Skip to main content

For a moment, ponder the unimaginable: Could Barack Obama win Mississippi this fall?

Bear with me – it’s nowhere near as implausible as you may think. I’m not saying it’s gonna happen, or that it’s even likely, or that the state is even a toss-up. But within the realm of possibility? Yes indeed.

Here’s my thinking: George Bush beat John Kerry here 59-40 in 2004. That’s a pretty good drubbing, no question about it. But blacks, who are exceptionally loyal Democratic voters, make up 36% of the population in Mississippi, the largest proportion of any state. And as we know, Barack Obama’s candidacy has sent black turnout through the roof.

For instance, exit polls show that black primary turnout spiked in South Carolina this year. African Americans made up 47% of the primary electorate in 2004 but 55% in 2008. (I use SC rather than MS as a basis for comparison because SC was contested in both years. Kerry had already wrapped up the nomination before MS voted in 2004, so those primary numbers are not meaningful.)

The black vote was also very heavy in the recent MS-01 special election (won by Democrat Travis Childers). What’s more, between the first round on April 22nd and the run-off on May 13th, turnout soared in counties with large black populations, in some instances doubling. Many people have cited not just Obama’s popularity as the cause for this outpouring of support, but the relentless GOP attacks on him as well – attacks which will surely continue, and continue to galvanize.

So what has to happen for an energized black electorate in Mississippi to make things competitive for Obama? Let’s take a look at the statewide exit polls from the 2004 general election:

Vote            Bush      Kerry
White (65%)     85%       14%
Black (34%)     10%       90%
Total           59%       40%

As you can see from the bottom line, when you multiply out the vote by race, you wind up with the exact final election day total, which says to me that these exit polls were quite accurate. Using these numbers as a baseline, here’s how Obama can get to victory:

Vote            McCain    Obama
White (60%)     80%       20%
Black (40%)      5%       95%
Total           50%       50%

Three things have to happen here - what I call the "ten, ten, ten" plan. First, the black share of the vote has to shoot up to 40%, pushing the white vote down to 60%. This would represent a shift of about ten points in the racial composition of the vote. Second, Obama has to run ten points better among blacks than Kerry did. And third, he also has to run ten points better among whites than Kerry did.

The question, of course, is whether all of these things actually can happen. As I explain above, there’s already ample reason to believe that black turnout will break all kinds of records. Similarly, with Republicans so utterly demoralized and their party all but shattered, I can definitely see the conservative white vote getting depressed. (Certainly, the GOP loss in MS-01 isn’t helping morale much.) Consequently, I think we're more likely than not to see a materially different black-white voting mix in MS on election day. Will it really shift ten points? Hard to say, as there isn't much precedent for a candidacy like Obama's, but I think it could.

The next question is, will blacks be even more loyal to Obama than they were to Kerry? This may in fact be the "easiest" part of the equation (not that any part is actually easy, though). If blacks in MS were voting for a northeastern white guy like Kerry at 90-10, then it’s surely plausible that they’ll support Obama in even greater numbers. After all, he’s the very guy who is driving African American turnout to such historic proportions.

It’s that third piece of the puzzle which is by far the most difficult. Whites in Mississippi were almost as hostile to Kerry as blacks were to Bush. I think it’s safe to say that Kerry was not exactly a great fit culturally for the South, at least as far as much of the white vote was concerned. But will Obama fare any better? As with blacks, he’d have to move the needle ten points in his favor among whites, but that is unquestionably the vastly greater challenge.

But I think it might - just might - be within the realm of possibility. In neighboring Alabama, for instance, Bush won whites in 2004 with the same margin Obama would need here, 80-19. And in 1996, Bill Clinton won 24% of the white vote in MS. Of course, Clinton was a Southerner, and as much as Kerry was a fish out of water here, he was, of course, white. For all we know, it's quite possible that Obama will do worse than Kerry did.

However, one piece of data is cause for a (very small) bit of optimism. A SurveyUSA poll of the race (the only one that I'm aware of so far) already shows Obama getting 20% of the white vote against McCain (who pulls "only" 74% of it). There may well be something of a Wilder Effect going on here - it's impossible to say. But it's a start. (The SUSA poll, incidentally, shows McCain with a 54-41 lead. But the racial balance is 65-33, and Obama wins the black vote by 83-13, which, per my thoughts above, I think is pessimistic.)

There's also the John McCain factor. Simply put, I’m not sure how well McCain will play in MS. The New Englander Bush strove mightily to portray himself as a son of the South – and with the press as willing lackeys, he succeeded. McCain can’t even pretend to pretend like George Bush did.

What’s more, McCain presents himself as the ultimate anti-pork crusader. But one man’s pork, of course, is another’s vitally important home-district project, beloved by constituents. And in few places is this view more prevalent in the deep South. In 2005, for example, Mississippi ranked second in terms of federal tax dollars spent in the state vs. revenue collected from the state. I’m not in favor of policies such as these, but that’s beside the point: The fact is, running against earmarks, while popular with an element of the wingnut base, is not going to be well-received in the Magnolia State.

I’ll also add in an extra factor that goes to Democratic turnout more generally, rather than any of these individual factors. Rep.-elect Childers in MS-01 will have to fight a rough re-election battle. Meanwhile, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, who is running for the Senate, is waging the most competitive Democratic senate campaign MS has seen in some time. These two candidates will undoubtedly help drive up Democratic turnout, just as Childers did earlier this week. And on a related note, the Obama campaign is moving forward with what looks like a monster voter registration drive throughout the country, including a focus in the South.

Obviously, it’s very easy to play with numbers and tweak them just enough to come out the way you’d like. And as I said at the start of this piece, the scenario I’m outlining is not at all likely. But what’s important is that it’s possible, thanks to the unusual candidate, state demographics, and election year we have before us. And the mere fact that you can even talk about Obama competing in MS with a straight face means that the GOP will be sweating bullets. If they have to spend so much as a dollar here to defend the state, that alone will constitute victory.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:50 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Mississippi? (14+ / 0-)

    Hell, most Clinton supporters don't believe he can win California, New York, and Massachusetts.

    •  But! (10+ / 0-)

      Aren't there a lot of Elites™ in those states?

      < /snark >

      You looked better on Facebook...

      by Page van der Linden on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:54:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Wedge Issue has to stop (5+ / 0-)

        Hillary is becoming a serious liability to party's ability to win, with her race and class baiting hackeries.

        The primary also needs to finish up so campaign can move to General Election mode. McCain is moving forwared 0.5% a day, pretty soon, he will be ahead no matter who win the primary.

        Again, at this point, Hillary is truly a party liability. She has no money of her own to GOTV and voter registration. She doesn't help down ticket. She divide the party, And she is wasting everybody's time. How can she show she can win GE when she can't even finish primary tightly, let alone starting GE strategy. (who she gonna fired and hired next for that strategy? Her team is extremely weak and over paid.)

        Party leaders have to come down hard on her campaign.  If the May 31 meeting result in disaster, I am guessing on MCCain win by a sliver. No way we can fix the party split.

        •  I'm worried she's not going to concede June 3rd (3+ / 0-)

          I just saw her on NBC this morning, it was an excerpt from an interview-- She talked about reseating the Florida and Michigan delegates, the usual -- and then she said basically that "superdelegates aren't bound to one candidate, they can change their mind".  

          Is anyone going to pull the plug on her before the convention?  Or are they too scared?...

          •  You can't pull the plug. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            paul94611, LogicaLizE

            She's battery operated.

            But seriously, it's her decision. Not Howard Dean's, or mine or yours. Fear has nothing to do with it.

          •  What if Mississippi had even higher (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blitz boy, heliosfootball, LogicaLizE

            black turnout:

            For instance, Mississippi is actually trending African American as a whole.  It went from 36.3% African American to 37.4% African American from 2000 to 2006.  It's possible that Mississippi could be 38% African American by now.  What if African American turnout skyrocketed and ended up being 41 or 42% of the electorate.

                     Obama   McCain   Barr
            White 55%  18%      78%     4%
            Black 42%  93%      6%      1%
            Other 3%   50%     48%      2%

            this results in Obama 50.46%  McCain 47.82%  Barr 1.72%

        •  Regarding Hillary... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alice in Florida, rcald, StrayCat

          ...Can we please STOP with this Blame-Hillary-First-Just-Because reasoning?  If you want Obama to win the general election, you -- and ALL KOSSACKS -- need to refocus your priority on who the REAL enemy is (hint: it's NOT her!)

          Becuase if the lady senetor from NY has you THIS scared...I'd HATE to see what becomes of you when the ReTHUGlican machine goes after Obama...

          ...Before you start any and all analysis with It's-All-Hillary's-Fault line of reasoning...just ask yourself:  What Would Obama Do?

          •  I don't think it was fear (6+ / 0-)

            opedn was just stating the obvious, you know, the stark reality of her situation.

            This is not bashing.

            I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.

            by Batbird on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:57:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  she'll drop at some point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Look, it's standard operating procedure.  Two days before Edwards quit, his campaign trumpeted that they were in it all the way to the convention.  Anyone who seriously runs for president is an extremely competitive person, and successful at competing, not likely to fold in the face of hardship.  But at some point, circumstances make it impossible to continue.

              What will happen very soon is that, even if she doesn't want to quit, the money will dry up, her staff will start defecting (they need to make a living, and being known as one of the bitter-enders doesn't help your future employment prospects), and the media will stop paying attention.  She'll then have to decide whether to loan herself another $20 million to make it a fight, or enter a low-spending mode that lets her apply any money coming in to the debt, or just quit.

              Now, maybe the Clintons are willing to throw more of their fortune away.  They may think that, after all, they were flat broke in January 2001, and Bill made all that money just doing speeches and schmoozing.  Problem is, a lot of the people who paid Bill were hoping for influence and connections with a future HRC administration and Democrats generally.  They may be a lot less eager to plunk down $100K for a speech from a pariah.

              •  Hillary will not quit (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ebilm, paul94611, LogicaLizE

                She will stay in this to the convention because she's fighting for women with her campaign.  She will not want to be seen as the first viable female candidate, that quit.  I've come to realize that even if she's on her last dollar, she will still be fighting.  It's all about the symbolism at this point.

              •  Edwards - Hillary (5+ / 0-)

                Hillary & Bill are on a much different plane. Look at how they have been able to stop the superdelegates from giving Obama an out and out victory.  I know that he has been getting more than Hillary.  I also know that the Clintons have been successful in delaying Obama's victory by making many SD promise to not endorse till after the final primary or until Clinton gives them permission.

                I don't trust the Clintons one little bit and I won't breathe a sigh of relief till Obama is nominated at the convention.  Remember, Hillary also said that nobody actually gets the nomination till the convention votes.  She also said that anybody can change their vote.

                I don't think that Edwards has that kind of power.

          •  Wow. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StrayCat, brein, LogicaLizE

            You must not think much of Hillary as a leader.
            I mean, if you think that Democrats give her criticisms of Obama the same weight as his Republican critics ... then what does that say about her?

            Fact is, Hillary gives Republicans permission to trot out whatever arguments and innuendo she uses, innoculating Republicans against rebuttal in November.    Hillary's supporters are much less likely to defect if she supports Obama than if she doesn't.  The alternative is to completely discredit her and though that's what she's forcing, it's not what we need.


            What's the matter with Hillary?

            by chicago jeff on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Zero leadership quality (4+ / 0-)
              1. She is not innovative (her strategy is 1992) everybody reads her like a book.
              1. She cannot manage her team to execute, when situation goes bad or need to change direction quickly.
              1. Obviously she can't manage resource ($30m in debt? who is going to clean up that mess?)
              1. She is divisive. How is she going to mend the race and class baiting? (as you can see above, several states depends on high turn out votes on various group of peopel she dis.)
              1. Now she is going to create giant mess inside the party because she was cheating in MI and FL.
        •  I submit (0+ / 0-)

          as a resident of TN-7 next to MS-1 that for many folks, especially indies & republicans Hillary doing what she is doing is actually helping Obama in the non Appalachia regions of the south.
          There is a lot of powerful information contained within the LA-6 and MS-1 numbers that folks just are not talking about or seeing.
          Trust me when I tell ya that Hillary being Hillary is, in the final analysis more of a help then a hindrance here in the mid-deep south.

    •  California's a crapshoot these days. While I (6+ / 0-)

      believe we'll vote for Obama in November, there are enough wingnuts in the lower half of the state (as well as the rural north) that McCain will get a decent chunk of the vote.  (We elected Schwarzenegger, for cryin' out loud.)

      But I get your point...the unelectable argument of theirs is, to put it mildly, simple bullshit.

      Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

      by darthstar on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:58:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The lower half is the part w/the most server (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emptywheel, ObamaManiac2008

        housing crisis right?  

        Did you know that Obama is responsible for everything ever uttered by a black person and any supporter? Obama-Taking on the sins of the world since 1/03/08.

        by Shhs on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:01:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The gay marriage thing doesn't help (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noisy Democrat, eaglecries, ronlib

        I find it odd that Republican justices in Massachusetts ruled in favor of gay marriage four years ago and that Republican justices in California did the same thing four years later. I think it's something sinister, not something to be celebrated.

        Obama/Casey, my personal dream ticket.

        by The Bagof Health and Politics on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:02:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is something to be celebrated, though it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mcfly, StrayCat

          will also be something that needs to be defended this fall.

          Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

          by darthstar on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:03:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think the gay marriage rulling was a ploy (3+ / 0-)

          But if that is true it only shows how desperate they really are. You don't concede to your opponent in the faint hope it will back fire on him. You only do that as a very last gasp.

          "Freedom of speech isn't something somebody else gives you. That's something you give to yourself." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

          by brenda on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:22:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oh, please (5+ / 0-)

            The gay marriage case has been in the courts since 2004.

            Another factor you might have missed is that Arnold has said he will oppose the referendum to override the ruling (which strikes many as odd because the legislature has passed gay marriage twice, and Arnold vetoed it twice).

            There's also the fact that many California Republicans are pro-business, pro-choice, don't tax me, I've got mine Jack,
            libertarian Republicans, not Bible-thumping John Hagee Republicans.

            Finally, by November there will be thousands of actual, real people married to members of the same sex, with sympathetic stories to tell, who will be appearing on television pleading with the voters not to destroy their marriages. They will have straight, married family members talking about their own heterosexual marriages, laughing at the notion that a brother or sister's ability to marry threatens their own marriage.

            Obama will win California.  The Republicans will try to use gay marriage as a wedge issue, and it will help them in some marginal congressional districts.

        •  You're right, "gay marriage" (3+ / 0-)

          as an "issue" couldn't have appeared at a worse time for electing Obama President.  

          I live in the most progressive part of CA, but having lived here my whole life, I can tell you that "gay marriage" WILL be part of the equation in this state as a whole this fall.  No matter how you feel about it, the issue will NOT help things one bit, and with the "alien driver license" thing, puts CA in play I regret to say.

