quote:LDS voters, while being 7% of the state of Nevada, made up 25% of the delegates from the Republican caucuses. 95% of the LDS delegates voted for Romney.
Wow. Talk about identity politics.
I hope Reid says something about this. I know Romney is LDS, but aren't the Saints at least a bit worried about his pro-business, to the exclusion of social services and the environment, ethic?
Probably not, since most Mormons are also pro-business to the exclusion of social services and the environment.
Saying "most" ignores the millions of Mormons that don't live in California and the intermountain West, but I'd agree that most Mormons in Nevada prize business over government-run social services* and the environment.
*I put "government-run" there because to say Mormons don't value social services at all is to ignore fast Sunday every month and the constant calls for fast offerings. I'd venture that social services are pretty high on the list of important things, but that most intermountain West Republicans feel it is better done by private organizations than by the government. Considering the breadth and depth of the Church welfare program, they may have a point.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: First polls out of Florida without Fred Thompson show Romney and Giuliani splitting the loose change. Link Wait, these numbers are quite strange.
Here's a summary of three new polls with no Thompson, courtesy of realclearpolitics.com.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Saying "most" ignores the millions of Mormons that don't live in California and the intermountain West, but I'd agree that most Mormons in Nevada prize business over government-run social services* and the environment.
Sorry. I should've said "Most Jell-O Belt Mormons" or something similar.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hard to say really. I think it could go either way between McCain and Romney, maybe an upset from Giuliani but at this point I doubt it. Florida might be the most important state yet. It's the biggest state yet, and whoever gets it, gets the biggest bump before HyperTuesday, to say nothing of the fact that the delegates will come in handy.
No one will drop out after Florida, it's just too close, and I don't think you can see any of them as a real frontrunner after it either, the polling is too varied from state to state. But Florida is still up in the air.
No matter what happens, it has to be demoralizing that Giuliani, after all the time and money spent there, has seen his lead evaporate so quickly. If he puts that much time and money in, and a top spot in the polls can be snatched away in a week by other guys with momentum, well, either he sucks, or his strategy sucks (combination I think), but either way, it's a sign of things to come in other states.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giuliani's fall, I think, was the result of a statewide moment where the voters said, "What was I thinking?!?"
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Guiliani was not a normal candidate. Remember the whole "should Christians just start their own party if Guiliani is nominated" thing? On the other hand, Huckabee played it too far in the other direction, I believe, with his statements on overhauling the constitution.
Ugh, okay, frying squirrel in a popcorn popper is pretty gross. I assume they mean the old heat pad with a bowl inverted over it, since airpoppers didn't come along till the 80's. Still, the numbers probably reflect the SC primary more than that. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Saying "most" ignores the millions of Mormons that don't live in California and the intermountain West, but I'd agree that most Mormons in Nevada prize business over government-run social services* and the environment.
Sorry. I should've said "Most Jell-O Belt Mormons" or something similar.
At our Nevada Caucus the Mormons at the Republican meeting probably did vote for Romney. But, most of the Mormons caucasing were at the Democratic meeting. I asked my former Bishop what he was doing there, as he has been regestered Rep in the past. (He is an almost full time environmental activist.) He said that he switched "because if he went to the Rep meeting, it would just be to vote aganst Romney. And there wern't any Reps even worthy of a protest vote." His oposition to Romney was not based on his environmental record, however. It was his inflamatory statements on immigration. He is not in my precinct, so I don't know who he voted for.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get my news from a dozen different places. That was just the first place I saw it. Besides, the AOL article was from AP. What's your beef with the Associated Press?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The New York Times editorial board has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton & John McCain for the Democratic & Republican races, for what it's worth.
In other news, I am supremely irritated by this clip from the Obama campaign. Way to rouse the masses by dissing NAFTA... Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The New York Times editorial board has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton & John McCain for the Democratic & Republican races, for what it's worth.
That's a shocker. In related news, water is wet. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The New York Times editorial board has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton & John McCain for the Democratic & Republican races, for what it's worth.
That's a shocker. In related news, water is wet.
