These numbers are from CNN's exit polls. The highlighted numbers are the percentages >= 70. People like to say that race isn't an issue because white people vote for Obama, too. That's correct, white people aren't generally racist. In states like Iowa that are mostly white, Clinton and Obama both do well. You can see the few states that had a huge racial divide. But then we look at black voters and they are overwhelmingly voting for Obama across the country. Someone recently got in trouble for saying Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he were white. Looking at the numbers that might be true. If the black vote were more evenly distributed it may have changed who won the state. Obama goes to a black church that is black-centric. If such a church existed for white people it would have the "KKK" label put on it. His church endorses someone who refers to white people as the devil. Obama wants to divert attention away from the middle east and focus on Africa. So is it his message that appeals to black so much or his skin color? And if it's his message, how does it make him suitable to lead a diverse nation?
What about the women who will vote for Clinton only because she's female? There's also going to be white and black males that won't vote for Clinton because she's female.
No polls were done seperating white women from black women. Gender and race were two seperate questions. So that's pure speculation. But you've got about 20% of the black population to work with to see if they voted for hillary because she's a woman. The white population was pretty evenly split so you've got a small percentage that you could say were racist and/or sexist. So obviously, any "because she's a woman" women did not make a difference. The other interesting factoid is that Obama won all but 1 caucus. Obama's younger crowd easily over samples at caucuses were old people and people with families are far less likely to attend. Caucuses are held in smaller states which is why he does well in small states. So if we got rid of caucuses, which would be unconstitutional if the government were setting them up, Hillary could also see a big boost. That's another reason that Obama will probably do worse in the national election. He's not winning nearly as well in races determined by a constitutional voting method.
Basically there will be people voting for Obama because he's black and voting for Clinton for being female. It's the novlety factor. It's like a circus show. Not sure where the novlety factor is for Insane McPain though.
C'mon now. You aren't seriously suggesting that people would vote for a candidate on less than a solid understanding of policy and character are you?
I'll put together another chart for gender but I'm willing to bet that the obama black vote - obama white vote is significantly higher than the clinton women - obama women
I was told by someone with professional expertise in politics (so take it or leave it, as you will) but CNN does not actually conduct exit polling. The numbers are not legit.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#AL etc You can view them for yourself. Maybe what your friend meant was that CNN gets it's exit poll numbers from a third party company that does exit polling. You can probably find the same numbers on a lot of news sites that care about them. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the numbers.
Anyway... Clinton won the women's vote 16 out of 27 polls. Obama won the men's vote 20 out of 27 polls. So if gender is an issue men are more sexist than women. Clinton isn't winning because of the women's vote but Obama is clearly benefiting from the men's votes. Iowa is not listed on the displayed chart for gender but according to CNN, Obama got 35/35 men/women and Clinton got 23/30 Hillary won 59% of the polls for women Obama won 74% of the polls for men So democrat men would rather have a man than a woman in charge.
rush limbaugh was talking about this today.. if the democratic party is for minorities and taking from the evil white man to give to the "lesser" ones, why then are the voters segregated?
Not necessarily. The difference is education.People with comparatively lesser levels of education don't make decisions based on sound rationale and public policies and whatever. They make a decision based on how a person looks, talks, behaves, race, gender etc.
I popped the dates into my chart for each of the primaries and found that Bill Clinton made his remarks about race as a reaction to the high support of blacks for Obama. Blacks were supporting Obama at a rate of 70-90% before those remarks and have remained steady since. So nothing Bill Clinton said or did changed anything as far as the blacks are concerned. Also, looking at the white vote before and after South Carolina, that didn't change either. Both Clinton and Obama did poorly in South Carolina with the white vote. Guess who didn't? http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#SCDEM John Edwards took most of the white vote. Imagine that. A white man beating a white woman and a black man with the white vote.
Yes, very true. Racism is ignorance, we all need to realize that all of us are human beings and we are all individuals and not the same as others in our own "group"
Well said. Some people do realize the fact, others don't. Anyway things are a lot better now than in the past, so there's hope.
I'm not sure about the racism part, but I do think that the majority of african americans have seen through hillary pretty quickly....this leaves obama as their candidate if they are voting democrat.
More then half of his appeal is the black population. As Geraldine said, if he where not black he would not be in this position. That is the only reason he has gotten as far as he has. If you take away his black vote, he would have been defeated horribly in almost every contest. They are the ones that are helping along. Black people stick together regardless of what happens. That is why he could win.