Is the split racial or ideological?
posted at 7:40 am on May 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As expected, both Democratic candidates cruised to wins in two primary contests last night. Hillary Clinton won Kentucky by 35 points, while Obama leads Hillary by 16 in Oregon with 88% of the precincts reporting from the mail-in balloting. To no one’s great surprise, the exit polling shows significant polarization among whites and blacks, apparently extending the identity-politics meltdown in the Democratic Party.
But is that the real story? The Washington Post notes that Obama did much better among whites in Oregon, and points out the reason why:
Kentucky’s Democratic electorate proved tailor-made for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as her most reliable voters turned out in large numbers, giving her a win of better than 2 to 1 over Sen. Barack Obama. But Obama scored a rare double-digit win among white voters in Oregon, capitalizing on that state’s more liberal electorate.
In Kentucky, white women — core Clinton supporters — made up half of all Democratic primary voters, and whites without college degrees made up 59 percent. According to the network exit poll, Clinton beat Obama by overwhelming margins among both groups, and she carried those age 65 and older by 60 percentage points, her second-best showing among older voters in any of the primaries or caucuses so far.
Obama scored sporadic wins among these voters in previous contests, but in Oregon, a swing state in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, a telephone survey of voters in the mail-only Democratic primary showed him doing well among Clinton’s base.
In Oregon, Obama scored his first victory among white voters since March 4, in Vermont. In both Oregon and Vermont, about six in 10 Democratic voters described themselves as liberal. By contrast, liberals made up fewer than four in 10 election-day voters in Kentucky. Clinton won white voters in Kentucky by 49 percentage points.
The common thread appears more ideological than racial, and Oregon and Vermont tend to prove it. Both states have more liberal voters than in the South and the Rust Belt. Exit polling shows 57% of all Democrats voting in the primary self-identify as liberals, with only 13% identifying as conservative; only 37% identified as liberal in Kentucky. Oregon’s electorate tends towards the activist Left, driven by energy from college communities — exactly the kind of demographic that suits Obama.
If true, the problems for Obama in a general election may be even greater than thought. Had the split in the Democratic Party merely been racial, one could have expected a rapprochement in the fall, as the party unified to face off against a center-right candidate in John McCain. Now, though, we can understand the high percentages of voters who say they will vote McCain rather than Obama if Hillary loses the nomination in terms of an ideological response. They see McCain as closer to their political positions. The reaction is not that of a sore loser, but a response to the hard-Left leanings of Barack Obama.
That kind of split will be harder to heal, and perhaps not addressable through a skillful selection of a running mate. McCain has an opportunity to attract votes from Democrats who fear that their party has shifted too far to the left and who fear that Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Actually, it’s both. Obama is a Black, Marxist and each factor will play a major role in the upcoming election.
rplat on May 21, 2008 at 8:00 AM
As if McCain needed another excuse to run even further left.
Seriously, given that Obama and Clinton are near-mirror images of each other politically, and given the left-of-center crowd always goes for the person who comes closest to 110% compliance, there’s no real opportunity for McCain here.
steveegg on May 21, 2008 at 8:03 AM
It appears the Democrat Party’s reliance upon Marxist/Socialist Special Interests may be too divisive to manage. Neither candidate has publicly admitted their true colors. The wooden Clinton more closely follows the Alinskyite pattern of ‘Attack! Attack! Attack!’ but it is to Obama’s friendlier campaign persona that is needed to move the True-believers ‘Cause’ forward. I suggest this election will, as J.R. Dunn over at American Thinker opines, be transformative in that the Democrat Party will become more openly Socialist.
SeniorD on May 21, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Clinton’s probably just a shade less socialist than The Obamassiah, but she also seems to have a realist streak in her. And she doesn’t appear to be looking down on bitter people clinging to guns and religion.
rbj on May 21, 2008 at 8:17 AM
It’s a struggle for the ideological soul of the Democratic party! The elites and nutroots have chosen Obama, the black vote is a factor of his race. The old Democrat base have picked Hillary.
Personally I think that is one of the reasons Hillary is still in it. She is fighting for the life and soul of the Democratic Party, attempting to rest it from Kos and his ilk and in the process teach them that they don’t really own the party.
Ever wonder what An Obama Nation would be like?
January wear
Mealtime
Transport
DKK
LifeTrek on May 21, 2008 at 8:19 AM
After all these years, why hasn’t the GOP figured out how to get, say, 30% of the black vote? I know there’s a ton of paranoia, conspiracy theories, racism and propaganda to overcome. Not to mention the people who just want to depend on a socialist gov’t. But really, is 30% too much to ask?
Mr. Wednesday Night on May 21, 2008 at 8:20 AM
I think that is true and, say what you will about Obama’s leftism, at least he is open about it.
