U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by cured

Obama is going to win pretty handily in November, I think. He will trounce McCain in the debates. Let's hope he doesn't go with a Dan Quayle.

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. Subtle things that can't be quantified... like Nixon's running make-up during the debates of his first campaign.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

It's really a battle of white guilt (supportive prejudice) vs. bigotry (negative prejudice).

so you think along the same lines as geraldine ferraro? That Obama's campaign enjoys a dominating boost from white guilt?

K question. why are so many educated and young people supporting obama, then? too young to know what jim crow even feels like and too smart to want to find out?

not having it, sorry.

[IsiliRunite]

Educated people are support Obama because what is new, liberalism in most common usage, usually comes straight from colleges and universities. Not as though it is right or wrong, but that is usually the case.

Young people vote for Obama because they get the sense that he is not old-fashioned, he understands young people concerns because he is not 80 years old, and because Obama has more style than any candidate in a long time..

I'm not explaining his support by mentioning those prejudices, 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.

I don't really identify myself with anything Geraldine Ferraro says...

[Deckard]

I predict the unpatriotic cheese-eating surrender monkey slur may play a large part in why people choose against Obama this year - certainly once Republican Nightmare Productions® gets into full swing. Tbh I reckon this will be a much bigger factor than racism, assuming that's what you meant by "bigotry (negative prejudice)".

I'd say the Reverend Wright hoohaah ("God Damn America!!") fits more into that category than it does racism, though obviously racism - conscious or unconscious - will make it that much more potent.

His stance on talking to dictators and his relative lack of experience will be bigger issues, I think. The sense that he'll make a dangerously ineffective Commander-in-Chief (ridiculous as that phrase is) - think back to Bush v Kerry, and Bush's insistence that "that's just not what a Commander-in-chief does" and his constant focus on "being certain".

Another parallel with that election will be Obama's relatively professorial manner compared with salt-of-the-earth folksy McCain (even though Obama is streets ahead of Kerry in terms of charisma, there will still be that impression by some that he's out of touch with the common person) - and these strike me as the main reasons for people choosing McCain over Obama.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Educated people are support Obama because what is new, liberalism in most common usage, usually comes straight from colleges and universities. Not as though it is right or wrong, but that is usually the case.

Young people vote for Obama because they get the sense that he is not old-fashioned, he understands young people concerns because he is not 80 years old, and because Obama has more style than any candidate in a long time..

I'm not explaining his support by mentioning those prejudices, 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.

I usually try to refrain from ad hominem attacks on this board but you, sir, are a fairly disgusting example of humanity.

You make me yearn for myrrh's posts.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I'm not explaining his support by mentioning those prejudices, 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.

I don't really identify myself with anything Geraldine Ferraro says...

So just to recap.

You think the overpowering cultural/social dynamic in this election is whites choosing between their guilt or their prejudice.

I suggest that racism/reverse racism is an inversely proportionate value to age and education (doesn't seem that controversial, honestly) and that the older and less educated the voters were the more likely they voted for clinton (or for obama for less substantive issues like its time we put a women/black man in office). In other words, those where white guilt would be a motivation weren't voting for him anyway. THe people voting for obama are already liberal, wanting a liberal president after a conservative strangle hold, and would vote against mccain if it meant voting for mc hammer.

But then you say the only reason young/educated people are voting for obama is because they like shiny new shit, regardless of the objective value.

Moreover, you're willing to throw out all the other ramifications like 4 dollar gas or 2 dragging wars to prop up your pet theory of whites running around consumed in competing forces of guilt and racism.

But then you don't want to be likened to Geraldine Ferraro even when she's said that the only reason Obama is beating Clinton is because the undercurrent sentiments of racial reparations trump sentiments of feminism.

This is entertainment, Sean is missing out.

