Posted on 10/04/2008 6:47:19 AM PDT by george76
More relevant are the baroque delegate rules and strong-arm tactics that helped him to victory.
A recent Associated Press story glibly proclaimed that “deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House.” The story relied on an AP-Yahoo poll that posed questions regarding race to white Democrats.
One is left to wonder why questions regarding race were not posed to black Democrats ...
It’s quite troubling, really, that mainstream media outlets are focusing upon “racial misgivings” factors, while all but ignoring the major divides among voting constituencies that occurred during the nominating contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. These rifts revolved much more around exactly how Barack Obama received the Democratic nomination than any sort of racial divide or even sour grapes.
In fact, there are dozens of voter groups which claim outright that Barack Obama’s nomination was garnered illegitimately and with decidedly undemocratic methods. These are the PUMA people, the NoBama folks, the caucus-fraud investigators, and a whole lot of others who fervently believe that Barack Obama is not the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party electorate, but the nominee of the party elite and caucus strong-arm tactics.
Howard Dean and his minions who control the Democratic Party apparatus should examine the methods used by Obama to grab the nomination and his manipulation of the caucus system, and take a long, serious look inward to see if their party still deserves the adjective “democratic.”
In the Democratic nominating contest, some votes count more than others.
Hillary’s white-woman status hurt her. If she had been a black woman, she might have held the vast majority of black female voters, which would have probably given her the nomination.
As the contest continued, however, black women voted their race, not their gender.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
I never knew the dems gave loyal districts more delegates. When did this begin?
Definitely favors a black candidate. Truly an affirmative action nominee.
The big issue is on page 2 of the article - the charge that the Obama supporters won the caucus states by bullying the Hillary supporters. If that's true, Obama could expect to have more trouble winning those states in a secret ballot general election.For that matter, Obama disproportionately got his delegates from states the Republicans would be expected to win in the general election . . . just as McCain got some of his delegates with crossover Democratic votes. Tends to make this a "purple" election.
Delusional writer.
Howard Dean is the radical who architected the Democrat's undemocratic nominating system and rebuffed Hillary's legitimate objections in order to nominate his brother Marxist.
How did they know that they were only polling white Democrats?
Surely they didn’t ‘profile’ first, did they?
Why?
Not because "he is black".
Here, let me list the reasons I have been given via email and on forums such as the PUMA sites and others.
My experiences may not be "scientific" from a polling or demographic standpoint... but I question some of the so-called scientific polls that (when you push into their supporting data) use a fairly large disproportionate number of democrats vs republicans...and then when Obama is winning by 2-5% the results are trumpeted as some kind of "break through" for him.
- THE WAY MANY OF THEM FEEL THAT OBAMA, THE MSM, THE DNC, AND OTHERS TREATED HILLARY. They feel that Obama, the MSM, the DNC, NOW, etc. have shown their true colors and that their commitment to women and breaking through the glass ceiling is a sham.
- OBAMA'S TIES TO WRIGHT, AYERS, & REZKO. Many of them know intrinsically that these people, with whom Obama has willfully built his political career, are not friends of this Republic...even the more socialist republic some of them want to see instituted.
- OBAMA'S STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW HE WOULD HANDLE FOREIGN AFFAIRS HAVE DEEPLY TROUBLED SOME OF THEM. Many of these people, despite their liberal leanings, like Liberman for example, want America protected from and want to defeat the abject enemies of this nation.
- JOHN MCCAIN IS VIEWED AS A MAVERICK BY THESE PEOPLE WHO WILL REACH ACROSS THE AISLE TO THEM. They feel that McCain is an acceptable alternative in their desire to defeat Obama and set up Hillary for 2012.
- SARAH PALIN ON THE TICKET. This goes back to the first reason. Even though her views are in direct opposition to their own, and even though they see the threat she poses to Hillary in 2012 if a McCain-Palin ticket is elected, there is something about her home-spun, and in the face of Obama ways that a lot of these people like, and they are committed to their ideal of breaking the so-called glass ceiling.
Anyhow, based on my own experiences with people from all over the nation via my sites, I believe that McCain-Palin are very well situated to win, and potentially win bigger than the MSM, the pundits, and the DNC imagine.
...or, more likely, they do see it in their internal data and they fear it.
VOTE SARAH AND NOBAMA MOVEMENT SWEEPS THE COUNTRYOne Democratic primary voter with a strong background in mathematics, Dr. Lynette Long, has launched a probe into the lopsided caucus victories of Barack Obama, which indeed garnered the nomination. Her conclusion? "I’ve spent the past two months immersed in data from the 2008 Democratic caucuses. After studying the procedures and results from all fourteen caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process."
The data compiled by Dr. Long, along with the video-recorded testimonials of dozens of caucus-goers, are indeed convincing. According to Dr. Long, in a personal interview, reports from caucus attendees are pretty horrifying at worst, wholly undemocratic at best. Female Clinton supporters reported being called “c**ts” and other sexual epithets, being spat upon by Obama supporters, being threatened physically, and an overall environment of hostility. Not exactly the democratic process to which we are accustomed.
These are the Alinsky/Bolshevik tactics that Obamaniacs used to intimidate caucus voters -- bullying them into fear of voting against the Black guy. And this is proof of why the secret ballot is essential to honest voting. Obama's strong-arm tactics won him every caucus state except Nevada, while Hillary! won almost all of the major secret ballot states and the overall popular vote. One is left to ponder the number of caucus votes that Obama received under duress.
It should therefore be no surprise that Obama wants to end secret balloting in union elections. Under his system, workers could no longer vote their consciences in safe anonymity. Instead, workers and their families would have to face open intimidation and threats from pro-union thugs before, during and long after casting their public votes. Welcome to Obama's brave new world of "Freedom."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.