Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Exit polls in Miss - Race

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029

    Exit polls in Miss - Race

    Anyone see that roughly 90% of blacks voted for Obama and 80% of whites voted for Shillary?

    Interesting that the more black votes Obama gets, the more whites he loses

    Hard to believe that people are still that backwards and imo really makes me wonder about the legitimacy of our system when people are DUMB enough to vote along racial lines. How can we be successful as a nation when our leaders are elected for completely frivolous reasons?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    Not surprising in Mississippi at all. Have you ever been there? If not, I suggest you stay HOME.

  3. #3
    Who is Shillary?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CTM;2427620]Anyone see that roughly 90% of blacks voted for Obama and 80% of whites voted for Shillary?

    Interesting that the more black votes Obama gets, the more whites he loses

    Hard to believe that people are still that backwards and imo really makes me wonder about the legitimacy of our system when people are DUMB enough to vote along racial lines. How can we be successful as a nation when our leaders are elected for completely frivolous reasons?[/QUOTE]

    Why do you think legitimacy and stupidity are necessarily mutually exclusive? You get what you pay for. We want to give every adult the right to vote, we shouldn't complain about how they vote. We can try to persuade and educate, sure. But, stupid though it may be, its certainly legitimate to vote for whatever the hell reason you want to vote for, if you are a citizen and taxpayer. The word I think you are looking for is effective.

  5. #5
    for the democrats the blacks are like the evangelicals are to the republicans. their strongest voting demographic

    note that despite the racial splits, Obama destroyed Clinton in MS. they called the contest after 30 mins of polls closure.

  6. #6
    We've seen the same pattern in Alabama. The deep south is racially polarized.

    As you move out of the deep south --even to upper south places like Virginia, even Georgia-- you see less racial polarization in the exits.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2427958]Why do you think legitimacy and stupidity are necessarily mutually exclusive? You get what you pay for. We want to give every adult the right to vote, we shouldn't complain about how they vote. We can try to persuade and educate, sure. But, stupid though it may be, its certainly legitimate to vote for whatever the hell reason you want to vote for, if you are a citizen and taxpayer. The word I think you are looking for is effective.[/QUOTE]

    Point taken.

    I meant effectiveness but used legitimacy because sometimes I'd like to see the whole system crumble down. It's just so f'd.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2428025]We've seen the same pattern in Alabama. The deep south is racially polarized.

    As you move out of the deep south --even to upper south places like Virginia, even Georgia-- you see less racial polarization in the exits.[/QUOTE]

    We'll see. The Clinton camp doesn't seem to think so and have been pushing it as an issue.

    The thing is that I think as African Americans dig in behind Obama, it's only motivating more whites to do the same with Clinton as the campaign becomes more and more about race..

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2427999]for the democrats the blacks are like the evangelicals are to the republicans. their strongest voting demographic

    note that despite the racial splits, Obama destroyed Clinton in MS. they called the contest after 30 mins of polls closure.[/QUOTE]

    Also, about 25% of Clintons votes were Limbaugh Republicans. Had the primary been closed or Rush not implored his listeners to vote, he would've won the state by 35 and netted like 8 more delegates..

    All this would be great for an economic conservative such as myself, except I think Clinton is the least desirable candidate by far..

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=CTM;2428056]Also, about 25% of Clintons votes were Limbaugh Republicans. Had the primary been closed or Rush not implored his listeners to vote, he would've won the state by 35 and netted like 8 more delegates..

    All this would be great for an economic conservative such as myself, except I think Clinton is the least desirable candidate by far..[/QUOTE]

    And, assuming most of the Mississippi crossover GOP was white, he probably would have scored a marginally higher percentage of the white vote (perhaps closer to what he got in Tennessee than what he got in Alabama), dampening the racial-divide storyline a little bit, at least.

    At the end of the day, its a significant victory in terms of delegates (+5) and popular vote. Hillary needs to catch him in popular votes to make a case at the convention that she should be the nominee, and 20%+ losses are a huge blow to that case.

    She needs a double-digit victory in PA now to stay in this thing. The current polls out her up by 15% or so, so its possible she gets it.

    But I think, if Obama takes advantage of the six-week lull and treats PA like Iowa, he can win it and end this thing. Hillary has probably exhausted her kitchen-sink strategy, which did work in Iowa. Now she needs either new ammo versus Obama or a better case for herself, and I'm not sure she has either.

