LiberalTimes.com: Obama could win southern states.

[CitizenRob]

Okay, I’m getting some major good vibes from Obama lately. The man seems to be the only “clean” candidate. His only (possible) blemish is that he spent parts of his childhood in Pakistan.

Today comes news that Obama took a large step today in sounding more like the President he very well could be. Showing his understanding of how the Constitution works he laid down the law with the Bush Administration stating:

"We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven’t even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don’t have our support, and you don’t have our authorization for another war."

HuffingtonPost has the entire speech available online.

It’s my personal opinion that Hillary is a nonstarter for the Democrats. There is no possible way that she could carry the Southern states. I’m sure you’re thinking “But Obama is black, and we know how the South feels about that….”

I’ve given a lot of thought to this subject and did some research and I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama capturing the southern black vote, combined with the minority white democrat vote, in the south could create a winnable situation that no white Democrat could ever hope for.

Check out these numbers from the US census.

1. Mississippi 37% black
2. Louisianna 33% black
3. Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina 30% black

With the exception of Maryland, the four other states went for George W. Bush in the 2004 election. (CNN)

It looks to me like it is possible that the black vote in the south may be the one thing that can undo the Republican fundamentalist voting machine. At the very least it could potentially put states that were previously firmly Republican into play.

As a result it is my belief that strategically Barack Obama may be the smartest choice we have for a candidate. And he’s not a bad choice: he’s smart and articulate, and sure to run this country well. He's been against the war since it started. Despite his being anti-war his voting record is not anti-troops. He's voted for the spending needed to continue the safe operation of a war already in progress. While this may seem a contradiction on some levels, the alternative is even less attractive.

It is imperative that we provide the ground support to guarantee fair elections in states with the potential for high black turnout. The boxing programs of past elections that we’ve seen run by Republican Secretaries of State must be stopped if we are to win the South this time around.

---
Reprinted with permission to Democratic Underground by the author and owner of LiberalTimes.com

[DURHAM D]

1. So you want Obama to win the primary for one reason and one reason only?

BTW the south does not matter - out of play and irrelevant.

[CitizenRob]

3. I want a Democrat to win, and I think Obama is the one that can.

The south is not irrelevant. They hold a large chunk of the electoral college, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a candidate that could not only appeal to us as Democrats, but appeal to enough of the South to win there too?

[CitizenRob]

5. BTW, that's not to say there aren't other dems that could win.

I'm sure there are. I don't personally feel Hillary could carry the country as a whole though.

[pnwmom]

2. If we got more midwestern states and retained the states Kerry got,

we wouldn't need any southern states. And Hillary could do well in the midwest.

[CitizenRob]

4. Why discount the south?

The people in the south are Americans. They are citizens of this country with the right to vote. Their opinions do matter, and they are capable of the same depth of conversation and thought as you or I.

If you look at the demographics of the south it is winnable with the right candidate. Obama is a candidate that could possibly put the south into play. Why not have a candidate that puts the entire country into play, why would anybody in their right mind look at the electoral college and say "we don't need those 130 electoral votes to win!" I guarantee you that the Republicans are looking at the entire board and are strategically determining which votes they could put into play. I'm saying we have that ability with Obama.

[pnwmom]

6. I don't see why Obama would do better in the South than Hillary.

The young women I know in the south like her, and the guys who don't wouldn't be voting for Obama either.

[CitizenRob]

7. Because of the likely high black turnout for a black candidate.

The best indicator will be the primaries. It'll be interesting to see how having a larger black demographic changes the results for a Democrat vs. Democrat race in Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia when you have several whit candidates vs a black candidate. The only problem is that there would be a skewing of numbers due to the dilution of votes across the spectrum of white candidates when compared to having a single black candidate where it would be easier to measure an upswing due to demographic differences.

[pnwmom]

8. But there could well be a high female turnout, especially young females,

for HRC.

[Tipring]

9. Forget it

Obamma is Vice President material, he would be as polarizing as Hillary on the top of the ticket. We need HRC to go back to the Senate and become Senate Majority Leader. We need Harry to either step down or retire. We need John Edwards to be the top of the ticket and either Obamma (black vote) or Richardson (Hispanic) to bring them to the polls.
Edwards is the one they fear the most, hence the exceptionally vicious attacks on him and Liz early on by the Republicans.