It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Democrats' Dirty Secret -Black Votes Counted More Than White Votes

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I think I've found the root of the conspiracy to make sure Barack Obama was guaranteed to be the Democratic candidate for President. The DNC rigged the primary system so that black voters would count more than white and hispanic voters for the election of delegates.

Here's some examples:

1. In Louisiana, a heavily black state, Obama picked up a net gain of 12 delegates in a state where just over 350,000 people voted. Obama earned 1 delegate for every 6,000 people who voted for him.

2. In Washington D.C., another heavily black state, Obama picked up a net gain of 7 delegates and only about 120,000 people voted. Obama earned 1 delegate for every 7,000 votes in Washington D.C.

3. In South Carolina, another heavily black state, Obama picked up a net gain of 13 delegates, there were a total of about 450,000 votes cast, and Obama earned 1 delegate for every 12,000 votes he received.



Now let's look at predominantly white and hispanic states where Clinton was expected to do well:

1. In Pennsylvania, 2.3 million votes were cast, and Clinton picked up a net gain of only 10 delegates. Why? Because Clinton received only 1 delegate for every 15,000 votes cast.

2. In Texas, 2.8 million votes were cast, Clinton received more than 100,000 votes than Obama, yet Clinton LOST delegates. Clinton received only 1 delegate for every 22,000 votes cast in Texas.

3. In Ohio, about 2.2 million votes were cast, and Clinton picked up only 9 delegates even though she won the popular vote by over 220,000 votes. Why? She needed 16,000 votes per delegate.



In summary, in the predominanty black states Obama won 1 delegate for every 8,300 votes, and in the predominantly white states Clinton needed 17,600 votes for each delegate she won.

This means that in the heavily black districts each person who voted for Obama had their vote count more than DOUBLE the weight votes in the white states were given. I.e., it took on average 17,6oo white voters to get Clinton a delegate in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and it only took on average 8,300 black voters to get Obama 1 delegate in Washington D.C., Louisiana, and South Carolina.

Plus, look at the raw numbers of voters and how many delegates those voters elected. In the above mentioned "black" states, a total of just over a million votes were cast, which netted Obama a gain of 32 delegates. In Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio a total of 7.3 million votes were cast, which netter Clinton a net gain of 15 delegates.

How can this be??? Clinton won three non-black states in which over 7 million people voted and only picked up 15 delegates, and Obama picked up 32 delegates in three states that only 1 million people voted?

So do the math. 7 million people in "white/hispanic" states Clinton won accounted for 15 delegates, and 1 million people in "black" states Obama won accounted for 32 delegates. 1 million voters in predominantly black states

As Harold Ickes said, this is truly a hijacking of democracy. 1 million voters in black districts shouldn't count twice as much as 7 million voters in white/hispanic districts.

Now the question is why?

And by the way, what ever happened to the whole concept of "one person, one vote"??? The Democratic primary cherry picked which votes counted more. Louisiana votes counted more than THREE TIMES what Texas votes counted. Why???




[edit on 2-6-2008 by jamie83]




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Err, your comparing small states (obama) to big states (clinton) ..

Seems like a bit of a "twist on words" if you know what I mean.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by jamie83
 


Err, your comparing small states (obama) to big states (clinton) ..

Seems like a bit of a "twist on words" if you know what I mean.


Small states vs. big states does not change the analysis. Georgia isn't a small state, but it was rigged to favor Obama.

Check out this data:

Obama won a net 35 delegates by winning Georgia. Obama had 700,000 votes that earned him 61 delegates. Clinton had 328,000 votes that earned her 26 delegates.

Now do the math:

700,000 / 61 = 11,475 votes per delegate earned for Obama.
328,000 / 26 = 12,615 votes per delegate earned for Clinton.

Now that may not seem like much at first, but it equates to Clinton needing to win 9.9% more votes to get an equivalent allotment of delegates. This is because the delegates were awarded disproportionately with inner city (black) Congressional districts being weighted more than suburban districts.

Now think about this for a second. How is it that Clinton's popular vote was worth only 90% of Obama's popular vote in Georgia?