          And everybody knows, no CA, no President Obama.  

          •  CA ain't gonna vote for McSame! (0+ / 0-)

              It may be a little closer than we'd like, but there's no way he wins. Although Clinton won the primary in February, Obama is now fairly popular here. Recently there was a poll that said that idf the primary were held now that Barack would win it. The state is too Democratic for the Greedy Old Party to pick up. Yes, there is work to be done, but if McSame has a chance to win CA then he would be so far ahead that CA probably won't matter.

            I'm not a Limousine Liberal; I am a Prius Progressive

            by Zack from the SFV on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:38:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't worry too much about the gay marriage (6+ / 0-)

          issue because Obama's official stance is that he is against it. If the Republicans make it an issue we can simply point out that it was Republican justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage...that'll piss off their base even more.

        •  It deepens the split in the GOP n/t. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I was a Republican until they lost their minds, The word 'conservative' means 'discriminatory,' ... It's a form of political discrimination. --- Charles Barkley

          by Kimball Cross on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:29:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is still such a thing as a liberal (0+ / 0-)

          republican--they are, of course, an endangered species, quite rare, but can still be found if you know where to look...their range is limited to very blue states.

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  don't think so (0+ / 0-)

          You mean the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court for this session because they wanted it to become an issue in the election?

      •  I'm in California..... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and I believe McCain will win here. There are lots of military, lots of conservatives, the state went for Clinton.

        I so hope I am wrong, but an informal poll of my friends, who are a cross-section, shows great admiration for McCain based on his getting shot down and captured, and very little for Obama.  We will have to wait and see though. A lot can happen between now and then. Most of what can happen, unfortunately, is potentially negative for Obama. McCain has been around for years and the press loves him. We have seen what the press can do to Obama, and I can't help but think there is more to come. Specifically, his admitted drug use (which is a negative, although I think the billions spent on anti-drug campaigns is ridiculous, and is just spent to prop up the paramilitary state) and his early dalliances on what most Americans (not me) would regard as the fring.

        Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

        by Bensdad on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:07:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A decent chunk of the vote (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego, IM

        That means about 35%. How many electoral votes will that be?

        I expect it'll be less.  There's eight Congressional districts in LA county, most of them with black and latino representatives, that regularly have abysmally low turnout.  How many people in those districts will turn out for Obama having never even bothered before?

        "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

        by AdmiralNaismith on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:30:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  McCain will win in (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IM, bythesea, brein

        most of the state, geographically, but remember that Los Angeles County and the San Fransisco Bay area account for almost 50% of the population. And there are blue pockets in a lot of red areas, such as where I live.

        -3.12, -5.90
        Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  love him or hate him (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nicolemm, LogicaLizE

        Schwartzenegger is not McCain. S. really pedals to the center, whereas M. only pretends to on occasion.

      •  Schwarzenegger was a movie star (0+ / 0-)

        McCain's an old man who is looking a whole lot worse for wear these days...I didn't get the idea people voted for Ah-nold because he was a Republican, I understand he worked hard to disassociate himself from the Bush agenda in 2006 and won re-election in spite of being a Republican.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Schwarzenegger is a Californian. (0+ / 0-)

          He has lived there ever since he moved from Austria 40 years ago. That earned him votes in a way that McCain could only dream of.

          McCain - lost bearings, lost moorings. Won't somebody please buy the poor man a compass and an anchor so he can sail off into the sunset?

          by edg on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Remember (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zack from the SFV

        Ventura & Stanislaus counties just turned blue in the past 45 days.
        I admit that we cannot become complacent anywhere.  Voter registration and GOTV efforts are crucial in every precinct.

      •  As a California resident... I don't know anyone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        who is voting for McCain, but I know a few people who voted for Bush in 2004.  He'll crush McCain by at least 12 points once Hillary is out of the picture.

    •  Also, according to the anti-Dean establishment... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...our operatives in Mississippi don't do anything but wander around picking their noses.  Do we need different operatives?

      "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

      by AdmiralNaismith on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:25:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I from MS (0+ / 0-)

        and I agree.  I called home before the Primary and there where people that didn't even know they were suppose to vote the next day.  I started asking around to find out who was the GOTV representative.  The only bright side to this now is that the college's are letting out and the students have been preparing for this since Jan.  There will be a different team in place for the summer.

    •  Should be easy (0+ / 0-)

      If the "blacks" continue to GOTV, that will swing almost half of the votes. MS is about 40% "black. So all it takes is a few MS Democrats a few liberals, some youth votes, a few PO'd rednecks & retirees,. and MS will swing Dem this year.

      Republicanus non carborundum

      by azureblue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:46:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  THIS CAN HAPPEN. (8+ / 0-)

        I'm IN Mississippi and FROM Mississippi.

        The AA turnout will be unprecedented and, TBH, I think 95-5 is conservative.  I think Obama will carry it 99-1%.  It will be damn near unanimous.

        Second, I think Mississippi has more moderates (and even liberals) than is traditionally thought, because we are usually so outnumbered that people figure it doesn't matter if they vote.

        That is NOT the case this year.

        I agree that this remains a long shot.  Interestingly, I don't think the Republicans have any concept about how the wingers down here feel about Mormonism.  If they make the mistake of sticking Romney on the ticket, they are going to be in deep shit down here.

        But yes, this IS possible.  And if Mississippi is possible, ANYTHING is possible.

        "The thought of McCain being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." --Thad Cochran

        by Initiate Plan B on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:55:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thank you for commenting about mississippi (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I was starting to think this was a CA thread.

          •  Or another candidate-bashing thread. (0+ / 0-)

            Whatever happened to Lady Day's timeless words, "If you can't say anything real nice, just don't talk at all, that's my advice." Here at dKos, if you are totally ignorant of Mississippi and the entire grits-eating region of America, and you can't say anything pertinent to the post, just change the subject and bash the candidate you don't like. Couldn't they take that somewhere else? Oh, wait, they've taken it everywhere else.

    •  Thanks, David. (0+ / 0-)

      I still think MS is a long shot, but similar comparisons lead me to believe NC is doable in an Obama-McCain matchup. The odds are sure to be better than in MS.

      I want to see an analysis of Florida. I know McCain's favored there, thanks in part to lots of retired veterans from previous wars, but let's not count them out too soon.

      I was a Republican until they lost their minds, The word 'conservative' means 'discriminatory,' ... It's a form of political discrimination. --- Charles Barkley

      by Kimball Cross on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  mississippi (0+ / 0-)

      I agree that Obama can carry Mississippi.  I have lived here my entire life.  I am a White Mississippi  democrat.  I am what passes for a liberal in this part of the country.  I worked hard during the 2004 election, was very involved and active.  I can tell you, from first hand knowledge of living through it  that Kerry made no effort whatsoever.  We fought alone with no help and really no hope.  An election where the candidate actually help rather than hurt the locals, who are always ready to fight, could yield much  better results.  Mississippi democrat activist, not the politicians, but the actual folks on the ground are ready to take the fight to the Republicans.  There is nothing like being a democrat in Mississippi to let you know what you are fighting for and against.    

  •  Yes, Obama can win Mississippi. (4+ / 0-)

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:53:19 AM PDT

  •  Heck (14+ / 0-)

    If he wins Mississippi, I think we can safely say "landslide".

    St. John the Maverick: patron saints of liars, lobbyists, and mindnumbing stupidity.

    by DH from MD on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:55:28 AM PDT

    •  I think that's the thing (4+ / 0-)

      This post shows that it's conceivable if, I think, still a long shot (Obama will have a hard time doing better with the white vote than Kerry did).

      If it does happen, though, that means that Obama is going to be winning virtually everywhere.

    •  Three things working in Obama's favor (7+ / 0-)

      --Iraq, Mississippi has a lot of military families that are getting sick and tired of the war
      --Katrina, most of the blame for the lack of rebuilding is placed on Bush and the Federal govt
      --Youth vote- especially young white voters that seem to be much more open to voting for a black candidate

      I think the likelihood is that McCain and the Republicans will still take most of the southern states, but they will have to work harder and spend much more to do so.

      •  Yes Yes Yes to all of the above. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And Ole Miss University will be holding a Presidential debate in September.  That will have the press all over the state for at least a week.  People in MS will be paying attention and that is getting the college students involved.  

        •  I hope that the debate will create a good (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          move toward Obama. Because unlike some others here from MS, I believe that they are underestimating the   ingrained racism within the general white population here. Sure it is not expressed as openly as it use to be but it is none the less very much alive.

          I am not black by the way, but I spent the past twenty years working very close with them. I could tell you that in one of the largest units that is state employees it is or has been hard to get Blacks promoted into the better positions even when well qualified.

          I know because I tried with very little success.

          I am completely disheartened by people whom I have called friends for years when they tell me how their fathers would roll over in their graves and disown them  if they voted for a black. For those who are not around it, I am sure that deep ingrained racism which is based upon nothing more than being taught that from childhood is hard to believe.  

          I will agree that the surge of AA voters as a result of Obama being on the ticket and the Kind of campaign he has run will get many more AAs to the polls, but I would not bank on turning too many whites our way.

          I happen to be a member of the Democratic executive committee in my county and I can tell you that of the whites on that committee that I am aware of who stand for Obama is limited to myself and one more gentleman.  The rest are either for Clinton or are quitely for MCCain. Yes that is what I said McCain. For some reason the lie about hiom really being a maverick is being taken hook line and sinker here.

          Being a County  Executive Committee member I can not even legally work to help Obama as long as Hillary has not conceded the primary to him.

          Now if we can manage to put the sunlight on that huge falase claim that McCain is a true maverick, then we can increase Obama's odds. That however is going to be a hard uphill fight with the Media being what it is.

          You have to remember that here in MS for a Democrat to win they have to run as Republican lite. Bennie Thompson is able to run a more liberal campaign because of the huge AA population in his District. Any place else in the state that does not work so well.

          Howard Dean has made some progress here, but you have to understand even with that most white Democrats in MS are very conservative or what I would call actual Republican lites.

          I have wanted so bad for the past 24 years to see this state move back into the blue column and I would damn well be happy as hell if it managed to happen. I just do not believe it is as possible as some want to think.


          I am beginning to feel like a man with no country. That country died when we failed to stand up for what is right.

          by eaglecries on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:42:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hell, Obama can win South Carolina... (6+ / 0-)

    Remember Carter only lost that state by 1 percentage point against Reagan.  

    Demographics have changed there, but mostly in the favor of Dems.

    The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion. --Thomas Paine

    by David Kroning on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:56:22 AM PDT

  •  I think that Mississippi, Georgia, and both of (5+ / 0-)

    the Carolinas are all in play.  This is why Obama should maybe consider putting Sam Nunn on the ticket in order to really drive the GOP mad!

    •  Nunn would be a fabulous VP pick n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AdmiralNaismith, jj32, max stirner
    •  In GA (0+ / 0-)

      Add in the Barr factor.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:13:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Barr's not the Libertarian nominee yet. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emptywheel, noguerra

        Reason had an interesting profile of the race - it seems there's fairly strong elements within the Libertarian Party opposed to Barr, and he probably won't have a first ballot majority.  At that point, anything can happen.

        (Reading that profile was fascinating, because the Libertarian Convention is a real old school party convention, with different factions and long shot candidates and so forth.)

    •  I'd say in the South (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kimball Cross, Lilly

      the order of "in play" precedence goes:

      VA, NC, FL, TX, GA, LA, SC, MS, AL, AR, TN

      (Yeah, throwing FL in there -- just straight doing the old CSA.  If you were to include KY, it goes at the very bottom of the list.  If you were to include Oklahoma, it would go right near the bottom, too.)

      WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Sen. Clinton's or Sen. McCain's).

      by Anarchofascist on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:28:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Arkansas is much more likely than Mississippi. Arkansas is represented by two Democratic Senators and three Democratic congressman. It has always been more liberal than Mississippi. (I realize that too some far away this may be a minor difference.)

        But the author has an intriguing argument, although I don't see how we win either.

    •  Me too. I think people are underestimating Obama (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IM, brein

      and his team GOTV, new voter registration drive, young voters, and African American turnout substantially to be honest.

      I dont think any southern state with AA population over 30% will be safe for the GOP. If AA turnout continues to be at record highs and Obama can win the African American vote by over 95% (which is very likely imo), pull in new voters (of all ages, color, and background), get some Republican/Independent crossover votes, AND win 20-25% of the white vote?

      I think this election will be very interesting to say the least. Va, NC, SC, MS, GA, and LA are all going to be competitive.

      I just worry about TX and FL with Obama's weakness in Hispanic demographics. But I'll be happy once we get in GE mode and polls show that he is polling over 45% or winning that group by large margins.

      •  Better to call them Latino (0+ / 0-)

        Because while there are lots of Hispanics (from the islands--Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc) in FL I think TX it would mostly be from Mexico (chicano?)...anyway, Latinos have always supported Dems from an economic perspective, and I have heard that even Cubans, which included a lot of fanatical-anti-communist Republicans, are p***ed off at Bush because of his strengthening the embargo and making it harder for them to visit/send money to family members in Cuba. People need to remember that almost all Hillary supporters are going to support Obama...there is a difference between voting against someone in the primary and voting against the party in the general. McCain's immigration bill isn't going to help him--(a) it doesn't change his economic position, and (b) it failed.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Harold Ford on MTP. (20+ / 0-)

    He says, and I paraphrase here, the three special elections show that Democrats need to adopt more conservative positions.
         Isn't this the very thing that lost him his senate bid and has lost the Democratic nomination for Hillary? These congressional races in heavily republican districts are a special case. At the national level to try to triangulate to some perceived conservative position be a huge mistake.

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

    by irate on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:57:21 AM PDT

  •  I worry about what might happen (0+ / 0-)

    Massive voter disenfranchisement, maybe even riots? Throughout the South entrenched whites will be terrified and they'll do anything, anything, to hand on to power.

    "Freedom of speech isn't something somebody else gives you. That's something you give to yourself." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

    by brenda on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:58:09 AM PDT

    •  white people like that (8+ / 0-)

      are mostly old and growing fewer in number even in the south.

      Most people want to be "not racist" even if they don't know how to do it.

    •  I've heard good things about Obama in south ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      from long-time republican whites. There is a segment of the white voting population that is NOT racist - or at least are trying hard not to be - their cultural roots run so deep its sometimes hard for them to realize what they are doing or saying.

      There are a lot of people that hate the war, hate Bush, despise Washington corporate lobbyists, fear big corporate power, etc.

      IMHO, Obama needs to drive home several key distinctions:

      1. He gets the vast majority of his money from literally millions of small donors. He will owe corporate PACs and lobbyists NOTHING!
      1. He is against the war
      1. He is competent!!!!!!!!
      1. He will listen and be fair. Even if he can't bowl and he is a lousy shot, he will LISTEN to bowlers and hunters and work to protect their interests.
      1. He is energetic and intense enough to tackle the problems of America for his full term. He won't quit (like Bush) and he won't run out of gas like McCain (pun intended).

