Reply #43: Yes but it is unfair to blame it on racism right now based on the available evidence

[jackson_dem]

No one is saying Obama getting 80+ of the black vote everywhere is racist, right? Remember, the Clinton brand carried the South in the general in 1996 and won much of it in the 92' general not to mention dominating it in the 92' primaries. Hillary is white and she is getting overwhelming white support in that region just like Obama is with blacks. If Obama is the nominee we will know if race was a factor based on how many white Democrats defect. Right now Obama isn't doing that bad with 20% defections, only 9 higher than Kerry in 2004 and 10 higher than Hillary. You could argue race explains that but to believe that you would have to believe white "independents" are less racist than white Democrats because they vote for Obama at higher rates than Democrats vote for Hillary and that offsets Obama's relative weakness with Democrats. I don't think that is the case. If race truly will be a factor in that many will vote against Obama simply because of his color it would happen across-the-board and no evidence suggests that will happen. If Obama gets weaker down the road if he is the nominee, as he inevitably will (the question for me is whether he can bounce back unlike Kerry and Dukakis), it will be because he declines among all groups, not just whites.

You are right. GOTV will be vital for both sides. You are right that Obama will win a higher share of the black vote than Hillary will the Latino vote but the Latino vote is substantially bigger than the black vote in Texas. It will come out to be more or a less a wash when you factor that in and whites, ironically, will be the swing voters.

He has a great chance of winning more delegates in TX. The only way that won't happen is if the polls are off and Hill winds up winning by double digits like Obama did in Wisconsin. The big thing for Hill is winning. A win is a win. Obama supporters made a big deal about delegates in Nevada but the real world considered Hill the winner. Delegates matter for obvious reasons but Texas and Ohio are not so much about delegates for Hill at this point but about showing that she remains viable. Winning both will do that.

I don't think WY and MS will get that much press on the heels of Ohio and Texas. I could be wrong but look at how little 2/9 got after Super Tuesday, although 2/12 was a big deal. Besides, it is expected that Obama will win both anyway. Remember Hill tied Obama on Super Tuesday and won most of the big states but that did nothing to stop his SC momentum. I think WY/MS will be like that, not like 2/12 or SC as far as momentum goes. Regardless, with 5 weeks until PA after WY/MS momentum will change a lot during that time with debates, campaigning, and we have already seen signs the msm will go after Obama a bit now as will the rethug machine. If Obama was up 50-46 (minus FL and MI) while pristine I wouldn't be surprised if he is much weaker by April 22 after being bloodied a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if he still won PA but I don't think smooth sailing is assured for Obama during the 6 weeks after March 4, assuming Hill stays alive (keep in mind the Rezko trial starts on Monday. Even if nothing new comes out just the headlines about it will hurt Obama and remember that many Americans still haven't heard about the Rezko story. It goes to the heart of Obama's clean/reform brand).

Right now I had to bet I would say about the same: Hill be 5 in OH, Obama by 3 in Texas. Obama winning by 25-30 in Vermont and Hill be 10-15 in Rhode Island. This is probably the consensus too, which makes Hill winning Texas and Ohio an even bigger upset and momentum changer.