Interpreting an Obama Victory/Loss
If Barack Obama loses the general election…
…it will be called proof that America is racist. (Especially conservatives.)
But if he wins, it will be considered evidence the he has a “mandate” to govern as a liberal.
If teh GOP and their 527 friends run ads like we saw during the Wisconsin Supreme Court race you bet we will have suspicion of racist motivations.
But don’t worry. There will be plenty of right wing groups that won’t be able to help themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1309 hrs
If teh GOP and their 527 friends run ads like we saw during the Wisconsin Supreme Court race you bet we will have suspicion of racist motivations.
But don’t worry. There will be plenty of right wing groups that won’t be able to help themselves.
Clinton seems to be getting the ball rolling just fine without the “right wing groups.”
Posted by Fuzz on May 28, 2008 at 1331 hrs
You are right to an extent, though the statements from the Clinton camp have been misinterpreted.
Don’t forget though, we are talking about the general election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1346 hrs
I wouldn’t count Billary out just yet. There are two big unanswered questions yet and they are called Michgan and Florida.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1350 hrs
Riiiiight… like you would have let the right use, “statements from the McCain camp have been misinterpreted,” had McCain suggested that Obama was going to be assassinated because of his race or if McCain said that he was more electable because he is white.
Posted by Fuzz on May 28, 2008 at 1350 hrs
Anyone who truly believes that Clinton was trying to insinuate that Obama might get shot is off his frickin’ rocker, period.
First of all, Obama is going to win—and by a pretty wide margin.
Second of all, I don’t see racism as playing a large part in the election. Sure, there are some who won’t vote for him because he’s black. But most of those, let’s face it, aren’t Democrats. And besides, his racial background also works for him as well as against him. No, I think it’s a wash.
All of which is an entirely different discussion than whether racist tactics are used by his detractors. I think it’s a virtual guarantee. But it won’t be the McCain campaign themselves, of course. It’ll be some swiftboaty group with a few million for an ad and ties to the party so nebulous as to thwart the attention span of any American who looks into it.
Charges of racial attacks will be big in the media at least once during the general, but I don’t believe that racism alone can bring him down—or put him in.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1423 hrs
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the exact same people who brought you the Swift Boat ads. The main guy’s name is Bob Perry, he’s from Houston, and he has plenty of money left, even after spending a lot of it for the ‘06 elections here in Texas.
Scott’s right, though. Obama will win handily. If McCain hasn’t been able to build a lead of any kind with the Democrats tearing each other up, how is going to do anything when the party is united and Obama raising more money by a factor of two or three?
And to answer Elliot’s point: that will absolutely give him a mandate to govern as a liberal, because that is obviously what the country wants. No quotation marks needed around mandate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1451 hrs
Sure, there are some who won’t vote for him because he’s black. But most of those, let’s face it, aren’t Democrats.
I absolutely reject what you’re implying here. Got some facts?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1456 hrs
I absolutely reject what you’re implying here. Got some facts?
Estimates are that about two-thirds of KKK members are concentrated in the South, with another third situated primarily in the lower Midwest.
The states of the South and lower Midwest don’t vote Democratic. Racism surely isn’t party specific, but the most racist parts of the country also tend to vote Republican (this wasn’t always the case -look at Senator Byrd).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1504 hrs
3rd Way, I specifically asked for facts. Do you have any?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1516 hrs
It is a fact that the membership of the most virulently racist organization in the country is almost exclusive to the same region that votes predominantly Republican (see comment above).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1525 hrs
I recall the KKK holding rallies in Madison and Janesville—- as opposed to West Bend, Waukesha, etc.
David Duke ran for president as a Democrat.
Also, the term, “Southern Democrat,” was also coined to distinguish between the liberal politicians of the north versus the hate-mongering Democrats of the south.
Posted by Fuzz on May 28, 2008 at 1538 hrs
I would be very surprised to learn that most racist whites are not also on the right half of the American political spectrum. Astonished, even.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1543 hrs
Both Democrats and Republicans have some very cherished delusions about their constituencies. None is more prevalent then the Democrats’ idea that their traditional racism now belongs to the opposition.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1544 hrs
I would be very surprised to learn that most racist blacks are not also on the left half of the American political spectrum. Astonished, even.
Posted by Owen on May 28, 2008 at 1545 hrs
So would I, Owen! But that’s not what’s under discussion here. We’re talking about people who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black—not racism in general.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1546 hrs
You can’t deny the fact that Republicans like to elect white christian men.