      His campaign needs to hammer home the message of the fit, optimistic, competent populist. Again and again and again.

      If he does that, I believe that he can get 1 in 5 southern voters to vote for him.

      He also has to hammer home that all of these are his ideas. Forget about who he has known or what they said or didn't say. BHO has a personal message for all Americans and it comes from HIS heart.

      Finally, he has to be tougher. Southerners (and appalachians) respect tough people. Not mean, or petty, or dirty, just hard and tough. He needs to make more speeches with no weasel words (like his speech on race). He needs to say in 5 cent words why he will talk to people America doesn't like. I  recommend that he quote Churchill:

      "Better to talk jaw to jaw than have a war."

      or from other accounts:

      "Better jaw-jaw than war-war"

      Then he has to meet McCain and talk "jaw to jaw".  

      Just my $0.02

      -2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right even though you were told to do it.

      by grapes on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Makes a compelling argument (7+ / 0-)

    for getting out and registering new voters, and then getting out that vote!

    "This is not Nam. This is bowling. There are rules." -- Walter Sobchak

    by Clyde the Cat on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:58:19 AM PDT

  •  not very likely (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emptywheel, jj32, Lilly, echatwa

    If Obama wins Miss. he will probably win in a 40 state landslide.  My guess is he cuts it down to single digits but winning it would really be a stretch.

  •  The real effect will be on down ticket races (5+ / 0-)

    I think Obama could come surprisingly close in some Deep south states like MS, AL, GA, or SC. But I think the question is, "how many more MS-01 districts are out there?" I think there are several southern districts represented by GOP congressmen, which have a large African American populations. If they vote in large numbers this year, I think we could have some surprise wins by Democrats.

  •  Obama doesn't have to win to "win" (24+ / 0-)

    Just putting Mississippi, North Carolina and perhaps other southern states in play, Obama will force the already strained GOP resources to be deployed in states previously assumed to be aafely Republican.  In doing so, Obama will create a "50 state strategy" of his own -- which makes not only for good pre-election politics but also post-election governance.  

    I will vote for whoever or whatever the Democrats nominate -- animal, vegetable or mineral.

    by Finck II on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:59:11 AM PDT

  •  I'm Not Sure That He Can (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hope08, oak510

    But I suspect that a very large black voter turnout in Ohio might deliver the entire presidency to Barack Obama.

    •  ? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm just beyond talking to you right now.

      Did you know that Obama is responsible for everything ever uttered by a black person and any supporter? Obama-Taking on the sins of the world since 1/03/08.

      by Shhs on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:04:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ohio Being a Swing State (0+ / 0-)

        With a fairly large black population that I seem to remember voting historically at lower percentages than the state's white voters.

        •  I'm pretty sure there was some controversy (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blitz boy, seabrook, bobbyd100, brein

          with the black precincts in Cleveland having only 7% turnout in 04 because of the republican governor and secretary of state in OH stealing the election for Bush. But this year both the gov and sec of state in Ohio are democrats, and black turnout should be enough to give Obama the state.

          •  Obama can win Ohio by focusing on the populated (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            cities, such as Hamilton, Franklin, and Cuyahoga counties (Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland). It didn't work for Kerry, but Obama draws huge crowds I think he can make it work. I'd like to see Obama go to Dayton, Akron, Kent, and Athens to get the youth vote there.

            I also hope he puts Hamilton, Cleveland, and Youngstown, Ohio on his poverty tour.

            As long as McCain doesn't put Huckabee on the ticket we should be fine. Huckabee is the only VP that can do something for him in Ohio. I don't know one young conservative that voted for McCain, they all voted for Huckabee (even after it was obvious he was done).

  •  I could see it happening (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with 3rd parties and big black turn out Obama could win MS. That would just make my day.

    •  Mississippi (and the South in general) (0+ / 0-)
      have been very hostile to third party/independent candidacies, except racially-oriented ones such as Wallace '68 and Thurmond '48.

      Mississippi is the only state in the country where Perot got less than 10% of the vote in 1992.

      •  Bob Barr is from Georgia (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pd, Nimbus

        Can't find any particularly noxious racial component to his legislative career, but he is from a deeply Southern state.

        The more the Dems are successful at painting McCain as following in Bush's footsteps, and the more the Reps continue to see McCain as too maverickly straying from the "true" conservative path, the more a candidate like Barr sticks out as a safe protest vote for people who just won't vote for Obama.

        Perot was too moderate on social issues to get a good foothold in the bible belt. Barr is far from a social moderate.

      •  I seem to recall in statewide races (0+ / 0-)

        in GA, the libertarian candidate can get 2 % or so,

        Enough to swing the election for sure.

    •  Maybe, but (0+ / 0-)

      we should expect the most devious and widespread voter-suppression effort in the South since Jim Crow.  

  •  If you want this (0+ / 0-)

    The ground work begins now. We must find and register every single dem, them remind them all to vote in NOV.

  •  Within the realm of possibility but not one of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crashing Vor

    the 10 most likely states to go to Obama. If he wins MS, he'll win Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia too. So if he wins MS, he'll win 35 states and win in a landslide. Not out of the realm of possibility, but doubtful.

    Obama/Casey, my personal dream ticket.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:00:59 AM PDT

  •  Couple of points (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    First, McCain does have MS ties. His father's family was from there.

    Second, I think you underestimate the college-educated and youth vote (white youth vote) when you give Obama 20%. I think he could bump this number up by appealing to college-educated moderate Rs and Independents in MS. Ole Miss and the University of MS are two fertile places from which to draw white votes.

    •  McCain's family owned slaves (6+ / 0-)

      The family's storied military history stretches back to Carroll County, Miss., where McCain's great-great grandfather William Alexander McCain owned a plantation, and later died during the Civil War as a soldier for the Mississippi cavalry.

      But what McCain didn't know about his family until Tuesday was that William Alexander McCain had owned 52 slaves. The senator seemed surprised after Salon reporters showed him documents gathered from Carroll County Courthouse, the Carrollton Merrill Museum, the Mississippi State Archives and the Greenwood, Miss., Public Library.

      "I didn't know that," McCain said in measured tones wearing a stoic expression during a midday interview, as he looked at the documents before Tuesday night's debate. "I knew they had sharecroppers. I did not know that."

      This documentation includes slave schedules from Sept. 8, 1860, which list as the slave owner, "W.A. McCain." The schedules list the McCain family's slaves in the customary manner of the day -- including their age, gender and "color," labelling each either "black" or "mulatto." The slaves ranged in age from 6 months to 60 years.

      "I knew we fought in the Civil War," McCain went on. "But no, I had no idea. I guess thinking about it, I guess when you really think about it logically, it shouldn't be a surprise. They had a plantation and they fought in the Civil War so I guess that it makes sense."

      I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain

      by route66 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:04:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For KKK rethugs, that's McCains stamp of approval (0+ / 0-)

        Strong unions for a strong America

        by realwischeese on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:06:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If they had sharecroppers they had slaves (5+ / 0-)

        That's how the South transitioned from a slave economy to something sort of resembling a free economy. Former slaves became sharecroppers and were immediately enslaved by debt.

        McCain knows this.

        "Freedom of speech isn't something somebody else gives you. That's something you give to yourself." - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

        by brenda on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:11:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

          some newcomers moved in and bought plantations after the Civil War, so not all people with sharecroppers had previously owned slaves.  But if they were there before the Civil War, it's a pretty good bet.

        •  Not just former slaves (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Yes, you're right...but not all sharecroppers were former slaves.

          My poor white forbears were sharecroppers in Mississippi. Moved out west to Texas when the water started flowing from the ground and turned into solid FDR Democrats, every one. The Rural Electrification Project and agriculture stabilization efforts totally transformed the region and paved the way for 50 really good years of farm life.

          Sadly, that area was converted in the 80s to Reagan country, though the closest town to the old family farm is still known as New Deal, Texas.

      •  52 slaves is a lot (0+ / 0-)

        52 slaves was a pretty large number, iirc.  Not enough to make McCain one of the largest planters in the state (usually >100 was the sign of the largest planters), but that's a serious plantation.

      •  The problem with pointing that out is Barack's (0+ / 0-)

        ancestors probably did too.  Remember, his mother is white.  And I actually seem to remember there being a story about Obama's ancestors owning slaves.

        "I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States..."

        by dlh77489 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:18:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, god, my family owned slaves too -- 150 years (0+ / 0-)

        ago.  150 years from now, my kin folk will look back and say "Can you believe they tortured, electrocuted, locked up people with no trials, etc.  They were barbaric weren't they."  Go Obama!!

    •  Ole Miss is the University of MS (0+ / 0-)

      Those are the same school.  Did you mean Ole Miss and Mississippi State?

    •  There are no "Moderate Rs" in MS (0+ / 0-)
      The Rs in Mississippi are as extreme as you can get. If they're "moderates," they become Democrats.
      •  Disagree. Lincoln was a Republican . . . (0+ / 0-)

        and the Republican Party was basically non-existent in Mississippi until civil rights and desegregation.

        Republicanism in Mississippi was born out of racism, and has survived only through a kind of "I'm a persecuted white person!" mentality. The rabid cultural conservatism wing of the Republican Party has a lot more strength elsewhere--Utah, Kansas, etc.

        Mississippi is ripe for a re-energized Democratic Party. The large population of AAs and poor whites should make us a majority here.  

      •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

        A lot of people in the south vote party out of identity rather than analysis (I am a Republican).

        I live in Alabama (possibly even further out of reach for Obama) and I know more than a few moderate republicans. I also know several who are thinking of voting for Obama (and a democrat) out of honest respect.

        These are generally the better educated republicans whose prior voting was driven by party identity rather than ideology (such as the fundamentalists).

        Also, a lot of new industry (and people) have moved into the south. There are more and more professional northerners and midwesterners and left and right coast folks. They will factor in as well.

        It may not happen in this cycle, but the South is reachable.

        -2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right even though you were told to do it.

        by grapes on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:29:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I doubt he can win. Southern white will just (6+ / 0-)

    become more hostile to Obama as the election goes along.  But the sweetest news will be to hear too early to call or too close to call on election night.  

    Putting the south in play will help downticket candidates but his focus should be on Ohio, NM, CO, NV.  

    Sen. McCain, it's not your turn either.

    by Hope08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:02:58 AM PDT

  •  No. Won't happen. (5+ / 0-)

    For every enthusiastic, duly registered, driver's license carrying black person in Mississippi who is energized to vote for Obama because he is black, there will be 2 duly registered driver's license carrying white people who will vote for McCain (who has roots in Mississippi) because he is white, and because Obama is black.

    It really is that simple.

    Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

    by Bensdad on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:03:06 AM PDT

  •  Doolittle's raid on Tokyo (14+ / 0-)

     Imperial Japan hit us with a sledgehammer at Pearl Harbor. Our first strike back at them, just four months later, was a pinprick; just sixteen bombers each with only a ton of ordinance. It mattered for the simple reason that the first target was Tokyo; we're coming for you registered loud and clear.

     MS-01 is that moment for the Republicans. The theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections? Sledgehammer blows. The loss of an R+10 district after pouring millions into it? A pinprick ...

  •  The electoral map... (6+ / 0-)

    .... will look like Reagan-Mondale.

    Except the Democrat will be playing the part of Reagan this time, and McCain will be the GOP's Mondale.

    I'm telling you, after seeing the last 3 special elections, there is an unknown factor in this race. A really yearning for change. The rethugs won't know what hit them until January 2009 when they grit their teeth at seeing a black man being sworn into office with a veto-proof majority in both houses.

    "The next time Hillary opens her mouth, she's going to sound like Elroy Jetson in comparison." ~ Some anonymous 'Wonkette' talk-backer.

    by OReillysNightmare on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:05:15 AM PDT

  •  20% of the white vote in MS is unrealistic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean, davybaby, echatwa

    IMHO - Obama could get 95% of the black vote but 20%, I feel, is unattainable.

    the shane life The story of a boy alone in New York City. God help the city.

    by Shane Hensinger on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:06:25 AM PDT

    •  based on what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ManhattanMan, carolita

      I'd like to see your polling..

      or hear about your personal experience in my state..

      or are you just talking out of your inexperience and stereotyping?
      what happened to the 50 state strategy?  The idea is compete like you BELIEVE IT ... then see where you win, not give up on states and regions before the game even starts.

      "Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate" John Locke

      by TheGryphon on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:31:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why are you acting so hysterically? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subterranean, echatwa, unertl

        Show me the polling where a black Democratic statewide candidate in Mississippi got 20% of the white vote and maybe I'll change my mind.

        My post was based on my personal opinion. I'm a believer in the 50-state strategy, I donated to the Dem in MS 01 despite my disagreeing with a lot of what he stood for. I donated because I believe in the 50-state strategy and believe electing Democrats everywhere is a good idea.

        the shane life The story of a boy alone in New York City. God help the city.

        by Shane Hensinger on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:42:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well maybe I've just had enough of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          carolita, brein

          the ignorance, intolerance, and repeat of stereotypes disguised as serious political commentary in this thread.  Tell you what, if you are not FROM MS, or currently LIVING IN MS, or at least have DRIVEN THROUGH MS in the last 5 years ... you don't really have a right to spew the same tired stereotypes people have used to discount my state for the last 40 years.  If, on the other hand, you have serious polling data to back up your ignorance, I'd be happy to hear it.

          "Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate" John Locke

          by TheGryphon on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again - provide the polling data (0+ / 0-)

            to show 20% of the white vote going to Obama is possible based on another statewide black candidate and I'll change my mind. Until then stop screeching about intolerance or stereotypes because I'm not relying on those for my opinion.

            the shane life The story of a boy alone in New York City. God help the city.

            by Shane Hensinger on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:51:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  so what are you relying upon? (0+ / 0-)

              because while I am talking out of my ass, at least my ass is in MS ...

              my point being, if you are not from here, then your "opinion", if not backed up by polling or statistics, is not really relevant.  I AM from here, and I say you have a ridiculously biased and dated opinion of my state.  Since I live here, it is incumbent upon YOU to prove ME wrong, not vice versa.  

              And BTW, the kind of statements I have seen in this thread are the problem.  Progressive Democrats can't win in MS ... maybe that's a self-fulfilling prophecy since you all refuse to support us when one runs.

              "Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate" John Locke

              by TheGryphon on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:24:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You just stated why (0+ / 0-)

            Obama will not win 20% of the white vote in MS:

            ignorance, intolerance, and repeat of stereotypes disguised as serious political commentary

            Throw in a few Klan rallies and you've got your answer.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:34:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Here is your poll. (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DavidNYC, IM, carolita, brein, noguerra

          SUSA internals referenced in the diary:

          Among whites:
          Clinton  27
          McCain   68

          Obama  20
          McCain 74


          Among women
          Clinton  46
          McCain   46

          Omama  42
          McCain 51

          If Obama can poll among women at the same rate as Hillary then he can get above 25%.  In fact, in the Obama/McCain race this is also significant:

          Men 2%
          Women 7%

          In other words the undecided women outnumber the undecided women by 3.5/1

        •  The SurveyUSA poll (0+ / 0-)

          That I link and discuss in the post shows Obama getting 20% of the white vote statewide in MS.