Problem is, the Republicans follow them leftward in their own big-government self interest.
BigD on May 21, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Its both. For over 90% of black Americans its all about race. We now see where the problem of racism in America has settled. Not with whites, latino’s or orientals – but with blacks. The irony of it. Thanks to the poison of black liberation theology being taught in black churches we have a new brand of racism in our nation.
For the large majority of whites its all about Obama’s radical left leaning ideology. Has nothing to do w/his skin pigment. DD
Darvin Dowdy on May 21, 2008 at 8:24 AM
While the differences may have more grounds in ideology than race, you can expect a concerted effort this fall by both the Obama campaign and the big media people to shame the primaries’ Clinton Democrats along with swing voters into voting for Barak.
This might actually be better for McCain — had Hillary won the nomination, in order to win back African American voters, she would have tried to paint him as running a campaign to the right of Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat segregationist bid in 1948. The Democrats will no doubt try and throw a few racist accusations McCain’s way (they already have no qualms about attacking his military record), but it’s not as if they’re going to win a higher percentage of African American voters by doing that than what Obama already has.
So the more likely tactic is to try and embarrass swing voters and Blue Dog Democrats in swing states into staying with Barak, which in part is what all the disdain for Kentucky and West Virginia over the past two weeks is all about. Democrats don’t expect to win those states in November, but if they can shame enough voters in nearby Pennsylvania and Ohio into ignoring their ideological concerns about how liberal Obama is and vote for him just so they can feel good about themselves and the “sophistication”of their home states, then Barak has a great shot at winning in November. Whether voters actually will warm to a strategy that threatens to tar them collectively as racists if they don’t vote the right way remains to be seen.
jon1979 on May 21, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Darvin Dowdy on May 21, 2008 at 8:24 AM
I want to agree with you, but I’d need to ignore a significant component of the Democrat party’s history.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are fundamentally color blind, given that so much of their politics is ideologically driven. They’d take their leadership from a green-skinned, three legged lizard if the ideology was premised upon the first two paragraphs of the DOI and a rigid interpretation of the Constitution, IMHO.
The weakness of the Democrat party is on full display. What a shame that the GOP has their head up their ass.
Saltysam on May 21, 2008 at 8:42 AM
If it wasn’t for the extreme power of the mainstream media that will do its best to control the political dialogue in the months ahead, this would otherwise be a cakewalk for McCain. Putting Obama “in his box” of “radical left” policies/ideologys AND keeping him there, will be a chore because the media will not allow Obama to self-destruct. The fact that the silence of Mr. Wright over the past few weeks shows there is disipline among the ranks. Where Hillary and Bill place themselves into the “theater” may also play into the “box”.
Tieing Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and the radical left neatly to Obama will keep the moderates in McCains column.
Rovin on May 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM
To even suggest that the difference is ideological is laughable. The ideological differences are razor thin, while the voting demographics are distinctively black and white.
Next question.
Saltysam on May 21, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Age is an issue to, and it’s more of a problem for Obama than it is for McCain. The best thing the Democrats can do for McCain is to keep bringing it up. Insult the vast number of senoir voters, and at the same time, highlighting the youth and inexperience of their own candidate. Brilliant.
forest on May 21, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Speaking of radical racism; Obama’s own words…
HIS OWN WORDS…..read below from his books. You won’t see this in the news or the media. He hopes the conservatives won’t ever see this……..and the “white” liberals?
This guy wants to be our President and control our government. Pay close attention to the last comment!! Below are a few lines from Obama’s books ” his words:
From Dreams of My Father: “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
From Dreams of My Father: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
From Dreams of My Father: “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”
From Dreams of My Father: ; “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”
From Dreams of My Father: “I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela.”
From Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Keemo on May 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM
It’s simple: uneducated women vote for Hillary, and people who bowl like Hussein vote for him.
Akzed on May 21, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Several people have pointed out that Obama does well in states with alot of blacks, and in states with few. I think Shelby Steele’s white guilt ideas explains the latter. Can you imagine how guilty some liberals are to live in places that don’t even have black people, in spite of how welcoming and tolerant and open and wonderful the residents are.
JiangxiDad on May 21, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Split is racial when it comes to black Democrats because most of them are racist scum. If the split really was ideological they wouldn’t overwhelmingly vote for him regardless of state. Whites are a mixed bag. Some are racist scum, others aren’t racist but vote white anyway because the black guy’s side is doing their best to alienate them, and others are liberal shills who want a commie at the helm.
Darth Executor on May 21, 2008 at 8:59 AM
JiangxiDad,
Haha! I’ve noticed that too. I wonder why so many limo-libs live in states like Oregon and Vermont where there are so few black people? And then they want to lecture everyone else about how open-minded they are and how backwards and insular everyone else is.
forest on May 21, 2008 at 9:02 AM
I agree. But it’s already obvious that the party is socialist given BOTH POTUS candidates and the party platform of Big Mama.