-All 42 African-American members of the House and Senate are Democrats.
-Both of the LGBT member of Congress are Democrats.
-Both Buddhists and both Muslims in Congress are Democrats.
-Only three of the 43 Jewish members of the House and Senate are Republicans.
-Twenty-one of the twenty-five Latino members of Congress are Democrats.
-All eight of the Asian-American members of Congress are Democrats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1603 hrs
Is this what we’ve devolved to? Republicans are racist misogynist honkies who won’t elect minorities or people without external genitalia? That kind of ends rational discussion.
Posted by Owen on May 28, 2008 at 1610 hrs
3rd Way,
I reject that based on how Republicans of color are treated
-Aunt Jemima
-Oreo
-Uncle Tom
Run Condolezza Rice or Colin Powell and watch the melt down about how they are not really black, but Bill Clinton is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1611 hrs
OK, Jason. It was called the Southern Strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
As is sometimes the case for Wikipedia, it makes a few overbroad statements and leaves some things out, but that’s a decent overview. And in 2005 the chair of the RNC apologized for 40 years of its use by the Republican Party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302343.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1613 hrs
I never made any inferences. Jason asked for facts… I simply threw out some facts.
If you want to conclude that Republicans are racist misogynist honkies who won’t elect minorities or people without external genitalia feel free, but I don’t know any Republicans that are misogynist racists (although all the Republicans I know are white (honkies if you prefer)).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1629 hrs
It is a fact that the membership of the most virulently racist organization in the country is almost exclusive to the same region that votes predominantly Republican (see comment above).
Yes, that is a fact. It’s a fact that the sun gives off radiant energy… and both your fact and my fact have the same relevance to the issue I have with Scott’s ignorant statement. Wow, you’ve really contributed to this discussion, Komrade.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1629 hrs
Nobody is saying that Republicans are racists—but if you want the discussion to be “over,” I guess that’s a good excuse.
No, Republicans aren’t all white racists. But I still maintain that the majority of white racists are righties of one stripe or another. Nope, I don’t have a single statistic to back this up, but neither do you have any that show it not to be true.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1633 hrs
Yet magically, in spite of the Southern Strategy hysteria, the Democrats lost working class votes everywhere, and at essentially the same rate:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/thedemocratsandworkingclasswhites.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1641 hrs
It is a fact that the membership of the most virulently racist organization in the country is almost exclusive to the same region that votes predominantly Republican (see comment above).
Wow, again, a fact with no meaning to the discussion. Oh, I’ll indulge you though; Did this racism just pop up, in the last 15 - 20 years? Because before the 80’s the Southern States traditionally voted Democrat. Odd.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1642 hrs
Owen, nobody is saying that all Republicans are racists or misogynists. That would be as irrational as saying all Democrats are saints and as pure as the driven snow. Having been a Democrat for many years, I know waaay better than that.
But ever since J.C. Watts left the House of Representatives, there hasn’t been an African American elected to national office as a Republican. I’m sure 3rd Way’s numbers are correct on the other minorities. The simple fact is that GOP policies and platform positions are not exactly friendly to women and minorities. Unless and/or until that changes, the perception will continue to be that the GOP favors whites, especially well-off ones, at the expense of everyone else.
There’s a big difference between saying Republicans are racist and saying the Republican Party is racist. I would never say all Republicans are racist. Has the Republican Party as an entity behaved in a racist manner? Historically, yes it has. And for those about to jump down my throat, yes, so has the Democratic Party. The difference is that the Democratic Party has been trying to make up for its mistakes for the last 40+ years, while the Republican Party is just getting around to acknowledging theirs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1643 hrs
But I still maintain that the majority of white racists are righties of one stripe or another. Nope, I don’t have a single statistic to back this up, but neither do you have any that show it not to be true.
And I still reject it out of hand. Unless you have some hard and fast proof, I will always reject it as something you’ve made up to fit your skewed view of the world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1644 hrs
Yeah. And if we were having this discussion 30 years ago, I wouldn’t be saying that the majority of white racists were right-leaning—I’d be saying they were Democrats. But we are having this discussion today.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1644 hrs
So, Jason, you’re saying, what, exactly? That white racists in America are absolutely evenly divided among political affiliations? That there’s just no correlation whatsoever between political views and racism among whites?
Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1646 hrs
That white racists in America are absolutely evenly divided among political affiliations?
I’m saying your statement is bullshit, and I want some proof of what you have inferred.
That there’s just no correlation whatsoever between political views and racism among whites?
I’m saying your statement is bullshit, and I want some proof of what you have inferred.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1650 hrs
Yet magically, in spite of the Southern Strategy hysteria, the Democrats lost working class votes everywhere, and at essentially the same rate:
Wouldn’t the data in that study be proof that the “southern strategy” was effective for the GOP?
Without the support of the poor white working class there would be no GOP. Of the 15 poorest states in the country (as determined by GDP per capita) only 2 of them vote Democratic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1702 hrs
Scott, speaking of 30 years ago…that’s when those implementing forced busing in Milwaukee used “white benefit” to guide their plans….they admitted years later that a disproportionate burden was placed on blacks so as to not scare whites out of Milw….the architects of that plan were implementing a ruling from a liberal Dem judge….how many racist white Republicans do you think were at the heart of that effort?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1703 hrs
George, you mistake expediency for racism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1816 hrs
“Scott’s right, though. Obama will win handily.”
What polls are you looking at?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1819 hrs
Come on give Scott and the rest of them a break of course they do not mean all Republicans are racists.
Some are Homophobes, some are Neo Nazis some are just plain Nazis some are Xenophobes some are just greedy others heartless. Isn’t that right Scott?
Its funny wasn’t it a lot of blue collar union type democrats who were turning their backs on the Looter King in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania last I checked those were democratic primaries.
And Scott trying to ignore the fact that the majority of the time the Klan was a powerful organization in the South was the time period that the South was a solid Democratic region is funny but not ha ha funny. Way to ignore history when it does not suit your purpose.
Seems to me it was Southern Democrats like Al Gores Daddy who were the ones taking issue with the Civil Rights act of 1964. Yes the South has shifted to the Republican party since the early 90’s but that has more to do with the Democratic party becoming more leftist and the GOP moving more to the right. So it would be more correct to say the South shifted parties based on political ideology not because the views on race.
But hey none of this matters because Scott has his preconceived belief on those of us who are not members of his party and nothing any of say will change what Scott thinks.
In Scott’s world being white and on the right = Racist Homophobe Xenophobe and Greedy do not forget Greedy oh and we want to destroy the planet can’t forget that one. Oops I almost forgot Fascist and Nazi
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1834 hrs
Keith,
you sent me to a couple dictionaries…I concur with your comment. I was interested to learn that expediency once had a neutral connotation but that has changed.
Geo
ex·pe·di·ent adj
n
something done or a method used to achieve an aim quickly, regardless of whether it is fair, right, or wise in the long term.
Also called expediencyPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 1839 hrs
What polls are you looking at?
I’ve looked at all the same polls you have; that’s not the point. I know the polls have them about even now. By all rights, McCain should be way ahead. Clinton and Obama have been tearing at each other, Obama’s had his other problems independent of Clinton. The press, as usual, is fawning over McCain. He should be way ahead, but he’s not. He’s even or trailing depending on which polls you look at. Once Hillary comes to her senses and Obama’s officially the nominee, the polls will start to open up. In my opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2008 at 2107 hrs
3rd Way, the Democrats have lost working class votes everywhere. One would expect a “Southern Strategy” to show the democrats lost votes disproportionately in the south.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 0816 hrs
Bill Clinton won them.
Besides, I don’t think that it naturally means that there’s no such thing as a southern strategy. It could just simply be that the message crafted by Republicans in their southern strategy also resonated with enough non-college educated whites to win them most of the time.
Posted by scott on May 29, 2008 at 0821 hrs
It means that the whole racist thing is nuts. But then for anyone from Wisconsin to speak of race as if Wisconsin could add anything positive on the subject is nuts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 0858 hrs
I apologize. I gave the wrong link for Ken Mehlman, chair of the RNC, apologizing for the GOP exploiting racial polarization to win votes. the actual link is:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html
Also, BVBB, it’s a little disingenuous to posit that all the racists live in the South, and that therefore the Southern strategy would only yield results in southern states. For example, historically speaking, Indiana has had one of the largest KKK presences. Boston has certainly had its share of racial problems through the years, as have any number of other northern cities.
I hesitate to even try and address the history that Chris made up in his comment, but the South shifted to the Republicans in the 70s, not the 90s (even earlier than that, if you count going for George Wallace in 1968). And the Democratic Party didn’t shift to the left in the 90s, the Clintons and the DLC pulled it to the right. Oh, and Chris—Looter King? Way to live up to every stereotype that thoughtful Republicans are running away from as fast as they can.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 0910 hrs
No, APC. Carter carried the south in the 1970s, and yes, the theory posited above that the republican areas (southern) of the country are racist and the Southern Strategy is responsible for it would require a difference in voting trends between the regions. That has not occurred.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 0915 hrs
Thanks for the link, Owen. Though the post got 0 comments on my site and 42 on yours. I’m sooooo jealous.
Posted by Elliot on May 29, 2008 at 1023 hrs
BVBB, Carter is kind of an outlier, if you will. He’s also from Georgia. In the elections on either side of him, in 1972 and 1980, every southern state went Republican.
the republican areas (southern) are racist and the Southern Strategy is responsible for it
Nobody says the Southern Strategy is responsible for Republican areas being racist. Nobody says it’s responsible for making anybody racist. I think you’re misunderstanding what I’ve been trying to say. The Southern Strategy was all about exploiting already existing racism. It was all about stoking resentments and not letting them die what should have been a natural death.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1026 hrs
Elliot,
I’m sure it’s because people are bigoted against people in a wheel chair.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2008 at 1037 hrs
But if that were true, apc, then the party affiliation of voters should reflect that. It doesn’t. To argue that the republican party appealed to racism in the south is to argue that they appealed to racism everywhere and that the strategy was equally effective everywhere.
There is no evidence that Carter is some sort of outlier. Declaring him such does not make him so. The fact that an election went the other way in 1980 and that Carter was a candidate in that election is an argument against your point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1043 hrs
I’m obviously banging my head against a wall here. There is near-unanimity among historians about the subject and the Republican Party itself has admitted to the practice. I suppose its effectiveness is open to debate, but opinion is pretty close to unanimous on that as well. I’ll grant your point about Carter in 1980, but only up to a point. The Iranian hostage crisis was Reagan’s “9/11 moment” and there was no way Carter was going to survive that. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I suppose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1113 hrs
It’s a near unanimity based on nothing, and refuted by the only actual evidence that exists. It’s a cherished delusion held by the Democratic party, to which those same historians belong. The Republican party has its own set of delusions they would do well to lose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1124 hrs
BVBigBro, are you suggesting that there was no racial component to Harry Dent’s Southern Strategy?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1130 hrs
I deny that the south went Republican due to racism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1142 hrs
That was not the question posed in #49.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1147 hrs
But do you also deny that a majority of white racists lean right?
Posted by scott on May 29, 2008 at 1148 hrs
Yes Scott, I do deny it. The racists I happen to know also happen to be die hard Democrats, who vote democratic for reasons that would probably astound you.
The racial component to the Southern Strategy, George Mitchell, is that the Democratic Party dropped support for segregation; a position that the Republican party did not then embrace. With no segregationist Democratic party to vote for, the deep south went for an independent, George Wallace in 1968. After that, the voting pattern of the South largely reflects that of the rest of the country.
I presume to know nothing about what Harry Dent may have believed or advocated at any time. Any argument, however, that suggests racist southerners suddenly jumped ship into the Republican party in the 1960s needs to account for their jumping ship elsewhere, and race does not do that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1324 hrs
Astound me with the reasons why your racist white friends vote Democrat. I’m dying to know why they would support a party that for the last 30-40 years has taken bolder stands in the interests of racial minorities than the opposing party.
Posted by scott on May 29, 2008 at 1327 hrs
“I presume to know nothing about what Harry Dent may have believed or advocated at any time.”
He was the architect of Nixon’s Southern Strategy and later lamented its racial component.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1330 hrs
You may note, George Mitchell, that the man the south voted for in 1968 went back to being a Democrat, and continued to be a Democrat thereafter. His supporters did the same.
Scott, the Democratic Party has taken no stands in support of racial minorities except for attempting to buy votes with federal cash and quotas for federal jobs. Both parties have regional and local positions utterly at odds with one another throughout the country. The Democratic party they vote for is the one beholden to specific union interests that uses the union’s power against the interests of those minorities you profess it supports. They view their union, and the Democratic party, as a means of ensuring their welfare at the expense of minorities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1404 hrs
Astound me with the reasons why your racist white friends vote Democrat.
Wait, you can’t and won’t back up anything you’ve said here so far, and yet you’re asking for some reasons from another? Oh the arrogance!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1405 hrs
I once heard a man say he voted Democratic because giving black people free stuff kept them from revolting.