  •  All kinds of surprising things will happen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ManhattanMan, brein, Stranded Wind

    Thank you for the diary, I think you are correct -- Mississippi is in play, and Georgia and North Carolina as well. We will also see mobilization of the formerly suppressed black and interracial vote in northern Appalachia, meaning Ohio and Pennsylvania, especially in cities like Cincinnati. Cincinnati has always been a Republican city -- Obama could change all that in a flash.

    While states like Tennessee and Kentucky are beyond reach because of relatively small African American populations, we'll see big down-ballot changes in Memphis, Knoxville, Louisville, etc.

    It's gonna be exciting, folks.

    Now we just have to make sure that the Clintonites don't use leverage to plant one of their own on the ticket (I'm thinking of the Ohio governor), which would send the signal that this isn't about real change, but just a sales job by the same old corrupt Democratic Party.

    •  What about Sherrod Brown (0+ / 0-)

      he won in Ohio by like 10 points statewide and voted against the war in 02 in congress, I think he'd be a great pick for VP.

      •  Sherrod won't be the pick (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        a. He's very valuable in the Senate and is new would look like a ticket of two newbie Senators.

        b. He will not upstage Ted Strickland, he'd bow out and hand it to Ted.

        c. He's too protectionist for the national ticket, great for Ohio though.

        The best pick for Ohio is Kathleen Sebelius, who is from Cincinnati and daughter of Ohio Governor Jack Gilligan.

        •  What's wrong with being "protectionist" (0+ / 0-)

          most Americans aren't pro free trade, just a small business wing fringe of the republican party. Look at how much support Perot got. I like Sebelius, but she doesn't have much international experience. I like Richardson because he could be like our dick cheney, and I mean that in a good way.

          •  Many states have economic interests that align (0+ / 0-)

            with more open trade, including all the states that border on the Pacific, as well as Florida, most clearly. Putting Brown on the ticket would invite the GOP to go to town claiming that Dems are beholden to union "special interests" and would provoke a worldwide depression through protectionism.

            Obama has a rational discriminating approach to trade that makes him immune to such attacks. Adding Brown would sacrifice that advantage, and it won't happen anyway.

            You might note that Perot didn't win.

  •  Possible, but probably irrelevant (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    harrije, bythesea, echatwa, brein, oxfdblue

    If he wins Miss., that means he's also won NC/VA and it's already a landslide.

    "The more I wish him the most gruesome deaths, the more he haunts me" - Kinski on Herzog, but somehow newly relevant.

    by oxman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:06:49 AM PDT

    •  Cheers to landslides (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scientonymous, brein

      I want this victory to be so lopsided that there is no room to cry foul. I want the Republicans to be so humbled that out of sheer self-preservation they moderate themselves and begin to negotiate in good faith across the aisles of Congress. I want the divisive social politics of the 90s to be so thoroughly discredited that it would be political suicide to ever again run on a predominately anti-gay, anti-reproductive rights platform again.

      And a solid 50-state strategy is the only way to make that happen.

    •  Right (0+ / 0-)

      if he actually wins MS, or even makes it a down to the wire narrow loss, there are a whole slate of other states that means he will have won and the election will be called for him early in the evening.

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

      by bythesea on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:47:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kerry probably spent all of 0$ in Mississippi. (6+ / 0-)

    A little advertising could easily pick up the ceiling on Democrats in Mississippi.  

    •  And neither did Bush. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      He didn't need to.
      •  And that's exactly what will be different (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        this time around.

        Obama will spend $$$ in Mississippi, and McCain will be forced to spend some $$$ there he can't really afford to. But from an electoral point of view, you can't realy afford you opponent to monopolize the airwaves.

        Americans now spend a higher percentage of their income on basics like food and energy than at any time since recordkeeping started in the 1960s.

        by Calouste on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:41:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama will put many states in play (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And if he can win in Mississippi (and I believe he can), it will be a landslide victory for us. As one poster already pointed out, forcing the GOP to hold on to formerly "red" states like Mississippi is a victory in and of itself. I predict the "red" and "blue" map is going to experience a major transformation this November, with "blue" in states where many folks never anticipated!

  •  8 years of Dubya... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, Jlukes, carolita

    + Monster Voter Registration Drive

    + Surprising Special Election Result


    MS is up for grabs

  •  MS depends less on Obama AND McCan't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    than on the popularity of outsiders like Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

    Everything you say about increased registration and solidarity of African-Americans is true, but the only way to take the Magnolia State is if disgruntled Publicans who feel McCan't is a waffler and a sell-out hold their noses or make a protest vote.

    Endlessly fascinating year, '08.

    Saying, "The surge is working" . . . is working my last nerve.

    by Crashing Vor on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:10:14 AM PDT

  •  The GOP should get crushed in the fall (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that would be nice

    "There is nothing wrong with America can't be cured by what is right with America" -Bill Clinton

    by SensibleDemocrat on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:11:02 AM PDT

  •  If Mississippi is at all close in November (7+ / 0-)

    McCain has been Goldwatered.

    Support our troops--end waterboarding!

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:12:14 AM PDT

  •  Bottom Line (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davybaby, Zack from the SFV

    IF MS is even remotely competitive going into the general election then Obama is probably winning 40+ states, if not 49 states. For Obama to have a chance, not only will he need to increase black turnout, he will need to probably get 25-30% of the white vote.

    I think that McCain will carry MS, but probably not by the same levels that Bush prevailed against Kerry with. Kerry was from New England and just wasn't going to sell there.

  •  Finally. (7+ / 0-)

    People understanding the math by which Obama is changing the race.  Trite comparisons and cliches, (like, JFK to Obama) do no justice nor provide a path to victory.

    No, Mississippi is not the most likely pickup, but then again we will also have Childers and Musgrove doing a lot of work for Obama too.  If the first district voters already have their minds on voting for a Dem, not to mention statewide for Musgrove, their advertising and rhetoric might chip away at McCain's integrity on issues and his "appeal".

    But also if Mississippi is even on the radar to begin with, who's to say that North Carolina isn't more competitive than MS?  That Texas--a tri-racial state--isn't more competitive?

    We are in a re-aligning election.  What we need now is not obsessively Obama-centered models but a recognition that reality on the ground is changing for many different reasons.

    Republicans believe in gvmt. intervention for bankers and investors, I believe in intervention for the meek and lowly -- Nulwee.

    by Nulwee on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM PDT

  •  It would do my heart good to see McCain (0+ / 0-)

    spending resources to keep MS from turning blue!

    It's the fascism, stupid!

    by lastman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:14:37 AM PDT

  •  Shameless Diary Pimping (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    v2aggie2, carolita, ObamaManiac2008

    I said something similar earlier this week in the Mississippi entry in my 50-state, every race "Focus" series.

    Since I was focusing on the entire state and every race therein, I wasn't as in depth as you, but I agree that Obama has chances in the deep south, if he wants it bad enough.

    "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

    by AdmiralNaismith on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:18:02 AM PDT

  •  "white motivation" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in the South and elsewhere, will unfortunately be a powerful force in this election, and there is little reason to assume that fearful, racist white people won't turn out in equally "motivated" numbers if they really believe they are about to be faced with a "black" president.  Especially in the South, where the entire social system is still built on thin white majorities voting as a block, to sustain their power over huge black populations.

    The Civil War is still not over.

    One can never win in US politics by underestimating the stupidity and meanspiritedness of the American voter.  There is little evidence to suggest that white voters won't be equally as motivated by irrational racism, as black voters may be motivated by pride.  

    Unless "white" voters are so disheartened that they simply don't show up in the usual numbers, the rosy scenario of MS (or any other reliably Republican state) going for Obama is a dream.  A hopeful dream.  And one that should motivate all Americans to do their best to elect Barack Obama the next president.  But, alas, it is still as yet, a dream.

    •  Congressional (0+ / 0-)

      districts in MS have been gerrymandered to increase the power of the white vote all the while diluting the black vote whever possible. 40+ years ago.

      It is amazing that Childers won. The problem is, he has it to do all over again in November.

      No offense to some very good people, and dear friends and family in MS, but it is like the "Land that Time Forgot" socially, economically, and politically.

      Barack will not win MS but some eybrows will be raised about the trend toward Democrats.

      I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.

      by Batbird on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama could get the racist vote (0+ / 0-)

      he should accuse McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child like Bush did in SC in the primaries 8 years ago.
      But seriously, I think younger white people in MS could go for Obama, I mean 80% of people think the country's on the wrong track, and attempts to use race baiting in MS-01 backfired and gave Childers a 9 point victory, I think it could happen, but Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia are much more likely to go blue in November, even Georgia or Tennessee would probably be easier.

  •  Do You Know What You Call - (0+ / 0-)

    An election strategy that requires a low turnout for one's opponent?


    I suggest you read J.L. Chestnut's Black in Selma if you need to have a refresher on racialized voting patterns in the South.  A pattern that has persisted well into the 21st century as the Kerry/Bush numbers indicate.  If voting remains polarized along racial lines in Mississippi, Obama will lose.  Why?  Because African Americans make up only 37% of the Mississippi electorate. No amount of numerical juggling will change that fact.  Given the past forty years of voting patterns, if Obama's support among African Americans moves from 85% to 95%, McCain's support among whites will likely increase as well, not decrease.

    •  depends also on younger voters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Younger, white voters in the south aren't in lockstep with the racial prejudices of those over 50.

    •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

      You don't cite any evidence for your claim that if Obama performs better among blacks, McCain will perform better among whites.

      •  You Cite One Poll - (0+ / 0-)

        Taken during the run-up to Dem primary in Miss.
        When interest in the Dem side of the race was elevated.
        (Of note, HRC got 27% of white responders to BHO's 20%)

        Granted that Black in Selma was published in 1999; however, Chestnut documents a repeated trend across the Deep South where African American candidates (almost always as Dems) even further racially polarize voting patterns.  He argues that an African American candidate running against a white needs at least a 5% demographic plurality to stand a chance at winning.

        Obama has all the disadvantages of a Kerry in Mississippi - a Northern Yankee - plus the underlying racial issues.  A person like Rep. John Lewis would have stood a far better chance of pulling in 20% or 25% of white Mississippi votes.

  •  50 states (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Try. Everywhere.

    Give no quarter.

    You desire to know the art of living, my friend? It is contained in one phrase: make use of suffering. - Henri Frederic Amiel

    by newwvdem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:27:20 AM PDT

  •  Something else happened since 2004. (4+ / 0-)

    Katrina. Mississippi will remember that and we should run ads about it and about McCain cavorting with Bush while Mississippi and Louisiana drowned. We should run them all through the south.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM PDT

  •  50 state strategy, yes (0+ / 0-)

    And let's hope there is enough $$ to do it.

    But Obama has to concentrate on the "toss-up" states that he has a good chance of winning (and a chance of losing) and that have lots of electoral votes. I think PA and OH are the important states.

    That said, and since I am from Mississippi, I'd love to see some serious Democratic gains in the state, and if the state with the highest % African-American population can go for Obama, it would be incredible.

    •  We need to get over "big states"... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nimbus, shayshay

      ...every election we go to places like Ohio and Florida, spend great big huge pots of money and (more often than not) lose the state anyway.

      We need to put together a strategy focused on winning most of the smaller swing states (CO, NC, VA, MO, etc.)

      We need to learn to win without Ohio, becuase Ohio won't always be with us.

  •  The whole of the South is in play (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missLotus, GN1927, Batbird, alpolitics

    It takes money, a lot of it.

    Obama is going to have it,
    McCain won't.

    The DCCC and Congressional candidates will have it,
    the RNCC won't.

    The DSCC and Senatorial candidates will have it,
    the RNSC won't.

    This is why Congressional and Senatorial races, even ones we don't think are in play, are also in play.

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." We need to go far, quickly.

    by shpilk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:33:38 AM PDT

  •  Did Kerry even campaign in MS? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nimbus, Calouste, shayshay

    I think another factor that might favor Obama in MS is that, due to his 50-state strategy, he will actually campaign in the South.  He will run ads telling his story and highlighting Bush/McCain's failed policies (which even among white southerners aren't extremely popular -- and are nowhere near 80% popularity, assuming 80/20 is Obama's target for the white vote).  Indeed, as this post notes, Obama is already rolling out a massive voter registration drive that includes the south.  Plus, since Obama practically prints money, he'll have the funds to buy plenty of TV and radio time in an inexpensive market like MS.  I don't think Kerry spent a dime in MS, so we have to keep in mind that his 14% of the white vote was accomplished without campaigning.

    So the real question is not whether Obama can do better than Kerry's 14% of the white vote in MS; it's whether Obama can do better if he campaigns in MS (which he will), than Kerry did without campaigning in MS.

    And if Obama can even make it close, he'll accomplish two things:  1) he'll force McCain to spend some of his significantly more limited resources in MS; and 2) by focusing on the policies at issue, even if he loses, he'll likely nudge the state ever so slightly to the left.

  •  Any numbers crunchers out there? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Excellent analysis, but I think the only way the Dems will win MS (and other Southern states) is if the following happens: African-American turnout goes from 60% to 80% or more).  I'm curious whether there is any evidence from these primaries which suggests that African-American voter participation has gone up dramatically.  While the AA vote is one of the most loyal Dem constituencies, the truth is their voter participation rate hasn't broken any records (and that's a huge opportunity for Obama, if African Americans develop some sense of "it's now or never" and turnout in huge numbers the Dems could put many traditional GOP strongholds into play, but, as you suggested, this would also require white voters not being similarly mobilized, or Obama's winning some larger fraction of the white vote).

  •  We can win MS, GA, SC, and NC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Let me go on record. We can win them all, maybe more southern states.

    Here's a figure you might want to include to show how plausible it is that we can win MS. Turnout in the Dem primary this year was more than 90% of Kerry's total.

    The thing is, this same thing can happen in SC, NC, and possibly even GA.

    Time and time again we look at past election results, see the percentages and say its out of reach. We can't overcome 10-20 point margins. But those percentages are irrelevant. What matters is the raw vote totals. If we lost by 200,000 votes, then 100,000 more of our voters and 100,000 less of their voters and its a tie. If there's ever an election where that matters, its now. We're energized, theyre not. We have the money, they dont. We have the volunteers, they dont.

    This is our year to capture the south. And we can do it if we try. But if we give up on it, then we cannot win.

  •  In a word: Yes. Great post. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    An added advantage is that, by having to defend red-state bastions like MS, McCain will have even less money to dedicate to OH, NV, and other swing states.  It will not go unnoticed that fundamentalists comprise a large chuck of MS Republicans.  McCain doesn't play well with them and Obama is proud of his Christian faith and will campaign accordingly.

