In North Carolina, she only got 6% according to the AP poll.  She won't be competetive in places like Michigan, Missouri, Virginia, and other places with support like that.

that there is still a lot of blatant racism out there. it would almost make me embarrassed to be a north carolinian tonight.  

Blatant racism has gone both ways in the contest, pal.  Don't kid yourself.

i was making a jab at an argument you made saying you would be embarrassed to be from mississippi because blue collar white voters chose clinton in n.e. mississippi. that just stuck in my mind.
people then went on to claim that it is racist if 60% of poor whites vote for clinton but not if 92% of blacks vote for obama. i am pretty aware that racism has gone both ways in this contest.  

You're 'almost embarrassed' because 90% of blacks are voting for the only viable African-American presidential candidate ever in the history of our country?   But you apparently have no problem that 61% of Indiana blue collar and rural white voters are voting for Hillary Clinton?  

of white, supposedly Democratic voters from some of the least diverse parts of this country that, in 2008, are voting white that makes it embarrassing to be ... American.

...is that 90% of blacks voting for a black candidate isn't racist, but 61% of whites voting for a white candidate is racist?

Huh?

I'm saying there is racial tension on both sides.  Which isn't a good sign for November.

Sorry, I was responding to two comments by j_wyatt as "you guys" without realizing both comments were from the same person.  My bad.

I'd say that.

It's like saying 90 percent of union members vote for Democrats, or 90 percent of phony Cowboys vote for George W. Bush.

These voters aren't voting AGAINST Clinton because of her race.    Maybe there's a bit of pride and hope at work in the vote for Obama -- not unlike the strong Irish Catholic vote for John Kennedy.  

Irish Catholics didn't vote AGAINST Nixon -- they voted FOR Kennedy.  There is a world of difference there.

I have heard that while campaigning for Hillary Bill has said some pretty odious things about Obama which have been racially tinged. Apparently much of this has not been reported in the main steam media. I think this in addition to the things which have been reported have turned blacks against the Clintons. whatever you think you can't deny that over 90% of them are not voting Clinton.

Bill Clinton personally wrote that bogus Ohio voter registration phone number on the rubber duckies spread around in North Carolina the other day.

At least, that's what the handwriting analysis showed.

That is hilarious!  That wily Bill!

You're right on that, JPTERP.

Of course, many of those white voters are white women who are voting FOR Senator Clinton.  

Now, she's in New Hanover County (Wilmington), so she's apparently in the minority there ... but I know a number of well-educated, younger white women that favor and voted for Hillary. They'll all be voting for Obama in the fall if he's the nominee, no question.

I do think when you're talking spreads of 80-20 or higher in some Appalachian counties, there's something else going on. I mean, some whites in Kentucky have gone on the record with reporters saying that they're voting for Hillary because they'd never vote for a black person for President.

Race is complicated, so I usually try not to paint with too broad of brush-strokes when discussing how sub-groups break in a primary election. I think at the end of the day, > 90% of all Dems will vote Dem in November. If both candidates are qualified in your eyes, and you're a hard-working woman that sees another hard-working woman, there's nothing insidious about having that be the tie-breaking quality and voting accordingly.

Finally, re: the race thing. Blacks have never broken so heavily for a black candidate -- I mean Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun didn't even win a majority of the black vote in South Carolina last time around (I believe). Blacks have shown in the past that they'll support white nominees, no questions asked. I think there are certain white groups that won't do the same.  

How can anyone take this out of the context of blacks having voted for white candidates for decades?

Wright was the perfect excuse for a lot of white folk who were likely never going to vote for a black man anyway to say, see, all you hopeful people think Obama is all nice and acceptable, but, really, now our suspicions have been confirmed that he was just another scary, angry black man all along.  And of course those suspicions have been stoked at every opportunity by Hillary Clinton.

Jon Stewart nailed the ludicrousness of this the last time Senator Obama was on the Daily Show when his first question was, it's true, isn't it, that your secret plan is to get elected ... and then enslave all the white people.

If the determinant factor in someone's vote is race, then it's inherently racist, obviously.

But since we're supposed to be of a progressive inclination here, our thing is nuance, right?

And nuance would say that it's sophistry to equate 90% of blacks voting proudly for the first viable black candidate ever in the 232 year history of our country to 61% of blue collar and rural whites voting white.  Once again, it's the difference between hope and fear.

