nezua, we need more breakdowns. by other races, and laid side by side with national electoral totals. this is very interestintg, as it confirms some things i've wondered about. nice report, thanks.

thanks CD. i'm going to post as many breakdowns and bulletins as i can from the STreet Team. we'll see how it goes, if it proves helpful or useful at all.

I'm new posting on this site but not a new visitor; however, I'd like to say this is one of the best political blogs on the web (I often read this site and Black Agenda Report every week). I want to congratulate you on offering the public a great blog for those who want to read insightful writing from a minority perspective.

Nezua, I have a question for you, and this is question that's been bugging me ever since Clinton's win in Nevada, and hopefully, you can help me answer it. The media continues to harp on the fact that Clinton won more Hispanic votes than Obama. Thus, the pundics inject this "racial tension" between the two groups. But is this really the case? I'm black and I've lived around Hispanics, many who are honest, hard working people that hold no animosity towards me. We tend to view each other as groups that are in the same boat. However, is this Hispanic/Black tension another media creation just to push a sensationalistic news story in this campaign season or is there some truth to the pundits' theory that a majority of Hispanics will not vote for a black man? I don't find this to be the reason they flocked to Clinton over Obama, but maybe you can weigh in on this subject.

Preston, i appreciate your reading and your words.

of course it must be understand that neither you nor i have really experienced a large enough sampling to speak definitively on these things—as the well-read papers like to pretend they can. i can't speak for hispanics or latinos or males or really anyone. we can only go by our own knowledge and experience, as you say.

i do think there is a divide that is pushed on us over and over again. i do think, in fact, that the notion of blacks and latinos uniting on ANYthing sort of freaks out the entrenched powers for obvious and somewhat ugly reasons, yes. but for some, like me, it is an exciting notion. this is not to say there are not latinos that have problems with blacks and vice versa. of course there are. just as there are women who have problems with a woman president, or white men who have a problem voting for obama.

but i myself choose to see these tactics very much as you say. sensationalism and division tactics. i think race matters...but i think more so, every group wants to know they are seen and understood and are being counted and will have their voice represented. i mean, that's the whole idea of government, right? representation. i feel much as you do. blacks and latinos would do well to realize how much our struggles have in common. i know that between me and the friends i have that are black, we understand this. and we work together very often. and as you can see by my front page even today, i treat the black struggle as i do any nonwhite struggle in a culture that devalues the nonwhite: as important, as worth my solidarity. i can't say everything obama has said in terms of immigration or issues that i feel are seen as "latino" issues are ones that i fully support, but i can guarantee that his being black will certainly not turn me away, and in fact is a plus for me.

i don't personally know why clinton won in nevada, but i can assure you it wasn't her insipid talk about guacamole.

I love that young people are getting out the vote!

Very important discussion.

Just a few thoughts:

Where I live, many Latinos look Black to Anglo Americans. Are these friends treated as Blacks by mortgage lenders, employers, police ? Would they be treated better if they looked white ? If they looked brown ?

Will we benefit from supporting each other ?

Do you think any candidate will support any of our struggles without our strong movements demanding it ?

Obama has received huge corporate support (though not as much as Clinton). What would motivate him to advance our needs as opposed to the needs of his corporate donors ?

Who will come out and say the ICE raids must stop NOW ?

would they be treated better if they looked white? yeah, i'd say that's generally the rule. not in all cases, but that's often how it works, sadly. if they looked brown, yeah. probably. black people, in my very limited experience, really carry some of the heaviest consequences of racism there is. it seems to work on a scale. the darker the berry, the more careful that berry has to be around police, etc.

we always benefit from supporting one another.

no, i dont think any candidate will do much more than they are forced to. i mean, visionaries may. but we can't count on coinciding visions. so, i agree to your implication.

what would motivate obama? pressure, as you implied in your last question. same thing that motivates most (non sociopathic) politicians. fear of losing their power or losing power by losing face, etc.

i can only echo your last question. thanks laura.

The wealthy and powerful, whether corporate or political, but I repeat myself, do have a strong incentive to create, maintain, and exploit differences, real or fabricated. To me, in its most simplistic form, it often is reduced to just a struggle for money.
In a corporatist society, legislation is crafted to enhance the power and profits of the corporate interests. These pro-profit laws are enacted by their Washington lackeys. If the peasants got organized, they would be a threat to this money-power establishment.
I would submit that much of the manufactured immigrant and racial propaganda is designed to be such a wedge. They are wedges designed to manipulate the opinions and emotions of the have-nots to ensure that they continue to be have-nots. As the have-not population becomes larger and potentially powerful, the rhetoric of the propaganda will escalate. It is a simple divide and conquer tactic.
Billions and trillions of dollars are at stake. The wealthy and powerful are as insatiable as they are destructive. A million graves, millions of hungry, sick and ailing, poorly educated, homeless individuals and struggling families mean nothing to them. Dem's da breaks!

As the token white guy... interesting to see Obama and Edwards both did well. So much for the idea that working class white don't "get it". As to the great Black/Latino divide (if it exists) a couple of points.

I've always argued that "race" is largely a cultural construct. "Latinos" only existed as a separate ethnicity, voting bloc since the Nixon Administration decided to create the category for statistical (and political) purposes. The thinking was back then that "Latinos" would be a Republican minority (Nixon and company were thinking of the Cubans and conservative Tejanos) "Latino/a" could, of course, be any of the other "races" -- I know plenty of "Latino/as" who are whiter than I am (hey, I get a little browner ... in the summer anyway).

In the U.S. we tend to be binary thinkers. Democrat or Republican, Chocolate or Vanilla, White or black... we seem to have trouble with multiple-choice. I'm just old enough to remember when the Dems used to worry about the "Catholic" vote, as opposed to the "Protestant" one. I guess, in some twisted way, it's progress that racists don't talk about their "Anglo-Saxon" heritage, but about their "Euro-American" heritage... as opposed to the "others" (Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, some of the above...)

"Los punditos" (coming from the Nahuatl word for gas-bag?) haven't figured out how to deal with the reality of a multiple identities. Is a working class white lesbian, for example, a white woman, gay, a worker... or all of the above? Which bloc -- and what polling category -- should she fall under? What about a born-again Christian Mexican-American? Is a third generation Afro-Cuban going to vote for a right-winger? Donno... and neither do los punditos.

Going back to the working white men... the reactionaries who complain about "identity politics" have it correct -- but for the wrong reason. It's not that our white, blue collar dyke is voting for her interests (which are mixed), but that the reactionaries used race to keep people from voting their class interests. What I mean is that "race" was always used to keep the poor and working classes divided into artificial blocs... poor whites, poor blacks, poor latinos. The poor whites are ASSUMED to be conservatives, born-agains or dumb hillbillies. By keeping these "racial" categories, it keeps people from voting their economic and social interests.

The whole history of bigotry (one reason I don't like to talk about racism is that bigotry includes other prejudices -- going back to anti-Irish and anti-Catholic riots in the early 19th century) is more about the haves keeping the have-nots in smaller, manageable blocs than anything else.

Nezua and I disagree with this, but the "hopeful" thing is that bigotry is becoming more subtle, opening up the doors to more and more people... no one sane is going to turn down a qualified black man for a job based on race... and it looks like a lot of sane people will vote for one, too.

well, i'm not sure i disagree with all of it, richard. :) thanks for the thoughtful comment.

Thanks for all the work you did to get this on here. The more politics the better and the more wonky statistics you publish, the tastier the experience.
Meanwhile, I often wonder how you can get so much done each week.

This predatory type of capitalism we are under creates the divisions among the common people. It cannot work effectively without such dynamics. Look at who is locked up in the prisons. The right-wing pundits know this. I would love to see a woman president or a black or a brown one but the reality is, no matter how the mainstream media tries to say we are, this country is not ready unless its another one of the smoke and mirrors tricks they will use to hide the reality. Who is being funded by the big, dirty money?

It is a strategic notion that makes me believe that the only one that will stand a chance against McCain is Edwards. Although there are many, many decent non-blacks or non-latinos (my son-in-law is extremely and totally lovable), the divisions and cognitive perceptions that generate fear and mistrust, fueled by the media, will not let a majority of them vote their minds. The will emotionally react without thinking and vote against a woman (who I personally distrust) or Obama (who has some good qualities but to hear people like Joe Scarborough say he was inspired by his speech gives me the creeps).

McCain will get the Republican nomination. The Swift Boaters are funding him because they know neither Clinton nor Obama will survive the general election. And if they do, the money they have received has strings.

Well, Chicano2nd says the Dems can't win, but if they do, then...
So it isn't a question of if they can win or not. However, it does seem mathematically more and more likely that if Obama wins the primaries his odds of winning the general election are good, against McCain. Hillary would most likely lose to McCain.
Hillary already had problems with the sector of the electorate that would never vote for her, for whatever those reasons might be, but now that problem grows worse. Mr. Bill screwed up. Again.
Without any question, and for a very long time, the Republicans have been hoping and praying that Hillary would be the Dem candidate. She is the easiest for them to beat.
Admittedly, I am not really a fan of any of the three above mentioned candidates, but should I be able to vote this year {I can't so far-- no, not a felon, I just live in a colony} I would vote for the candidate likely to do the least damage, lie the least, demagogue the populace the least and #1 end the Iraq War extremely rapidly, #2 repair international relations and #3 begin to rebuild the lost US economy.
That seems to be clearly Obama.
Like Chicano2nd {shouldn't that be Segundo?} I readily agree that all the candidates are bought off from the very beginning and perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the next President of the US would be to encourage the Congress to end that system once and for all.
Perhaps Obama can get Edwards to be VP and put him in charge of that. Edwards can then lobby full time to end lobbying and campaign to end campaign influence. Seems antithetical, but there is logic there somewhere.

RC misreads me. I don't say the Democrats can't win. It's conditional upon who is the nominee for the general election. And, Edwards does not accept dirty money. Learn about where his money is coming from for the campaign before you say anything.

And no it doesn't need to be segundo, its not for anyone to say how I label myself. As a matter of fact calling myself Chicano is my way of taking the power to define me away from those who would insist I am, for example, Hispanic or spic or whatever they want to use to denigrate us. (ic is not in the Spanish language)! 2nd is my way of saying I am not Mexican but of Mexican ancestry and I am not American. But I am a citizen having been born and raised here in my spot in the universe and since I have been able to now insist the Constitutional rights and privileges are now owed to me as such (as well as the rest of us citizens) I will insist, as long as I can, that they are not taken away or applied unequally.

I am a citizen first and a Chicano by philosophy of life.

just keep it clean boys. i know the 08 Race brings el fuego about, but remember to keep respect in all conversations here. not saying anyone hasn't. just stepping in early to remind ustedes before someone loses an eye or something.

"We can change"

I am SO sick of hearing that because the only time change is brought up is during a campaign speech.

Never after they are in office.

i hear you. it's a recurring promise, isn't it? altho one could argue that the change these people mean is changing the officeholder! and once they are in office, well. change made!

So, we are pretty good at prior restraint too!

Thanks for the great read. But cum'on chicano2nd, we got a Gingrich-era Florida Republican like Scarborough saying he's inspired (okay, I guess that is a little frightening) by a liberal Democrat son of a Kenyan goat herder whose actually got a shot at winning! We are craving a little inspiration.