In Mississippi, Obama Needs to Win Big
Mississippi offers Barack Obama a chance to reinforce what his dominating victory in Wyoming over the weekend suggested: That Hillary Clinton’s March 4 results have not significantly altered the Democratic playing field.
It is a primary state, which supposedly plays to Clinton’s advantage. But it’s also a heavily black state—36 percent of the overall population and more than half of the Democratic electorate—and black voters have overwhelmingly backed Obama in every contest this year.
Curiously, Obama isn’t expected to do as well in Mississippi as he did in Georgia’s primary on Feb. 5, when he won 67 percent of the vote (to Clinton’s 31 percent), even though Mississippi has a larger black population than Georgia, which is just 28 percent black.
This is because politics, even within the Democratic Party, are even more polarized in Mississippi than in the other states of the old Confederacy. A recent poll bears this out, with Obama trouncing Clinton among blacks in Mississippi by a 75 to 16 percent margin; among whites, she leads, 65 to 24 percent. Overall, Obama led the poll by 17 points (54 to 37). More than usual, the final result tonight will be a function of turnout patterns.
Still, an Obama victory is close enough to a foregone conclusion that anything less would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the Illinois senator. To win the primary in the eyes of the media, Obama needs to cover the spread, which is probably about 10 points.
If Clinton can keep the result closer than that, she could declare a moral victory and use the result to buttress several key talking points: the notion that caucuses are undemocratic and that her success in nominating contests is directly proportional to the number of people who participate; the claim that Democratic voters are increasingly apprehensive about Obama’s viability in a fall campaign and that, as a result, they are warming to Clinton; and the notion that March 4 signaled a fundamental turning point in the race and that Clinton is now ascendant and Obama is fading.
But a solid, double-digit Obama victory, on the heels of his 23-point win in Wyoming, will provide more evidence that his coalition is sticking with him in the face of his March 4 setbacks and the increased intensity of Clinton’s attacks and the media’s scrutiny.
The Obama campaign would be able to argue, compellingly, that all that March 4 proved was that Clinton is capable of winning the states in which she has built-in advantages and that Obama’s ability to win the states where he is better-positioned on paper has not been diminished—and will not be. And if that’s true, then Obama—thanks to a May and June primary calendar that is slightly more favorable to him than to Clinton—will be assured of ending the primary season with more delegates and popular votes than Clinton.
Just as importantly, a solid Obama win in the primary means he will claim a solid majority of the state’s 33 pledged delegates. Potentially, this could put him in position to argue that Wyoming (where he won two more delegates than Clinton) and Mississippi essentially canceled out Clinton’s Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island wins, where she cut into Obama’s overall delegate lead by about a dozen.
And if, somehow, Obama manages to score a much bigger than expected victory—say 25 points or more—he could even make the case that Clinton’s attacks are backfiring, and that if she’s not careful, she might just lose Pennsylvania, too.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.6
- 44.0
- Obama +2.6
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 56.4
- 35.2
- +21.2
- McCain
- 54.4
- 37.0
- +17.4
Would be an interesting race to see Hillary pull off an upset here. Though I know the odds are against her they have been before and she's shown she can stil pull through a victory.
Since Mississippi is 70 percent black, the writing is on the wall. Unfortunately I think she is going to get beat, like a drum. I say unfortunately because I want the bloodletting to continue. But either way, she will marshal on despite the growing gap in delegates between her and Obama.
Vanity, thy name is woman.
-
-
NOW WE HAVE "MS. LOSER" --- GERALDINE FERRARO --- PLAYING THE 'RACE CARD' FOR HILLARY. -- Ferraro said that "if Obama were a white man, he would not be leading in this nomination." It is amazing how the Clinton people just throw race issues around in this campaign. -- It should be clear to all that the Clintons and their supporters are ANGRY that a black man is beating Hillary. -- So much for Bill, the first black president. -- The only thing Bill ever cared for about the black community was their votes for him.
