CNN Breaking News
Sen. Barack Obama will win the North Carolina Democratic primary, CNN projects.

« Misleading exit poll alert! | Main | Big night for Obama! »
Sen. Barack Obama will win the North Carolina Democratic primary, CNN projects.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38891/28829782
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CNN Breaking News:
The comments to this entry are closed.
Looking at the exit polls in North Carolina, I can't shake the impression that the final tally would've been only slightly different had it been Jesse Jackson running for president instead of Barack Obama (i.e., maybe closer to a 50-50 split). Obama's performance in many of these primaries seems to be almost directly tied to what percentage of the Democratic electorate is African-American. Pretty sad.
Posted by: Andrew | May 6, 2008 7:43:07 PM
Yeah, studies have shown that it's pretty much the blacks who determine the outcome of elections, which is why Obama has won 3 times more states than Hillary. I wish white people weren't held back by blacks... I have a dream though.
Posted by: Sandy Underpants | May 6, 2008 8:04:19 PM
remind poor quacksalot here again how this guy has the experience and intelligent to steer this ship through the perilous road ahead ? This is not american idol peoples.
Posted by: duck | May 6, 2008 8:16:09 PM
"remind poor quacksalot here again how this guy has the experience and intelligent to steer this ship through the perilous road ahead ?"
With 8 years in the bag, what harm can another four do?
Posted by: Herb | May 6, 2008 8:18:03 PM
Andrew - I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Jesse Jackson comparison ...
Senator Obama has his high charisma working on his side ... Rev Jackson cannot claim that ... I actually doubt that Rev Jackson could have outlasted ex-Senator Edwards ...
Posted by: Alasdair | May 6, 2008 8:26:44 PM
For Bush's faults, at least he carries America proudly on his belt and isn't going to grovel in contrition before other nations. It's the America-Sux-but-I'll make it betters versus the America-Rox-but how can we do better. If I would have to chose between two incompetent leaders, I would go with the latter.
Posted by: duck | May 6, 2008 8:31:10 PM
Who is the "grovel in contrition before other countries" candidate, and when exactly did they put this platform forward?
Posted by: copndor | May 6, 2008 8:35:03 PM
Yeah. Remember Idaho? I heard 79% of people in Idaho are black.
Posted by: Jim | May 6, 2008 8:41:09 PM
Regarding Bush's faults, it's hard to over-look starting a war with a country that posed no danger to America and will ultimately cost American Taxpayers at least $2,000,000,000,000, half of which has been paid to private corporations. And that's just the easiest fault.
Posted by: Sandy Underpants | May 6, 2008 9:00:20 PM
Sandy and Jim, I referred directly to primaries; caucus results were outside the scope of my point. Also, I'm not really considering anything from Super Tuesday or before, as up to that point it was a completely different race.
Also Sandy, please explain to me why anybody on either side of the aisle should feel comfortable that one candidate is getting 95% of the black vote. Doesn't it bother you when any ethnic group votes in such patterns of solidarity? The fact that Bill Clinton was once called "America's first black president", and now his wife is losing to an African-American candidate by such a landslide among blacks has to be a little disconcerting, no?
Alasdair, I wasn't suggesting that Jesse Jackson could have ever gotten this far -- surely he would've been soundly defeated by Super Tuesday if he were in this year's race. I was referring strictly to a hypothetical head-to-head matchup with HRC like what the campaign looks like today.
Posted by: Andrew | May 6, 2008 9:00:31 PM
So what, Andrew? Most whites vote white.
Posted by: kcatnd | May 6, 2008 9:00:53 PM
There's a difference between a majority of whites and a damn near unanimity of blacks, kcatnd.
Posted by: Andrew | May 6, 2008 9:02:07 PM
My previous comment is kind of out of date now.
Posted by: kcatnd | May 6, 2008 9:17:47 PM
"Doesn't it bother you when any ethnic group votes in such patterns of solidarity?"
Evangelicals overwhelmingly backing Bush in 2004. What exactly is the point that you're trying to make, Andrew? 29% of blacks voted for Clinton in the South Carolina primary.
Posted by: kcatnd | May 6, 2008 9:22:13 PM
Obama sounds like Edwards with this speech...
"To the little blind deaf girl who lost both her legs in Iraq...."
Posted by: Marty West | May 6, 2008 9:25:43 PM
Since when are evangelicals an ethnic group?
Posted by: Joe Mama | May 6, 2008 9:25:57 PM
What's the difference? They're both demographic groups backing a candidate with solidarity.
Posted by: kcatnd | May 6, 2008 9:30:12 PM
People that still see things in black and white need to get a friggin' clue. It's 2008. Get your head out of your ass.
Posted by: Marty West | May 6, 2008 9:31:27 PM
Will this speech ever end? I like O but come onnnnn...
