The VP Gaffe Over & Under


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:23 am

paulthefan wrote:Id be surprized if race costs Obama 5%. There are far more whites that are very eager to vote for Obama based on race with the college aged folks very much in that fold. All the present talk of race costing Obama is smart leverage to ensure that it actually helps him. Obama's black percentage may well go from 90% (garden variety dems get that) to 95% with as much as a 10% increase in turnout. On the whole Obama may get a net +. The truth is that he is running a rock solid campaign and seems to know how to avoid mistakes, he is now more than free to reach out to the middle while McCain makes whopper after whopper (postponing ones campaign to help bring dems and repubs together to bail out wall street?... only a quintessential washington insider could have dreamed that one up!)

You make a good point about the Black vote. Assuming Blacks are 12% of the electorate, Obama can count on Blacks to boost his overall percentage by an extra 1.5 to 2 points over what John Kerry got. However, I still find it hard to believe that young Whites who voted for Bush in 2004, will vote for Obama in 2008 because he's Black. I would think that the young White folks who are voting for Obama, voted for John Kerry in 2004 or stayed home.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:38 am

The only thing I can see with the race issue is that it may get a higher turnout than normal, with both for and against as the cause.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby DrJay » Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:21 am

malmo wrote:
DrJay wrote:Try Palin Bingo:

http://palinbingo.com/


Where are you going on your vacation, Dr Jay?


Wasilla.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Postby bad hammy » Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:13 am

Marlow wrote:The only thing I can see with the race issue is that it may get a higher turnout than normal, with both for and against as the cause.

The important thing about the Bradley effect is not that race does or does not play a part in elective politics in the US, it is that you cannot believe the results of pre-election polls because some folks consciously or unconsciously lie to pollsters because they cannot or will not admit that their vote is based on race. The only poll that these folks will be honest in takes place Nov. 4th.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby trig » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:08 am

trig
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Eugene

Wild Cards

Postby bijanc » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:50 am

There are a few "unknowns" in play:

http://bijanc.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/ ... dercounts/

I somewhat disagree that those polled are withholding their genuine feelings regarding race, as a survey answer in favor of McCain-Palin does not define one as a racist. It's not as if Obama's running against David Duke (nor was Tom Bradley, for that matter).

One of our whitest states- Massachusetts, elected the first Black senator since the Reconstruction, and has a Black governor.

BCB
bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Wild Cards

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:37 am

bijanc wrote:There are a few "unknowns" in play:

http://bijanc.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/ ... dercounts/

I somewhat disagree that those polled are withholding their genuine feelings regarding race, as a survey answer in favor of McCain-Palin does not define one as a racist. It's not as if Obama's running against David Duke (nor was Tom Bradley, for that matter).

One of our whitest states- Massachusetts, elected the first Black senator since the Reconstruction, and has a Black governor.

BCB

The Bradley effect doesn't require that the Black candidate be running against a racist. And it has nothing to do with flawed polling methods. It only requires a significant number of White voters to mislead the polsters.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Bradley

Postby bijanc » Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:40 am

True, but in all previous presidential races, the two major party candidates were white, so supporting a white person does not automatically imply racism. And since Obama is running vs. an opponent one could back for any # of reasons, it's very difficult to quantify Bradley.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Bradley

Postby bad hammy » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:15 pm

bijanc wrote: . . . it's very difficult to quantify Bradley.

It will be much easier to quantify this on Nov. 5th . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Bradley

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:18 pm

bijanc wrote:True, but in all previous presidential races, the two major party candidates were white, so supporting a white person does not automatically imply racism. And since Obama is running vs. an opponent one could back for any # of reasons, it's very difficult to quantify Bradley.

Of course supporting a White candidate doesn't mean you are a racist and I don't think anyone on this board has said otherwise. As for the Bradley effect, we won't know if it was a factor until the day after the election when the vote tally is compared to the polls. If the polls have overestimated Obama's performance by an amount out outside the margin of era and more than has been the case for any previous Presidential candidate, most people will attribute it to the Bradley effect.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Bradley

Postby bijanc » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:21 pm

You're right jazzy.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Wild Cards

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:35 pm

bijanc wrote:One of our whitest states- Massachusetts, elected the first Black senator since the Reconstruction, and has a Black governor.

