Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Obama won the Maine caucuses in a fairly dramatic way. The Hillary campaign had expected to take the state, thus upsetting the momentum from Obama's sweep of the Virgin Islands, Washington, Nebraska and Louisiana yesterday. Obama leads in the polls in the next block of states: Maryland, D.C. and Virginia, which polling may or may not mean anything.
Hillary's firewalls at this point were supposed to be Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, but a convincing win in Maine changes the dynamic of the race. Party leaders (including the vaunted superdelegates whose endorsements are currently buoying the Clinton delegate count) will start to turn around if it looks like there's a clear victor emerging, and in places with strong machines (including Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania), Obama will see a surge in support.
Voters will, of course, do what they choose, and I won't count those votes until they are cast. Thus far, as one of the Obamans who called California, Washington and then Maine voters to get them to the caucuses, I'm happy as a clam, or some organic, locally-grown California radicchio.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
It doesn't make the slightest difference whether Senator Obama or Senator Clinton wins the nomination. Neither of them has the slightest chance of winning the general election because the country is not ready for a black or woman president. Once again, the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot and blow a manifestly winnable election. Tomorrow, I will vote for Edwards or Richardson in protest to this losing choice if they are still on the ballot.
Posted by: SLC | February 11, 2008 8:43 AM
The data strongly suggest otherwise: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022700283.html
Being 72 (like John McCain) is a greater handicap than being black or being a woman.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | February 11, 2008 5:51 PM
Mr. Rosenau is really a Pollyanna. Has he never heard of the Bradley/Wilder effect? For those readers who are unaware of this effect, a black man, Tom Bradley, who had been the mayor of Los Angeles ran for Governor of California in the 1980s. The authoritative Field poll showed him to be leading by what appeared to be a comfortable margin but he lost the election. In Virginia in 1989, Douglas Wilder, a black man ran for Governor of Virginia. Again, polls showed him to be comfortably ahead of his opponent. However, although, unlike Bradley, he won the election, his margin was much smaller then the polls indicated; additionally, he ran well behind the his Democratic running mate candidates for State Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor. The reason is, of course, that many Caucasians lie to pollsters about their willingness to vote for a black candidate, not wanting to be considered racist by the interviewers.
Posted by: SLC | February 11, 2008 6:34 PM
Memo to SLC: Bananarama isn't cranking out the hits anymore, the USSR has fallen, and leg warmers are no longer considered, ahem, "totally rad." I humbly suggest you buy a new calendar, one that says "2008" on the top.
If Josh and I are pollyannas, with a naive belief in America's colorblindness, what does that make the overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly pro-Obama voters of North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, and Maine? Confused?
Posted by: Rachel Robson | February 11, 2008 7:46 PM
Maybe all of the voters in those predominantly white states Rachel mentioned didn't know Obama is black!
Or maybe... lots of Americans are just intelligent enough to recognize the best candidate without taking race or sex into consideration.
Posted by: Jennifer | February 11, 2008 8:59 PM
Re Rachel Robson and Jennifer
IMHO, this country is not ready to elect either a black or female president. These two lovely ladies disagree. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, hopefully not disagreeably.
Posted by: SLC | February 11, 2008 9:11 PM
SLC: Indeed. In an effort to persuade without being too snarky, may I offer this column, which I think makes a very compelling argument why America is, in fact, ready for a black president.
Posted by: Rachel Robson | February 11, 2008 10:01 PM
Hm. That link didn't work. Here's the address:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein11jan11,1,749699.column
Posted by: Rachel Robson | February 11, 2008 10:02 PM
Not only am I aware of the Bradley effect, I wrote a post a year ago about an analysis which shows it no longer to be a factor. It may seem radical, but I prefer data to rank speculation. The data were polls of biracial elections, and there was no statistically significant evidence of a hidden vote in the many biracial elections of 2006, while there had been in previous years. The country is ready.
Because I'm not a mindreader, and because I don't think SLC is either, I'd suggest that we all vote based on our own feelings, not on the basis of how we think other people might or might not vote.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | February 11, 2008 11:18 PM
One of the interesting things I have noticed in the responses to my comments is that nobody is questioning my claim that the country is not ready for a female president, include Ms. Robson and Ms. Jennifer. I wonder why?
Posted by: SLC | February 12, 2008 7:26 AM
Perhaps it's because you haven't provided any data for that, either.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | February 12, 2008 10:26 AM
SLC: Speaking just for myself, of course, it's because I don't think there's a nationally viable candidate running for the presidency who's a woman. I think that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to win the presidency (if nominated by the Democratic Party) because of her personal characteristics, and especially because of her baggage. I think that a male candidate with the same traits and history as Sen. Clinton would be likely to lose in a general election, too--so I don't think that Sen. Clinton's candidacy is a very good test case for your hypothesis.
Posted by: Rachel Robson | February 12, 2008 12:35 PM
SLC, I didn't answer your question because I didn't have time. However, I've read everything I can get my hands on this year about the elections and the opinion of the country in general just doesn't bear out your claim. For one thing, young people are voting in huge numbers this year. People under 35 have MUCH less cultural baggage than people over, say, 60. They don't have many problems with people of other races, sexual orientation, or women in positions of leadership. In addition, many of us in areas of the south really do now live in integrated communities and workplaces and just don't think about race all that much. I live in Alabama, a longstanding bastion of racism, and Obama won handily among whites in my community. Now, in the general I don't know if he'll win here--not because he's black, but because he's a Democrat. We're a very red state. But he actually has appeal to republicans here, so who knows? Also, Obama is simply bringing in huge numbers of white voters. Aren't you paying attention to the states Rachel mentioned? Your claim makes absolutely no sense when compared to actual election results. I don't have time to cite specific articles I've read that point out that race is not so much of an issue this year, but there are lots and lots of articles and good analysis out there. And if the election were today, Obama would handily beat McCain. That doesn't support your argument, either.
But Josh is right, you haven't provided any information to back up your claim that we're not ready for a black or woman president. Cite us some sources.
Posted by: Jennifer | February 12, 2008 3:51 PM
Here's some exit poll data from Virginia and Maryland for SLC. I'm sure there will much more interesting info later after the results come in.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1712624,00.html
As they helped decide whether their party will nominate the first woman or first black for president, more than eight in 10 voters in the Maryland and Virginia Democratic primaries said the country is ready to elect a black or female president.
Democratic voters in Virginia were a little more likely than their counterparts in Maryland to say the country "definitely" was ready for a black or female president, rather than just "probably" ready.
Posted by: Jennifer | February 12, 2008 6:06 PM