You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #4: Precedent perhaps? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
BooScout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Precedent perhaps?
I don't know. I wasn't the reporter of the Gusardian Article. The huge margin of victory is what struck me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Why I didn't mention the 1988 SC results..... BooScout  Jan-27-08 02:47 PM   #0 
  - Why would anyone need to go back to 1988 if their focus was anything but race?  sfexpat2000   Jan-27-08 02:49 PM   #1 
  - That was the last time a candidate won around 80% of one racial group's vote in SC  jackson_dem   Jan-27-08 02:52 PM   #3 
  - Precedent perhaps?  BooScout   Jan-27-08 02:52 PM   #4 
  - What kind of precedent? If you're doing numbers,  sfexpat2000   Jan-27-08 02:58 PM   #14 
     - No he didn't  dsc   Jan-27-08 05:50 PM   #58 
        - Are you sure, dsc? That isn't what I remember.  sfexpat2000   Jan-27-08 09:02 PM   #63 
           - I don't think anyone seriously thought he would get the nod  dsc   Jan-28-08 11:29 AM   #64 
              - I didn't realize he'd done so well. My family was still watching  sfexpat2000   Jan-28-08 01:22 PM   #65 
  - Because it closely mirrors what happened yesterday.  wlucinda   Jan-27-08 03:15 PM   #29 
     - No, it doesn't. Jackson's campaign was nothing like Obama's. n/t  sfexpat2000   Jan-27-08 03:48 PM   #38 
  - Thanks. Could you give me a link to the article?  AX10   Jan-27-08 02:50 PM   #2 
  - Here you go....  BooScout   Jan-27-08 02:54 PM   #5 
  - Militant Korrectness: It's not okay to elicit the image of  sfexpat2000   Jan-27-08 02:54 PM   #7 
     - Clinton never said any of those things.  AX10   Jan-27-08 02:57 PM   #11 
        - LOL! No doubt, I am.  sfexpat2000   Jan-27-08 02:59 PM   #16 
           - Obama and company have done a great job...  AX10   Jan-27-08 03:00 PM   #19 
              - My heart bleeds for the helpless Clintons.  sfexpat2000   Jan-27-08 03:01 PM   #20 
  - So who won  Mz Pip   Jan-27-08 02:54 PM   #6 
  - The 1980 winner didn't get 81% of the white vote  jackson_dem   Jan-27-08 02:56 PM   #9 
  - That's pretty much  Mz Pip   Jan-27-08 02:57 PM   #13 
     - Clinton stated the truth. The question is why  jackson_dem   Jan-27-08 03:00 PM   #17 
        - so it's ok to say that  darboy   Jan-27-08 06:14 PM   #60 
  - The point is.......  BooScout   Jan-27-08 02:56 PM   #10 
  - Except why pick Jackson if it isn't about race?  Drunken Irishman   Jan-27-08 02:55 PM   #8 
  - Edwards didn't get 81% of the white vote or 81% of the black vote. That's the difference  jackson_dem   Jan-27-08 02:57 PM   #12 
     - That's how I see it too.  AX10   Jan-27-08 02:59 PM   #15 
     - Oh please.  Drunken Irishman   Jan-27-08 03:00 PM   #18 
        - Obama was third among whites  jackson_dem   Jan-27-08 03:05 PM   #22 
           - SC's demographics do NOT represent the nation at large.  AX10   Jan-27-08 03:09 PM   #25 
           - True and that is also part of Bill Clinton's point, albeit subtly made  jackson_dem   Jan-27-08 03:11 PM   #27 
           - Exactly. He was devaluing Obama's win by saying his support is only among blacks.  Drunken Irishman   Jan-27-08 03:16 PM   #30 
              - I agree with you but Bill is a partisan, not a political analyst so he isn't going to be fair  jackson_dem   Jan-27-08 07:04 PM   #61 