It's not a black/white thing as much as a lib/con thing. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the union.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Mass Appeal

Postby bijanc » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:42 pm

True, and liberal Boston experienced some of the worst anti-busing violence, political invective, and threats during public school integration in the mid-1970's. I'm a Bostonian.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Mass Appeal

Postby paulthefan » Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:45 pm

bijanc wrote:True, and liberal Boston experienced some of the worst anti-busing violence, political invective, and threats during public school integration in the mid-1970's. I'm a Bostonian.


many a laugh and cry came in Massachusetts when those with kids due to be bussed across town to mix the races up alittle found out the judges almost invariably had their kids in lilly white private (not subject to their draconian decrees) schools.
Last edited by paulthefan on Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

"Race" to the White House

Postby bijanc » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:13 am

bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:53 am

tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Jack Slocombe » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:13 am

Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.
Jack Slocombe
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Groveland & Sunnyvale CA, & Poulsbo, WA

Postby Pego » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:24 am

Jack Slocombe wrote:Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.


At its worst, Jack? Worse than "ethnic cleansing", gas chambers, slavery, lynchings, ghettos, cohabitation laws.....?
Mind you, I am not questioning your premise, only the degree you applied.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby bad hammy » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:00 am

Jack Slocombe wrote:Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.

Hyperbole alert . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:12 am

Marlow wrote:The media piranha are working themselves into a feeding frenzy thinking they smell blood in the water tonight.


Speaking of Serrasalmus, a particular genius of fish.....when was the last time a vicious fish ran for Vice-ious Presidenti?

Brian wrote:If I don't get axed...

Many people underestimate Palin: she is inexperienced (what is it, 5 weeks, now?), true, but she is shrewd and ambitious, and a quick learner.


Well, Brian, I would say Marlow DID ask you, by initiating the thread.......as for taming the shrewd, ambitious, "quick" learner, my cat learned where to shit rather rapidly after having her nose rubbed in it....

:P
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:54 pm

Jack Slocombe wrote:Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.

If that actually happened anywhere, I would agree with you that racism was on display. I wouldn't call that the worst form of racism, but I would definitely call that racism of a very subtle form, though I prefer to call it racial pride. Do you know of anywhere that 90% of Blacks have ever voted for a candidate because he/she was Black? I've never heard of that happening anywhere, although I do know that 90% of American Blacks regularly vote for Whites because they are Democrats. However, a more blatant form of racism is voting against someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion and that happens quite frequently in this country and it's much more insidious in my opinion.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:16 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:[ However, a more blatant form of racism is voting against someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion and that happens quite frequently in this country and it's much more insidious in my opinion.


This had been my experience also, rampant racism spewing for every corner of the nation and the only thing that is surprising is there isnt more of it.

I think the only reason there is a black canidate ready to win the prez in a landslide is that no one has noticed he's black, there can be no other reason.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:23 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:[ However, a more blatant form of racism is voting against someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion and that happens quite frequently in this country and it's much more insidious in my opinion.


This had been my experience also, rampant racism spewing for every corner of the nation and the only thing that is surprising is there isnt more of it.

I think the only reason there is a black canidate ready to win the prez in a landslide is that no one has noticed he's black, there can be no other reason.

SQUACKEE, you're one of my favorite posters, but I don't find your juvenile form of humor to be funny. However, if you disagree with something I've written, please weigh in. I believe that religion definitely hurt Mitt Romney this year and may have cost him the nomination. I believe race cost Bobby Jindal, the 2003 Louisiana governor's race and it cost Tom Bradley the 1982 California governor's race. I believe that religion almost cost John Kennedy the Presidency in 1960. I believe that the reason that Obama has been the victim of so many Muslim rumors, is because the people who are spreading the smears know that if they can get these rumors to take root, it will cost Obama votes due to religious bigotry, and it's for the same reason that I believe that George Allen was outed as being half-Jewish in the 2006 Virginia Senate race. By the way, Ted Koppel was on Meet The Press today, and he cited a study that says that race will cost Obama 6% on election day.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:45 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:
This had been my experience also, rampant racism spewing for every corner of the nation and the only thing that is surprising is there isnt more of it.

