Comments on: Obama Clinton split states, again http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss Keeping it real, desi ishtyle Mon, 07 May 2012 15:36:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Runa http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/comment-page-1/#comment-3121 Runa Wed, 21 May 2008 18:14:46 +0000 http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/#comment-3121 Santosh, I believe that the poll questions was : "Did race matter in your vote?" and not "Did you vote against Obama because of his race?".A subtle difference but it affects totally the answers and therefore the way the results are analyzed. I am very hesitant to brand people as racist because of their voting patterns - it dilutes the power of the label"racist" and backfires to the extent that people will stop caring about being branded racist. Santosh,
I believe that the poll questions was :
“Did race matter in your vote?” and not
“Did you vote against Obama because of his race?”.A subtle difference but it affects totally the answers and therefore the way the results are analyzed. I am very hesitant to brand people as racist because of their voting patterns – it dilutes the power of the label”racist” and backfires to the extent that people will stop caring about being branded racist.

]]> By: Santosh http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/comment-page-1/#comment-3122 Santosh Wed, 21 May 2008 17:32:33 +0000 http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/#comment-3122 <blockquote>I don’t see how voting for an AA candidate because you are AA is any less racist than voting for a white candidate because you are white or voting for an (insert race here) candidate because you are (insert race here)</blockquote> From what I gathered about the Obama-WV situation it is the other way round. People did not vote for Clinton because she was white, rather chose to vote against Obama because of his race. I even vaguely remember a few interviews to that effect on news channels with people saying they picked Clinton because they were uncomfortable with Obama's race. Voting against someone because of their race, over all other issues, is clearly racist.

I don’t see how voting for an AA candidate because you are AA is any less racist than voting for a white candidate because you are white or voting for an (insert race here) candidate because you are (insert race here)

From what I gathered about the Obama-WV situation it is the other way round. People did not vote for Clinton because she was white, rather chose to vote against Obama because of his race. I even vaguely remember a few interviews to that effect on news channels with people saying they picked Clinton because they were uncomfortable with Obama’s race. Voting against someone because of their race, over all other issues, is clearly racist.

]]> By: Santosh http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/comment-page-1/#comment-3124 Santosh Wed, 21 May 2008 16:34:53 +0000 http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/#comment-3124 Patrix, <blockquote>All he has to do is to win Ohio or Florida. </blockquote> Therein, lies the conundrum for Obama. Clinton won Ohio and even though Florida did not count, a lot of Democrats in Florida are really ticked off at him for ignoring their state. Perhaps there is enough time between now and November to heal those wounds. I agree largely regarding the heartland states, except Kentucky. No Democrat after JFK has won the generals without winning Kentucky. Is that just a stat or a crucial state, I'm not sure. I'm frankly surprised Obama is not doing well there considering his campaign started with a victory in 90something% white Iowa. Patrix,

All he has to do is to win Ohio or Florida.

Therein, lies the conundrum for Obama. Clinton won Ohio and even though Florida did not count, a lot of Democrats in Florida are really ticked off at him for ignoring their state. Perhaps there is enough time between now and November to heal those wounds.
I agree largely regarding the heartland states, except Kentucky. No Democrat after JFK has won the generals without winning Kentucky. Is that just a stat or a crucial state, I’m not sure. I’m frankly surprised Obama is not doing well there considering his campaign started with a victory in 90something% white Iowa.

]]> By: Runa http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/comment-page-1/#comment-3123 Runa Wed, 21 May 2008 16:33:24 +0000 http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/#comment-3123 <blockquote>esp.the racists ones like WV</blockquote> This is why I have a problem with identity politics. I don't see how voting for an AA candidate because you are AA is any less racist than voting for a white candidate because you are white or voting for an (insert race here) candidate because you are (insert race here)

esp.the racists ones like WV

This is why I have a problem with identity politics. I don’t see how voting for an AA candidate because you are AA is any less racist than voting for a white candidate because you are white or voting for an (insert race here) candidate because you are (insert race here)

]]> By: Patrix http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/comment-page-1/#comment-3125 Patrix Wed, 21 May 2008 16:17:11 +0000 http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/05/21/obama-clinton-split-states-again/#comment-3125 I don't think Obama needs the heartland states esp.the racists ones like WV. All he has to do is to win Ohio or Florida. It always boils down to those swing states thanks to the winner-take-all electoral college votes. I don’t think Obama needs the heartland states esp.the racists ones like WV. All he has to do is to win Ohio or Florida. It always boils down to those swing states thanks to the winner-take-all electoral college votes.

]]>