Can we put a list together of all the states where Obama won "WHITE" Working class voters?

[Quixote1818]

because I am going to throw up if I hear Hillary say Obama can't win white voters one more time. I did find these two articles:



From DailyKOS:

Hillary Wins the rustbelt (Ohio, Penn, maybe Mich?), and Obama wins the heartland (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana?). He also won the white working class in Virginia/Maryland as well. note: Obama's actually polling even, or ahead of Clinton in Michigan currently. But what this all suggest is, it doesn't mean, he "can't win" those "rustbelt states" in the General (

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/11012/4636/77/5...


From WSJ:

Sen. Clinton won them in Georgia, Missouri and New York, while Sen. Obama captured the white working-class male vote in New Hampshire, California, Maryland and Virginia.

So, here is the list I have so far:

Virginia
Maryland
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
California
Maryland
Minnesota

I suspect he also won the White Working Class Males in:

Illinois
Idaho
Washington
Utah
Colorado
Nebraska
Wyoming
Kansas
North Dakota
Hawaii
Alaska
Vermont
Nebraska
Connecticut

And I suspect he will win them in:

Montana
Oregon
South Dakota
Maine

He might have won them in:

Nevada

[Nitrogenica]

1. Minnesota. Barack supporters are everywhere here.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Minnesota is a caucus state, so it doesn't matter.

:sarcasm:

[NJSecularist]

12. Minnesota's caucus had 7% turnout.

Minnesota's caucus is not indicative of anything in the general election.

[Justitia]

33. What a riot...only in your mind. "Minnesotans flock to caucuses in huge numbers"

"Minnesotans flock to caucuses in huge numbers"

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/15337916.html

But, since your candidate didn't win Minnesota, I understand why you might try to cover that up:

"Packed state caucuses go for Obama, Romney"

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/15331171.html

[NJSecularist]

35. 7% turnout is a huge number?

Ohio had a 40% turnout. Pennsylvania had a 32% turnout. Indiana had a 36% turnout. North Carolina had a 32% turnout.

[Justitia]

36. Did you not read the articles??? See, I provide links. RECORD TURNOUT

[NJSecularist]

38. Who cares what the article says? The caucus had 7% turnout. That is a terrible turnout.

And just shows you how flawed the caucus system is. Look at the most recent primaries. 40% in Ohio. 32% in Pennsylvania. 36% in Indiana.

And yet 7% turnout is record turnout? :crazy: :crazy:

[Justitia]

41. Your 7% number is fiction. I provided actual links. You tell tall tales.

[NJSecularist]

42. LOL

Here's my proof: http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

How about yours?

Do you have any proof to dispute my 7% turnout claim?

[Justitia]

45. LOL - one lonely professors ESTIMATES that he acknowledges DO NOT come from Secretaries of State

[NJSecularist]

50. Could you be any more dishonest?

Here are the numbers from the Secretary of State: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/election_result_stats.pdf

Look at the registered voter numbers in the state as of 2006 from that PDF file: 3,727,000
What does GMU say are the amount of registered voters in Minnesota? 3,712,351

Total registered voters in the state of Minnesota: 3,712,351
Total turnout in the Minnesota caucus: 269,059

You can do math, right? Divide those numbers up.

You get 7.2%. Just like I said.

Can you prove otherwise? I'll be waiting for proof that the Minnesota caucus turnout wasn't 7.2%.

[Justitia]

57. Could YOU be more dishonest - this is '08, NOT '06, this is a RECORD YEAR

And your lonely professor's report states right off the bat that his are simply ESTIMATES based on POPULATION, not even registered voters.

Nice try, but you are going to have to simply suck it up that Hillary Clinton cannot win a caucus because she has absolutely no organizing ability and cannot motivate voters to turn out for her.

[NJSecularist]

61. So you are saying the turnout could have been even lower than 7%?

If you add registered voters to the previous 3,712,351 total registered voters figure from 2006, and then you divided it with the actual caucus-goers that showed up that day, 269,059, you would get an even lower turnout.

I don't think you know what you are talkig about, quite frankly.

