Black voters start to break
Friday, Dec 7, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Hmmm… I wonder who predicted this turn of events way back in February?
Obama’s showing [in South Carolina] has improved significantly among black voters. He now attracts 51% of the African-American vote in South Carolina while Clinton picks up just 27%. A month ago, the candidates were even in this important constituency […]
In the South Carolina survey, African-Americans constitute 49% of Likely Democratic Primary voters.
Let’s see… Could that February sage have been… Ummm… Me?
Next, you “experts” assume that just because viable, credible black candidates end up winning overwhelming majorities of black votes that polls currently showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama among African Americans are somehow important.
Wrong again.
In Illinois, at least, large numbers of black voters tend to take their time making up their minds. In political parlance, they ‘’break late.'’
Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary (about where we are now before the Iowa caucuses), Obama’s own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began ‘’breaking'’ in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes.
This same pattern has been repeated time and time again during the past 25 years here. Harold Washington didn’t start off his campaign with the majority of black support against a white female with a huge war chest and the powers of patronage and incumbency, but he certainly ended that way.
Like Byrne, Hillary Clinton is almost universally known and has a strong record of backing issues important to many Democratic African-American voters. Obama is far less known. It’s perfectly natural that, right now, many black voters are siding with Clinton. But, if Obama’s candidacy remains viable through early next year, I’d bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.
* Pretty much right on schedule, African-American voters are now breaking away from Clinton in a big way and are inching towards Obama in South Carolina - and it’s showing in the overall head-to-heads…
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows Clinton with 36% of the vote while Obama is the top choice for 34% of the state’s Likely Primary Voters. A month ago, Clinton had a ten-point advantage. In September, the former First Lady was up by thirteen points.
If Obama remains viable (that is, if he doesn’t get blown out by voters, the media or strange turns of events in Iowa and/or New Hampshire) you can expect this trend among black voters to accelerate as the Jan. 26th primary approaches. South Carolina is where the campaign changes. No longer will the focus be on self-important, lily white rural/suburban enclaves. Minority voters will will play a much larger role
Critique this assessment and share your thoughts on Obama’s candidacy to date.
- Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:11 am:
I think it’s a fairly accurate assessment. I also find it offensive that the media fails to call out the Black community for voting based on race, a practice which has finally pretty much died among White votes except in certain backwaters. Remember, Obama won the Dem primary and the general with overwhelming numbers of White votes. A few years later, we saw Todd Stroger win the county board presidency with nearly the entirety of the Black vote, along with quite a few White votes. Even after all that has transpired in the past year under Stroger, I have no doubt that should he be the only Black candidate in the D primary and general elections, he’ll carry 90%+ of the Black vote next time around, even though he has done nothing to advance the interests of the Black community other than those of his friends and relatives.
I also think that polls are a poor barometer of what is to come when there is even an indirect hint of race being a factor in an election. Many Black voters when approached by a White pollster may fear being deemed “racist” if they identify the Black candidate as their choice out of several extremely liberal candidates. They may blurt out “Hillary”, but you can bet they’ll punch “Obama” in the booth.
- Tom B. - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:24 am:
Right, but what do you know, you’re only a flyover pundit Rich. Send this back to the DC guys with a big ole middle finger in the email.
- Obaman - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:25 am:
At the beginning of the campaign, I thought he had as good a chance as anyone, based on the enthusiasm I saw from all kinds of people who normally don’t pay attention. But Hillary, Edwards, and even Richardson have all run strong campaigns, and it’s hard to be the alternative in a field of alternatives.
Still, over the last three weeks I have grown more confident than ever that he’s going to do it. He is in the perfect position in Iowa - actually leading but getting treated as the underdog. In NH, where it hasn’t been close all year, the gap is now single digits. They could easily go into SC neck and neck.
He has to win one of the first four, but is in position to win at least two if not three going into the huge February 5th day.
- Angry Chicagoan - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:30 am:
Hypothesis: black voters voting on race in the Stroger/Beavers sense would actually be voting for Hillary because of the perception she represents “their” interests — not Obama, who is viewed as “not a genuine African-American.” Discuss.