No, this isn't about small states vs. large states. This is about a PLAN ahead of time to tilt the scales in favor of black districts and states.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Why would they rig the primaries with the Black Vote to help Obama when Hillary started out with the Black Vote in the beginning of the race? Answer that. People are trying very hard to attribute Obama's success to anything besides the fact that he ran a terrific campaign. Did you see the record turn outs at Obama's speech in Portland, Oregon? I'm guessing that was all the DNC's work too huh? Obama has run a solid campaign that involved securing all the little states while Clinton only focused on the Big ones which ended up not being a wise decision. Obama ended up winning twice the amount of states as Clinton and opened up a huge delegate lead against Hillary which left her with nothing more than the "I have more of the popular vote" argument. You can come up with hypothetical until you're blue in the face but the fact is that the Obama campaign outsmarted the Clinton's who thought they had the election in the basket. You see what happens when you don't plan past February? Classic case of the tortoise and the hare.

[edit on 6/3/08 by Kamikaze X]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kamikaze X
Why would they rig the primaries with the Black Vote to help Obama when Hillary started out with the Black Vote in the beginning of the race? Answer that.


Ok, I'll answer that.

Obama has been hand-picked as the "Chosen One." His ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket began in 2002 when he hire David Axelrod as an adviser. The DNC powers that be paved the way for Obama to be in this position for quite some time. How else do you think a junior Senator from Illinois would have somebody like Zbigniew Brzezinski on his team?

So would it be surprising that the DNC tilted the scales so that inner-city black districts would carry more weight? Keep in mind that it the Obama camp played the race card before the South Carolina primary in a big way to galvanize black support for Obama. That was the turning point of the entire election. By the time Clinton figured out that Obama manipulated the media to turn the blacks against her, it was way too late.

In fact, this entire campaign has been about almost nothing but race. Obama's running a "good campaign" consisted of playing the victimized black man role. This made criticism of him off limits, and caused the black community to rally behind him.

The Obama camp knew ahead of time how the delegate cards were stacked. They knew their path to victory was simple. They needed to win the black districts because those districts were weighted more. Sure enough, it worked.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Nice post Jamie, it's hard not to look at the Math and say fairness is across the board . The numbers show they are not.

Obama broke the DNC rules by holding a convention in Florida and meeting with a Muslim leader in Deerborne Michigan. It was agreed that neither canidate would enter either state for any reason until after the primaries.

Of course, Obama can do what he wants it seems because he has most of the DNC support behind him. Including that spineless pandaring Jimmy Carter.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Of course, Obama can do what he wants it seems because he has most of the DNC support behind him. Including that spineless pandaring Jimmy Carter.


You just made me realize something.

Carter took over in 1976 and was hand-picked by the liberal elite, David Rockefeller and the rest of the Trilateral Commission. Then the Iranians totally screwed up Carter's presidency. Reagan and Bush took over for 12 years, then the libs hand-picked superstar, Bill Clinton got his chance.

Then of course Clinton screwed up his entire Presidency. Then we got Bush for 8 years.

Now the liberal elite has another chance. They have another hand-picked golden boy to make up for failures of Carter and Clinton. For most of the older people that make up this generation of the liberal elite, like Carter himself, Obama is their last best chance.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Kamikaze X
Why would they rig the primaries with the Black Vote to help Obama when Hillary started out with the Black Vote in the beginning of the race? Answer that.


Ok, I'll answer that.

Obama has been hand-picked as the "Chosen One." His ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket began in 2002 when he hire David Axelrod as an adviser. The DNC powers that be paved the way for Obama to be in this position for quite some time. How else do you think a junior Senator from Illinois would have somebody like Zbigniew Brzezinski on his team?

So would it be surprising that the DNC tilted the scales so that inner-city black districts would carry more weight? Keep in mind that it the Obama camp played the race card before the South Carolina primary in a big way to galvanize black support for Obama. That was the turning point of the entire election. By the time Clinton figured out that Obama manipulated the media to turn the blacks against her, it was way too late.

