Reply #14: The question isn't whether misogyny & racism "still exist" but R they DECISIVE in this election?

[cloudythescribbler]

On that question, one might try to look at the situation empirically rather than reasoning on the basis, essentially, of one's own gut instinct on the question (while not ignoring the latter). Neither the "south" nor "middle America" are monolithic. And the election is not in a vacuum, but likely going up against McCain.

Polls and anecdotal reports suggest that Hillary Clinton at the top of the Democratic ticket is JUST what the Repukes need to motivate their mass base of voters, many of whom are dispirited or are dissatisfied with McCain (for whatever reasons). Although it is unlikely, there might even be a breakaway candidacy (although I suspect McCain will have the smarts to have someone in the VP spot, possibly Huckabee, who will help stave off a 'spoiler' threat from the right). Remember that with all the grumbling, Repukes are apt to 'fall in line' when November rolls around.

Obama does not appear to engender the same kind of sentiment in the opposition, reflected in both polls and anecdotal evidence. "Racism" is a huge, difficult to fully grasp concept (or web of concepts) that does not just refer to one specific sentiment and certainly not to one specific kind of result. My own instinct on this (and I am being open about when I rely on instinct), looking at past elections and such, is that the greatest hard core of white chauvinism has already either given up on politics, or, more often, already gravitated to the Repuglican Party. (Indeed the term 'Repuglican', in response to decades of deployment of the term "Democrat Party" as an epithet, has become increasingly apt over time. There used to be a powerful Sargent/Javits wing of the Republican Party and even a Pete McCloskey/Paul Goodman wing (though small). These have become largely an at least benign memory.)

In fact, both opinion polls and results from elections and caucuses show significant support in "middle America" for Obama, including his successes within Illinois (which is where the proverbial 'Peoria' is located). Unless some kind of media feeding frenzy intervenes, I would expect Obama would carry ALL of the states Gore did (including FL) as well as some new ones, like Colorado and Ohio. Even if Florida is stolen (again), he could still manage to achieve victory.

One particular that is worth noting. It has been repeated ad nauseum that Latinos won't vote for a black candidate -- but for those who remember the 80s, Jesse Jackson was VERY competitive in the Latino community/ies. Remember that Hillary Clinton is EXTREMELY well-known and Obama a new face, and that memories of the Clinton years (of widespread prosperity) are quite positive for many. Hillary Clinton started out running well ahead of Obama among African Americans, and I think that was largely for the same reasons as the relative strength she has shown in some contests at least among working class whites and Latinos. Obama, however, has been getting stronger and stronger among the latter sets of voters, having apparently won the votes of an estimated 54% to HRC's 46% of Latino votes in the 'Potomac' primary. (For some reason the press spin that as a "tie", while much narrower victories, eg NH and NV are trumpeted as major. The power of spin can often transcend that of actual numbers, if people don't call them on it.)

In my arrogant opinion, Obama runs a strong campaign, and barring some major setback should be able to outpace Hillary Clinton, and, possibly with MORE EASE, John McCain. After all, he has had to come from a standing as low as 15% in the polls in many places until recently (including TX) to become at least competitive in the 'weaker' arenae and trouncing HRC in such contests as we've seen since Tsunami Tuesday.

Somehow we should not ASSUME that the more pessimistic analysis is NECESSARILY the more "realistic".