Observation: white voters, at least in many parts of the country, continue to vote based on race AGAINST minority candidates, if not necessarily out of any fondness for their own.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:32 am:
===who is viewed as “not a genuine African-American.”===
I don’t believe that argument is supported by hard data.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:33 am:
Also, if you read my February column you’ll note that John Stroger endorsed Dan Hynes in 2004, and Obama cleaned up in Stroger’s ward.
- DC - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:39 am:
The assessment is spot-on. Iowa and New Hampshire have turned into a cash cow and a cash drain for campaigns of both major political parties. Someone wins in Iowa but loses in New Hampshire and then the momentum (and media) swings will declare yet another frontrunner. The lack of a true front runner in the republican side will allow democrats to elect their favorite candidate rather than just voting for the person who can beat the republican. Hillary has run a campaign against George Bush rather than a campaign on why she’s the best candidate for the job. We should not assume black voters - or any voters for that fact - will lean a certain way. The outcome in South Carolina will certainly embolden the winner, strengthen the notion that (hopefully) Obama is truly capable of appealing to lily-white voters as well as informed African Americans too.
The “build them up to knock them down” mentality of mainstream media sill certainly continue as well. It is happening to Hillary now and will likely happen to Huckabee in the weeks ahead. In the end, the person who appeals to voters as the most authentic and most caring will win those states, despite assertions by the Hillary machine that her nomination is all but a done deal.
- Anonymous45 - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:39 am:
and when the Rezko trial starts in February Rich, please predict how this might affect his candidacy
- Angry Chicagoan - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:42 am:
Was not aware of Obama’s successful conversion of Stroger’s home turf. That’s a highly, highly significant fact — and I think it also effectively debunks a lot of the criticism on the right of how African-Americans place their votes.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:45 am:
Obama is a good fit for a lot of voters, black and white. His biggest potential negative is his lack of experience, but under the right circumstances (anger with the powers that be), it becomes a positive.
It looks like Hillary has been riding Bill’s coattails with the African-Americans and that kept her high in the polls until they started to look at both Barack and Hillary more closely. Hillary is not Bill, and Barack has a great story.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:48 am:
Rich, what’s to criticize?
I’ve been listening to the “Is he black enough/Will blacks vote for him/Is America ready for a Black President?” stuff for a year now.
Its 2004 all over again.
In 2004, the early rap on Barack Obama was that he wasn’t “black enough”. Too intellectual, too well-spoken, not militant enough. Then I saw him speak to a large room packed with black professional women.
Oh yeah, he’s black enough I said.
Then we had the 2004 Democratic primary. Obama garnered 464,917 votes in Cook County. Obama drew 70,000 more votes in Cook County than his seven Democratic opponents and the eight Republicans in the field combined.
Outside of Cook County, Obama “only” drew 191K votes. I say “only” because that was still 20K more than Dan Hynes and 95K more than Blair Hull.
In fact, it was also 7K more than GOP candidate JACK! Ryan, 70K more than Jim Oberweis, 90K more than Steve Rauschenberger, etc., etc., etc.
Despite his “Rock Star” label, pundits have Obama caught in a cycle of under-estimation and hype. Everyone underestimates him, until he’s put to the test, and then when he passes with flying colors, he’s treated like the second-coming. If they hadn’t underestimated him in the first place, realizing that he is charismatic, intelligent, excels at retail politics, has multi-racial appeal, and most of all, very disciplined and focused on the campaign trail, they wouldn’t be surprised at all.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:49 am:
===effectively debunks a lot of the criticism on the right of how African-Americans place their votes.===
Which is partly why I wrote the piece. Not about the “right,” but about the national political media’s complete ignorance of these types of campaigns.
- Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:51 am:
Angry, I think you’re misreading what happened in Stroger’s ward: the ward boss told them to vote for a white guy, and they said no, we’re voting for a black guy. What you’re alluding to was the old style machine politics where King Richard I would annoint a committeeman/alderman, who would accept goodies for himself and his cronies while selling out his constituency by delivering their votes for the white machine candidates in city, county and state races. What happened in the 8th Ward was racial voting in its purest form.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:55 am:
===who is viewed as “not a genuine African-American.”===
I don’t believe that argument is supported by hard data.
