SC goes to Obama, Clinton loses black supporters...
 

So Obama has won the SC democratic primary, all major news publications called it based on exit polls alone. The bigger news seems to be about race do to the racial talk within the last week between Hilary and Obama. Obama dominated the black vote but likewise diminished among white voters greatly. This is being covered everywhere, but it is sort of annoying that there is such a focus on this. Its the media's fault mainly but Hilary Bill and Obama share some of the blame. I voted for Obama for his message, it just seems to have a stronger impact then Clinton. However is Obama's win here going to matter in 10 days when we go to super tuesday where Clinton has a commanding lead?

Anywho, what is everyone's thoughts on South Carolina?

I think it's a good win for Obama, but unless his continued showings in the state processes are impressive enough to peel super-delegates away from Hillary, she still has the nomination locked up, ultimately.

If the Obama wins the popular delegate vote and the party still chooses Clinton, the Democrats will LOSE.

Well, obama is winning the delegate vote. Of course we have only 4 states now. He won the delegate race in Iowa Nevada and SC and TIED in New Hampshire. So, really he didnt lose any. However, he lost the popular vote in Nevada in New Hamshire. However, Cali, NY, and other big states matter so much more and that will show on the 5th which will probably lean towards clinton. HOWEVER, trends have been shifting so fast, and 10 days could change a lot of minds. Obama is still the underdog, and everyone loves the underdog.

Can someone refresh my memory about how the delegate vs. state vote works?

Each state has different rules. In some, the winner in the primary gets all the delegates. In some, the delegates are split according to the voting percentages. Some separate it even further and the delegates are split by the voting percentages but only if a delegate has attained a certain percentage of the votes, otherwise they go as "uncommitted" (like here in MI). It's pretty complicated and is determined by each states' parties. CNN has a list of how many delegates are needed to get the nomination and have a good breakdown of available delegates. Some states also have pre-set delegates or super delegates and it's all really bizarre, actually.

If you're wondering about super-delegates in particular, here are some links that might help:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008...gate-list.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

That's true of the Republican Party. In the Democratic side, all states have the same rules for the delegates-- you are awarded delegates based on the percentage of the vote you capture.

And can I just say YAY!!! to my SC peeps for overwhelmingly voting for Obama! :D

Your answer doesn't make sense to me...because in Nevada, Hilary got 51% of the popular vote and Obama only got 45%. Hilary only got 12 delegates, but Obama got 13. Why exactly is that?

The Democratic format can get really complicated, it's not just the raw # of votes over the whole state, it actually depends on WHERE in the state the votes come from and how many delegates different districts are worth.

This page has one of the clearer breakdowns: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuspols627.xml

• To win the race, a candidate must secure the support of more than half their party's delegates to their nominating convention in the summer - 2,025 out of 4,049 Democrat delegates; or 1,191 out of 2,380 Republican delegates.
• The more votes a candidate receives in each state the more delegates they win. Larger states send more delegates to the convention.
• In many Republican contests, the winner of each state takes all the delegates. But each leading candidate seems able to win some states.
• On the Democrat side, delegates are awarded according to districts won - making it harder for one candidate to acquire a dominating lead. Candidates can score highly by winning the key cities.
• Democrats also have a system of so-called Super Delegates - leading party figures - who can decide for themselves who to support. In this group, Hillary Clinton is ahead of Barack Obama.

I'm so excited for Barack! My husband is totally not understanding my obsession with the primaries. I like to explain to my him that this is like my superbowl (but that only comes every 4 years) and Barack's the quarterback of my favorite team.

Personally, I don't see how any democrat could believe we could win with Hillary. People just don't stop hating someone, no matter how much expensive publicity you throw at them. Republicans who haven't voted in 20 years are drooling at the chance to vote against her -- so many people see her as some kind of antichrist, standing for all things unholy. Even if Hillary-dems think these people are wrong, do these dems really think Hillary-haters' minds can be changed? I just don't get it!

I really hate this election so far.

If Hillary wins, the Hillary-haters will vote against her and we'll get a Republican.

If Barack wins, the racists will vote against him and we'll get a republican.