Only 10% of blacks are willing to vote "against their race" while 39% of whites are willing to, based on the differentiating positions on the issues.  Explain again how the whites are racist and blacks are not?

You're walking a VERY thin line here.  My advice: be careful.

At least I didn't give you some of the exact quotes from Bill, in the interest of not upsetting too many people here. But I must say its a sad day when you can't tell the truth on a Progressive blog. Isn't this the blog that broke the Macaca story?

If you have any evidence, then provide it. And provide your source as well, so we can evaluate that, rather than saying "I just heard." I think our tender ears can deal with it.

If you're not willing to do that, then you shouldn't say anything, because it is worthless.

what exactly are you saying here, Rebecca? That Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, made such racially charged statements -- statements so offensive you cannot repeat them -- that they drove the African American vote away from his wife, but the mainstream press -- a press, incidentally, that rejoiced in reporting every detail of a blow job he got in 1994 -- suddenly decided not to report this incredible story, and so it was only known by the African American community?

and what does that have to with anything?  You were in a conversation with commenters on the blog, you made a comment that one or two people took issue with, and you generalize from that to "you can't tell the truth on a Progressive blog?"  Huh?

Hey, man, how more clear can I be?  To repeat, both are racist, inherently.  But they're different shades of contextual nuance.  

As to "differentiating positions on the issues", our two candidates are so close on just about everything significant, they both have to work hard at inventing ludicrous "differentiating positions" like the 18 cent gas thingie.

 

black voters throughout this country have voted for people like John Edwards, John Kerry, and others (even when they ran against black candidates) in past election cycles.

The difference here is that there are some white voters who have NEVER and WILL NEVER vote for a black candidate under any circumstances simply because of the candidate's race.

THAT is racism.

Most of those black voters strongly supported Hillary over Obama until her campaign started getting...well, let's just say really nasty and leave it at that.  Those same black voters also voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc.  So, all of a sudden, the same people who've been voting for white candidates for years are "racist" because they vote for Obama over Clinton?  Not.

getting lectures on "racism" from someone with a tag line "notwaltertejada".  

I addition, I would also like to point you all to the 2006 races in Maryland and Pennsylvania.  In senatorial race in Maryland, Michael Steele, a black Republican, ran against  Ben Cardin, a white Democrat.  It is also important to note that Cardin was elected after a long bitter primary with another black politician, Kweisi Mfume. On Election Day, Cardin defeated Steele and received about 75% of the black vote.  In Pennsylvania, that same year, Lynn Swann, a black Republican, ran against Ed Rendell, a white Democrat.  Rendell did even better than Cardin by defeating Swann with 87% of the black vote.  You see these elections illustrate that blacks vote on the issues like most other Americans.  It is not about race, but whether the candidates support the issues that matter blacks and whether they exhibit admirable character traits.

Excellent points.  People are concerned about the issues, regardless of their own race; but sometimes the issues are different because of the race you sympathize with, socialize with, and are a member of.

Simple logic.  Often forgotten in our combative rhetoric.  Thank you for the reminder.

Also, note to self: actually preview my comments for mistakes

In addition*; In the senatorial*

In Indiana too, it was 92%-8% Obama.  In North Carolina, if the African American voters make up anywhere near the 40% of the electorate that a lot of people are thinking it could, then Obama could be in very good shape for a big (or bigger than expected) win.

Disclaimer: This could all change in 30 minutes when the results from North Carolina start rolling in.  

And the surrounding counties.  That's Indiana State territory.  Anyone with Hoosier knowledge know the political topography there?

Indiana:

Does Clinton share your values?

Yes 62
No 37

Does Obama share your values?

Yes 65
No 33

n/t

but regardless, his margin in NC will be substantial larger than hers in IN, perhaps more than 2X -  in a state with many more delegates.  End result?  He should come out of the night net +15 delegates or even more.

Is it completely proportional based on the popular vote? Or does it have one of those systems wherein a candidate receives more delegates if they pass a certain threshold?  

is done based on congressional district performance; plus there's another split at the very top based on popular vote totals.  77 are at the district level; 33 are split based on the statewide vote.

A good run down is available at . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Thanks JPTERP

Night net of ten, I think.  Which almost erases PA, though, which is important in it's own right.

On MSNBC it showed a news flash that a judge held open polls in two locations.  

completely whiffed on Missouri too, I believe. So, no pollster is invincible/infallible/perfect.

