I will make my article short and to the point and then we can expand on it. I am making a couple of assumptions, trying to err conservatively on the side that would give Sen. Obama the benefit of the doubt in this discussion.
26,000,000 votes have been cast in the total popular vote in the Democratic Presidential primaries. As of today, without counting Mich or Fla, Obama has a lead of appx 700,000 votes.
I am estimating that 5,200,000 of the 26 million votes have been cast by black voters. That would be 20% of the Democratic Party is black. I am not sure of that figure, but it sounds very reasonable to me.
Of those 5,200,000 black primary voters, I estimate that around 780,000 more of them voted for Obama on the basis of his race, than the % of whites who voted for Hillary Clinton because of her race.
If we assume the uppermost figure a blowout percentage would be in a election between two candidates who are very similar on issues, I will take that as 70% , and that is being extremely generous. Usually 60% for one candidate is considered a 'landslide'.
Black votes for Obama have been consistently approaching 85-90%. White votes for Clinton have been in the 60-70% range.
As many as 15% more blacks have voted by race than whites, according to this analysis, and I think it withstands any fair scrutiny.
15% of the black vote would then be 780,000, a little more than Obama's current lead.
Allowing for some small discrepancies in these estimated %'s, it is still easy to see that this 'enormous' lead of Obama's is based on race. Yet who yells the most about race in this campaign? The people who are benefiting from the controversy. Curious, isn't it?