U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

And what are these "reasonable methods that have not been proven wrong"? What makes you so sure that white guilt or negative prejudice will play anything like the significant role that you suggest for this 20-30%? At least enough for you to come out with a statement like:

awesome questions. Notice he's watered things down for his hypothesis to say nothing more than if people are swayed by irrational prejudices they will act in a prejudiced fashion and affect the outcome of the election. Which is fucking tautological. and doesn't quite get to the place where you can say something as smug as

You give people too much credit if you think they are going to use reason.

and

I am saying that a big factor in his ability to win the election depends on the outcome of white voters sub-consciously or consciously selecting one of those two prejudices more frequently than the other.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I still stand by my hypothesis, though, because it is not an unfair generalisation and I reached it with reasonable methods that have not been proven wrong.

haha holy christ i'm glad i waited to put you on ignore. this was totally worth wading through the rest of your bullshit.

and now, join myrrh as the only other person i've chosen to put on my ignore list.

[IsiliRunite]

Because of the previous success of smear campaigns about irrelevant topics, like John Kerry's swift-boat saga, I think the proof is in the pudding that real issues aren't as important to "swing" voters as issues of personal character and personna.

More than 4-5% of Americans don't hold built-in allegiance ("I am a Republican" or "I am a Democrat") to either candidate, and that is the type of voter I'm speaking about. If all the non-Democrats and non-Republicans who have not made up their mind come election day step into the polling booth and vote in accordance with one prejudice over the other more frequently, it may have an effect on the election. Is that really hard to believe?

Aside from this bull-shit:

I don't need data to create a hypothesis. A hypothesis is pre-experiment, and I don't even have to be 'sure' about it. The experiment is the general election, and if you think my hypothesis is wrong...

The only assumption my hypothesis is making is that white guilt and negative prejudice exist. I think that's fair, reasonable. Even aside from that hypothesis, I believe Obama will take the election given a winner-take-all electoral college because he does not need votes in historically anti-African American states (slave and segregation states), which is the only place he has guaranteed trouble.

I am not claiming profundity, or universal truth, by mentioning my hypothesis. I was just bringing up a potential facet of the election I have not heard much about, seeing if anyone had anything to add. I guess when a person believes all of their words are groundbreaking or profound, they try to prove that everyone elses' words are not profound even if they did not submit their work to the board of review. Hence...the dirty debate team felt they could make a 'you-wrong-me-right' discussion out of nothing! Meddling kids...

Lighten up, people. Even if you are all competing with me, the debate should have been discussion in the first place, and we should all be on the same team...

So, dirty collectively believes Obama has too much going for him and too much going against McCain for prejudices to really matter. Alright, I will take your collective perspectives into account and reflect on them.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

...So, dirty collectively believes Obama has too much going for him and too much going against McCain for prejudices to really matter.

No-one's suggesting prejudices won't be a factor in this election. Simply that we don't see any evidence that bigotry or white guilt will matter anything like as significantly as you suggested in your earlier unequivocal statements.

Subsequently typing the word hypothesis 647 times does nothing to explain that, my friend. Hypotheses can indeed come from limited evidence, but still require some evidence (otherwise you might as well be pulling them out your ass).

Offering up the swiftboat saga as an example only points to the power of smear campaigns, of appearing unpatriotic or dishonest. It tells us nothing about the prevalence of white guilt or bigotry.

So I'm still waiting...

[Sean]

Feeling especially patient today, so I temporarily suspended my one person ignore list.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Because of the previous success of smear campaigns about irrelevant topics, like John Kerry's swift-boat saga, I think the proof is in the pudding that real issues aren't as important to "swing" voters as issues of personal character and personna.

More than 4-5% of Americans don't hold built-in allegiance ("I am a Republican" or "I am a Democrat") to either candidate, and that is the type of voter I'm speaking about.

Well now you're changing your story. You say 4-5% now, but earlier you said "20-30% in the middle, the people that have to make a decision, will sway the election IF one prejudice in their mind is more prevalent than the other."

And it appears that you're claiming the election will swing one way or another based primarily on which prejudice wins out, bigotry or white guilt. To quote nearly your entire first post, "It's really a battle of white guilt (supportive prejudice) vs. bigotry (negative prejudice). I don't believe it will come down to issues or principles, just which wins out in the "gut feelings" of the majority (white) voters".

