Obama Gets Scant White Support in MS
| AR Articles on Elections |
|---|
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part I) (Sep. 2002) |
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part II) (Oct. 2002) |
| It’s Race, Stupid (Jan. 2001) |
| Republican or Third Party? (Dec. 1999) |
| We Should Not Support Patrick Buchanan (Feb 2000) |
| Search AmRen.com for Elections |
| More news stories on Elections |
Whites largely shunned Barack Obama in Mississippi’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday as the Deep South showed once again its reluctance to embrace him across racial lines.
While nine in 10 blacks lined up behind the Illinois senator, about three-fourths of whites supported Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to preliminary figures from an exit poll of voters across Mississippi. That made the state’s contest one of the most racially divided this year.
{snip}
Only in two other states have more than seven in 10 whites backed Clinton, and both were in the South—next-door Alabama and Arkansas, where she was first lady while her husband, Bill Clinton, was governor.
Further underscoring the importance of race, nearly four in 10 blacks said race was important in choosing their candidate. Of that group, nine in 10 supported Obama.
Among whites, about two in 10 said they considered race when deciding their vote. Nine in 10 of them voted for Clinton.
White men and women alike were voting heavily for Clinton. While she has consistently dominated among white women, the two have split the allegiance of white men about equally overall and Obama has had some strong performances with them since the Super Tuesday voting on Feb. 5.
Clinton did better than usual with white groups with whom she usually prevails, including those who are less educated, earn the least and are older. She also prevailed with white voters Obama usually captures, including college-educated men, independents and those under age 45.
{snip}
(Posted on March 12, 2008)
Obama Wins Mississippi Primary; Texas Caucus Win Estimated
CNN, March 11, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama claimed victory by a wide margin over Sen. Hillary Clinton in Mississippi’s Democratic primary Tuesday.
“What we’ve tried to do is steadily make sure that in each state we are making the case about the need for change in this country. Obviously the people in Mississippi responded,” Obama told CNN after his win.
Mississippi had 33 pledged delegates up for grabs, which will be allocated proportionally.
{snip}
The state’s Democratic voters were sharply divided among racial lines, exit polls indicated.
As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent.
The state has a larger proportion of African-Americans (36 percent, according to the 2000 census) than any other state in the country. And black voters make up nearly 70 percent of registered Democrats.
But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.
According to The Associated Press, only two other primary states were as racially polarized—neighboring Alabama, and Clinton’s former home state of Arkansas.
The exit polls also indicated roughly 40 percent of Mississippi Democratic voters said race was an important factor in their vote, and 90 percent of those voters supported Obama.
{snip}
Comments
Steve Sailor’s observation: The more black people there are in a state, the lower is Obama’s support among whites.
Posted by Reader-1 at 6:56 PM on March 12
Overall: Obama 61%, HRC 37%. Black voters: Obama 91%, HRC 9%. White voters: HRC 72%, Obama 24%. Obama won most of the state’s counties, but HRC won the counties in northwest Mississippi that are overwhelmingly white (by Mississippi standards).
I was thinking that, because it was an open primary, and McCain has it all wrapped up on the other side, that many whites would take a Democrat ballot and vote HRC just to muck things up. Perhaps there was some of that, but I noticed that in some northern counties, there were more Republican votes than Democrat votes.
Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 7:11 PM on March 12
>>>Clinton did better than usual with white groups with whom she usually prevails, including those who are less educated, earn the least and are older. She also prevailed with white voters Obama usually captures, including college-educated men, independents and those under age 45.——
It’s curious that Obama got as much white support in Mississippi as he did. Only those that speak of diversity in the theoretical buy into it. Those who have up close and personal experience with those of the “vibrant” community can see what utter nonsense the lying MSM feeds the public about diversity being our strength. They know it is a cancer that only brings strife and chaos when competing groups share the same soil. So it has always been.
