२२ ऑगस्ट, २००८
I'm getting pretty tired of waiting for Obama to announce his VP pick.
But in case you want to talk about it, this is the post. I'm going to bet on Sebelius. I think she's got that blend of differentness and dullness that will go rather nicely with his.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४७ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 247 पैकी 201 – 247Simon,
Your logical skills are poor. Either that, or you're being intellectually dishonest.
Here's the relevant part of your claim:
The only people who seem to care about Obama's race are himself and his surrogates.
Therefore, your position with respect to groups like The Order, Aryan Nation, etc... must be one of the following:
A) they are Obama,
B) they are Obama surrogates, or
C) the don't care about Obama's race.
It's simply a logical exercise, Simon. This is why I encouraged you several times to modify your claim to be consistent with the evidence.
Here's a logical exercise for you:
1. Racists exist in the United States.
2. Racists care about race.
3. Racists will care about Obama's race.
Do you see anything wrong with that construction? If not, you need to admit that your assertion is wrong.
You can't assume a black voting for a black is racist anymore than a white voting a white is racist.
There's no assumption; this is about eliminating the variables. Clinton voters and Obama voters differed enormously along racial lines despite the fact that their actual policies are virtually identical. Skin color is the only factor on which they differ significantly enough to explain the racial divide.
A) they are Obama,
B) they are Obama surrogates, or
C) the don't care about Obama's race.
The correct answer is (C).
The groups in question consider both major parties to be controlled by anti-white interests. To them, the only difference between Obama and McCain is that the Democrats aren't hiding behind a white "race traitor" anymore.
Simon - Thanks for the reply. I think that independents and Reagan Democrat women are far more interested in the economy, having an able person ready to step in - than in "diversity".
I also believe that there are huge numbers of women that would go for Republicans, but who have been scared off by the rabid Christian Taliban anti-abortion absolutists.
In that sense, the "diversity" of anti-abortion Sarah Palin or the anti-abortion zealot Bobby Jindal would attract few new female votes.
There IS a big gender gap, with white women more for Obama by 20% over white males. That isn't because Obama is more effeminant and touchy-feely - it reflects fear of the Religious Right dictating reproductive decisions and end of life family medical decisions a la the Terri Schiavo Fiasco.
McCain stands up to them, says there is ample room for prochoice Republicans, and picks a pro-choice VP? Sure he gets denounced by the Holy rattlesnake handlers - but he knows the creationists and anti-abortion zealots know that he in turn will do what Obama won't = appoint strict constructionists.
Re-establishing that the Christian Taliban will not be imposing religious tests in his Administration and that their will be no litmus test blackballing of pro-choice Republicans or idependents gets him a pile of female voters. And independents of both genders.
Romney would also a nice, welcome "fuck-you" message to the religious extremists - also sending home the fact that they will not be permited to make the Republicans a deep-South based theocracy..
The Republican message should be of welcoming legal immigrants and descendents to the New Republican commitment to responsible government, low taxes, low crime, and high economic opportunity.
It should be to women that Republicans see abortion as generally wrong and being committed to overturning Roe, but happy to let States decide - and accepting the voters verdict if most states adopt moderate to liberal abortion law.
Not, as many see, as fanatics committed to criminalizing and prosecuting women and doctors as murderers, or seeing "Right to Life" priests and ministers show up and attempt to meddle in family decisions on dying family members.
=================
Revenent -
True on the idea that a white with Obam's resume` would have been laughed off if he had sought the Dem nomination. Blacks voted by skin color, 85/95% to 5/15% over doctrinaire white liberals.
The problem Democrats have is that they have set up a situation where not only do blacks have a say in the nominee out of all proportion to their voting numbers 8% in general, 33% in Dem primaries. But the black vote going 9 in 10 to one candidates lopsided advantage overwhelms another candidates solid demographic strength across all groups.
And other critics have said that the Dem Party has given "overinfluence" to gays, teachers& government employee unions, feminists, and Lefty activists outside all proportion to their numbers in the general election.
Yes, the Republicans have their own problem with the Christian Taliban and rich fatcats, but they did not create the diversity "quotas" the Dems have in place or the equivalent of the problem of blacks voting tribally, by skin color.
And it is always good to remind those "Party" people in both camps and the pundit class that see politics in the old black-white paradigm that blacks are now the 3rd largest ethnic group, and that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th largest ethnic group (Asians & Indian Subcontinent& ME people) have surpassed them in income, education.
And wise politicians should give each group their fair due on their issues, and not abandon blue collar white ethnics, hispanics, Asian-Americans - to focus on the "black, Jewish, Religious Right, Corporatist demands as more important."