                 - I don't expect him to be fair, just more smart.  Drunken Irishman   Jan-27-08 07:39 PM   #62 
  - If it isn't about race, why of all candidates pick Jackson? Oh, and the Guardian is a tabloid.  Occam Bandage   Jan-27-08 03:02 PM   #21 
  - Sweetums....  BooScout   Jan-27-08 03:06 PM   #23 
     - It's hard to respect any statement that begins with a condescension.  sfexpat2000   Jan-27-08 03:08 PM   #24 
     - Especially one that does not actually offer an argument contrasting with the statement  Occam Bandage   Jan-27-08 03:18 PM   #33 
     - Live now? No. But I studied at Cambridge for a year, so I'm familiar with the papers.  Occam Bandage   Jan-27-08 03:18 PM   #32 
  - Jesse Jackson was born in SC went to High School there and left to go to college.  dkf   Jan-27-08 03:09 PM   #26 
  - There is more to it. Jackson won all the southern states with large black populations  jackson_dem   Jan-27-08 03:12 PM   #28 
     - I know. But I'm just saying that for SC, I'm sure it helped  dkf   Jan-27-08 03:18 PM   #31 
  - But wait, in 2004, Sharpton didn't win...  guruant   Jan-27-08 03:18 PM   #34 
  - yup... SMH nt  Truth Hurts A Lot   Jan-27-08 03:20 PM   #36 
  - Speaking of Sharpton......  BooScout   Jan-27-08 04:02 PM   #41 
  - If it wasn't about race, then what does Jackson's win have to do with Obama's?  Truth Hurts A Lot   Jan-27-08 03:19 PM   #35 
  - The Clintons are not trying to paint Obama as The Black Candidate  Clarkansas   Jan-27-08 03:23 PM   #37 
  - Actually the Obamas did it. It was a calculated risk. We'll see how it plays out.  wlucinda   Jan-27-08 03:52 PM   #39 
     - Yes, Obama compares his SC victory to Jackson's SC victories  Clarkansas   Jan-27-08 03:58 PM   #40 
     - What Obama DID  wlucinda   Jan-27-08 04:13 PM   #43 
        - Obama=Jackson  Clarkansas   Jan-27-08 04:23 PM   #44 
           - Facts = Facts  wlucinda   Jan-27-08 04:32 PM   #45 
           - Clinton=LBJ  Clarkansas   Jan-27-08 04:36 PM   #46 
              - Not a racist remark. She was talking about Obama being inspirational  wlucinda   Jan-27-08 04:42 PM   #49 
           - He wishes! I'd vote for him if he were!  robbedvoter   Jan-27-08 05:03 PM   #53 
           - No. Obama = guy with risky strategy.  wlucinda   Jan-27-08 06:08 PM   #59 
     - Of course, the Obamas did it. In a party that is 75% to 80% non-black it is a really smart  pampango   Jan-27-08 05:19 PM   #55 
  - I know. And if you dare to post the reality YOU ARE RACIST  Evergreen Emerald   Jan-27-08 04:03 PM   #42 
  - Wasn't that a Caucus? as opposed to a secret ballot primary  Tulkas   Jan-27-08 04:38 PM   #47 
  - I pointed out it was a caucus......  BooScout   Jan-27-08 04:48 PM   #50 
  - Did Jackson win by 30%, and did Jackson win Iowa, and did Jackson  tekisui   Jan-27-08 04:41 PM   #48 
     - Jackson beat Gore by more.....around 33%  BooScout   Jan-27-08 04:59 PM   #51 
        - I did not know that, thanks.  tekisui   Jan-27-08 05:01 PM   #52 
        - You are welcome n/t  BooScout   Jan-27-08 05:04 PM   #54 
        - SC is meaningless.  AX10   Jan-27-08 05:21 PM   #56 
           - My point exactly......  BooScout   Jan-27-08 05:30 PM   #57 
           - Why is SC meaningless? Please expound nt  Truth Hurts A Lot   Jan-28-08 01:23 PM   #66 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC