NC-Rasmussen: Obama ahead of Clinton by 7

[Tender Branson]

Obama: 47%
Clinton: 40%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com

[True Democrat]

Definitely leans Obama, but Clinton has the chance to win it if she can get a hell of a lot of momentum.

[Sam Spade]

Just as a simple reminder, in NC polling historically, undecideds tend to break for the white candidate against a black candidate.

[© tweed]

NC will probably be one of those states where nobody nets more than two delegates.

[War on Want]

How many people will vote for Edwards in protest here?

[WalterMitty]

Just as a simple reminder, in NC polling historically, undecideds tend to break for the white candidate against a black candidate.

especially when arthur finkelstein makes some racist ads!

but i believe fink is retired and living with his husband in massachusetts.

[Eraserhead]

It might end up closer than PA anyway.

[TomC]

Here's where Edwards might be able to actually do something.

[© tweed]

Just as a simple reminder, in NC polling historically, undecideds tend to break for the white candidate against a black candidate.

what historics are you referring to?

[Sam Spade]

Just as a simple reminder, in NC polling historically, undecideds tend to break for the white candidate against a black candidate.

what historics are you referring to?

Well, Helms-Gantt is the most familiar one to you.  True, that is a GE, but...

[Boris]

Obama is going to lose PA and probably IN, so he really needs a win here for media purposes regardless of the margin or net delegates.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

How many people will vote for Edwards in protest here?

Not many. Edwards isn't very popular in NC. He'd probably would have finished a distant third if he had been in the race. I think he was polling third before he dropped out.

[Alcon]

Not many. Edwards isn't very popular in NC. He'd probably would have finished a distant third if he had been in the race. I think he was polling third before he dropped out.

Edwards was routinely up modestly here when he was a viable second-tier candidate, and held his own even after he collapsed.  He was generally polling ahead of Obama at the end of last year.  Realistically, that part was never meant to last.

But he did keep it a three-way contest, even though it was an outside shot.  At the close of January, he was still polling above 20%.  Obama and Clinton splitting the vote heavily, he wouln't have finished all that far behind the first-place winner.  If he was actually a viable first-tier candidate, he would have probably walked away with the state.

[WalterMitty]

Just as a simple reminder, in NC polling historically, undecideds tend to break for the white candidate against a black candidate.

what historics are you referring to?

Well, Helms-Gantt is the most familiar one to you.  True, that is a GE, but...

im not a harvey gantt fan.  never voted for him.

but i will give him kudos for one thing...he drove a stake right through the heart of the racist 'runoff' voting that is still going on in the south to this day.

here is a little fun fact, the guy gantt beat in the 90 run off was a very young district attorney from brunswick county.  mike easley.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What the hell is racist about runoff voting, one of the few things the south gets right?

[Verily]

What the hell is racist about runoff voting, one of the few things the south gets right?

The whole point of run-off voting in the South was to allow multiple white candidates to run, and if a black candidate wound up ahead, the voters for the other white candidates would rally against the black candidate. (Probably the reverse happened in heavily black-majority districts, but with much less organization.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What the hell is racist about runoff voting, one of the few things the south gets right?

The whole point of run-off voting in the South was to allow multiple white candidates to run, and if a black candidate wound up ahead, the voters for the other white candidates would rally against the black candidate. (Probably the reverse happened in heavily black-majority districts, but with much less organization.)

OK, maybe put in for racist reasons but that doesn't make it a bad idea in itself.

[Verily]

What the hell is racist about runoff voting, one of the few things the south gets right?

The whole point of run-off voting in the South was to allow multiple white candidates to run, and if a black candidate wound up ahead, the voters for the other white candidates would rally against the black candidate. (Probably the reverse happened in heavily black-majority districts, but with much less organization.)

OK, maybe put in for racist reasons but that doesn't make it a bad idea in itself.

Not for that reason, but run-off voting is just as arbitrary and problematic as first past the post. The contest is merely for second instead of first.

[StateBoiler]

The whole point of run-off voting in the South was to allow multiple white candidates to run, and if a black candidate wound up ahead, the voters for the other white candidates would rally against the black candidate. (Probably the reverse happened in heavily black-majority districts, but with much less organization.)

As an add-on to your post, I know that some Memphis Democrats were quite pissed off when the multiple black candidates split the black vote in their primary and there was no runoff, allowing white Jew Steven Cohen to win with a minority. The black racists in that district even put up an independent candidate because they refused to vote for a white man.

So if you're going to say runoffs are "racist", something I do not believe because a person should be required to have more people vote for him than against him, then you're acknowledging black racism exists as well, in which case means that at the end of the day it all evens out to a zero-sum game and runoffs are of equal benefit to everyone.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/02/jewish_rep_cohen_battles_antis.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Verily]

So if you're going to say runoffs are "racist", something I do not believe because a person should be required to have more people vote for him than against him, then you're acknowledging black racism exists as well, in which case means that at the end of the day it all evens out to a zero-sum game and runoffs are of equal benefit to everyone.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/02/jewish_rep_cohen_battles_antis.html

Well, a run-off didn't exist in that case, and anyway I was referring to the original institution of run-offs by whites in the 1960s and 70s; the situation is mildly less relevant today. Note the past tense in my post.