New Rules: A victory isn't a victory unless a majority of white people made it happen

[EffieBlack]

The "Obama may have won, but he didn't get a majority of white votes" crowd is eerily reminiscent of the crowd that ran Congress until they got booted out in 2006.

Speaker Hastert had a strict rule that no piece legislation would be brought to the floor for a vote unless and until a majority of Republicans supported it. So, a bill could be supported by 72% (317 of 435) of the Members, but unless a majority of the 230 Republicans agreed to vote yes, the legislation would not be voted on. It was an amazing distortion of democracy.

This new argument that Obama's overwhelming primary victory in South Carolina is not REALLY a win because he didn't get a majority of white votes sounds just like the Hastert rule.

Apparently, some people believe that a victory doesn't count unless a majority of WHITE people made it happen.

This attitude is the very essence of the notion of "white entitlement."

[Sulawesi]

1. I always like your posts Effie! nt

[SCDem]

2. Thank You

As a white woman who voted for Barack Obama - I am disgusted with the media as to the disparaging put downs of certain individuals votes and putting upon them the reason for which they voted or did not vote for someone.

I am a 30 something white female who voted for Obama.

Please media know it alls tell me why I voted for the man - was it because I hate Hillary (no) was it because I can't stand to see a strong female (no) -

The media sucks.

[kurth]

3. There won't be a victory in November unless a majority of white people make it happen

Especially older white people. It's a cold, hard fact.

[DJ13]

8. "There won't be a victory in November unless a majority of white people make it happen"

Despite Bill's best efforts, Hillary only got about 10-12% more white votes than Obama.

In fact, she lost to Edwards in that group.

[EffieBlack]

10. There won't be a victory in November unless a substantial majority of DEMOCRATS makes it happen

Unless you have reason to think that white Democrats aren't going to vote for Obama in the general election just because some of them don't vote for him in the primaries, you are comparing apples and oranges. And arguing that because a majority of white people didn't vote for Obama in the South Carolina primary means that he can't win in November makes no sense.

[formernaderite]

29. obamas speeches are so uplifting that

if he can manage the clinton machine...I could see many independants and mod repubs voting for him in the general. Sorry, but the same could never be said for Hillary. My support is still for Edwards, but on purely ideological grounds. It's not looking good for him, so I will have no prob voting for Obama if by feb edwards is out.

[Blue_Roses]

18. If you haven't noticed yet,

those older whites are dying out and the youth of today are taking their place. Time doesn't stand still, although it seems the Deep South has all these years. Finally, FINALLY there is hope that we will move into the year 2008 rather than continuing to live in the 1960's. I grew up in the Deep South and still live here, so it's a welcome change. The same old status quo is not only stagnant and oppressive, it's crippling to the healing that should have taken place a long, long time ago.

[CatWoman]

23. don't confuse them, Kurth

facts and reality are not the operating words around here these days.

[David__77]

32. No Democrat has carried the white vote since LBJ in 1964.

So what? We most emphatically DO NOT need the majority of the white vote to win and win big.

[MADem]

4. Wow, that whole argument is just very offensive on a number of levels.

And I don't even follow your logic.

Those "some people" arguments generally suck. If you can't say who is in this crowd of nefarious people, and state it plainly, it's innuendo, and it's a generalized form of rather vicious character assassination.

At whom are you directing your ire? "Some people" isn't a sufficient response.

[MadBadger]

25. It would be against DU rules to say who...cough..Herman...cough cough.

[readmoreoften]

5. I think the fear is that he's not going to be able to carry the lily-white states...

Or that the Republicans will rig the election and then use racism as an excuse. I think Iowa disproves that, however, but there has been MSM talk about the "Bradley Effect" in that state.

[EffieBlack]

15. That's always the excuse used to keep blacks from full opportunity

"It's not that *I* have a problem - but SOMEONE ELSE will treat him unfairly, so I'd better not take the chance {hiring him, letting him go to my school, live in my neighborhood, etc.}

If we wait until we're sure that OTHERS will behave right, we'll never get anywhere.

You're right - the MSM loves talking about the "Bradley Effect." But they sure didn't talk about it tonight, did they? Kind of hard to make that argument when the black candidate OVERperforms.

[CatWoman]

24. seems to me it's ignorant masses who keep making the excuses

[ecstatic]

6. exactly!!!!!! nt

:mad:

[Bright Eyes]

7. K&R

You're spot on.

[Bullet1987]

9. I agree 100% Effie

and people say White Entitlement doesn't exist...ROFL!

[HooptieWagon]

11. Clinton didn't get a majority of White votes, either. n/t

[sandnsea]

12. I mentioned this marginalizing attitude

a couple days ago. Got beat about the head for it. I have heard this about all minorities, from Native Americans in Montana and the Dakotas to Latinos in the southwest to blacks in the southeast. It's disgusting and these posts need to stop.

And, btw, the proof that women have made more progress than minorities is that we aren't minimizing the female vote. Obama also never attempted to turn Hillary into the flighty pms'y cupcake - even though she did win New Hampshire by crying.

[knowledgeispwr]

13. Or how about if blacks vote mostly for a white candidate...

it's for the issues. But if it's for a black candidate, it's because he/she's black?

I've heard/seen a lot of disgusting insinuations.

[EffieBlack]

19. Exactly

John Edwards won about 40% of the black vote in South Carolina in 2004 while Al Sharpton got about 20%. This time Edwards got only 1% while Obama got 80%. In 2004, it was never suggested that black voters who voted for Edwards did so for any reason other than the issues and there was little criticism about Sharpton's black vote, probably because he didn't do better than the white candidates. But now that Edwards and Clinton together didn't crack 20% of the black vote, it MUST be that black voters are clueless, racist idiots who don't know what's good for them and just voted based solely on race.

[1corona4u]

14. And a 'win' for Obama isn't the second coming of Christ either.

[David__77]

33. Why is "win" in quotes? Are you saying it isn't a legitimate win?

And if not, why not?

[FrenchieCat]

16. They keep moving the goalpost!

Next it will be, Obama didn't win 100% of the women vote; he can't win the GE.

But since Obama is bring in new people into the electorate, someone needs to get a calculator and figure it out. Thus far, we win South Carolina and Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada in the GE with Obama at the helm. Did we win any of those states last General Election?

some folks need to do their math! :shrug:

[tammywammy]

17. Thank you EffieBlack

Great Post!

[Tulkas]

20. NO, Those Are The OLD RULES !!! Some of us have moved onto the new ones

[TwilightGardener]

21. It's pretty awful. Some people are looking to belittle Obama's accomplishments

no matter what. Even to the point of dismissing the black vote as not a "real" measure of support. White vote, yes. Youth vote, yes. Elderly vote, yes. Female vote, yes. Latino vote, yes. Black vote--doesn't count. Shameful attitude.

[EffieBlack]

28. Check out this conversation

from last Sunday's "This Week":

George Stephanaopoulos: But, George, let's begin with Nevada. 51 - easy win, 51-45 for Hillary Clinton in Nevada. And let's look at the coalition she's built here because it's getting fairly consistent. She's winning the white vote, 52%. She's winning the women vote, 51%. Winning Latinos 2-1, 64% What she's losing of course is the black vote, more than 80% to Barack Obama. But going forward from Nevada this is a powerful coalition for Hillary Clinton.

George Will: Well 64% is the big number. At about 4:00 Nevada time yesterday, she came out and talked to some television reporters, and said, I have so many people to thank I can't mention them all. Then she mentioned one, that was Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, a Hispanic. The simmering subtext of this contest on the Democratic side is will members of America's largest minority, Hispanics, support a candidate from America's second largest minority, African Americans? So far it looks no.