If a republican wins, I'm personally still screwed.

wtf?

I disagree, Senusret. I still think it's the Democrats race to lose. Any Skylark, although I am not strictly a Democrat, I do think the Democrats can win with Hilary.

I like to watch This Week With George Stephanopoulos on Sundays, and this morning he had Obama on for half an hour. Honestly, it was painful to watch...Obama was talking and talking and I just tuned out...it was like I was listening to the teacher from Charlie Brown (wah wah wah wannn). As usual, I hear Obama speak, but he's not actually saying anything.

Meet the Press had John McCain on. He was trying to convince everybody that he has always been very conservative. A far cry from the things he was saying the first time he was in the primaries...

To include yesterday's results and this week's withdrawals:

For the Republicans:

Magic Number 1,191

Romney 73
McCain 38
Huckabee 29
Paul 6
Giuliani 2
x-Hunter 0
x-Thompson 0


For the Democrats:

Magic Number 2,025

Clinton 230
Obama 152
Edwards 61
x-Biden 0
x-Dodd 0
Gravel 0
x-Kucinich 0
x-Richardson 0

I'm black-I didn't vote for Obama
I'm a woman-I didn't vote for Clinton
I'm young-I didn't vote for Obama

I voted for Edwards in the primary-I am the rare glitch in the system as the news would have you believe.

I'm tired of the race issue, I'm tired of the pathetic bickering and frankly, I think Obama has lost his point for me (although originally I liked all three candidates).

Edwards for me, has been the only one making sense the entire time and I feel like everyone has ignored him because "Oh we can vote for a woman!" "Oh we can vote for a black! (Which makes me sad because his mom is white and obviously even though physically he's black it makes me so sad they he lost his non-descript "race" along the way because I know for me that my mother is so important in my life and I identify with her over my father primarily.)

I have lost so much hope for anything getting achieved during these next for years because people are being spoon-fed the hype. And now I'm REALLY afraid that Clinton may not win and we'll be stuck with Obama...and I REALLY do not want him leading my country (just me personally cos I know everyone else is apparently on the Obama train).

Ditto...I am NOT on the Obama train, and I don't understand why so many people are. I originally liked him, but I like him less and less the more he speaks. He's become the Democratic version of Giuliani...the media says Giuliani trys to use 9/11 in every sentence and doesn't say much else; for me, Obama says the word "change" in every sentence but never talks about how to accomplish anything.

I think it will be a Clinton-Edwards ticket in the fall.

See I blame the media for the fact that it is virtually impossible to communicate a complex idea in this day and age on a news program or in a debate. It's all about spin and getting the sound byte.

I try not to rely on the media clips and often meaningless "debates" to educate myself on a candidates ability to have a plan, and I don't expect a candidate to find a way to give me a dumbed down version of it in the news. I read Barack's last book when it came out and prior to that I read (okay listened to the audio-version of) Hillary's book. I primarily judge them on the ideas they expressed there than from any media clip, so maybe that is why I'm less concerned as to why I haven't audibly heard Barack's plans for change. I've read about how he's changed Illinois politics and what large and small steps he'd like to see the country take. I hear his speeches in that context... not in the context of wanting him to explain himself.

However, I do think there is something to be said for the power to inspire. If you can inspire the american people, that is a huge momentum for accomplishing change. We've had many capable leaders (Dubya excluded) that have been uninspired. I honestly think that America needs someone who stands for principles and that is why I stand behind Barack so strongly. I honestly don't think Hillary stands for anything but the unbridled thirst for power and the willingness to do anything to get it.

See I'm not so sure Edwards will be so quick to do the VP-run, although I'd love to see him in it. As a VP, I could see him taking on a single issue (namely, health care) and doing great things for reform.

Edwards says he's still going for the gold so I don't see him bowing out just yet. I feel so bad for him because people usually act as if he's not a contendor!
I remember watching a clip from (what I believe is either an interview with all three or the debate) and Obama says we have a woman, a black, and John. WTF!? Well at least people can refer to him by his name and not by a category!
Have we not reached beyond this point? Apparently not...as a woman, you're a vajayjay and breasts and as a black person you're a big 'ol pile of brown skin. I was so excited that I would have a 3 great choices, then I was confused because yes, there was the whole gender race issue for me as a young black woman, but now I just want someone who can see beyond right now and I feel like Edwards and Clinton have overall been doing a better job, although I think the media is doing a lot to affect perceptions with Obama. I'm also very concerned regarding the media and the black community with this election.