Not is it not supported by hard data, I don’t believe its supported by soft data, or even observation.
Maybe Obama is viewed as “not a genuine African-American” by Billie Bob types, but certainly the vast majority of black voters don’t question his authenticity.
By contrast, here’s what an old friend of mine had to say about Colin Powell way back when his name was being floated as a presidential candidate:
“I don’t care if he’s black, HE’S A REPUBLICAN!”
That was the day I stopped worried about the GOP ever making significant inroads into the African American community.
- Loop Lady - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 9:55 am:
I guess you are expecting way too much from the national media Rich, they are into cookie cutter thinking on presidential politics…there probably has not been a candidate like Obama since, oh say 1968…on the other hand,
I beleive racism and bigotry are alive and well in too many parts of the US. We’ll see how this plays out in the next three months…
- Justice - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 10:19 am:
He has Oprah’s money behind him in a big way in South Carolina. That press coverage will spill into Iowa and New Hampshire and should be positive.He hasn’t started really spending any of the big money he has collected, but neither has Hillary. Barrack has done alright to date but really hasn’t given the uniting and charismatic speech he delivered to the convention. His lack of experience can be a blessing, but he will need to address immigration, defense, education, health care, energy, jobs, and a number of other problems facing us. The gloves will come off soon but each candidate is looking to choose a running mate and must not trash the others at this point. Not likely that Obama is interested in second place and less likely the voters will choose him as a second if they haven’t chosen him as the top on the ticket. How he handles himself under fire the next three months will decide his, and our, future. We wish him luck. Hillary, break a leg……I really mean that!
- Carl Nyberg - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 10:23 am:
Does it make sense for HRC to have her Iowa supporters to caucus for Edwards?
It seems Edwards winning Iowa is less of a threat than Obama winning Iowa.
If Obama wins Iowa, he’s positioned to win in NH and SC. It starts to look like he could run the table.
Edwards winning in Iowa doesn’t seem to risk the same problem.
- Lake Tom - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 10:27 am:
Rich, whoever taught you about how to read a poll back in the 90’s was/is a genius. I’m glad you paid attention.
- babs - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 10:31 am:
Everyone here seems to have a much more optimistic view of the electorate that I. Remember polls that had black candidates winning in other states (think Jesse Helms et al) because whites would say that they were going to vote for a black man but in the privacy of the voting booth, they wouldn’t/couldn’t bring themselves to elect a black man. There isn’t anything I would like to see myself proved wrong on more than this. I would be so proud to see this country/state/municipality vote for a black man for president. I just don’t believe that in that voting booth - those same folks will actually deliver. Prove me wrong - please.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 10:34 am:
I think the “racial slippage” stuff may be outdated, overblown and confined mostly to the South. Remember, Illinois has elected a lot of black people statewide since that Helms election. And, frankly, I’m not sure we’ve seen any hard evidence of slippage since then. Plus, these are Dem primaries and I’m talking about black voters here.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 10:41 am:
Gee, LT, thanks. I wonder who that was? LOL
- Loop Lady - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 10:43 am:
Hey Justice, that wasn’t very nice,–why the cruelty? I guess you can’t tolerate an ambitious woman, just ambitious men…
- ZC - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 10:56 am:
In terms of Obama’s overall candidacy, I’d have to say he’s kicking a** right now. “In the zone,” one person I know on the campaign described it.
Now clearly he’s had some luck - a) the Iran vote; b) the kindergarten smear; c) the recent IA county chair busted for sending Obama smears; d) the glowing blurb David Yepsen wrote about his Jefferson-Jackson speech (at least for me, I watch it and think, “What’s so special about this?”); e) the genetic incapacity of the national news media to understand the concept of margin of error on an Iowa caucus survey.
Still, as the Ragin’ Cajun always said, the harder you work, the luckier you get.
Here’s a question I’ve been wondering on - if you’re Hillary, do you prefer a 1-Obama 2-Hillary 3-Edwards finish in Iowa, or a 1-Edwards 2-Obama 3-Hillary finish in Iowa? Assuming in both cases it’s pretty clumped up and tight.
