e'rip
its still just the facts - after all these years.
yours is an analysis i would like to see displayed, and debated, on teevee.
has nbc or cnn called you yet?
or wapo or the nytimes or the latimes?
weblog information can be so damned inconvenient!
not to mention destructive to a story line.
Posted by orionATL at January 27, 2008 05:50 PMaren't you afraid that facts will influence the media narrative
naah, just funing.
seriously, very well written and thought out. I sent it to some of my more thoughtful friends.
I know that we've got to slice and dice this by race, so how about age? Who got whom age-wise? Who got more elderly people? Did anyone significantly capture the youth vote?
Interesting info, I guess, but what is the point of who "performed" or "underperformed" on the black/white vote? Or what race had the most "turn-out"? I don't think I get what is being said.
Why do we care about the race breakdown of any Dem candidate's supporters, exactly? I mean, if we really want to "transcend" race/gender, why must it remain such a crucial focus of analysis?
Posted by euzoius at January 27, 2008 06:02 PMEuzoius,
The analysis is important to understand how the campaigns are doing with different demographics and to assess whether the media is just spinning a narrative that is not true. That's the focus of this post. I don't see this as about race. It is about understanding how people are voting and why.
Posted by eriposte at January 27, 2008 06:06 PMIt's about calling bullshit on the media racial spin. I love the fact that eriposte's mere correcting of the spin that already exists and is being actively promoted by Obama supporters is now being called into question and tut-tutted at.
Posted by WMCB at January 27, 2008 07:11 PMIt's about calling bullshit on the media racial spin. I love the fact that eriposte's mere correcting of the spin that already exists and is being actively promoted by Obama supporters is now being called into question and tut-tutted over.
Posted by WMCB at January 27, 2008 07:11 PMGood post, but you miss the obvious. Hillary won white women 44%, JE got 39%, BO 24%. John Edwards grabbed the lion's share of the white male vote, Hillary only got 29% of this vote, BO 27%, so I would guess gender played a role in Edwards rise. Also, he is the native son and I would bet that had more to do with the shift, coupled with Hillary not really campaigning there, than his debate performance.
Posted by Masslib at January 27, 2008 07:12 PMI found it interesting that while they were also touting his great accomplishment with the youth voters (who are obvioulsy race blind) about 50% white. What they don't cover is that he only received 16% of the white vote over 60. Now I'd like to see young people involved, but I also found that to be important becasue older people vote more regularly. Who knows maybe that will change but I believe the youth vote they were touting was only 5% of the voters. On Politico they seem to believe that Ted Kennedy's endorsement will help him a lot with latinos because of his immigration policies. We'll have to see. Any thoughts?
Posted by nycvoter at January 27, 2008 07:26 PMI don't see Ted having much impact on the Latino vote at all. I am in 80% Hispanic San Antonio, and they are so solidly for Hillary I don't think an endorsement from the Virgin of Guadalupe could sway them. Also, many were FURIOUS at the nasty nasty radio ad run by Obama's friends in Nevada. Big time.
Posted by WMCB at January 27, 2008 07:32 PMIt's amazing how stable Obama's support has been.
Boy, what a disconnect from the blog-frenzy.
Care to post this at dKos?
j/k
Posted by Pacific John at January 27, 2008 07:34 PM"showing the percentages of white and black voters"
"The analysis is important to understand how the campaigns are doing with different demographics and to assess whether the media is just spinning a narrative that is not true."
Ahh, perpetuating racism with more racism. Of course racism is a familiar tactic of the left, since collectivism is what breeds racism.
Nothing like the irony of all the leftists who say I'm voting for (Hillary/Obama), because I think it is about time that America can look past (sex/skin color) when electing a president.(Not accusing you of this. Just noting I've heard plenty of leftists perpetuate this self contradicting statement).
Posted by Jay at January 27, 2008 07:46 PMI heard a Black South Carolinian woman on C-Span say, "We Blacks stick together, just like we did for OJ."
Made me cringe , thinking Karl Rove is already planning a quick negative ad in the general with THAT quote.
Sheesh
Posted by Mary at January 27, 2008 07:51 PMEdwards had a number of advantages in SC that won't be repeated elsewhere. He was born there, served as Senator in the neighboring state, won the state in 2004, and outspent Clinton and Obama combined in tv ads. And Clinton practically pulled out of the state to focus on Super Tuesday. Edwards will have a harder time getting 18% of the vote in the future.
Posted by Mark at January 27, 2008 07:58 PMObama won in Iowa; no one said boo about his winning in a State that is about 97 percent white folks...
He won the pre-election polls in New Hampshire; he won the exit polls in New Hampshire; but he was robbed in New Hampshire by some one hacking and fixing the Diebold "counted" 81% of the vote; he won the 19% that were hand-counted. Just another little corporate trick on "democracy."
Hillary is a chronic liar and a chronic cheater: She kept her name on the Michigan primary election ballots, after the other major Dem candidates withdrew their names as requested by the Dem HQ; same trick in Florida. Then she will request that the Michigan delegates and Florida delegates be admitted to the Convention and be allowed to vote (for her...). What a pathetic cheater. She could fit right in with Rove and the GOP thugs...