Maybe they were back in 1968, but not in 2008.
Cyrus:
One of your points is simply that white racism against blacks in KY and WV is supported by polling data.
So what. Is that news? What if data I presented showed that black racism against whites existed in another state? Would that be news?
Your argument could have more value (or even importance) if you could demonstrably show that such white racism existed in more electorally important states, or that a cumulative effect will outweigh any black racism on whites and thus amount to a significant disadvantage for Obama. I don't see that in your argument or data.
Skin color is the only factor on which they differ significantly enough to explain the racial divide.
The exit poll data does not support this conclusion. Also, the premise is incorrect. However, for a statement that is based on a false premise and reaches a conclusion at odds with exit poll data, it's not a bad effort.
The correct answer is (C).
Incorrect. Statements by white supremacists, including David Duke, contradict this conclusion.
Meade said...
"Oh shucks. Guess I might as well take my condom back off."
Oh Meade. I know the story is that Hillary got stiffed, but I didn't realize it was to be taken so literally. Still, kudos.
Cyrus Pinkerton said...
"Your logical skills are poor. Either that, or you're being intellectually dishonest. [¶] Here's the relevant part of your claim: 'The only people who seem to care about Obama's race are himself and his surrogates.'"
That statement was ancillary to my primary claim, but I'll happily acknowledge that it was an overstatement of the point if that deprives you of some very thin rhetorical cover. The bottom line is that there are very few people in this country who will vote against Obama based on his race, but there are whole scads of people in the Democratic party who believe (and will claim) otherwise.
Your argument could have more value (or even importance) if you could demonstrably show that such white racism existed in more electorally important states, or that a cumulative effect will outweigh any black racism on whites and thus amount to a significant disadvantage for Obama.
Chickenlittle, first, I would argue that West Virginia is an electorally important state. Second, although exit polls show race factored into the vote in other states, the result was less dramatic in size. I haven't checked yet to see if, although smaller in percentage, the race-based vote was relatively more significant in any of the closer primary races. Finally, the point of my examples was not quantitative; I was merely trying to show that a significant portion of the voters in at least a couple of states considered race in selecting a candidate. That was all that was necessary to prove Simon's claim wrong.
Cedarford said...
"McCain stands up to them, says there is ample room for prochoice Republicans, and picks a pro-choice VP? Sure he gets denounced by the Holy rattlesnake handlers - but he knows the creationists and anti-abortion zealots know that he in turn will do what Obama won't = appoint strict constructionists."
Nope. If he picks someone who's pro choice, he loses. He loses across the board, turning this from 2004 into an inverted 1984. That's another factor counselling Palin, by the way - the need for McCain to shore up his conservative and pro-life credentials.
I think it's a huge mistake to assume that the pro-life and social conservative vote isn't willing to walk, even if you and I can clearly see that doing so is injurious to their cause. I think that they will, if McCain gives them a reason to. His veep needs to give them a reason to hold their noses, not cut them off to spite their faces.
"1. Racists exist in the United States.
2. Racists care about race.
3. Racists will care about Obama's race.
Do you see anything wrong with that construction? If not, you need to admit that your assertion is wrong."
Regarding #1, of course they do.
Regarding #2, of course they do.
Regarding #3, of course.
However, that does not mean that race will be a factor in this election.
To say that it would, you would need to prove that the racists, in aggregate, will be voting differently than they normally do.
On aggregate, I do not know if I see any evidence of this.
I think there are racists of all colors. If there are as many black racists as a percentage of blacks, or more, or less, I don't know.
But I know that for years, decades even, I have been hearing the charge, made by Democrats, that the GOP is the party for racist whites. If so, then Obama's race won't be a deciding factor for them, because they are already in the GOP camp. Similarly, since blacks tend to vote Democrats by 90% most years, I doubt that race will really be a deciding factor for them.
I can tell you one thing that has been a factor so far with me-- the racism I heard from Rev. Wright and the race baiting I have heard from mainly the left this campaign. It has made it so that I will not vote for Obama, period, and will likely vote for McCain unless he does something like run with Romney or Huckabee.
The bottom line is that there are very few people in this country who will vote against Obama based on his race, but there are whole scads of people in the Democratic party who believe (and will claim) otherwise.
Well, Simon, the exit polls from the primaries show that more than a few people will vote against Obama based on his race. It may not be comfortable to acknowledge the number of people who think this way, but I think it's wishful thinking to dismiss them as "very few." I'm certainly not in position to estimate the number of people who think this way, nor are you I suspect, so there's no point in making guesses or quibbling.