I think the only reason there is a black canidate ready to win the prez in a landslide is that no one has noticed he's black, there can be no other reason.


You are not serious, I have talked to countless middle america small town folks that are voting for Obama because they want a change and have no hope of anyone but him delivering a change. The color of a mans skin is not important to them only a desire to change the course the country is on. There are countless white voters like that, their views of race are no different than 99% of those that will vote for McCain. The idea that race is going to cost Obama even one vote is text book propaganda from the Democrat/Obama machine. It is genius and shows that Obama is as talented as Lee Atwater.. well almost.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby TrakFan » Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:51 pm

Jack Slocombe wrote:Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.


Kerry received 88% in 2004. 2 more percantage points and it would have been BIGTIME racism...uh, I think.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

Gore received 90% in 2000
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/result ... polls.html

Please do your research before you start making assupmtions of RACISM due to voting trends.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:00 pm

TrakFan wrote:
Jack Slocombe wrote:Racism is when 90% of the blacks vote for a candidate just because he is black. That my friends, is bigtime racism at it's worst.


Kerry received 88% in 2004. 2 more percantage points and it would have been BIGTIME racism...uh, I think.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

Gore received 90% in 2000
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/result ... polls.html

Please do your research before you start making assupmtions of RACISM due to voting trends.

I think Paulthefan probably summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Obama will probably get 95% instead of 90% of the Black vote and he may be able to increase the black turnout by an extra 10%. That's a total of 1.5-2% of the total electorate. If you subtract 5-6% of the votes he'll lose because of race, then he ends up with a net loss of 3-4.5%.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:31 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I think Paulthefan probably summed it up pretty accurately when he said that Obama will probably get 95% instead of 90% of the Black vote and he may be able to increase the black turnout by an extra 10%. That's a total of 1.5-2% of the total electorate. If you subtract 5-6% of the votes he'll lose because of race, then he ends up with a net loss of 3-4.5%.


except paulthefan does not think that there are a net 5% of americans out there that would otherwise vote for Obama if he were white. More simply, paulthefan does not think that Obama's race is going to cost him a single net vote in the white demographic. For every white voter out there that is going to vote for McCain soley because he is white there are 2 that are going to vote for Obama solely because he is black. It is a net plus for Obama. The suggestion/campaign-propaganda from the dems that Obama is disadvantaged because of his race is actually an insurance policy to make sure that he retains this basic advantage. It is a great strategy and is working. McCain has gone from being a sure win (GOP convention week) to being a near sure loser. Wall Street has weighed in and it does not look good for the GOP.


I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of colleagues as each of you probably have. My sphere of friends are fairly affluent to middle class, they contain a large number of former military folks. These people are demographically the heart and soul of the GOP. They are Reagan democrats and traditionally core GOP voters.. A larger than expected proportion of them are not pleased with the Bush administration and the course the country is on. They have listened to the president as a salesman herd folks into home ownership as an act of near-patriotism, and then they have heard him tell them how strong american financial institutions are. If it were fiction it would be funny. Obama is riding a tide, it will take a brilliant final 3 weeks by McCain to stop it.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby lonewolf » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:17 pm

Fellers, if it gives you satisfaction you can prognosticate and pontificate all you like but the truth is, nobody really knows what demographics will or did vote for or against which candidate or for what reason.
All we know is what we are told by a possibly biased source how an uncertain demographic, not under oath and with no penalty for lying, may have answered a loaded question in an indetermiinate setting from a possibly/probably biased pollster with an agenda.
I repeat my mantra: The only poll that counts is coming November 4.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Daisy » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:23 pm

paulthefan wrote:except paulthefan does not think that there are a net 5% of americans out there that would otherwise vote for Obama if he were white. More simply, paulthefan does not think that Obama's race is going to cost him a single net vote in the white demographic.