-
-
Zach, I would suggest you read the articles before you make a comment.
The black demographic statistic of 70% is not correct. Not even close! Kornacki tells us the percentage in the above article.
If you post in the future please add an initial, or something, so readers don't confuse your posts my with my posts. I would be appreciative. Thanks!
wow, stunningly sloppy journalism, mr. kornacki. did howard wolfson feed you the line that if Obama doesn't win MS by a 10 point spread, it would be an 'unmitigated disaster' for his campaign? this must have been posted at 5 a.m. after a long bout of carousing with the Clinton camp.
That's some "stunningly sloppy" reading on your part, Anonymous. The article says that anything short of a victory would be an "unmitigated catastrophe" for Obama, not anything short of a 10-point victory. The 10-point reference, it seems, is in respect to the media's determination of who had a better night.
And I'd agree with the argument that Obama needs to win by a good margin to be portrayed as the big winner by the media. And that if he actually somehow lost outright to HRC, then it would be an "unmitigated catastrophe" for him. But I don't think this will happen.
I guess I can use an initial; you've asked me before and I resisted mainly because this is an anonymous board, but if you insist on it, I will comply.
.
Let us HOPE that the good people of Pennsylvania pay close attention to Hillary's claims --- and the rebuttals which demonstrate that Hillary is a PHONEY who exaggerates more than did PINOCCHIO.
.
Here's the part you may think is amusing, but it really isn't. If Obama wins the the democratic ticket, then we will lose in the General Election. This is called a no brainer! The country is in so much trouble, so we are not going to pick the candidate that can get us out of our economic mess?!! Please WAKE UP before it is too late. Whether you like her or "think" you hate her, she is ready to be Commander -In -Chief. Barack Obama is not, and McCain will chew him up and eat him for breakfast. AND THAT IS OKAY WITH YOU?!! I sure hope not.
Hillary ready to be commander in chief? How do you figure? Her foreign experience is giving speeches for NOW and the children's defense fund and tea with the queen. The rest is made up like everything else about her supposed "experience".
Her experience is non-existant; Obama's is non-existant. However wins will be receiving on-the-job training; God help us.
this race is going to get interesting
Ferraro's and other Clinton Machine innuendos pulling the race card into this race
i used to like both now i see BO more neutral and level headed
but I am so disgusted with the underhandedness of the Clinton Machine that while I have never voted and never expected to vote republican
i will give me vote to McCain if the Clinton machine where to succeed with all its dirty tricks
when i look at all of this is as if the some of the worst of the old republican party left the party and join the democrats and now it is so hard to distinguish
the only ray of hope is BO given that he has a new narrative but that is been squash by the 'new republican machine'
talking about George Orwell - the double talk now we have everything republican in what may have been some democratic images
it is ugly
"McCain will chew him up and eat him for breakfast."
First of all, I doubt John McCain chews his own food. He's so old his nurses chew his food and then regurgigate it in his mouth.
There is no doubt that John McCain has more experience than Clinton or Obama. Probably more than both of them combined. But, how could someone (McCain) who has promised to keep this war going for another hundred years possibly win? Those who say Democrats will lose the general give the party no credit. After two thumpings at the hands of George Bush they (Democrats) will prove that America and its people are not war-mongerers. That title is still associated with "Republicans."
It's true. Free speech.
What Ferraro said is true. Everyone is thinking it. She just gave it a voice.
Stop being petty. Stop whining. Truth can't be debated. If he were white he'd not come this far.
A very important thing that YOU ALL seems to be missing and if you were paying attention would be as clear as day.
Obama and Clinton cannot compete with McCain on Experience. This is what makes Obama argument more attractive, he is offering the exact opposite of McCains argument; Hillary is plain dumb if she thinks her phony 35yrs of implied and yet unsubstantiated undocumented experience can slight McCain.
