Democrat Party Set To Implode?

Update: I should point out that black voters aren't entitled to a pass on this. They seem to be voting along race-based lines even moreso than whites. That, too, should be of concern for the Democrats.

It's impossible to see how this doesn't reverberate through the Democrat Party for some time to come.

But, among white voters, Clinton leads 41% to 27%. Among African-American voters, Obama leads 66% to 16%.

All the talk of a racial divide in America can no longer be turned into political fodder and aimed at Republicans. Okay, it can and will be in the future, but still.

Of course the Democrat White establishment will simply seize on it to further their agenda on political correctness. But I doubt they want to be telling their White base they require sensitivity training in an election year.

Blacks who have been overly loyal to the Democrats for years can't look at these numbers and feel good. There's clearly something wrong in the Liberal utopia known as the Democrats big tent.

Comments

[iftheshoefits]

It could get a lot worse, depending upon how certain people conduct themselves. All of this race-baiting on behalf of the Clintons thus far is like pouring gasoline all over the political landscape. And all it will take is one truly incendiary racial comment (like we haven't yet seen) to light the match and really set the whole thing off.

I'm not saying this will happen nor do I want it to happen, but there are enough Democrats and liberal agitators in the middle of this that are certainly capable of letting something really nasty fly in the heat of the moment.

The two candidates responsible should really step outside the moment and try to cool this thing down, because their apparatchiks are playing with fire...

[CK MacLeod]

It's an odd situation where, on the one hand, observers all seemed to expect South Carolina Blacks to fall in line behind BO's candidacy, but on the other hand BO is supposed to represent in his very person, if elected, the transcendance of racial divides. BO seemed very aware that even within the Democratic Party, much less the larger electorate, becoming the "black candidate" would be a one-way ticket to electoral irrelevance, but its local relevance in an upcoming state along with an inability to enforce tight lips against Clintonian provocations threatens to turn him into just such a "minority standard bearer." Like more than a few Republicans, white Democrats become inordinately pleased with themselves whenever they have a chance to "cross over" the racial divide. Enough of them exist for a racialized yet "historic" primary election to remain a relatively close call, especially as long as Edwards is in the race, but it could terminate the Obama candidacy. The Clintons hope that any ill will and, more important, unhappy voters can be brought back onto the, um, plantation by election time. Anyway, they're not in long-term mode right now, they're in save-your-ass mode.

Good luck!

[K]

I would like to see all ethnic, religious, and genders groups look at issues and candidates w/o regard to party, color, etc. I would also like to win the lottery even w/o buying a ticket.

IMO black vote will again go 80% or more for the Democrat no matter how ClintonObama scraps come out. Then, no matter what Hillary has done, Obama will endorse her if she is the nominee. And Hillary will endorse the nominee no matter what. Splitting the party or going third-party leads to oblivion. So you stay and endorse the person who can reward you later.

Group swings are very rare although a very good or bad candidate will sometimes cause a one-time crossover. The last big swing was the South going Republican almost 40 years ago. Usually voting patterns persist against all good sense: the Jewish vote is still Democratic although there has been no reason for decades; Catholics stay despite the abortion planks.

[TheSpartan]

That only accounts for 62% of white voters leaving a sizable amount of undecided...maybe you guys should be more concerned with the racial divide among those who supported Alan Keyes, I mean what was that? 98% to 2%?

[IslamoLlama]

If I remember, after Hurricane FEMA, the popular support among black people for the President was so low that, according to the margin of error, it was possible for non-existent people to be disapproving of our Decider.

:-p But yeah. I can totally see a big split in the party over this.

If Dan bothered to check the polls rather than bolovating endlessly, he might be interested to note that in NH, Hillary won the plurality of the woman's vote while in Iowa it was Barak carrying that field. As 96% of Iowa is white, Barak's appeal with black women wasn't deciding anything. So, if the Republicans are really pissing themselves at a Hillary Presidency, perhaps they should be encouraging their pin-ups and inflatable dutch wives to vote Obama.

[docweasel]

Just because a majority of white favor the white candidate doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. I bet if you look at the numbers supporting Jackson or Sharpton against the white candidate of the time, the numbers would have been more striking. And personally, I think those whites had a good reason to reject Jackson and Sharpton, and the only rationale blacks could have in supporting them is that they were black!