My gut feeling tells me this is not true. If he gains 5% of the black vote because he is black that is not that many extra votes. I could easily see democrats going with McCain as the better bet, although maybe less so with Palin on the ticket, because they are uncomfortabe with his looks. If he wins by a landslide it just shows there are many disgruntled republicans re: the economy. I guess we'll never know as what ever the gallup polls (or similar) show, can we trust those answers?
Last edited by Daisy on Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:30 pm

If BO goes in to Election Day 5 pts up and emerges as the loser, we'll have our answer. Till then it's idle speculation.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby TrakFan » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:33 pm

paulthefan wrote:
I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of colleagues as each of you probably have. My sphere of friends are fairly affluent to middle class, they contain a large number of former military folks. These people are demographically the heart and soul of the GOP. They are Reagan democrats and traditionally core GOP voters.. A larger than expected proportion of them are not pleased with the Bush administration and the course the country is on. They have listened to the president as a salesman herd folks into home ownership as an act of near-patriotism, and then they have heard him tell them how strong american financial institutions are. If it were fiction it would be funny. Obama is riding a tide, it will take a brilliant final 3 weeks by McCain to stop it.


Although it would take a little research bewteen labor statistics and foreclosure rates, I'm curious as to the percentage of those who were granted loans that they couldnt afford, in comparison with those who simply lost a decent-paying job (husband and wife working for GM) and couldnt afford to pay their mortgage any longer. I really don't know. When my buddies start harping on how irresponsible many homeowners have been, I always tell them to ease up a bit since we're (military retirees in our late 30s/early 40's) not truly living in the real world when it comes to the typical feelings of anxiety about the next paycheck, healthcare, etc.
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby lonewolf » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:56 pm

I think that would be a very useful staistic to have TrakFan. Might help evaluate the finger pointing.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Mennisco » Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:27 pm

Daisy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:except paulthefan does not think that there are a net 5% of americans out there that would otherwise vote for Obama if he were white. More simply, paulthefan does not think that Obama's race is going to cost him a single net vote in the white demographic.


My gut feeling tells me this is not true. If he gains 5% of the black vote because he is black that is not that many extra votes.


What if more African-Americans turn up and vote, than in the past? If it comes down to 500 votes in Florida, [or something like that, eh] and they get some younger, more savvy kids out there to do whatever it is they need do to signal voter intention in Fla., .........are they still using computers to count the votes? Sorry, I'm kind of all over the place these days.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby paulthefan » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:22 pm

Marlow wrote:If BO goes in to Election Day 5 pts up and emerges as the loser, we'll have our answer. Till then it's idle speculation.


not quite, not quite, Polls tend to favor democrats by more than a point or two. It used to be said that if the Republican candidate is behind by 3 or fewer percentage ponts it would be a landslide......a landslide for the Republican of course. Poll questions tend to over estimate the number of likely voters and tend to over estimate the ability of Democrats to get to the polls on the right day (college students and those that have been signed up by ACORN have some things in common)

Now that was how it used to be. We know now that the pre election polling is getting more and more savvy to these issues every year. Some post game analysis will be required by all of us to understand what happened.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby lonewolf » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:57 pm

The basic weakness in polls is the difference in what people say they are going to do and what they actually do in the voting booth.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:05 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:[ However, a more blatant form of racism is voting against someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion and that happens quite frequently in this country and it's much more insidious in my opinion.


This had been my experience also, rampant racism spewing for every corner of the nation and the only thing that is surprising is there isnt more of it.

I think the only reason there is a black canidate ready to win the prez in a landslide is that no one has noticed he's black, there can be no other reason.

SQUACKEE, you're one of my favorite posters, but I don't find your juvenile form of humor to be funny. However, if you disagree with something I've written, please weigh in. .


I apologize, i wasnt trying to be funny, i was being sarcastic. Again, i probably have led a sheltered life but i just dont see racism as wideshread as others here. There is still work to do but i see the battle for equal rights mainly won.

I think there are so many legitimate reasons to prefer or not prefer Obama. His politics couldnt be more different than McCain's. If their politics where virtually identical and McCain won big then we got something.