Posted by: Marty West | May 6, 2008 9:32:03 PM
"To the little blind deaf girl who lost both her legs in Iraq...."
"Will this speech ever end? I like O but come onnnnn..."
I know, O is kind of juicing this...
Posted by: kcatnd | May 6, 2008 9:34:17 PM
kcatnd, as I said to Alasdair, I'm specifically excluding results from Super Tuesday or before, so South Carolina is outside the scope of my point. I acknowledge that Obama did slightly worse among blacks back when he was considered a long-shot candidate and HRC was still the presumptive nominee. Now that they are on "equal footing" in terms of winning the nomination, the numbers reflect a different reality.
In any case, kcatnd, you're missing the point. 70-30 splits are common, and while 80-20 splits raise eyebrows, 90-10 splits are just plain absurd, especially in an intra-party competition. Dubya never had that kind of dominance among evangelicals or any other group. While 90-10 splits are typical in presidential races during the general election, the historical explanations for that lopsidedness are well understood, and the GOP could make inroads there if it really tried. In HRC's case, the majority of blacks are telling exit pollsters that race is "not a factor" in their vote, and yet HRC is getting ~5%. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!
Posted by: Andrew | May 6, 2008 9:45:22 PM
Even assuming Bush's decisions in Iraq were wrongful and meritless, I would still rather have four more years of a man who loves this country rather than a jerk who can't go to bed until he's found something wrong with it. When did this nation's goal go from securing freedom to weening every sad mouth back onto the breast.
Obama doesn't give a damn about Constitutional America. All he wants is to help mold weak, socialist, Euroamerica. He is going to spend his four years on his knees. Ok, maybe it won't be groveling, but it'll be somethin.
Posted by: duck | May 6, 2008 9:54:18 PM
If you think America is in danger of becoming Europe, I suggest you spend some time in Europe.
Posted by: copndor | May 6, 2008 9:56:23 PM
That, or his incompetence and unpreparedness will make him simply a pushover puppet of Congress run by Pelosi and Clinton (given the Senate majority position in return for relinquishing her primary fight), making him truly the dream minority candidate of the Democratic party.
Posted by: duck | May 6, 2008 9:57:21 PM
I mean, it's amazing. You guys really don't realize the heckstorm you're about to unleash on our future with a Democratic Congress and a liberal president ? really ? I hope you've got some fresh Blame Bush material, because you're going to be relying on that into 2024, unable to admit you never had any ideas worth having, unable to remember where this nation's true value resided.
Posted by: duck | May 6, 2008 9:59:41 PM
If you think America is in danger of becoming Europe, I suggest you spend some time in Europe.
I generally agree with that statement. However, given the recent elections in Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy, it looks like Europe is moving a bit more towards America both in economic policy and foreign policy. Not nearly enough progress for my tastes, but I'll celebrate inchstone progress.
Posted by: Andrew | May 6, 2008 10:14:57 PM
duck, you should start a blog. I would read it.
Posted by: kcatnd | May 6, 2008 10:15:13 PM
Is that sarcasm ? Sounds like. Maybe I could call it "caught on the ground" Que piensas ?
Posted by: duck | May 6, 2008 11:21:25 PM
Duck, the country got trashed by Bush and the Republicans and we're just now (in the waning months of Bush's political life) feeling the effects of the terrible policy of the last 7 years with food rationing, a housing market down the toilet, a dollar that has lost 60% of it's value, and 5 dollar a gallon gas. What Bush did was use a credit card for 7 years to make things look economically great, but the bills for that credit card are just now becoming delinquent, this will get much worse no matter who is leading the country, because of this dildo Bush.
Andrew proves the prevalance of race and racism still in this country. We're suppose to be scared of a candidate that gets too many black voters? But lets ignore the fact that we've had an old white man as president for the last 220 years in a row and that white voters voted for that white man or his white opponent in 100% uninamity! And that this past primary season saw 9 Republican Candidates-- 100% white.
Posted by: Sandy Underpants | May 7, 2008 3:02:14 PM
Sandy, I'm not saying we should be "scared" of anything. If anything, the fact that blacks vote so overwhelmingly for one candidate is a political liability to both them and the candidate they support. And frankly, there's absolutely nothing racist with pointing out the racial dimensions of the current race, nor is it racist to hold the opinion that America as a whole is better off when racial, ethnic, and religious blocks avoid voting in overwhelming unanimity. As an example, evangelicals, Jews, women, and Hispanics get pandered to by both parties precisely because both parties have the opportunity to increase their margins within those voting blocs. However, with blacks, why should HRC care a twit from here on out about "black issues"? Why should McCain, if Obama is the nominee? That's not good for the party, that's not good for blacks, and that's not good for America.
Posted by: Andrew | May 7, 2008 4:13:47 PM