I still think Hillary will win it (Nevada, New Hampshire and _Florida_, not South Carolina, are her firewalls - expect her to distort Obama’s statements on Social Security into every rest home in Palm Beach) but Obama has definitely moved this into the category of, “Who the heck knows?”
- Tucker McElroy - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 11:16 am:
Here’s the comment I left at Archpundit almost a year ago.
We are approaching stage 6 and it’s so funny to see things play out exactly as expected, but what’s really funny is we all know how this plays out because we’ve seen it before but it seems so new to the national and DC folks.
- Ghost - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 11:16 am:
Hillary costed a long time on her large numbers and inevitable win.
I actually thought votes would change once democrats realized she was appealing mostly only to the core dems, and then nationally she did not do well with the moderates and independents, the group Obama rules. Basically I was predciting dems would realise she is not electable in a national race and we would see this at the polls.
The oddity of a primary being many are limited to memebrs of a party, and the canidate needs to show more then the ability to get party support, and Hillary is to polarizing.
It looks like at least one support group is starting to pull away from her, these really sad attacks on Obama can not help. Now that she is losing the minority base she was taking for granted I am curious to see if Oprah can pull away more of Hillaries female support.
- undecided - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 11:33 am:
I want to like Obama, however the news clip of Emil Jones bragging that he mentored Obama and the tongue in cheek proclamation -he’s my son- keep holding me back. I would like to believe he is above Illinois politics and that Jones would not end up with an important appointment however I have not cleared that hurdle yet.
- Ghost - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 12:05 pm:
The SC poll has some leggs…
===Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has picked up the endorsement of a state senator Glenn Reese who had previously supported Joe Biden for president.===
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1207/478734.html
- Levois - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:23 pm:
I wonder if this is supported by hard facts. If blacks were sluggish at first to support Obama, they were because Hillary was running. Hillary has that magic last name among blacks, CLINTON. Since she’s married to the first black president then they might vote for her because of her association. It’s almost as ridiculous as just voting for a candidate because he’s black. Especially if you know a segment will vote for you no matter what and yet they turn on you later on.
- Loop Lady - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:24 pm:
Undedcided: although this is only IL related political info, I am sure the rival campaigns will use it to their utmost advantage…Rich, did you read Andrew Young’s reasoning for endorsing HRC?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:24 pm:
Levois, re-read that Sun-Times article in full. Your questions should be answered.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:25 pm:
Also, HRC’s initial support was pumped way up because of her name recognition among all voters, not just African-Americans.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:29 pm:
===Rich, did you read Andrew Young’s reasoning for endorsing HRC?===
No, but as I’ve already said, Illinois political history clearly shows that black endorsements of white candidates rarely work when those white candidates are up against viable black candidates.
- Captain America - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:30 pm:
I do think African- Amnerican voters will ultimatey break Obama’s way after he achieves credibility by winning the Iowa caucus,
Many AFrican Americans will stick with Hilary because of their affection for Bill.
Kurt
- Justice - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:32 pm:
Dearest Loop Lady: Actually I like ambitious men and ambitious women. I just don’t like Hillary, any more than Blagojevich, but it is a close race. She is a bit too weasely for me. But hey, she’s tough. I just prefer Obama over her and wish him the best.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:34 pm:
===Many AFrican Americans will stick with Hilary because of their affection for Bill.===
Define “many” then get ready for a bet.
- nobody sent - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:39 pm:
The race in Iowa is Barack’s to lose at this point. He’s got it in his grasp, the field structure is there, the momentum is there, he’s got the intensity on his side. If you think back to his Senate run, it wasn’t until late that he started to break, and it was some particularly effective tv spot that helped do it. sure, sure, his opponent melted down, but I really think he could have won even with this guy still in it. He’s got a new spot in Iowa, which is pretty damn good.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/iamomentad
I’m going to include Rich’s disclaimer in this prognostication.
(that is, if he doesn’t get blown out by voters, the media or strange turns of events in Iowa and/or New Hampshire)
- Levois - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 1:42 pm:
I don’t think I’d take that bet.