I just gave you the accurate numbers from the Secretary of State website. Add a few hundred thousand voters as you say since it is a record year. It diminishes the turnout number even more. :rofl: :rofl:

[Justitia]

63. I see you subscribe to "Hillary Math". IOW, DELUSIONAL

She LOST - Get Over It

[NJSecularist]

66. If Hillary Math is actual verifiable data, then, yes, I subscribe to Hillary Math.

You've yet to provide any solid figures to prove your hypothesis. I've provided numbers from the Secretary of State's Office. You've provided your own wishful thinking.

Who should I believe? The SOS or your own wishful thinking? :rofl:

[Justitia]

70. No wonder you picked the wrong horse.

[NJSecularist]

75. When are you going to show your proof of the turnout figures? n/t

[Justitia]

78. Your assertion, your burden of proof

[NJSecularist]

82. I showed my proof. Now it's your turn. n/t

[Justitia]

85. Found my own professor, a REAL one FROM MINNESOTA: 2004 turnout = 77%!

See, I used actual presidential election years, not midterms like you.

http://politicsandgovernance.org/reports/2006/Minnesota_Voters_Turnout.pdf

[NJSecularist]

88. What the hell are you talking about?

You do know the difference between a general election and a caucus, right?

Are you really trying to equate the turnout of the president election in 2004 with a 7% turnout caucus on Super Tuesday in 2008 in Minnesota?

You are wrapping yourself into a circle of illogical premises. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Justitia]

91. YOU said the MN caucus was not "representative of anything in the general election"

And I proved to you that record turnouts in caucuses are DEFINITELY indicative of high turnouts in the general election

[NJSecularist]

92. 7% turnout in a caucus is a record turnout?

And you have not proved to me the correlation between record turnouts in caucus and record turnouts in general election. I'll be waiting for that explanation too.

[Justitia]

94. Press report: RECORD TURNOUT (caucus night)

[NJSecularist]

98. A journalist can say whatever they like. I have the actual hard numbers to back up my claim.

The 7% turnout number in the Minnesota caucuses (which you've yet to dispute) is nothing compared to the turnout in states such as Ohio (40%), Pennsylvania (32%), Indiana (36%) and North Carolina (32%). Which, again, you've yet to dispute.

When are you going to back up your opinions with facts instead of anecdotal evidence?

[woolldog]

99. why the focus on the number of

total registered voters in Minnesota?

Seems like the correct metric is the total number of registered Democrats.

[NJSecularist]

55. Are you going to come back to back up your lies? n/t

[Justitia]

58. I've unmasked your DISTORTIONS. Face it buddy, she lost.

[NJSecularist]

62. Distortions?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The only one who is distorting anything is you. I've given you the accurate registration numbers from the Secretary of State. Yet I'm spinning and distorting? :crazy: :crazy:

[Justitia]

65. I'm guessing you have a reading comprehension problem. You probably think she's winning.

[NJSecularist]

69. You've yet to dispute any of my points.

I'm still waiting.

[Justitia]

71. Oh I most certainly did. But keep waiting, maybe she'll win this thing after all - ROFLMAO!

[NJSecularist]

76. You didn't dispute anything.

I'm still waiting. Any day now..

[Justitia]

79. Do you dispute SHE LOST???

[NJSecularist]

81. Why do you keep changing the subject?

I'm still waiting for you to dispute my claim. You've yet to do it.

[Justitia]

89. MN turnout 2004: 77% "Minnesota led the country (in turnout)"

http://politicsandgovernance.org/reports/2006/Minnesota_Voters_Turnout.pdf

I can only imagine what the 2008 election numbers must be

[NJSecularist]

90. I asked you twice. Do you know the difference between a general election and a caucus?

Did you graduate high school yet?

[Justitia]

93. Your original assertion was about caucuses in relation to the GE. And you were wrong.

Try to keep up.

[NJSecularist]

95. What?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You are wrapping yourself in a circle here.

I'm still waiting for you to prove the correlation between "high caucus turnout" (7% in your mind is high turnout) and high general election turnout.

[Justitia]

97. Why bother - SHE LOST, GET OVER IT - any way you slice it

[NJSecularist]

105. I'm still waiting for you to prove any of your points. ANY of them.

You've yet to prove anything.

