U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[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

[IsiliRunite]

20% non-Democrat or Republican is not the same as 4-5% who still have to make up their mind, or are actually considering two candidates. I used those different terms differently, so its not really changing a story

White guilt is not just sympathy for racism, like sympathy for a smear you mentioned above. white guilt is a feeling of general wrongdoing by caucasian americans for the mistreatment of african americans in the past.

the way racism will affect obama is different form the way white guilt might affect the election. Some point to racism as a bi-product of our natural generalization abilities, and our reverse rational in justifying them (if we are enslaving them we must be superior). I don't really want to get into explaining how some people believe actions and characteristics of individuals represent an entire "classification" or individuals, but white guilt is slightly more academic. While I'm sure there was some feeling of resentment and remorse in the caucasian american community (for actions committed by their ancestors against african americans) before the civil rights movement, there was serious consideration of reparation programmes once the point had been reached where the average sentiment was that african americans were on a level playing field but coincidentally weren't 'scoring goals' on that playing field. Instead of pointing to innate racism within our hiring practices and such actions from day to day, certain people in certain high places felt there was something still wrong with the legal/formal structure of our society that needed to be fixed. One of these reparation movements was the move toward affirmative action, which was still active at my alma mater until just recently. My home school is considered a "liberal" public university, and because affirmative action was enacted at other universities, places where new (one defintion of 'liberal') ideas arise, I will consider affirmative action a liberal policy. Coincidentally, I consider liberalism more in line with white guilt because liberals were more of a factor in pressing for civil rights for all americans in the 1960s, and, as I mentioned a few moments ago, certain individuals who drove the civil rights movement to fruition felt equality of status were necessary in addition to equality of opportunity.

I am not sure why racism is perceived more common among republican voters, or the "religious conservatives", but this group has not historically supported "white guilt" policies in law/policy making. Present-day "red states" have had past-day racist policies on the books and racist practices in their culture moreso than "blue states", so perhaps I do not need to discuss this point.

Couple the 4 or 5 percent who still might change their mind between now and the election, and the opinion that people do not hold a laundry list of rational explanations for the reason they support a candidate but rather anchor their reasoning onto certain character issues... I fear that judgement-tampering through deceptive or misleading ad campaigns could sway the outcome of an otherwise close election depending on the success of the non-principle non-issue campaign ads of the respective sides.

in my opinion...if one campaign has better ad writers supporting but not necessarily associated with, who write more sticky and contagious ads, that candidate will be successful in the end. the subject of those ad campaigns will boil down to race, I believe, because it is the most glaring and exploitable difference between the two candidates (exploitable via the two similar but different prejudices I've mentioned) and the election will be too close to avoid using these type of ad/rehtoric campaigns. fwiw

all of that comes from articles I can't publish here from my school library, cnn, and a few textbooks.

edit: with respect to the gallup poll... not that you or anyone else reading this thread is assuming the poll is "accurate", but to make the conclusion that the poll is "accurate" relies that people are aware of the prejudices that do and do not exist in their mind, aware of when to utilize them, and have the opportunity to turn them on/off when desired.

[Strangelet]

not to ignore the points you just made, but this just came out, coincidentally enough. I guess others are thinking about the same questions..


http://www.gallup.com/poll/107770/Most-Say-Race-Will-Factor-Their-Presidential-Vote.aspx

So on the one hand, black voters say Obama's race makes no difference to them, and on the other hand, about 9 out of 10 blacks say they will vote for Obama. But the high percentage of the black vote going to Obama is not unusual. Gallup polling estimated that John Kerry received 93% of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore received 95% in 2000. So it may be that black voters are making the (correct) self-observation that they would be voting for the Democratic candidate regardless of his or her race, meaning that Obama's particular race is not a deciding factor for them.