The broader point that I wanted to make is that the Republicans have decided that there's a strategic advantage in denying the existence of racism (except that which favors Obama, of course). I understand the strategy, and although it is offensive (to me) to see politically-motivated, pathetic complaints about perceived racism, it's equally offensive to see systematic denials of racism in American society as an element of political gamesmanship. In this election season, both Republicans and Democrats have proven to be tone deaf in discussions of race and racism.
In that regard, the "race-baiting" accusations of Seven and Meade are interesting. On one hand, the fact that those two are so clueless about what "race-baiting" means, convinces me that they have no racist inclinations or motivations. On the other hand, that fact that a discusion of race prompted them to throw out that kind of accusation leads me to believe that they are simply following an established strategy that instructs them to be aggressive in positioning themselves as victims when the topic of race arises.
Anyway, I'm going to make a point of apologizing to you for being needlessly rude. Although it's extremely frustrating for me to see people play political games with the topic of racism, the reality is that it's election season. [Shrug] For my part, I'm going to sit out the partisan games.
Seven Machos wrote:
You gotta ask yourself: why are people so curious about Obama's pick and not McCain's?
1- Because Obama gets to go first.
2- Because he's drowning in the polls of a sudden, and this will give him a massive boost (that's the script anyway).
3- Because of the Hillary Debacle. Will he choose her, after all........?
4- And yes, because the media hyped the Friday announcement, when really, Obama didn't say squat about when he would announce it. We all fell for the media slobbering again. Oy.
And finally, you gave the best reason, Seven Machos.
Cheers,
Victoria
People would be excited about McCain's choice, if it mattered as much as Obama's does.
Cyrus Pinkerton has left a new comment on the post "I'm getting pretty tired of waiting for Obama to a...":
"[T]he exit polls from the primaries show that more than a few people will vote against Obama based on his race."
They show that democratic primary voters will vote against Obama noting that he's black; that does not show that they themselves have animus against him because he is black, or that they won't vote for him in the fall for that reason. that is your interpretation of the data, but it isn't the only plausible interpretation of the data, or even the most plausible interpretation of the data, unless you're willing to stipulate that democratic primary voters are racists. I have no dog in that fight, but I'm skeptical. The same data can also be explained by the hypothesis detailed above: a belief by Democratic primary voters that other voters in the general election electorate won't vote for a black man, and so the selection of an alternative candidate based on a desire to maximize the chances of win. That is called rational primary voting behavior.
The exit poll data does not support this conclusion. Also, the premise is incorrect. However, for a statement that is based on a false premise and reaches a conclusion at odds with exit poll data, it's not a bad effort.
Thanks, Cyrus. If I ever start assigning value to completely unsupported claims that I'm mistaken, I promise you will be the very first to hear about it. Until then I will take your inability to actually cite any specific flaws in my argument as tacit acceptance that I'm right.
Ann, can I request an overnight VP 'waiting' thread?
It's over 200 and therefore difficult to follow now.
Cheers,
Victoria
Incorrect. Statements by white supremacists, including David Duke, contradict this conclusion.
"I don't see much difference in Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton--or, for that matter, John McCain."
-- David Duke
Here's the last time I'll make this prediction: Obama will pick Ted Strickland, idiot governor of Ohio.
Strickland is pretty popular, has an A- rating with the NRA (so he'll help with those gun-clinging typical white people), and is from the one state that would cinch the presidency for Obama. Obama could win without Ohio; but he can't lose with it. It would be a kick-in-the-nuts to McCain, who would have to expend his entire advertising budget to try to counter this to hold Ohio.
But let's hope he picks Bayh, Biden, or some other completely useless choice.
There's no assumption; this is about eliminating the variables. Clinton voters and Obama voters differed enormously along racial lines despite the fact that their actual policies are virtually identical. Skin color is the only factor on which they differ significantly enough to explain the racial divide.
Oh bullshit. Those same black Democratic voters that voted for Obama have voted for white Democrats all their life. You will never be able to get into someone's mind in the polling booth, and you'll never be able to prove why they voted the way they did. NEVER. So why try? It's a zero sum game.
ABC is saying that it is Biden, that the Secret Service has been dispatched to set up detail.
I guess Obama really was dumb enough to pass on Hillary.
I assume you've heard of groups such as Aryan Nation, The Order, etc... Is it really your position that the members of these organizations don't care about Obama's race?"
They want Obama to win. They think an Obama administration will "prove" to the rest of the "sleeping sheep" in America everything the bigots beliee about blacks.
Republicans have decided that there's a strategic advantage in denying the existence of racism
No, they're simply ignoring that small and stupid demographic.
