Dean wins primary with 43% in Washington D.C., which is 60% Black

and 7.9% Hispanic according to the 2000 Census.

Doesn't that fly in the face of those who keep saying that Dean doesn't appeal to Black/ Hispanic voters?


http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/7703229.htm

Have never had facts on their side. Just conjecture.

trying to depict a victory in DC as proof of AA appeal is not possible if all the votes came from whites



Analysis
D.C.'s White Voters, Not Black, Made Difference for Dean

By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2004; Page A05


Howard Dean built his victory in the D.C. primary on the strength of his popularity among voters in white sections of Washington and lost to Al Sharpton in predominantly black neighborhoods, an analysis of precinct results shows.


Dean touted his primary win as evidence of his appeal to black voters, but his margin of victory came almost entirely from a 10-to-1 edge over Sharpton in mostly white Ward 3 in affluent Northwest Washington. In the city's seven other wards, taken together, the two ran almost evenly.

Heavy turnout in Ward 3 helped Dean. More than 19 percent of eligible voters in Ward 3 cast a ballot, compared with a citywide average of 16 percent. The Ward 3 turnout was more than double the turnout in Southeast Washington's Ward 8, which is almost entirely African American and which gave Sharpton his best results. Sharpton beat Dean in Ward 8 by 59 percent to 24 percent.

-snip-

The Dean campaign had portrayed the nonbinding D.C. primary as a crucial test of his support among black voters, generally among the most loyal Democrats. Political analysts and Dean's rivals had questioned whether black voters would warm up to a former governor of Vermont, which has few African Americans or other minorities.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21058-2004Jan15.html******

All I'm saying is that you're wrong if you think he doesn't, because you have no facts to back it up.

And I don't mean YOU personally, I mean You collectively, meaning everyone in the world except me!

of his appeal to blacks is baseless as demonstrated by the article i quoted.

Did you forget? We're desegregated now. I happen to live in a majority white neighborhood myself.

Do the votes of blacks in non-black neighborhoods not count now?

Impressive.

Which, of course, there isn't.

before you can make that assumption. Since it was a nonbinding beauty contest with only four candidates on the ballots that primary is less than useless.

n/t

But that isn't the most important thing to me.

To me, the question is who will get the most Blacks and Latinos to the polls in November.

Dean could very well be that person. Or it might be Edwards, or Clark, or Lieberman, or Kerry, etc...

This could mean anything.

This could mean he got 100% of the white and hispanic vote, and 5% of the black vote.

Now, we all know that's not true. What we don't know is what the results of a non-binding primary where 5 of the major candidates were not on the ballot, in a major urban center that is demographically unlike the important southern states that will be important in a national election

We aren't any closer to knowing whether or not Dean can garner minority voters, and we won't know until Feb 3rd.

Saying we don't know is fair. SAying he can't is not.

It's hard to draw any conclusion about the race of Dean's voters with such a small sample size.

during the primaries. The point is, Dean still won with 43%. Also, voter turnout was quite high.

"Turnout was nearly twice as large as in 2000. Twelve percent of registered voters and 16 percent of the city`s 257,000 Democrats cast ballots after city officials promoted voting as a show of support for full representation in Congress."-AP

while Sharpton beat dean in primarily black areas.

On cspan.

Dean's victory in the primary is not as strong an indication of his support in the black community as you suggest.

Yes, DC is a predominantly black city - 60% black 40% white. However, the following needs to be considered in assessing the results.

1. Only 16% of registered voters turned out.

2. The preliminary figures indicate that white voters turned out in disproportionately high numbers.

3. While Dean won 43% of the vote, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun together took 47% of the vote - in other words, more people voted against Dean than for him. And, interestingly, more people voted for two African American candidates, neither of whom are considered major contenders, than voted for Dean.

4. According to the Board of Elections, Dean won 53 of the city's 142 precincts. Sharpton beat Dean in the other 89 precincts.

The 53 precincts that Dean won are primarily white; the precincts that Sharpton won are majority black. In other words, Dean's support was concentrated among white voters while he lost most of the city's predominantly black precincts - by margins as high as 3 to 1.

