At least you are trying to exchange a few facts rather than just dismissively ignoring the them.

However, your facts are not contextually relevant, and here's why.

Al Sharpton is a charlaton. If he were not black, he would be a white Jimmy Swaggart. He should have gotten no where in the primaries, but he was able to hang in there long enough to get primarly "black" votes.

Jesse Jackson was more "credible", albeit, not by much. He also primarily only recieved the "black" vote. His experience was limited black mailing major companies, by threatening them with protests, if they didn't give his Rainbow Coalition money. That at least shows he has some experience.

Barack's credentials are head and shoulders above theirs. Which isn't to say Barack has great credentials, but when compared to those snake oil sales men, he is definetely more credible.

So in comparing the blacks who did not vote for Jesse or Al as being evidence of how blacks don't vote their race, is just plain illogical.

Barack is a U.S. Senator with 4 years under his belt. He is a Harvard Graduate. Those two factors alone makes him absolutely more qualified than Jesse and Al.

So I will stand by my statement, blacks vote their race statistically more than Republicans vote their race. Blacks also vote democrat statistically in such a manner as to make their vote an absolute for the Democrats. Which is what scares the party faithful. If Hillary does manage to win, then as the Black talk show hosts have opined, blacks will "Rain on McCain" with their votes.

That's racism, plain and simple. The Democrats created this god awful "SUPER-DELEGATE" format after the 1968 convention. And if Hillary uses it to her advantage, then the blacks will jump ship to help McCain. How can that not be interpreted as a vote based upon Race?

You know a Party that created the Super Delegates, whose leading Nominee for President has stated that he wants his supreme court nominees to rule on their cases with "empathy", shouldn't then complain that the rules were not followed. How can Hillary steal an election when the rules are made up as the game is played?

So thanks for trying, at least you had the guts to make some argument in support of your opinion. I don't hear from any of the other liberals online. Facts are stubborn things, at least to liberals they are.

*

**

Did someone say "one issue blogger?"

Kevin "Hack" King
(anyone want two dogs???)

Your trite retorts are beneath you, or at least I thought they were.
I've provided polling data.
I've given you the assumptions and basic interpretations of those facts.
You could argue and respond in an intelligent and analytical way, or you can just infer the that I'm a racist. Which is par for the course.

Looking deep into the mirror at that face looking back you, keeps you honest Hack. Try doing that somethime. One way is to tackle, in an honest fashion, the facts, and not keep looking through your rose colored glasses.

Either 10% of the electorate in Ohio and Florida is going to switch from Clinton to McCain or from Obama to McCain, or they are not. The polls suggest that they will.

What does that mean?
Can you name anything in McCain's resume that a dyed in the wool Obama or Clinton supporter would find attractive?
If not, then why the surge in the opposite direction?

I've used anecdotal evidence coupled with some common sense assumptions. Are there other possibilities, sure, but the most likely one is predicated entirely upon Race.

Some possible reasons that might suggest the surge other than race?

I guess many Clinton supporters do not want an empty suit to be President. Or a Marxist or a person who knowlingly supports a local terrorist.

I guess many Obama supporters might jump to McCain, because they have finally learned what the Republicans learned 16 years ago, and that the Clintons have the integrity of a child molester. They will stop at nothing to get the power that they long for everyday.

So those are two non-racist reasons why the swing in 10% of the vote for the opposite democratic candidate might occur, but instead of commenting on these, you just reply very sarcastically and make an inferred racist retort?

Again Hack, put the oxygen mask back on. You've got Obamaitis and it makes you lose the capacity for linear thinking. Or it makes you so dizzy, that you can't reply with intelligent debate and analysis predicated upon actual facts.

The best retort is that these are merely polls and polls are all over the place. But you didn't even try that.

This place isn't going to be fun, if the only debate is akin to school yard antics, where children scream at each other, "yes you did", "No, I didn't".