And new reports indicate that the absence of water appears to be dryness.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is water wet, or does water make things wet? Huge division was caused in my alma matter over this debate.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exit polls are showing that women have voted in almost twice the numbers that men did.
I think the percentages will narrow as the votes are counted, but, I wouldn't be surprised to see him win by as much as 10 points, or as little as 3, but I think his win is secured. I just hope he picks up a lot of the delegates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
27% of the voters were in the over 60 crowd, 35% in the 45-59 crowd, 25% in the 30-44, and 13% in the 18-29 crowd. 50% of all voters were black, about 60/40 woman to man ratio. That isn't radically off the age gap ratios for Iowa (in the older ages anyway, it's off by 10 points in the below 40 crowd). It's hard to say, but, the traditionally pro Hillary elderly aren't an uber bloc in this, and half of them are black, and they are mostly pro-Obama, so take that with a grain of salt.
It's hard to gauge how voting will go across age and gender anr race when there's overlap like that, and when the polling data shows each of the three sets (age, gender, race) goes for someone else.
rollain -
I'll have to check, but, I'm pretty sure it's generally been a 50/50 split thus far, or close to it. In the Republican race it was 49/51 in South Carolina.
I'm amazed the percentages are holding there, and that the vote is coming in so damned fast, but we'll see how it ends up in an hour or so.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately hafta listen to commentary by navel-gazing political morons waiting while waiting for the speech.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Barring a dramatic come from behind showing, Obama is in for a crushing landslide victory in South Carolina. I can't say enough about how important this is. Last I checked, Hillary is polling ahead by at least some margin in almost every single HyperTuesday state. On the other hand, polling data showed him winning by 8 today, not 27 points. I think it's hard to say how things will turn out in 10 or so days.
Tomorrow there will be an editorial endorsement from Caroline Kennedy called "A President Like My Father," where she will endorse Obama.
posted
Also, I can't say enough about the turnout. In 2004, 293,000 Democrats voted in the South Carolina primary, this year Obama alone has almost beat that tally. And even before the vote is finished, at 95%, 505,000 Democrats have voted.
441,000 (appx) Republicans voted in the South Carolina primary, arguably in the past the most important Republican primary.
quote:Obama is in for a crushing landslide victory in South Carolina.
It's a victory, but I don't know how crushing it is. It looks to me that Edwards and Clinton split the white vote, probably along gender lines, and Obama swept up everyone left, including black women. It may have crushed Edwards, but I figure he is angling to sell his delegates at the convention for a Veep or Cabinet spot. I'd love to see him as Labor Secretary or some such position. Republicans have been siding with southern bigots for the last 40 years, and winning by doing it. Since black men don't vote or live too long for a myriad of reasons, your South Carolina Democrat is a middle-aged black woman who voted for Obama. This is the state the went to Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. Being surprised at Obama's victory is like being surprised when Romney sets some sort of unbreakable, ridiculous high percentage victory in Utah.
The big news is the turnout, and I don't know what to make of it. I know it means something big, but the answer isn't coming to me.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Slight over 530,000 Democratic votes with you toss in the loose change from Gravel and Kucinich. Almost a 100,000 more Democrats than Republicans voted in the primary, and for primary numbers that's huge. Turnout IS a big story in this primary, but come on, he beat Edwards and Clinton combined by 50,000 votes. He got more than twice what she got. No matter how you parse it, I think he crushed her. And you can hardly say whites won't vote for Obama, New Hampshire and Iowa disproved that notion I think pretty clearly.
Exit polling on the white vote shows he took half the 18-29 white crowd, 25% of the 30-59 crowd, and 15% of the over 60 whites. It's not stunning, but it's not literally nothing like you seemed to be suggesting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No matter how you parse it, I think he crushed her. And you can hardly say whites won't vote for Obama, New Hampshire and Iowa disproved that notion I think pretty clearly.
My mom's side is from South Carolina. I've been there a few times, and it's is not a normal state. There aren't swing voters. The democrats are democrats and conservatives are asses, and there are a lot of conservatives. That's why I'm so puzzled, excited, and intrigued about the turnout.
posted
I'm seeing more media coverage of Clinton's claims to the Michigan and Florida delegates. Is this for real? Would the DNC reverse it's decision?
