Wall looming before Obama?
 

Was last night good news-bad news for Obama? We can discern a trend. Obama invevitably gets well over 90% of the AA vote, and less than 40% of the white vote. The white vote among those voting in democractic primaries, that is. (Virtually all AA are democrats, right?) In states with enough blacks that they can more than make up the deficit in white votes, he wins, e.g., North Carolina. Otherwise, he loses, e.g., Indiana. What does this portend for the general election?

There are those out there who will try to shame white people by accusing them of only voting against Obama because he is black. In other words if you don't vote for Obama, you are a redneck racist. Certainly he will come up against some redneck racists and that is a shame. There are those in the black community that will only vote for him because he is black and that is a shame.

I really think the issue is the guy is an articulate and charismatic Ted Kennedy. Many people will be turned off by that. Unfortunately they will get labled racist for their views.

BYU71 pointed out that he can't be a uniter if he can only attract the black vote and the under 30 vote.

It means to me, that by selecting a moderate in McCain, the Republicans may still have a chance. For some reason, we struck upon a potentially winning formula in a losing year.

I've been to several high profile campaign schools in Washington, and one statistic that I remember is the forty percent rule, which holds that any Presidential candidate from either party starts off with 40%. The candidates are merely vying for the middle 20%. You do that with enough cross-over issues to attract the middle.

What cross over policies does Obama have? None.

The reason he should win is that Bush has so f...ed it up for Republicans it takes a miraculous failure for Democrats to lose. And they may have just concocted the formula failure yet again.

there is truth to this, but if Candy Rice were running against bin Obama, I'd be cheering loudly for Candy. So this pseudo-racist label won't stick.

Yeah, there is no racism involved in rural whites voting against Obama in droves.

I think you are wrong. I think there is some racism that goes on. That is sad.

It isn't as much as the media and some dumbasses will like to suggest though.

And there's no racism involved in blacks voting for him en masse either. Of course there is, but by failing to address issues which are blind to race, he is invoking the race card, so he should live and die by it.

Because he doesn't try to appeal to middle class it should be used against him. If he were truly interested in the moderate vote, people would NOT see him as solely a black candidate.

Here's the difference. Blacks have come out strong for white candidates.

Rural whites have never come out for a black candidate.

I am interested in this Mike. Where has a white candidate recieved overwhelming support over a black candidate in a black area. While Clinton made a major goof in saying it, didn't Jesse Jackson win South Carolina like Clinton said.

I honestly believe a black candidate has more of a chance of winning in a rural white area than a white candidate has in a black area.

Heck, I think it is racist to claim Obama loses because he is black instead of because he is liberal. If he were a republican, he would win in a landslide.

Rural whites are moderate to conservatives. No black candidate has ever appealed to those political issues. And it's not surprising as almost all black power is focused in the far radical left, demographically the capable candidates will learn that political philosophy.

I believe you're overplaying the racism and ignoring the extremist position black candidates profess. Absent extremism, I submit those persons would come out in droves for that person.

If Castro came to America and shouted down with America in every campaign speech would he engender a loyal following?

Well all black candidates essentially shout, "you rural whites are white trash, vote for me."