But lets talk about the racism of Obama's BLT religion which "craves the love of a God that participates in the destruction of the White enemy". Or are you also denying the existence of racism?
It's a zero sum game.
That would seem to be a misuse of that phrase.
Mind reading is more of a nullity. (?)
I agree with Garage. Zero sum game. One reason for that is that it's the decision is a complex calculus.
Zero sum game. Nullity. Whatever.
Exercise in uselessness.
Oh bullshit. Those same black Democratic voters that voted for Obama have voted for white Democrats all their life.
Because the alternative was a white Republican. When there's a black Democrat running against a white Democrat, the black Democrat generally gets the lion's share of the black vote. What's happening with Obama is nothing new. Hell, the Ford family in Memphis built a dynasty on racial animus.
You will never be able to get into someone's mind in the polling booth, and you'll never be able to prove why they voted the way they did. NEVER. So why try?
Why ask me? You do the same thing constantly. Ask yourself the question. Are you planning to stop hinting that McCain supporters are motivated by racism?
Surveys routinely find that blacks have, on average, stronger feelings of racial animus than whites do, and stronger group identification with other blacks than whites have with other whites. This is nothing new or surprising; every black politician counts on it, just like Irish politicians used to count on disproportionate shares of the Irish vote.
Given the available evidence, the rational thing to believe is that Obama has benefited from black racism.
AP calls it for Biden (Drudge)
So what?
Joe Biden. Now there's a game changer.
Apparently, tomorrow morning meant just after 12 a.m., central time. Well, technically, it's the start of a new day.
At least that's what CNN, MSNBC, Fox, C-Span II (Capitol News) are ALL reporting it as breaking news.
And "Live!".
C-Span II, too.
I have visited Democratic Underground. They are mighty upset over there that Obama did not send the holy text to his disciples first as He promised. Many are saying that this is all a big lie and/or a clever move by Obama.
Joe Biden. Now there's a game changer.
Heh, I just wrote a long post on the Delaware/Brooks thread which basically says what you said in one sentence. ;)
I don't see how Biden excites anyone. Even I would've said "Game. Set. Match" for Obama if he had chosen Hillary.
Yes, even with all the negatives she brings to the table, including perceived ones.
But Obama-Biden? Nuh-uh.
7M: Could be! Who knows? We're just 1/2 hour into the start of this new day, after all!
I'm pissed. I never got my text message.
No I'm actually not mad. But it makes the Obama campaign look so fucking stupid. The first of many false promises, I'm sure. Why say you're gonna make me "one of the first to know" if you can't guarantee that you can control the leaks? I guess that's the point of that language..."One of the first to know."
"One of the first" 300 million to know.
However, if this turns out to be a lie and a total disaster on the part of the media and it is actually Hillary tomorrow, that would be awesome and my faith will be restored in The One.
Obama has delivered farce--a promised text message, revelation or something. Brer Obama has done the impossible and captured the late summer friday afternoon blogosphere--the rest of the country is out grilling, drinking beer, and generally enjoying the day--what a joke. And if it is Biden, god willing, the candidate for change has produced a whitebread. plagiarist, hair implanted 30 year politician who tells like it is or isnt. Obama has now thorougly aliented the hard line clinton wing, has given us a fool as a vice presidential nominee, toyed with the MSM for three days and will have a huge presser on a Saturday AM. You can't make this stuff up
Oh, c'mon. What did/do you all expect?
Zach -- Wouldn't it be bizarre to anger the entire mainstream media and the Secret Service.
If it's wrong, the ad writes itself: Obama's knowing misstatement caused our men and women of the Secret Service who put their lives on the line literally to waste their valuable time and effort, not to mention tax money.
Obama may be unwise, but he most assuredly isn't anywhere near stupid. It's Biden.
WHERE IS MY TEXT BARRY I'M NOT GONNA BE IGNORED!
Change you can believe in but will not be texted to you first as promised.
Oh, c'mon. What did/do you all expect?
I EXPECTED ZEEPS TO GET HIS TEXT MESSAGE, DAMMIT!
Here Zach, you want this barely used condom?
Why ask me? You do the same thing constantly. Ask yourself the question. Are you planning to stop hinting that McCain supporters are motivated by racism?
I never have, and I challenge you to find one post on Althouse in 3 yrs where I have. How can a vote be racist! That means there is a racist choice. It doesn't make any sense.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"I'm pissed. I never got my text message. [¶] No I'm actually not mad. But it makes the Obama campaign look so fucking stupid. The first of many false promises, I'm sure."
The first? How about public funding, for one? Come to think of it, Zach, can you give any example of a promise that Obama has kept?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा