Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
jazzcyclist wrote:I'm also talking prejudice against, Jews, Mormons, Hispanics, Catholics and especially Arabs/Muslims that manifests itself in the voting booth.
Add atheist in there too, that label might be worse than being the "wrong" religion with regard to politics.
jazzcyclist wrote:I'm also talking prejudice against, Jews, Mormons, Hispanics, Catholics and especially Arabs/Muslims that manifests itself in the voting booth.
Add atheist in there too, that label might be worse than being the "wrong" religion with regard to politics.
Yes, i think all the minorities Jazz mentioned could become prez before an atheist could.
jazzcyclist wrote:I'm also talking prejudice against, Jews, Mormons, Hispanics, Catholics and especially Arabs/Muslims that manifests itself in the voting booth.
Add atheist in there too, that label might be worse than being the "wrong" religion with regard to politics.
Good point! The funny thing is that in Europe, the land of grandiose, majestic and ornate churches, an atheist could get elected before a politician who wears his religion on his sleeve like W.
jazzcyclist wrote:I'm also talking prejudice against, Jews, Mormons, Hispanics, Catholics and especially Arabs/Muslims that manifests itself in the voting booth.
Add atheist in there too, that label might be worse than being the "wrong" religion with regard to politics.
Good point! The funny thing is that in Europe, the land of grandiose, majestic and ornate churches, an atheist could get elected before a politician who wears his religion on his sleeve like W.
True but those churches are mostly centuries and centuries old. Many built when most of the people thought the earth was flat.
jazzcyclist wrote:I'm also talking prejudice against, Jews, Mormons, Hispanics, Catholics and especially Arabs/Muslims that manifests itself in the voting booth.
Add atheist in there too, that label might be worse than being the "wrong" religion with regard to politics.
Good point! The funny thing is that in Europe, the land of grandiose, majestic and ornate churches, an atheist could get elected before a politician who wears his religion on his sleeve like W.
True but those churches are mostly centuries and centuries old. Many built when most of the people thought the earth was flat.
....and before the Europeans chased all of the Puritans and bible thumpers to North America. I once heard a former European Head of State (I don't remember which one) say that passionate discussion of your religious faith is the third rail of European politics.
jazzcyclist wrote:[ Good point! The funny thing is that in Europe, the land of grandiose, majestic and ornate churches, an atheist could get elected before a politician who wears his religion on his sleeve like W.
True but those churches are mostly centuries and centuries old. Many built when most of the people thought the earth was flat.
and when and where it was not flat they would do a marvelous job of leveling it to build a solid foundation for a glorious church.
paulthefan wrote: 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.
Really, paulthefan, you are suggesting that Obama being black is an advantage in the election for President. You obviously do not realize how ludicrous this is. You can look at the history of US Presidents and the current and past makeup of Congress to see that being black is definitely a HUGE advantage in US electoral politics . . .
SQUACKEE wrote:There is still work to do but i see the battle for equal rights mainly won.
While it is true that the battle for equal rights has, for the most part, been won, that is not the same as saying racism is a thing of the past. It is still a huge, if slightly more subtle, force in the US.
paulthefan wrote: 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.
Really, paulthefan, you are suggesting that Obama being black is an advantage in the election for President. You obviously do not realize how ludicrous this is. You can look at the history of US Presidents and the current and past makeup of Congress to see that being black is definitely a HUGE advantage in US electoral politics .
that is correct, I would say a net advantage. You have to ask yourself who out there would vote for the most liberal senator with the shortest resume had he been white?... answer: in stable economic time no one but the far left wingers in the country, in todays national climate even an inexperienced white liberal has a chance. Nevertheless the country is center right. Now how many center right (republicans and conservative democrats) are going to not vote for Obama because he is black?.. answer: to the resolution that elections provide, NONE. They will be voting against Obama because he is liberal and voting for his opponent because he is more conservative.
Obama may get a bonus "solidarity" vote/turnout from the black community and he is likely to get great white youth vote turnout akin to a 60s antiwar rally. All net positives. But his race is not going to cost him a vote among white center right voters. To suggest that he is going to lose these because he is black is mere campaign propaganda and quite effective propaganda at that.
Now if Obama were a genuine center right candidate with reasonable credentials and were down by 5% to a far left or far right winger then we could discuss reasonably the real possibility of a racial component to his losing. As it stands right now, it is clear that he is not disadvantaged but rather he is advantaged and that any voters voting against him are doing so because of who he is and what he has stood for in his career, not because he is black.
Last edited by paulthefan on Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
paulthefan wrote:Now how many center right (republicans and conservative democrats) are going to NOT vote for Obama because he is black?.. answer: to the resolution that elections provide, NONE.
Are you saying because it can't be documented it does not happen?
paulthefan wrote:They will be voting against Obama because he is liberal and voting for his opponent because he is more conservative.
I agree that is what they will say to the pollsters. But anyone willing to vote for Clinton in the primaries and not Obama in the election is suspect in my book. Clinton's not liberal?
paulthefan wrote:Now how many center right (republicans and conservative democrats) are going to NOT vote for Obama because he is black?.. answer: to the resolution that elections provide, NONE.
Are you saying because it can't be documented it does not happen?
I didnt know you were talking about ufos here, in which case Im sorry for chiming in, carry on.
Last edited by paulthefan on Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
paulthefan wrote:Now how many center right (republicans and conservative democrats) are going to NOT vote for Obama because he is black?.. answer: to the resolution that elections provide, NONE.
Are you saying because it can't be documented it does not happen?
I didnt know you were talking about ufos here, in which case Im sorry for chiming in, carry on, Im out of here.
As another poster mentioned, we'll know the true effect of everything on Nov 5th. However, this discussion is indicative of how McCain's team has ran his campaign. "It hasn't been about McCain or the issues, but about Obama" Whether he's trying to act Presidential before he's elected as President (mid east/European tour), whether he's a celebrity ala Britney/Paris, whether he's referred to McCain's running mate as a pig (lipstick), whether he can be trusted due to Ayers, etc. And while they were busy focusing TOO much on Obama, Obama simply continued with his message. Granted, he'd hit McCain as well. But, those running Obama's campaign didn't put the MAJORITY of their focus on McCain. For example, I recall 2 specific commercials that seemed to play continually in Colorado during the Olympics (prime TV watching time).
And it's not about positive/negative campaigning, but how the candidates were trying to define their overall theme/message during the early stages of the campaign.
Although pundits attribute the recent shift to Obama on the economy, I also think it has a lot to do with the level of comfort that many feel in how they've come to know the various candidates. While McCain's campaign was trying to define Obama and his message on McCain's terms (as shown in ad), they failed to really define McCain's message and identify who HE was as the Republican nominee. While Obama's campaign attempted to do the same with McCain, they also made a point of introducing Obama as the Democratic nominee and also focused on his message.
TrakFan wrote:As another poster mentioned, we'll know the true effect of everything on Nov 5th. ...
BUT, 3 weeks is a looong time. Its far from over
based on a lot of the comments folks are making we will learn nothing on Nov 5. Rather each will attribute the results to the prejudices that their hearts feel is in america. If Obama loses it will be seen by many to be the result of prejudice in america.
The real victory here has already happend and it is that a liberal senator just 44 years old and with a very skinny resume is very close to winning the presidency. He has run a brilliant campaign. If he does not win though, it will not be a surprise to those of us that follow this business.
Last edited by paulthefan on Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TrakFan wrote:As another poster mentioned, we'll know the true effect of everything on Nov 5th. ...
BUT, 3 weeks is a looong time. Its far from over
based on a lot of the comments folks are making we will learn nothing on Nov 5. Rather each will attribute the results to the prejudices that our hearts feel is in america. If Obama loses it will be seen by many to be the result of prejudice in america and if he wins it will not be by enough and that will be due to prejudice in america.
That's the half-empty view IMO.
No matter who wins, it's a done deal, and the reason behind it is immaterial. Wringing our hands over the outcome is counter-productive, therefore irrational. I've voted on the 'wrong' side many times and my life continues unabated.
TrakFan wrote:As another poster mentioned, we'll know the true effect of everything on Nov 5th. ...
BUT, 3 weeks is a looong time. Its far from over
based on a lot of the comments folks are making we will learn nothing on Nov 5. Rather each will attribute the results to the prejudices that their hearts feel is in america. If Obama loses it will be seen by many to be the result of prejudice in america.
The real victory here has already happend and it is that a liberal senator just 44 years old and with a very skinny resume is very close to winning the presidency. He has run a brilliant campaign. If he does not win though, it will not be a surprise to those of us that follow this business.
On Nov. 5, we'll be able to compare the final polls to the actual results and compare their correlation to the polls and results in other Presidential elections. That was TrakFan's point, I believe.
paulthefan wrote:The real victory here has already happend and it is that a liberal senator just 44 years old and with a very skinny resume is very close to winning the presidency.
JFK was a liberal senator just 43 years old with a very skinny resume when he was elected president.
paulthefan wrote:The real victory here has already happend and it is that a liberal senator just 44 years old and with a very skinny resume is very close to winning the presidency.
JFK was a liberal senator just 43 years old with a very skinny resume when he was elected president.
And Obama is 47 years old, a year older than Bill Clinton was in 1992. It is a 44 year old conservative governor with a very skinny resume who is vying for the vice presidency.
paulthefan wrote:The real victory here has already happend and it is that a liberal senator just 44 years old and with a very skinny resume is very close to winning the presidency.
JFK was a liberal senator just 43 years old with a very skinny resume when he was elected president.
JFK was the most liberal senator only in the 21st century Democrat mythology. JFK was a WW2 veteran who, by this season (oct) in 1960, was running to the right of Nixon and blaming the GOP candidate for going soft on communism. JFK was not the most liberal senator in 1960.
Let's be honest. The thin resume rap is just something we use when we don't agree with someone's politics. Nobody really has a problem with inexperienced politicians going into the White House as long as they agree with their politics. Conservatives didn't start turning on Palin until she started doing interviews and revealed her dearth of knowledge and preparedness.
jazzcyclist wrote:Let's be honest. The thin resume rap is just something we use when we don't agree with someone's politics. Nobody really has a problem with inexperienced politicians going into the White House as long as they agree with their politics. Conservatives didn't start turning on Palin until she started doing interviews and revealed her dearth of knowledge and preparedness.
Not really, most people do have a problem with inexperience. But it is seldom a completely disqualifying mark. i will guess that If Obama loses (and he seems to have a good chance of winning) it will be because most americans found him a little light in experience and a little too left in ideology. On the positive side if ever there were an election that was ripe for a liberal it is this one.
If in the last few weeks the GOP is able to "make Bill Ayers his running mate" we could see Obama in a severe tail spin. Just a remote possibility and something to ponder as we go into the final 3 weeks.
If in the last few weeks the GOP is able to "make Bill Ayers his running mate" we could see Obama in a severe tail spin. Just a remote possibility and something to ponder as we go into the final 3 weeks.[/quote]
Paulthefan, do you think this is acceptable campaign strategy !!??
paulthefan wrote:If in the last few weeks the GOP is able to "make Bill Ayers his running mate" we could see Obama in a severe tail spin. Just a remote possibility and something to ponder as we go into the final 3 weeks.
The people who continue to bark up the Bill Ayers tree conveniently overlook the fact that there is a de facto statute of limitation on the kind of stuff that he did back in the 60's. If not, then Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond would have been pariahs their entire careers. Then there are the international figures who've been invited to the White House hundreds of times who did stuff that would make the amateurish activities of the Weather Underground - while Ayers was a member, the only people the WU managed to kill were their own members - seem like boy scout meetings. I'm talking Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, Yasir Arafat and Nelson Mandela to name a few. Finally, I think the American people are fair enough to conclude that if having a passing relationship with people who had committed dispicable acts before you knew them, didn't disqualify Trent Lott from being the Senate Majority Leader, it shouldn't disqualify Barack Obama from being President.
I once heard a former European Head of State (I don't remember which one) say that passionate discussion of your religious faith is the third rail of European politics.