    It's not enough for us to be right. We have to be right and we have to win.

    by RickinDallas on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:34:52 AM PDT

  •  Thad Cochran (5+ / 0-)

    The senior senator from Mississippi said earlier in the nomination race that he found the prospect of a McCain presidencey frightening (because of his instability and nasty temper). He has come around to supporting him by now, but I suspect some Missippians may still agree with Cochran. And McCain is not particularly popular with the religious right in Mississippi. So those factors might hold down Repug turnout. I think it is unlikely that Obama can carry Mississippi but not imposssible. And if he makes a strong run for it I think there is a better than even chance he could help the democratic candidate for Senate to a victory. That might be more important than carrying the state.

    "A republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin

    by herodotus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:36:09 AM PDT

  •  It simply has nothing to do with culture (7+ / 0-)

    I think it’s safe to say that Kerry was not exactly a great fit culturally for the South

    Or with Kerry either.
    Mississippi is racially polarized.
    The entire Deep South is racially polarized.
    This is because these states have the most black people!
    Think about it (yeah, I know you already posted a diary on this,
    but think about it):
    The fact that black people vote overwhelmingly Democratic
    ought to make the blackest states in the union the bluest ones.
    Yet it does not.  Why not?
    This happens all the time and has been happening ever since 1964,
    since BEFORE black people could even vote in these states -- the mere
    prospect of our liberation was enough to terrify white southerners
    into ethnic solidarity:  Why IS that??

    You spoke of black turnout possibly being higher than white,
    getting up to 40% of the electorate, but that is completely
    unrealistic.   The fact that Obama might actually win is going
    to drive up white turnout as well.  There was a long-documented history
    of this when northern cities with black ghettos began to elect their
    first black mayors.  White people who hadn't voted in years suddenly
    turned up to.   So let's put black turnout back down at 36% (matching
    the state population generally, which would still be an improvement
    over 2004), and then ask,  what would we need to win??
    Well, of the remaining 64%, we would need 25% (36+16=52%),
    or, as you said, "10 more" than the 14% Kerry got.

    Is 1/4 too much to ask?  THAT is the question:
    JUST HOW RACIST does the white population of a state have to be,
    that not even 1/4 of them can manage to vote for their own economic
    interests?  That over 3/4 of them will cut off their nose to spite their face,
    will vote to KEEP themselves the poorest and most backward state in the union, rather than give black people some power?
    Well, they have to be afraid, be very afraid.
    So what, exactly, are they afraid of?

    They are afraid of revenge: they know how badly they have treated
    black people and they know that human nature being what it is,
    they not only deserve but can expect some reverse repression.
    If only 1/4 of them defect, the 52% majority will be 36 black + 16 white,
    so the ruling coalition will be dominated more than 2:1 (9:4) by black people.

    That is a prospect that thus far has always filled more than 3/4 (indeed,
    more than 6/7, in 2004) of the good white voters of Mississippi with fear.

    In states that are less black (I'm in North Carolina, which, at 22%, is
    double the national average), more white people feel freer to cross
    over; heck, we can take fully a third of the remaining 78% and still lose.
    And we do routinely get that third.  We also often get a little more and win,
    but it's far from clear that we will get to the 36% we need.  In the past,
    black turnout has been a little lower than white statewide, so we actually
    need 38%.  But maybe there is more cause for optimism here;
    we know black turnout and youth turnout will be up (we already have
    the registration increases to prove it) and we have a white educated sector
    that may well find Obama to be "their kind" of black leader.  MS doesn't have
    that (not at our demographic level anyway).

    In MS (UNlike NC), the appeal has to be to poor white voters.
    I don't know the income distribution of the tragically rare 1/7 of MS
    white voters who went Democratic for President in 2004, but my point is,
    we need to skew downscale to have a chance.  The only possible hope
    for cure in Mississippi is for white people to get their shit together.
    It is for white people to pull their head out of their ass long enough to stop voting against their own health insurance, education, environment, and labor-law-protection.  It is for AT LEAST one-FIFTH of them to
    FINALLY get it through their hateful and ignorant (as well as fearful) heads
    that you cannot hold a man down in a ditch without staying down in the ditch with him!

    Somehow I don't think Barack Obama is the right messenger for that message.  Edwards really would've been better.

    "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

    by ge0rge on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:39:12 AM PDT

    •  Rec'd (0+ / 0-)

      for white people pulling their heads out of their asses.

      You are right though, fear is the motivator. They will vote against their own purse strings because of hate and fear.

      The Republicans know this and take advantage of those strong emotions. The only way to pull even is to tie McCain to some emotionally deflating positions like his flip-flop on setting a time-line on Iraq.

      Barack can win MS if McCain loses.

      I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.

      by Batbird on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's race and it's values (0+ / 0-)

      I'll not deny that the average racial motivations of white and black voters in Mississippi may be stronger than many other states (based on the state's history and proportions black and white). But I am intrigued with Obama's appeal that belies his "liberal" voting record.

      Might Obama (and his family) represent something that is appealing to many voters and that Kerry could not bring to a campaign -- and to the White House? God, guns, gays, and abortion may not be all that important this round.  We've had those debates and now we have Iraq, the economy, etc. Obama must fend off the "elitist" labeling, but maybe his response to that is  exactly what people need to learn about him.


    •  I don't think 'whites' will come out to balance.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, brein

      the black vote... I think there is a mood of lethargy in the Republican party.  

      1964 seems to be a turning point, but you've got to realize the times are different now then even ten years ago.  A new generation is coming up, one that is more open.  Also, after 9-11 things changed with race-relations in America.  I noticed a big difference, coming in and out of the country.  Powell and Rice played a part in this.  You might end up seeing a lot more votes go to Obama than you'd imagine...

      By your same argument of "they know how bad they treated [blacks]", their guilt may prompt them to vote for a black.  I'm just saying, you never know.  Maybe enough will vote the issues this time to tip it over.

      •  Thank you for your optimism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You may be right that whites may not come out to "defend", because they
        know the presidential race will not be decided in Mississippi.  It actually
        doesn't make much difference who wins Mississippi.  Don't get me wrong;
        if we win it, that would still be an earthquake and  would still have major historical implications; it's just that it will not,
        UNlike New Hampshire in 2000, affect who becomes President or who
        white Mississippians have to live under.   We would need a state election
        to motivate that.

        I have not visited Mississippi so I do not know how the evolution we see
        elsewhere is playing out down there.  I would frankly love to see a diary
        from a state Democratic convention or other forum where diverse groups
        have to co-operate.

        "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

        by ge0rge on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:33:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We may need some new states like MS to win (0+ / 0-)

          The non-Appalachia blue states he struggled in, like CA and NY, will go for him, but I don't know if we can win any swing states in Appalachia.    

          Fortunately, Obama has had some blow-out wins in the West, Midwest, plains, and South.  Democratic turnout was often more than double the Republican turnout (even when the race still counted for them).  We can only hope the numbers get high enough in the GE to turn some red states like MS blue.  

          •  Well, THE ONLY swing state in Appalachia.. (0+ / 0-)

            is West Virginia.  The other swing states are in other places.
            They are New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada,
            and then West Virginia (and then Montana).
            If anybody tells you that anything (else, besides Wisconsin) that
            both Gore and Kerry carried is "swing", then they are just lying.
            The fact that Gore and Kerry carried it (and that this year is going
            to be more Democratic than 2004 or 2000) simply proves that
            it is still blue.  People who tell you that Ohio or Florida is "swing"
            are also missing the point: if the Republicans lose either of those,
            then they just lose, period.  So regardless of how tight their polls
            may be, both of those states are in the red base and are not swing.
            Swing states are states that we would find easier to swing (from red
            to blue) than we would Ohio or Florida.    Except for Wisconsin, all the
            states I just mentioned are like that, and  Wisconsin has lately always been

            "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

            by ge0rge on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  That's bullshit (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      IM, GN1927
      Hidden by:

      look at Maryland, 30% black population, but it's one of the most reliably democratic states in the nation. Gore did much better with the white vote in MS against Bush than Kerry, the bigger issue is religeous fundamentalism, not racial polarization, and Bush appealed to the religeous right in 2004 more than any candidate ever will in the history of this country.

      •  Maryland is irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

        Maryland is NOT IN the Deep South and it did NOT even join the
        confederacy!  OBVIOUSLY white people IN MARYLAND are DIFFERENT
        from white people in Mississippi.  And even so, Maryland has still never
        had a black governor, even though it is twice as black as Virginia, which
        HAS had one.  As for Gore doing better than Kerry in MS, it is irrelevant
        to the point of ridiculous idiocy, since neither of them came close.
        You should diary the difference and poll whether Obama's white numbers
        there will be better than Gore's, between Gore and Kerry's, or worse than

        "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

        by ge0rge on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's useless trying to argue with ge0rge (0+ / 0-)

        but when he starts dropping hydrates, you know you've won.

        "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." John Lennon

        by trashablanca on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:14:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Could you please explain to me (0+ / 0-)

      Why, after the GOP spent millions of dollars in MS-01 hyping the Obama bogey-man, that the black share of the vote went up by a much bigger margin than the white share, allowing Travis Childers to triple his margin of victory between the first and second rounds of voting?

  •  This is the kind of diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean, eieio nyc, LeanneB

    that terrifies me, and makes me so wary of Obama as a candidate, and his supporters as reliable or well-grounded.  This is, quite frankly, well written but delusional.  If we have to rely upon fantasy to win, well, we will lose.  Call me old fashioned, but I would far rather fight the <1% fight in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania than have to rely on miracles in a dozen smaller states to make up the difference.</p>

    If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

    by dhonig on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:42:01 AM PDT

    •  Don'tworry (4+ / 0-)

      I think your overstating what the diary is getting at.

      It isn't to say that Obama should pour all sorts of resources into trying to take MS, but that there is a slim statistical chance that he might actually win what is a very red state.

      There is no doubt that the campaign will fight much harder to win states like FL or OH with much large electoral vote totals, then relatively small state like MS.

      However, even if the state looks close, it forces the GOP to spend resources to defend it...also a big positive.

    •  Coming from Ohio, you are a bit delusional (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, bobbyd100, brein

      Clinton and Strickland poisoned the well in Ohio for Obama this year. They did it intentionally and effectively. I hate to say it, but Ohio is now down as a priority with the likes of Virginia and North Carolina.

      Much better swing-state bets this year are Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Nebraska.

      Blame Ted and Hillary. They wanted to use the "You can't win Ohio" line, and they accomplished their mission real well.

    •  Obama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      runs better in states with a big black voter base and educated whites. Obama has a better chance of winning Virginia than Florida due to changing demographics. Obama has no shot at Kentucky and West Virginia but does have a shot at deep southern states where with massive black turnout he'll need an achievable % of white voters.

      After Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.

      by nevadadem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We will compete everywhere (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nicolemm, seabrook, echatwa, brein, yammatal

      It's not an either,or proposition.  O will take western states (except AZ).  It's no longer we have to take Ohio, PA and FL--all three--to win.

    •  Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      are much better than the Ohio, and Florida battlegrounds. Gambling everything on 2 states has made us lose 2 in a row. Obama should still go there, but IA, NM, CO, NV, MO, VA, and NC, should be major targets as well. Kerry would've won the election if he had won NV, IA, and NM, all three of these states were decided by about 10 to 20 thousand votes. It's much cheaper and easier to win in those small states than gamble it all on FL and OH.

    •  This comment makes me wary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Of, well, you. You flatly assert that this post is "delusional" without citing any evidence as to why. Is this how you usually win arguments? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution is delusional! We rest our case." You need to practice your argumentation skills.

      Given your deeply shoddy and conclusory statements, it's not surprise to me that you also managed to read in an entire universe of b.s. that I never stated anywhere. Did I state that MS was the key to Obama's victory? Did I say that Obama should devote resources here? Did I say anywhere that Obama should focus on MS instead of key swing states?

      Of course not. This is a hypothetical about one potential aspect of the fall election. I can walk and chew gum at the same time - ie, be realistic about which states Obama should concentrate his firepower on, but also spend a few minutes contemplating some "what ifs."

      •  Oh crap that's funny (0+ / 0-)

        getting litigation advice on a blog.

        No thanks.  I don't need it.  

        And yes, some things can be so patently absurd that they need no explanation.  If you really think we are in great shape with a candidate that might force the Republicans to spend forty cents in Mississippi, but who in turn will make the Democrats spend millions to try to cling to Pennsylvania, well, really no further explanation or evidence is necessary.

        If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

        by dhonig on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Logical Fallacy... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean, chaboard, brein

    As you can see from the bottom line, when you multiply out the vote by race, you wind up with the exact final election day total, which says to me that these exit polls were quite accurate. Using these numbers as a baseline, here’s how Obama can get to victory:

    The fallacy is that the if you multiply the exit polls out you get the final result, so the exit polls were accurate.  The truth is they take the raw data from the exit polls (which are officially subject to sampling error) and the election returns (which are officially not subject to sampling error since they are the entire sample) and then they fix the exit poll numbers so that they generate the final results.  That's why the exit polls showed Kerry winning Ohio when the polls closed, but by the end of the evening the same exits showed Kerry losing Ohio.  It wasn't hanky-panky, that's just how exit polls work.

    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

    by FredFred on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:44:45 AM PDT

  •  If there's any state where he can't pull 20% of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean, IM, echatwa

    the white vote, it'll be Mississippi. It's probably the most racially polarized state in the Union. So, I have my doubts.

    Although watching the republicans sweat a bit down there would be fun, and the congressional seats might play out differently.

    I still have a hard time seeing 2/10 white Mississipians being willing to vote for a black Democrat.

    The Tidewater South is, and has always been, a little less strident on these issues than the deep (no atlantic coastline having) south.

    NC and VA are where its at.

    •  Actually, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      missLotus, wyvern

      I expect Obama to do better in Mississippi with white  voters than in West Virginia.

      •  Well, if demographics is destiny (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I guess we should see how many white Mississipians have germanic / nordic roots (pro-Obama set) versus British Isles roots (anti-Obama set) and what the educational level is compared to West Virginia.

        Heh, just grossly generalizing, but its fun.

      •  WV and MS (0+ / 0-)

        WV has lots of union presence with the coal miners, which is why it was such a Democratic state for so long (and still generally is at the local level.)

        But as the Democratic Party became harder to distinguish on labor issues from the Republican Party,  the Republicans turned, to coin a phrase, guns and God into winning issues for them. It didn't happen there the same time it did in the Deep South because it wasn't at all about race there. There is essentially no black population in WV.

        Kerry didn't do particularly well there, but he got a lot more than 20% of the vote. That's going to be a tough nut to crack given that I think that many people who voted for Hillary in the WV primary are going to support McCain.

