If people are more likely to back a candidate based on race, they probably wouldn't vote Democrat anyways.  This could be partially as a result of Rush Limbaugh's call for Republicans to back Clinton on March 4th.

Furthermore, a Democrat has little business using this as a talking point.  You're SERIOUSLY trying to convince us that we can't nominate Obama because the country won't elect a black man?  What does that say about your own belief in your own candidate's ability to break the glass ceiling?

Wow. Because some idiot blogger is using a race based argument everybody should be scared.

I'm just a shakin' in my boots.

Sheesh.

Wow, you are stooping lower and lower.

I wouldn't go there myself, but your position is highly hypocritical. See, you regularly accuse Obama supporters of being misogynist. If you really believe your own BS, how do you think all these misogynists are voting for Clinton in November?

There are still some people voting based on race and sex that much can't be denied.

Not necessarily a reason not to nominate Obama.

However it is worth noting that Obama earns is highest unfavorables among whites and catholics in Pennsylvania , he gets to 40% unfavorability among those groups. His highest comes from african americans.

I don't think this is a good reason to second-guess who the Democrats decide to nominate. I don't think bigotry should be a major consideration -- we should be railing against it, not cowering beneath it.

A lot of the HRC supporters seem to think of African-Americans as those "pesky black people" who just don't know any better and vote for Obama just because they share the same skin color. Ironically, no discussion ever comes up that maybe white people are supporting HIllary becuase she is white. Moreover, you guys seem to relish the racial statistics. Well here's one for you to contemplate..If Obama is doing so badly among whites, why did he win Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland, Minnesotta? Moreover, why he is in a statistical tie with Clinton in the national polls?

One word answer: Wyoming

Part of the "proof" in the AP article is that Obama lost TX and OH.  You know - that "loss" in TX where Obama walked away with more delegates than HRC.

Obama does best among white people in states
where there are NO black people.
In states with the most black people, like
SC (to start it all off) and MS (to finish it up
this week), he does the worst (among whites, not
overall -- overall, he wins).

He wins the states with lots of blacks because we (almost) all vote for him; and he wins the ones
with no blacks because Democrats there (along with
moderates
everywhere) sense, correctly, that the struggle against
racism is one in which they have not yet borne their
fair share of the load, and Obama, unlike Jackson, is not
asking "too much" of them in that regard.

Probably the best recent example was MD vs. VA.
MD is twice as black as VA and one would therefore
have thought that Obama would do better in MD.
But he did better in VA and much better among
white voters in VA.

That this kind of polarization could be happening to anyone
who has tried as hard as Obama has tried, to not to say anything
about helping black people, is downright ironic.

I don't see Clinton as to blame for it, though.
According to that surrogate she had to fire in Texas,
there is brown flight from Obama as well, and that has
to do more with black voters' own history (in places
where there is critical mass of both African-
and Hispanic- American voters) of not voting in
solidarity with brown ones.

State political cultures already had their internal
racial dynamics before this campaign came along.
Obama's message was designed to appeal to white
moderates and independents, not white Democrats,
unless they were really young or really anti-war.
And HRC has made great headway on the war front
with the dismissive "a speech he gave in 2002".
That cuts a lot better than "change you can Xerox"
did.

The Pew data that is referenced in you diary does not support the argument that the majority of the Democratic party's base is moving away from Obama. In the real world, majority usually means more than half. You could probably stretch it to mean more than the other choice but that's really a plurality.

The Pew data shows that McCain picks up 14% of self-identified Democrats while Obama picks up 81%. 14% does not equal a majority! Clinton does better at 89-9 but gives all of that up in independents. (Obama beats McCain in this group 49-43 while Clinton loses 44-50.)

And since you appear to be so concerned about how white people will vote, you forgot to mention that Obama and Clinton perform esentially the same, with McCain beating Obama 50-42 and Clinton 51-44.

Fortunately, I suspect most superdelegates have a better understanding of math.

educated whites have such a problem with Obama.  Could it be that it's simply racism?  I think so.  The bottom-line, the more educated the voter, the more-likely the voter will vote for Obama.  The lesser educated, the more likely a Clinton voter.  A strong argument for staying in school.

