US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - The Fifth Installment

[deep]

Originally posted by Butterscotch
. Anyway I am convinced racism is the only reason she won in WV and some other places, and if Hillary would have been running against a white man democrat she wouldn't be nearly as close as she is.

Like John Edwards, Chris Dodd or Joe Biden?

[Butterscotch]

We may never know. When they were still in the race a lot of people never would have predicted it would have come to these two.

What I am saying is that there are people choosing her just because she's white, and they admit it. She knows this, has even alluded to it, and doesn't mind using people her condescending, two faced, lying ass actually looks down on behind their backs as long as it serves her. What do you really think she thinks of those hillbillies in WV who chose her because they couldn't vote for an n word?

According to the article, some people voted against Obama because they think since he is black he will 'take care of black people' But you know, even if he was going to look out for blacks first, the poor white hicks who oppose him are really missing out on what might be good for them, because anything that helps poor blacks would also benefit the poor white of Appalachia.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep



Like John Edwards, Chris Dodd or Joe Biden?

Edwards did get 7% of the vote.

but there's no question -- the Clintons do very, very well in Appalachia.

[Earnie Shavers]

I'm just surprised at how open some people are about it. I've seen a couple of news stories (tv) today where people just flat out say they can't/won't/didn't vote for Obama because he's black. Astounding. Although, I guess that for every one West Virginian perfectly okay with saying that with a straight face to a tv camera, there'd be lord knows how many other people all over the country who would never own up to it, but will vote that way.

[deep]

Originally posted by Irvine511
Edwards did get 7% of the vote.

but there's no question -- the Clintons do very, very well in Appalachia.

Bill Clinton won W V in 92 by 13% and in 96 by 15%

[deep]

he does look a little nervous,
with these "gun clingers"

[deep]

Obama's speech was not very good tonight.

He says these little things that are just off.

He said McCain served "his" country.

He should be saying McCain served "our" country.

He did have a flag pin on.

Not wearing one for so long only made "small town" people a little suspicious of him.

[Butterscotch]

I would rather he not wear a flag pin because he thinks it's obligatory and corny (as I do) rather than to wear one against his will to impress anyone. If it's phoney, what good is it?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep

Not wearing one for so long only made "small town" people a little suspicious of him.

honestly, deep, you're far more patronizing to "small town" folk than any of the most loaded Obama accusations.

[Irvine511]

[q]Poll shows both Clinton and Obama beating McCain
Posted: 09:31 AM ET

(CNN) — While exit polls from the West Virginia primary seemed to suggest the party is deeply divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new poll out Wednesday suggests either candidate would easily beat Republican John McCain in the fall.

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, both Democratic candidates beat McCain by a gap well outside the margin of error. Obama beats McCain by 7 points in the poll, 47 percent to 40 percent, while Hillary Clinton bests the Arizona senator by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent.

The poll carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 points and was conducted from May 8-12.

Clinton and Obama's relatively strong standing against McCain in the poll appear to dispel notions that Democratic party may be unable to come together around one candidate in the fall, even as West Virginia exit polls reported majorities of both candidates' supporters would not support the other candidate in the general election.
[/q]





nobody knows anything.

[A_Wanderer]

Either Obama gets elected or America is a nation of crackers

Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they’re not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they’re insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.

Some want to know why it isn’t racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.

The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?

Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many — to borrow a phrase — "hardworking white Americans — in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/navarrette/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[Irvine511]

here's an interesting take on the complex history of Appalachia:



[q]Upcountry
05.13.08 -- 10:00PM
By Josh Marshall

If the exit polls (and the pre-election polls) are accurate, Hillary Clinton is set to win West Virginia by roughly a 2 to 1 margin over Barack Obama. Oregon, next Tuesday, favors Obama. But Kentucky, which votes the same day, seems likely to yield a similar margin for Sen. Clinton. So what is it about these two states that makes them so favorable to Hillary Clinton?

There's been a lot of talk in this campaign about Barack Obama's problem with working class white voters or rural voters. But these claims are both inaccurate because they are incomplete. You can look at states like Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states and see the different numbers and they are all explained by one basic fact. Obama's problem isn't with white working class voters or rural voters. It's Appalachia. That explains why Obama had a difficult time in Ohio and Pennsylvania and why he's getting crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky.

If it were just a matter of rural voters or the white working class, the pattern would show up in other regions. But by and large it does not.

In so many words, Pennsylvania and Ohio have big chunks of Appalachia within their borders. But those regions are heavily offset by non-Appalachian sections that are cultural and demographically distinct. West Virginia is 100% Appalachian. If you look at southeastern Ohio or the middle chunk of Pennsylvania, Obama did about the same as he's doing tonight in West Virginia.

Below is a map of the Appalachian counties stretching from New York down into Mississippi. Below that is a map of counties that Hillary Clinton has won by more than 65%. As you can see match up quite closely -- the grey gaps are Kentucky and West Virginia which hadn't voted yet.





So what is it about this region?