Instead, what is remarkable is that so many whites ARE supporting an unqualified, inexperienced dilettante whose only real qualification is that he IS black. Blacks are much more culpable here, in that they seem much more reluctant to back a white candidate over a black one. Identity politics is alive and well in the Dem party, and they only have themselves to blame.

[rwilymz]

"bolovating"?

There's a similar word in English, called "bloviating".

[docweasel]

re:K
Catholics stay despite the abortion planks.

Au Contraire. Kerry lost the Catholic vote to Bush in '04, despite Kerry being the first Catholic nominee since Kennedy. I believe it was the first time ever a Republican had won the Catholic vote majority.

[rwilymz]

"what is remarkable is that so many whites ARE supporting an unqualified, inexperienced dilettante whose only real qualification is that he IS black"

There's a few ways to look at that. One is the standard "non-racist" racism -- the kind favored by the left: "If the black guy is "articulate", then to dispell any rumors that I'm racist, I'm voting for him" ... even if you don't like his politics.

The second is that being an "unqualified, "inexperienced dilettante", black or white or green with orange stripes, is about 15 orders of magnitude more refreshing than yet another group-grope by the same cadre of Usual Suspects that gathers to lie to us and osculate our progeny.

[J Wheeler]

um.....It's called the Democratic Party -- thanks!

[Fred Beloit]

Here, here. But I have to agree with Bill Krystal, who found himself surprisingly defending the Clintons against this ridiculous charge that their comments were racist. I would add to that Cuomo's, of whom I am not and never have been a fan, shuckin' and jivin' comment. Haven't most whites ever used "cool", "hip", and said "man" a lot? Please, my African-American friends, let's not emulate the absurd sensitivity of the Islamists.

[chris]

Democrat/Democratic Who cares what the deadenders call it. Come November they will be hoping to capture more Electoral votes than Walter Mondale. Until then, just enjoy the party of irrelevance for what they are - funny!!

[docweasel]

heh, just calling it the "Democrat" party is at least not as bad as the leftwingnut sites: they can't bear to write out anything but "Rethuglican" or some other slur rather than actually type the words "Republican".

I wont' be offended if they start calling it the "Republic" party in retaliation for conservatives calling theirs the "Democrat" party. What's the big friggin' deal, anyway? They shouldn't have named their party a suggestive and false adjective. Its hardly "democratic", as in, literally, one person-one vote. Its the "voting bloc" party.

[Fred Beloit]

The party is called the Republican party. An individual in it is called a Republican.

If other party is called the Democratic party, the individual in it must be called a Democratic. The adjective would be Democraticic. Therefore Ole Teddy is a Democratic. If a person is a Democratic. You must call him a Democraticic person. Let's be consistent, J Wheeler.

[ME]

ZOMG!!! teh white democRATZ are more likely to vote for a white lady, and teh blacks, they're more likely to vote for a black man.

ZOMG!!!! this proves democRATZ are racists!!

How pathetic can you get? Do you even care that there are blatant gaps in your logic? I guess you'd have to understand logic to care...

[IslamoLlama]

"How pathetic can you get? Do you even care that there are blatant gaps in your logic? I guess you'd have to understand logic to care..."

When you've got a collection of people who consider a candidate's skin tone to be an actual platform issue, what do you expect? Could a large percentage of women support Hillary because of her universal health care plan or her education platform? Could Barak be popular with blacks because of his civil rights record or his position on immigration? Hell's no! It's all tits and melanine baby.

I bet Barak consistently wins the youth vote because the vast majority of young people get deep tans and listen to rap music. It's the only thing that makes sense!

[IslamoLlama]

"Therefore Ole Teddy is a Democratic."

Roosevelt was a Republican, actually.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"Therefore Ole Teddy is a Democratic."

"Roosevelt was a Republican, actually." Why yes he was and damn it's too bad we dont have men like him anymore. But I believe, and this is mostly because of the use of the word "is", that the statement refered to the democrat party's olympic swimmer Teddy Kennedy.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, as I know you know, Ole Moe, I guess I should have called Kennedy Wet Teddy instead of Ole Teddy. He is the Democraticic Democratic to whom I was referring.