Also very few Republicans will be voting for Obama so its mostly 6% of Democrates who totally agree with Obama and hate McCain but wont vote for him because the color of his skin? Really?

If Palin supporters said the only reason democrates dont like her is because she is a women would you not find that a bit silly?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby tandfman » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:36 am

SQUACKEE wrote: i just dont see racism as wideshread as others here. There is still work to do but i see the battle for equal rights mainly won.

There certainly has been a lot of progress. If it were not for that, Mr. Obama would not be on the ballot in November. But with the election possibly being decided by very small margins in a few key states (remember Florida in 2000?) a racially motivated vote by a small number of people could matter. There are probaly still some people out there who will find themselve unable or unwilling to vote for an African-American for President. And they could conceivably make the difference. I think this is a legitimate issue, but there's nothing much one can do about it.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:40 am

SQUACKEE wrote: i just dont see racism as wideshread as others here. There is still work to do but i see the battle for equal rights mainly won.

I used to think that, but like saying the n-word, I think this can only be assessed by African-Americans (and other ethnic minorities, not that Euro-Americans aren't rapidly becoming a minority also). If and when BO gets elected (which is bit of a cop-out, because he is just as much 'white' as 'black'), then we can say we have turned a significant corner. I hate the 'Race Card' being played, but I'm afraid it really may well be in play here.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:59 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:[ However, a more blatant form of racism is voting against someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion and that happens quite frequently in this country and it's much more insidious in my opinion.


This had been my experience also, rampant racism spewing for every corner of the nation and the only thing that is surprising is there isnt more of it.

I think the only reason there is a black canidate ready to win the prez in a landslide is that no one has noticed he's black, there can be no other reason.

SQUACKEE, you're one of my favorite posters, but I don't find your juvenile form of humor to be funny. However, if you disagree with something I've written, please weigh in. .


I apologize, i wasnt trying to be funny, i was being sarcastic. Again, i probably have led a sheltered life but i just dont see racism as wideshread as others here. There is still work to do but i see the battle for equal rights mainly won.

I think there are so many legitimate reasons to prefer or not prefer Obama. His politics couldnt be more different than McCain's. If their politics where virtually identical and McCain won big then we got something.

Also very few Republicans will be voting for Obama so its mostly 6% of Democrates who totally agree with Obama and hate McCain but wont vote for him because the color of his skin? Really?

If Palin supporters said the only reason democrates dont like her is because she is a women would you not find that a bit silly?

But I wasn't talking only about Blacks. I'm also talking prejudice against, Jews, Mormons, Hispanics, Catholics and especially Arabs/Muslims that manifests itself in the voting booth. We'll never know if Mitt Romney would have won the Republican nomination if he hadn't been a Mormon. And the most unfortunate thing about all the Arab/Muslim rumors about Obama is not that people are trying to cost Obama the election, it's that in 2008, people still feel comfortabe using the name of a ethnic or religious group as a perjorative. And I'm not blaming one party because it happened in both the democratic primary and the general election. And I also blame Obama and McCain for not telling their supporters that there's nothing wrong with being an Arab or a Muslim. And Hillary is a disgrace with her "as far as I know" comment. Because I'm Black, I don't get all of the emails that my White friends get smearing Obama with these Arab/Muslim rumors. But they've showed me a few of them and it's sickening that people who will say, "I don't have a racist bone in my body", will send that crap. Just think how people would react if John McCain was being smeared as being a Jew.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:19 am

Obama is a Muslim rumour is so stoopid that only stoopid people would believe it and in general i dont believe anything i see or read on the internet. All the fake pictures and websites filled with outright lies make me sad and mad.

Having said that i wish someone came out and told the thruth about McCain being half man- half chipmonk-If you noticed his cheeks, he has begun storing nuts for the winter and nobody is talking about it! The people who dont like Obama cause his skin color are gonna have to decide if they would rather have a rodent for prez.

All of people's fears and prejudices are now served up on this new cyber mis-information highway, very sad. I think you could find a rumor, with "facts" about anything or anyone.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests