Two more primaries, and two more relatively static results in the Democratic race for President. The media meme about yesterday's results is that Obama beat expectations, so Hillary should drop out, but the racial breakdowns in IN and NC remained almost unchanged from earlier Primaries.
Obama won black voters overwhelmingly, getting 91 percent in NC and 90 percent in Indiana. Clinton won white voters convincingly, getting 60 percent in NC and 61 percent in IN.
As race seems to have the most consistent correlation with vote preference in this primary, the actual results from state to state aren't varying that much from what can be predicted by the demographics and turnout projections. FiveThirtyEight.com had some long predictions yesterday, using polling and some complicated statistical analysis, but they came very close to being right simply by using racial breakdowns and turnout predictions.
I'll also note the strange meme wondering whether Obama can collect enough votes from whites motivated by race, even while nobody is mentioning that black voters are consistently and overwhelmingly supporting the candidate who shares their skin color.
As I've said since Super Tuesday, the Dem race seems pretty static to me, despite the roller coaster of coverage. The 2008 general election will likely hinge on whether the eventual Democratic nominee (still almost certainly Obama) can win over enough of Clinton's supporters, given the unprecedented length and vigor of the Democratic race. Yesterday's exit polls indicated yet again that Democratic voters are becoming more attached to their candiate and more averse to the other candidate:
Nearly six in ten Obama supporters in Indiana say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton were the nominee -- that's (I believe) the high percentage of Obama supporters who have ever said that.
In both IN and NC, two thirds of Clinton supporters say they'd be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee -- I believe that's the highest number recorded for that question, too.
The percentage of Clinton voters who say they'd choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they'd definitely vote for Obama in a general election.
The general election will be decided based on this. Obama supporters are convinced that Democrats will come home, because they're motivated by issues and Obama is right on their issues. I understand the importance of issues, as you've seen from criticisms of the GOP over the years, yet I still think many voters are motivated by personalities and biographies, and while I don't doubt that many Clinton supporters will eventually support Obama, I think a significant percentage (10 percent? 20 percent) will not, due to the animosities and attachments created during this Primary.
And those are the key questions for November: How many Clinton supporters will not support Obama, and how well can Obama do with white voters, given his inability to win them in the recent Democratic Primaries?
OPERATION CHAOS
Of necessity, questions like these are inherently superficial in nature. That doesn't make them any less important, it just makes them more difficult to answer.
Right now, the majority of Democrats are probably not choosing between Hillary and Barack based on issues, since there aren't that many significant differences outside of the IWR. That means that they are voting for Hillary most likely because she is a woman, or because she is married to Bill, or because they think she's more experienced and prepared, or because they're not comfortable with Obama, or because she's not black.
The ones who are voting for her because she is a woman or married to Bill will vote for Obama in the fall. The ones who vote for her because she's not black will not. The ones who are uncomfortable with Obama have time to change, but a great deal depends on the source of their discomfort. That leaves the ones who vote for experience, who could be tempted to go for McCain, or maybe to give more credence to issues once there becomes a clear difference and vote for Barack.
How many Dems of each flavor are there? I have no idea.
"Right now, the majority of Democrats are probably not choosing between Hillary and Barack based on issues, since there aren't that many significant differences outside of the IWR. That means that they are voting for Hillary most likely because she is a woman, or because she is married to Bill, or because they think she's more experienced and prepared, or because they're not comfortable with Obama, or because she's not black.
The ones who are voting for her because she is a woman or married to Bill will vote for Obama in the fall. The ones who vote for her because she's not black will not. The ones who are uncomfortable with Obama have time to change, but a great deal depends on the source of their discomfort. That leaves the ones who vote for experience, who could be tempted to go for McCain, or maybe to give more credence to issues once there becomes a clear difference and vote for Barack.
How many Dems of each flavor are there? I have no idea."
That's an excellent way to put it. And I have no idea, either.
But there will be those on both sides who will, in an effort to claim now that their candidate is stronger, claim that Obama will get either all or none of Hillary's supporters. The reality is somewhere in the middle, and really is going to be the one of the great questions of the 2008 campaign.
I don't think it really matters in terms of the election though--Clinton is, if not mathematically eliminated, basically eliminated and keeps spinning losses as examples of her resurgence.
"I don't think it really matters in terms of the election though--Clinton is, if not mathematically eliminated, basically eliminated and keeps spinning losses as examples of her resurgence."
