Taking the exit polls that CNN has posted for the South Carolina Democratic primary, Obama pulled 24% of the non-black vote, which made up about 45% of the democratic votes cast in SC.
On a day when Edwards supporters are feeling disappointed and dejected there's a bit of good news.
Nobody has mentioned that John Edwards came in second among non-black voters, pulling about 5% more than Hillary Clinton.
OpEdNews did a statistical analysis of the exit poll data CNN reported here, looking at the vote by race and age chart. We found that, combining the age ranges, Edwards pulled 51.1% and Hillary pulled 48.9% of the non-black voters who did not vote for Obama. The numbers are close, but since these are exit polls, with a much bigger sample size, they mean something.
Who knows what this means? Can Edwards use this in some way to build his case for Super-Tuesday? Does it suggest that in states where the black population is lower, like California, Edwards will do much better, at least, than Hillary?
What do you think?
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Not a joke, I've seen this online AND I've seen a case filed by Mormons for his arrest filed in California.
Multiple states are discussing issuing arrest warrants for the President of the United States. This has been well thought out, is connected with well grounded legal theory, and is consistent with the duty of Americans to defend the US Constitution from domestic enemies. Congressional inaction on impeachment does not oblige We the People to remain silent or do nothing about alleged war crimes and the President’s alleged criminal conduct.
Congress and the State leadership have failed to fully assert their oath to defend the US Constitution from domestic enemies. We the People may open discussions of issuing lawful arrest warrants not just against the President, but also those allegedly who have refused to fully assert their oath: Members of Congress, State representatives, and attorneys across the nation.
Power Retained By We the People: Vermont, Mass, and Kentucky discussing arrest warrants for President, consistent with the 10th Amendment. GMD The Constitution does not narrowly prohibit only Congress to take legal action. The Constitution only delegates the impeachment power of investigation/removal to the House and Senate. Rather, the power to arrest a sitting President is one that is retained by We the People, via the 10th Amendment.
Legal Scholar Discussion of Arresting A Sitting President: This approach of issuing arrest warrants and prosecuting a sitting President outside Congress, outside impeachment has been well discussed by legal scholars. [ Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of American Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049, 1064-66 (2000). ] There is no legal bar for these arrest warrants to issue. Bush’s name may be soon added to this database.
Legal Duty of Attorneys Generals: However, if a prosecutor refuses to consider this approach as a method to enforce the Constitution; or refuses to defend this Supreme Law from these alleged domestic enemies, they could be found complicit with alleged war crimes, in defiance of their attorney oath. Inaction on these types of alleged war crimes was the basis at Nuremberg to issue indictments against prosecutors, attorneys, and lawyers at the Justice Trial for their refusal to fully enforce Geneva against the Nazis. These issues must be examined by We the People in the Judicial system; they cannot be swept under the rug. Inaction could be a basis for state disciplinary boards to conduct investigations into prosecutors and disbar them for malfeasance in re alleged domestic enemies of the Supreme Law.
Untested: If you hear, “This is unprecedented” or “not allowed,” respond with, “No, it is untested.” It’s time to use this approach. The Congress and State legislatures have impermissibly permitted these alleged war crimes to go ignored too long.
Sovereignty: It is time for We the People through the power of arrest and the grand jury process to force this President to account for the alleged wart crimes, breaches of the peace, and the defiance of his oath of office. If We the People do not take action to investigate these alleged war crimes, other nations — under the principle of reciprocity and retaliation of Geneva — make use any and all abuses this President is alleged to have committed against Americans. If we fail to assert the rule of law, we give up sovereignty: The power to self-govern. Refusing to prosecute a sitting President for alleged war crimes is, by definition, complicity with tyranny.
Please safeguard any evidence you may have that Members of Congress, state legislators, or other have attempted to block enforcement of these arrest warrants, or have made threats against anyone, or made promises to any one to dissuade action in enforcing the laws of war against the President.
Any effort to interfere with the lawful efforts to arrest the President or interrupt the proceedings could be adjudicated as alleged obstruction of justice. This may be adjudicated as a subsequent offense under the laws of war. The maximum penalty imposed by a war crimes tribunal includes the death penalty.
by
ladybroadoak (37 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 392 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 5:47:29 PM
What it means is the DUMBOcrats have blown another election
The corporate celebrities in this country who pass for television news personalities have had one goal over the last two election cycles: make sure that John Edwards is not nominated.
That's why even after Edwards raised the most money in the 1st Quarter in 2004, the media ignored him and promoted Howard Dean, who the GOP thought would be the easiest Democrat to beat, and Democrats flocked to Dean.
That's why even after PBS released a detailed multi-month study showing that Edwards was by far the most electable Democrat in 2004 defeating Bush by eleven points whereas Kerry could only muster a tie with Bush, the media started promoting the myth that Kerry was the "most electable", and Democrats jumped on Kerry's bandwagon right before Iowa because the media told them he was the most electable.
This time, in 2004, from the day that Edwards announced in December 2006, the media marginalized and ignored him and promoted Clinton and Obama, and DUMBOcrats, being the media-led groupies that they are, turned right away from the guy who has polled all year better against Republicans (EDWARDS) ESPECIALLY IN BATTLEGROUND STATES than the other Democratic Candidates, and rushed towards the two candidates (Clinton and Obama) that the GOP has been hoping it would get from the beginning.
DUMBOcrats blew it in 2004, and they've blown it again. Democrats are the media's B*TCH.
by
Wethe Leaders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM
I think this showing in South Carolina bodes well for Edwards. He picked up a lot of voters and a lot of money in the past 2 weeks. People are finally starting to realize that while Obama and Clinton are the media darlings of the moment, neither are so electable that they can beat all the Republican candidates. I've even heard an MSNBC panelist say that last night. We all knew that the majority of black voters in SC would go for Obama. But in states like California, it's going to be a different ballgame. If Kerry had listened to Edwards in '04, we wouldn't be in an endless war and facing down a bad recession at the moment.
by
Lynn Beckman (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 10:29:45 AM
If the Edwards camp really capitalizes from some of recent stances he's made, this could turn into a nail-biter of a race. I believe that Edwards can beat Hillary and there are a lot of states left, and am especially looking forward to what Super Tuesday brings. Obama still remains a mystery to me, and the popularity he's riding is based on momentum - as nothing new has been said other than exciting his base with the recent wins.
There's still too much that the Average American doesn't know about John Edwards, and he's really got a lot going for him but faces the challenge of making himself well-known far more than he already is in a short period of time. By tackling issues the other two are avoiding like the plague, he could perk up the news and the country by breaking into areas the other Presidential candidates haven't had the gonads to touch.
William Cormier
by
William Cormier (117 articles, 5 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 292 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM
The Democratic field is virtually down to Edwards, Hillary and Obama [alphabetical] and in the case of SC both Hillary and Edwards hurt each other by splitting the votes.
As regards Edwards he had his chance along with Kerry and he lost. I am sure many would remember that and not support him.
Both Hillary and Obama are trying to break a ceiling: Obama the first non-white President and Hillary the first female President. Some believe that the best team would be both Obama and Hillary from the Democratic party. Who should become President and who would be Vice-President could be decided by the Super Tuesday if Edwards retires now and leaves the field to just Hillary and Obama. Then after Super Tuesday, the winner among Hillary and Obama would be President and the other Vice-President.
As regards Edwards, how about Secretary of State in the next administration? He could be Secretary of State irrespective of who - Hillary or Obama - becomes President.
by
Mohideen Ibramsha (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 10:39:05 AM
Elections are not about "the good guys" getting together and dividing up the spoils. The President sets the tone of the times and makes plans for our future. If he is not representative of the will of the people, we will be in for a very hard time, as we have been for the last seven years. As for Edwards "having his chance as running-mate to Kerry", that was no chance at all! Kerry was not the choice of the people and his campaign was run by the king-makers at the head of the party. Edwards was not allowed to connect with the people but was required to follow the mold of "politics as usual" and it was a dismal situation, for him and for the rest of us.
