Delta9

Not at all.. it was most certainly a factor for some people. Race is not the reason he won, but for many people it was a factor. That exit poll proves it.

Calvin-X

Yes, Obama loses to McCain by 13% compared to Clinton losing by 9%.

Looked at one way a differance of 4%. 4 freakin percent! That is the power of racism in the deepest south!

But looked at more practically, it makes no differance in the outcome of this state.

If you look at the national totals, Obama, the black liberal is doing better than the white liberal.


If racism was a significant factor in the election all else being equal the white liberal would be doing better than the black liberal.

Delta9

So you go from saying it's not a factor.. to saying its not a significant factor. Alright..

What makes something significant? How many people until it becomes significant?

Clearly, it's a factor. And clearly for some in America race is the determining factor. Thats all I'm saying and really thats all that matters.

TeaSea

This info is from an article by David Sirota, editor at These Times magazine.

42 states and D.C. have done their primaries or caucuses. Take out the two senators' home states (Ill., N.Y., Ark.) and the two states where Edwards was a big factor (N.H., Iowa) and the one state where only Clinton was on the ballot (Mich.). Subtract also the Latino factor by removing the 4 states with a Hispanic population of more than 25%(Cal., N.M., Tex., Ariz.). What remains is the 33 elections that best show the impact of the black/white split.
Obama took the 14 states with a black population of less than 6%, in part because black-white racial politics are essentially non-existent in those states. He also took those 8 with over 20% black population - many in the deep South - with long history of day to day black-white racial politics. It is in the states where the black population is more than 6% but less than 17% that Clinton wins. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell noted this dynamic in a Feb. interview when he said Obama's ethnicity could prevent him from winning his 10.6% black state: "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate." Thomas Schaller, a political science professor at University of Maryland-Baltimore sums it up - "When the black population is really small, racial polarization is small enough that Obama can win, and when black population is large, any polarization is drowned out by the overwhelming size of the Democratic black vote. But in the middle range, polarization is sizable enough that black voters cannot overcome it, and these are the states where Clinton wins." Clinton also is well aware of this dynamic in the up-coming primaries. She is so determined to raise the race issue that she has given an in-person interview to the Pittsburg Tribune-Review specifically to criticize Jeremiah Wright. (This is the same ultra-conservative newspaper owned by the same billionaire who funded the anti-Clinton witch-hunts of the '90s.)

Calvin-X

When it effects the outcome.

And clearly for America as a whole, race is not the determining factor.

Thats all I'm saying and really thats all that matters.

Calvin-X

Interesting theory, let us examine it.

Election 2008: Presidential, Senate and House Races Updated Daily


Latest polls show Obama and Hillary tied in Pa. Considering how Obama has the momentum it looks like a Obama victory is the most likely.


Then when we take it to the general election, thus bringing in to the vote the supposed party of racism with almost no blacks Obama ends up winning.

THat does not appear to support this theory.

Maybe Pa. Republicans are more disgusted with Hillary than racist.

No that doesn't work because in the general election, Hillary is not a contender.

Or maybe Pa whites are generally not racist.

TeaSea

Maybe your expectations for what a President can do are too high.
We are not going to see any kumbaya love fest no matter who gets elected.

