1992 was a somewhat special year as it was a real three-way race in the General Election. To win the Electoral College it was not necessary to have anything near 50+ % of the popular vote. Thus, the core constituencies, for instance African-Americans in the Democratic Party weighed somewhat proportionally heavier in 1992 than they will in 2008. This year, as a voting bloc, they will be somewhat "diluted".

Also, the demographics have changed since 1992; chief among these changes is the important rise of the Latino vote.

On a side note though, of course our candidate will have to build a broad coalition, that's obviously a given. And that coalition needs to include African-Americans, Latinos, blue collar workers and women, where the two latter groups are the far hugest in votes.

And, of course, the wonderful thing these is how great a job the Republicans have done wooing the blue collar workers with those tax cuts for the rich, and the Latinos with telling them they're not wanted, and the women with the glass ceilings and demands to get in the kitchen and cook dinner and the blacks with, oh, everything?

Clinton can't win without Obama supporters.

Obama can't win without Clinton supporters.

I could have pointed out that while the black vote may have been the difference in 1992, we lot in 2000 and 2004 so presumably there are other pieces to the puzzle.

Ultimately I think... I hope I know what you're trying to say, and there's no reason for me to suggest there are other pieces of the puzzle except to quite simply say what I just said.

Clinton can't win without Obama supporters.

Obama can't win without Clinton supporters.

I'm not sure what your point is, kid. That Hillary shouldn't try to use whatever arguments she can to win the support of super-delegates? I'm sure Obama will be using whatever arguments he can. The individuals decisions will be made will be partially by trying to read mathematical tea leaves on who is most electable, but all this nonsense that Obama supporters keep raising about "fairness" is annoying, especially before the fact.

How fair is it that Obama is standing in the way of a Michigan revote and refusing to support the idea that the people in Michigan and Florida should not be disenfranchised?

That Hillary's supporters will vote for him but his supporters won't vote for her.

Perhaps that is what Obama, Oakland and Markos want.  Maybe if Hillary does get the nomination, and the Blacks don't vote, which would be a  really, really stupid thing to do, (I know they are not as stupid as the press and Obama wants us to believe)then McCain will win and there will be a major political realignment in this country.  The Nader Liberals and the Liberals with no lives can join with the Blacks and the some of the children.  Then another party could be formed by middle and upper class whites and Hispanics, which will be the biggest part by far.  Then there will be the wealthier Republicans who want to screw everyone.

This is the unity that Barack Obama brings to us.  He has been divisive since January injecting race ALL THE TIME.  He is walking on thin ice because if the blacks want to get together to only vote for blacks, they will ultimately be putting themselves back 20 years.  Remember, without Lyndon Johnson and JFK, there would have been no civil rights act.  Maybe the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is giving Obama and those at Dkos a false sense of security and advice.

I don't like either Obama or Hillary but I voted for Hillary because Obama showed himself for the liar he is with his interview at the Reno Gazette which you should all watch if you have not already.  This same smug attitude of Obama and Oakland and all the Obamorons on the Dkos are what we saw with Nader.  

If Obama didn't give that Reno Gazette interview praising Reagan and trashing the 60s and 70s and said those people are waiting for a Love-in to solve their problems, if Obama didn't inject race into his campaign, if Obama didn't align himself with Jeremiah Wright until he got caught, if Obama voted differently in funding the war in Iraq, if Obama didn't equate Geraldine Ferraro to his racist pig pastor, if Obama didn't say his supporters would not vote for Hillary, if Obama had more than 15 minutes experience in the Senate, if Obama would have held a few meetings and generated a staff to start working on his Afghanistan sub-committee, If Obama's wife wasn't so anti-American until her husband announced for the presidency, if Obama didn't link up with arrogant and disgusting Bill "Reagan Tax Cut" Bradley, if Obama's Samantha Powers didn't steal the covers hiding Obama's real plans for Iraq, if Obama didn't lie about what he will do with NAFTA, if Obama didn't have Rezko buy him a house or land, if Obama walked out of that hate mongering church, if Obama won some of the states necessary to get enough electoral votes to win the presidency, if Obama had a real lead, if much of Obama's votes didn't come from caucuses that excluded voters who were older and voters with lives and responsibilities...I could have supported him.

First of all, in 1992, did Bill Clinton have to fight Barack Obama for African American votes?

Second, if Barack Obama drops out of the race, what do you think African Americans are most likely to do?  Vote McCain, stay home, or vote for Hillary Clinton, who has a great reputation in the African American community?

At this point, it looks like she'd get the black vote, but will Obama get the non-internet based white vote?

Perhaps Obama supporters are the ones who should be concerned about this?

until your candidate and his team created racism out of thin air.

Go ahead and tell us your take on the "fairy tale" and "MLK-LBJ" stuff.  Tell us how it was all so racist, when in fact it was distorted.

Or perhaps things like truth, honor, integrity, and fairness don't matter to you.

John

...other than implying that we're going to disaffect this segment or that segment is such a basic thing, I have to wonder what you're implying here kid oakland.

As a white voter supporting Hillary Clinton, I've not only been extremely disaffected by the Obama campaign's implications that I'm a racist because I support her--which I know I'm not--but, at least I'm a Clinton supporter that will gladly vote for Obama should he win the nomination.

Regrettably, it's my understanding that there's a large portion of the white voting population that supports Clinton that feels insulted subtle focus on that sentiment, as further/subtly put forth, again here, by you.