I'm in the middle. A white, middle class, 35 year old registered independent with a high school education. I like Obama for the reasons that I believe the bulk of his supporters do. He's campaigning on the platform that we need to shift the direction the country is taking. He's respectful of opposing viewpoints. He's good at finding common ground. He wants to involve the American people in the political process more than we have been for nearly a decade. He's more willing to put what's right ahead of what's politically expedient. And he actually inspires people to get involved and to care about politics, an often overlooked plus for a President. Prejudices will of course be a factor, but I don't think there's evidence that they'll ultimately be the deciding factor, as you initially asserted.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I am not claiming profundity, or universal truth, by mentioning my hypothesis. I was just bringing up a potential facet of the election I have not heard much about, seeing if anyone had anything to add.

Well now you're tempering your statements to a more reasonable level. But that doesn't change why people first jumped on your comments. Once again, I'll quote your first reply: "It's really a battle of white guilt (supportive prejudice) vs. bigotry (negative prejudice). I don't believe it will come down to issues or principles, just which wins out in the "gut feelings" of the majority (white) voters".

So for you to now say that:

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I guess when a person believes all of their words are groundbreaking or profound, they try to prove that everyone elses' words are not profound even if they did not submit their work to the board of review. Hence...the dirty debate team felt they could make a 'you-wrong-me-right' discussion out of nothing! Meddling kids...

...is a tad disingenuous.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Lighten up, people. Even if you are all competing with me, the debate should have been discussion in the first place, and we should all be on the same team...

No one's competing with you. We were all just apparently taken off guard by the extreme nature of your initial post, and responded accordingly. Even you seem to have realized your comments were a bit beyond reality, because your subsequent posts have taken a very different stance, as I mentioned at the top of this reply.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

So, dirty collectively believes Obama has too much going for him and too much going against McCain for prejudices to really matter. Alright, I will take your collective perspectives into account and reflect on them.

I actually do feel that they "really matter", but I don't think they'll play a deciding role in the election. I think they really matter more in a sense that prejudices existing on the level they do are a social problem we need to continue working towards solving.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I'm going over visit some music threads.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Lighten up, people. Even if you are all competing with me, the debate should have been discussion in the first place, and we should all be on the same team...

So, dirty collectively believes Obama has too much going for him and too much going against McCain for prejudices to really matter. Alright, I will take your collective perspectives into account and reflect on them.

You're right, we should be discussing this without heated competition and it really does appear that we are in agreement about the most fundamental issues.

But don't feel compelled to reflect on our perspectives any further than we've given you cause. In return, you should expect the same. I personally can't take seriously any hypothesis or assertion or edict or whatever that is ramrodded down as beyond suspicion through your impeccable derivation methods.

You want us to consider the possibility that there will be a dynamic of prejudice affecting the general election then you should back it up with reasons and expect the possibility that we may wish to disagree with your reasons.

I personally don't care whether or not you agree with me. I don't agree with myself half the time. I just need you to respond to my questions in a way that is demonstrative, pedagogical even, not blandly offensive and derisive.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

pedagogical even,

Oh God, no, please, don't keep this one going.

[Strangelet]

no lets keep going. and add this to the mix.



is Obama a muslim? questions a paid advert of the "national campaign fund" whatever that is...

So i'm willing to concede this doesn't bode well for a reasonable dialog this campaign.

I'm also willing to concede that people could possibily vote for obama out of a reaction to such smears.

not sure where that puts things, but fwiw.

edit: this is more information about the "national campaign fund"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15835.html

[gambit]

McCain was on the Today show and caused a bit of a firestorm. The bold is mine and is what caused the ruckus.

The exchange that has Democrats licking their chops began when co-host Matt Lauer asked about the surge strategy in Iraq: “If it's working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”

McCain replied: “No, but that's not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq, Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General [David] Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are.

“But the key to it is that we don't want any more Americans in harm's way. That way, they will be safe, and serve our country and come home with honor and victory, not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama's proposal would have done. I’m proud of them. And they're doing a great job. And we are succeeding and it's fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn't realize that.”

I'm really curious to hear what Sarcasmo has to say about this. Thoughts? I think this is going to hurt McCain the same way "bittergate" hurt Obama. That being said, yes, making sure our soldiers don't get killed is the most important thing, but what's a life if it's completely scarred by war? And if the war has no end in sight and growing increasingly meaningless?