Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What does John Edwards tying Hillary Clinton among the SC white vote mean?

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
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:54 AM
Original message
What does John Edwards tying Hillary Clinton among the SC white vote mean?
Clinton and Edwards are virtually tied among white voters, with Clinton leading 33 percent to 32 percent, while Obama is third among whites at 18 percent. Likely black voters make up slightly more than half of the poll sample.

"Obama is doing very well among African-Americans but getting a decent share of the white vote in a three-way race," pollster John Zogby said.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/pollobama_has_big_lead_on_clin.php


I may have missed something along the way, but my understanding had been that Clinton, with a deteriorating portion of the black vote, was secure in her lead in the South Carolina white vote. That no longer seems the case, with Edwards pulling similar numbers.

Does the story line that Obama's disproportionate lead in the black vote change once he is challenged for the white vote by not one, but two white candidates? In this circumstance, if he can pull 20% of the white vote out of SC, is that respectable enough to take him into other states without the stigma that has attached itself to him recently of being a racial candidate rather than a candidate for Americans?

I would be interested in hearing what DUers think about this. Is it a valid scenario?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. Edwards is a white man and native son
Did you think the redneck wing of the party would vote for a woman or a black?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. so unfair and wrong
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 11:08 AM by jsamuel
Edwards supporters are not rednecks. Really wrong of you to imply it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MollieBradford Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. some of them might be
what do you think his "dog whistle" claim that he is the candidate who can campaign everywhere is all about? IMO he is saying he is the white male candidate and can compete in red states and red districts where the "red necks" will not vote for the woman or the black man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. NO, it is about him appealing to rural areas as he grew up in rural areas.
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 12:38 PM by jsamuel
has nothing to do with race or gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
splat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. Where did you get that? I said there are those who will only vote for a white man
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 11:39 AM by splat
We all know people like that. And in the South, among those who think white men have always and should always run everything, there's only one white man left running.

I don't know how you twisted that to "all Edwards supporters are rednecks." I like Edwards, and I'm not a redneck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Our candidates better get SOME of the redneck vote
or we'll never win in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. The white woman is getting the same number of white votes as the white man
So, maybe, yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monty__ Donating Member (352 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Wow, hope you don't mean that
I'm an Edwards supporter and not a redneck. But what if I was a redneck? I'd still be part of the party....or are we turning into Neo-Cons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. I had hoped Edwards would pull his own state--but......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
danalytical Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sure that seems plausible to me
I've never seen Obama as the "black" candidate. If he is pulling 18% of white votes in SC when there are two "white" candidates there already that does say something about how strong his elect ability is in general terms. Although it also begs the question of why it isn't more of 33-33-33 split. Why are 15% of white votes holding back from Obama? If the race is 33-32-18, where are the rest of the white votes? Are they undecided?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. It is my hope he can raise his % of that vote by 10 points
Obama's getting roughly the same as the two other candidates would really put this story line to rest. Ideally. But 20% isn't totally horrible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Obama embodies Blackness as Hillary embodies womanness--for many
it will be a factor. Nothing wrong with that.
(I realize Obama is bi-racial).



........I've never seen Obama as the "black" candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
4. Please let's not make everything about race
Obama already got support from lots of white folks in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.

But if someone decides to support Hillary or Edwards, it doesn't mean they are racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Of course not
I would never imply such a thing. However, Edwards's move on Clinton's numbers may signify a different dynamic going forward than has been recently the accepted wisdom. Just because a question involves race does not make it about racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Clinton asked him to stay in the race so he could pull votes from Obama too?
I don't know!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
9. I think this is nothing but bad news for Clinton.
Looks like whites are evenly split between Clinton and Obama, as well as between Clinton and Edwards. They all get 1/3 of that vote. With half the voters being African American, and Obama taking the black vote by a wide majority, Obama wins SC handily. My bet is, the same thing happens in GA, NC, AL, MS, etc.

This race is going to be a barnburner up to the convention if Edwards remains in it all the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Obama has 18% - the even split is Clinton-Edwards
If Obama can raise it to around a third, that's ideal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. So, 15% are still undecided? This close to the primary
that's an amazing number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
13. I posted some of this in your other thread too:
South Carolina is the contested Primary that Edwards actually WON in 2004. It is his birth state and next neighbor state to his entire political career. He was always expected to lose the black vote in South Carolina to Obama and Clinton. His strength should be among South Carolina whites.

When the media intitially framed the 2008 Democratic race as having a top tier with Clinton Obama and Edwards in it, Edwards was supposed to be competitive in South Carolina.I think that was because of his support from white voters there. The Black vote was always predicted to split between Clinton and Obama. At one point Clinton seemed to be pulling most of it when many Black voters there were unconvinced Obama could appeal to whites and be viable as a result.


If a nearly 50/50 split among Black voters between Clinton and Obama had panned out; Clinton would win South Carolina and Edwards would still finish out of it in third place. I don't thinnk anyone ever expected Hillary to do better than tie for the white vote with Edwards in South Carolina. People expected her at one time to hold her own there with Edwards and out poll Obama among whites, If she split the Black vote that meant she would win. The only thing I thinnk that has changed much is the swing of Black votes solidly toward Obama.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. I think it spells problems for Clinton as she could take 3rd in SC n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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