U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[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.