Jesse Jackson won SC in 1988 with very similar % numbers to Obama

[JCMach1]

The SC caucus results in 1988 were Jackson 54%, Gore 18%, Dukakis 7%... http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/26/155613/613

Keep in mind it was also a caucus, so if anything there would have been heavier turn-out this year.

Congrats go to Obama, but the race is still a toss-up...


ON EDIT: Not baiting Obamatrolls, Hillbots, or Edwardsians... let's genuinely talk the race here in practical terms.

[Big Blue Marble]

1. Thanks for the helpful reminder.

But Bill beat you to it yesterday.

[JCMach1]

5. Yep, I missed that until researching the point...

Bill is right and we all need perspective right now.

Yes, it COULD be so close the race gets brokered...


OR,

We could have the case on either side where momentum continues to build until the candidacy is inevitable (think Dukakis 1988).

BTW: I think FAT TUESDAY is going to resolve none of this... Each candidate will win some states... prob even Edwards. Because of CA and NY, I think Hillary will get the most delegates out of the deal, but in the other states the victories will be marginal.

[Big Blue Marble]

8. I agree with your assessment.

I do not think we will have a clear winner a week from Tuesday. I do think
Obama will do better than the individual state polls indicated before yesterday.


BTW, I love your term "FAT TUESDAY." That sort of sums it up, doesn't it?

[JCMach1]

9. Can't take credit for that... heard Chris Matthews (dear old tweety) use it

But, I doubt if he is so original!

[FrenchieCat]

2. Did he win Iowa Too, come super close in NH, and win more delegates

in Nevada too? Just checking.

[jackson_dem]

6. The Iowa winner in 1988 was from a neighboring state

Fast forward to 2008: the Iowa winner was from a neighboring state.

[rodeodance]

42. Yeah-lets talk about Iowa and Obama

[Radical Activist]

3. How did Jackson do in Iowa?

[Egnever]

4. No offense but did you read your link?

The Independents and the Republicans vote disproportionately for John Edwards.

* Among just the registered Democrats in SurveyUSA's sample, Obama leads Clinton by 19 points.
* But among the Independents, Obama and Edwards are effectively tied, with Clinton a dozen points back.
* Among the admittedly tiny handful of Republicans who tell us they will vote in the Democratic Primary, Edwards leads Clinton and Obama.

[JCMach1]

7. Yes... I think Edwards will breakthrough in some states

on Fat Tuesday. Specifically OK and one or two others.

[jackson_dem]

10. Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, and North Dakota are good places for him

It is no coincidence he was in North Dakota tonight. :) My list is in no particular order. Only Oklahoma is a notch above based on available data but even with that we don't know how things have shaken up in recent months. For all we know he could have taken the lead in a place like Kansas.

[JCMach1]

11. I think you are right about that...

I just cannot see OK going for either Hillary, or Obama.

[jackson_dem]

17. And I don't see why they would make a full effort there anyway

It has "only" 47 delegates. Why burn cash on it? They, like Edwards, will focus on the big states. The rest of their strategy is what will be interesting. It seems, based on where he is going in the coming days, Obama will emphasize states with large black populations. I am not sure what Hillary will do. It is harder to see Hillary's strategy since her support is more widespread and consistent than that of the other two candidates.

Clark isn't around this time. If Clark didn't run in 2004 Edwards would have won Oklahoma comfortably.

[usregimechange]

12. IT WAS JESSE'S HOME STATE!

[Political Heretic]

13. Thanks Bill. Haven't seen the race card played in like, five whole minutes....

...I was getting worried! :scared:

[usregimechange]

14. Another posted on mydd says Jesse won by a different number, do they know

what they are talking about?

[JCMach1]

15. Some more threads for those interested in the historical context here...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D9153AF930A25750C0A96E948260 ...


also, some interesting notes on 1988 here:

In the Super Tuesday races, Dukakis won six primaries, Gore five, Jackson five and Gephardt one, with Gore and Jackson splitting the Southern states. The next week, Simon won Illinois. 1988 remains the race with the most candidates winning primaries since the McGovern reforms of 1971. Dukakis eventually emerged as the winner, with Gore's effort to paint Dukakis as too liberal for the general election being unsuccessful and causing him to withdraw. Jackson focused more on getting enough delegates to make sure African-American interests were represented in the platform than on winning.<2>... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988#Democratic_Party_nomination

[David__77]

16. What exactly is your point? Clinton won the 1992 primary too.

I don't get what you're inferring. What does Obama have in common with Jackson that he doesn't with Clinton?

[cali]

18. keep comparing Obama to a losing black candidate

if you can't see how different it is, you're fooling yourself. If you can't see how unattractive these posts are, you're in need of real help.

And no, it's not a toss up. Edwards is done. It's between Clinton and Obama.