I agree. And she has been for some time. My main interest is how the increasing attachment/aversion of Democrats to Obama and Clinton will affect the general election.
That's why I keep looking at racial breakdowns in exit polling from each subsequent primary, and the questions which ask about the satisfation level with the candidate among the other's supporters.
The real problem which the national GOP leadership seems to have missed is either will most likely to win in November.
The general election will be decided based on this.
Well, I disagree. The main reason I disagree is that this is a primary. And while the Democrats have drawn record numbers of primary voters this year, it is still a primary and there are plenty of people who are staying home right now but will be voting in November.
Secondly, this is a very intense primary. Eventually it will be settled (looks like sooner rather than later) and the party will rally around a candidate. When the issues come into play, and the platform starts to be compared to the GOP platform, voters (especially independents) will move toward the Democrats. Three words: Bush 3rd Term.
Finally, I would just mention that McCain actually lost 23% of the Republican vote last night in North Carolina (21% in Indiana). Even Alan Keyes picked up 3% of Republicans, and Huckabee did just fine (12%) months after dropping out and endorsing McCain. Even if the Democrats come out of this battle divided, it will take an extremely strong and united GOP to undue their inherent strengths. With 62,000 pulling the lever for Huckabee in North Carolina last night, I would argue that the GOP is hardly strong or united at this point.
"Secondly, this is a very intense primary. Eventually it will be settled (looks like sooner rather than later) and the party will rally around a candidate. When the issues come into play, and the platform starts to be compared to the GOP platform, voters (especially independents) will move toward the Democrats. Three words: Bush 3rd Term."
You're making two assumptions, either one of which may or may not be valid.
The first assumption is that Clinton's supporters will, to a large degree, rally around Obama. We don't yet know if that's the case. I'm not arguing that they won't. I'm arguing that we don't yet know, given this unprecendented Primary election, to what degree they will.
Your second assumption is that for the vast majority of Clinton's voters, issues will trump biography and personality and the aversions created by the Primary. Past elections suggest that personality and biography matter a great deal to some percentage of independent voters. We don't yet know, for 2008, what that percentage will be, or whether these folks will break away from Obama due to whatever objection is costing him votes in the primary (see Kevin's comment above...).
"Finally, I would just mention that McCain actually lost 23% of the Republican vote last night in North Carolina (21% in Indiana)."
Yes - McCain is an extraordinarily flawed candidate. As I've said all along, if McCain can't or won't compete due to his own flaws, then the race is over before it starts. Given the atmosphere, McCain needs to run a nearly perfect campaign, and have the Democrat divisions last at least in some degree until November.
Hillary or Obama lost or won by 60% or 50% what does that mean that there is a much bigger split in the Democrat party? I think a person thinks it’s kind of a waste of time to vote for president when the nominee has been decided. Many of these votes for other candidates could be just send a message to McCain it does not mean they won't be voting for McCain in the general.
You're making two assumptions, either one of which may or may not be valid.
Of course. We all have nothing but assumptions at this point.
Past elections suggest that personality and biography matter a great deal to some percentage of independent voters.
Yes, but each election is unique, with unique themes. The general assumption with '08 is that it is a change election and the candidate/party that carries forth the change mantra is going to win. I think we are now seeing that Clinton's lack of a change message is going to be her undoing. It has taken this long and been this painful because she is a Clinton, and they have run the DNC since 1991. This is a major revolution in Democratic politics, and revolutions are rarely bloodless or neat.
I would suggest that biography has only played a major part in a small number of American Presidential elections, with the last being Reagan's win in 1980. In my assessment, change will overcome any lingering negatives about Obama's former Pastor.
But I think we all fully expect the GOP to run racist and/or borderline racist ads in their quest to hold the White House. What is your take on that strategy? Is it acceptable to you to be a part of a national party that uses racism as a motivator to hold on to power? Or, moreover, what level of racism will need to be manipulated for you to consider tearing up your GOP membership card?
It occurred to me that John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and the other former candidates are probably kicking themselves right now for dropping out of the race. Given the current delegate split between Clinton and Obama, its likely that Edwards, Richardson, et. al. could have played the role of king-maker at the convention.
One thing that surprises me are the number of Democratic voters who say that, if Mrs. Clinton, it mostly seems to be people who vote for her, is not the candidate, then they will vote for John McCain. This has been mentioned several times on the news shows. That would appear to be an example of voting based on the personality of the candidate, rather than their policy positions or goals.
"But I think we all fully expect the GOP to run racist and/or borderline racist ads in their quest to hold the White House."
- Sorry, but the only ones to use the race against Obama so far have been other Democrats. Tearing up your Democart Party card yet?
This is a joke, right? (I'm not linking these in an attempt to avoid getting this comment held up for moderation.)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179868.php
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57363
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711290005
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200710240003
OK, those examples are mostly about religion, not about ethnicity explicitly, but the two are linked. One of the top Republican pundits in the country consistently refers to Obama only as "B. Hussein Obama." It was Rush Limbaugh, not Al Franken, that came up with "Barack the Magic Negro."
"I would suggest that biography has only played a major part in a small number of American Presidential elections, with the last being Reagan's win in 1980. In my assessment, change will overcome any lingering negatives about Obama's former Pastor."
Biography played huge roles in 1988, 1992 and 2004.
And I still think Obama's associations are going to be a huge issue for him, although I think Bill Ayers is a much bigger problem than Jonathan Wright. It undermines his "judgement" message, which he uses to trump his lack of experience.
"But I think we all fully expect the GOP to run racist and/or borderline racist ads in their quest to hold the White House. What is your take on that strategy? Is it acceptable to you to be a part of a national party that uses racism as a motivator to hold on to power? Or, moreover, what level of racism will need to be manipulated for you to consider tearing up your GOP membership card?"
Right back at ya: Is it acceptable to you to be a part of a national party that uses racism as a motivator to hold on to power? Are you calling for Obama to reject support from Hillary Clinton and her supporters, due to their racist ads during the Primary? Will you leave the Democratic Party if those racist Hillary supporters aren't denounced and rejected?
And why the double-standard? A significant portion of Obama's black supporters are voting for him specifically because he's black. Obama has used race as cynically as anybody in recent American politics, yet you're absolutely OK with it because it suits your partisan goals.
Be careful labeling Republicans as the racist Party when your own has such clear divisions based largely on race.
"It was Rush Limbaugh, not Al Franken, that came up with "Barack the Magic Negro.""
False.
It was an LA Times columnist who first used the term in connection with Obama.
I can't believe how many times I've seen this, when its so transparently false. Perhaps because it fits people's negative stereotypes? Hmmmmmm.
Sorry, I was referring to the song "Barack the Magic Negro", not the term in general. At least the LA Times article was using a pre-existing term to try to make an actual point and forward a discussion. Limbaugh was trying to be inflammatory as possible.
"At least the LA Times article was using a pre-existing term to try to make an actual point and forward a discussion. Limbaugh was trying to be inflammatory as possible."
Limbaugh was mocking the LA Times column, the concept it was pushing and the mainstream media love affair with Obama (i.e., their investment in Obama as "magic negro", and has said so specifically dozens of times. The parody song Rush plays specifically mentions the LA Times, for crying out loud. If the LA Times hadn't used the term in connection with Obama, Rush wouldn't have had any reason to parody it.
Here's the lyrics, with an impersonator of Al Sharpton singing:
I'm not a regular Rush listener, but this canard that the "Magic Negro" parody is a race attack is just silly. It's not even an attack on Obama - it's ridiculing the slobbering, pro-Obama media and coverage, not Obama. If anything, if you take it literally, the song is saying that Obama's not black enough.
I probably shouldn't even be wasting my time trying to point out facts. If you want to believe Republicans are all racists (and that all racists are Republicans) in direct contradiction to what we've just witnessed for the last 90 days (or even last night!), there's nothing I can say that will convince you.
Biography played huge roles in 1988, 1992 and 2004.
That's not my read. 1992 and 2004 are particularly suspect examples since Clinton's bio in '92 was horrific. Jennifer Flowers anyone? Inhale or don't inhale? Bush was sitting on top of a historic recession that was created by the policies of the Reagan/Bush 12 year pig trough of an economic policy. Bush called VP Gore "ozone man". America chose Clinton on the issues, not on his biography.
2004 was fear and smear, although if you want to count the swift boat ads as a "biography" issue then I guess you might have a point. Exit polls did not suggest that swift boat made a major impact, and Bush's foreign policy/in-the-middle-of-a-war dynamic played to his favor more than his biography.
I don't really remember '88 so much except for the Willy Horton ad which, if it was important, was an issue ad - not a biography ad.
Be careful labeling Republicans as the racist Party when your own has such clear divisions based largely on race.