Have you checked out Poblano's fivethirtyeight.com yet? Holy cow, an election wonk's dream come true, puts electoral-vote.com and RCP each to shame.

for political junkies!  

From the WashingtonPost.com, posted at 6:59 PM:

Few complaints have surfaced in Indiana concerning the voter ID law.  One notable instance involved 12 elderly Catholic nuns from Notre Dame who were barred from voting for lack of a photo ID by, yes, a fellow nun working as a poll volunteer.

But there were few other such incidents reported across the state, which has one of the strictest laws in the country, requiring voters to have a photo ID issued by the state or federal government. After the Supreme Court upheld the law by a 6-3 ruling last month, there was widespread speculation that the ruling could hurt Barack Obama in the primary, since he was counting on strong turnout among African American voters in inner city neighborhoods in Gary and Indianapolis where many residents lack drivers' licenses. But Obama spokesman Bill Burton said this evening that the campaign had received only scattered complaints on the voter hotline it set up to deal with problems at the polls. He credited the campaign's aggressive voter outreach effort to make sure supporters had the ID they would need. (Residents without driver's licenses can obtain free picture IDs at department of motor vehicle branches.)

Bethany Derringer, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Secretary of State's office, said the office also had not received many complaints on a hotline it set up for today's vote. She said that should not come as a surprise, given that the state's voters have had to contend with the strict law since 2005. "We've had nothing earth-shattering," she said. "We've done extensive education on this."

for Clinton....

are more cautious and are waiting for the Gary, IN area's votes to come in.
I just ate dinner so havent checked Fox "News".

With 51% reporting, Indiana has had about 618,000 voters.  As of currently, Clinton will gain 55,000 votes off of this in the popular vote department.  Obama's gonna gain a LOT more than that in North Carolina.  

And no, I don't buy the argument that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote because it uses bs math.  It includes Michigan (where Obama wasn't on the ballot), Florida (not confirmed yet), and at the same discounts the caucus states.  It's bullsh*t argument by her campaign, just like the idea that somehow the number of delegates needed to win has changed.  Until the rules committee states otherwise, it's still 2025.

Down into single digits (Clinton up by 8%)

Obama's "pockets" have yet to be counted...This could be a less than two percent victory for Clinton. If that's the case, the floodgates will open on the Super Delegate side...

Down to 6%....wow!

in Indiana when, mere moments ago, Ms. Blue Collar was ahead 12%.

Evidently Obama is doing better in his pockets than their model had predicted.  They have their prediction down to Clinton +2.9.  I'm not getting excited because I don't think its enough to overtake Clinton, but it appears that this could very much be closer than the 5-8 points I thought it would be.  

With 72% of precincts reporting.  High drama.

He is down by around 44K votes, and according to the total number of voters so far, there are around 243K votes unreported  (representing 27% of the total votes in the state since 73% of the state has reported).  There may not be enough votes left to overcome that margin, but still, its very interesting.  Basically Obama needs to win around 59% of the remaining votes to overcome Clinton (again, if my math is right).  I wish I could say I see that happening, but I just don't think its possible based on the places that still need to report.  

But he can bring it to a virtual tie.

No votes from Lake or Starke co. yet.
GREAT electoral map of both states:
Indiana: http://www.politico.com/inncpr...

NC: http://www.politico.com/inncpr...

WTF?  Porter County is up between Lake and LaPorte (NW corner) and how could she win there?

Things must have changed a lot since I was last in that area.

could be down to 1-1.5%, but I think Clinton squeaks it out

and that may be enough to dry up her money

He needs to keep a 14 point margin in NC  -  that, and how poorly she did in IN, should be enough to start superdelegates moving, but not a flood.

If the current numbers hold, Obama's pledged delegate haul today in both states would be 98 and Clinton's would be 85.

A net gain of 13 for Obama would -- should -- be the final nail in the Clinton coffin.    

Pretty much erases popular vote gains, and definitely erases delegate lead.

Lake County won't be in until 11:00.  Booo.

P.S. - Keith Olbermann's dis on Hillary's baseball allegiance was classic.

They're pushing the results back to midnight.  People are wondering whether or not Obama can pick up 45,000 votes.  It totally depends upon how high the voter turnout was in Lake (Russert said it was huge), and whether or not it really can make a difference.

