RE: THE OSTROY REPORT:

Mississippi, with its 33 delegates, is 37% black. More than 50% of Tuesday's voters were African-American according to exit polls. What's startling is that Obama picked up 90% of the black vote, capturing just 30% of whites. Clinton, therefore, won 70% of the white vote and just 10% of the state's black voters. This election was all about race.[...]

1: Americans are too racist to vote for a black candidate and so the Democratic Party shouldn't bother nominating one.

The logic to used to defend this argument:

1) An overwhelming number of Mississippi voters voting along racial lines.

2) A Pew Research survey showing a 20% defection rate among white Democrats to Republican presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain if Obama becomes the nominee.

Why is it surprising to discover that Mississippi has more than its share of racisim? And does any Democrat really expect the Democtratic Party to win the general elections in Mississippi anyway? Why bother commenting on the degree to which that state (and other states like Texas and Alabama) are voting based on race?

Just reporting the facts is not enough. Ostroy is reporting selective facts that lead to misleading conclusions. The conclusion of his arguments (that Clinton has a better chance of winning the general than Obama) are easily refuted by the Summary Findings of the very same Pew Research report that Ostroy himself cites in his article:

"Obama has a 50% to 43% lead [over McCain] and Clinton holds a 50% to 45% edge. " source: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

Osteroy is clearly not being honest with his reporting of the findings of that Pew Research report. He's cherry picking the part he likes and ignoring the parts he doesn't.

Ostroy, also fails to mention that, despite the 20% defection rate of White Democrats in an Obama-McCain match-up, there would also be a 10% defection rate of White Democrats in a Clinton-McCain match-up. Ostroy either through laziness or intent, would leave his readers to believe that the 20% Obama-McCain rate was a net figure.

Why don't you post this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k

Now, I'm really a Nader kinda guy, but this site has really turned anti-obama, and it's getting a little old.

This is a 50 second video where Obama talks about net neutrality, he "takes a back seat to no one" on this subject.

1: Americans are too racist to vote for a black candidate and so the Democratic Party shouldn't bother nominating one.

If this is true, I believe McCain will become president, because I doubt that a Clinton nomination could retake the black vote after disenfranchising the black vote by attacking their candidate. Racial marks aside. I think the 90% number is strictly a reaction to the negative campaigning against a black candidate.

Thomas Paine was not a christian by any stretch of the imagination.

The Ostroy report fails to mention that Sen. Obama consistently polls better vs. McCain than does Clinton. Despite a disadvantage due to race, Obama has map changing potential; Clinton does not.

fails to mention that Sen. Obama consistently polls better vs. McCain than does Clinton

Who needs polling when you can generalize Mississippi election results to the entire country. Mississippi is a real microcosm you know.

Obama consistently polls better

How large is the effect of preference relative to, say, just mobilizing the base to get to the polls? It seems entirely possible that "defection rates" could be dwarfed by "disinclination rates".

For example, if Clinton really has turned off black voters/1gm readers/whomever, they may still prefer her to McCain, but may be less inclined to get to the polls if she is the eventual nominee.

Of course,

"Will you cast a ballot in the general election if a) Obama is the nominee? or b) Clinton is the nominee?"

seems like the kind of polling question that won't accurately predict actual voter behavior come November.

Then again, something about the last 7 years has increased voter turnout, so maybe this effect is not as pronounced as it once was.

http://usera.imagecave.com/destonio/Destonio_GutterPol.jpg

How is ken star a race thing?

How is ken star a race thing?

It's not, but it probably falls under "gutter politics". At least, that's what I think the cartoon/photo is trying to communicate.

Interesting that between cocaine and Ken Star, you chose to question the Ken Starr reference (I jest, I jest).

I just heard Clinton on the radio talking about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates? Is she serious? They both agreed not to campaign there, and Obama withdrew his name for the ballot. And someone Clinton feels it is right for the voters to try and seat those delegates.

*withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot, that is.

She's saying that it was his choice. Um, yes, when it was already stated they would not be counted, that was his choice....

about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates? Is she serious?

As a heart attack! She began talking about seating the delegates about a minute and a half after her "victory" was declared.

I'm a Michigan voter and I have a strong feeling that my vote is going to be stolen right out of my hot little hands.

And, um, can I please just say one thing, it's kinda shitty to put a post out there that you just HAAAAAD to know was gonna stir all sorts of hot tempers and emotions and then just slam the comment door shut.

I mean, I respect that it's one guy's blog and he can run it as he sees fit, but as a long-time reader who's kinda wondering what happened to the soul of this place recently, I feel compelled to be a teensy bit ballsy and call bullshit on this issue. (Quite Hillary of me, no?)

If this is true, I believe McCain will become president, because I doubt that a Clinton nomination could retake the black vote after disenfranchising the black vote by attacking their candidate.

Could you please explain how "attacking their candidate"—fairly or unfairly—disfranchises the black vote?

Racial marks aside. I think the 90% number is strictly a reaction to the negative campaigning against a black candidate.

What do you think "the 90% number" would otherwise be if there were no negative campaigning against this particular black candidate?