[Justitia]

108. My point is....SHE LOST. Do you dispute that?

[NJSecularist]

111. My point is.. that wasn't the question. Quit deflecting. n/t

[Justitia]

112. SHE LOST

[SoCalDem]

125. Reminiscent of having toddlers in the house, isn't it?

Why. Mommy?
Because
But why Mommy?
Because
rinse & repeat

:rofl:

[Happyhippychick]

2. I seem to recall that he won Iowa....

[grannylib]

3. And the GE is NOT THE SAME as the primaries/caucuses

When he's running against McSame Old, Same Older, and not against Senator Clinton, I think he'll do just fine among even older, white, working class, less than $50K/yr women like me :-)

[Kittycat]

4. Illinois

[Quixote1818]

5. Of course! Don't know why I forgot Illinois. nt

[NJSecularist]

13. He only won White Democrats by 7 points in his home state.

Not exactly a glowing endorsement for an incumbent senator by White Democrats.

[ClassWarrior]

17. So, in other words Obama won white Dems in IL by like 54-46? Sounds like...

...a blowout :nuke: to me.

NGU.

[NJSecularist]

18. 8 points is a blowout?

It really shows how terrible Obama's appeal is to White Democrats when he can only win the white Democratic vote in his home state by 8 points.

Hillary won the white Democratic vote in her home state by 30 points.

[ClassWarrior]

19. I see you're avoiding my question below. But you leapt on the one...

...that allows you to race-bait some more.

NGU.

[NJSecularist]

22. Analyzing the facts is race baiting? n/t

[ClassWarrior]

26. Weasel words make it invisible?

NGU.

[Justitia]

37. Do you just pull these numbers out of your ass?

[NJSecularist]

84. Go look at the Illinois exit polls:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225978

Are you incapable of doing research?

[Justitia]

117. Exit polls are bullshit, besides SHE LOST ILLINOIS.

[NJSecularist]

134. That's the first time I've ever heard that exit polls should be completely discounted

Must be the new Obama logic... ignore any countering evidence that doesn't show that Obama is the messiah. :rofl: :rofl:

[bunnies]

6. NH was due to the weeping.

Dont let anybody tell you different. Obama would have won here if not for that.

[NJSecularist]

14. Obama would lose New Hampshire today too.

His allure to independents is all but gone.

[Window]

7. Someone posted a detailed list earlier. I'll see if I can locate it.

[Window]

9. The list can be found here in a post by zulchzulu.

Post #20

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5890535

It deserves a thread of its own.

[Quixote1818]

10. Thanks for the link. Yes, it does deserve a post of its own. nt

[Window]

131. You're welcome.

Peace:thumbsup:

[zabet]

11. Ahem!

"He won 52% of whites in VA. That meant, given how he does worst with white working folks, that he lost white working voters in VA. His slim majority came from affluent whites. He won 42% of whites in MD. How did he win the white working class when he got only 42% even when affluent whites are counted? :crazy: Wisconsin is Virginia redux. He won 54% of whites overall. That means he lost the white working class. He lost whites in NH (36-39). That means he lost the white working class, for reasons stated earlier about his strength among whites being with affluent "latte liberal" whites. Ditto California, where he lost whites by 1. He won 55% of whites in Utah. It is unlikely, again, that he won white working class folks there. In CT he narrowly lost whites overall by 1. Bzztt, CT doesn't make the list either as a white working class win for him. Nevada? He lost whites overall by 18 there.

Minnesota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, North Dakota, and Alaska all held sham caucuses. There are no caucuses in the general election. The fact they need to cherry pick caucuses for "proof" that he can do well with whites is in and of itself very damning. Take another look at those states as well by percentage of black population. MN is 4% black, ID is 0.8% black, WA is 4% black, CO is 5% black, NE is 5% African American, Wyoming's black population is 1%, KS is 7% black, ND is 1% black, and AK is 5% black. Even if we accept that sham caucuses with 1.9-5% turnout represent the will of the people there (they don't as Washington's primary and Texas' primary both proved) it doesn't answer the real question. So he can win the white vote in states where there is no racial tension because they are monoracial. What does that prove about his chances to win places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri, Arkansas, etc.? States where race is not an issue prove that race will not hurt him in states where it is one? :crazy: The fact this list is full of such states is sad and scary. They can't point to a state which has a diverse population where he won the white vote because Virginia and his home state of Illinois are the only ones that fit that bill.