Whites are even less likely than blacks to say Obama's race would be a factor in their vote. Eighty-eight percent of non-Hispanic whites say his race makes no difference. Six percent of whites say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of his race; 5% say they are more likely to vote for him. There has been discussion this year of a "hidden" race factor in which certain groups of white voters will end up not voting for Obama because he is a black candidate. What these data show is that more than 9 in 10 whites, when asked about Obama's race directly, deny that it will be a negative factor in their vote

that seems like a pretty cut and dry score for non white guilt factor party. (or a white guilt landslide, which seems to be even more unlikely than a luke warm center)

scroll down even further and they ask blacks and whites both if obama's race will reward/penalize his vote count. Both races replied the same. 21 percent thing it will benefit him. 26-68 percent said it will penalize him.

So basically 90 % of voters say race does not affect them personally but a around a quarter of the voters think it will affect the choices of everyone else.

[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?

[Troy McClure]

It should be criticized and heavily debated. Smarter people than me might be able to spin that McCain truly believes everything is going fine and dandy as long as no US soldiers are killed, and doesn't care so much about non-fatal injuries like mental trauma or loss of limbs.

--Jason

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

20% non-Democrat or Republican is not the same as 4-5% who still have to make up their mind, or are actually considering two candidates. I used those different terms differently, so its not really changing a story

Maybe you should be more clear when you post then, because these two statements by you:

"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"

...and...

"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"

...do not support your assertion above. In both cases, you cited the vastly different percentages as being representative of the groups you were referring to in your claims about "white guilt" and "racism" based swing votes.

I have to say - I've given you opportunity after opportunity to engage in meaningful debate but you simply seem to refuse. You keep dodging any real points, and trying to shift focus away from earlier, unequivocal statements that you made. Frankly, it's frustrating and counter-productive when every time you contradict yourself, you choose to claim that we're having problems understanding you rather than acknowledging that you haven't presented your ideas in a clear enough way for them to be understood in the first place.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

White guilt is not just sympathy for racism, like sympathy for a smear you mentioned above. white guilt is a feeling of general wrongdoing by caucasian americans for the mistreatment of african americans in the past.

the way racism will affect obama is different form the way white guilt might affect the election. Some point to racism as a bi-product of our natural generalization abilities, and our reverse rational in justifying them (if we are enslaving them we must be superior). I don't really want to get into explaining how some people believe actions and characteristics of individuals represent an entire "classification" or individuals, but white guilt is slightly more academic. While I'm sure there was some feeling of resentment and remorse in the caucasian american community (for actions committed by their ancestors against african americans) before the civil rights movement, there was serious consideration of reparation programmes once the point had been reached where the average sentiment was that african americans were on a level playing field but coincidentally weren't 'scoring goals' on that playing field. Instead of pointing to innate racism within our hiring practices and such actions from day to day, certain people in certain high places felt there was something still wrong with the legal/formal structure of our society that needed to be fixed. One of these reparation movements was the move toward affirmative action, which was still active at my alma mater until just recently. My home school is considered a "liberal" public university, and because affirmative action was enacted at other universities, places where new (one defintion of 'liberal') ideas arise, I will consider affirmative action a liberal policy. Coincidentally, I consider liberalism more in line with white guilt because liberals were more of a factor in pressing for civil rights for all americans in the 1960s, and, as I mentioned a few moments ago, certain individuals who drove the civil rights movement to fruition felt equality of status were necessary in addition to equality of opportunity.

I am not sure why racism is perceived more common among republican voters, or the "religious conservatives", but this group has not historically supported "white guilt" policies in law/policy making. Present-day "red states" have had past-day racist policies on the books and racist practices in their culture moreso than "blue states", so perhaps I do not need to discuss this point.

So, what's your point? You've now explained your opinions on the histories of "white guilt" and "racism" as you see them, but what's that got to do with the reality of what's likely to influence this election?

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Couple the 4 or 5 percent who still might change their mind between now and the election, and the opinion that people do not hold a laundry list of rational explanations for the reason they support a candidate but rather anchor their reasoning onto certain character issues... I fear that judgement-tampering through deceptive or misleading ad campaigns could sway the outcome of an otherwise close election depending on the success of the non-principle non-issue campaign ads of the respective sides.