"Obama has a 50% to 43% lead [over McCain] and Clinton holds a 50% to 45% edge. " source: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

The sample size here is 1508. This works out to a "margin of error" at the ±2σ ("plus-or-minus two sigma") level or "95% confidence interval" of ±1/√(1508) or ±3%. In other words, Obama has a (50±3)% to (43±3)% lead [over McCain] and Clinton holds a (50±3)% to (45±3)% edge [over McCain]. The "margin of error" of 3% is greater than the (arithmetic) difference between the 45% figure and the 43% figure, so it is important not to attach too much significance to this difference.

disfranchises the black vote?

It would not in the legal sense of the word, but I think they will feel this way in response to their perception that they were denied the candidate they voted for by unfair means.

What do you think "the 90% number" would otherwise be if there were no negative campaigning against this particular black candidate?

In th 80's

I keep trying not to post, but i now want to comment.

Ferraro coments, not racist, but insulting, and not diplomatic, and if not just a mistake, really seems to be baiting people in a way that some will feel is racist. I cannot understand why the Clinton camp would want these sort of comments. I think it might hurt the black democratic vote if she gets the nomination. The black vote will be a big factor in the swing states. I spent quite a lot of time finding her whole discussion thinking she was taken out of context, but i did not seem that way. In fact i found reading the whole thing a bit worse. Didn't Bill Clinton win mainly black votes in the south and not so many whites?

Olberman, I know liberals like Olberman, but he really is just the Bill O'Reilly of the left Charles, so calm down. He really does not have much influence. But Charles, your posts are getting well, Bill O'Reilly like.

I do think that if the democratic candidates actually cared about their country and not their egos, they would not be campaigning the way they are now. (i mean both camps by the way).

OK, what i want to know is, do folks think Clintons campaign is intentionally playing up to certain issues. One is the Muslim thing, i saw the entire 60 minutes thing, and i really really think she deliberately said "as far as I know" to put doubt in peoples mind, It was so carefully stated. It really seemed deliberate. Do people think that Obama's campaign is deliberately trying to make Clintons camp look racist? To me, both seem to be true, and well both are so pathetic.

But i guess that is the way, the democrats will eat their own and we will have McCain and ???? .

I've been a fan of this site for a few years, but I've never commented before.

I am enjoying the site a lot less now. I feel Norm is letting his advocacy of Clinton destroy what was once, I thought, a paragon of reason.

The tagline is "I thought these things might be clues".How was Charles Lemos' juvenile rant a clue?

It seems that the Democratic Party is currently loading the barrels to shoot itself in its two left feet come November.

What a shame. You have two very able candidates. The point is that one of those candidates played the game as laid out by the Democratic Party and has effectively won, brilliantly, from someone who had a huge lead over him at the start of the game.

Now, you have the other candidate trying to change the rules by getting states that weren't in play counted in the game and by trying to convince a selected few people that the democratic will of the party is somehow wrong, and in the process she is harming your chosen candidate's chances of winning the general election, and doing nothing for her own chance's either.

In fact, she hasn't got a chance. If Clinton is chosen by the party, it will clearly be against the democratic will of the party. I can't see how that will enthuse Democrats to vote for her (or to vote at all) and I can only see a Republican victory in that case, as McCain has the ability to appeal to some Democrats (although he is a weak candidate).

If I was an American, I would vote for McCain in that instance, because I feel that a Democratic Party that goes against the democratic will of the party doesn't deserve to have a candidate in the White House.

Now, I hope the quality of this site improves quickly, and it returns to being the paragon of reason that it once was.

In other words, Obama has a (50±3)% to (43±3)% lead [over McCain] and Clinton holds a (50±3)% to (45±3)% edge [over McCain].

I still have to say, however, that Ostroy is intellectually dishonest in his reporting on the Pew Research study. Ostroy cherry picks the facts of the report to suggest an outcome that is at odds with the summary conclusions of the report.

The summary conclusion of the Pew Research contradicts Osteroy's implicit assertion that Sen. Clinton has an advantage over Sen. Obama in the general election.

RE: No More Apples: WHAT KIND OF UNITY ARE WE LOOKING FOR?

And if there is one thing I know for sure right now, I do not feel like reaching across the aisle and finding compromise with Republicans particularly on any of the following issues: Roe v. Wade; torture; FISA surveillance and illegal wiretapping; unfounded wars with Iran, Syria, or any place else; stem cell research; the erosion of our constitution; alternative energy and global warming; and/or healthcare reforms.

So why does Barack Obama want to compromise on such issues? Doesn't he get it?

This is the old politics talking again. Republicans are a diverse group and there are those in that party who will agree with us on some of these issues. If someone can link me a speech where Obama promotes compromise on these issues, I would like to see it. What I have heard him talk about is reaching out to republicans when we can and as often as we can.

I am not just sick of a republican agenda, I'm sick of strong arm political maneuvers, and disrespectful tactics. I'm sick of a politics of fear, and smear. What Obama is offering, and what he as done so far, is talk the talk and walk the walk, away from that style of politics. Is he perfect? No. But Hillary and her supporters have tapped into a vindictive side of human nature. Working with people that filled with hate will be a very hard pill for me to swallow if she gets the nomination.

I'm sick of a politics of fear, and smear.

Such as the 3:00 am ad? Shame on you Hillary Clinton! Are we, as Americans, able to move beyond the fear tactics of 9/11 terrorist shit?