Edwards must either find a way to breal through to a commanding lead or leave the party, team up with Kucinich, and start a third party with accent on fulfulling the wishes of the people. Otherwise, we will have a continuation of the last seven years and perpetual war.
by
Mary Pitt (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 169 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 11:10:12 AM
We found that, combining the age ranges, Edwards pulled 51.1% and Hillary pulled 48.9% of the non-black voters who did not vote for Obama. The numbers are close, but since these are exit polls, with a much bigger sample size, they mean something.
Uhhh, no, sorry. The larger sample size means only that, if the surveys were truly randomly and scientifically done (a big if in exit polling), the margin of error is slightly smaller than the standard 3½% we see claimed in the normal opinion surveys. It does not mean that a 2.2% margin is somehow more than a 2.2% margin.
by
Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 142 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 11:01:10 AM
The Democratic Party is damaged! I believe the reason why the Corporate World annointed Obama and Hillary is to cripple the Party's base, and piss some people off so much that they will refuse to vote at all.This guarantees the Democratic Party survives in name only! John Edwards would easily beat ALL Republicans in the race, and would effect real change, as rebuilding the infratstructure is what is needed most now. The powers that be DO NOT want real change anymore than they want real Democracy. They want control, which is why our candidates with the exception of Edwards are been hand picked for us. Without John Edwards, kiss the Democratic Party Good Bye!
by
Leeann LoFaso (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 11:01:40 AM
It amasses me that people continually ignore the genie behind the curtain. As if this whole phony election process even includes us as anything more than dupes to a charade. That even if a candidate that might actually have our interests at heart could get past talking-heads dictating to us who we are going to vote for and become the Democratic candidate for POTUS that they'd get past E-voting machines that would never allow them reins of power.
No one can convince me that we aren't spoon feed who are the supposed "winners" or that those that are eventually placed as our leaders have our best interests at heart. I've been around too long and heard too many lies to think otherwise. And through all of it I have not witnessed any change for the better.
Otherwise intelligent people seem to ignore who gives us information we're getting. I don't believe polls anymore than I believe any of the so-called "front-runners" are candidates the majority of the people want. The spider spins the web and we get caught-up in it and as we focus our attention on being stuck and on which one of the phony candidates can "save" us the spider sucks our life-blood out of us.
Until we break the stranglehold of elites of industry, money, power and influence have over our entire election process we will continue to fall further into the dark hole of tyranny and everything else we do just adds color to an otherwise dark future.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1256 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM
and it wouldn't be a long or sensuous kiss--more of a peck on the cheek.
It may well be long past time for the Democratic Party to fade off into the sunset. Can Democrats logically claim to have a party with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid up there in front of the entire world?
I, for one, would be glad to see them go. Certainly they're doing all they possibly can to self-destruct.
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 42 quicklinks, 193 diaries, 364 comments)
on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 3:36:26 PM
The media are dying to use ANY outside diverter to spice up the race and this would include a racial factor. The point is: Edwards will not be a factor! (Other than a spoiler) The "Corporate Sector" (THIS INCLUDES OWNERS OF THE MEDIA) wants you to have a choice between THIER choice corporatists. On the Democrat side that's either Mac-Hillary or Mac-Barrak. They themselves do NOT want Edwards in there. (They wont come right out and say it, as that just might start people thinking).
Either of these two would even satisfy the corporate greed of most republicans and demopublicans as well. Both refuse to commit to complete withdrwal of Iraq or of the Navy/Marines out of the Iran area. Both will continue Arms sales in and around the mideast, and probably to other hot spots. Both are not yet (and probably wont be) committed to even holding the major telecom company's feet to the fire for their complicity in illegal evesdropping on American citizens (also holding Bush to accountability), Someting so important and we are only a half dozen votes short, let alone impeachment hearings. Neither has said much (if anything) on 911 investigations. What most - simply will not - no - can not, grasp is that when either of these two Democrats win, it will be a big win for the Party but an empty win for the country! They pay lip service to words like hope, but have talked of no true change in any [specific] manor, no [specific] plan. We will wind up with what is essentially a Republican in the white house that simply calls him or herself a Democrat, and it will be "BUSINESS - AS USUAL. "We the people will take a back seat to business" and the lobby checks for them will be in the mail for them as long as they continue to side with big business over we the people.
by
Brad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 11:27:09 AM
There may be a lot of us out here who realize that Edwards is the most progressive of the lot ,but the MSM rarely mentions his name and we know why. They do not want to give a progressive a chance to energise the riff raff. We the people. They like their jobs sitting on their right butt cheeks and never needing to verify a fact. Edwards would surely change the landscape of Washington D.C. and the country. He needs to fight on ,even though many of us Democrats have been marginalised, by our own party. We here in Florida will not get our votes counted again, because the Florida State Party decided we needed to counted ahead of super Tuesday. The National Democratic Party decided to strip of our rights. No one asked us. Who cares if our primary is a few days ahead of super Tuesday. If it were only Clinton and Obama I probably would not make the effort to go to the polls, but I will ,to cast my vote for Edwards. I like his policies and believe he will be the only one to clean house. And that is my only reason .
by
cluelessfl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 184 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM
The CNN statistics used by Mr Kall sort of hide the breakdown by race, putting it at the bottom of the third page, rather than beside the breakdowns by “age” and “age and race,” a rather curious — and politically correct? — way of doing things. And race is defined as “black” and “non-black,” in the “age and race” category, another rather curious divide. Mr Kall may have missed the breakdown given by race due to the strange placement, because he noted that he did the statistical analysis of the “age and race” chart, rather than using the race chart itself.
So, what did the breakdown by race tell us? Well, first, the vote was extremely racial in nature: Senator Obama won a whopping 78% of the black vote, but came in third (out of three) amongst whites, with former Senator Edwards at 40%, Senator Clinton at 36% and Senator Obama at 24%. Among blacks, Mr Edwards received a paltry 2% of the vote compared to Mrs Clinton’s 19%. It seems to me that Mr Kall’s notion that John Edwards was gaining real traction amongst white voters has a couple of real problems:
It assumes that South Carolina was somehow a neutral state as far as home field advantage is concerned between Mrs Clinton and Mr Edwards, even though Mr Edwards was born there; and
It fails to note that Mrs Clinton was able to win some 19% of the black vote, while Mr Edwards received virtually no black support at all.
Thus, while perhaps Mr Edwards could have an advantage in strictly white votes, the fact that he is winning next to nothing of the black vote while Mrs Clinton is getting something there means that John Edwards’ advantage amongst whites (if it exists at all) simply is not large enough to overcome Mrs Clinton’s wider appeal.
(Note: A longer version of this article is posted on my site, at the hyperlink embedded at the top.)
by
Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 142 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 1:06:29 PM
What it says to me is that our country is still very racially divided by the collectivism perpetuated by the media and government programs and policies. In fact, most of the candidates use collectivism to benefit their campaign in any way possible. This of course further divides our country.
The solution is individual liberty and an end to collectivism in any form.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
by
Paul Thomasberg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 1:45:30 PM
Yes your quite right, many countries have had tribunals and found the same verdict.He has pardoned himself and everyone else.what that will do for the 1/2 mllion dead Iraqi,the 73 243 dead us soldiers,the 248,344 crippled us soldiers and the 430 US soldiers who commited Suicide, or were shot and made to look like suicide because they objected to what was going on.