That the “moderate” democrat grunts on the ground have yet to realize which army “owns” their enlistment, and that indeed with their own hands they must dig the trenches for their party overlords who in turn will take credit for the work, and that it will be their own legacy lost in the Socialist battles they are consigned to fight, THAT is the revelation or epiphany for which conservatives “pray” for on their behalf.
Ignorance is only bliss so long as one remains ignorant. It is past time for voters to partake of the fruit called knowledge of good and evil before casting Nov. ballots.
Blast the Democrat Party for our economic woes–and rescind on GOP bail-outs of corporations–we are not Socialists, Bush and/or McCain! And get the drilling under way NOW and the refineries newly built and WATCH OUR ECONOMY PICK UP without tax payer burden. It’s all about jobs, jobs, jobs!
maverick muse on May 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Better that you live in reality and try to make it better, than in that far left fantasy world of the lib.
JiangxiDad on May 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM
To even suggest that the difference is ideological is laughable. The ideological differences are razor thin, while the voting demographics are distinctively black and white.
Either 90+% of blacks are Racist or Marxist or both.
apoole on May 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM
If Colin Powell had run in 2000, he’d probably be finishing his second term now. Obama’s problem is not his race. Obama’s problem is that he tried to run as a blank slate, and it might’ve worked except that somebody came forward to fill in the missing details, and that person was Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
RBMN on May 21, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Liberals are more inclined to agree with Rev. Wright’s view of America, so they don’t see him (as we do) as a hate whitey racist, but instead see him as an “America is guilty as sin” progressive.
So if the split is racial its not out of white racism toward blacks, it’s an adverse reaction to Wright’s brand of afro-centric racism toward whites.
Buy Danish on May 21, 2008 at 9:07 AM
The split is ideological.
Barry and Mrs. Barry will subtlely play the race card without ever using the R word.
The MSM, faithfully doing Barry’s dirty work, will openly call all of his detractors racists, from now up until election day.
fogw on May 21, 2008 at 9:13 AM
It’s about race and division. They may all be crackers(just kidding, relax) but they have seen the videos, they have heard the messages and sermons from Wright’s pulpit, they have read and heard Michelle’s not proud of America quips as they look out in the yard at their family plot with fathers, uncles and brothers buried, killed here and overseas the last few hundred years.
They know racism when they see it. They have been there, done that. They don’t care if Obama personally is as clean as driven snow it’s the people around him that creep them out.
These folks, unlike the partisan party faithful, have voted as a block for both repubs and dems all through their recent history. My guess, Hillary votes aside, these Jacksonians will be voting McCain. They vote the person. If there ever was a bedrock Americana they are it. The original Scot-Irish bad boys.
patrick neid on May 21, 2008 at 9:22 AM
I agree, and have said it myself before. They’d be smart to come out of the closet on this. American democrats are just stupid enough to want to try socialism, being unable to learn from the experiences of Trudeau’s Canada, W. Europe, Venezuela, etc. I think it’s a very potent strategy.
It’s looking like we will copy the Europeans in one respect. Our parties are becoming just like the European Democratic- Socialist and Conservatives. One is far left, the other is left.
JiangxiDad on May 21, 2008 at 9:22 AM
good comment
funky chicken on May 21, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Rev. Ike Wright and Mrs. Hussein brought race into the race.
Instead of following the dream of Dr. King, like we are teaching our children, the Husseins and Rev. Ike are bitter and clinging to their racist, marxist religion.
saved on May 21, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Obama has problems with both ideology and race. White voters in Oregon voted for him due to ideology, while white rural voters in West Virginia and Kentucky voted against the liberal black guy. It’s not one or the other, but both.
Clinton would have more problems than Obama, though. The conservative base hates Clinton, and would come out in throngs if she was the nominee. The liberal portion of Democrats would also stay home, which accounts for around 10-20% nationally. Not to mention the portion of Democrats who are sexist – oh yes, they exist.
The racist conservatives were never going to vote for anyone other than McCain, anyways.
Seixon on May 21, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Speakin’ as a middle aged white person from the south-
(although with extensive higher education- which only confirmed for me that Liberal elites have NO COMMON SENSE)
It’s both. Since movin’ north I’ve been struck but the anger that I’ve felt from black folks. Since I am very ‘aggressively friendly’ I was puzzled.
Then along came Jeremiah Wright, who scared the livin’ sh*t oughta me!
HOW prevalent is this thought among black folks??? It is OBVIOUS that the folks at Obama’s church feel likewise.
