I’ve been paying close attention to this race.

It looks like Texas may not be enough for Hillary.

Here’s a link I posted showing the rest of the primaries, the # of delegates at stake, and the racial mix of the state:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_VLNbQBSqCFI/R6uEdJ5nSSI/AAAAAAAAAaI/TaQP__VaNFI/s1600-h/PriSch.JPG

Obama is scoring big in states with larger African-American populations, but he’s scoring just as big in states with very low AA populations (for example: Washington state and Nebraska)

If things go his way, the expected Hillary win in Texas (228 delegates) could be offset by wins in Virginia (101), Wisconsin (92) and Vermont (23).

As I’ve been saying all along, the country has been begging for someone like Obama for a long time.

I think with Hillary’s campaign (seemingly) in freefall (based on cash and her poor choice for new campaign manager), Obama may take enough lead to where even the super-delegates won’t be able to take it away from him.

At least we can hope.

The regular delegates are required to vote the same way that the people of the state voted.

The super-delegates are assigned to a particular candidate, but they are not REQUIRED to vote that way. So, in essence, they can vote anyway they want, no matter what the people say.

The party claims that this was set up in order to give them escape route if someone got nominated before we found out they were a putz. As it stands, 25% of the total delegates are these super delegates.

Since the supers are not required to vote one way or another, yes, the supers could decide it if it’s too close come the convention.

Your fears should be genuine. As it stands right now, if we go to the convention without a clear winner and it comes down to the supers, it’s going to look like Tammany Hall with the back-room dealings.

And, since the delegates are split proportionally per state (instead of winner takes all like the republicans), it’s going to be close either way. (even though my guess is still that Obama will be ahead by the time the convention arrives).

If they go into a room and come out with a nominee other than the leader at that point, you can bet that there’s going to be holy-hell to pay for it.

If I were advising Obama’s camp, I would put a ton of money into Texas. Run a bunch of Spanish ads on the Hispanic radio channels, get a decent Hispanic state campaign chief to make the talk radio circuit.

Since it IS proportional, Obama just needs to get close to 50% to cancel out any gains for Hillary. Even if she wins the state, if it winds up being 60/40, she will have gained nothing in the long run.

Also look for more bad press on Hillary over her new campaign manager. Remember that quazi-legal $50k donation she had from the Chinese guy? It was her new campaign manager who accepted the cash in the first place.

And more on Texas: If neither candidate scores more than 50%, I think the rule says that neither candidate gets the delegates.

So, if you can get 10% to vote uncommitted, and H & O each get 45%, it’s a wash with neither getting any delegates (these delegates being open at the convention)

On Vermont:

A crazy (and bad) as this sounds, I think it will come down to racial lines, with Obama winning big.

The states with the smallest amount of minorities are going for Obama big.

In my own crazy mind, I think this has to do with the fact that for these states, black people are a HYPOTHETICAL. Since most people in Vermont have never actually met a black person, they are free to vote based on their PERCEPTION of blacks.

Part of it has to do with what I refer to as the “Colin Powell Effect”

http://malcolmrant.blogspot.com/2007/12/beware-colin-powell-effect.html

I can understand your field trip experience.

For the longest period of time, I was the only white person working at a series of fast food restaurants. Once they found out that I wasn’t planning on working in a white sheet, they seemed to figure out that people are people.

I had to put up with some good-humored racial stereotypes, but that was OK, I had a good time, and I considered myself a cracker ambassador.

Remember: We have a generation raised to believe that whites are inherently racist. Many white people have bought into the theory that if they are not acting overtly racist, that only means that their racism is subconscious.

For many white people, it’s not enough NOT to be racist; they have to PROVE that they’re not racist. That’s why many whites always want to talk about their “black friend”, or about how cool Will Smith is.

From the white side, the best way to prove this a lack of racism is to give Obama a landslide like no one has ever seen before. On the black side, it’s easier: you just have to let the white people do it.

I know that it’s terribly unfair to win an election based on race, but since the ball is finally going to land on your side of the fence, I think you’ll just have to be graceful and accept victory.

You’ve hit on an important point. People have a tendency to think of “white” people and “black” people; but in truth, neither group is a single entity.

Within the “white” community, you have the Irish against the Italians against the English. You have west side verses east side (at least here in Detroit), tall verses short, fat verses thin.

Each group only appears as a singular when viewed from the outside. It’s impossible for anyone to make blanket assumptions about “all whites” or “all blacks”.

But I have noticed one thing…. Of the hundreds of black men I have known or worked with, I haven’t met a single one who has argued against the stereotype about black guys having large packages. I guess that’s a stereotype no one wants to argue about.

Maybe you should start an open thread where people can come together to discuss the various issues and stereotypes. As you can tell, I have no problem discussing nearly anything; and I am almost incapable of being offended by anything said to me.