Let me offer a series of overlapping explanations. First, some basic demographics. It's widely accepted that Hillary Clinton does better with older voters, less educated voters and white voters. These demographics perfectly match West Virginia -- and, more loosely, the entire Appalachian region. A few key points from tonight's exit polls demonstrate the point: 4 out of 10 voters were over 60 years of age. 7 out of 10 lacked a college degree -- the highest proportion of any electorate in the country. And 95% of the electorate was white.

Basically you have a state that is made up almost exclusively of Clinton's voters. But there's a deeper historical explanation that we have to apply as well -- one nicely illustrated by the origins of West Virginia itself.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, in the middle Atlantic and particularly in the Southern states, there was a long-standing cleavage between the coastal and 'piedmont' regions on the one hand and the upcountry areas to the west on the other. It's really the coastal lowlands and the Appalachian districts. On the other side of the Appalachian mountain range the pattern is flipped, with the Appalachians in the east and the lowlands in the west.

These regions were settled disproportionately by Scots-Irish immigrants who pushed into the hill country to the west in part because that's where the affordable land was but also because they wanted to get away from the more stratified and inegalitarian society of the east which was built by English settlers and their African slaves. Crucially, slavery never really took root in these areas. And this is why during the Civil War, Unionism (as in support for the federal union and opposition to the treason of secession) ran strong through the Appalachian upcountry, even into Deep South states like Alabama and Mississippi.

As I alluded to earlier, this was the origin of West Virginia, which was originally the westernmost part of Virginia. The anti-slavery, anti-slaveholding upcountry seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union after Virginia seceded from the Union. Each of these regions was fiercely anti-Slavery. And most ended up raising regiments that fought in the Union Army. But they were as anti-slave as they were anti-slavery, both of which they viewed as the linchpins of the aristocratic and inegalitarian society they loathed. It was a society that was both more violent and more self-reliant.

This is history. But it shapes the region. It's overwhelmingly white, economically underdeveloped (another legacy of the pre-civil war pattern) and arguably because of that underdevelopment has very low education rates and disproportionately old populations.

For all these reasons, if you're familiar with the history, it's really no surprise that Barack Obama would have a very hard time running in this region.
[/q]

[deep]

a candidate that could get that 'poor working class" vote, African Americans, and College Graduates

like in 92 and 96?


which Candidate is better suited to build that coalition?


and if a Dem could get a good chunk of Appalachia,
would that rip the heart out of the GOP's stronghold?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep

which Candidate is better suited to build that coalition?

which candidate is going to get the blacks, the eggheads, and the kids to actually show up and vote? which candidate is going to be able to speak to the fair-minded independents of the inter-mountain west?

and if a Dem could get a good chunk of Appalachia,
would that rip the heart out of the GOP's stronghold?

is either Dem capable of doing this?

[Butterscotch]

Originally posted by deep



and if a Dem could get a good chunk of Appalachia,
would that rip the heart out of the GOP's stronghold?

Appalachia always votes democratic. They hold to the old FDR and JFK love for the party.

[Irvine511]

[q]Mississippi Fallout

By Carl Hulse

House Republicans struggled to regroup Wednesday in the aftermath of a devastating election loss in Mississippi, acknowledging that their party faced a significant challenge in November after the loss of three Republican seats in special elections this year.

“It was another wake-up call that we have to show Americans that we can fix the problems here in Washington and fix the problems they deal with every day,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader.

Republicans said that the Democratic victor in Mississippi’s 1st District, Travis Childers, successfully co-opted a conservative Republican anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-life message.

“We know the message works,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican. “We’ve got to do a better job connecting that with Republicans. And I personally think there’s a substantial and adequate time to do that.”

Republicans were clearly demoralized by the loss and the prospect of sinking deeper into the minority in November. But no immediate personnel shake-ups were announced even though Mr. Boehner hinted at “changes that maybe necessary to adopt to the environment we are living in.”

Democrats were elated, seeing the opportunity to build their majority in the House.They said Republicans could thank President Bush for their predicament as well as their own decision to hew so close to the president on policies across-the-board.

“In 2006 the voters voted for change over the rubber-stamp Republicans who stood by and encouraged the president’s policies,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic caucus. “They continue to identify, as the three special elections show, that Democrats are the party of change and the Republicans are the party of the status quo. That is one thing that is consistent in all three elections.”

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, noted that Vice President Dick Cheney made a Monday visit to the district in a failed effort to boost Republican Greg Davis.

“They put everything into this race in Mississippi,” he said. “And I think one of the things they learned was that Dick Cheney was as dangerous to Republican candidates as he is to his hunting partners.”
[/q]

[Jeannieco]

Just breaking now on CNN.com

Former Sen. John Edwards officially endorses Senator Barack Obama!

I knew this was coming sooner or later

[ladywithspinninghead]

Was just to post the above - wonder what took him so long?

[Jeannieco]

Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead
Was just to post the above - wonder what took him so long?

I wondered that also, but when it all comes down to it ......it's all about politics.

Next up AL GORE!!!

There's no stopping this train...
Step aside Hillary!

[deep]

Good ol' boys club

sexism!