I’m SURE that this has set alot of white folks back on their heels- folks who thought racism was improving, without realizing that BLACK RACISM against whites was so virulent. It sure as hell got my attention- and the Obamas are gonna have a REAL TOUGH time gittin’ past it.
Ex-tex on May 21, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Simple formula:
Obama gets all black voters plus all white voters that don’t know any black racists.
Prove me wrong.
faraway on May 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM
I said this weeks ago. Here’s the deal:
If Rev. Wright really wanted to hurt Obama, he would still be out there talking.
The Press Club antics were all a pre-planned con job to get Obama off the hook.
First we had Obamicans, now we have ObamaCons.
faraway on May 21, 2008 at 9:36 AM
That’s cause her daddy took her a-huntin and a-shootin when she was just a little whippersnapper. And she just knows that’s what the 2nd amendment is all about.
As far as what she believes theologically, she did say in an interview that she could not say if Jesus was the only way to Heaven. If I can find that interview I’ll post a link.
abcurtis on May 21, 2008 at 9:50 AM
The most suppressed fact in conservative circles which we need to discuss is that Bill Clinton won the presidency by being to the right of McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis. Like John Kerry, Obama represents a return to the Democrat’s streak of losing leftist candidates. The trouble we face with younger voters is that they only know the Clinton and Bush presidencies and don’t comprehend what John Kerry and Obama are. They are seen as similar to Bill Clinton. As hard as this may be for some people here, we are going to have to give Bill Clinton some credit to sell to young people our historical narrative about Democratic presidential candidates since LBJ.
thuja on May 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM
I saw sites yesterday discussing the black gap theory or some such in that Obama wins the large and small black percent states but Hillary wins the modest ones.
The thinking goes that small and large black percentages cause race issues of whites to be cancelled out if there are large blacks and not an issue if there are small blacks but that racial politics is in play with moderate percentages of blacks.
CommentGuy on May 21, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I chuckle with you, “in spite of how welcoming and tolerant and open and wonderful the residents are.”
It’s been going on blatantly ever since the Civil War. Self-righteous bleeding heart well to do liberals wouldn’t tolerate the likes of anyone “different” living next door to them. They excuse themselves, excused by their good intentions for others to bear whatever burden they won’t touch themselves. Illegal aliens as their next door neighbor provide the ultimate contemporary pudding proof test.
An interesting history about human racial prejudice in America is that it tends to resolve itself in one of two ways depending on the personal character of those involved, and allowing for the timing of the process. The new onslaught of “minority” populations in a neighborhood either hardens the line against all “minorities” or softens the line beginning with those experiences with previous populations based on familiarity. But given that, then there’s no excuse for the lack of blacks in an enlightened neighborhood, with the obvious recognition of our Native Americans, blacks having been in America as long as or longer than most other populations from other continents. Obviously, the willingness to meld provides mortar that binds, and the insistence to retain superiority is the acid that burns.
By the way, I finished reading Goldberg’s book a few weeks ago following our last conversation on communism. A while back, you mentioned the role of Christianity influencing people against it (empowering people with the internal drive to overcome communist domination, I believe may have been your point), and I mentioned the speculation that communism best succeeds where there is a monogomous population race, as in China and Korea.
Reading of the racism involved in Fascism, communist’s fraternal twin, the ideological movement of eugenics was an eye opener for me, that eugenics ran in parallel motion and provided much momentum for Fascism, communist’s fraternal twin. It would be interesting now to speculate that eugenics has been given PC covert status by the likes of uber-left purists in Oregon who decry it publically but have no problem practicing racial superiority it in their neighborhood.
It also occurred to me that despite the American Progressive Party’s “inclusionary” promise, American socialism/fascism/communism during the 1930’s was facilitated by that contemporary American’s self image as “white”. Before WWII, ALL minorities were recognized minorities in America. Even those of Germanic ancestory were outcast at the drop of a declaration of war with European powers. The Italians had it bad, as did the Irish, etc., etc., etc. Naturally, and proudly, Americans today embrace our “melting pot” status with gusto–variety being the spice of life and all. Personally, I’ve always appreciated the distinctions from different perspectives, finding ways to strengthen the cultural fabric of our precious American tapestry. In the end, we either bond or fragment. Obviously, fragmentation will provide the means for destruction sooner than later. But even given bonding, there is no guarantee of “victory” let alone survival, as ever, sabotage looms within. Even Jesus had his Judas.
You said you’d think on that. No rush; I certainly took my time getting back. No obligation, either. Just catching up. And should you respond sometime in the future, and I not reply immediately, it would be my oversight. So do bring it to my attention on another thread as days pass, and I’ll find it.
maverick muse on May 21, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I would like to have further context for this remark. If it still says what I think it says, after closer inspection, then… wow. Bombshell.
Especially as recited in the audiobook version by Obama himself.