Here is the real list probably won them: Illinois, Hawaii, Vermont (the whitest state in the country). So other than his home states he won the white working class in a primary only in Vermont...

Here is a list of states who held primaries where he lost the white working class vote: NH, SC, FL, AL, AZ, CA, CT, DE, GA, MA, MO, NJ, NM, OK, TN, UT, LA, MD, VA, WI, TX, OH, RI, MS, PA, NC, and IN. Get it? He loses the white working class everywhere when they have a chance to show up and vote. The places where he wins the white vote are, aside from a handful of exceptions (VA, WI, IL, HI, and VT) are caucuses that are compromised of a small number of affluent whites. A big reason he wins them in the first place is because these working class voters are not "present" in caucuses."

[NJSecularist]

15. Good post. Most of Obama's wins with the white vote were in sham caucuses.

Wonder why the Obamacult isn't acknowledging your post? Hmmm...

[ClassWarrior]

16. How long have you known that caucuses exist?

NGU.

[NJSecularist]

21. For a while. Do you know that the average turnout in a sham caucus is around 5%? n/t

[Dr Fate]

23. Hillary should have complained about that before the contest, not after she lost it.

If she has a problem with the rules, now is hardly the time to bring that up.

[ClassWarrior]

24. What's "a while?" Before this election cycle?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Avoiding the question again?

NGU.

[NJSecularist]

29. I knew about caucuses ever since I first got into politics. Back in 1992.

What's your point again?

[ClassWarrior]

138. So please describe your efforts to get them eliminated during the past 15 years.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

141. You there, NJ?

NGU.

[demwing]

27. Sham caucus? Is that defined as a caucus that Hillary lost? /nt

[NJSecularist]

30. No, it's defined by a caucus that only has a 7% or lower turnout rate. n/t

[demwing]

34. LOL, like Nevada?

Where Clinton won, but Obama walked away with the extra delegate. Ha! Yeah...that must have BURNED.

[Justitia]

46. There you go again with those fictional "estimates"

[NJSecularist]

53. I proved you wrong 3 times in this thread already.

Where is your proof that I have made any fictional statements?

[Justitia]

59. No, you keep referencing the hypothesis of one lonely professor using ESTIMATES

of POPULATION, not actual records from Secretaries of State and their election rolls

[NJSecularist]

80. I just gave up the numbers from the Secretary of State!

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/election_result_stats.pdf

Total Registered voters in 2006: 3,727,000.

Add a couple hundred thousand voters to that count, because, in your own words, turnout was increased from 2006 to 2008.

For the sake of argument, we'll say that the amount of registered voters in 2008 was 3,927,000.

Take the number of caucus goers - 269,059 - and divide that by the 2008 registration number ( 3,927,000), and you get an even lower turnout number than the GMU professor showed: 6.8%. A decrease from the 7.2% turnout that the GMU predicted.

You aren't exactly helping out your argument all that much. :rofl: :rofl:

[Justitia]

96. Sorry, you don't have any numbers from 2008, only estimates. And...she lost.

[NJSecularist]

101. You keep dodging my question.

Would or would not the voter registration numbers in 2008 be greater than the voter registration numbers in 2006 (3,712,000)??

[Justitia]

102. Absolutely - but hey, they aren't all DEMOCRATS - duh. Primaries, remember?

[NJSecularist]

104. Turnout is a standardized metric among all parties.

Nice dodge, though.

You've made my point, yet you keep denying it.

You're confused. You may want to go to bed.

[Justitia]

107. Just like the Hillary campaign, always moving those "metrics" around. She LOST.

And that isn't changing. But yes, it's late and this is pointless, it's not going to change anything - your candidate LOST whatever "metric" you employ.

Good night.

[NJSecularist]

109. When you wake up in the morning, start by proving - with facts - any of the points you made in...

this thread.

I'll still waiting for one semblance of proof.

[Justitia]

113. I don't need to prove anything to you, the proof is in the pudding - SHE LOST

[NJSecularist]

114. Whether she lost or not is irrelevant to any of the points made in this thread.

Quit deflecting and provide some proof for your points.