Posted by james k. sayre at January 27, 2008 10:13 PMAh, NO, james k. sayre. They did a recount you nitwit. Hillary won fair and square. Deal with it.
Posted by Masslib at January 27, 2008 10:22 PMjames k you are an idiot. In the first place, the votes in NH were hand recounted, and nothing was wrong.
In the second place, "Dem HQ" never asked for any names to be pulled off the Michigan ballot. Obama removed his to try to suck up to the "special" Iowa and NH, and talked Edwards and Richardson into following suit. Clinton and Dodd remained on the ballot.
Posted by WMCB at January 27, 2008 10:44 PMDon't forget: Edwards is a native sone of SC. He has a lot of support there, especially among whites.
Posted by JoeCHI at January 28, 2008 04:39 AMLook Before You Leap: Obama’s Mobbed-Up Allies...
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/27/look-before-you-leap-obamas-mobbed-up-allies
Posted by dkm at January 28, 2008 04:58 AMFor what it's worth, I live in South Carolina and voted for HRC, but I was mightily tempted to vote for Obama, although he's a little too conservative for me. (If he is the Dem candidate, it would be an honor for me to vote for him. Anyway, no matter who the candidate is, I plan to send him/her my Bush tax rebate or whatever the hell they're calling it.)
I am a female elder and may be considered white in some circles but lately I've taken to answering "yes" on forms inquiring about race.
The thing that really excited me about this election is that in my voting district (majority black), the turnout for the Dem primary was more than twice as large as for the Republican primary.
I am hoping in November to see voters (Dems all!) drive these criminals from office.
jane
Posted by jane at January 28, 2008 07:13 AMThe corrections are hilarious. They call into question you entire conclusions, and you even admit it practically right in the article, Eriposte. I love all the cross-outs/strike-throughs.
Look, I see the national numbers, Hillary is going to blow Obama out of the water on Super Duper Tuesday, and even at current rates she'll get the nomination on the very first delegate count.
However, in South Carolina, Obama creamed her, completely, totally. She didn't gain jack among the African-American community. I love it, "it may have been a wash within MoE..." In other words, this analysis is crud.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 28, 2008 07:49 AMThe only question at this point is whether the ticket will be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.
Posted by Commenter from afar at January 28, 2008 08:33 AMYou remain one of the few leaders in the blogosphere....clear, logical, persuasive, passionate. Gleen Greenwald also is rather impressive on most issues...though when I disagree with him...it is violently...like today, Monday, when he was absolutely unfair to Bill Clinton. And Bob Somerby was similarly moved by a strain of political correctness...that I was surprised to see.Stay strong Eriposte. It is times like these that test one the most. Bill had every right to mention Jesse Jackson...just as mentioning evangelicals and the Huckabee vote is reasonable...We are in danger of drowning in a pool of political correctness...that is biased against Hillary and both Clintons. It is madness.
And the narrative being spun about Obama is absurd in light of real facts. Obama is a politician...a very good one with an excellent campaign manager. But nothing else suggests leadership...the present votes...the failure to lead in the Senate. On a right wing blog I was visiting, I heard that Obama was preferred by Kennedy because Kennedy would have more power in an Obama administration. Sounds credible to me. But in this world of self righteous liberal elites, Kennedy's endorsement is pure. So I have a test. Did Kennedy stand up and lend his voice to Chris Dodd in the FISA debate? No...So this hero worship is dangerous. George Bush had a cult of the right...do we have a cult of the left in Obama?
Start layering Eriposte...it's going to cold...and stock up on that special ammunition of yours...because your devoted readers are counting on you to lead some battles. And we expect to win.
Both barrels...No surrender. The irrational voices are drunk...delirious with the power they imagine is theirs in a few months. And that always makes me anxious. After all, a real reformer and the descendant of RFK, RFK, Jr., endorsed Hillary...as did his sister, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former office holder. So when we don't hear about their endorsements (and RFK's legacy is routinely mentioned in connection with Obama)...something is up. It's too quiet. They think they have silenced Bill Clinton after blaming the candidate for her husband's actions. And the pile on continues.
By the way, this actually does nothing for race relations, other than inflame them. I can't stand victims...especially when they refuse to supply the policy underlying their lofty rhetoric.
Anyway...channel the anger...if it's boiling in you as it is in many of us.
Posted by lily15 at January 28, 2008 02:56 PMI've been trying to find a race-based breakdown but for some reason that's taboo in a racially charged contest.
It looks to me like HRC and Obama have been fairly consistent with her gaining a little across the board each time (with the exception of white voters in SC)
Obama has won the majority of the black vote each time (except NH, where there apparently aren't any blacks)
The big difference seems to be the size of the black vote in SC, where it was 55% of the total.
How terribly racist and evil of the Big Dog to point out that Obama kicked ass in a state with a large black population.
That "racist" meme makes me laugh. Might as well call Reagan a commie.
Posted by myiq2xu at January 30, 2008 03:38 AM