Gilda on May 21, 2008 at 9:56 AM
“an ugly direction”
Gilda, if you have the book, let’s have the “ugly” context.
maverick muse on May 21, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Not to be a smart-alack or anything, but I would really like to see the context on this comment. If it’s as bad as the context of Jeremiah Wright’s comments, it will be a killer in the GE.
Buford Gooch on May 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM
I don’t have the book. Keemo found this. Anybody with the book – please provide full context. It may not be as bad as it sounds on its own, let’s find out.
Gilda on May 21, 2008 at 10:03 AM
.
I think it is a powerful argument that when the left proclaims that McCain is a third Bush term, the response should be that Obama is a second Carter term, and asking simply ‘which would be worse?’.
Think_b4_speaking on May 21, 2008 at 10:17 AM
So why is it that Obama has an 8 point lead over McCain? McCain should already be capitalizing on this rift among Democrats and yet he doesn’t seem to have any traction. Why? Because when a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican run against one another the Democrat wins every time.
The GOP had better do some soul-searching. Tell cranky old bastard he needs to stop telling conservatives to go f**k themselves and to choose a candidate that the GOP base can trust (since McCain has proven himself to be a Judas to the party’s core values).
highhopes on May 21, 2008 at 10:17 AM
How can it be a third Bush Term when McCain has, in reality, been practicing a third Clinton term complete with amnesty proposals, calls for more nanny statism, and a profound distrust in the common citizen?
That being said, I like the tactic of pointing to Obama as the second Carter term.
highhopes on May 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM
.
Yeah, I could have said it better, something like ‘Obama is much more like a second term of Carter than McCain would be a third term of Bush’, but the point is to remind folks that Obama really would be a disaster like the ignoramus from Georgia.
Think_b4_speaking on May 21, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I have a relevant story. Wealthy, white liberals in Portland, OR buy houses in a trendy neighborhood. There is minority flight from the neighborhood because the white liberals have driven up the housing prices. The liberals, my sister-in-law and her friends, sit around whining that their neighborhood is becoming less diverse. I suggest that they don’t live in trendy neighborhoods. No dice.
thuja on May 21, 2008 at 10:28 AM
maverick muse,
“Even Jesus had his Judas.”
Well, yeah, but Judas was Jewish!
exhelodrvr on May 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/02/i-will-stand-wi.html
For more information on this, follow the link.
Keemo on May 21, 2008 at 10:36 AM
These Obama supporters would find any way to turn lemons into lemonade.
I’m waiting for:
“Obama picked up a key demographic, capturing nearly 9 out of 10 votes placed by rapist and child molestors.”
Only fox has given Hill the credit she deserves, she picked up 155,000 votes yesterday, where with FL and MI she’d have a 200,000 vote lead over Obama, I’m sure Dems will change their mind on popular vote counting now.
Rbastid on May 21, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Will do. Tks.
JiangxiDad on May 21, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I found this here, not an original source but checkable against the book:
Ambiguous, with lots of wiggle room IMHO.
Gilda on May 21, 2008 at 10:43 AM
That’s my entire family in a nutshell. So damn nice, in theory:) More turkey for me.
JiangxiDad on May 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM
WOW! That’s scary! It’s like pieces of a puzzle coming together, you can really get a feel of where he’s coming from.
4shoes on May 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM
This is the article I quoted from…
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=370
Keemo on May 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM
The liberal who goes into an neighborhood to pioneer diversity is a myth. Capitol Hill in DC is a good example. There are “good areas” and “not so good areas.” Guess where all the white liberals live?
highhopes on May 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Last link I promise; off to work I go…
http://www2.islandpacket.com/blogs/post/26929
Keemo on May 21, 2008 at 11:04 AM
It would be a slam dunk easy win for McCain if he picked Michael Steele for his running mate. But McCain isn’t that smart. He could seal off the racist aspects right there as he would have a 50% Black ticket and the Dems (assuming BO has a white running mate) would only have 25% Black ticket!
kirkill on May 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Proof positive of this theory is that my home county of Fayette in Kentucky went for Obama. It has a fairly small black population, but is the home of the state university and probably has the largest percentage of college graduates of any county in the state. Obama has zero chance of carrying Kentucky in November, and may even have negative coattails in some Congressional races there.
rockmom on May 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Gentrification — I was living in D.C. when Adams-Morgan flipped like that, and its becoming more common in older cities across the country, because people don’t like those 1-2 hour per direction commutes into the city.
It usually starts in urban areas with young non-business types moving into “edge” areas (i.e. the borderline between the rich and poor neighborhoods) because they can’t afford anything else, and when the higher-income folks see the coast is clear, they follow, as to the real estate developers who then raise the prices and force out most of the area’s former residents.