Posted by Dent at 7:34 PM on March 12
In the 2000 Presidential race, I was a staunch supporter of Alan Keyes both with my dollars and primary vote. Alan Keyes and I see eye-to-eye on most moral, political, economic, and social issues. Here in WA state, I had the opportunity to vote for Keyes or Ron Paul, but gave my primary vote to Ron Paul. ( On Moral and Social issues, I still lean toward Alan Keyes )
Yet blacks soundly rejected Keyes as follows:
“According to a 2004 CNN exit poll taken on election day, women voters outnumbered male voters, and Obama got a larger percentage of female than male voters (73 percent versus 67 percent). Whites made up some 78 percent of the voters, with African Americans at 10 percent and Latinos at 9 percent. Among the three racial groups tabulated, whites gave Obama the lowest percentage of their votes (66 percent), with African Americans and Latinos giving him much higher percentages (92 percent and 82 percent respectively). Among four racial-gender groups, white men gave him the lowest percentage (64 percent) of the racial-gender groups tabulated, and women of color gave him the highest percentage (88 percent). Clearly, even against very weak opposition, the liberal Obama lost 36 percent of the white male vote. Apparently some whites saw Keyes as “essentially white” in his extremely conservative social and political views, those very characteristic of arch-conservative white candidates like George Bush.”
“There was considerable variation by ideology and religion, with those saying they were liberal (23 percent of those sampled) giving Obama 91 percent of their votes, and those saying they were conservative giving him just 33 percent of their votes. Those who said they were white conservative Protestants gave him only 18 percent of their votes, while those who said they were Catholics (presumably mostly white) gave him 75 percent of their votes.
This result showed me that most American Blacks will reject a BLACK candidate who opposes their immoral, out-of-wedlock children life-styles and go with a candidate (white or black, male or female) who provides them with the most handouts!
If that government handout specialist happens to be Black, then respond with 90+ percent block voting.
Posted by at 7:42 PM on March 12
Steve Sailor’s observation: The more black people there are in a state, the lower is Obama’s support among whites.
That’s because those whites have actual experience as to what blacks are like. White liberals in majority white areas who support Obama, do so out of ignorance. If he gets elected, they will learn the hard way what a huge mistake that is.
Posted by at 8:30 PM on March 12
Some of us who, in December, dreaded that this campaign was going to last almost a year, may now take heart.
The longer this thing goes, the more the racist and socialist Obama is being exposed for being.
Posted by Annoyed In Illinois at 8:36 PM on March 12
“The state has a larger proportion of African-Americans (36 percent, according to the 2000 census) than any other state in the country. And black voters make up nearly 70 percent of registered Democrats.
But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.”
Well, the one positive thing coming out of this whole horrors show of Obamania, is that the most stupid and sickening slice of the white population, the Democrats, are really getting a lesson in racial realities from the highest to the lowest. Maybe, they should not have smugly smirked through reading “The Death of the West,” or refused to read “The Camp of the Saints?”
These sanctimonious fools; these simpering, manipulative, and genocidal traitors in that party who have never seen a nonwhite they do not want given voting “rights” in this country, are finding out just what that means. That means the “big tent” in the Mississippi members still in their party is only probably 25% white, or more likely less?
That blacks and other “underprivileged” nonwhites select one of their own, over some “omniscient” white gorgon isn’t surprising. What is surprising, is that it is a source of bitter astonishment to the Red Queen and her supporters.
Well, those who do not read history, are doomed to repeat it; hint Comrade Clinton, go have a chat with former Congressman B-1 Bob Dornan of California and then embrace the “Dream.”
As always, God help us all!
Posted by John PM at 8:39 PM on March 12
Of course he won there…mississippi is mostly black….hopefully my state (PA) will burn his butt …but then our PA cities are becoming blacker, browner….you name it….please all you voters in PA…..do NOT VOTE FOR OSAMA…I MEANT OBAMA…NOT MUCH DIFFERANCE…..
Posted by lydia at 9:02 PM on March 12
If Obama doesn’t make it to the Democratic nomination, there will be violence. Blacks are going to be furious if their saviour is kept down by the white man again. Watch out, those of you who live near the tribes.
Posted by LOGIC at 9:14 PM on March 12
I read an article in the local paper today that described the above by asserting that the election in Ms. was along lines of race, with most whites voting for Hillary and 90% of blacks voting for Obama.
The following summation asserted that obviously southern whites will not vote for a black candidate without a word of mention that blacks won’t vote for a white one if they have one of their own on the ticket.
Blacks vote for radical leftist whites only if there isn’t a black to vote for.