By the way, this portion of the white voting population (that supports Clinton now) that's been put off by this posturing by many of Obama's supporters, easily equals the size of the entire AA voting bloc in the U.S., too (at least according to poll results I've read--poll results that also include the blowback from the Jeremiah Wright stuff).

So, if your point is: If there's not a serious attempt with regard to coalition-building within the Party in coming months, we're going to lose this thing, regardless of whether our nominee is Clinton or Obama, then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

But, for Obamatrons, and certain other opinion leaders in the blogosphere and the MSM to put forth the concept that there's a clear consensus within the Party at this time, is to both ignore history, and the very reason as to why we have these conventions in the first place--specifically to obtain that broad consensus within the party when there are at least two strong candidates, and neither's obtained a majority.

All this drivel and crap I'm reading about pledged delegate lead and states and so forth means absolutlely nothing, especially in light of the reality that Hillary could easily--still--have the popular vote lead within our party when everything's said and done prior to the election, too.

Take a look around, kid! Obama's sinking in the polls at the moment. Bigtime. The speech in Phila did little to ameliorate that recent trend. If that continues, that will torpedo his chances of actually clinching the nomination moreso than all the blogs in the world.

Which brings me to my final point, and it's this: you want to insure that you're doing everything you can to facilitate a Dem win in November. Go back to one of the main instigators of this "netroots" cause for this party divisiveness at Big Orange, and arrange for Markos to undergo a brain transplant. That will have a more profound effect upon rebuilding this party's coalition right now than almost anything!

Or, ignore history, which has dealt with this problem in the past AT THE CONVENTION.

I find it extremely ironic that the diarist spends so much time referencing THE most flawed aspect of our entire presidential voting process--the Electoral College system--which totally ignoring the reality that this archaic institution, along with the current primary system, BOTH need to be overhauled for there to be true parity when it comes to electing the President in this country, today.

Apparently, we didn't learn enough from the 2000 election results--at least not enough to change it then, when we lost in the Electoral College while winning the popular election by some 500,000 votes!

Now, I read a diary which totally ignores this reality to make a point for the AA community and the Obama campaign, when the reality is our primary system is just as screwed up as the Electoral College!?!?

Change it, or at least realize the entire thing's screwed-up. And, we have to work within the rules and understand the historical implications of this--especially when it comes to Party conventions--which were established SPECIFICALLY to deal with problems like we're having this year within the Democratic side of the field.

It's flawed. It needs to be changed; but we have to deal with what we have now. And, to that I say, this contest SHOULD continue onward, because them's the rules right now, too, as f**ked-up as they are, across-the-board. And, as a result of that, Hillary's perfectly within her rights to do what she's doing today, too. So, spare me the "Hillary will ruin our chances in November" shpiel, because what's happening in the Obama campaign right now is akin to them going out and writing the most powerful 527-scripted-media they could vis-a-vis the Jeremiah Wright content. And, that could do more to undermine our chances in November than anything I know about Hillary right now, IMHO.

Across-the-board, there are major problems here on both sides of the party. Resolution is critical. But, this is going to take time.

For once, I would like an Obama supporter to explain to me (i) why we have superdelegates in the first place, and (ii) how superdelegates are "supposed" to vote, without changing the subject or changing the rules, or waiting a few more primaries to see which answer would support Obama the best.

That's it.  Just explain the PURPOSE of having two different groups, one called delegates, and one called superdelegates, and the REQUIREMENT for superdelegates to choose any particular candidate.

Who are they "supposed" to vote for?  

And if they are "supposed" to vote one way or another, as opposed to just voting for whoever the fuck they please, then why do we have supedelegates in the first place?

I'm getting so sick of Obama supporters sitting with their calculators, figuring out what superdelegates need to do to get Obama elected, and then telling me that Clinton needs to drop out because she can only win by "stealing" the election.

First, its "superdelegates have to vote for the candidate their local voters chose, because that would be Obama, and if they don't vote that way, we're going to riot at the convention".  

Then it was "superdelegates have to vote for the candidate that gets the most national voters, as long as that candidate is Obama, and if they don't vote that way, we're going to riot at the  convention.

Then, it was "black superdelegates have to vote for Obama, and if they don't, we're going to riot at the convention."

I just don't get Obama supporters' understanding of the superdelegate system.  

Whenever the issue of superdelegates comes up, its always an Obama supporter complaining.  You don't hear anyone else wringing their hands about it.  Why is that?  Because the superdelegate system works better for Clinton?  So, you want to change the rules mid-course to force an Obama victory that the rules don't entitle him to?  Why not change the primary process into caucuses while we're at it, because primaries favor Clinton, too.  

When I break it down, it seems to be nothing more than "if Superdelegates don't choose Obama, there's going to be a riot at the convention."

I don't get it.  I just don't get it.

The whole point of superdelegates as I understand them is for them to vote for whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, without regard to anything or anybody.  

If they want to vote for someone because they are black, and choose Obama although the voters in their state chose Hillary, they are free to do so.  

If they want to vote for someone who lost their state's primary or caucus, they are free to do so.

If they want to vote for someone who offers them the biggest position in their cabinet, they are free to do so.

If they want to vote for someone who contributed the most to their own campaign (it has already been proven that Obama has far outspent Hillary with regard to superdelegates), they are free to do so.

If they want to toss a coin in the air, and say "heads Clinton, tails Obama", they are free to do so.

And if I'm wrong, prove it to me, or STFU!!!