As for rich liberals, they tend to feel a lot better about themselves if they’re moving into a formerly “bad” neighborhood so they can tout their open-mindedness, even if they didn’t move until others had played canary in the coal mine for them, and who they now force out (along with the longtime residents) due to their willingness to pay much hire sale or rental prices.
jon1979 on May 21, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Michael Steele is a tremendously admirable guy and when I saw the commercials he ran in his (losing) Senate campaign my first thought was “this guy should be President.” There’s something Reagan-esque about his communication style.
But I’m not sure he’s a good pick for McCain’s VP although he’s my personal first choice. He doesn’t have a lot of experience and would no doubt be painted as a “token” in the worst possible way by the famously tolerant liberals. Unfairly, of course, and only because of his race, which is the real tragedy of identity-group politics.
Gilda on May 21, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Yep, I thought of that Gilda, but really, he’s got at least the same amount of experience as BO, and he’s more black. They throw the “token” out there, and we can surely scream “racist” back.
kirkill on May 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The problem with painting Obama as the next Carter is that most of Obama’s supporters are too young to remember Carter, even though good ol’ Jimmuh is still doing his best to remind us of his incompetence. Older Democrats, who DO remember Carter, are voting for Hillary.
What might be needed are ads that compare what Obama and Carter have said, with videos of gas lines stretching around the block at sunrise, headlines about massive layoffs and double-digit inflation during the late 1970’s, the year-long hostage crisis in Iran with a young Ahmadinejad shouting “Death to America”, and Carter whining about “malaise”. Then we can ask voters if they “hope” for a repeat performance.
Steve Z on May 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I think Michael Steele would be an excellent pick for VP. He’s a former Lieutenant Governor, and his roots in urban Baltimore could help McCain win urban voters he would ordinarily lose.
For example, in Philadelphia. In 2000 and 2004, Bush got trounced in Philadelphia, but won the rest of the state, and lost PA by 2% each time. If Steele could help McCain get 30% of the vote in Philadelphia, McCain would win PA and the Presidency with it.
Steve Z on May 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I hear you and you may be right. But since Steele is not experienced or well-known enough to be the obvious, clear choice it’d be hard to counter the perception and landslide of MSM-fueled accusations that he was chosen only because of his race.
And in terms of the future of the GOP, would it be wise to subject Steele to this, at this time? I would like to see Steele elected Pres someday and I’m sure a lot of Republicans have had the same thought.
Gilda on May 21, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Nice !!
redrock on May 21, 2008 at 12:54 PM
To many voters on both sides of the divide, racial IS ideological.
EJDolbow on May 21, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Dangerously close to conspiracy theory.
/Course Halliburton did build all those detention centers
easy on May 21, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I think you’ve hit on Steele’s biggest hurdle. He’s not well known outside of the Maryland area. That could be easily overcome though. His campaign ads were some of the best I’ve ever seen. As for experience I think being a Republican Lt. Governor in Maryland would rack up a lot of experience points.
Oldnuke on May 21, 2008 at 1:29 PM
I have some advice for Senator McCain, a way to hedge his bet against Hillary pulling this thing off.
Senator McCain, in your stump speech, make a reference to SCHOOL CHOICE, and how if the Republicans achieved the Presidency and a working control of congress, blacks might finally be free from the government controlled schools that have betrayed blacks so badly in the last 100 years.
Toss in a mention or two about what free markets could do to the inner cities.
If you’re daring, Senator McCain, refer to the ABORTION GAP between black and white babies. Hold out hope that one day, black babies would not be statistically more likely to be killed by white coated aging FEMINISTS claiming to HELP you.
To the church-going blacks, point out how the church has always been a source of strength to the black family, and that you strongly resent the creeping attacks on religion from the ACLU, other democrat activist groups.
In the event that Hillary pulls off the coup, blacks need an invitation to a constructive alternative. This could turn out to be a HISTORICAL election year, but not for the reasons democrats think.
jeff_from_mpls on May 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM
That says it all right there, doesn’t it?
Wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Red Pill on May 21, 2008 at 1:33 PM
The racists vs. the misogynists.
The class-warfare amongst the Communists continues.
I’m lovin’ this Stalin vs. Trotsky knifefight.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 21, 2008 at 1:38 PM
What??? He is both experienced and well-known:
Huckabee/Steele defeat Obama/Edwards this November.
Red Pill on May 21, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Indeed. The Communist Civil War of 2007-2008.
Red Pill on May 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Those that are inclined to vote because of race wouldn’t vote for a “token” black even though Steele’s race is far clearer an issue than that of Obama the “black candidate.”