You're kidding, right? How, exactly, has Obama "used race as cynically as anyone in modern politics"? Are you seriously incapable of understanding why African-Americans vote for the first legitimate black presidential candidate ever? Why is it "cynical" for a black candidate to have the overwhelming support of his race? You're making some pretty wild and fairly dangerous claims here. I'd check myself if I were you.
If Hillary Clinton had made serious headway using overtly racist ads like this one (TN - 2006) and she became the nominee of the Democratic party, then I would have serious reservations about voting Democratic in the fall and yes, I might consider tearing up my Hillary-Clinton-Supporter card. But she hasn't run ads like this, and I don't think even her desperation would lead her down such a well-traveled Republican road.
But either way, we aren't talking about a desperate, losing primary candidate. We are talking about ads created by the RNC and run around the country that will say both overtly and covertly that Obama is black and you shouldn't vote for a black guy. It will be slick, you'll be able to manufacture an excuse why the ad isn't racist, but the message will come across: Obama is black. Don't vote for the black guy.
There is a world of difference there, and I would never dare to support a party that would stoop to such measures, as the GOP has done repeatedly over the last thirty years.
But I applaud you for dodging yet another question and yet another issue. If the GOP runs racist ads against Obama, will you defect?
"That's not my read. 1992 and 2004 are particularly suspect examples since Clinton's bio in '92 was horrific. Jennifer Flowers anyone? Inhale or don't inhale? Bush was sitting on top of a historic recession that was created by the policies of the Reagan/Bush 12 year pig trough of an economic policy. Bush called VP Gore "ozone man". America chose Clinton on the issues, not on his biography."
Ross Perot had a very compelling biography.
"2004 was fear and smear, although if you want to count the swift boat ads as a "biography" issue then I guess you might have a point. Exit polls did not suggest that swift boat made a major impact, and Bush's foreign policy/in-the-middle-of-a-war dynamic played to his favor more than his biography."
Kerry made his biography a key point of his campaign, but key parts of it undermined his credibility.
"I don't really remember '88 so much except for the Willy Horton ad which, if it was important, was an issue ad - not a biography ad."
Dukakis' response to the hypothetical about his wife being raped and killed was all biography/personality, and was crucial.
"Are you seriously incapable of understanding why African-Americans vote for the first legitimate black presidential candidate ever? Why is it "cynical" for a black candidate to have the overwhelming support of his race? You're making some pretty wild and fairly dangerous claims here. I'd check myself if I were you."
I see. So it's OK for for black voters to base their vote based on the race of the candidate, but not for white voters?
Why would I need to "check myself?" Is it too politically incorrect to point out the double-standard among Democratic Primary voters, and in the media coverage of the same?
"But I applaud you for dodging yet another question and yet another issue. If the GOP runs racist ads against Obama, will you defect?"
Heh. Pot, meet kettle. When you acknowlege Obama's cynical use of race in his own campaign, then maybe you'll be a credible referee of what is an acceptable use of race in politics.
And if the GOP does something that makes me uncomfortable, and running ads which are racist would absolutely make me uncomfortable, then I'll criticize it just as I always have. But you have no standing to tell me what is or is not racist behavior by the GOP, because you're absolutely and totally blinded by your own support for Obama, and by your hatred of all things Republican.
This thread is an excellent example of it: You are hoping Obama wins the support of racist white Democrats (you are assuming they'll support him, in fact), yet you think anyone should listen to you attack Republicans on race?
I see. So it's OK for for black voters to base their vote based on the race of the candidate, but not for white voters?
Yes. Yes. Oh, and yes.
Black people are not white people. They do not have the same history as white people and have not historically been treated in the same way as white people. They are a minority group, and perhaps the most abused minority group in the history of this country. For a black man to be this close to the Presidency is historic and inspiring. It says more about what makes America great than anything I can remember. If black people were not rallying to this man just to see a member of this oppressed and abused race rise to the pinnacle of power, I would think something was very wrong with America and the African-American community.
When you acknowlege Obama's cynical use of race in his own campaign, then maybe you'll be a credible referee of what is an acceptable use of race in politics.
I don't see a cynical use of race. I'll ask again: how is he using race cynically?
But you have no standing to tell me what is or is not racist behavior by the GOP, because you're absolutely and totally blinded by your own support for Obama, and by your hatred of all things Republican.
Huh? Is it ok for a black person to tell you when they find an ad, like the Harold Ford Jr. ad, racist? Is it enough for the NAACP to say it is racist? Enough for the leading African-American leaders in this country to say it is racist? What, exactly, does it take to cross the "racist" threshold?
