Over at CNNs Political Ticker, they’re blogging their data. As I mentioned before, I was stunned that Obama won in Iowa. The state is 94.9% white. I told my husband that means Iowa is even whiter than he is. With South Carolina, a state with an even larger percentage of non-white voters, one could assume that Obama would win the primary there too. After all, his win in Iowa puts to rest a lot of unwarranted fears of lame Black people who’d hand-wring and whine that “white people will never vote for a Black man”. I don’t get the “loyalty to the Clinton’s” line in that in that. The Clinton’s have never done shit for Black people, so I’m not sure where the loyalty is coming from.
Another data blog blurg that’s interesting to me is that women voted for Obama (35%) over Clinton (30%). Well, according to CNN, women in the over 60 age group voted for Clinton. Too hear that twit Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC yammer on, this is detrimental to Clinton. I don’t know that that’s a huge gap, but I’ll never understand percentages and punditry (I say this because Obama’s
119pt*. win over Clinton tonight is a “whooping”, whereas Huckabee’s 119pt. win over Romney simply “changes the dynamics”.).
Make of it as you will, the commenters at these sites are and the bigheaded mediadorks are certianly doing the same. As this data is certainly interesting to me, I know and see how the Clinton campaign works. This means that we can probably expect some serious smears against Obama in the next day.
*See…I suck at The Math and somehow, I always get 9 and 11 mixed up when I do subtraction. Don’t ask me why. I also get my hundreds and thousands confused with pisses off my husband. Yes. I’m an idiot.