[jackson_dem]

19. You wish. Obamites are obsessed with burying Edwards for some reason...

[cali]

20. Don't be absurd. I supported Dean, and I knew sadly

that he was done after Iowa. Edwards is done. I don't give a hoot if he stays in until the convention or if the Edwardians support him until then, I'm not going to indulge people living in a fantasy.

[jackson_dem]

21. You said Obama would be done if he lost Nevada by more than three points right?

[cali]

24. No, not that I recall.

I believe I said 7 pts- could have been 5. And he didn't lose by more than that. Besides this is completely different. I knew Edwards was done after he didn't win Iowa. And btw, I still think Hillary is by far the favorite. I don't live in some fantasy world like others.

[jackson_dem]

25. I put Edwards chances of winning the nomination at 10%

I am supporting him because he is the best candidate, not because I think he has a great chance to win at this point. Why should Edwardians give their support to St. Obama or Hillary? They aren't entitled to anything.

[cali]

26. I've never said Edwardians should do anything and

frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what they do. I believe it's entirely up to each individual to make that decision. Like you, I support Obama because I believe he's the best candidate and like you my support isn't negotiable. And I'd put Edwards' chances at more like 2%, but in any case, whether it's 2% or 10%, he's not a viable candidate. Supporting him because you want to see him make an impact on the race strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Supporting him because you think he could all the sudden win it, isn't.

[jackson_dem]

28. Many Obamites have

The best scenario for Edwards winning is not through the primaries since he will accumulate a big deficit in delegates on Super Tuesday. His best chance is emerging as the compromise candidate who can unite the party at a brokered convention. Even that is unlikely for obvious reasons.

[JCMach1]

22. Reality Check- None of the three are done and all are earning delegates

[cali]

27. Reality check: Edwards is effectively out of the race as concerns

winning the nomination. It's absurd to keep pretending he has anything but the slimmest of chances. Furthermore, it's likely that you will see his support peeling off to some degree in the next week in states like CA and GA and AL and NJ. I actually think more of that support will go to Clinton than Obama, but as people increasingly view him as unviable, he'll lose support. Not here at DU, he won't, but in the real world, he will. And in most Super Tuesday states he will not get to 15%. He's already below that in most of them. Will he continue after 2/5? Perhaps. Hard to say.

[jackson_dem]

31. We were told his support would peel off after New Hampshire

What happened? He has held steady in national polls and did slightly better than expected in South Carolina.

[cali]

32. He got 18% in his native state. That is not impressive

He did terribly in NV and even if it hadn't been a caucus entrance polls showed him polling only 8 or 9%. His support may remain around 15% nationally, but in most ST states he's polling below that. He did not do better than was forecast in SC. As I said, I was a Dean supporter- big time, but I knew when he lost Iowa it was over. This year it's just as clear.

[jackson_dem]

33. He was averaging 14-15% in SC forever

Let's not disingenuously ignore the demographic reasons he did so poorly. If Obama weren't running he would have done better. Those demographics won't be in play in most states. Obama isn't going to get 81% of half the electorate's vote in North Dakota or Kansas.

[cali]

34. Ifs and ands don't make any difference.

And he was polling higher over the last few days. If you want to call 3 pts exceeding expectations, go for it. I'm sure Edwards will run a spirited campaign over the next week. We'll see what that will do.

[jackson_dem]

35. I said "slightly better." Let's see what happens on Super Tuesday

If he does poorly then I will be disappointed. I am hoping for a win or two and several strong showings but you are right that he won't break 15% in many states. I hope he can do it in several key states like California, Georgia, and somehow New York.

[rodeodance]

40. The question is----what will Edwards DO with his delegates at the Convention.

[JCMach1]

23. While this is neither 1968, nor 1988...

the race is seeing the convergence of issues regarding race and gender

Just a few such benchmarks:

-Should women vote for Hillary because she is a women?
-Should African Americans vote for Obama because he is Black?
-What is black anyway? Isn't he half-white (bi-racial)... wasn't his dad from Africa not the U.S. ... okay, now everyone is confused...
-Hillary is constantly being tagged in popular culture and the media with gender specific labels and stereotypes... Remember the Hillary nutcracker?
-Oh and then there is the Obama shuffle and other surrogate references to race!

What a mess!?!

[Vinca]

29. Isn't it a little unseemly to compare candidates - Jackson and Obama -

on the basis of color? We're better than that.

[Edgeoforever]

38. True. No comparison. Jesse is a progressive.

[rodeodance]

41. yes

[Bonobo]

30. I'll make a fair response.

It is meaningless.

Obama is a senator. Jessie Jackson is umm, not.

One is a real candidate with a chance, someone who took Iowa. Jessie Jackson is umm, not.

[jackson_dem]

36. Jackson won 13 states. It is unclear whether Obama will even match that

[rodeodance]

43. I did not realize JJ got that many. thanks.

[Edgeoforever]

37. Shhht! It's racist to say Jesse's name! And insulting.

I dunno why, but it is!

[kurth]

39. Plus Rush Limbaugh says Jesse is a very bad man