So - last week Hillary Clinton beats Barack Obama 51%-45% in the Nevada Caucus. In doing so, she wins 64% of the Latino vote to Obama's 35%. The pundits make a big deal of the fact that she's "winning Latinos 2-1" as if it's a good thing - no talk of divisiveness, not argument that her Caucus victory didn't count because 48% of white voters did not vote for her or because so many Latinos did.

But now that Obama has beaten Clinton 55%-27%, won 80% of the black vote and 36% of the white vote, somehow THAT is sign of a "split" in the Democratic party and proof that he CAN'T win in the general?

This double standard in assessment of candidates of different races would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

[TwilightGardener]

30. Yep--doesn't surprise me. Hillary's victories are legitimate and noteworthy

no matter who supports her, and his victories (or his close losses to her) are minimized as "of course he gets the black vote" or "but latinos don't like him" or "youths like him, but remember Dean? They don't vote" or "he has trouble with older white women"--and yet, he marches on and continues to do well, despite the naysaying.

[FrenchieCat]

31. and transparent, except for those who's eyes are shut tight!

[PurityOfEssence]

22. A mild dose of statistics is helpful at times like these

You seem quite fair-minded, and I've appreciated your posts in defense of Edwards in the past, so perhaps this will be taken with the spirit it's intended. These are heady times, and it's exhilarating to many for a woman and a non-white to be in very serious contention for the presidency, but not all resistance stems from bigotry or a lack of imagination.

There's a nasty little reality to be kept in mind: somewhere around 90% of blacks are reliable Democratic voters, so getting that bloc of votes doesn't really mean that much. This group is also only an eighth of the population.

Personally, I don't think Senator Clinton is electable except when facing a dreadful opponent or if world events really turn people's perception against the Republicans. They're very good at making others look like the villains for their own follies, and with Democrats in control of all of Congress, that could be very easy again. Still, she could win if all goes well, and perhaps even with a sizable margin. Besides the fact that she's risky, I just have way too many problems with her character and policies, and I think she could be a real danger if elected, steering a corporatist course and sustaining the elites while making liberals the scapegoats for anything bad that happens.

Obama is too much of a corporatist for my tastes, too, but I think he's considerably more electable. Still, the issue of racism is a big one, and things are far from clear. It was interesting to hear some interviews with hispanic voters on NPR who were very cold on the idea of a black president, and I think there's a big problem here in general.

Iowa is interesting and a very hopeful sign for us as a nation, but that's a caucus, which is far different from a representation of what people do in secret. 7/8ths of the population are not a bloc to be ignored, and even if whites are only somewhere around SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of the population, it's still something to keep in mind.

Personally, my heart's view of being a liberal is nestled in wanting what's best for everyone, and even though it's long past time for a non-white or a woman to be elected, I truly feel that John Edwards policies are better for more, and at a time when our sclerotic economic caste-system is trundling toward serious disaster with nothing but lords and serfs, time is of the essence. The fact that he's more electable against the potential Republicans just irritates the wound even more.

Regardless, all resistance to Senator Obama isn't a manifestation of racism, and looking for a clear instance of his garnering more white support in a non-public, peer-pressure kind of arena like a caucus is certainly something that deserves to be addressed. We're all in for quite a few shocks to our assumptions, just as we should have already experienced some if we're being frank with ourselves.

Congratulations, and I hope this muddle makes sense.

[Tulkas]

26. Lets just talk about Iowa 2% Black and Clinton comes in 3rd

[FrenchieCat]

34. They don't want to talk about that.....

it's too painful!

[angee_is_mad]

27. 20 pt win over Obama? NOT

I can't even imagine that happening even if they continue to be successful pitting black against brown.

Racial politics is thier strategy and it makes me look at anyone black or white sideways for being a billary supporter.

If billary wins the nomination there goes the senate and congress. There will be a lot of people who will not forgive them in November for their actions during the primaries.

billary,"You reap what you sew, and a day of reckoning will come."

[krkaufman]

35. It's shameful spin. Especially coming from a former Democratic President.

How quickly we're supposed to forget how well Obama's done in every other lily-white primary to date.