In fact, this entire campaign has been about almost nothing but race. Obama's running a "good campaign" consisted of playing the victimized black man role. This made criticism of him off limits, and caused the black community to rally behind him.

The Obama camp knew ahead of time how the delegate cards were stacked. They knew their path to victory was simple. They needed to win the black districts because those districts were weighted more. Sure enough, it worked.


The only thing you hinged your entire argument on was that Obama supposedly "manipulated the media by playing the race card" which until proven otherwise is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. I honestly don't see how Obama played the race card at all and from what I've seen he has tried to stay away from it throughout the entire campaign. He also didn't create any kind of atmosphere where it became wrong for Whites to criticize him because 90% of the people that did and will do so, are White. Look at how hard the media came down on him for the Wright scandal, they didn't take it easy on him at all. They didn't say "Oh he's the Black Candidate let's not offend him." He has been called a racist, a muslim who is being backed by Hamas, a homosexual, a drug addict, an elitist...pretty much anything that could possibly stick but guess what...they didn't. Obama has shown to be a very genuine and down to earth person which is why he's connecting so well with the American people.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I think you pretty-much said it like it is.

Carter is basically campaiging for Obama.

After Obama stated that 'Israel was a constant sore in the Middle East', Carter quickly countered any criticism by coming out publicly and telling everyone Israel had 150 Nukes. Of course, whether this is true or not, no one can verify. Carter just did it to bash Israel in light of Obama's comment . In other words, supporting it, but indirectly.

Obama is their last hope for a liberal elite dominated NWO.

American people shouldn't let this happen. It will definitely mean war with China, and liberals are very bad at war. They couldn't fight their way out of a 'wet paper bag'.

I know I won't be fighting Obama's war against China after he cuts down the military to half of what it is now. I won't be furthuring he and his cabinets agenda for NWO if he becomes President.

No one should, just to make these people richer and in more control just for world power and unprecedented greed.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kamikaze X
The only thing you hinged your entire argument on was that Obama supposedly "manipulated the media by playing the race card" which until proven otherwise is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. I honestly don't see how Obama played the race card at all and from what I've seen he has tried to stay away from it throughout the entire campaign.


No!! That's not what happened at all!

Here's how the race card was played by Obama.

Before the South Carolina campaign, Bill Clinton remarked that Obama would probably win South Carolina like Jesse Jackson did. That was the opening the Obama camp was waiting for. The Obama camp IMMEDIATELY jumped all over Clinton's comment, claiming it was CLINTON who played the race card by trying to pigeon-hole Obama as a "black" candidate.

The die had been cast. Obama tapped into the psyche of the black community by taking on the role of another black man being victimized and minimized by the ultimate symbol of the white establishment, an ex-President, who happened to be married to his opponent.

This was a freakin' brilliant strategy. Obama was able to not only rally the black vote by portraying himself as a victim based on race, he was able to turn the black vote totally against Clinton by portraying her as the villain.

Then it got even worse for Clinton. Geraldine Ferraro made her comment about Obama, and Obama's camp simply continued the same strategy. They took a dive, acting as if they were deeply hurt and offended by Ferraro's comments. Again, Obama was the victim, this time of a white woman, a surrogate of Hillary herself.

Next came the Rev. Wright fiasco. Once again Obama was able to successfully portray himself as the victim of racial profiling. At all times Obama made sure HE didn't say anything inflammatory, confrontational, or in any way race-baiting. But the point is he didn't have to. By having his surrogates repeatedly portray Obama as the victim because of his race.



Obama has shown to be a very genuine and down to earth person which is why he's connecting so well with the American people.


He might very well be genuine and down to earth. However, he has a different challenge for the general election. Unlike the primaries, the general election is winner take all for each state. Obama isn't going to benefit by proportional allocation of delegates. He's going to have to win over the white, middle-class voters who he alienated with his "bitter" comments.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
What a fiasco.
Considering what the Dems have done to their party, is this a pre-cursor to what they will do the country?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
What a fiasco.
Considering what the Dems have done to their party, is this a pre-cursor to what they will do the country?


