Reply #35: ... [View All]

[NJSecularist]

First, it is an error to automatically assume that because blacks are voting for Obama in significantly different percentages than whites, it is the black vote that should be questioned. It is just as valid to inquire why white voters are only voting for him in the 40 percent range.

Whites are not voting around 90% for Hillary, consistently, contest after contest. It is apples and oranges. Whites are not even close to being a block voting group in this primary as compared to blacks.

On the other hand, white voters are viewing Obama less objectively and are setting up various "hurdles" of acceptability that he must clear before they will feel comfortable trusting him with their vote - hurdles that they do not set up for white candidates.

False. He needs to meet the same hurdles as every other candidate. Where do you get this kind of stuff?

So, when black voters line up to vote for Obama, we are not voting race, we're voting our interests, just like every other sophisticated voting demographic. But it's been easier for us to assess whether or not he is a good candidate because we were not hung up on superficialities like his skin color.

So 90% of blacks are giving their votes to another black person and it has nothing to do with skin color?

What if 90% of whites were supporting a white candidate when a black candidate was in the race? Would that have nothing to do with skin color?

Black voters are not voting for him because he is black.

So 90% of black voters are voting for him based on his inherent qualities and experiences? So why didn't they vote for Edwards? Edwards got 3% of the white vote in South Carolina. To say that black voters are not voting for Obama because he is black is quite disingenious. The racial lines were already beginning to form before South Carolina.

In fact, among black voters, Obama is working on a level playing field.

What level playing field? Getting 90% of the black vote is a level playing field?