CBS, interestingly enough, has not gone back on it's prediction that Hillary Clinton will win.  Maybe they know something about Lake County?

says, "there is still the entire county of Lake (about 400,000 population), which contains Gary, Ind., a 100,000-person town in the Chicago media market with an 84% black population."  And this is humorous:

It's not clear there are enough votes available for Obama to actually overtake Clinton, but it might be right around that Chuck Todd Vegas field goal. Any bets?

Obama may only lose this thing by 2% or so.  Maybe less.  That's a tie in anybody's book.  

and should strongly favor Obama.  This really reminds me of Missouri on Super Tuesday.

in Hamilton, Marion (in Indianapolis -- probably another +7,000 to 8,000 votes for Obama), and smaller counties like Monroe and Tippacanoe (which have broken for Obama so far).

There are a couple Clinton counties outstanding too which probably net her another 2,000 to 3,000 votes.

He'll probably need to net 35,000 from Lake County.  Not sure how many votes are going to be outstanding there -- probably somewhere a little north of 100,000 votes total -- so he'll need to get a 60-40 to 65-35 split.

Russert had suggested as many as 200,000 votes in Lake

How pathetic can she be?  It is so obviously over.  I don't understand what her purpose is other than ripping the party apart.  She needs to grow up and concede that this contest is over.

And why on earth is she claiming a win in Indiana when Lake County is still outstanding and it's possible that Obama could still win the state?  Utterly bizarre.

I believe I stated in an earlier thread that there was no way in hell Hillary Clinton went down quietly.  She's the 50 Cent of this primary, "Be President or Die Trying."  She will attack just as hard, if not harder.  She will be just as negative, if not even worse.  

Little less combative now.

of her presidential campaign, can we not show some sympathy?  She has been working for this for such a long time.  She is so close she can taste it.  She honestly feels with all her heart and all her passion that she is the best choice for this job.  And now to be denied that when she had planned so carefully for this occasion.  It is the making of a Greek Tragedy.  She need now only throw herself off a castle's ramparts and we would have a Puccini opera.

Put yourself in her shoes, wouldn't you be doing the same?  Do you respect people who just give up on their dream without a fight?

I want this to be over.  However, this is not my choice to make.  I want her to bow out, but how do you ask someone to give up their dream and fade into the background?

I REALLY want Obama to somehow manage to win Indiana.  The late night television jokes would be classic.

I think she will win Indiana, albeit by a very small margin.  Wouldn't it just be great if Indiana did swing the other way though?

Along the lines of, "How ironic is it that the candidate that can only win by arguing that all of the votes need to be counted in Michigan and Florida declares victory in Indiana before all the votes there are counted?"

But intellectual consistency is definitely not her campaign's strong suit.

Isn't it funny how a candidate can claim all votes should be counted while claiming caucus votes and votes in states that they did not win don't count?  Th

Geeze - this contest is hopeless for Clinton.  She is just dragging out the inevitable.  

If she wants to support the will of the voters and the Democratic party, fall behind the person who at this point should be declared the presumptive nominee.  I think we all know who that person is.

Bill Clinton looked really sad, btw, during tonight's speech by Hillary.  I think he has arrived at the conclusion that the race is over.  I wonder when Senator Clinton will finally arrive at that conclusion herself.

Her campaign was counting on not only this campaign, but West Wing positions in a year.  They've invested a lot in this.  They don't want to give it all up.

If what you believe is true, they are worried more about getting a good job than the future of our country.

Anyways, I'm hoping for a nice corner office in the West Wing ;-)  Just kidding - that's not in my blood.

I want my vote counted.  But, the prior vote should not count.  It was not a fair contest - Obama wasn't here campaigning.  And in Michigan - he wasn't even on the ballot.

If our votes in Florida and Michigan are to be counted, we need a mail-in ballot.  At this point in the game, I doubt that is going to happen.

Florida is easy: each delegate is only given a half vote.  Michigan is tougher.

I heard Jim Webb's "Won't Back Down" during the Clinton rally in Indiana.  Nearly vomitted.  That is JIM WEBB'S song, Hillary!  Don't you dare yoink that!

Do we keep our early primary now that our hands have received a hard slap from the DNC for moving the primary up - or will there be drive to have fair primaries?

The primaries are entirely unfair.  This election I'll probably have no say.  Next election, assuming we keep our early primary date, that changes.  I seriously doubt the party will deny our votes next time around.