  11. #11
    assuming she wins PA (which i am not going to assume because of Philly, but let's pretend) whatever gains she gets in PA will be nullified in KY and NC. Just like how her gains in TX and OH were wiped out by MS and WY.

    this will come down to the supers, and if they go to clinton it will be absolute bedlam, Obama has at least a million more in popular vote and has won 29 state contests.

    Hillary is basically running an impossible expensive desperation campaign with less than 25% shot of winning.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2428216]assuming she wins PA (which i am not going to assume because of Philly, but let's pretend) whatever gains she gets in PA will be nullified in KY and NC. Just like how her gains in TX and OH were wiped out by MS and WY.

    this will come down to the supers, and if they go to clinton it will be absolute bedlam, Obama has at least a million more in popular vote and has won 29 state contests.

    Hillary is basically running an impossible expensive desperation campaign with less than 25% shot of winning.[/QUOTE]

    She might actually do ok in Kentucky, which is more like Tennessee than it is like Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama or Virginia. And West Virginia looks like her sort of state. And Indiana looks like a true tossup, as does Puerto Rico. But she'll lose by a decent margin in NC, and she's going to lose by blowout margins in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana, in all likelihood.

    Michigan and Florida remain the X factors. Polls suggest Hillary has a wide lead in Florida, but Michigan is currently tied.

    I just don't see her being able to win by either delegates, or by popular votes. And she'd need one of those measures to sway the superdelegates.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2428237]Michigan and Florida remain the X factors. Polls suggest Hillary has a wide lead in Florida, but Michigan is currently tied.
    [/QUOTE]

    by the way if Obama said ok let's count MI and FL as is, he would still lead popular voting by about 100k.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2428249]by the way if Obama said ok let's count MI and FL as is, he would still lead popular voting by about 100k.[/QUOTE]

    True.

    I'm beginning to think they should just count Florida as is, but cut its delegate count in half (like the GOP did), and redo Michigan --also with half its delegates-- with both of them on the ballot, perhaps via a caucus, which is cheaper than a primary (fewer polling places, ballots, etc...).

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2428249]by the way if Obama said ok let's count MI and FL as is, he would still lead popular voting by about 100k.[/QUOTE]

    So what? Hillary could still say she's won the big states and important swing states (Fla, PA, Ohio) and national polls will play a part as well, and they are dead even, essentially, at this point. If Superdelegates merely had to vote for popular vote leaders or those with the most delegates, they wouldn't exist because they'd have no reason to exist. Clearly, they do exist and were in fact dreamed up precisely to NOT simply be robotic slaves to voters' whims.


    The SDs are going to choose whomever they think can beat McCain. If that is Hillary, they'll choose Hillary, even if Obama has more delegates and more votes. They created a threshold delegate number for a reason. You don't get the nomination by merely having more delegates than someone else or the most delegates, you get it by haxing x number and if you have fewer than x, [U]you don't get sh*t [/U]because SDs can do whatever they want. (Hey, they aren't my stupid rules, they are yours, so don't blame me.)

    All that said, I do agree that it looks likely to be Obama as the nom and Obama to win the whole thing. I just don't think you guys appreciate the fact that it's not as close to a sure thing as you make it out to be. The rules are the way they are, why on earth would Hillary drop out?

    If the situation were reversed, NONE of you Obama supporters would be suggesting he drop out, so save it for someone who just got off the turnip truck, not me....
    Last edited by jets5ever; 03-12-2008 at 11:36 AM.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2428264]True.

    I'm beginning to think they should just count Florida as is, but cut its delegate count in half (like the GOP did), and redo Michigan --also with half its delegates-- with both of them on the ballot, perhaps via a caucus, which is cheaper than a primary (fewer polling places, ballots, etc...).[/QUOTE]

    Cheaper but not fair as caucuses are difficult for the elderly and working poor. The should have a re-vote in both states.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2428307]So what? Hillary could still say she's won the big states and important swing states (Fla, PA, Ohio) and national polls will play a part as well, and they are dead even, [/QUOTE]

    She hasn't won PA, that isn't a slam dunk. But the states like CA, NY, MA will vote for any DEM it's not really a point of contention. It's not like they'd vote for Clinton but not Obama. On the other hand, Obama really could win some of these southern red stats with a large black turn out.

    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2428307]If the situation were reversed, NONE of you Obama supporters would be suggesting he drop out, so save it for someone who just got off the turnip truck, not me....[/QUOTE]

    I never said Clinton should drop out... she can fight til the end if she wants, it's just not gonna end well for her - and if I'm wrong and it does it will dishearten alot of young voters.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2428307]So what? Hillary could still say she's won the big states and important swing states (Fla, PA, Ohio) and national polls will play a part as well, and they are dead even, essentially, at this point. If Superdelegates merely had to vote for popular vote leaders or those with the most delegates, they wouldn't exist because they'd have no reason to exist. Clearly, they do exist and were in fact dreamed up precisely to NOT simply be robotic slaves to voters' whims.


    The SDs are going to choose whomever they think can beat McCain. If that is Hillary, they'll choose Hillary, even if Obama has more delegates and more votes. They created a threshold delegate number for a reason. You don't get the nomination by merely having more delegates than someone else or the most delegates, you get it by haxing x number and if you have fewer than x, [U]you don't get sh*t [/U]because SDs can do whatever they want. (Hey, they aren't my stupid rules, they are yours, so don't blame me.)

    All that said, I do agree that it looks likely to be Obama as the nom and Obama to win the whole thing. I just don't think you guys appreciate the fact that it's not as close to a sure thing as you make it out to be. The rules are the way they are, why on earth would Hillary drop out?

    If the situation were reversed, NONE of you Obama supporters would be suggesting he drop out, so save it for someone who just got off the turnip truck, not me....[/QUOTE]


    J5E, I agree with you on a lot of this, concerning the intent of the SDs. They were intended to be independent.

    One area we disagree on is what wold happen if the situation was reversed. Yes, Obama supporters (like me) would likely be arguing for him to fight on; that's what supporters do.

    But the media would be talking about him like Huckabee were he fighting uphill against the math as Hillary is. His campaign would be described as quixotic if he was facing an insurmountable delegate gap and a likely popular-vote loss. There would be daily stories about how he was just running for veep or whatever.

    Hillary is basically running, at this point, to make a case to SDs to overturn the popular vote and the delegate count, based on intangibles (big states, momentum, or whatever). It's within the rules for her to do that, of course, but I do not believe Obama would be taken seriously were he in that position.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2428307]So what? Hillary could still say she's won the big states and important swing states (Fla, PA, Ohio) and national polls will play a part as well, and they are dead even, essentially, at this point. If Superdelegates merely had to vote for popular vote leaders or those with the most delegates, they wouldn't exist because they'd have no reason to exist. Clearly, they do exist and were in fact dreamed up precisely to NOT simply be robotic slaves to voters' whims.


    The SDs are going to choose whomever they think can beat McCain. If that is Hillary, they'll choose Hillary, even if Obama has more delegates and more votes. They created a threshold delegate number for a reason. You don't get the nomination by merely having more delegates than someone else or the most delegates, you get it by haxing x number and if you have fewer than x, [U]you don't get sh*t [/U]because SDs can do whatever they want. (Hey, they aren't my stupid rules, they are yours, so don't blame me.)

    All that said, I do agree that it looks likely to be Obama as the nom and Obama to win the whole thing. I just don't think you guys appreciate the fact that it's not as close to a sure thing as you make it out to be. The rules are the way they are, why on earth would Hillary drop out?

    If the situation were reversed, NONE of you Obama supporters would be suggesting he drop out, so save it for someone who just got off the turnip truck, not me....[/QUOTE]

    The assumption here appears to be that superdelegates are non-partial and will wait for an outcome in the primaries to decide. In this particular case, they may indeed have to do so because Obama's run has been pretty unexpected. Under ordinary circumstances, the superdelegate arrangement is a backdoor way for the Democratic party machine to control the nomination process from behind the scenes and BEFORE the fact. Hillary and the Clinton clan were wheeling and dealing to sew up superdelegates before any primary occurred -- to essentially strong arm any opponent not to bother because they would have to win so convincingly that they would have to overcome the party establishment pre-determined candidate. But superdelegates know the game has changed. They will take a severe hit as a party if they don't sanction the candidate who wins both the primary count and the popular vote. Obama is virtually certain mathematically to win both.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2428311]Cheaper but not fair as caucuses are difficult for the elderly and working poor. The should have a re-vote in both states.[/QUOTE]


    I'd be ok with that, I guess, if the logistics can be worked out (and the delegates reduced in both states).

    I can see the case for letting the Florida results stand --however unfair to Obama-- and simply revoting in Michigan, because HRC was unopposed there.

    The DNC also has to consider how long it wants this to drag out. If Hillary spends seven weeks in PA going negative on Obama, she may make it impossible for him to carry the state in November, and vice versa. They need to decide how many states they're going to risk that in.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us