I'm pretty sure the Dems totally minimized the Hispanic districts in Texas as well. Unless Obama names Hillary VP, I'm not sure how Obama is going to do against McCain in the Hispanic districts.

I don't have the data handy, but I'd guess that especially in Texas, the Hispanic vote was probably worth about 2/3 of the black vote in terms of how delegates were assigned.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Kamikaze X
The only thing you hinged your entire argument on was that Obama supposedly "manipulated the media by playing the race card" which until proven otherwise is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. I honestly don't see how Obama played the race card at all and from what I've seen he has tried to stay away from it throughout the entire campaign.


No!! That's not what happened at all!

Here's how the race card was played by Obama.

Before the South Carolina campaign, Bill Clinton remarked that Obama would probably win South Carolina like Jesse Jackson did. That was the opening the Obama camp was waiting for. The Obama camp IMMEDIATELY jumped all over Clinton's comment, claiming it was CLINTON who played the race card by trying to pigeon-hole Obama as a "black" candidate.

The die had been cast. Obama tapped into the psyche of the black community by taking on the role of another black man being victimized and minimized by the ultimate symbol of the white establishment, an ex-President, who happened to be married to his opponent.

This was a freakin' brilliant strategy. Obama was able to not only rally the black vote by portraying himself as a victim based on race, he was able to turn the black vote totally against Clinton by portraying her as the villain.

Then it got even worse for Clinton. Geraldine Ferraro made her comment about Obama, and Obama's camp simply continued the same strategy. They took a dive, acting as if they were deeply hurt and offended by Ferraro's comments. Again, Obama was the victim, this time of a white woman, a surrogate of Hillary herself.

Next came the Rev. Wright fiasco. Once again Obama was able to successfully portray himself as the victim of racial profiling. At all times Obama made sure HE didn't say anything inflammatory, confrontational, or in any way race-baiting. But the point is he didn't have to. By having his surrogates repeatedly portray Obama as the victim because of his race.


First, show me a press release where Obama played the victim role himself. Second, the situation you just laid out was the fault of Clinton and not of Obama so it's not like it really matters. Hillary has jumped on many thing Obama has said like the "Bitter" comments it's called politics. Lastly, Obama didn't play victim in the Wright scandal not at all. He said the people were just for their outrage and critiques of him being affiliated with Wright. What he took issue with though is the fact that people didn't understand why a person like Wright would hold those particular views even though he didn't agree with them. That's why he had that speech on race because he wanted to unite people by showing them why each particular race feels the way they do. He didn't justify the statements, he just explained why certain people have the sentiments they do.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kamikaze X
First, show me a press release where Obama played the victim role himself.


You know as well as I do Obama's surrogates make the statements, not Obama himself.




Second, the situation you just laid out was the fault of Clinton and not of Obama so it's not like it really matters.


No it wasn't. In fact, the Obama camp was the first to play on racial prejudice when they referred to Clinton in a press release, "Clinton, D-Punjab" as a reference to her ties to Inidia.




Hillary has jumped on many thing Obama has said like the "Bitter" comments it's called politics.


Jumped on the "bitter" comment? Obama made what was probably the most racist comments of the campaign when he referred to whites as "bitter" and when he referred to his own grandmother as a "typical white person."



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Kamikaze X
First, show me a press release where Obama played the victim role himself.


You know as well as I do Obama's surrogates make the statements, not Obama himself.




Second, the situation you just laid out was the fault of Clinton and not of Obama so it's not like it really matters.


No it wasn't. In fact, the Obama camp was the first to play on racial prejudice when they referred to Clinton in a press release, "Clinton, D-Punjab" as a reference to her ties to Inidia.




Hillary has jumped on many thing Obama has said like the "Bitter" comments it's called politics.


Jumped on the "bitter" comment? Obama made what was probably the most racist comments of the campaign when he referred to whites as "bitter" and when he referred to his own grandmother as a "typical white person."



Ok you win Obama is racist and should not win the nomination, go hillary! You happy now? Good night!