        I like the analytical focus of this diary; I'd just like to see something that suggests that 20% of white Mississippi voters would vote for Obama against McCain. Because I just don't see that happening, not this year.  

        It would be interesting to see this analysis performed on North Carolina or Georgia, where there are more substantial blocs of white voters who seem willing to pull the Democratic lever on a regular basis.

        Stuck Between Stations : Thoughts from a bottomless pool of useless information.

        by Answer Guy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ray Mabus, Jr. for Veep (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think with this superstar on the ticket that, yes, Barack Obama could win Mississippi.

    50-state strategy, baby!

    The 2008 Democratic Presidential Ticket: Barack Obama, President; Ray Mabus, Vice President. *** Change, Reform, Competency, Expertise.

    by simca on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM PDT

  •  Bob Barr (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Hopefully he'll take a couple of percent at the margins, and that will help Obama.

    Real beauty is seldom appreciated by popular culture

    by Mikesco on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:48:05 AM PDT

  •  There's got to be Ron Sparks Democrats in MS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vets74, seabrook

    Ron Sparks is the economic populist agriculture official in Alabama who came inches away from running for Senate. He is proof that an economic populist can send a shockwave into the South. Alabama and Mississippi aren't that different. Both are economically recessed at the moment.

    •  Best bet: Obama wins Georgia. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Georgians are well aware of the past marital problems of Newt Gingrich.

      IN FACT: McCain has hidden the circumstances of his own divorce for decades.

      Gingrich's wive had cancer.

      McCain's wife had been crippled in a car wreck.

      Georgia's Baptists and other Fundies will abandon McCain by droves. No way they put a fornicating liar in the White House.

      BTW: Cindy put out first night she met The Hero. Then she persisted when she knew he was married.

      Some choice for Georgians for First Lady......

      Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Rev. Wright. Overcome our evil with good.

      by vets74 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:37:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

    Similarly, with Republicans so utterly demoralized and their party all but shattered, I can definitely see the conservative white vote getting depressed.

    Maybe, but as we've seen in the very recent past, nothing drives conservative whites to the polls like fear of the evil minority du jour (blacks, Latino immigrants, gays, mind-controlling space aliens).  The GOP may look demoralized and tattered right now, but I think it's complacent to assume they can't effectively regroup and target a susceptible audience with their fear-mongering in time for November elections.

    Ask me about my sig line.

    by LeanneB on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:55:11 AM PDT

  •  Turnout (0+ / 0-)

    We have an unusually low rate of participation in elections in this country.  So many of those eligible to vote don't register, and so many of those registered don't bother to vote, that our elections are decided by a bare majority of those eligible, and sometines even a minority.

    Now, 100% voting wouldn't have any effect on the final outcome of elections if this tendency to not bother to vote were equally distributed among people more and those less likely to vote for one party or another.  But it isn't.  Those non-voting (hopefully really just "not-yet-voting") folks waiting in the hills are disproportionally black, poor, hispanic and young.  Should they ever come down from the hills to vote, the electoral map would change completely, mostly in the direction of totally obliterating the Republicans.  They certainly wouldn't control any whole states, and could well be shut out of almost all CDs.

    It would take shifts in turnout much less dramatic than 100% participation to turn MS blue.  We've been stuck with a fairly static electoral map the last several cycles precisely because we haven't been able to get even modest shifts towards higher across the board turnout.  The tiny improvements we make in getting our voters registered and to the polls have been small enough that they could be counteracted by the other side, which does also have some voters of their own lurking in the hills not yet voting, getting countervailing increased turnout of their own to the polls.  But they simply don't have enough lurkers to respond to major shifts that we might achieve.

    Will this cycle be different?  Between pull forces coming from Obama and push forces coming from Bush -- maybe.  You can wait and see, or you can contact your local Democratic committee and get involved in making it happen by adding your effort to the pull forces.

    The presidency must be destroyed.

    by gtomkins on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:56:56 AM PDT

  •  If Bob Barr is on the ticket, he'll eat about 10% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, Ohiobama

    off McCain's white vote number. It's very doable. Obama is a much more adept, aggressive candidate than Kerry was.

    •  Barr?? Surely Libertarians won't pick him?? (0+ / 0-)

      I thought libertarians were against government interference in all areas, in particular in people's personal lives.  That's what is supposed to set them off from, say, Republicans.

      Barr's attempts to turn the wrath of the government on minority religions are well documented.  He also has a long history of gay bashing, among other unsavory habits.

      So, if the Libertarian party is really flirting with the idea of nominating this creep, one has to ask, WTF has happened to them?  Have they undergone a "hostile takeover" by the mouth-breathing bible-thumping squad?

  •  ooooh, I'm excited about the prospects. (0+ / 0-)
  • (0+ / 0-)

    Kossack Poblano, on his website, says there is a 0% chance that Obama will win Mississippi, and the same for Clinton.

    He's right.

    •  His model is based on polls and past (0+ / 0-)

      elections I believe. At least as far as the GE prospects are concerned (his primary models have been much more complex and based on demographics).

      He doesn't do analysis based on possible turnout shifts. Don't think that the case is being made that we can win MS easily. Surely, we cannot. But we need to get it out of our head that a state isn't winnable because we've lost so badly there before. If we can change how the state works, we can win it. And with the money and manpower we have, we may just be able to do that.

      And don't underestimate the dissatisfaction of southern evangelicals with the Republican candidate. They really don't like McCain, and they will not show up in huge numbers like they did for Bush.

      It may take a perfect storm to win MS, but that perfect storm looks like a real possibility.

      •  If there is a huge landslide (0+ / 0-)

        Mississippi may be swept in with the tide. Other than that, I can't see it.

        •  It may be a landslide, but MS won't be what's (0+ / 0-)

          swept up. I mean, if this happens in MS than it can happen in SC and NC as well as GA. So then it may end up being a landslide. But were not talking about increasing Obama's overall popular vote margin and eventually MS falls to him as well. Were talking about a tactical move to increase black turnout that could result in an upset. If you consider a bunch of upsets a landslide, fine.

          My question to you is, what can't you see? I don't understand the people who ignore the real numbers and look at the percentages and think, that's too difficult to overcome. If you just don't think Obama can get 95% of the black vote, then I wonder why. If you think we can't increase black turnout, then explain.

          But so far, I have yet to hear someone who disagrees with the notion that we can win southern states explain why that is other than they just feel like we can't.

          •  "What can't I see?" (0+ / 0-)

            Can Obama get 95% of the black vote in Mississippi? Sure. Can we increase black turnout? Yeah. Can we increase black turnout without inreasing white turnout? Doubtful. The problem in MS and much of the South is that as the black percentage increases the more likely whites are to vote GOP.

            Actually, though, Obama probably has a better shot in MS than in the other states you cited. For a long time it was standard practice to look at Southern politics through the framework of the 1968 election: the Nixon vote (white collar whites), the Wallace vote (blue collar whites) and the Humphrey vote (blacks, white liberals, union members/public employees). In Georgia in particular, Obama will just get killed by the "Nixon vote" in the Atlanta suburbs, by enough to put the state out of reach. Mississippi, as the poorest state in the country just doesn't have that white collar base.

            •  Well then it doesn't seem (0+ / 0-)

              that far out of reach. Ordinarily, I'd say your probably right that increasing black turnout would also increase white turnout. But with McCain as the nominee, do you really think he can energize the evangelical base more than Bush?
              It seems to me that you don't really see this outside the realm of possibility, though it is unlikely.

              As far as GA is concerned, I would say it is the most out of reach at this point. But NC and SC are not. You are right about the GA suburbs, though I would say that here is where you will find most of the Obamacans. If they do really exist in significant number, I would bet that they are most commonly found among the white collar suburban whites. I think issues like the war, where most probably supported it last time around and voted Bush, might cause some of them to vote for Obama. In what number, we shall see. These voters liked Romney a lot, but when choosing between McCain and Obama, I think the war might be a deciding factor.

              In the rest of Georgia, Huckabee was the favorite. I wonder to what extent McCain can turn out rural evangelicals or even if he will win them at the same level Bush did ( I think Obama might have a shot at connecting with evangelicals on some level).

  •  If you look at South Carolina (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the same way, we can come close to winning and possibly even win without even getting a larger share of the white vote.

    In 2004, exit polls show Kerry only won black voters 85%-15%. If Obama can make that 95%-5% then he's already a lot closer to winning. Black voters were 30% of the electorate in 2004, but their turnout skyrocketed in the primary. I don't know how much of a GE turnout boost that might translate too, but if its say 6-7%, which would lower white vote share from 67% to about 60%, then I do believe we have just won the state (not completely sure, there are still about 3% non-white, non-black in the state, plus factor in whatever Barr might get)

  •  In a word, NO (0+ / 0-)

    The electoral map may look a little different this year, but if Obama wins MS, it means a true once in a generation blowout.  And I don't think that's in the cards this year.

  •  He can win Louisiana, too. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    VetVoice: The blog for troops and veterans | My book on Amazon

    by Brandon Friedman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:19:00 AM PDT

    •  I had done the same numbers for Louisiana. (0+ / 0-)

      This is true.  I had people tell me I was crazy when I said that Obama can win Louisiana and Mississippi.  Louisiana has two Reps and a Senator on our side and Mississippi has two Reps.

      Believe it or not, we can.

      Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are? ~ Frank Zappa

      by alliedoc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:39:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can Obama Win MS? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missLotus, Larry McAwful, echatwa

    I live in Mississippi, in the Delta, and there is undeniable energy for Obama, and not only among blacks, but also among the usual constituents of his coalition. That in itself is plainly not enough to carry the state but if the election is pitched here on class and not racial/ideological lines, he can win.  There is, really, no difference between people stuck in poverty, unless it's a matter of degrees.  America hates 'class' distinctions because it undermines the notion of the alleged equality of all citizens; but class difference is a fact and it is more often economic rather than racial.  

  •  Easier than you think (5+ / 0-)

    There's another consideration to go in here was well, that I think has real potential to help Obama carry some red states like MS. While McCain has hitched himself to Bush pretty hard in the last eights years, he is still well known, especially by republicans, as a fairly progressive/independent/maverick kind of guy. As a result true conservatives don't like him. I believe there is a good chance that a significant number of conservative base voters will be disenfranchised enough by McCain on the top of the ticket that won't get out to vote in November.

    This is even more relevant when using 2004 numbers for comparison. Bush and Kerry were real polarizers, like what we would see if it were Huckabee v Clinton or something (sorry, that was unnecessary). However, both Obama and McCain are more centrist, and the real right wing party hacks may not see enough of a difference to go and vote for a candidate the don't like. We've all seen the "IF CLINTON DOESNT WIN IM VOTING FOR MCCAIN" comments... on the flip side, there's plenty of repubs who probably felt similar in their primary for the Huckinator or Romney. While I don't think for a second that hard line repubs will go and vote for Obama, they may certainly be pissed off enough to just stay home.

    Here's to hoping for an '84-style blowout come November, this time for the good guys.


    •  you may be on to something (0+ / 0-)

      As a result true conservatives don't like him.

      I agree.  Just look at the exit polls from '00.
      Full exit poll breakdown

      Total:25 %
      Somewhat Conserv.
      Very Conservative

      Of the 30% that identified at Very Conservative, he only won 2% of that vote.  Heck, even Keyes (a black man) won more of that block.

  •  And VA, NC, NC, GA, LA and even FL. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry McAwful

    Everything is possible with Obama which is why he was always the better prospect for Democrats. Interesting article by Adam Smith in St. Petersburg Times Obama Can Take Florida.

      1. Obama energizes the Democratic base.

      2. Obama expands the Democratic base with new voters.

      3. Obama brings in Independents and moderate Republicans.

    Obama puts Republican "base" states into play forcing the Republicans to spend scarce resources simply holding their base.

    If Obama picks off two or three of the Republican base states, he wins.

    In making those states competitive, Obama helps Democrats at every level win.

    Obama as positive, articulate, authentic agent of change on one side and the toxic Bush presidency on the other side, the Republicans are facing a perfect electoral storm.

    •  Florida's alot easier than you think (0+ / 0-)

      GA is shifting to the right, so is Louisiana because of Katrina, but Obama will easily kick ass in the swing Tampa Bay area with big black turnout which Kerry failed to do, Obama should also hold McCain to a smaller margin of victory in Jacksonville and Daytona Beach, and the rest of north florida, and the Cuban population, once reliably republican is now begining to abandon the party especially since Fidel Castro stepped down from power.

      •  Nothing will be easy. Morris "Obama unelectable" (0+ / 0-)

        Dick Morris, the Democratic version of Karl Rove, describes Obama as "A candidate who cannot get elected...being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated....

        Morris is stretching reality to try and make it fit around the premise of his opinion piece, that McCain can win the election. Morris uses Wright to try and make his argument work but polls and voters at the polls in IN and SC showed that Wright has not really been an issue at all. Obama has approval ratings in the 60% range and won solid votes in IN and SC all post Wright. Also, Republicans spent million$ tying Wright to Obama and Obama to Democratic candidates in special elections and Democrats won every single election in seats held by Republicans for decades.

        So Obama has proven to be eminently electable BUT McCain is a formidable candidate because he appeals beyond the Republican right wing base.

        I think McCain will win in FL but is likely to lose VA and a couple more of the Confederate states that are hard core Republican base.

  •  How many potential black voters are there? (0+ / 0-)

    Black turnout is typically low relative to the number who are eligible to vote, and in Southern states, this can make a big difference, sure—but could it really be this big?  I'm skeptical, but I'm willing to be wrong about this.  If it's true, though, I could see this formula putting not only Mississippi in play, but also Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina in play.  (I'm leaving Virginia and North Carolina off that list because I think they're already in play.  This would only help in those two states.)

    But Mississippi—I dunno.  It would be great to win it, but we'd really have to see Democratic numbers soar, which means we'd have to see black numbers soar.  Obama will no doubt help to bring that about, but how many potential black voters are there out there who haven't been bothering in elections?  I'm genuinely curious.  If anyone knows a good resource that shows that number for all states, I'd be grateful.

    A conservative is just a liberal who hasn't needed a second chance yet.

    by Larry McAwful on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:33:45 AM PDT

  •  I can see dsiaffected Repubs abd Indies (0+ / 0-)

    in MS voting for Obama, to an extent, especially if the election is framed to minimize the distraction of 'wedge' issues.  Of course, the Repubs will use every Swift Boat tactic but have already advertised that message so the Demos will not be blindsided.  I think, as well, Obama can carry La. which has a more 'tolerant' population than Ms., notably in the southern and western parts of the state.

  •  Excellent analysis. (0+ / 0-)

    It’s not a far fetched scenario. Add to that a couple of percentage points of white vote going to Bob Barr; this is a very plausible scenario. Thanks

  •  What would royally screw McCain (0+ / 0-)

    would be a major health crisis (heart attack, stroke, serious accident, emergency cancer surgery), which remind the American people of his age.