Americans could of left Iraq as soon as Saddam was captured giving Back the Iraqi their country, instead American soldiers through an upbringing of arrogance and racism started to rape, murder ,loot and torture the Iraqi.
not all the soldiers, but many of them acted like gangsters .this caused the Iraqi to revolt against the Americans.in effect the soldiers were not trained for police work and Congressman J Martha had it right when he said to withdraw to afghan border and operate from that safe position.But greed from the Neocons ,they were only there for the oil ,not to free Iraq .The economy was broken and they figured they would get the oil.
They got the oil but it cost Americans their name ,their reputation ,and their constitution.It is not defficult to understand that 911 was an inside job,America is in big trouble
they went looking for terrorists ,when the world's #1 terrorists are in your backyard !
The CIA. itself a ruthless, terrorist organization inspires terrorism in response. In some cases, notably the CIA and al Qaeda, the relationship between the CIA and terrorism is symbiotic. The CIA has perpetrated an "American Holocaust", the deaths of some 6 million people from its inception to the year 1987. As Long as the CIA Exists, the US will never be safe from terrorism.
RON PAUL for the long HAUL
by
dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 10:02:11 PM
He and Hillary appeared to have decided that Bill was the blackest in their partnership and might be able to rerun the old days. Hot damn! He sure has the routine down pat. I listened to his whole spiel and admired how even Beta blockers can't make him lose one sentence from an outline he carries in his head. True spousal loyalty. But don't take me too seriously. I've bet against Slick Willie before and lost. As I watched, however, another idea came into my head. Rove could never have helped Bush as he did if he hadn't studied Clinton. The polls, the attention to people's wants, the triangulation.
Hillary will have a tough row to hoe, but she has money to throw at it yet. I don't count her out. However, I wonder if there won't be a little retooling in the coming month.
Obama did what was necessary. If the race didn't stick with him, where would he gain credibility? In my book, that's just fine, because I figured out long ago, that in the Universe, I belong to a minority race and my only chance in life was to get some smarts. Obama's got smarts in two camps, racially speaking, but I think maybe we need to figure out how the military in his early life fits in. He may have taken into account that desegration was the norm, but got to the rough and tumble of Chicago streets without practical experience in how po' folks get a leg up. Jessie Jackson tried, and community activism didn't sell big.
Edwards is who we are discussing, however. Po' folks understand him and he understands them. And there are getting to be more of them every day. Status quo-ers are banking on $600 in July to help but it may be like a dash of cold water, considering inflation. I think he understands how recession is here and is turning into depression for many. It's not something which is going to be on the Tube yet, just YouTube. However, to alarm voters too early is no wiser than the stunt Bush has been playing for 8 years. I have a hunch that Edwards was anxious to have the other two define their worst traits while he tread water. As he has said, it's possible to have a brokered convention. And you know who the broker would be. He keeps telling the same old campaign lines. It would surprise me if he hadn't already formulated some new ones. It's the old saw. It's a recession when your neighbor is out of work and a depression when you are.
I'm wondering, whoever a person favors, if it's time now to correct misleading statements in the press and TV in the usual rapid response method.
by
Margaret Bassett (21 articles, 1360 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 819 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 1:46:25 PM
I entirely agree with bsalkind's comments. I think I'm going to sit the next presidential election out and direct my energy towards lower levels of government, engage in some income tax revolt and product boycotts and try my best to care for family and close friends.To hell with the feds. There isn't one of them thats worth a plug nickel, let alone wasting any brain power on. Setting Edwards aside, what mysterious form of alchemy crossbred the remaining creatures being offered us in '08? The Obama Man, Lady Helleree. Smilin' Huckleberry, Massa' Mitt and General Mc Cain are nothing but snake-oil hawkers peddlin' the same old worm-eaten bromides.
by
Dadeoh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 2:17:50 PM
The remaining Democratic candidates have never been my first choice, but all are a big improvement over Bush. I really can't say the same about the Republican candidates. I am really not sure that any of them will be an improvement over the little shrub, but if enough people drop out and don't vote we will probably get to find out.
by
PrMaine (8 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 284 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 5:24:08 PM