[edit on 6/3/08 by Kamikaze X]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I am just curious as to why the DNC would set out to sabotage two (including Bill) of their most powerful and popular members? What would be the reason? Are the Hillary supports going to start playing the gender card now? Is that somehow more appropriate or reasonable than the black card?

In any case Hillary was the sure-thing when these primaries started up and she knew it. A lot of people (including myself) felt she would inevitably end up becoming the Democratic nominee.

Then there were those LOYAL Black voters that always were there to show their support for the Clintons:


Poll: Black support helps Clinton extend lead

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead over Sen. Barack Obama, her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is growing among African-American voters who are registered Democrats, and particularly among black women, a poll said Wednesday. Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama. That's up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April.
CNN.com


So more Blacks were for Clinton more than Obama?


Clinton loses support among black Democrats
Clinton now trails Barack Obama 59 percent to 31 percent among African-Americans, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Poll. In October, Clinton led 57 percent to 31 percent.Boston.com


Hmm...odd. How did this happen? How did she alienate the "powerful" black vote?
She had a ton of support before and Blacks in America overwhelming vote for a Democrat, which is always a White candidate. Seems those loyal Black voters are only significant, rational, and discerning voters when selecting a white candidate. When a black one shows up they support (along with MANY white voters) then they are deemed bigoted misguided simpletons by those in their own party.

So how did she lose the Black vote?


How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote
Yet, through a series of intended or unintended developments -- from Bill's "fairy tale" and "false premise" comments concerning Obama's stance on the Iraq war, to hints of black-brown animosities between African-American and Hispanic Democrats, to Hillary's incessant "not qualified to lead" insinuations about Obama -- the Clinton campaign signaled that if they were going to lose the black vote, they might as well turn it into an advantage with other elements in the Democratic coalition, notably white working-class voters.

Consequently, in a short span Hillary transformed from a celebrity into an object of scorn among numerous black Democrats.
Salon.com


Yes, that's partly how she did it.
Mismanagement, poor directional choices and a slightly mediocre campaign added to her loss.

I wonder though why any other Black democratic candidate never got as far as Obama since the Black vote is the secret weapon? Jesse Jackson should have run a better and longer campaign but he and Sharpton didn't get anywhere.

For Obama it looks like black votes aren't the only ones he'll be getting.



I have yet to see Obama play the race card or victim role but I've seen Hillary in tears and her supporters claiming sexism is why she lost. It is just sad that people can't lose gracefully. Hillary is no loser and certainly not a victim, she is a successful and powerful political figure, just like her husband.

The Clinton's will live, just like other candidates in the past that never even got as far as they have in the primaries.

That of course includes the Black ones.

- Lee



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
I have yet to see Obama play the race card or victim role but I've seen Hillary in tears and her supporters claiming sexism is why she lost. It is just sad that people can't lose gracefully. Hillary is no loser and certainly not a victim, she is a successful and powerful political figure, just like her husband.

The Clinton's will live, just like other candidates in the past that never even got as far as they have in the primaries.



Obama played the race card over and over. I can't believe that you would be so blinded by the MSM and Obama's spin not to see it.

The entire Philadelphia speech was nothing but the race card. The Geraldine Ferraro episode was Obama playing the race card. The back and forth between Bill Clinton and Obama was Obama playing the race card.

The way Obama plays the race card is subtle, yet brilliant. Whenever Obama's detractors brought up the subject of race in any way, Obama imply that they were racist. To this day I still can't see what Ferraro said that was inappropriate. And I still have no idea what Bill Clinton was crucified in the media for what he said before the S. Carolina primaries.

What Obama has mastered is playing the role of the VICTIM of racist attacks.

Just look back to one of the first comments that even mentioned race. It was when Michelle Obama was asked if she worried about Barack being assassinated. She answered:

"I don’t lose sleep over it, because the realities are that, you know, as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station, you know. So, you know, you can’t — you know, you can’t make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen. We just weren’t raised that way."

So what in the world did Michelle Obama need to say that as a black man Barack could get shot going to the gas station? Isn't that playing the race card?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join