    I was a Republican until they lost their minds, The word 'conservative' means 'discriminatory,' ... It's a form of political discrimination. --- Charles Barkley

    by Kimball Cross on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM PDT

  •   It will take... (0+ / 0-)

    ... a lot of McCain hatred in MS for Obama to win MS.

    In other words, in order for Obama to win MS it will take historic lows of whites voting coupled with historic highs of blacks voting.

    You take that dynamic & add it with the fact more whites will vote for Obama in MS that expected, & you  get a narrow Obama victory.

    So it all depends on how much McCain pisses off the potential McCain voters in MS.  That's the bottom line.

    Regardless of what happens in MS, this much we know: This Nov. Obama is going to win states he was not expected to win.

    Whether MS is one of those states, we'll have to wait & see.

    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."--Padmé Amidala

    by wyvern on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:38:36 AM PDT

  •  The Rockies & plains states are better bets. (0+ / 0-)

    The new numbers Rasmussen has out of Nebraska, with McCain up only eleven points in a state Bush took by 33, demonstrate where the real geographic possibilities are for an Obama candidacy. The Rocky Mountain firewall separating the blue states of the Pacific and the blue states on the Mississippi--Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Wyoming, plus Alaska (where Rasmussen also has McCain leading with only a relatively small margin) are basically just waiting for Democrats to make a serious effort. Of course the Democrats should, not just because those electoral votes are there for the taking, but because we want to provide coattails for Democratic Senate nominees in Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska, and Wyoming.

    The strange thing is that even with the large African American vote in Mississippi Obama is less likely to win there, even with a large black turnout, because the demographics of the white voters run so seriously against him. I'm not saying Obama should write off the south--North Carolina and Virginia look very good--but I'm saying Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are very steep hills for him to climb unless he finds a way to move the needle among white voters there that he heretofore has not found.

  •  500,000 unregistered AA in GA?? (3+ / 0-)

    If Obama can register half of that , he could turn GA into a battleground state.

    Obama has got to do some serious voter-registration...specially on college campuses and AA communities..

  •  Not unimaginable. See MS-01. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  It could at least help us pick up MS-3. (0+ / 0-)
  •  It's possible (0+ / 0-)

    It's unlikely but it's possible, especially if BO picks a Southerner as his VP. Louisiana might be the more realistic shot at a pick up, though.

    Also, does Obama run as a senator from "liberal" Illinois or a "son" of Kansas?  Just as McCain brings his still active mom to show everyone that's he still young enough to president, I think BO needs to bring his grandmother Madelyn with him on the road to remind people that he's American and Christian.  It's sad that we have to play these games but we ignore them at our peril.

    Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

    by Valhalla on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:53:07 AM PDT

  •  I was going to write (0+ / 0-)

    about how Mississippi is a different place even than the rest of the South, and it is. I can't imagine us carrying it. In thirty years in the South I'd never heard of the Sons of the Confederacy and the United Daughters of the Confederacy until I moved there, although I've since learned that ancestors of my children were in the UDC in Arkansas.  Mississippi will never vote for a Dem from the North.

    Then I remembered a conversation with a white man from South Mississippi, a man whose accent and first name give him away immediately as from the truly Deep South. Talking about a topic in his business, he casually said, "President Bush, or a President Obama." And this was before he knew anything about my politics, so it wasn't a dig at me.

    Miracles can happen.

  •  The turnout is because Obama is anti-elitist (0+ / 0-)

    The media, R's and D advisors like to push candidates to give lip service to the common person, but focus on giving larger corporations and the rich special treatment.  That's why universal health care is generally off the table - the well-off are fine, but the typical person isn't important.  

    The press paints helping Americans (such as providing us all health care) as radical, even though it's simple decency.  Thus, you have the Kerry, Gore and Dukakis meek campaign approaches and resulting losses.  It also means you've let the Republicans set the agenda, thus campaigning on their terms.

    Obama cares about the average American.  It shows in his background as a community organizer.  It means he'll keep getting hit hard from the media, as well as the typical Rovian R's.  However, it's going to energize and expand his base (if they aren't treated like Indiana nuns, but that's another post).  It's why his 50 state strategy will be very successful, for him and the rest of the Democratic candidates.  

  •  Warning! Wildly offensive, but true (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Racism in Mississippi. Historical Note
    Warning! Wildly offensive, but true.

    "The Voice of the White South,"
    Mississippi Senator James Eastland
    who served from the 1940s to 1978.

    Senator Eastland was an unabashed and overwrought racist who rather poetically objected to the idea of sharing "his" country with "black, slimy, juicy, unbearably stinking niggers.... African flesh-eaters." He also publicly regaled his supporters with a travesty of the Declaration of Independence, which ran
    When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to abolish the Negro race, proper methods should be used. Among these are guns, bows and arrows, slingshots and knives.... All whites are created equal with certain rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of dead niggers.

    TV interview with Mike Wallace:

    The Mike Wallace Interview
    Senator James Eastland

    Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who has been called "The Voice of the White South," talks to Wallace about segregation, slavery, the Soviet Union, voting rights laws, and the Ku Klux Klan.
    NOTE: This interview contains language that may be offensive to some people.

    Wikipedia page

    Best Diary of the Year?

    by LNK on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:07:00 AM PDT

    •  What is your point in posting this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Zack from the SFV

      Do you think that an interview from the 50's and commentary on a former Congressman who resigned 30 years ago have anything to do with the Mississippi of today? Is that your implication? Did you even read the entire Wikipedia page?

      During his later years, he avoided associating himself with racist stands in the face of increasing black political power in Mississippi. In fact, during this period Eastland hired black Mississippians to serve on the staff of the Judiciary Committee. Eastland noted to aides that his earlier position on race was due primarily to the political realities of the times, ie, as a major political figure in a southern state in the 1950s and 1960s. He considered running for reelection in 1978, and sought to win black support. He won the support of civil rights leader and NAACP president Aaron Henry, but he ultimately decided not to seek reelection in 1978.

      You cannot base the attitudes of people from the 50's and 60's on the people living now in Mississippi. It is a dishonest comparison.

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

      by missLotus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:30:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I beg to differ most vigorously. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I have customers who are blatant racists.

        One of which came into my retail store on Martin Luther King Day, in New Hampshire and made all sorts of awful, racist statements about how awful it is that "this 'Martin Luther Coon Day' was forced upon us.", and then made comments about the nature of non-whites in general.

        Some employees and customers make pointed comments about the nature of customers who frequent my store, based upon race, ethnicity, and in a few cases sexuality choices.

        Oh, and the number of jokes and disparaging remarks made about Muslim and Arabs is incredible, just incredible. I have dozens of Arabic customers who I work with by phone, e-mail, fax .. many times just the mention of their accounts brings on the 'terra' crap.

        There are filthy disgusting bigots in every State.

        To deny that there are people who still believe what Eastland did, or more modern variations of the same is to bury one's head in the sand.

        You may make the case there are fewer of them, but these pigs are still out there. Ignorance is rife in American culture. Try turning on an AM talk radio station some time, and listening to it. Anywhere.

        "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." We need to go far, quickly.

        by shpilk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:44:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do not deny racism exists. (0+ / 0-)

          It is alive and well, everywhere. But my question was about why he was using this as an example in a thread about the presidential race in Mississippi. I do not deny that racism is a real and awful thing all over this country.

          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

          by missLotus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:53:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  My point was to make known heritage (0+ / 0-)

        that, alas, still echoes in the minds of the ill-informed, the prejudiced.  Behind closed doors one still hears talk like this. Hate crimes still take place.

        The progress of civilization is very slow.

        I don't mean Mississippi alone. And I don't mean progress hasn't taken place.

        But if this was the status quo, if this is what popularly elected leaders represented, it is obvious that the weight still is a burden.

        For example, the vast Republican movement to disenfranchise voters of color all over America.

        Best Diary of the Year?

        by LNK on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for explaining. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I didn't fully understand what you were trying to say by posting Eastland as an example. If you wanted to make a greater point about racism, then I'm sure you could find bigots of some variety in almost every state. Yes, Mississippi has a terrible history of racism, like many southern states. Yes, it is still full of racists. But I do believe in the greater good of humanity and that we, as a society, are capable of change. That change is possible, even in a backwards state like Mississippi.

          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

          by missLotus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:02:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why I chose Eastland.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I was researching something else and his name came up as a pivotal figure . . . .

            I also have read many examples of how people of color report more prejudice in the North than in the South......

            But there's something about Eastland's rhetoric that sums up the dirty propaganda and mindless racism that still circulates.

            Thanks for your comments and for your efforts to change hearts and minds.

            You might like this quotation:

            "Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can any deny themselves the pleasure of my company?"

            ~Zora Neale Hurston [Zora Neale Hurston (January 7, 1891 – January 28, 1960) was an American folklorist and author during the time of the Harlem Renaissance, best known for the 1937 novel Their Eyes Were Watching God.]


            Best Diary of the Year?

            by LNK on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:28:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Sounds like some of my customers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in New Hampshire.

      Racism is alive and well.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." We need to go far, quickly.

      by shpilk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  what is the voting rate among blacks? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Does the black population typically vote at or below the same rate as the white population?  I am wondering that the 95% you reference will be of a much larger number this year.

    Let's support our candidate in the primary and if he/she loses, let's think of John Roberts and Sam Alito when we think of John McCain.

    by Dave from Oregon on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:07:12 AM PDT

  •  Gingrich's divorce vs. McCain's divorce. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Want to kill off the McCain candidacy ???

    Get together a comparison of the Gingrich and McCain divorces.

    Gingrich is out of the game.

    He delivered divorce papers to a woman in her hospital bed. Suffering from cancer.

    A scumbag.

    McCain is in the game because what he did has remained hidden.

    McCain dumped a crippled wife, Carol, so he could marry into $100,000,000 money and get a hottie named Cindy.

    A scumbag.

    White Christians -- particularly women -- will vote for Obama on the basis of health care. Against McCain because he's a Gingrich-clone dickhead.

    Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Rev. Wright. Overcome our evil with good.

    by vets74 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:23:37 AM PDT

  •  25% (0+ / 0-)

    Obama's going to need at least 25% of the white vote in Mississippi to have a legitimate shot of winning that state. Any other scenario requires stacking "maybe it could happen" on top of "maybe it could happen" on top of "maybe it could happen" - in other words, any other scenario is a miracle scenario. 25% of the white vote, while historically itself a "maybe it could happen," in this election cycle is at least feasible. If Obama polls in the 20-25% range with white voters, then he has to treat Mississippi as in play. Between southern states such as Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and western/midwestern states such as Montana, Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska there are some chances to force McCain to play defense in states that one would expect to be strongholds. My guess is that McCain will see an opportunity to force Obama to play defense in the Northeast and Wisconsin and Minnesota.

    •  We'll have more money than McCain and can operate (0+ / 0-)

      a 50 state strategy more easily than he can.  The Repugs always rely on paid help too and we have an army of volunteers.  We're going to swamp them!!!

    •  I agree....... (0+ / 0-)

      This election is going to flip around the electoral map somewhat. McCain will put up an unique challenge making us work in the Northeast, Midwest Michigan Minnesota, and places in southwest like California. But if Obama picks Richardson than he could make life alot harder for McCain in the southwest Arizona, Texas, NM of course. Obama will also make McCain work alot harder in the south too. Bottom line is that right now there are only a few truly 'safe' states/regions for either candidates.

      only the dissatisfied can make change

      by pharoah on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:29:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In 2004, Bush carried MS by 20 points (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and in 2000 the margin was about 17 points in Bush's favor. Let us assume that Obama carried every single African-American vote, 100% A-A (i know that this is statistically impossible, but let us just assume that), that would translate into about 3 percentage points in the overall percentage (i am being extremely generous here). Based on the 2000 margin, that would leave about 14 percentage point difference in favor of the Republicans.

    Let us assume that new registrations favor Obama and shave about 3 points (which is a huge bump due to new registrations; best case scenarios, new registrations yield a bump of 1 to 2% maximum); that means that the margin is about 11 points.

    Let us assume that because of this unpopular war, the president favorables and the economy (don't forget, we are talking about Mississippi here), Obama gets another 8% bump from crossovers and independents; that means that the margin would be around 3 percentage points in favor of McCain based on the results of 2000.

    This is a very very tall order for Obama. I don't think you could flip Mississippi. However, if Mississippi could be flipped, i think any other state in the union can be flipped and we would be looking at a huge realigning elections like the 1800-1828 (the election of Jefferson in 1800 and Jackson in 1828 which both led to 60 years of dominance of Democratic-Republican Party and Democratic Party over Congress) or the 1860 (election of Lincoln and 70 years of republican dominance) or the 1930 (Democrats won the House in 1930 and controlled 50% of the seats and two years later with the election of FDR, they went up to 70% and that dominance lasted for 64 years).

    Are we looking at this kind of huge realigning elections? I don't know and i don't think we would ever see the aforementioned realignments that lasted for decades, and fundamentally rearranged the sitting order at the political table, so to speak. Nowadays, each party is composed of way too many groups and interests composing fragile coalitions causing easy fragmentations and short cyclical rearrangements of the alliances within each coalition and increasing the likelihood of defection and crossover. All i know is I wish my old professor was alive. As one of the founder of the realignment theory, i am sure he would have been thrilled to analyze this cycle.

    Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:03:10 PM PDT

    •  It depends more on turnout. If Obama (0+ / 0-)

      could just get African Americans in MS to show up as a proportion of the overall electorate (38% currently), that in and of itself would put him at the 45 or 46% range.  An enormous jump in African American turnout could possibly yield a small victory in Mississippi.

      •  Even if 100% of African-Americans (0+ / 0-)

        turned out and voted for Obama (which is pretty much impossible), it would yield  2% to 3% maximum in the overall vote. That would put Obama at 43 or 44%--that is 7 to 8 percentage points short.

        Don't give a damn a/t each & every politician currently alive in the US. Last time i voted for the top part of the ballot was 1972. Never missed SB election

        by Mutual Assured Destruction on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:01:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thats amazing.... (0+ / 0-)

    that Clinton only got 25% of the white vote in MS. Didnt realize it was that low. But that was as ideal as southern candidate as we could put up having Clinton/Gore on a ticket.

    only the dissatisfied can make change

    by pharoah on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:12:02 PM PDT

  •  He can. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    plain and simple.
    Mississippi is frequently written off as the worst of the worst, but if we were to sink some resources into it and fight like all get out for the voter suppression that is to come.

    We absolutely can win it.
    Possibly Georgia as well with Bob Barr on the ticket as a Libertarian.

    •  Let me in (0+ / 0-)

      I want to know what kind of hallucinogens you take. That must be some pretty good shit!

    •  While I love yours and DavidNYC's optimism ... (0+ / 0-)

      I was more inclined to click on your recommend box because you've touched on an ultimate truism that seems to be ignored amongst all the giddy optimism amongst the Dems right now.