Posted by Ranger at 9:45 PM on March 12
“Whites shunned Obama,,,, Deep South unwilling to cross racial lines,,,”
Note how Whites not voting for Obama is characterized as “shunning” and “unwilling” but a corresponding BLACK reluctance to vote for a White candidate is given a pass. Such blatant clap-trap hypocrisy by the MSM.
Posted by at 12:40 AM on March 13
i am so very happy to see this voting segregation take place and i will be over the top ecstatic if mccain defeats obama right along the lines of the same kind of racial segregation voting. and let the white-hating news media and smug multi-culti-diversity thug-goons yell and scream their racism chorus line to their hearts content.
Posted by mrJAXX at 1:10 AM on March 13
Why is it when blacks vote for blacks only based on skin color, no liberal white politician (like slick Willy), leftist media will denounce this black group voting as racist ? Only white voters get this ” racial pep ” talk to vote for non-whites, even if they are not qualified, example : Kwame Kilpatrick of motown shame.
Posted by Michigan patriot at 1:50 AM on March 13
I’m a Brit and already turned off by what I have seen of your election process.
Who is this Osama Obama guy? What has he done?
The Liberals have it sussed. A choice between a ranting feminist riding on the back of her husbands dodgy career and a black muslim.
Way to go guys!
The lights of civilisation are going off across the world.
Posted by Geoff Miller at 2:55 AM on March 13
“Whites largely shunned Barack Obama in Mississippi’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday as the Deep South showed once again its reluctance to embrace him across racial lines.”
Why don’t they say that blacks have once again shown their reluctance to embrace Hillary’s campain across racial lines.
Are journalists devious? Or just stupid? Perhaps both?
Posted by CSinAL at 3:15 AM on March 13
“The state has a larger proportion of African-Americans (36 percent, according to the 2000 census) than any other state in the country”
Actually, the state of Louisiana was said to be majority black 10 years ago, not however, the state of Louisiana’s voters.
Posted by at 9:37 AM on March 13
Just think about the insufferable MEDIA CIRCUS if (a) Obama won the nod as the Democratic presidential candidate; and (b) the even greater feeding frenzy if he actually WON THE ELECTION!
Not sure about you, friends, but the incessant “First Black Presidential Candidate with a Good chance of Winning” or the stomach-turning frenzy “First Black President-Elect” or “Black President” would certainly get my stomach to toss my cookies.
I really think that very few people in the media, INCLUDING the talking heads on the networks — actually like or support Obama. More likely, they regard him as but a news item, something guaranteed to draw attention of the media and the public — for the next 8 or 9 months. They totally ignore Obama’s vague, empty, meaningless rhetoric — jumping on the bandwagon solely because of Obama being both a Black and a Muslim — with a Muslim name (Mohammed). Same with a lot of Whites — it’s easy to support him if the alternative is Hillary Clinton — but to ACTUALLY VOTE FOR HIM in November. That’s something entirely different. Not that you’ll elicit that concession from the media or its talking heads.
Posted by Fed Up at 10:44 AM on March 13
“Note how Whites not voting for Obama is characterized as “shunning” and “unwilling” but a corresponding BLACK reluctance to vote for a White candidate is given a pass.”
We had a recent naysayer tell us, join the rest of the world here in the 21st Century. Personally, I’m for Obama, at least over Hillary, however, I think whites refusing to vote for a black candidate because of race is a more recent phenomenon, and not how the media would portray it, a relic from the past. You can’t continue to have non-whites voting exclusively for non-white causes and also being the beneficiaries of racism at the expense of whites and not see some kind of response. Sooner or later successful whites are going to be exposed to whites in their day to day lives who’ve been swept aside for the sake of diversity, or to those who have paid the ultimate price for the sake of harmony. We can’t be kept isolated or harried or afraid. Try as you might, you can’t keep whites fooled forever.
Posted by at 12:43 PM on March 13
>>>“Whites largely shunned Barack Obama in Mississippi’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday as the Deep South showed once again its reluctance to embrace him across racial lines.”
Why don’t they say that blacks have once again shown their reluctance to embrace Hillary’s campain across racial lines.
Are journalists devious? Or just stupid? Perhaps both?—-
Yes, how reprehensible the liberal press are. Imagine the stunning doublespeak; Blacks vote 90% for Obama, Whites vote 75% for Clinton, and these traitorous tools characterize it as Whites showing reluctance to embrace across racial lines.
.