[Justitia]

115. Everything you wrote is irrelevant - SHE LOST. The End.

[NJSecularist]

118. Good night. Make sure you provide proof for your points in the morning. n/t

[Justitia]

120. Tell ya what, we'll come back to this when she's the nominee - deal?

[ClassWarrior]

140. Wow, an arbitrary cut-off point?

NGU.

[Justitia]

39. And you keep completely making these numbers up.

[NJSecularist]

44. Making what numbers up?

Here are the turnout numbers: http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

Next time you may want to check the facts before you accuse others of making stuff up.

[Justitia]

47. Noooo, that is one professor's "ESTIMATE" that he acknowledges DOES NOT come from official state

records via Secretaries of State

Nice try diminishing caucuses because YOUR GIRL simply can't win them (unlike her husband).

[NJSecularist]

51. Here are the official numbers from the SOS as of 2006:

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/election_result_stats.pdf

It turns out that the professor's estimate of registered voters is consistent with that of the Secretary of State.

How about doing some research before you call people liars?

[Justitia]

60. Keep spinning. HELLO, IT'S NOT THE YEAR 2006 ANYMORE.

[NJSecularist]

64. Yes, the total number of registered voters increased.

Which would make the total % of turnout even lower than the 7% figure I mentioned if we had accurate 2008 voter registration numbers. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Justitia]

67. So you admit you DON'T have any numbers from 2008 - duh.

Now, will you admit SHE LOST?

[NJSecularist]

73. Did you take a high school math class?

If there is a larger amount of registered voters in 2008 than 2006, and we have a static number to draw from (aka: the number of caucus-goers on Super Tuesday in Minnesota), we can reasonably conclude that the turnout number will be lower when we take the static number (the number of caucus goers on Super Tuesday in Minnesota) and divide them by the estimated increased turnout in 2008.

Do I need to go down to a middle school level for you to understand?

[Justitia]

77. Why don't you use REAL NUMBERS? Oh yeah - that wouldn't work out for you would it???

It's all those assumptions and "reasonable conclusions" and "if"s and "estimated turnouts"

Like I said - Hillary Magic Math, pulled right out of yer ass

And guess what - SHE STILL LOST

[NJSecularist]

86. I gave you the Secretary of State numbers.

I made nothing up. I have used verifiable data to prove my point throughout this thread, while you've done nothing of the sort.

[Justitia]

100. Not for this election you didn't. I'm sorry you can't get used to the idea SHE LOST.

[NJSecularist]

103. Wow.

Would the 2008 voter registration numbers be higher than the 2006 voter registration numbers, as you claimed in one of your previous posts above (due to record turnout)?

You are spinning yourself in circles here. :crazy:

[Justitia]

110. SHE LOST

[NJSecularist]

116. Keep deflecting like you've done all thread.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Justitia]

119. Nope, you just REUSE to accept REALITY, like any of this is changing anything - SHE'S DONE.

[Justitia]

43. More FICTION

[NJSecularist]

56. Do I need to prove you wrong a 4th time?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Justitia]

72. You didn't prove anything the first time, except you live on Planet Denial

[MonkeyFunk]

122. No

you've been proven wrong again and again and again, and you deflect each time you're challenged on it.

[Justitia]

123. No, she really did lose.

[MonkeyFunk]

129. Not yet

but that's not the topic under discussion, is it?

OBAMA DID COCAINE!

What if I just yell that to every reply? It's off-topic, and has the added benefit of being truer than your assertion.

[Justitia]

130. Uh, she lost Minnesota a while ago....on Super Tuesday

HILLARY KILLED HER LOVER VINCE FOSTER!

(2 can play that game)

[NJSecularist]

135. What does that have to do anything?

For the record, you've yet to dispute any of my claims. Still.

[NJSecularist]

136. double post

double post

[SoCalDem]

127. Amazing, isn't it?? Bill did JUST FINE with all those dastardly caucuses ..TWICE

and he never mentioned them to Hillary??:rofl:

we KNEW they could not do math, but I thought they could read..I was wrong:rofl:

[Drunken Irishman]

121. haha, you really are a bitter tool, aren't you?

It was a cute ruse your Obama support, but it's quite obvious you never really liked him at all. Your hatred and subsequent bitterness over the fact he's about to wrap up the nomination has made you a small, pathetic soul and I actually pity your posts when I'm not laughing at how utterly foolish they are.

