Sorry if this was raised before, but I didn't have the patience to go through such a long tread.
In any event, Republicans would not vote for a Democrat regardless of color. If a black, white, pink, or green were running with Democratic ideas, the Republicans, by definition would vote against him.
Therefore, if he loses any votes, it must be from the people who otherwise would have voted for him, but won't because he is black.
The people who otherwise would have voted for him are Democrats who are voting against him only because of that reason.
Oooops. Did the pot just call the kettle - Better not finish or someone will think I am making a racist comment.
Poll
The study is premised on the theory that because Bush is unpopular, Obama should be way ahead and has to be behind because of racism.
It over looks two facts:
1. Congress, which is currently Democratic, has an even lower popularity than Bush. This negates the impact of the unpopularity of Bush, especially since he isn't running.
2. More importantly, the country is evenly split between liberals and conservatives, with the edge being in favor of center right. That is why Bush won in 2000 and 2004. In other words, without race as a factor, the country would vote right. Therefore the fact that it is close with a black liberal is not an indication of race, but what you would expect in a color blind situation.
Also, you have to remember that even when Democrats have won, it is because they were moderate, center Dems.
Bill Clinton won on limiting welfare, reducing the right to habeas corpus, and other GOP ideas. His big liberal ideas - like health care, Obama's signature issue - died because of public distrust.
Obama is very liberal according to his current views, and radical according to his associates, past expressions of opinion, and background.
Without race it would be close. Since it is close, it doesn't make sense to say it is race.
-- Modified on 9/20/2008 5:03:17 AM
What you're saying is incorrect...
Congress isn't nearly as unpopular as the President is, if you subscribe to polling info as fairly accurate (which I don't, but your conclusion is based on polling so I'll argue it from that point of view). Also, most people attribute this country's failures to the executive branch of government, not the legislative...so the Dems' unpopularity in congress doesn't distract from the failure of a Republican administration. When one ignores race and its implications on this election, Obama is actually a moderate liberal; having ideas and views that appeal to independents and middle of the road Republicans. In addition to that, not everyone is an overt racist like many of the contributors to this bulletin...closet bigots would cast their vote against a black man, despite not acknowledging their racism publicly. You can't ignore these facts...
If he were white, the good Illinois senator would in fact have an overwhelming lead in this election. His race is undoubtedly an impediment to that happening. The referenced article is basically correct.
-- Modified on 9/20/2008 7:01:47 AM
-- Modified on 9/20/2008 7:03:00 AM
First off, the approval rates for Congress are much lower than that of the President. I challenge you to offer any proof to the contrary.
Secondly, Obama is not a moderate. He is an ultra liberal pretending to be a moderat in order to get elected.
Thirdly, the only reason Obama has got as far as he has is "because of his race", not in spite of it. If a white Junior Senator with a resume as weak as his were running in place of Obama Hillary would have one by a landslide. The only way race is working against him is by his assoctiation with outright racists like his wife and Rev Wright. Not to mention black terrorists like William Ayers.
I stand corrected on the approval ratings of congress vs. the president. It is in fact much lower than Bush's. The rest of what I said still stands, however. A majority of Americans still do identify the failures of this administration as republican ones - and would vote accordingly if not for the color of the senator's skin. What voters will do regarding their respective representatives is a different matter.
To say that Obama has gotten this far BECAUSE of his race is ridiculous. Identifying him as racist because he attended the church of an individual who dared speak about the atrocities experienced by Black Americans and at hands of White leadership....is ironically evidence of your own veiled racism. Yes, it's still a harmful part of society, and warrants harsh criticism of government by anyone who can gather a crowd. People are angry about it, and rightfully so. Ayers too...
Do you find McCain's interaction with bigots like Falwell, Hagee, and other religious zealots to be equally disturbing? If not, I think you've proven my point.
I find pandering to any religious zealots to be offensive.