Posted by Dent at 1:10 PM on March 13
Why would a White Man vote for John McCain, the proven race traitor? Experience teaches that a Republican sellout in the White House is more dangerous for us than an obvious enemy like Hilary or Obama.
Posted by at 2:04 PM on March 13
“If Obama doesn’t make it to the Democratic nomination, there will be violence. Blacks are going to be furious if their saviour is kept down by the white man again. Watch out, those of you who live near the tribes.”
Posted by LOGIC at 9:14 PM on March 12
> And if he wins, many will take THAT as opened season on whitey! As if it isn’t already!
Posted by Whiteplight at 3:51 PM on March 13
Why would a White Man vote for John McCain, the proven race traitor? Experience teaches that a Republican sellout in the White House is more dangerous for us than an obvious enemy like Hilary or Obama.
Posted by at 2:04 PM on March 13
> I think you are wrong. John McCain is playing politics. NO ONE can play in the main stream if they don’t cowtow to racial poltics. Obama is taking empty campaign promises to a new level. Just heard a discussion on this yesterday. According to some, no one in the future will be held to campaign promises because they are becoming understood as campaign ploys. Others are calling for candidates to be forced to make promises into written pre-election committments to be fulfilled if they are elected. Who knows what will happen. But I have very reason to think that McCain is the best choice left and would not vote for either Dem even though in my state I could have.
Posted by Whiteplight at 3:57 PM on March 13
All McCain has to do is harp on Obama’s admitted drug abuse and question very loudly when this became a non-issue in qualifying for the most important office in the nation.
Stand that next to his no-experience and the American Idol candidate quickly looks like an empty suit and non-threat. Or, this country has really lost its colective mind and deserves to collapse.
Posted by Whiteplight at 4:00 PM on March 13
Consider this: There are two candidates competing for the presidential nomination, both of which share identical views on any subject pertaining to blacks, plus their agendas both include supporting unqualified blacks and giving them extra privileges, so for all intents and purposes these people are clones.
Yet the overwheliming majority of blacks vote for the black candidate! Only about 10% voted for the white one. Obviously they are voting for their race, but it is NEVER mentioned by the MSM.
Instead they report that because Obama only got 39% of the white vote in Ms. it means some whites still shun blacks in the South.
No mention, of course, why only 10% of blacks supported a white candidate who is just as pro-black as the black one.
Posted by Ranger at 5:09 PM on March 13
“Why would a White Man vote for John McCain, the proven race traitor? Experience teaches that a Republican sellout in the White House is more dangerous for us than an obvious enemy like Hilary or Obama.”
The only reason a conservative like myself would vote for McCain would be to keep that black muslim out of the White House. If Hillary gets the nomination I think all us Republicans should stay home on election day or vote third party out of protest. There’s not much difference between these two candidates. The Republicans have burned us and we should return the favor.
Posted by at 6:36 PM on March 13
I understand that the person who posted at 2:04 p.m. is upset with John McCain’s record. He is still better than Barack Obama and so is Clinton. Some of my dad’s friends felt that George Bush was “His-pandering.” I think Hispanics are less likely to do things that I don’t like than black people are though. That has been my experience thus far.
My dad is a lifelong republican, but he did go to listen to what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had to say. He felt uneasy at the Obama rally. He said that the people there were very young, largely black, and that there was too much testosterone going on around there for an older man like himself so he left quickly. He did get a moment with Senator Clinton on the campaign trail and told her to remember that white people had come out in support of her and that included white men but not many black women. Senator Clinton had to watch her mouth with the media around. Dad said that her eyes told him what she couldn’t say. Dad has confidence that she is learning who her friends are.
Anyone but Obama for this country’s next president.
Posted by Ginny at 7:35 PM on March 13
“No mention, of course, why only 10% of blacks supported a white candidate who is just as pro-black as the black one.”
Maybe because the Bush-Clintons are the biggest crime family since the robber barrons.
Posted by at 10:28 PM on March 13
Why should we be afraid of rioting Blacks if B. Hussein Obama wins (or loses)? I’d much prefer to face off with open looters and arsonists in the streets than wait for some black thug to slither out of a dark alley.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 2:15 AM on March 14
“Why would a White Man vote for John McCain, the proven race traitor? Experience teaches that a Republican sellout in the White House is more dangerous for us than an obvious enemy like Hilary or Obama.”