Raising expectations is not a bad thing. It is essential. Without at least a concept of something good happening there are no subsequent steps to get there. The risk of disappointment is high, because, as you pointed out, there is conflict. Obama will not, himself, solve the problem of Palestine and Israel any more than any other individual will. Any improvement in that situation will be as the result of the concerted efforts of many players - not just one president. Hey! And guess which candidate is particularly admired as a unifier?!
Your talk about retreating makes it seem as though you are afraid that our next president will not be militarily threatening and aggressive enough. Didn't we get our fill of that with Bush? Isn't that very stance the core of the most colossally wasteful (money and lives) and destructive blunder any administration has ever made? That brings up another of Obama's assets - Intelligence! Wow. Enough imagination to know that, unless you are directly threatened by a respectable level of military force, you still have MYRIAD options (only one of which Jimmy Carter would have chosen in an identical situation, so mathematically speaking - you don't have to worry about THAT boogie-man).
I did not say that Obama is so great that racism is the only reason America might not elect him. I did say that, were it not for racism, he most likely would be elected. My basis for this is the extent to which race is a political factor in some states and the correlation of his losses to Clinton in those states - unless those states have more than 20% black electorate (good for Obama in the primaries, maybe bad in the general election). The details of that are in my previous post, the one about the primaries and caucuses that have already been completed.
You refuted that by theorizing that Obama will win in PA!!!

Well, I hope so...

notahack

I love debates based upon opinions and hypotheticals. Nobody is wrong and nobody is right. With regard to iraq, we may never know if it was a deterrent and helped keep terrorists away from the USA. Was it and is it a colossal mess? perhaps, and then again, maybe not. An argument can be made for or against any conflict but and you just always remember, Saddam had his chances to comply with the UN and chose not to do so. His people had their chances to try and overthrow him. I tire of people acting as if the jihadists and citizens of iraq etc have clean hands. Their hands are dirty and needed to be less passive and take control from their oppressors. How the Hell do you think the USA was founded? People were willing to lay down their lives for the betterment of everyone.

Bush bashers; he's an easy target but don't overlook the catalyst of the whole frickin event; the Iraquis themselves

As for Oprahma, there is a huge race issue there. There are those that will vote for him solely because he is black and it's been shown on "man on the street interviews" Then, there are those that will vote against him solely because he is black. The racism is on both sides.

I do believe that the best path to the White House for the liberals is to take away the black and anti-black vote. That would be with HillBilly. If they get anointed at the dem convention, then you would have a low voter turnout and Billy knows how to win elections with under 50% of the votes.

__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us" Pogo

Calvin-X

Glad we are in agreement there.


He is admired as a unifer. THat is not quite the same thing as actually being a unifer.

Ever freakin president since Nixon has addressed the Palestinian/Isreali problem. No of them were idiots. To assume that this inexperianced guy is going to do better than all of them is to raise expectation unrealisticly high.



Blaming Bush is another example of how unrealistic you are being.

A President Obama is still going to be supporting both Isreal and Saudi Arabia. That will be plenty to keep the terrorists motivated.

There will be others who will interpert Obamas message of consiliation as weakness. They will try to take advantage. Obama will not get presidency without some national security crisis.

Do not be surprised if his response looks familar. As I said Carter tried to play nice, look how that turned out.


I blame FDR's wife for that. He should never had represented us vs Stalin at Yalta.

Yes this old one. All republican president are stupid.


Is this the type of open mind that will enable Obama to find solutions that generations of presidents have failed at?


Sooo, all indirect attacks will be allowed to proceed without response? I hope Obama makes that clear during the campaign!




Why did Hillary, one of the sharpest politicans today, spend her entire time in Congress running to the middle?

Because she knew that the far left is to scary for middle america. She though she would breeze through the primary and then be perfectly positioned to appeal to the center.

I am glad Obama has dragged her to the far left. And that he is such a leftist.

At a time when America is beleived to be in a recession and in a unpopular war it looks like the Republicans are going to be able to win because both Dems are to far to the left.







If he does will you reconsider you belief system of how racist America is?

rielgenius1688

Im going to have to disagree with you on a couple of issues. First, I do believe tha Obama's color is much of why he is as far as he is. He has such an aura of history in the majing about him that it is impossible to seperate the man from the myth at this point. Without his color he is nothing but a very eloquent person with few discernable issues and even fewer qualifications. To so many liberals he has turned into the object of their hopes, the way to absolve the collective white guilt about slavery. For all his speeches about being the bringer of post racial politics, he is inseperable from it, and all one need do is ask the latinos.