I agree that "judgement-tampering through deceptive or misleading ad campaigns" will play a significant role in this election as it has in every election, but I don't agree that the primary issues will be "white guilt" and "racism"....or at least not in the way you seem to be saying. And nothing that you've written in this post supports your continuing assertion that they will be - all you've done is make the same unsupported claims in a more elaborate way.

The deceptive ad campaigns are already in full swing, and they're focused on false accusations about Obama being unpatriotic, or that he'll be a friend to terrorists, or that he's an elitist, or that he's a closet Muslim.

Will racism play a role? Of course. We already saw it in places like Kentucky and West Virginia, where around 21% of voters in those states actually admitted in exit poles that race was a factor in their vote. And if 21% admitted it to a stranger taking a poll, then I'm sure quite a few more factored it in but didn't admit it. But places like West Virginia and Kentucky have gone Republican for the past decade of presidential elections, and they aren't considered likely swing states that'll make or break the election this year. Likely swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have been more affected by smears along the lines of Obama being out of touch with the working man, thanks largely to Hillary pushing disinformation about NAFTA and such....not smears about race.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

in my opinion...if one campaign has better ad writers supporting but not necessarily associated with, who write more sticky and contagious ads, that candidate will be successful in the end. the subject of those ad campaigns will boil down to race, I believe, because it is the most glaring and exploitable difference between the two candidates (exploitable via the two similar but different prejudices I've mentioned) and the election will be too close to avoid using these type of ad/rehtoric campaigns. fwiw

Fair enough. I can stomach a lot more unsupported theories if they're presented as personal opinion rather than stated as objective fact.

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

all of that comes from articles I can't publish here from my school library, cnn, and a few textbooks.

edit: with respect to the gallup poll... not that you or anyone else reading this thread is assuming the poll is "accurate", but to make the conclusion that the poll is "accurate" relies that people are aware of the prejudices that do and do not exist in their mind, aware of when to utilize them, and have the opportunity to turn them on/off when desired.

C'mon now.....you support your assertions with various articles that you claim you "can't publish here", but then say that we can't rely on a linked gallup poll that runs counter to your claims? That's awfully convenient, wouldn't you say?

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

You keep dodging any real points, and trying to shift focus away from earlier, unequivocal statements that you made.

...what's your point? You've now explained your opinions on the histories of "white guilt" and "racism" as you see them, but what's that got to do with the reality of what's likely to influence this election?

...all you've done is make the same unsupported claims in a more elaborate way.

I'm glad it wasn't just me thinking that.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

in my opinion...if one campaign has better ad writers supporting but not necessarily associated with, who write more sticky and contagious ads, that candidate will be successful in the end. the subject of those ad campaigns will boil down to race, I believe, because it is the most glaring and exploitable difference between the two candidates (exploitable via the two similar but different prejudices I've mentioned) and the election will be too close to avoid using these type of ad/rehtoric campaigns. fwiw

just to add with what Sean said, I happen to believe the "most glaring and exploitable difference" between the two candidates would be age/generation. There's more that separates the two candidates' world view by generation than by race.

You see that with the media's glee towards McCain's computer illiteracy, singing beach boys songs, and comparing his ornery stuffy speaking skills with Obama's rock star performances. We're talking Mick Jaggar, not Rick James.

I guess you could counter argue that ageism does not carry the same taboo and that the media is allowed to make jokes about his wanting the whipper snappers off of his lawn, and not suggest Obama enjoys fried chicken and watermellon. So then I really can't disprove how much of racism is at play underneath the rhetoric.

But then the problem has become a burden of proof for you because it can't be proven any more than disproven, all hidden and unconscious as it all is.

So we might as well be talking about the thetan spirits and their affect on our voting behavior.

The only concrete manifestation of white guilt we've been able to reference is Affirmative Action, which is admittedly a liberal principle. But the confusion between what the liberals have wanted to do for ghetto black kids and who they want to elect as their leader, is what confused Gerraldine Ferraro, another old fuddy duddy, to cry "affirmative action" with respect to Obama's cometting success.

I know we aren't accepting any similarities between her thinking and yours, but for the lack of other evidence to support the white guilt hypothesis I'm afraid I have not choice. You're a ferarro lover.