I don't hate all things Republican, I just hate it when Republicans sink to base racist attacks to perpetuate their grip on power.
You are hoping Obama wins the support of racist white Democrats (you are assuming they'll support him, in fact), yet you think anyone should listen to you attack Republicans on race?
I don't understand this sentence. Obama will win over "racist" Democrats and independents because he is the most qualified candidate for this moment in our history. He will not win over a large percentage of Republicans because a large percentage of Republicans will never vote for a black person (note the complete absence of any black Republicans in Congress).
There is nothing wrong with black people positively voting for a black man. There is something very wrong with white people not voting for a black man because he is black. Surely you can understand the difference?
"I don't see a cynical use of race. I'll ask again: how is he using race cynically?"
We've had multiple discussions on this. By discussing race only when he wants to, and by decrying all other discussions of race as racist or as a distraction.
"I don't hate all things Republican."
Sure you do. I've been discussing these things with you for how many years and months, and inevitably you assign the worst possible motivations to all things Republican.
"Obama will win over "racist" Democrats and independents because he is the most qualified candidate for this moment in our history. He will not win over a large percentage of Republicans because a large percentage of Republicans will never vote for a black person (note the complete absence of any black Republicans in Congress)."
See?
You're saying that white Democrats who have voted for Hillary because of her race aren't racist because you hope they'll eventually support Obama, and you would never hope for your candidate to earn the support of racists.
And I love how you put "racist" in quotes when it's referring to Democrats, even white ones who tell exit pollsters that their vote for the white candidate was motivated by race. I wonder how many knots you can twist yourself into to convince yourself that all racists are Republicans?
"There is nothing wrong with black people positively voting for a black man. There is something very wrong with white people not voting for a black man because he is black."
You're making a bold assumption there. You won't notice it even after I point it out, but it's pretty remarkable.
And you're ignoring (or denying) that there are Democrats - yes, even saintly, blessed, "reality-based", never-could-be-wrong Democrats - who won't vote for a black man because he's black. You are even hoping for the support of these racists for your candidate, while simultaneously condemning Republicans for being racist. It's really quite a remarkable display of naked partisanship, in which everything that could benefit your candidate is excusable.
Remarkable.
It appears to me D. Boon's views are part of the race not the partisan problem we face in this country.
Given the atmosphere, McCain needs to run a nearly perfect campaign...
The figures CNN is posting show that in the last 3 primaries, PA, IN and NC, 27%, 23%, and 26% of Republicans voted for "other than McCain", which is more than 400,000 votes against. For any Republican to win the Presidential race, that candidate would have to get nearly all of the Republican vote, plus most of the Independent voters and also attract away a sizable segment of the Democrat vote.
If McCain does indeed get the GOP nomination in September - about half of the 25% that dont like McCain are Huckabee supporters, and something less than half of prolife Christian Huckabee supporters could vote for McCain in Nov. Most of the other half are Ron Paul supporters and roughly Zero % of them could even be waterboarded into voting for McCain. That means that a McCain candidacy could potentially alienate about 15 to 18% of the voting ranks of the GOP. However, not many of them would vote for Hillary and only a few would vote for Obama. Some of them will stay home and not vote, some will vote for 3rd party candidates like Cynthia McKenney, Constitutionalist Christian Chuck Baldwin, or whoever. Some will write in the candidate of their choice and some of those will have their ballots thrown out. At any rate Obama would not get many of that potentially 15 to 18% of GOP voters who wont vote for McCain. There is a small segment of Democrats, male Hillary Haters, who wont vote for Obama because he is mostly a black man, who would probably crossover and vote for McCain, but lots of them will stay home too.
On the other hand, regardless of their biting and devouring of one another, the Bush-hating Democrats will mostly kiss and make up long before November and organize themselves behind Obama well enough to thoroughly rout McCain and many other GOP'ers as well, dragging many Democrats into various National, State and Local offices.
The most sensible recourse for the GOP at this point is to release McCain's medical records, declare him disabled because of his illnesses, and allow him to gracefully fade out of the race before it is too late and the GOP takes a wound from which it might take 20 years or more to recover.
By discussing race only when he wants to, and by decrying all other discussions of race as racist or as a distraction.
He doesn't do that. What discussions of race has he called racist or a distraction? Are these legitimate discussion about race dynamics in this country, or attempts to smear him because he is black? You are sliding into that place where you write out of anger instead of your gift of wisdom and intelligence.
... you assign the worst possible motivations to all things Republican.
I don't do that. Just today I wrote in another thread that there are serious criticisms to be made of the Left. Again, why are you writing these really extreme, illogical statements?
I wonder how many knots you can twist yourself into to convince yourself that all racists are Republicans?
I don't think all racists are Republicans, but I appreciate your willingness to frame the issue correctly (instead of "why do you think all Republicans are racists?"). I think racism is something that everyone carries within themselves to varying degrees. A lot of black folks are racist against white folks (though I would add many have pretty good reasons, from a historical perspective), and vice-versa.
But the Republican party has historically been the place that active racists find shelter. Whether it is Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, or George W. Bush's plane ride over New Orleans. Democrats have traditionally been the party that has embraced minorities and minority rights in the party and in the platform.
So yes, I have more faith in the racists of the Democratic persuasion to get past their issues and support the best candidate. And no, I don't think anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist.
Maybe you could save us all a lot of time and post the last racist Democratic ad that was aired in this country? And if you can't find one, what does that say?
"before it is too late and the GOP takes a wound from which it might take 20 years or more to recover."
- McCain is the only Republican that can keep the race from being anything but a total blowout, which would happen with Romney, Huckabee, or Paul (god forbid) at the top of the ticket. If McCain can drag the GOP back to fiscal conservatism, then even if he loses, the loss would be worth it. Following Bush and the horrid state that he is leaving the GOP in would be extremely difficult for any Republican.
"What discussions of race has he called racist or a distraction?"
- Any discussion involving Reverand Wright's sermons.
"Maybe you could save us all a lot of time and post the last racist Democratic ad that was aired in this country? And if you can't find one, what does that say?"
- It says that Democrats keep their racism on the internet, like just 2 years ago when they put Joe Lieberman in blackface or Michael Steele in blackface while labeling him Sambo and Condi Rice a House N----.
Any discussion involving Reverand Wright's sermons.
I didn't realize the discussion about Wright's comments was about race in America. I also failed to pick up that this was an attempt to create a legitimate discussion about race. My sense was that Obama's response to the original controversy was very appropriate and actually an invitation to start a real dialogue, but that he felt that dialogue needed to include an acknowledgement that there are also a lot of white racists in this country, not just angry black people.
Nobody seems too interested in discussing white racism when it is so much easier to just destroy the angry black man instead.
It says that Democrats keep their racism on the internet, like just 2 years ago when...
I also didn't realize that the DNC was responsible for those comments. Do you have a citation for that? We all know that the Harold Ford Jr. ad, and the Willy Horton ad were produced, paid for, and distributed by the RNC. Are you saying the DNC is doing this same thing? Can you give us an example?
Because comparing racist Democrats on the internet to racist Republicans on the internet is not really going to work out for you folks either.
Your second assumption is that for the vast majority of Clinton's voters, issues will trump biography and personality and the aversions created by the Primary.
I would extend this. I firmly assume that more than enough Clinton voters would vote for the personality of a salt shaker over the personality of McCain. If the vast majority of Clinton's voters do indeed vote for Obama, it will be an utter landslide of Reagan-esque proportions.
Wow, this one really flew off the handle.
Clinton is a racist. So what? That's why I'm not going to vote for her. It doesn't change the fact that Republicans can't scare any minorities for their congressional delegation.
I don't have a democratic party card. I don't want one. I also don't have much respect for people who dismiss the core racist ideology of their party by saying, "Those guys do it too!" and then turn around and attack Obama for "using race when it's convenient.
Here's a suggestion, "Stop being white for a second!"
If you could, you might figure out that one of the biggest privileges that ethnic majority folks have is GETTING TO CHOOSE WHEN THEY THINK OR TALK ABOUT RACE the vast majority of the time.
An ethnic majority person who chooses to not think about race can do so almost indefinitely, and even when the topic intrudes, they can accuse the other person of "playing the race card" and vilify the crap out of them.
I have to think about race at least times every single day. It doesn't matter whether I want to or not.
I could be just eating a sandwich or getting the newspaper.
I'm say this for pity or to get some recognition. I just want to say that you sound like an idiot when you accuse an ethnic minority person for using race when it is convenient.
Utterly ridiculous.
Here's a suggestion, "Stop being white for a second!"
Too funny.
Look, this is not really about the voters - the average Joe and Jane Americans. I actually believe that most Americans will choose a candidate from the issues in play, not from lame biographical tidbits or attack ads. At some point we understand that when Karl Rove is making the argument that Rev. Wright "doesn't share America's values" he is perhaps speaking as a man who also doesn't share America's values. That the hypocrisy coming from a party that claims to represent "average Americans" while sinking to the lowest ethical levels known to presidential history is pretty transparent. It might be an interesting experience to debate who shares less of America's values: George W. Bush or Rev. Wright (hint: it's probably a tie).
Democrats will rally to Obama because they believe in what he wants to do as President and they sure as hell don't believe in what McCain is going to do if he wins. Are some (many?) of these Democrats racists who don't really like or understand black people? Maybe. Will they get over it to elect someone besides McBush? I think so, but I could definitely be wrong.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans on race doesn't have that much to do with their core voters. Yes, there is a difference in the type of person who chooses to be a D versus an R. I'd suggest that one of those differences has to do with the way people view race in this country, among many other things. But the core of this discussion is the political party's establishment. It is the establishment who makes the decision to keep people like Strom Thurmond in power for so long, or to forgive and forget what Trent Lott has done. It is the establishment who produces and distributes ads that play the race card in a state like Tennessee, or across the country in the case of Willy Horton. It is the establishment of the RNC that allows these tactics to be used to gain or maintain political power.
That is just inexcusable to me, and it is embarassing to our country. My sincere hope is that John McCain remembers what race cards were played against him in South Carolina eight years ago, and that he really is enough of a man to not make those same choices. But I have no doubt that there will be many members of the GOP establishment who will be encouraging him to sink to the levels of Bush and Rove.
You are actually going to defend Rush Limbaugh? Oh, my.
"I firmly assume that more than enough Clinton voters would vote for the personality of a salt shaker over the personality of McCain."
Perhaps. A reason to agree with you (and D.Boon) about the lack of bio/personality effect this year is the question that if personality or biography were really all that important to Clinton voters, then why in the heck are they Clinton voters?
"I'm say this for pity or to get some recognition. I just want to say that you sound like an idiot when you accuse an ethnic minority person for using race when it is convenient.
Utterly ridiculous."
Point taken.
My only response will be that Obama's going to have to sell himself as a candidate to white people like me who, as you point out, only think about race when we want to. These voters may also feel (idiotically like me) that Obama is trying to have it both ways on race.
So far Obama hasn't been able to make that sale, even to white Democrats, let alone white independents.
I've written before that I often use my mother as a super-small-sample bellweather. She's a staunch Democrat, catholic, divorced, 55+. She's a big believer in Hillary, despite my best efforts, and is completely disgusted with Obama. When we last talked about the race a few weeks ago, she wouldn't tell me if she'd consider voting for McCain over Obama because she was absolutely certain Hillary was going to be the nominee, and she was so excited about getting to support a woman for President.
Obama is going to have a tough, tough time making the sale to my mom. And we don't know how many other Democrats there are out there who feel similarly. And my whole point in this thread is that I think that's one of the most important factors as we head to November.
"A reason to agree with you (and D.Boon) about the lack of bio/personality effect this year is the question that if personality or biography were really all that important to Clinton voters, then why in the heck are they Clinton voters?"
I'd been trying all day to think of a polite (or at least marginally clever) way of saying exactly that. Thank you.
Xian says "If you could, you might figure out that one of the biggest privileges that ethnic majority folks have is GETTING TO CHOOSE WHEN THEY THINK OR TALK ABOUT RACE the vast majority of the time.
An ethnic majority person who chooses to not think about race can do so almost indefinitely, and even when the topic intrudes, they can accuse the other person of "playing the race card" and vilify the crap out of them.
I have to think about race at least times every single day. It doesn't matter whether I want to or not.
I could be just eating a sandwich or getting the newspaper."
To abuse a cliche, THIS. This right there.
"If McCain does indeed get the GOP nomination in September"
This is why drugs are bad.
Hey, you never know. Maybe John Hagee will get his wish and we'll bomb Iran and the Rapture will happen. Or is it the Rapture and then we start bombing Iran? I've never been very clear on how this stuff is going to go down...
It
ishas become pretty obvious that many people are going to sign up for "the deal" - I'll vote for the black guy, now can we be past the 'America is a racist nation' thing? Obama seems like a decent guy, how bad could he really be? And, as a bonus, he's not in the same party that brought us GW.At the end of the day, Hillary voters will not cross over - they will take the deal.
"If McCain does indeed get the GOP nomination in September"
This is why drugs are bad.