So, while Dean did well in DC, the election results cannot be read to demonstrate strong support for Dean among the city's African American voters. In fact, they show just the opposite.



http://www.dcboee.org/information/elec_2004/pres_primary_2004_results.shtm

:thumbsup:

Sheesh.

A vote for Sharpton is not a vote "against" Dean. And vice-versa.



"...while he lost most of the city's predominantly black precincts - by margins as high as 3 to 1."

Do you undersand what you're saying? You're admitting that he got a third of the black vote against two black candidates. A THIRD!


Spin it however you want, Dean basically got 25% of the black vote in D.C.

End of story.

Unless you believe that if Edwards or Kerry or Gephardt or Clark were in the race, they would not have gotten any black votes.

Bottom line, when his only real competition was Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, Howard Dean could only muster a small percentage of the black vote. Doesn't say much about his support in the black community, does it?

As I said, you can spin this as a strong showing for Dean or as an indication that he has much more work to do in the black community.

I see it as the latter. Feel free to see it as the former. However, if the Dean campaign takes that approach, if they, like some folks in here, insist that the DC results prove that Dean is doing just fine with black voters, he's in for a rude awakening - and some painful ass-whuppins in the near future.

You're proud of every vote. Black, white, green. I feel uncomfortable even discussing this matter as a black/white issue; the world doesn't break down that way to me.

I spent a good deal of time primary night listening to the flagship all news station (WTOP) in D.C., as they had continuous coverage of the primary.

Their focus on the primary was not that Dean won, but that he did as POORLY as he did. Both the anchors and their politcal commentator (Mark Plotkin) cited polls that showed Dean 20-25% points ahead, and that the showing by Sharpton was a literal slap in the face to Dean. In effect, they said, this was the black vote in D.C. saying to Dean "do not take us for granted." Dean had only been to D.C. once (in November), and the voters remembered.

They also interviewed a Dean delegate (name escapes me, but he is on the D.C. City Counsel) and asked him the same pointed questions - i.e. why such a narrow win?

The following morning newscasts also centered around the "narrow victory" angle.

Analysis
D.C.'s White Voters, Not Black, Made Difference for Dean

By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2004; Page A05


Howard Dean built his victory in the D.C. primary on the strength of his popularity among voters in white sections of Washington and lost to Al Sharpton in predominantly black neighborhoods, an analysis of precinct results shows.


Dean touted his primary win as evidence of his appeal to black voters, but his margin of victory came almost entirely from a 10-to-1 edge over Sharpton in mostly white Ward 3 in affluent Northwest Washington. In the city's seven other wards, taken together, the two ran almost evenly.

Heavy turnout in Ward 3 helped Dean. More than 19 percent of eligible voters in Ward 3 cast a ballot, compared with a citywide average of 16 percent. The Ward 3 turnout was more than double the turnout in Southeast Washington's Ward 8, which is almost entirely African American and which gave Sharpton his best results. Sharpton beat Dean in Ward 8 by 59 percent to 24 percent.

-snip-

Dean's tally citywide was 43 percent, compared with Sharpton's 34 percent. Former senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, who dropped out of the race yesterday, came in third, with 12 percent. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio came in fourth, with 8 percent.

Dean won Wards 1, 2, 3 and 6, which are, by percentage, the wards with the largest white populations, according census numbers.

Sharpton won Wards 4, 5, 7 and 8, which have the city's largest black populations. Sharpton's margin was more than 20 percentage points in Wards 5 and 7, which are largely middle class.
 
-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21058-2004Jan15.html*******

I posted this separately, because the thread title is just wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21058-2004Jan15.html

snip..

D.C.'s White Voters, Not Black, Made Difference for Dean

By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2004; Page A05


Howard Dean built his victory in the D.C. primary on the strength of his popularity among voters in white sections of Washington and lost to Al Sharpton in predominantly black neighborhoods, an analysis of precinct results shows.

Dean touted his primary win as evidence of his appeal to black voters, but his margin of victory came almost entirely from a 10-to-1 edge over Sharpton in mostly white Ward 3 in affluent Northwest Washington. In the city's seven other wards, taken together, the two ran almost evenly.

Heavy turnout in Ward 3 helped Dean. More than 19 percent of eligible voters in Ward 3 cast a ballot, compared with a citywide average of 16 percent. The Ward 3 turnout was more than double the turnout in Southeast Washington's Ward 8, which is almost entirely African American and which gave Sharpton his best results. Sharpton beat Dean in Ward 8 by 59 percent to 24 percent.

Organizers of the Dean campaign in the city said they were pleased with their candidate's support among blacks. "He could not have won the primary without significant support of African American voters," said Nigel Gragg, a leader of Dean's all-volunteer city campaign.

The Dean campaign had portrayed the nonbinding D.C. primary as a crucial test of his support among black voters, generally among the most loyal Democrats. Political analysts and Dean's rivals had questioned whether black voters would warm up to a former governor of Vermont, which has few African Americans or other minorities.

end of snip

Of course Dean lied and claimed that this election showed that he had black support in D.C. WRONGO!

I just bet you they really wanted to win DC so they could say they had black support, and they were all ready to roll out a "We won DC -- blacks like us, they really really like us" media blitz.

So he wins DC, but without the black support. (Which is sort of like the Harlem even with all white faces, and white people hodling "African Americans for Dean" posters.)

Now, you have to be interested in this. Rather than going after all the superficial indications of black support, why can't he just be the candidate who appeals to black voters? That would actually require some solid biogrpahichal and policy qualifications which he doesn't seem to have.

He received 25% of the black vote. Against 2 black candidates.

I don't understand your point.

since Dean appears to have won 25% of the vote in predominantly black wards, which does not mean that he won 25% of the black vote - this STILL is not impressive.

It's really not all that big of a deal for the only viable white candidate in the race - the supposed front-runner in the field - to lose 75% of the black vote to other candidates. I sincerely doubt that, until last week, you would have touted Al Sharpton as any great competition for Dean. But even if he really were, do you truly believe that if Sharpton weren't in the race, all of his support would immediately shift to Dean?

Now, if Dean had been running against Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich and just one or two of the other top tier candidates - Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt - then a 25% showing among black voters would be a big deal. But given the lack of competition, this showing is nothing to write home about.

:shrug:

And she wouldn't in NC where Edwards has tremendous support in the black communtiy.

I should hope that he's leading there!


How would Edwards have done in D.C.?




Ed- We'll know Monday about IA.

"Even assuming your premise was correct, which it isn't"

You're right. He received 32% of the black vote.


...since Dean appears to have won 25% of the vote in predominantly black wards

Yes. He won 25% in the black wards. Completely contradicts your last assertion, that 25% was not a true figure. (I'll prove it if you want to go there).


...which does not mean that he won 25% of the black vote - this STILL is not impressive.

Ask and Ill prove it. In the heaviest black didstrict he got over 25%. What pray tell, would have "impressed" you? 99%?


It's really not all that big of a deal for the only viable white candidate in the race - the supposed front-runner in the field - to lose 75% of the black vote to other candidates.

Kucinich isn't viable? Remember that in your posts to Kucinich supporters. (Bookmarking) Once again, your'e admitting that he got 25% of the vote. Doesn't hold with your assertion that he didn't.


I sincerely doubt that, until last week, you would have touted Al Sharpton as any great competition for Dean.

You're right. We're talking D.C. here, not overall.


But even if he really were, do you truly believe that if Sharpton weren't in the race, all of his support would immediately shift to Dean?

No. Braun would have done better. And Dean would have done better. And Kucinich would have done better.


Now, if Dean had been running against Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich and just one or two of the other top tier candidates - Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt - then a 25% showing among black voters would be a big deal. But given the lack of competition, this showing is nothing to write home about.

There you go admitting that he got 25% of the black vote in D.C. again!(See first point) If "if" was a skiff, we'd all go for a boat ride.




To finish, I ask again, "What percentage would have 'impressed' you?"

As several people have pointed out, Dean's success was not due to his appeal to that Black majority.