That being said, Steele would be a bad choice for McCain. He (Steele) is too much of a social conservative and too young to make McCain look like an attractive option for moderate Democrats- the target voter since McCain told the GOP base to f**k off because he was going to run as an independent.
highhopes on May 21, 2008 at 1:54 PM
ObamaRX:
The prescription for “A More Socialist Union“
Red Pill on May 21, 2008 at 2:09 PM
exhelodrvr on May 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM
You’d think the Rino would figure it out.
Birds of a feather flock together.
And moderates aren’t gonna vote McCain
any more and maybe less than they’re
gonna vote for Obama,
given IMAGE = CHARACTER
–acceptance of a falsehood.
maverick muse on May 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM
You got that right.
Ambiguous, the liberal standard of truth.
But back to BHO, the Obamas LOVE referencing the UGLY.
maverick muse on May 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM
True. But what I said, and possibly failed to adequately convey, was:
Compared to contenders like Romney, Huckabee, Lieberman, Crist, Barbour, Giuliani, Pawlenty, Palin, etc., Steele doesn’t stand out when it comes to either experience or name recognition. So, it would open vulnerability to charges of “tokenism,” warranted or not.
Gilda on May 21, 2008 at 2:22 PM
thuja on May 21, 2008 at 10:28 AM
That’s the story of East Austin. Poor old folks who’ve lived there all life long, paid off the mortgage years ago, but no income now and can’t afford the white liberal city council tax assessments on their little old cottages. It’s sad to hear their lives stories as they sell out, unable to pay the property taxes. And where the heck are they supposed to relocate?! Affordable housing is a sick lie that paves the way of “neighborhood revitalization” aka development with purpose. Get rid of the food gobblers, as socialists would have it.
maverick muse on May 21, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Yeah, because if there’s one group of people McCain has in the bag, it’s social conservatives. /sarc
McCain is seen as a RINO and a traitor by many (whether it’s fair or not doesn’t really matter). He could use a solid conservative of any stripe.
Darth Executor on May 21, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Bingo! Obama should change the title of his book to
The Ambiguity of Hope. And Change. And, uhhh, Preconditions.
Gilda on May 21, 2008 at 2:29 PM
ONLY ONE QUESTION: How many Democrats in Oregon do you think were offended by Obama’s “bitter guns n’ religion” speech…compared to those Democrats in Kentucky?
’nuff said.
Lockstein13 on May 21, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Oh! It’s entirely fair to consider McCain a RINO and political traitor. McCain needs a solid conservative on his team but that isn’t enough. It has to be a solid conservative who can convince social conservatives and evangelicals (the 2/3 of the party McCain has dismissed as irrelevant to his success) that their views would be part of a McCain administration. That means creating the illusion that McCain intends to work with whomever is nominated as VP and Steele would come off as being put forward because of race with no chance of doing anything in McCain’s administration except ceremonial jobs.
Throw in the fact that Steele’s youth and charisma would contrast poorly to McCain’s extreme age and crankiness and it is a non-starter. You never are supposed to outshine the bride and that rule holds in Presidential politics too.
highhopes on May 21, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I live in Austin and was just thinking the same thing. Yours and thuja’s are perfect descriptions. I work with several of these young white liberals who now proudly live in ‘diverse’ neighborhoods on the East Side. I know they secretly feel guilty for being part of the force that drove the oldtimers out of the neighborhood, but they’ll never admit it. Just wait till their kids are school age and they start sending them to private schools rather than the neighborhood elementary, then the rationalizations will really move into overdrive.
Missy on May 21, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Democrats are incapable of making rational decisions. That’s why they are Democrats. They will simply vote for the worst possible candidate, given the choices they have.
Halley on May 21, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Michael Steele is a liberal/moderate Republican. He is an attractive candidate for many reasons but Conservatism is not on of them.
EJDolbow on May 21, 2008 at 4:48 PM
I think his Marxism could be the worst variety; Maoism
A former student informed me he was backing Obama yesterday. He graduated a few years ago, so I took the risk of debating his choice with him and bringing up Bill Ayers. I had been his mentor and felt secure that he respected my work and opinions.
I asked if he knew about Obama’s very unusual appointments* –following his 2nd year out of law school—when he was chosen** to direct the multi-million dollar Annenberg Challenge project by Bill Ayers’s father. He had not heard of the situation, nor did he know of Ayers’s political launching party for Obama at their home; or how Michelle Obama recruited Ayers to teach several workshops with Obama. Neither did he know of the report that Mr. Jones, the Illinois State Senate Leader, had ordered all the work on bills accomplished by senior state senators be turned over to Obama one year before he ran for Congress. None of the emerging facts which prove that Obama lied about having a casual relationship with Bill Ayers and lied about his work in the state senate were familiar.
His response was to become angry and inform me that he didn’t think any of those situations had been proven. This reaction came from someone who knows I would not state something unless I had legitimate grounds for my convictions. He did not want to hear anything negative about Obama.
This young man is not a socialist or even a liberal; but primarily a moderate libertarian in the sense of being a fiscal and social moderate. He also had noticeable patriotism and acted as civic-minded volunteer. I would rank him as one of my most promising students. A bright, rational and insightful person by any criteria. He was not prone to emotional outbursts, anti-social behavior or overt hero worship.
I was stunned watching his hostile reactions to my information. How did this calm, logical personality develop such blind passion for a politician? It went against everything I thought I understood about his character. My final thought: If the Obama cult could seduce this young man; no one under 25 is safe.
* appointments
**without prior experience in education
Ragnell on May 21, 2008 at 5:02 PM
A lot of primary voters are mad as hell, Hillary supporters are yelling sexist, Obama supporters are yelling racist and none of them are the racist, sexist Republicans.
Look at who’s angry and who their angry at, its the sexist liberals screaming racist and its the racist liberals screaming sexist.
Life is good.
Speakup on May 21, 2008 at 5:02 PM
If you haven’t read this article by a law professor at Santa Clara; I highly recommend it. This online article is the most in-depth post-law school political biography of Obama that I’ve seen published. It covers the Ayers connection in great depth.
Ragnell on May 21, 2008 at 5:21 PM
This is a false meme created by Jeremiah Wright. If he’s distorting everything else, why believe what he says here?
One thing: I can’t prove it, but I think that tenets (tentacles) of BLT have seeped into the “black community”–not via churches with predominantly black congregations, but through word-of-mouth. Old wives tales and the like.
baldilocks on May 21, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Ragnell, et al,
There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that an Obama Presidency will bring nothing good to this country. He is securely in the Marxist/Maoist camp and, given his empty “Hope” message, his election may be considered a ‘Mandate for Change’. What truly zorches me is the cover he is getting from the current crop of Democrat Congress Critters and the ever Socialist loving MSM. What do all of Comrade Obama’s enablers have in common? Lots of wealth they will keep while the nomenkaltura see their earning power whither away to nothing.
SeniorD on May 21, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Laura Ingraham is DEAD-ON in this discussion:
The SPLIT in the Democrat Party is Ideological – NOT Racial
Dickie Morris is a lying, petulant, little TWIT!
The SPLIT is between the Centrist and Loony-Left Wings of the Democratic Party….the Media AND the Looney-Left (part and parcel of the same thing) are trying to elect the MOST Liberal possible candidate instead of the one that can TRULY Challenge McLame.
They may succeed.
grtflmark on May 21, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Why is 69% of whites voting for the white person racist while 90 to 93% of blacks voting for the black person not racist? Because the MSM says so and by the way shame on anyone for asking.
KW64 on May 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Obama is more an all-purpose-tool for the wish-fulfillment of the (historically-naive, BDS-poisoned, crankily-conspiratorial, Black Liberationist, socialistic/anarchistic, and white-guilt-ridden) Dems because he is so empty.
They can project more of their slapdash Utopian fantasies upon His Blankness.
Hillary, on the other hand, already has an image and character, and thus resists the fatuous projections of the gullible, infatuated, Messsianic suckers.
Race has almost nothing to do with it.
(Except among the It’s Payback Time For Whitey blacks who vote mindlessly for melanin over character, insulting Martin Luther King, Jr.s memory.)
Ideology, zero.
profitsbeard on May 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Amen.
Judge not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
ObaMarx has the character of a Karl Marx, not a MLK,Jr.
Red Pill on May 21, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Ed, maybe it’s more complicated than that. It can be both ideological and racial. College leftists react on the basis of emotion, white guilt, and ignorance. More moderate white Democrats react to affirmative action and black racism. Obama is clearly identified with both. The two camps both have “racial” reactions in this sense.
Feedie on May 22, 2008 at 1:26 AM
The little Dicks hatred for Hillary is so great that he breaks down every time he analyzes any thing having to do with her.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM
What Conservatives and Moderates Thinking of not Voting — Need to Understand about What Progressives Are Looking Forward To Doing If Obama Wins
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/only_time_will_tell.php
Ragnell on May 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Not really; he’s pretty clearly saying that if a nasty backlash against Moslem immigrants developed as a result of September 11th, he’d support the Moslems. As well all of us should.
We need a better smoking gun than that.
MrLynn on May 22, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Re: Michael Steele
One of the most appealing and interesting guys in the Republican Party, but he
his race for the Senate. That and his relative anonymity would make him less viable as a running mate for McCain: no top-of-the-state experience (Lt. Govs. don’t generally have much authority), no national experience or exposure either, except for Fox and an interview or two on the Sunday shows.
He should be in the McCain cabinet, though.
MrLynn on May 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Comment pages: