How Obama and Clinton split CaliforniaWe know that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton basically split California, with the latter winning the popular vote by about 10 percentage points. But it's interesting to look at how they split the Golden State using this map.
Clinton's margin of victory seems to be counties with lots of Latino voters, which have been slow to warm to Obama. She posted her biggest numbers in the Central Valley counties of Stanislaus (60%), San Joaquin (58), Merced (59), Tulare (60), and Madera (56), and in the border county of Imperial (67).
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa delivered his county for Clinton (55 to 41.5), but Mayor Gavin Newsom failed to do so in San Francisco, where Obama won by 8 points. The candidates split the Bay Area, with Alameda, Marin, and Sonoma counties joining SF in backing Obama and San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Contra Costa counties going for Clinton. Obama got Sacramento and Yolo counties, while Clinton took sprawling San Bernardino County by a large margin
Interestingly, coastal counties were more supportive of Obama, both on the liberal North Coast and more conservative San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. If there is one lesson to be learned, it is that Obama is going to have to make inroads with Latino voters, both in the primary and the main event if he gets there, particularly given John McCain's reasonable immigration stance (as opposed to the hysterical and racist approaches of the other GOP contenders).
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (3)
From article:
"...the hysterical and racist approaches ..."
Remember, when the politically correct use the term racist, they simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate.
It is a racial slur given selectively to white Gentiles. Racist = honky.
So, the translation of the quote would be: "...not the hysterical and honky approaches..."
Posted by JoeMorgan | February 6, 2008 11:43 AM
Yes, Joe, I was referring to the nativist honkies who have made "immigration" a political issue simply because they fear brown people speaking languages they don't understand. But I think people of any ethnicity can be racist. It just seems so much more damaging when it comes from those with political power, a distinction still dominated by rich white people, Jews and Gentiles alike.
So what's your point?
Posted by Steven T. Jones | February 6, 2008 01:33 PM
"But I think people of any ethnicity can be racist."
You "think" so? Sounds like you are not sure.
In terms of how the word is used by the mainstream media, it is a racial slur only directed at white Gentiles.
What is a racial slur?
--It is directed only at one group. (Give me a MSM story where the word racist is attached to the name of a Jew or nonwhite?)
--It is meant to be derogatory, and its use is racially motivated.
Posted by JoeMorgan | February 16, 2008 09:08 AM