Posted by at 2:04 PM
……………………………..
As I read over these many posts, the sad thing that impresses me is that everyone is discussing which candidate is the worst, or perhaps the least of the worst, instead of discussing (as we should) which candidate is the best. The above post is so typical. Nobody is enthusiastic for ANY of these candidates!
This is not the fault of the posters, but of the campaign and the political system which presents us with such unpalatable choices that we are forced, in election after election, to chose which candidate we think will be the least bad, the least harmful, the least damaging to our interests. What a pathetic situation!
Posted by ghw at 2:31 AM on March 14
If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote Third Party. There is little to chose from between her and McCain, and two years of Hillary may well swing the House and Senate back to the Republicans after the mid-term election. Remember what happened in 1994!
On the other hand, if the Obamanible Showman gets the nomination, I will vote McCain.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 1:44 PM on March 14
GHW:
What is REALLY needed is financial reform of the whole electoral system. Public finances should be available to all candidates rather then allow them to be bought and paid for by special interest groups.
Posted by at 3:23 PM on March 14
“What is REALLY needed is financial reform of the whole electoral system. Public finances should be available to all candidates rather then allow them to be bought and paid for by special interest groups.”
Exactly. But that would not be in the interest of the “special interest groups”, would it?
Posted by ghw at 3:53 AM on March 16
Obama’s associations with communists, anarchists, and racists(like his pastor) has me worried this country is finished if he’s elected. He’ll appoint a largely Black cabinet and we’ll see widespread unrest and corruption. Regardless of the outcome, there’ll be violence and unrest like we’ve never witnessed. Although I’ll vote McCain(mainly to keep either democrat out), I’d much rather Hillary get the nomination than a communist/muslim, Louis Farakkan admiring anti-American.
Posted by D. Andrews at 4:34 AM on March 16
” He felt uneasy at the Obama rally. He said that the people there were very young, largely black, and that there was too much testosterone going on around there for an older man like himself so he left quickly.”
**********
One thing I keep hearing is: “If we spent $$$ on (name of program) how many Obamas could we have?” and I think the answer still is, not many. But attempts will be made to create more and more Obamas. The scariest part is that Nation of Islam guy saying that the reason Obama is so successful is that he’s black, with a white mother. I have been pestered by black guys from time to time over the last 30 years, and one of the dumbest things I ever did was not keep the notes (or at least xerox them) that one used to put under my door in college; “You won’t go out with me because I’m black.” Although, the note was taken by a caring friend to someone high up in student services who stopped the pestering, at least for that time. I shudder to think what would have happened had I needed it for future proof that this guy was harassing me. I don’t want to think what it’s going to be like for other young white women in college without friends who will get involved to protect them against guys like that, black or otherwise, but it seems the ones who can’t get a clue, and who play the race card, ARE black.
Posted by at 11:13 AM on March 16
People of America Bill O’Reilly said recently that Obama is planning a ten trillion dollar tax plan aimed at people who
earn more than 96,000. This is to be over a ten year period
One trillion a year in other words. This should be a red flag
to all working people. Higher prices for goods and services.
Vote for him (obama) if you want in the end we all pay.
Posted by another annoyedin illinois at 5:16 PM on March 16
There are a lot of factors that disenfranchise white voters:
1.) Time and again judicial fiat is used to keep the polls open later in BLACK areas than white areas, as just happened in the Ohio Clinton/Obama Democrat primary, even though it was white areas that had suffered flooding causing havoc for white voters. (And reminiscent of what happened in Missouri a few years back in a Republican defeat when a judge allowed polls in St Louis black areas to stay open later, and buses were sent out to bring in MORE NEW black voters.) No justification for this, even when there are long lines, since as long as you are IN LINE before the poll closes, you still get to vote, even after the poll closing when no new arrivals are supposed to get in line.
2.) Black areas are so solidly Democrat there is little or no monitoring: Any Republican monitors are physically intimidated and there are shouts of “racism” if they try to challenge rampant black voter fraud.
3.) Open caucuses discriminate against working whites who don’t have time for that and are intimidated by throngs of ghetto blacks that flood in: You don’t have a secret ballot so everyone knows how you are voting. God help a black who doesn’t vote for the Democrat, or in this Democrat primary, for Obama.
Posted by at 9:20 PM on March 16