Having had my vote denied this year and I know what it feels like to have a basic democratic right stripped from you - I want the primary system to be fixed so that it is fair for everyone.  If anything good comes out of all this early voting, I hope it is that the primaries are fixed.

Primarily in Obama strongholds, according to Tim Russet.

Obama needs to win 60% of the remaining votes to win.  It would be very difficult, but it is possible.

I checked out for a little while, and I haven't heard much about how all the provisional ballots cast by people who couldn't vote because of the new voter ID law could factor into the final result  

Russet just claimed there were 220,000 votes left.  11,000 absentee in Lake alone.

had 180,000 votes in the 2004 presidential election -- that included votes for both parties though.  In a party contest even with high turnout, I've got to believe that we're looking at something closer to 120,000 in the county.

The good news is it sounds like Gary, Indiana broke strongly for Obama . . .

http://blog.washingtonpost.com...

Probably not enough to close a 39,500 vote gap, but I can definitely see this one closing to somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 when this is all said and done.

And Chuck Todd over on MSNBC believes that it's closer to 180,000.

Lake County is beginning to come in, and it's a blowout. The vote total already has narrowed by 17,000, with only 28% of the county in.

I've been on tenterhooks the last hour... I'm actually traveling in Saudi Arabia on business this week, but just had to set my alarm to get up at 5 AM to see who won -- was sort of astonished to see it still wasn't clear in Indiana.

The margin will not be that big.  The question is whether or not Gary is strong enough to counter most of the rest of the area, and keep Obama's margin over 60% or so.  Depending on the number of voters, it may need to be higher.

Obama down by a little less than 20,000 votes.

Hamilton and Marion (Indy) are still showing 99% -- so there must be some absentee ballots still out as well.

Should be worth another 2,000 votes or so in Obama's corner.

which for some mysterious reason hasn't reported yet (population 7,000 along the Ohio border -- probably a net of 1,000 for Clinton).

FWIW, AP is saying that there are 130,000 votes in Lake County.  The first reports sound like they were coming from Gary.  Keeping my fingers crossed, but unless the Mayor of Gary REALLY comes through -- or if there are a few thousand provisionals out in Marion -- it's going to be mighty tough to close the gap.  

Marion still has 33% remaining, and Obama is winning the county 2-1.

Breaking news on MSNBC....

Also, Tim Russert just said "We now know who the Democratic nominee will be".

Holy Cow!

Remember where you were ;)

btw - Obama has skyrocketed to a career high 87 on intrade.  Hillary is at 12 and voting on whether McCain will become president is lowest since he became the presumptive Republican.

Regardless of the numbers out of Indiana, tomorrow the floodgates of supers will be thrown wide open.

Obama needs less than 200 delegates total, and only about 15 to catch up on supers.  That's going to be the next big milestone.  I think he'll hit it tomorrow.

What a roller coaster tonight!
I yelled a few minutes ago when I heard Russert, woke the sleeping boyfriend & scared the heck out of the cat....

I really didn't expect IN to be this tight.

Now I'm wondering why I always seem have an early AM meeting when results run late. Grrrr...

You are right, I think there will be some high profile endorsements this week!

With 95% reporting, Hillary leads by fewer than 17,000 votes.

this can still happen

I have no business being awake right now, but I can't stop watching.  This is crazy, but I feel like if I start to believe this could happen CNN will suddenly play that music and call it for Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, won't forget getting up early this morning to watch the returns.

The part about Tim Russert. Wow! Just wow!

is now at 99% with Obama winning by a 5,000 vote margin (I believe he added 1,000 net votes above his previous total).  

I'm wondering about Marion (Indy) and Hamilton (north of Indy) -- where the totals have stood at 99%.  I'm guessing that means there must still be some absentee ballots that are uncounted.

Union County is still holding out it's vote totals -- if the votes are anything like surrounding counties that should net Clinton 1,000 votes.

And then there is 47 percent left in Lake County (Gary, Indy).  I'm guessing that the most recent reports are totals from suburban areas, because the splits were in the 50/50 range.

The final tally: 20,000 vote lead for Clinton.

The point to note is that Obama pretty much erased Clinton's PA vote.

More like entirely.

Clinton gained 215,000 votes on Obama in PA

In NC, Obama got 232,000 over Clinton.

Okay, so Clinton's still got 3,000 up when you combine with her 20,000 lead in Indiana.  Quite negligible indeed.