential elections (and for many other offices as well). So there has never been a "black people refusing to vote for the white candidate" phenomenon in the US history. One could argue that this is due to the fact that presidential candidates are generally white so there isn't much choice in the matter. However, there have been a few black presidential candidates. And they have fared like this ...

1972 - Shirley Chisolm - First African-American female elected to Congress. Received some black support but was not fully embraced by the existing Civil Rights leadership. Much of her support came from feminists as she was endorsed by the National Organization for Women (NOW). Secured 152 convention delegates. Lost the nomination to George McGovern.

1984 - Jesse Jackson - Received significant black support in the Democratic primaries. Secured 384 convention delegates. Lost the nomination to Walter Mondale.

1988 - Jesse Jackson - Received overwhelming black support in the Democratic primaries. Also garnered significant white support in the liberal wing of the party. Secured 1200 convention delegates. Lost the nomination to Michael Dukakis.

1988 - Lenora Fulani - First woman and first African-American to achieve ballot access in a presidential general election in all 50 states. Ran as a candidate for the New Alliance Party. Received .2% of the vote in the election.

1992 - Lenora Fulani - First woman and first African-American to achieve ballot access in a presidential general election in all 50 states. Ran as a candidate for the New Alliance Party. Received .07% of the vote in the election.

1996 - Amb. Alan Keyes - Former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador. As a right-wing Republican (some would say extreme even by those standards), his support in the African-American community is virtually non-existent. His constituency, or rather his audience since he's never won an election, has always been white conservatives. Nevertheless, he received only 3% of the vote in the Republican primaries. Secured 1 convention delegate. Lost the nomination to Bob Dole.

2000 - Amb. Alan Keyes - Again, his support in the African-American community is virtually non-existent. Received 1% of the vote in the Republican primaries. Secured 14 convention delegates. Lost the nomination to George W. Bush.

2004 - Al Sharpton - Despite his pedigree as a leading civil rights activist, Sharpton's received negligible black support in the Democratic primaries. He garnered low single digit percentages of the vote in the primaries he participated in for the most part. The exceptions were D.C. and South Carolina .... both which had a large number of black voters ... where he received 34% and and 10% of the total vote respectively. Secured 31 convention delegates. Lost the nomination to John Kerry.

2004 - Sen. Carol Moseley Braun - First African-American woman elected to the Senate. Despite this background her black support in the Democratic primaries was virtually non-existent. She received 1% of the total vote in Tennessee, California, Maryland, and Florida. In her home state of Illinois where she was a Senator she only received 4% of the total vote. In D.C. with a predominantly black population she received 12% of the total vote. Secured 0 convention delegates. Lost the nomination to John Kerry.

2008 - Amb. Alan Keyes - The perennial candidate who never wins is officially a joke. After losing the Illinois Senate campaign to Barack Obama by 43 points, even the Republican party conservatives have little use for him. Again, his support in the African-American community is virtually non-existent. He barely made a blip even among the white conservative vote. He recently abandoned the GOP and joined the Constitution party. When he failed to get that party's nomination either he bolted again and is now and Independent.

2008 - Sen. Barack Obama - US Senator from Illinois. Received overwhelming support from the African-American community from the South Carolina primaries on. Prior to that Hillary Clinton was polling way better among blacks than he was since Bill Clinton was a revered figure in the African-American community. However, once the Clintons made statements prior to the S. Carolina primaries that many considered to be an underhanded attempt to portray Obama as the "black candidate who could not win", the tide changed. And it's only gotten worse for Clinton as she's played the race card more bluntly as her prospects for the Democratic nomination continue to diminish. Will likely win the Democratic nomination.

So out of 11 times that an African-American has run for president, that individual has received the majority of the black vote on 3 occasions.

And that would be Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, and Barack Obama in 2008. Even when BOTH Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton ran in 2004, the two of them combined did not receive a majority of the black vote. So there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that black voters vote along racial lines.

What is true is that African-Americans tend to vote as a bloc. The black vote tends to skew 90%+ in one direction or another. That direction may be for a white candidate or a black candidate, and is typically the former. However, this is an indication of a numerical minority group voting its interests and attempting maximize the power of its limited voting strength. While one can debate whether or not this is an effective political strategy, one can not truthfully claim that this is "voting along racial lines".

OAW

[besson3c]

The race/gender/education divide is so complicated and messy. In Oregan, like many other states before it, whites went strongly for Obama. What's with this "working class whites"? There are working class whites in every state, and poverty in ever state too. It seems that working class whites in a particular area of the country are not going for Obama? Why... who knows?

The same can be said for women - in certain places they go for Obama strongly, in others, not so much. The one pattern that does seem consistent is that old people consistently go for Clinton. Don't let the media sell you on an overly simplistic narrative suggesting anything else though!

[TheWOAT]

"snakes, pimps, pushers, players and fakes"

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

"snakes, pimps, pushers, players and fakes"

How dare you call me out.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

How dare you call me out.

Its a line from a rap song, talkin about Oakland, CA... but it applies here as well.