I don't know about that...maybe Clinton-Richardson?

I completely agree with you re: the media and debates and sound bytes. It is very hard to distill what ANY of the candidates plan for the country based on what's shown or printed in the news. Also, I would add that generally speaking, inspirational, creative, more poetic people, like Barack clearly is, have a harder time expressing ideas in the concrete. Abstractions are more comfortable.

Based on what I've read on his website and blogs concerning him, his lack of definitive plans don't really scare me. It makes me think that he is the real deal and will be able to work across the aisle, building coalitions and really get things done in Washington. A Clinton presidency guarantees more gridlock. But I really do believe that if she's the nominee, that we will have another Republican president. She's THAT offensive to quite a few Repubs, independents, and yes, even people in her own party.

I think now that Caroline Kennedy and her uncle Ted are coming out for Obama, people who will be voting in coming days will give Obama another look.

Didn't take a psychic to see this coming.

:) No truer words... :D

Do you have this link?

My state's primaries are coming up and we are asking my Sorority Sisters to attend the caucuses. I need a good explanation as to why they should... We are attempting to promote more involvement in the "behind the scenes" political process besides voter registration and education.

New York Times does a good job as well, and doesn't assign the delegates until they're truly assigned, most of the states that have voted so far have NOT assigned delegates yet.

Btw, for those who would like to know what Obama actually intends to do, check out the website. He's not all talk no plans/action. Having done so myself I still agree with him over the other Democratic candidates above and beyond my non-issue based preferences.

There's something more going on here. The Obama candidacy is shaping up to change the African American political landscape. In South Carolina (and other states) the Clinton's used the traditional strategy of machine politics, "buying" the endorsements of black ministers and using black surrogates like Bob Johnson, believing that African Americans would fall in lock step like a pack of lemmings. In contrast, the Obama campaign was truly an innovative grassroots operation, utilizing the existent political and social networks in the African American community--it was a real movement!This is what I heard from someone with deep roots in SC politics, right there in the Low Country, who was really impressed with the Obama campaign there.

As a commentator said on a Black public affairs radio show last night in NYC, this has the potential of dethroning the old guard civil rights "leaders" who operate under the patronage system to white politicians in the Democratic Party by circumventing any sway they may have as influential political arbiters. This portends the end of "plantation politics."

Yep. They said much the same on Meet the Press yesterday. Which will end up with Edwards getting the nomination and losing.

See: 1968

Boy...it looks like all the Democrats here are already down and out! I want Edwards but he'll lose to the Rep. I want Clinton, but she'll lose to the Rep. I want Obama, but he'll lose to the Rep. Damn! Why don't we all just start voting for McCain! LOL! I honestly feel (or at least hope with all my might) that we will have a Dem. president.
I just think that it is going to be a fight to the death to figure out who that will be.
At least we can feel thankful that even while we're debating which candidates, many Rep. are still between at least three as well. It's not completely all one way. Let's take some solace in that.

I actually did check out Obama's website a couple of months ago and that's when my opinion of him began to decline. However, in an election, you can't assume that all voters are going to be proactive and search out your campaign ideas. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people in this country who will vote stictly on who they "like" or based on what they see in campaign ads.

Senusret has a point...you have a woman and a Black man running for the presidential nomination...to a degree, you have them both splitting the votes just to get on the ballot.

And then when it became an issue of race (who will Black people vote for) it just muddied the waters even further.

Hillary isn't losing Black votes because Black people are jumping on Obama's bandwagon...she is losing because Blacks are really looking into what she has to say and how it will affect us should we decide to choose her as the presidential nominee.

And as far as Obama not 'saying' anything....you should have heard mcCain on Meet the Press earlier this month.