Its a complete and total BS myth that their aren't racist white Democrats ie the statement above "someone who won't vote for someone based on race wouldn't vote Democratic anyway" BS! Allow me to assure you as someone born and raised in Ohio plenty of blue collar union white males who have voted Democratic since FDR will not ever vote for Obama.

But its not as if there aren't racists everywhere and in every party.

I don't dislike Obama because of race. I have voted for many black candidates in the past and will in the future. I want a qualified President and I would ask you if Obama was white with the same resume OR a black female would he be taken seriously??? I think not. Just stating the facts. Would he have even gotten close to Hillary in South Carolina if he were white???

If whites are leaving Obama, then why is he tied with her in the national polls?

A credible article today in the Dallas Morning News that kind of puts holes in the theories that many Republicans voted for Hillary in the Texas primary last Tuesday helping her to beat Obama.

"Backers of both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned out with passionate support for their candidate in last week's Texas primary. But once they got in the voting booth, they did something different.

Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds."

Further:

" Although some conservative talk show hosts had urged Republicans to cross over and vote for Mrs. Clinton in order to keep the contest going, there was little evidence that happened.

According to exit polls, only 9 percent of Democratic voters statewide identified themselves as Republicans, and they went for Mr. Obama, 53 percent to 46 percent."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030908dnpoldem voters.3a5249f.html

and more county by county stats here:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/img/03-08/0309counties.pdf

So if voters are white and don't support Obama, apparently that is because we're racist. The media is telling us this constantly, his supporters are telling us this. Apparently, I have to like him or else I have some deep seated problem with a black man getting to be president.  

Hmmm.. makes me wonder why Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have not become the president already, or perhaps Alan Keyes. Because if ONLY racists refuse to vote for a black man, then they would have to imagine that every Obama supporter would have not only voted for them, but raised money, and volunteered for them.

Gosh, when their campaigns died I didn't see anything in the media or on the internet or on DU or DKos about how racist everyone was because they didn't support them.  As I recall, I recognize a lot of Obama people who supported a white candidate over those black candidates in earlier races.  Were they racist back then and have seen the light?  Oh, they weren't? They just prefered another candidate that didn't happen to be black?  

But apparently, ONLY if it's Obama (messiah of myspace) that those not supporting him are automatically racist. Apparently, because I'm not black (though several of my family members are,) I'm not allowed to judge a candidate on his or her merits.  The hypocrisy is staggering.

the same arguments to say there is "black flight" away from Hillary Clinton? Or "male flight" away from Hillary Clinton?

Look at the Mississippi polls ,

Now the state is not necessarily a beacon of equality but it is interesting to see the numbers especially for those who are in denial on voting based on race and sex

insiderad

whites :

clinton  72

obama    18

blacks :

obama  67

clinton 17

http://southernpoliticalreport.com/downl oads/uploaded/23_InsiderAdvantage_Majori ty_Opinion_Poll_3-7-2008.pdf

ARG poll

clinton / obama ; whites 67 - 22

clinton / obama :black    87 - 11

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

rasmussen ;

clinton / obama ; whites 67 - 22

clinton / obama :black    80 - 12

But, it is the racial divide that defines the campaign in Mississippi--Obama leads 80% to 12% among African-American voters while Clinton holds a 47% advantage among White voters

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/mississippi/mississipp i_democratic_presidential_primary

It cuts both ways .

By the way I don't think Obama would like the story line coming out after his victory in missisipi if these numbers hold up.

Wow, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel today, aren't we? Pro-Clinton electability arguments based on racism, eh? You can really hold your head high today, Universal.

As far as the argument is concerned, I think it could be true of some working-class Eastern and Appalachian states as well as the South, but it's certainly not true of the Midwest or West (and no, I don't consider Ohio part of the Midwest). Obama can probably win over some of these mildly racist voters by putting someone like Joe Biden on the ticket, but the rest of them are free to vote Republican if they like. We know that the deeply serious people of Ohio are more concerned about gay marriage than putting food on the table, so I certainly wouldn't put it past 'em. As Bigdcdem alluded to, Obama can more than make up for their support with educated independents -- many of whom will begin to form the future base of the party.    

Conflating two earlier posts in the Primary thread that apply directly to this discussion.

Well as far as the Pew Poll goes...