- Golly Ggee Wilakers - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 2:09 pm:
I think elections are so negative and mean. I think everyone that runs should WIN. They can share the office, take turns. Wouldn’t that be nice.
- Bud Man - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 2:13 pm:
Rich,
I agree that your column was a great, objective piece and showed how good of a political reporter you really are. But, I am starting to tire of the Obama cheerleading, and it happens on this site everyday. Do you really want someone who claims Emil as a mentor in the White House? We have enough problems here in Illinois. Why bring them to the entire nation? I for one will never vote for an Illinois politician for the WH. We are just to crooked in this state to be trusted.
And Rich, can you give me a major achievment of Obama’s since he has been a Senator. Everyone asks me and I have not been able to give an honest answer to any of them. At least the Governor has AllKids!
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 2:16 pm:
lol
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 2:18 pm:
I hope that the top three (at least) stay in through February AND keep their delegates for the convention. I hate to see the donors & supporters & candidates buy into the media idea that the first few primaries determine the winner. This is true only when it is believed to be true. The numbers aren’t there.
Back in the day, candidates would look at some of the later, bigger states and work them for a come back. It would be nice to see some more drawn out campaigning and a real primary “season.”
Unfortunately, so many states have moved their primaries up, there may be too little time for candidates to work the field.
- To: Nobody Sent - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 2:18 pm:
Iowa was Howard Dean’s to lose at this point to. Remember that?
YYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Dems always break for electability, and the Barockstar don’t got it.
- Boone Logan Square - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 2:37 pm:
Hey Rich, do you stand to collect dinner or drinks from anyone based on your comment, “if Obama’s candidacy remains viable through early next year, I’d bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.”
I still think any of three candidates can win Iowa, and all three have some shot at the nomination. That said, I would rather be in Obama’s shoes than in any other candidate’s, Republican or Democrat. His Iowa campaign seems to have the most energy, he’s built as ambitious a February 5 campaign strategy as anyone (even Giuliani, who may not make it that far) and if I had to bet money on any candidate securing a nomination (D or R*) by midnight, February 6, it would be Obama. (Though I would not be at all surprised if he and Clinton duke it out for a few weeks past the 5th.)
*Unless Ron Paul decides to run as a Libertarian by then. He’s got that nomination wrapped up.
- BIG R.PH. - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 3:34 pm:
I think what you are all forgetting is the sage words of Karl Rove (who like it or not knows about getting someone elected) “her (Hillary Clinton’s)negatives are too high. Approximately 50% of the people do not like and do not respect her. It will be almost impossible to get over 50% of the vote when 50% of the people hate you.
I also think if you are looking @ South Carolina as a bell-weather you are ignoring the neighboring state candidate. Obama is doing well in Iowa because he is from Illinois. (next door) Edwards will do well in SC because he is from NC.
Long term Edwards is not likeable because he is a plaintiff attorney.
Obama needs to worry about getting whacked at the knees by Clinton (Mr & Mrs)
- ZC - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 4:46 pm:
As long as we’re challenging widespread but factually-sketchy assertions here, I'’ respond to Big R.P.H. This claim that Hillary’s negatives make her unelectable may be her equivalent to the blacks-won’t-support-Obama meme.
Gallup did a nice analysis criticizing Rove’s comments back on August 22nd. As they pointed out, “Clinton’s current unfavorable ratings are in reality not much different from what other past candidates have had in the year they won the election. Second, her image has been more negative than positive several other times during the past 15 years, but often has recovered and could do so again. Last, despite Clinton’s high unfavorables, she remains competitive with the Republican candidates in Gallup’s presidential test elections.”
The last one is key for me. If Hillary’s negatives make her so unelectable, why does she usually beat every current Republican in a head-to-head matchup? (Granted, she doesn’t always, but she does so more often than not).
I think the truth is (sorry any Republicans reading this), whichever Dem wins this thing, Barack or Hillary, is going to be hard to stop. Voters want change. And historically, when the incumbent White House party is this badly fractured going into election year, that’s a very bad sign.