Absolutely! I think the media has really fallen short in distinguishing this in polls. I think that their reports risk implying that black people vote black because they are -- pretty offensive to me, at least. I think Hillary and Bill's recent comments are example enough that if they actually do understand modern racial conflict, they don't really care enough about it to avoid seemingly naive racially charged remarks about Obama (namely, the MLK and Jesse Jackson comments).

Interesting you should say that... Because some of my "seasoned sorors" who only obtain news from the newspaper, television and radio were discussing how worried they were with the "real or implied threats" that Obama was getting from the old guard racists, such as the KKK and other white supremacists. They were remarking how Obama needed Secret Service protection early in his campaign.

What piqued my interest was that my "seasoned sorors" were very concerned for Obama's overall safety and maybe the US says their ready, but is really not...

You have at least 4-5 generations voting here and each generation saw great differences in the world overtime - as evidenced by Andy Rooney's comments about what is a Recession vs. a Depression... I think that is how sly comments are made.

My point is in regards to your "grassroots" statement: The young and "enlightened young", are realizing (or reinvigorated) to see how they can "move mountains" again and accomplish the true heritage of the United States. I don't think US racism/bigotry will die if Obama wins, but it will be removed from active government sanctioning to into psychological problems where it should rightfully be.

OK...but I'm truly disinterested. ;)

I don't find his platform any more developed than anyone else's - for instance, his economic plan is just a series of tax credits, with no explanation of where the Federal gov't will make up the lost income.

Then there's this:

This is the epitome of "all talk/no action" - most of it is quite hollow, with things like "working to ensure competent, effective teachers" resulting in eye-rolling. So you support "career pathways that provide ongoing professional development"? You mean like the reason why every school district in the nation has planned early-out days every month for teacher development? Oh, now it's a "career ladder" with a non-described "reward" for accomplished teachers, though - even under that name, it's just as empty.

Obama is a wonderful orator and a very smart man, but I don't find any more depth or specificity in his views than in any other candidate's, for either party.

^^^ If you're interested enough in his concrete plans, pick up his book. He is more detailed in it, for instance, on his view of education policies. He says that he supports programs that pay teachers at least partially based on merit, but is careful to point out that the means of evaluating good teachers should be designed by educators themselves (not merely an evaluation of students standardized test scores).

I'm not 100% sure on this next part, but I'm pretty sure he also talks about how he'd like to see the public school funding system change so that property taxes more evenly fund schools (so you don't have adjacent districts with incredibly disparate resources based on the economic differences between those districts).

This is the part that interests me:

Voters shouldn't have to pick up a candidate's book to find out their in depth plan. The average voter does not have the time (or even interest) to read these people's books but rather expect for the candidates to lay their plans out so everyone can access and be informed if they so choose.

Hell, even "No Child Left Behind" sounded good to many people at first but its implementation was bad and it suffered the way many social programs suffer. It's an example of how seemingly proactive approaches can have positive and negative consequences.

What's going on is that regardless of how "exciting" and seemingly "groundbreaking" this election is, it is just the same old song and dance with different (and more diverse) players.

Every candidate will say what they think will get a vote, whether they will implement the plan or not--and whether the plan will work or not. The candidates who "sound good" or "look cool" right now should be given the same critical eye and approach that any other candidate is given.

With that said, as an Independent I'm not doing cartwheels over these candidates or what happened in South Carolina. My vote is still up in the air until I see something in a particular platform and candidate that grabs me on the Repub or Dem side. And that can grab America for social change. The education, Iraq war, and blahzey blah rhetoric is typical. The question is what's going to make this candidate follow through on this when she or he gets into the White House. And what's going to make the rest of the government and our citizens work together for what needs to get done--whatever folks think needs to get done (the debate over "what needs to get done"/"whose agenda matters" is another reason why nothing really gets done).

/end rant

AMEN!

Except that this is a state and local issue, not a federal issue (which Michigan tried to fix and it's still really messed up).

The inherent problem with the primaries (although I admit they are necessary) is that you have to pit people with similar philosophies and ideas against each other. It's tough to attack their stands on the issues, so, in our attacking political environment, they end up attacking things that shouldn't even be brought up. Then, after the primaries and the Conventions, they have to all rally to support the very person they attacked.