You remind me of a friend I have who I'll attend Utah Jazz games with. If the Jazz are down 15 with 2 minutes left, he will rationalize any type of comeback. In fact, he won't enter reality until the final buzzer and even then he continues believing had this or that taken place, the Jazz would've won.

But I can understand why you're so angry. I mean, you falsely supported Obama and dropped him and the candidate you attached yourself to turned out to be a major loser. The ironic thing is that prior to your total change of heart (whether real or not), you brought up some solid arguments to point to why Clinton would not win the nomination. And yet now you embrace Clinton and ignore her true flaws. Flaws that cost her the nomination.

Here is a word of advice: No matter how many times you try to say Obama can't win, it won't change a damn thing. Clinton lost her chance when she could not close the deal in Indiana, even with all the crap Obama went through. She blew it and it's over. Accept it, move on and realize Obama will be the nominee.

[Dr Fate]

20. In this economy a lot of college educated folks get working class pay-checks.

I think he gets working class votes- Hillary/media has a certain stereotype in mind when they imagine who the "working class" is- and it doesnt include minorities, young workers, the growing college educated working class or working class people who are socially liberal, etc...

What they really mean to say instead of "working class" is "conservative swing-voters."

[demwing]

25. UTAH /nt

[NJSecularist]

31. All 10 voters in Utah?

Wow, what an accomplishment. :crazy:

[demwing]

32. Obama took 57% of the Democratic vote in Utah

75,000 votes.

Minimize away, but remember that Hillary took only 39%, or 51000 votes.

In other words, he smoked her like a big fatty at a Grateful Dead show.

[NJSecularist]

40. Losing by 24,000 votes is getting smoked?

Maybe in the Obamacult World, but not the real world.

I can't believe that the cultists are resorting to Utah as evidence of Obama's success with whites. :rofl:

[demwing]

48. Yeah, losing by 18% points is getting SMOKED

Like a ham on easter, like a noob in WOW, like a cigarette at an AA meeting, like a Northern Californian salmon, baby!

S.M.O.K.E.D

[NJSecularist]

52. If a 24,000 vote win in Utah is the best argument for Obama's electability among whites in the GE...

we are in very big trouble in the general election.

[demwing]

68. Strawman. Who said anything about "best" argument?

[Justitia]

49. Sour Grapes / Sore Loser

[NJSecularist]

54. Now you're name calling after I proved you wrong 3 times?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Justitia]

74. The only thing you proved is that you'll desperately cling to anything, like Hillary

Wake up, it's OVER

[Forkboy]

126. You are in for a rough time here over the next couple weeks.

You're a prime candidate for a colorful crash and burn.

[casus belli]

83. That's probably what Hillary thought too

Some people have apparently learned nothing from her mistakes.

[FrenchieCat]

87. Handy guide on this!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5884830&mesg_id=5884830

[demwing]

106. thanks FrenchieCat! /nt

[SoCalDem]

124. Most of the ones she "won" are probably going to vote for McCain anyway

at least since texas..

[MonkeyFunk]

128. Why do you only show data

for working-class white MALES?

Is it because showing the REAL data would prove that Clinton was right?

Do you guys ever even stop and think "gee, this is dishonest - I wonder if I should post it?" before you click submit? I think not.

[Jawja]

132. Clinton's claim is race baiting,

pure and simple. What she is saying loud and clear is that Obama won't get the white vote because she believes she did and somehow that translates into Obama won't get the white vote against McCain. More basically: "He's BLACK; I'm WHITE: I can WIN."

It is dispicable, desperate and divisive politics, to say the least. She is making a complete ASS out of herself now when it's clear that she is NOT going to be the nominee.

[NJSecularist]

137. No, it is not race baiting, it is simply stating facts.

Hillary: I have done good with the white vote. I have done especially great with the white working class vote.

Those are all verifiable and accurate claims. That is not race baiting.

[Vinca]

133. How about white poor voters? White rich voters? White disabled voters?

Yellow working class? Yellow rich? Beige working class? Club-footed rich? This is so idiotic and so anti-Democratic it makes me ill.

[MonkeyFunk]

139. It's wrong to dissect the demographics

of voters? It's always been done - what's wrong with doing so?

Have you ever seen anybody discuss how well Obama does with african-americans? Is it racist to note that?