Clinton Wins Pennsylvania.
Well, the results are in, and Hillary Clinton has taken Pennsylvania with a margin of roughly 10%. This means, of course that the Democratic Primary will continue to drag on with no clear winner. While I don’t have a whole lot to say about the primary in general, I found this report somewhat strange:
But Clinton still can’t break Obama’s hold on black and young voters. He won 92 percent of the black vote, according to exit polls, and between 56 percent and 58 percent of voters under 45.
Similarly, however, Obama can’t shake that a lot of whites are uncomfortable with a black as president, as exit polls showed him losing the white vote by 60-40 percent — a consistent trend in recent primaries. (emphasis added)
Really? Seriously?
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
People don’t like change.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
People don’t like butterflies and rainbows!!?!?! :(
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
I guess what I was trying to get at is that the article takes it for granted that *92%* of black voters are lining up behind Obama, but that has nothing to do with race, at least as far as the article is concerned.
A 60/40 split in favor Clinton though? That’s gotta be because white voters don’t want a black President, even though there’s not a single iota of evidence to back up that claim.
The article is basically saying that if Obama loses (in the primary or in the general), then the chief cause is white racism. I think that’s an incredibly bold statement to make and one which, as I’ve noted, doesn’t seem to have any evidence support it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
I hate butterflies and rainbows. And puppies. There’s nothing worse than a puppy.
I don’t know how much stock to put in this stuff. As far as I know, the math still works out so that Obama is almost guaranteed to get the nomination, and he won some predominantly white places, so I think these polls might have more to do with issues relating to other things with those voters (age, religion, region, concerns with jobs, etc) than solely with race. I doubt that 60% of white voters are really going to the polls thinking “I’m not going to vote for a black guy.”
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Common sense would seem to point in that direction, Jobetta, but I don’t think that’s going to stop the meme.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Oh right. Common sense. I keep forgetting that’s what I base my decisions on.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Well Thomas Paine was a genius….
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Well…
Of course, if there were a compelling reason to vote for Hillary over Obama then I might agree that a large portion of her base weren’t racists. Regrettably, however, none exist other than her lack of a Y chromosome and adorable cackle.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“Of course, if there were a compelling reason to vote for Hillary over Obama then I might agree that a large portion of her base weren’t racists. Regrettably, however, none exist…”
“The candidate I favor would totally win if only the candidate you favor would succumb to the inevitable and drop out of this two-candidate race! So nyah! (And by the way, you’re a racist.)”
C’mon, dude, this barely even works in the ASUO any more.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
What were the compelling reasons to vote for her? She was leading by 20+ points even before the Wright or “Bitter” issues came to the forefront.
Explain middle America to me, Olly. Please.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“Explain middle America to me, Olly. Please.”
Heh, touché.
“What were the compelling reasons to vote for her?”
Who said there were any? (Not me. And while while we’re at it, what were the compelling reasons to vote for either of them? Other than racism or sexism, that is.)
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“Well Thomas Paine was a genius….”
I’ll have to take your word for it, Timothy. The last time I read Thomas Paine, it was due to the threat of pain of failure (pun totally intended) from my AP History teacher. Don’t remember much about it.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:40 am
For me, none. Their mutual rejection of free trade and likelihood of raising taxes, amongst other factors, makes voting for either an impossibility. Not to mention the fact that there will likely be a Democratic Congress.
If you’re a Democrat, however, I’d argue that Obama has substantially less baggage and a better chance of beating McCain. As far as substantive policy differences there aren’t really any… which is why voting patterns this primary have largely broken down racial lines.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Also, I thought this infographic was pretty interesting.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Joebetta - Thomas Paine wrote a very famous tract titled Common Sense in favor of the American Revolution. So mentioning him in reference to you using common sense for all of your decision making was a history joke.
You see, I was implying that you read Common Sense and then make all of your decisions based on it. And that’s funny, because it’s mostly about overthrowing the rule of the crown in the colonies. Which would be an anachronism, owing to the US not having been ruled by the crown for some time now. So the joke is that you use a revolutionary tract to make decisions about every day life like, “Will I do the laundry today?” or “Should my cats form a nation independent of my parlimentary system in which they don’t receive representation?” And that would be funny, right, because of course cats can’t vote.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
He also wrote another famous tract. You know, the one that begins “These are the times that try men’s souls …”
But then he wrote a book about how much religion sucked, and they didn’t take too kindly to that.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Joebetta - Thomas Paine wrote a very famous tract titled Common Sense in favor of the American Revolution. So mentioning him in reference to you using common sense for all of your decision making was a history joke.
You see, I was implying that you read Common Sense and then make all of your decisions based on it. And that’s funny, because it’s mostly about overthrowing the rule of the crown in the colonies.”
THAT part I got. I know that much about it. I meant I’ll take your word for the fact that he’s a genius. I guess what I actually mean to say doesn’t always translate well in comments on blogs. Oops.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:01 am
“For me, none. Their mutual rejection of free trade and likelihood of raising taxes, amongst other factors, makes voting for either an impossibility…”
Oh, man, you should have been in Ohio for the primary. “Mutual rejection of free trade” does not do it justice.
(One consoles oneself with the fact that they’re probably both lying, but when that’s the extent of the silver lining it’s hard to get really fired up for the next administration.)
April 25th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Jobetta - Well, you see, my above joke was explaining the first joke. The best comedy is the comedy where you keep explaining the joke into the ground until it’s funny again. This is a technique they make use of a lot on Family Guy, it’s also a bit of an Andy Kauffman thing. I wouldn’t say it’s Absurdist, really, but I guess that comes close enough. Maybe “annoying the audience into laughter” is a better description.
That’s what’s going on here as well, this is an explanation of the second joke and, in a somewhat meta circumstance, an explanation of this joke. Because what I’m doing here is repeatedly reiterating that the joke is repeated reiteration of the second joke, which was an explanation of the first joke and, by transitivity, an explanation of the third joke. The third joke, of course, is this joke, which I am explaining to you now just in case the exact intention is unclear. And I hope it isn’t unclear at this point because I’m really taking my time explaining exactly what the joke is supposed to be: the joke is that I keep explaining the joke, you see. And, really, this is just a further explanation of the first, second and third jokes because that’s how this kind of comedy works.