Obama counter argument acknowledges that McCain has experience and does not try to counter that however he compares the 'experience in Washington' with corruption, division and polarisation. This resonates well as there is a huge disenfranchisement in the population with Washington and Obama lack of time in Washington is what makes him so refreshing. To support this, check all the polls and Obama is doing better than Clinton against McCain, over 70% says McCain is the most experience, they both beat Obama on economics but yet a higher percentage of the respondents say the number one priority in a president is ladership and the ability to unite and Obama scores much better than the other two in this regard, followed by McCain. Hillary is rated the least favourable among independents and republicants who say they simply dont trust her.
Asked who they would vote for Obama scores the highest. Youth versus age. New versus old. Washington oldtimer versus new direction. You choose.
He has by far less experience in Washington and proposes Change that according to all polls people are looking for.
My female friends that support Hillary are saying things similar to what Geraldine Ferraro said. They are really bitter that Obama is doing so well. They say some jaded things like if he was a black woman he wouldn't be in this position which is just plain ridiculous. They won't support him if he wins and that is why I am for Obama 100%.I am not going to vote for John McCain under any circumstances. Clinton supporters have a lot to be upset about and 90% of it has to be blamed on how Clinton blew 20 to 30 point leads nationwide in polls as recently as New Year's Day. I admire and respect both Hillary and Bill Clinton very much but they have nearly sabotaged her run for the White House and Obama has capitalized on this ineptitude. Despite recent "wins" by Hillary she is still behind. How does a candidate go from the overwhelming frontrunner to being second in just a little over four months? Maybe they should ask the Obama campaign how they went from a lower double digits to almost 50% in four months and learn something about not alienating voters who she took for granted.
Experience does not matter.
Experience means the awareness of processes and procedures.
There will be big staff in white house who know those things.
All that Americans need is a great people leader with good judgement.
Ferraro a racist? No one called her a racist. Her foul comments speak for themselves. Clinton is a coward and a hypocrite for not firing Ferarro. And to think I used to like F, and supported her back in '84. Maybe she is right. Maybe the only reason SHE was on the ticket with Mondale was because she was a woman. That was 24 years ago. Many of the people who think the way SHE does are dead. The rest that are still alive are in the deep minority of voters. IOWA, VERMONT, WYOMING, and I could keep going, are judging "by the content of his character." If it was about race, he wouldn't be winning. So-called "Black votes" are not enough to get Obama elected. Shame on F and shame on Clinton for hiring her and not firing her.
It's over. You LOST Texas. You LOST the last 2 contests.
The only way to win is for the Super Delegates to all go insane and vote for you. Thus making all the voters hate the system again and African Americans feel left out. Again.
If she wins the nomination, we all lose.
Did anyone here actually read what Ferraro's complete statement was in that interview?
Ferraro said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
She also said Hillary Clinton had been the victim of a sexist media
Everyone should read what is said and come to their own conclusion, my conclusion of what she said was comparing sexism and racism and how aware most people are of racism but sexism is more covert at this point in our society and is a part of this election and the media coverage of it.
Geraldine Ferraro has just declared that Hillary has won in Mississippi! Ms Ferraro was asked by reporters how could she declare victory when Hil has lost that state by over 20% by all other reports.
Ferraro barked, "From now on, the "eggplant" vote dosen't count."
When asked to comment on Ferraro's cryptic statement Bill Clinton replied, "Well, Jessie Jackson always won the eggplant vote."
Thanks for reading (and editing) for the little people Byron. Both you and Hil just want to help us. Your leadership and accompaning arrogance is all for our own good. (And also for the good of Bill's Presidential Library.)
Examples of what I mean of sexism in the media
On CNN in articles that refer to Mr. Obama's response to a Mrs. Clintons' assertion, the headline would read "Obama smacks down Hillary"
Or when their political team at CNN talks of how Mr. Obama should respond to Mrs. Clintons statements (what is referred to as a tactic), that he needs to "punch her back".
What is even more blatant when they talk about the claim of sexism in the media in the context of these statements made by Ferraro today, they still use the same terminology to describe how the campaigns should advance.
love those racists
Your welcome, I don't mind helping ignorant people.
