Romney will say whatever he has to and get their vote. It will be revolting to watch, but that exactly describes Romney.
Most people don't vote thinking "I want my race to be a political force!" They vote because they like a candidate or strongly dislike a candidate. If they don't like their options, they will be happy to stay home.
Pretty big blowout for Obama in South Carolina. The expectations pressure was clearly on his shoulders, but I don't think anyone expected 54-27%.
So I just have one question: Blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama. Something like 80% vs 17%? Is it related to race or not related to race?
Surprisingly Obama did much better than expected among white voters in SC as well. They were expecting him to get about 10% of the white vote, but it turns out that he probably more than doubled that. I think it shows that people among both races got upset at what they felt was racial politics and attack oriented tactics from Hillary and Bill, and they made their displeasure known in the results. Let's face it, Bill's stupid Jesse Jackson comment is proof of this, and I think the Clinton camp will rethink their strategy after this larger than expected loss. Hillary won NH after it seemed like Obama, Edwards and the media teamed up against her. Now when it looked like Bill, and Hillary, along with others tried to gang up on Obama in SC Obama pulled through with a much larger victory. It looks like people are taking a stand against those tactics at last.
He got the vast majority of black votes, but he also got the majority of white votes from people 29 and under. He got ~25% of whites 30-49 and very few votes from whites older than 50. IMO, Bill Clinton injected race into the equation and that chopped the legs from under Hillary among black voters. I think the Clintons want race to be a part of this contest because that works to their advantage in most of the country. Whether this backfires on them, we will see. From my standpoint, each and every time he does a hatchet job on Obama and makes himself the issue instead of Hillary, it diminishes her. I didn't think she could get any smaller in my eyes but I was wrong. It's to the point now that I would actually consider voting for Romney against her.
With 93% reporting Obama has 270,000 votes to Hillary's 129,000, Edwards 85,000. In 2004 a total of 300,000 democrats voted in the primary. Another record turn out.
Do you find it ironic that obama supporters claim him as an uniter that he can cross gender, race and parties, etc. and yet he only pulls 1/4 of votes from whites in SC and they originally expected him to pull a number even lower. If ppl are so upset about Clintons attacking Obama and he is such a victim of dirty politics, why white voters didn't vote for Obama and instead went for Edwards? Bottomline, almost everyone voted based on race in this SC primary, Blacks overwhemingly supported Obama and whites chose Hillary and Edwards. I am neither black or white but I think it is unfair to accuse Clintons as the only one injecting the race in the primary. Almost everyone, including voters and the media, did it.
Well when change happens it isn't a sudden 100% shift. I think the fact that he did so much better when so many more voters than previously voted, shows that he is a uniter. It's pretty amazing. He pulled 1/4 of the whites in a three person race where both other candidates are white. I think more voters went to Edwards, because while people felt Clinton was unfairly aggressive toward Obama, I think people saw the debate and felt that Obama was also down in the mud more than they like. The person who came out the cleanest was Edwards. Again Obama won the race in Iowa which is about 95% white, so it isn't like his campaign only appeals to one ethnicity. It isn't just Democrats either. It's independents, Republicans, etc. that have favorable opinions of Obama.
In my opinion, actually Obama camp injected race in to the equation. Think about it, if Clintons are so evil and calculative as claimed, why didn't they do their dirty tricks in white-dominant NH, but in the black-dominant SC. It is totally illogical. Don't tell me that their masterful plan backfired.
Except this makes the bizarre assumption that Obama's splits will help him in the election. Black votes are nice in SC and a few other places in the south. In the rest of the country, the Black-White split that didn't exist 3 weeks ago helps Hillary. Their masterful plan, so far, is working just fine. Hillary didn't expect to win SC - her goal is to win the bigger, less-black states on Super Tuesday by making Obama into the "black candidate" (as reemphasized by Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment) instead of the "candidate who happens to be black". Whether it works or not remains to be seen. But 3 weeks ago, Obama had no problem winning white voters; now, he does. Who do you think that benefits in an overwhelmingly white country?
New Hampshire isn't a "racial" state. South Carolina was the more appropriate place to put it out there that Obama is the "black candidate" so that his appeal would be dented in future primaries. Did you listen to Bill Clinton's remarks today about comparing Obama in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson in 1984 & 1988? I'd like you to comment on them.
Here is another quote from old Bill on Wednesday: "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender, and that's why people tell me that Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here." If that isn't injecting race then what is it?
