The proportion of the black vote is nearly the same as every other Post-SC contest. It is only the proportion of white vote that is significantly different. Would that be racial polarization, or racism.

Yeah, be sure to get that "racially polarized" tag in there.

Zellery supporters know he can't win the, uh... states that matter.

And this Mississippi and that Wyoming, how will they be voting come November?

Hillary Clinton: Unifying Democrats everywhere.

McCain/Clinton '08

It is disappointing to see these numbers. As a practical matter though, perhaps Obama's VP pick will help. I'd like to see Webb of Virginia.

Who cares how they spin it? The delegates count regardless. And the superdelegates, unlike some of the bozo political reporters who swallow Hillary's ridiculous rationalizations, know that.

Pluck the largely black population outta New Orleans and plop them down in Texas . . .

McCain/Clinton '08

NC State Dem has a good point. Having been an NC (and Ga.) Dem myself, I can say that in the south there are still lots of registered Democrats who are actually Republicans. They vote Democratic on a state level, but always go GOP for the presidency and more and more, the Senate. Just think of the kind of Dems we see from these areas in Washington. There's not a whole lot separating them from Republicans. In a way, these contests are like holding an open primary. Another reason they don't count?

Mississippi is a racially polarized state. No surprise here.

Anyone else find it depressing that Clinton's only remaining claim to the nomination is that she can capture the uneducated white racist vote? Bottom line, that's what she's arguing in Ohio and PA. And she'll make a similar argument in MS.

In any event, the white vote in MS long ago gave up any role in Democratic politics.

go watch "the hunting of the president." it'll all make sense.

Yeah, it always seemed to me that if you had to pick between constituencies, the one to "lose" would be the one that was dying off anyway [i.e., old folks] as opposed to the ones that were up & coming.

Yeah, I know, a high percentage of old folks usually vote, but Obama's candidacy has changed that, and this could be a good pattern for the party for the future.

The nominating process now seems to be shaping itself in exactly the way Bill and Hill apparently hoped it would during and after South Carolina. The unspoken (because unspeakable) reasoning goes something like this. What we have here is a black candidate whose appeal (allowing for progressive white cross-overs in unrepresentative caucus situations plus anomalies like Wisconsin) is narrowly racial and therefore ultimately doomed in the long run. Better vote for the white progressive candidate now while there's still a chance to avert disaster in November -- and maybe we'll bring the black guy with us piggyback. I'm not saying that Bill and Hill or their surrogates are actively "agitating" in this direction (so Clinton folks, don't get your undies in a bunch); but there seems to be a growing statistical basis for the winking suggestion (should anyone wish to make it) that Obama is "little more" than Jesse Jackson on steroids. The pronounced racial divisions in Southern states have a distinct echo in Northern states such as Ohio, where some 20% of the voters in the Democratic primary admitted to being racially motivated in one way or another. I understand that pollsters predict a similar percentage in Pennsylvania. Bear in mind that there are plenty of racially motivated voters who would never admit it, and that the percentage of racial-tinged voting might be twice again what the polls show. Many low income, blue collar voters just don't cotton to the idea of a black president. And it goes without saying that many black people are voting for Obama simply because he's black. Then there are the "enlightened" racial voters. I'm white and for Obama, and one reason I would like to see him elected is because he's black. That's the worst sort of reason to vote for him, I know; but there it is. Of course, a far greater distortion in this election -- if you ask me -- is the number of women voting for Hillary simply because she's a woman. But where was I? Oh. Yes, it's working out splendidly for Hill and Bill, isn't it? White women voting for Hill because she's a woman, a respectable percentage of white men and woman voting against Obama because he's black, and a growing perception (hopefully wrong!) that Obama's appeal is shrinking down to a narrow racial base. One encouraging note to contradict this "growing perception" is that the national Gallup tracking poll shows Obama's lead magically snapping back into place. Thumbs up to that.

In states like Mississippi, where the population is roughly 50/50 and blacks and whites have lived and worked side by side for generations, 'racism' is very different than it is in other parts of the country. Most outsiders would be surprised how little it affects most behaviors and interactions. ----- The viriluent racists of the South were always a small percentage but they were the ones in power, because there is a strong tradition of being 'genteel' and seeing politics as somehow uncouth. (How could they conclude that?) Unfortunately, part of that gentility is also respect for or at least obedience to authority.

ALSO personal loyalty is a very real thing and highly prized. Mississipians are very unlikely to turn their backs on someone to whom they feel strong, positive connections, and Bill Clinton is the important one here. He's still/always a 'hometown' (almost) kid who 'done good.' The headline "Elvis Returns to Tupelo" was less a joke and more capturing a spirit. In truth, I suspect there is very little aminus against Obama among white Mississippians (they are accustomed now to blacks in power) but unless they have been following all of this closely, there's no reason for them to be disloyal to the Clintons, especially when they feel he (Obama) can and perhaps should 'wait his turn.'

Another factor -- I don't know the specifics of Miss. registration -does anyone? Open or closed primary? If closed, when was the deadline for changing parties? If Republicans can vote or could easily re-register, expect a LOT of "Limbaugh Democrats" to vote for Hillary. While they may not be as racist as the rest of the world assumes, white Southerns truly ARE very, very conservative -- in huge numbers -- and 'voting in the other party's primary to muck things up' is a well-established tradition. (That's how GA wound up with axe-handle weilding Lester Maddox as Governor back in the 60's. The Republicans had crossed over and helped nominate the biggest joke Democrat so they would have an easy ride to victory. Imagine their surprise when the joke won the general election!!)

This is true and it's kind of an odd trend. Obama does great in states with very large black populations and states with no black population. He does less well in more evenly split states.

For those doing delegate math, just thought I would note that MI is not going to give Obama much more than +1. This is from The Field, where Al does district by district breakdowns. Think TX or NV - only in reverse.

There is also some very interesting analysis/discussion going on over at Open Left regarding Whistling Past Dixie. This is the book that advocated the Dems just leaving the Deep South to the GOP - or something of that sort. The new SUSA state by state results show very clearly that Obama, whether intentionally or not, ends up with that strategy. No Dem this cycle wins the deep south although Hillary would do better. Much better to focus on the SW.