      I think the blog author's largest flaw that tempers his raging enthusiasm is his glaring omission that there's unquestionably going to be a very coordinated and concerted effort in November to disenfranchise black voters.

      Rove et al aren't stupid.  They realize that a key element for Obama's success is the turnout of the black vote.  And since it might be dawning on them that there's almost no chance of winning this election fairly, they will resort to the most extremes in dirty tricks to accomplish disenfranchising large swaths of the black vote.  And really, who's going to stop them?  How exactly are we to FIGHT LIKE ALL GET OUT? People seem to have amnesia that it's still Rove's handpicked scum cronies in the key positions in all branches of government that are still pulling the levers of power that proved very effective in keeping large numbers of Democratic votes from counting which essentially gift wrapped the 2004 re-election of Bush.  The FEC has been effectively neutered and rendered powerless.

      And most egregious, after the shamefully scant attention reported in the American MSM of the various dirty tricks known to have been employed (mostly only circulating in the left leaning blogosphere) and despite even having a former crony ADMIT TO VOTER CAGING IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS and the proof in the enormous caging lists sent to and uncovered by Palast and thoroughly researched by drational, there remains STILL NO OVERSIGHT OR ANY WAY TO PREVENT voter caging by the parties, campaigns, and private organizations.  The meager attention it drew will only make the cons far more careful in not leaving any footprints to the RNC.

      I have yet to see any speculation, much less strategy on how the inevitable caging on a massive scale that will surely be driven by desperation can in any way be prevented by the Obama camp or any other Democrat in the blogosphere or otherwise that at the moment seems caught up in the irrational glee and all the talk of a permanent Dem majority.  Does anyone not think Rove and others vulnerable in this administration recognizes the necessity of continued republican leadership to ensure their future reputations and freedoms?  Maybe I should blog about this.  

      "Sen. Obama is a very honest and fine person from everything I've known about him" ~John McCain @ a press conference held by Citizens Against Government Waste

      by Ydef on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:16:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As a (0+ / 0-)

    resident of TN-7 which borders MS-1 I would like to advance the concept that with strong campaigning Obama could well do better with white voters than this diary suggests.
    Speaking as former resident of the other side of the fence that has brought over 20 contributing republicans to the Obama campaign from this area with a proper framing of the issues, strong voter regristration and GOTV I strongly believe that 22.5-30% white support is achievable with the potential for a full 4-8% cross over appeal.  Additionally, with a good campaign the potential exists for a repeat of the MS-1 special election wherein republican participation dropped in proportion.
    This will be another equally important factor.  The republicans simply cannot grasp why it is their folks are so dejected and the longer the RNC, RCCC & the RSCC keep on keepin' on the better our chances will be.

  •  Is it possible that Bob Barr (0+ / 0-)

    could steal enough white conservatives to make a difference in Mississippi?

  •  Hillary Endorses McCain (0+ / 0-)

    "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understand what a grave error it would be not to vote for Senator McCain," she said, then corrected herself, "[for] Senator Obama, and against Senator McCain."

    Doubtless, a Freudian slip.

    More evidence of Clinton dishonesty.

  •  Here's how to make a dent in white vote (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, Zack from the SFV, nathguy, Ydef

    I'm from the Mississippi Gulf Coast. There are some opportunities down here to make inroads with the white vote.

    1. Insurance reform. It is seen by many as the major hurdle to recovery from Katrina. Gene Taylor's bill passed the House but recently failed in the Senate. The status quo only helps the insurance companies. If Obama takes a strong stand on this he can switch some votes that might usually go Republican or not vote at all. It's a big business vs. consumer issue. That's a game Obama can play. The insurance companies made record profits and the consumers got screwed.

    Note to Obama and supporters: Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Mississippi. People died here. Their lives were destroyed. Many still haven't recovered. If you are trying to win over voters, acknowledge this fact. People here are tired of hearing that Katrina was merely about New Orleans.

    1a. FEMA reform. Related issues: Incompetent federal response; Trailers with formaldehyde; Heckuva job Brownie; Republicans can't govern.

    1. The war. Bringing a sensible and responsible end to our presence in Iraq. There is a distrust of the Bush administration here, just as there is anywhere. Part of it is about Katrina response part is about being misled or lied to about the war. This could sway independents and keep some white Dems on our side.
    1. The largest employer is Northrup Grumann which builds Navy and Coast Guard ships. McCain has bad-mouthed the ship yard in the past because of cost overruns and pork. Of course, to workers, that "pork" keeps their job intact and puts food on the table. It wouldn't be that hard to drive  a wedge between McCain and workers. Not only has he insulted their work, but he would likely cut back on ship orders if he were President.
    1. There are lots of Catholics down here. Can anyone say Hagee?
  •  Can we please (0+ / 0-)

    I really don't want to hear any more about Obama and demographics.
    He is a man.
    He is 1/2 white. Want me to be racist, its the smart 1/2. Jesus H. Christ I am sick and tired of everything being broken down by color.
    We will never move past the issue if it is the central issue.

    What if someone doesn't want to vote for Obama because his healthcare policy is weak?  Are they racist?
    What if someone doesn't want to vote for Nader because they don't think he is up for the job? Does that make them Anti Semitic? HIS FAMILY IS FROM LEBANON, he is Semitic.

    Can't we please just move past the "He can win because of the % of blacks in an area". That is as racist as saying white middle class people won't vote for him.
    I am white, middle class and male-I would say lower middle class at that.
    I intend to vote for Obama , does that make me open minded? Does that make me dedicated to party only? What?

    If we allow ourselves to continuously break down population by skin color that is how the vote will go-you are forcing people to decide based on skin color, you are begging them to.

    Jesus Christ, how about we talk about Obama's ability to excite a crowd, his charisma, some of his policies and so on.
    If we don't allow the racist media to determine how the man will win then we win.

    He is a man, lets start talking about his policies and not talk about his skin color-nobody cares, we all know he is black. Talk about the man, not the skin.

    •  Come on (0+ / 0-)

      He is 1/2 white. Want me to be racist, its the smart 1/2. Jesus H. Christ I am sick and tired of everything being broken down by color.
      We will never move past the issue if it is the central issue.

      Dealing with the realities of racism is not racist, and ignoring it does not make it go away. That is why we have and need affirmative action.

      •  Really (0+ / 0-)

        Breaking down every state by the % of skin color is helpful? That is not dealing with anything, it is fueling the fire.
        What if only white people are going to vote for Obama? Would that freak you out?
        Considering any state a victory because of said states population of a skin color is dealing with what?
        It is not remotely fair to anyone. It presupposes that people will vote a certain way based on the color of their skin.
        I think, or at least I get the impression, that Obama is trying to rise above the demographic based advertising crap. If we focus on color constantly then that becomes the central issue, and if McSame steals the election the explanation is already there-"See, white people wouldn't vote for him".
        I think this is a smoke screen and that this country, generally speaking doesn't give a shit about the color of the man's skin. Do some care? Yes, a very small percentage do-but the larger number see a chance for change. They are not looking at Obama as a chance for change based on the color of his skin, they see him as a vehicle for change based on his charisma, youthful look and speeches.

        If we focus on why people are voting for him, that becomes the central issue-but if we continuously focus on the color of his skin than that is what matters.

        •  Reality (0+ / 0-)

          What if only white people are going to vote for Obama? Would that freak you out?

          Of course it would: it would be an indication that something is seriously wrong with him. Only white people are going to vote for McCain in November, and it's an indication that something is wrong with him.

          Considering any state a victory because of said states population of a skin color is dealing with what?
          It is not remotely fair to anyone. It presupposes that people will vote a certain way based on the color of their skin.

          Race-based voting has been a fact of life in the South since the South has existed. It is why the overwhelming majority of white Mississippians and South Carolinians were once Democrats and are now Republicans.

          Race-based voting is also a fact of life in other parts of the country, even though it is especially pronounced in the South. No Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote since Lyndon Johnson, and there is a reason for that.

          •  I beg to differ (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think all the 'statistics' are true. Like the whole blacks don't vote myth.
            In Ohio ,New Mexico, and Florida blacks have a harder time voting and the machines used are outdated or corrupt so it appears that way. Blacks vote, they're votes are just more apt to be not counted.
            My belief in that comes from the man who broke the voter caging lists in Florida in 1999, yes 1999. 9 months before 2000 happened, Gregg Palast was talking on the BBC about the stolen election.
            He has a few books out, one worth reading is "Armed Madhouse" and it is on most discount racks now for under $6.
            My position stands and won't change. I believe the Main Stream media is a tool of corporate oppression, the Department Of Truth to the Big Brother if you will.
            They have stopped being the vanguards of democracy by 1978, so I put no value in their theories .

            I have never voted republican, and I am white. Super white-I don't tan, I turn red.
            I never considered Obamas skin color, not once. It never came to mind and until people started telling me white people won't vote for him it was not even an after thought.
            I think his skin color matters because we are being told it matters. IT DOESN'T. I think we should ignore his skin color and any statistic related to it. It is condescending to tell me my income bracket, skin color and age keep me from voting for a man based on the color of his skin.
            All my friends are my age, my color and in my income bracket- they are all voting for Obama. Unless it is some grad conspiracy to lie to me alone, like I matter.

            I didn't  think about Obama's color until someone said he wasn't black enough. I object, I object strongly.
            WHO CARES WHAT COLOR HE IS? I think that stuff is a smoke screen, keeping us from the issues. There will always be people who base what they do and who they gather with based on skin color. That is agreed. Ignore them, who cares?They  weren't going to vote democrat anyway.
            If we ignore the color issue, maybe the rest of the country will as well. I find it hard to believe any serious percentage of people won't vote for Obama based on the color of his skin.
            Bush still has a 24% approval rating. Those 24% wouldn't vote for Obama if we focused on the white 1/2 of him.

          •  So... (0+ / 0-)

            Whomever white people vote for , thats the problem?
            Should I feel guilty about my skin color? Is that the gist? I don't.
            Clinton didn't win a majority of the white vote because there was a serious third party candidate. Gore? There was little to distinguish him from Bush in 1999 and 2000. Gore lost the working class vote when he laughed at Ross Perot during a debate on NAFTA on CNN, not when not 1 member of the democratic party in the senate wouldn't stand up for the constitution.

            Policy does have much to do with why democrats lost voters in the south. Corporations wanted to break the unions, so they shipped their jobs south. Then they realized a work ethic didn't exist so they came up with NAFTA. NAFTA has as much to do with the party downfall as anything.

            Does racism exist? Sure, there is no disputing that-your reply alone thinking who white people vote for is just as racist as voting for someone based on skin color.

            I think the country has moved past this as a whole. Rabid supporters will say anything for their candidate, like if HRC doesn't win I won't vote or I'll vote McSame.
            I don't believe that-maybe I am being child like in my thoughts.

            When I went to the Obama rally in Philly ,I saw no large majority of skin color. I was more than likely the oldest person there at 39, the crowd did have a youth vibe. But there were plenty of white, black, Asian and latino people there. I felt that the majority were there for change-not based on color, but on policy. I felt, and I could be wrong ,that people were there because of a charismatic man-not a charismatic black man . I believe the majority of people in this country are over the skin color thing. I could be wrong, but we will never know as long as we concentrate on it.

  •  Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

    Let me be clear.

    I am a partisan Democrat. I will vote for either Democrat over McCain.

    Thinking Obama has a chance in MISSISSIPPI! is ridiculous.

    African-Americans are still in a minority in MS.

    White MS is most Republican (they used to be Democrats during segregation....).

    How could anyone think conservative Republicans (most of which are pro-life) would vote or a pro-choice, African-American?

    Why would he get more of the white vote than Kerry? and he has to get significantly more of the white vote by the writer's own figures...

    What do you think McCain and his minions will do with the Rev Wright (sp) and other mythologies???

    I do agree Obama will greatly expand the African-American vote in MS as he will do the the rest of the South where more than 50% of African-Americans reside.

    But in this Stupid Electorial College system, it will not matter in the Presidential election.

    He has little chance of winning any of the Southern States.

    There is even more of a problem if Obama is not able to resolve the conflict with Hillary Clinton's partisan's... especially the middle aged women who have actually experience the discrimination against their sex in their lives. They see the same
    discrimination against Hillary Clinton - "iron my shirts", "Bitch...".

    I hope he is able to reconcile with Clinton and her partisans. This is his only chance at Victory.

    I do not want to put Obama in the same opinion as I have for Kerry and Gore...

    There is no substitute for Victory.

  •  This diarist is on drugs (0+ / 0-)

    Can I have some of that shit?

  •  Win Mississippi? (0+ / 0-)

    What planet are these diarists returning to soon? I hope the Obama campaign doesn't rely on any of the "strategists" on this site.The repetitive drivel here of the reigning notion that because Obama has been successful in a shrewd 50 state primary strategy that this somehow redraws maps, reinvents the battleground states, and the electoral college, is as close to "flat earth" theory as you can get. The "this time it's different" rationalizations have been the hallmark of every losing democratic campaign since FDR. One other thing, if you ever hear of a DNC/Obama new voter registration initiative, pack your bags, grab your hat, and emigrate to australia, because you'll be looking at eight more years of bush/cheney/mc cain.

  •  I may be incorrect (0+ / 0-)
    But I recall reading some Mississippi results from 2004 which stated that Kerry won the 18-29 yr. old white vote.
  •  Democrat Just Won in Mississippi's Whitest Dist. (0+ / 0-)

    From Frank Rich in Today's NY Times

    The district [where the Demcrat beat the Republican by 54%-45% in a Mississipp by-election this week] as a whole is the second whitest in Mississippi. (Its black population is 27.2 percent <> .) It's the sole district Mr. Obama lost to Mrs. Clinton in the state's Democratic primary in March. Yet even in this unlikely political terrain the combination of a race-based Republican campaign and the personal intervention of Mr. Cheney energized enough white moderates and black voters to flip the district to the Democrats. Keep in mind, it's the Deep South we're talking about here. Imagine how the lethal combination of the Bush-Cheney brand and backlash-inducing G.O.P. race-baiting could whip up a torrential turnout by young voters, black voters and independents in true swing states farther north and west.

    And there's the added boost from the Dem and Republican conventions, according to Rich:

    The parties' weeklong infomercials are shaping up as quite a study in contrasts. For all the fears of a Democratic civil war, the planets may be aligning for a truce, and possibly a celebration. As fate has it, the nominee's [presumably Obama’s] acceptance speech is scheduled for the night of Aug. 28, exactly 45 years after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. electrified the nation <>  with "I Have a Dream."

    The next day brings another anniversary:  Mr. McCain turns 72.  And then, on Sept. 1, comes the virtually all-white G.O.P. vaudeville in Minneapolis-St. Paul. You'll be pleased to know the show will go on despite the fact that the convention manager, chosen by the McCain campaign, had to resign last weekend after being exposed  as the chief executive of a lobbying and consulting firm hired by the military junta in Myanmar.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site