Listen heffe, one of these days you're going to be at a cocktail party and you're going to be on your game but something is different this time. Instead of everyone revering your opinions, every one is staring at you in awkward silence. What follows will be an epiphany. You'll have discovered you've descended into the intellectual equivalent of an informercial personality because instead of questioning the universe and your grasp of it you've spent your life compensating for all the glaring self contradictions and inconsistency with a delivery of dripping arrogance and dismissive condescension.

just like your recent posts.

[IsiliRunite]

If a white democrat can't beat George W. Bush, the worst president in history, why will a black candidate be able to beat one of the best maverick Senators and American war heroes, who is also white, of the last 25 years? The general election is a gongshow smear contest...its not about principles. If you are a democrat this should concern you!

Why are you assuming, and making, all of these sweeping generalisations? I am not saying the ONLY reason people like this person is or the ONLY asset they have to winning is...

Have you read the dictionary lately? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
How many of those words are positive?

You give people too much credit if you think they are going to use reason. On average more liberals have white guilt than negative prejudice and I would say on average there is more negative prejudice on the conservative side. Why is it so hard for your brain to grasp that if there is a sway toward one prejudice during the general election on behalf of the undecideds (where everyone wins/loses an election, mr. cocktail party intellectual), the outcome will move respectively?

This is not party nomination bull-shit where everyone likes each candidate but has PREFERENCES (these preferences are what Geraldine was talking about). This is where 35-40% of people are Democrats and support democrats regardless, and 35-40% of people do the same for Republicans. The 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. I feel that is totally reasonable, and totally fair. If you can't understand that and at least acknowledge it, there might be something severely wrong with your or my communication abilities.

Your problem might be that you believe you have this great store of semantic knowledge that can win debates whenever you like, but you don't know that you actually know nothing. You don't KNOW anything. Every great philosopher acknowledged that, so stop building your arguments with what you believe is experience and wit and start using a little reason.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

If a white democrat can't beat George W. Bush, the worst president in history, why will a black candidate be able to beat one of the best maverick Senators and American war heroes, who is also white, of the last 25 years?

Why? Because Obama isn't Kerry in all sorts of ways besides race. And your country has endured 4 MORE years of Bush.

There are many factors that make a vote for Obama so much more compelling this year than a vote for Kerry in 2004 - factors that have NOTHING to do with race. Factors concerning Obama himself, what he stands for, his approach, his youth, his promise of change (those things can be "gut feelings" too you know), circumstancial factors like a worsening economy, an increasingly unpopular war, a rising death toll, an accumulating dislike of Republicans and where America now finds itself in 2008.

This should be the Democrats' year, even irrespective of Obama being the candidate. It's 4 years on from Bush/Kerry, times have changed, largely gotten worse. And Obama is a considerably more convincing, inspiring and optimistic candidate than Kerry ever was.

The problem with your comparison above is that it just seems so totally weighted to downplaying these other factors, while overstating the worst in people. As someone who often bemoans the ignorance and bigotry of people, even I have no problem in saying that bigotry probably won't be anything like as much an issue as you claim it will.

[IsiliRunite]

I was making a general statement of those prejudices potential impact on undecided's. I'm going to vote for Obama, but on plenty of other grounds than just prejudice. I believe plenty of others will vote for Obama for non-prejudicial reasons, as well.

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.

Hypothesis:
This is where 35-40% of people are Democrats and support democrats regardless, and 35-40% of people do the same for Republicans. The 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.

I feel I have made myself relatively clear and don't want to read about endoctrinated devil's advocate bull-shit. Do not feel as though my statements are open to interpretation; I say exactly what I mean.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Hypothesis:
This is where 35-40% of people are Democrats and support democrats regardless, and 35-40% of people do the same for Republicans. The 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.

Recent gallup poll. 4-5% unsure. Sorry if this is indoctrinated, devil advocacy. but it looks like your hypothesis suffers from unfounded assumptions.

where's your twenty percent conflicted crackers? (no fair lumping independents with undecideds, as it appears the independents have made up their mind one way or the other, unless we want to say they've already gone through their guilt versus prejudice thought process?)