- newliberal - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 8:16 pm:
Hi,
Before anyone gets injured patting themselves, maybe a little perspective?
11/26 - 11/29 according to ARG
Hillary was up 45 - 21.
11/7 - 11/25 according to pew
Hillary was up 45 - 31.
So numeroous polls show a blowout are discounted because so far… 2 or 3 polls show a close race?
In one of the polls Insider advantage there were 67 blacks polled.
Do you know the margin of error with 67 people being sampled in the place of hundreds of thousands? It got to be at least 9% at 95% confidence. Which means 5 % of the time the poll can be totally wrong, and 95% of the time EACH PERSON can be 9 points higher or lower.
The point is maybe wait and see over a month unless you want to have to explain why the breaking black vote was a “head fake”.
- newliberal - Friday, Dec 7, 07 @ 8:42 pm:
update:
Here is a website that shows I underestimated the m.o.e. for subgroups of 67:
http://www.publicagenda.org/polling/polling_error.cfm
–
The actual estimate would be around 12% at 95% confidence.
So a poll with black vote of Obabma 51 Clinton 27
means..
If you did this poll 100 times, 95 times
Obama would be between 39-63
and
Clinton would be between 15-39
Assuming this is one of the 95, it technically could still be a tie among black votes, but prob. Obama in the lead.
But these companies do polls wrong all the time and introduce more than sampling error. Some are obvious, while others take an expert to notice.
For instance: Newsweek has a poll with Huckabee up 22 in Iowa 39 - 17. No one would argue that is correct because of logic, history, etc. So there’s some error. So everyone but Huckabee fans will discount it.
- Aaron Slick - Saturday, Dec 8, 07 @ 2:26 pm:
As a Republican, I wish that I could believe Obamma’s sincerity in his message of “the need for change”. The fact that Barack “knows who brought him to the dance” disappoints many of us Republicans that would consider voting for him if he was genuine. The fact that Obamma endorsed Todd Stroger and any other incompetent Democrat candidate that his Democrat Party leadership has told him to endorse simply points out to me that Barack is just another one in a line of phony and insincere politicians. Give me a Democrat who can think for himself and who is willing to tell the Democrat leadership the word “no” when his conscience throws a fit, then I will cross party lines and vote for that guy or gal who has “integrity”. Barack is basically a good guy but one who is willing to lick others boots in order to further his political career. Thanks but no thanks, Mr. Obamma.
- anon - Saturday, Dec 8, 07 @ 3:54 pm:
Snidely Whiplash –9:51 am is right on target. I’m sorry Rich but you were no sage when you predicted “black voters going Obama’s way.” The fact is most black voters will vote for a black candidate regardless of the white candidates credentials. I know this sounds racist, but nevertheless it is reality, and Obama knows this. Actually this phenomenon started in Chicago after the election of Harold Washington, and dare I say, a good Mayor. 97 percent of black voters will go Obama’a way. The Hynes/Obama race truly is a great example. The media just does not want to touch this subject. Oprah is in Iowa to influence white voters. Obama’s African American base is in the bag. Come on now, this is not rocket science!!
- 'nuffsAnuff - Saturday, Dec 8, 07 @ 6:39 pm:
S. Whiplash, I am interested by your friday comment that the press does not “call out” African American voters for voting their race. You state that white folks have moved beyond that. How can you say that when the R’s nationally don’t have ANY African American canidates to test the color blindness of their nearly all white party. With out JC Watts all they have to offer is the odd primary appearence from time to time of the trully nutty Alan Keyes.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 10, 07 @ 9:03 am:
anon, it may be obvious to you and me, but it certainly wasn’t obvious to the national pundits in February when I wrote that piece, and remains so today.
- tadly - Thursday, Dec 13, 07 @ 4:24 pm:
With Obama getting the enthusiasm back, people paying attention to his message and idea’s and less to Shillerys lame excuses and attacks, we will see Obama take Iowa and N.H., then watch out! He has the big MO! Ya you heard it here first, the BIG O has the Big Mo!
And now he has the endorsement of Hollywood’s Will Smith, “I Am Legend” ……. As the implosion of Hillary’s campaign continues!