Comments on: After Super Tuesday: Can a scrappy little team win it all for Obama?

By: emilycarlson123

emilycarlson123 — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:20:39 +0000

Another Election Night Blunder - Emily Carlson
Another election night, another wrong projection.
Late Super Tuesday, the Associated Press jumped the gun, calling Sen. Hillary Clinton the Democratic primary winner in the state of Missouri.
An hour and twenty minutes later, they withdrew their call. Another hour and twenty minutes later, the AP gave the state to Sen. Barak Obama.
The blunder brings back memories of the 2000 presidental election, when the media declared Florida to Al Gore, then withdrew the call and awarded the state to George Bush, only to then declare the state undecided.
The aftermath of the mistake was ugly. Democrats and Republicans alike were irate at the media. Many voters went to bed thinking Al Gore was the winner, only to wake up to see the state was undecided. The public couldn't understand how the media could screw up so bad.
Eight years later, many viewers are still skeptical when the networks declare a "projection."
There is no excuse for these kind of mistakes. The public looks to the media for the facts. They want to know the truth. When colossial mistakes like calling a state for the wrong canidate happen, the media's credibility chips away. Viewers don't forget when huge blunders are made, and it takes a long time to earn that trust back. There's really no excuse for it to happen again. This election could be the most watched/higest voter turnout in history. The media should be extra viligant to make sure the same mistakes don't repeat themselves.
http://emilyacarlson.wordpress.com/
http://emilyannecarlson.tblog.com/
http://clearblogs.com/emilycarlson/

By: Jammer

Jammer — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:12:16 +0000

I really dont think Obama's team is “little.” He has as professional, large and tough a staff as Clinton. “Scrappy litle team” is really a complete misnomer.

By: bitteroldhag

bitteroldhag — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:20:41 +0000

Race doesn't seem to be a real problem for Obama. He carried a lot of white states. He is carrying very well educated people which is interesting because well educated folks may know something that that hoi polloi don't know. So we have an interesting situation. A lot of whites as well as blacks are voting for Obama. As a college professor, I can say that it is amazing that anyone can get young people to vote. I'm hoping that Obama can win despite the Clinton political machine because, even though I'm an old white woman, I'd like to see some change, particularly someone who knows how to compromise, and Obama has proven that he can work both sides of the aisle.

By: Patrick E

Patrick E — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:13:47 +0000

I don't think it is as much the racial issue as it is the fact that the Clinton's still have control of the basic party structure.

The race is going to go back and forth between now and June, but in the end the superdelegates will tip Clinton over the top.

As far as the bad blood issue, Kennedy and Johnson, Johnson and Humphrey, Nixon and Agnew, Reagan and Bush, Clinton and Gore, Bush and Cheney. None of these teams were particularly friendly or close, some were quite hostile to each other.

But a Clinton/Obama ticket is a strong possibility.

And I wouldn't want to be in charge of the Secret Service details on that WH.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:59:06 +0000

I agree that they are definitely still out there, but I couldn't help but get the impression from the post that America was being viewed through a several decade old lens. When Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was done in 1967, the characters played by Hepburn and Tracy represented the majority of white Americans wrestling with the prejudices they didn't want to admit to themselves. That still happens, but it's certainly changed a lot since then in ways that are hard to capture. Maybe it's this: In 1967, white Americans really weren't sure it was okay to be in an interracial marriage. Now, I would hazard that most people think it's okay, but they sometimes encounter biases inside themselves that they wished they didn't have. I don't know.

Elrod's point that Obama captured 81% of Idaho is a far more useful point.

By: joegandelman

joegandelman — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:47:19 +0000

I do think there still are a lot of old unwanted attitudes out there that Obama and any candidates from minority groups have to deal with. It's not PC to discuss them so people assume they are gone. But remember the old saying “assume” makes an “ass” of “u” and “me.” I agree with Brij…Obama can't assume anything and is in essence proving himself to new groups of voters every day. It's not nice to say the attitudes are out there…but I travel a lot and not just with blacks but with Jews and Hispanics I will say: these attitudes are indeed out there.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:46:52 +0000

Elrod said it much better. But we aren't still freaking out about Sidney Poitier in 1967.

By: elrod

elrod — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:40:25 +0000

Marrying white daughters? I thought I was reading an editorial from an 1868 newspaper for a moment. Race is obviously a major factor in this race. But Obama's 81% victory in Idaho – yes, Idaho, land of white supremacist groups – should dispel the notion that Obama cannot win among whites. In fact, Obama has enormous appeal among white men. He's witty, self-deprecating, and confident. For every white man bothered by voting for some negroid named Obama there are two other white men genuinely inspired by the possibility. I've seen that myself here in East Tennessee; most resistance comes from people who have no idea who he is, or from white women who like Hillary. Obama won 43% of white vote in Georgia, and 50% of the white voted under 50 years old.

As for Latinos, it isn't so much that they don't like Obama but that they don't know him very well and they LOVE the Clintons. But notice that in Illinois Obama won Latinos easily because they know him there.