That seemed pretty racist to me.
(And that was a long, long time ago.)
Posted by elliot on May 29, 2008 at 1421 hrs
Jason, I freely admit that I have no data to back up my perception about white racists being righties. Is it the same for you and your claim, too, then?
Posted by scott on May 29, 2008 at 1422 hrs
As a child of the South, I have encountered far more racists in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the Midwest and Northeast than I did in the South. I think it’s a factor of experience. While Wisconsin is 80+% white with the minority population concentrated into confined areas, most of the South has minority populations at or above 45% and they are fully integrated into society at all levels. As such, most people in the South treat minorities like they do everyone else - like individuals. Familiarity breeds equality while unfamiliarity breeds distrust and mischaracterizations.
That’s not to say that there isn’t racism in the South. There is, as there is everywhere, but my personal experience is that racism in the North is more pervasive and widespread.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2008 at 1511 hrs
That could be true—but I suspect you don’t have any data to back that up, just as I don’t have data to back up what I thought was a pretty common sense observation that most white racists lean right.
Posted by scott on May 29, 2008 at 1513 hrs
No. As I said, this was a personal observation. I would suspect that your quest for data is unattainable because racism, or signs of racism, are usually subjective. If an area has never elected a minority politician, is that a sign of racism or coincidence? If an area has a disproportionate level of minority unemployment, is that a sign of racism?
Face it, you aren’t going to be able to run a reliable poll asking people, “hey, do you discriminate against black folks?” and get any response based in reality. You are seeking an objective measurement of a subjective behavior.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2008 at 1521 hrs
There’s nothing impossible about measuring something like this. I just don’t think anyone’s done it. Not that i’ve seen, anyway.
And I’m not basing my opinion on personal observation so much as my understanding of white racist ideology—and how it seems very logical that they would not be attracted to the Democratic party platform.
Posted by scott on May 29, 2008 at 1525 hrs
Again, it’s subjective. For example, I see the planks in the Democrat platform that support affirmative action, laws based on race, hate crime enhancers, etc. as racist. And I think people who support those kids of policies are racist because they are treating people differently based on their race. I support policies that treat everyone as an individual - not as a member of a class or race.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2008 at 1530 hrs
So in other words, it seems logical to you that a genuinely racist white person would favor policies like affirmative action and hate crime legislation.
Posted by scott on May 29, 2008 at 1533 hrs
Excellent point, Owen. I’d add that that didn’t really start to happen until integration began. I’m not that old (53), but I can remember separate drinking fountains when I was a child and the virulent racism that goes along with that kind of separation and dehumanization. The high school I attended didn’t really integrate until after I graduated (1973), and the same slow pace was true across much of the South, I’m pretty sure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1538 hrs
I had sort of the same thoughts, Owen, but I couldn’t definitely say Wisconsin is more racist. I would say that Wisconsin is the most segregated state I’ve ever worked in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2008 at 1538 hrs
That depends. Are you talking about the stereotypical racist whitey or just a general white guy who harbors racism? The stereotypical white racist (of which there are some) would not likely support affirmative action because it gives preferential treatment to minorities. The general white guy who is racist but doesn’t necessarily think of himself that way would support affirmative action because it gives preferential treatment to minorities. Yet, ironically, it is the stereotypical white racist who is supporting race-neutral policies while the other guy is supporting institutional racism. While you may argue that the former is the real racist, I would ask you which one is actually engaging in discrimination?
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2008 at 1539 hrs
Yes, I see what you’re getting at.
But to bring this back around to my original point: I’m talking about white people who won’t vote for a black man simply because he’s black. Those people. Those people don’t support affirmative action, they don’t support hate crime laws, they won’t vote for Obama—and they don’t vote Democrat to begin with. Am I right or am I wrong?
Posted by scott on May 29, 2008 at 1541 hrs
I don’t think that’s a party distinction. Take a look at the Dem primaries where Obama polled batter than the actual results. How many Dems were there who would tell a pollster that they would support Obama but wouldn’t vote for him in the privacy of the booth because he is black? How many of those blue collar Dems wouldn’t vote for a black guy because of the color of his skin?
I’m not ready to say that there are more racists in either party and I don’t think that evaluating the respective party platforms is a good indicator as I have illustrated above. The difficulty, as I said, is that one can’t objectively measure a subjective thing.
Posted by Owen on May 29, 2008 at 1549 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 80
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:31 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).