« Senegal Condemned After Mass Arrests of Gay Men | Main | Tornadoes Kill Dozens Across South »

06 February 2008

Comments

Ryan

last night's polls only say one thing: the two of them should poll their collective strengths and RUN TOGETHER...

that way, they get all the votes needed to grant the democrats the white house...

because the delegate and vote splitting is going to continue up to the democratic nomination no matter WHO support who...

and clearly the kennedy endorsement meant squat for obama since hillary trounced him in the polls....

gregory

Ummm... When did Minnesota, Kansas and North Dakota become "Mountain States"??

BlackEducatedLesbian

I find both candidates to be compelling choices. Being a 49 Y.O. Native Californian, Black, Educated, Lesbian Suburban-now-Urban, I.T. geek, social and fiscal moderate, pro-choice feminist... shwew... I voted for Barak because I find his vision and ideas on policy to be in align with mine. And he inspires me. That has not happened in a lonnnng time. (er, Bill Clinton). Hillary is my strong 2nd choice. So if she wins the nomination, I will support her.

Rod Majors

Gregory: The post clearly says "Plain States" and "Mountain States" ... why do so many people come to these comments and attack every tiny details?

The bottom line is, most of those victories in the PLAINS and the MOUNTAIN STATES were open caucuses, much easier to produce a victory than a traditional primary election.

gregory

Sorry, it was not an effort to be nitpicky that prompted my comment. It just struck me as bizarre that anyone familiar with Minnesota (a good portion of which lies east of the Mississippi River) or Kansas (which is about as flat as a pancake) would classify either as a "Mountain State." It reinforces the notion that New York and California know very little about the Heartland, and perhaps because you think of it as "fly-over country," don't care to know.

I don't disagree with your "bottom line" analysis. But Rod's post (which I have read several times now) never uses the term "Plains States," not once. Why would you say that it does?

Cederico

Hillary suppoters are trying desperately to spin things. She wons some big states....NY, NJ, MA and yes CA. But she won them narrowly or by smaller margins that would be expected. In the 8 states Clinton won only over 60% in one....Arkansas. Obama won 40% in NY, 44% in Jersey, 42% in CA, 41% in MA and heck even 41% in TN.

By contrast the states the Barack won he won by massive margins all over the nation. Illinois with 65%, Colorado with 67%, Minnesota with 67% and many others with similiar margins. He upset Clinton in some important states where she was exprected to win like Missouri, Deleware and Connecticut. And he won in the deep South stomping Clinton in Geogria with 66% and Alabama with 57%.

Clinton supporters would be crowing if they had won 13 04 14 states out of 22.

For all talk of Obama having Demographic problems with Latinos....well he won them in Illinois and did respectable in Arizona and New Mexico. I think the flip side is has shown a very strong ability to win white voters especially white males. Now who would have thunk? He also has totally dominated in the very important to DEMS black vote.

So I ask Clinton supporters what about Hillary's problems with black voters (she can't win them) and her problems with white men and young voters. Stop ptting down Obama for his problem with Latinos when your candidates has big time problems of her own with key DEM constituencies.

(Note: I am not a supporter of either candidate yet but I am tired of the Obama bashing that goes on here sometimes.)

Antwan

Thanks Cedrico, the Obama bashing on gay sites is just too much at times, worse than straight conservative ones. The one spin that the HRC camp can't and won't deal with is that they got about the same amount of votes, 7.3 million or something like that a piece. Or,the fact that he raised more money, and, she had to loan herself $5 million, which shows, she is just another rich person trying to buy the office.

Obama's vision for this country is great, and, slowly but, surely the population is hearing it. I don't think he will ever make inroads with the Latino or Asian vote, but, white men, that's a good sign, since most of them usually vote GOP and they are at least listening to his message.

If, he isn't the nominee, I will cast my vote for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. The Clinton's actions in Nevada and South Carolina has turned me off with the two of them forever, and, even the scary thought of 4 more years of the GOP couldn't get me to change that.

Rod McCullom

Cederico: I've reviewed your comment history, and, going back to 2005, you seem to take exception to everything that is written here. If you feel that strongly against me, you should start your own blog. Or something.

Some corrections: Hillary Clinton is not "my candidate." There is not "Obama bashing" that goes here. He's a very good candidate, and, I've said that for several years. However, I don't subscribe to the theory that everything Obama does is wonderful and everything Clinton does is horrible. Barack Obama is not the messiah. He is a politician and, as such, has his good and bad points.

Obama did win the deep south states of Georgia and Alabama. The Democratic voting electorates in those states are heavily skewed black and he receives 75 to 80 percent plus of the black vote where he competes, so the results will be obvious. Not the case in Tennessee, Arkansas, or Oklahoma.

The 65 percent in Illinois, his home state, is to be expected, which also btw has a sizable black voting population. However, the win in Connecticut was much less decisive, and, in Missouri, a fraction of a percent. (Clinton also carried 110 of 115 counties, with the exception of KC, STL and Columbia.) I'm not even going to qualify your points about the Democratic "caucuses" in Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, etc.

It also goes without saying that Obama needs to make inroads with Hispanics, who are the largest minority in this country--he won about 50 percent in Illinois, not good--and older voters, seeing that issues such as health care, Medicaid, Social Security, mortgage foreclosure, and the economy are at the forefront of the discussion.

Lastly, winning California is usually considered the big prize among Democrats. It's very odd this year how Clinton's win in Cali was almost totally discounted.

Anyone who reads this site knows that it's fair to all points of views, but, it's not a fansite devoted to Saint Barack or Clinton bashing. If being open minded is that much of a problem, you can read elsewhere.

Andy Niable

Who decides presidential elections? Independent voters.

Ari Melber at Huffington Post reminds us, on Feb 5, "(Obama) won independents by large margins in most regions, including states in Clinton's column, such as Arizona and New Jersey, where one out of five primary voters were independents. He won them by 15 points in Clinton's home state of New York, and by 30 points in California. In the swing state of Missouri, independents flocked to Obama by a decisive 37 points."

Obama consistently polls better than Clinton with independent voters, who often express they are "looking at both McCain and Obama." One rarely hears Hillary mentioned. Pair that with Mrs. Clinton's high negatives across the spectrum (even among Democrats), and consider who's the better candidate to offer the large "undecided" electorate who list a desire for change as their main voting motivation.

I have no personal ill-will for Mrs. Clinton, and of course I'll vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee. The Democratic party faithful will, just like the GOP faithful will vote for the Republican candidate. Our votes won't swing the final victory though. Independent votes will, and the votes of new, younger, first-time voters. And who's got them all excited right now?

When I go to the caucus here in Washington State on Saturday, I'll vote for Obama because, in addition to plenty of other reasons to support him, Barack is the strategically stronger candidate to offer the American people in the fall election, stronger than love-her-or-hate-her polarizing Hillary.

Still, it's nice to be choosing the Greater of the two Goods instead of the lesser of two evils.

tyler grey

Oh, here we go again. Rod states the obvious and people accuse him of "Obama bashing."

Obama is getting more than 80 PERCENT of the black vote, and, we're not all voting for him on the issues. That's why he does best in states with high numbers of black Democrats. And be honest, that's why he did not win convincingly in the states that held primary without large black voting blocks, like Connecticut or Missouri. OR CALIFORNIA or MASSACHUSETS, which the polls were calling for Obama.

Hillary did well on Super Tuesday and Obama did well on Super Tuesday. They both received about 7.3 million, so it's hard to write one off.

Too many of you log on to this site want another Barack Obama testimonial or Kool-Aid post. Rod is usually very even handed and analytical and there is a reason Rod writes for everyone from The Advocate to the Huffington Post: He knows what he's talking about.

randy brown

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both very good candidates and have their strengths.

But it's unfair to criticize Rod for pointing out the obvious. Barack Obhama is performing so well because he receives almost 80 percent of the black vote, and, its because he's black. I'm not saying I'm not voting for him, but, Rod was only relating the truth. The states with fewer black voters have been more competitive, with the exception of caucuses, which are just silly and should be done away with.

Andy Niable

With all due respect, Tyler Grey, my post was not Kool-Aid drunk, but rather reasoned, and I'd welcome an opposing argument about the strategic strengths of a Hillary candidacy. I assume you refer to others, as nowhere did I criticize Rod or this particular post of his as "Obama bashing." If his article was seen by some as pro-Hillary--well, fine, it's his blog, and I'm certainly confident enough in my support for Obama to read and appreciate the ideas, impressions, and analyses of someone who might be critical of Barack or in favor of Hillary. I have much respect for Rod's work and appreciate his insights, even when I occasionally disagree with his conclusions. I even appreciate reading the comments sections, whether I agree with them or not.

Thanks again, Rod, for all your hard work and for providing this space with your thoughts, and for offering us the opportunity to respond.

tyler grey

Hi Andy Niable.

I was responding to Cederico's comments and was writing my words while you were posting. No words were intended toward you. Your arguments for Barack are impassioned and strong. None of my comments were directed to you.

Cederico's comments mirror other recent personal attacks against Rod here. He's only pointing out the obvious, that blacks are overwhelmingly voting for Obama because he is black, and, that helps him win primaries. Let's just admit it instead of trying to pretend it isn't the case.

I love this blog and read Rod's writing everywhere, at Out, The Advocate, HuffPo, etc. He's a great resource and can write or analyze anything from up and coming actors to up and coming political trends. Maybe I get too protective sometimes, but I like this blog because it makes me think for myself, maybe others like to be spoon fed or told the same things over and over.

Andy Niable

It's all good, Tyler. We heart Rod. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends


  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches

    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0


    Categories

    Media

    Netroots

    Blog powered by Typepad