I don't know if anyone should trust your reading comprehension Byron when you actually believed that I was a sexist and racist. And I'm voting for Obama's white half. Really?
Yes, sexism is harder to see than racism. Both are wrong (but really funny lighten up).
Geraldine Ferraro said this:
"He happens to be very lucky who he is," she told a newspaper in California last week. The country, she said, is "caught up in the concept" of the first African-American president.
She's saying, the only reason he's winning is because he's black. I don't see how you read this any other way.
This is what I hear, "God damn it. It's supposed to be our time (women). If it wasn't for this stupid n-gger, we would have our first female president. It's not fair"
I know a lot of women that feel that way. Maybe not as racist. But they are like, we should have a female president, then a black, then a Jew, then a gay... it's their turn.
You are downplaying her being sexist herself. She feels women deserve it. She's right. We should have had a women president by now.
And what is even funnier is that more women seem to be sexist than men when it comes to elections.
I know one thing for sure. There are more women than black people in America. If people were voting the way they think, then Clinton would have one this long ago.
But a funny thing happened. We have two candidates that are "firsts" in our country. Whoever wins, makes history. And lo and behold people are voting on their messages, not their gender or race.
You're all idiots. Who cares what a has been congresswoman from corrupt Queens says or does? Hillary is done.
Matt I
You're only looking at it from one side, and not taking into account what people are saying about the media being sexist against Clinton. If you entertained the thought you might see the full context of what Ferraro is saying.
That's to be expected though since your thought process for qualifying a candidate is I like them better because they make me feel good.
We've already had this conversation though and I'm too "political" for your conversation taste, so why do you keep bothering.
I will agree that it is an historic moment in our history, that growing up in the 60's and 70's seemed like an impossible expectation and here we are.
One other thing Matt, when you mentioned "when you actually believed that I was a sexist and racist"
to be honest I don't really believe you'll vote for Obama, you've said a few contradictory things and it's hard to believe what you say at any given time.
First let me say, the terrorist are really dancing in the streets now. They hear and see everything Americans are doing. Believe me, they're getting a kick out of this one. The very one that wants to bring peace, love, hope, unity is who? "Sen Barak Hussein Obama". That's all this man is doing!!!!!!!! How don't we get that.?
I'm deployed to Iraq and hoping and praying that I make it back safely to return to what is suppose to be the great USA. For the first time in my adult life, I'm dissapointed in my country. Why, because we're suppose to be so much better and bigger than that. It's unfortunate that terrorist attacks of some sort is what it takes to get your attention.
My two children are at home motherless...The red phone was already answered and my Commander - In- Chief has already answered it. Get over yourselves, already. See, I've taken great strides to ensure they're sleeping safe. Soldiers are out here in the middle of the desert running to bunkers at the sound of "incoming". Guess who gives selfless? We do. For all Americans. Whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, indians, women, men, children, etc.
Now, if there's a certain race that should be out here fighting this war on terrorism, shout out loud and let me know if I'm in the right group.
I'm out here expressing to soldiers that we're here helping to restore peace to this country and everything is being counter acted on the homefront. And we come here to let them know "this is how we do it?
Let me get this straight, we're excusing an Ex-President to return the White House. Question? Is this truth of fiction? Did President Clinton actually have an affair or not?
If true, why don't be forgive the Catholic priest for their inappropriate behaviors or should we let them continue with fulfilling their own personal agenda with our young sons. And what about teachers that's molesting your children in school? Are we willing to be just as forgiving? I'm not judging anyone but, if we can forgive the President for infidelity while in office for personal gain, don't be a hypocrite for any other wrong doers. Racism is rampant if you can forgive the President for having oral sex in the oval office but, can't hate a man because of his race...we have REAL problems. I know most will say but Hilliary is running and not Bill. My response to that is, where will Bill be lying his head? Isn't that little house somewhere in Texas????