I'm a Democrat, a deeply committed Democrat, have been all my life.  I've given, volunteered, traveled to work for Democratic candidates etc.  While the reality of racism in those numbers can't be denied they also reflect very deep, responsible recoil from Obama. Democrats who defected to Reagan didn't defect from Carter because they hated peanuts after all. Carter's was an ineffectual, weak presidency. It is why Kennedy challenged him so vociferously after all. Democrats are being force to weigh and measure competing commitments, competing values.

I am a Democrat yet I am an American citizen first.

There's not any possibility that I would ever vote for Sen. Obama if he were my party's nominee for the Presidency.  Well there was only ever one chance that I would vote for some one like Sen
Obama: if I'd any faith in a Democratic Congressional Majority able to pick up the slack.  Unfortunately, the Congressional Democrats have only proven over the last year that they are a timid, embarrassing bunch.

The Presidency was Imperial when Bush came into office. After 7 years of signing statements, Executive Orders, Executive Office imposed and abandoned Treaty obligations, etc., the Executive Branch has become not just the powerhouse but essentially the only active Branch of a Federal Government gone utterly dysfunctional.

The party must offer a credible candidate able to fulfill the responsibilities and oath of office before I can commit to voting for our nominee. I have never been presented with an in-credible, unworthy candidate by the Democratic party as this primary season has threatened.  This is an historic primary in that I could possibly be presented with a disastrously, woefully inadequate Democratic candidate.

Sen Obama is and never has been a credible candidate for the office.  After six months that I might be expected to run through the reasons is at once depressing and laughable.

I am highly relieved that the primary goes on.  The longer it goes on the better a candidate Sen Clinton is forged into because of the very difficulties she is overcoming. The longer the primary goes on the weaker his candidacy becomes, the more obvious and undeniable, the more the delusion is seen through, the more the fact of Sen Obama's inadequacy to the task he would set himself is bared to factual bone.

If my Party is so irresponsible, so delusional, or so susceptible to bullying or so desperate to self-humiliate itself as to proffer Sen Obama as the nominee, it will force me to vote for somebody other than him.  It will force me to vote to PREVENT him from attaining that office.  That means it will force me to vote for Sen McCain.  

That is not a function of racism, it's a dictate of responsible citizenship.  My allegiance is to country first, then party.  Not all Democrats, nor Republicans, have abandoned themselves to blind,  social savaging, downward spiraling partisanship.

Any one is welcome to berate, sneer at, inveigh against that, and of course accuse all they like as Obama fans often do, I however am not obligated to believe or internalize any of it, nor to wear blinders and never to help throw the country off the cliff.

As the Obama fans have ranted, digitally congregated into an online mob and now begun to threaten a Convention tantrum, many Democrats, at least this Democrat, have been made to feel like a character out of drama. Specifically like the Doctor in Ibsen's "Enemy of the People".

The longer the Primary goes on the surer that the water will be shown to have been poisoned and the real enemy will be absolutely apparent.

Too much of the rhetoric responding to rational objections to Obama use this line.

You need to stop treating people like this is the first Democratic primary they've lived through and voted in.

I live in Massachusetts, I've yet to vote for the candidate that was my initial preference in a Democratic primary election. I am inured to having to vote for a Democrat I hadn't initially preferred.  As a matter of fact Hillary Clinton is such a Democrat.  Though I must say I have come to respect, admire and feel comfortable with her far more over the course of this primary.

This isn't about something as silly as electoral sour grapes, it's about protecting and increasing the Party's last shred of credibility, about fielding a responsible choice for people to make for the Presidency.

I have never seen such a horrifyingly unprepared, possibly unforgivably poor possible nominee crop up in a Democratic Presidential primary.

The Party's Superdelegates ignore that at their and the country's peril.

Autumnal,

1. If you're going to vote for McCain instead of Obama, you aren't a Democrat -- you're a fith-column, Benedict Arnold, Liebercrat. 3. You don't think Obama's ready to be president? Based on what, judgment or years in Washington?  And if it's the latter, was Abraham Lincoln ready to be president? 2. You live in Massachusetts, so I could give a flying f**k what you do. Obama could win Massachusetts with his eyes closed and two hands tied behind his back.

If you are really 54 years old, then you might have heard about Reagan Democrats. Guess not.

And as per your logic, if Republicans will vote for Obama over McCain then they werent real Republicans after all. So it means Obama doesnt have any cross over appeal?

Logic seems to leave when we put blinders on.