I actually haven't seen published anywhere what it is that they pump McCain up with so that he has these periods of apparent quasi-lucency. I would not go so far as to say that that sort of medication is bad, but it is certainly not good when we have an obviously heavily medicated candidate and his handlers try to gloss it off with the facade that everything is ok with this guy in the brain function department.
"apparentl quasi-lucency" I think a better example of quasi-lucency (what ever that is) is letting Obama win so He, Pelosi and Reed can start expanding the Federal Government. Talk about Nanny Staters wait until the Fairness Doctrine kicks in and this Blog gets a Monitor to make sure everyone rights are being protected. The government will have your money and your rights and pick the judges to make sure it keeps them.
Maybe John Hagee will get his wish and we'll bomb Iran and the Rapture will happen. Or is it the Rapture and then we start bombing Iran? I've never been very clear on how this stuff is going to go down...
You are not alone if you think that Hagee's Eschatology is...er...scatologic at least in some points. Hagee is a follower of dispensationalist eschatology as proposed by John Nelson Darby. Note that the "Christian Zionist" Hagee is a ex-Assembly of God pastor and he still incorporates some pre-trib assembly of God theology into his ideas. There are several alternative views some of which are diametrically counter to Hagee's eschatology.
One of the most interesting non-Darby views, imho, is the non-sectarian view espoused by George Warnock in 1951 in his small book "The Feast of Tabernacles". The Assemblies of God voted in 1949 to embrace the doctrine of Darby and in about 1956 they voted to reject Warnock's views, which run counter to those of Darby and to Hagee as well. Warnock is in his 90's and lives in Canada., and he has a website with many of his interesting writings www.georgewarnock.com."
So-called "Christian Zionism" is highly compatible with the neoconservative views of McCain and Bloody Bill Kristol.
The problem is that all this Armageddon silliness distracts from the real prophecy of Ragnarok when the giants will return, the World Tree will shake, and much of the world will be destroyed in fire. I mean, come on people, priorities already.
"The government will have your money and your rights and pick the judges to make sure it keeps them."
Hmmm...I think you may have arrived late to the party if you think this is a prediction rather than a present-day observation.
"The government will have your money and your rights and pick the judges to make sure it keeps them."
Hmmm...I think you may have arrived late to the party if you think this is a prediction rather than a present-day observation.
It can get much worse and will.
The government will have your money and your rights and pick the judges to make sure it keeps them.
It can get much worse and will.
****
run4cvrlib ain't the only one who thinks like that --
Ron Paul #1 on New York Times Best Seller List
ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s newest book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” is number one on the New York Times Best Sellers list for May 18th, 2008. The ranking is yet another of the many successes Dr. Paul has had during his presidential candidacy spreading his message of personal freedom and constitutional government. Upon its official release on April 30th, “The Revolution: A Manifesto” was the number one bestseller on Amazon.com and remains the number one bestseller in political books.
D. Boon said, "If black people were not rallying to this man just to see a member of this oppressed and abused race rise to the pinnacle of power, I would think something was very wrong with America and the African-American community."
Would you have a problem with a black person who, based on race, voted for a 3rd party ticket of O. J. Simpson and Willie Horton?
How is that remotely relevant?
The question is, given a group of candidates already winnowed as viable, if one of them has the distinction of being "the first person from group A to ever have a chance at the office" is it so unreasonable that some people who might be okay with entire field, decide to vote for the candidate from group A because either they belong to group A OR they just like the underdog angle?
I'd say it's a pretty natural thing. The "historic first" thing is working in favor of BOTH Democratic hopefuls, you'll notice - first black candidate, first woman candidate.
I do think that once the "first" bit is over with, the next black candidate or woman candidate to come along won't have that little extra "push," but that's probably a good thing.
As for Willie Horton I bet he wishes he could get royalties for each time his name is tossed around in these political fear-fests.
It is relevant because if someone says s/he are going to vote for McCain because his is a white male, they are labeled a racict and a sexist, but if someone says s/he will vote for Clinton because she is a woman or Obama because he is black, (or at least partially black. I love the fact that everyone dismisses or ignores his white ancestory.), it is not a problem.
Since there seems to be a ground swell here to determine the best candidate for the black community based on race, would Rev. Jesse Jackson be a better candidate than Obama because his skin tone is darker? Of course not, the answer would depend on how each candidate stands on the issues. I beleive the same is true between Obama/Clinton, Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain.
Maybe someday we will be able to compare the candidates on how they stand on the issues and not on their race and/or gender.
Post new comment