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama got the black vote 4-1 against Hillary which is incredible when just days ago pundits were debating that either one of them could get it. Hillary got white voters aged 60 and older, (The largest white voting bloc), and Obama took every other age group.
By numbers Obama won in what may be a continental landslide, this win more or less solidifies his status as the "black candidate" but he still retains his endearment with white voters because he does not focus on race. The only bloc that can keep Hillary up at this point are the white women bloc, and I don't think Hillary is going to get a repeat of New Hampshire down the road if she starts crying again, she has to find a way to get them to rally behind her for the long term.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The numbers on white voters 60 and older aren't a walk away for Hillary. She only won by like 10%, if that, I can't remember the number off the top of my head.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a Republican voter who favors McCain, I deplore seeing Bill Clinton playing the race card for his wife, hoping that by polarizing the electorate and getting so many blacks to vote for Obama, he will provoke a white backlash that will give his wife the victory in most other states. This tactic did work for him when he was running against Jesse Jackson.
But Obama's appeal is wider than Jackson's was, and Bill Clinton's tactic may not work. Obama still got 1/4 of the white vote in SC, and the majority of young voters, white or black.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I deplore seeing Bill Clinton playing the race card for his wife, hoping that by polarizing the electorate and getting so many blacks to vote for Obama, he will provoke a white backlash that will give his wife the victory in most other states.
One hopes that Obama stays above the fray. I can see Bill Clinton doing exactly as RLambert predicts, and I can see it working. And as much as black people love Clinton, if Obama loses in a clean race, I can see blacks rallying behind H. Clinton, but if he loses in a blood bath-- a Clinton-Carville smash and grab street fight-- I think that'll alienate black Americans even farther from the political process. And I think that's bad for the world. Not only will we stay home on election day, you may have more people give up on any sort of majority-ruled democracy that depends on the decency of white people. When Republicans play on white bigotry for votes, and do so with alarming success and scant retribution from decent/complicit white conservatives, blacks flock to the Democrats. If Democrats start doing the same thing, especially a democrat as beloved as Clinton, there is a chance that we'll hit the streets.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Saying "most" ignores the millions of Mormons that don't live in California and the intermountain West, but I'd agree that most Mormons in Nevada prize business over government-run social services* and the environment.
Sorry. I should've said "Most Jell-O Belt Mormons" or something similar.
This makes Mormons sound kinda cold-hearted. Mormons have first-hand experience with a private welfare system that works extremely well. In comparison, the government programs are a tangled-up, beauracracy-heavy, ineffective, inefficient mess, and it's easy for me to see why they'd rather not fund it, perhaps forgetting that not everyone has access to a system like theirs. And the denser the mormon population, the less likely those mormons will be to realise what the rest of us have to deal with.
South-East Ohio isn't exactly the jello-belt, but around here Mormons are excited that Romney is running because it means free publicity for the church and more of their friends are asking questions and providing member-missionary opportunities, but they're all voting for Obama.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean no one said it? You quoted it yourself up a ways. Or do you mean what it's replying to? I think we're responding to Bill Clinton's line about Obama being a black candidate. Yeah, it is a straw man argument, but it's Bill Clinton's straw man argument.
P.S. As far as the Mormon welfare system goes, it's fine for socially and mentally functional people. But what do we do about people who are mentally ill? I don't really have a satisfactory answer for it, myself.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still looking for this straw man argument, and it was probably you, frimpong, when you said
quote:It's a victory, but I don't know how crushing it is. It looks to me that Edwards and Clinton split the white vote, probably along gender lines, and Obama swept up everyone left, including black women.
Anyway, that was fairly early on. So what is your characterization of the white democrats who certainly did vote for Obama in SC? Is it just the youth vote?
I was under the impression that Obama's victory in Iowa was more important to shoring up his support among black people anyway, to see that he could win in a "broad coalition" as they're calling it and wasn't just the "black candidate."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