As some one who has actually experienced overt racism(I am not white) I find your accusations of racism amusing and ludicrous. White people are not the only people capable of racism. You may suffer from white guilt. I don't.
Unless you have ever been refused employment and told to your face "We don't hire your kind here" you have no room to lecture me about racism.
Nor am I...and I find your implication that overt racism is the only type harmful enough to warrant discussion equally ludicrous (but not so amusing). While being told "we don't hire your kind here" is certainly disturbing...the policies and practices of this government are equally so - even when hidden by "legitimate" agenda. THAT'S the shit that evokes speeches from people like Rev. Wright...and they're not wrong about any of it.
So answer my question...why can't you be equally critical of McCain for affiliation with REAL bigots?
-- Modified on 9/20/2008 10:35:34 AM
I am stating flat out that I don't need a lecture on racism or any sort of snide innuendo that I am somehow a closet racist from someone who has never experienced racism. If I am mistaken and you are a person of color that has experienced racism, then I am all ears, tell me all about it. If not than you and the rest of your white, liberal, elitest crowd that have no idea what you are talking about really need to STFU.
Have you ever considered this closet racist mentality is fostered by hard working people with problems of their own are just getting sick and tired of hearing how another group of people have it "so hard"? Not to mention getting blamed for things that they had nothing to do with. If black people are ever going to achieve true equality they are going to have to let go of this "us against them" mentality and just go about trying to make a better life for themselves and their family not their entire race.
As long as we give special treatment to any group, whether that group be Gays, Blacks, Asians etc there will be no true equality. Equality means just that, equal treatment no better and no worse.
You are due an entire SERIES of lectures based on everything you've stated here. In creating equality, inequalities have to be addressed. Shifting the burden of racism to the shoulders of those who have been most harmed by it accomplishes not one damn thing. Yes, blaming those responsible and educating EVERYONE about its harmful impact is in fact the way to attack the problem. The progress that has been made didn't occur by just playing along like shit is on the level; and this shit is by no means at a point where we can coast along with this view that all is well and there's nothing to address.
I could be here all night typing about this, but what I want to get to is the fact that you have still failed to explain how Obama is racist by association...and not McCain. You have further failed to explain exactly what makes Rev. Wright racist when he's spoken nothing but the truth about this nation and its shortcomings.
This is exactly what I mean about the impact of racism on this election. Some will flat out say "I will not vote for a black man," and others (like you) while try to justify their racism with whatever bullshit issue they can grasp; and THAT is the hurdle the Senator from Illinois has to overcome.
-- Modified on 9/20/2008 2:01:55 PM
-- Modified on 9/20/2008 2:04:19 PM
Then you are a racist. No matter what color. Black, white, yellow, red, green and blue, it doesn't matter.
America is not too racist to elect a black president, the Democratic Party is too racist. The reason a Republican would not vote for Obama is ideas, they do not agree with him, not his race.
If a Democrate does not vote for him it must be because of his race.
I have no problem voting for Black candidates, provided they espouse ideas in which I believe. I voted for Herman Cain in a Republican primary for the US senate over two white candidates that I also liked because his ideas were closer to my beliefs. I wish we could get Herman to run for US Congress here in the 5th district and get that moron John Lewis out of office!.
especially over a fuckwad like John Lewis.
calling people who doesn't agree with you as bigots.
I am neither Black or White. I am brown and I don't agree with jack shit O'Bomb says, does or have done. I vote for people purely based what they bring to the table based what they have done in the past. In O'Bombs case nothing.
Compare that to McCain and Palin. Both have accomplished few things. You may not agree and try to spin it, ridicule it. Same as the left wing Nazis.
The irony is I have never voted Republican before, I am this time.
Great to be an Independent. No I am not nut case and I don't agree with Barr or Nader. Both are nut cases in my book.
Care to name names, and point fingers?
Of course! America will elect a black for POTUS when the GOP nominates one. Don't vote for a black unless he is GOP approved.
-- Modified on 9/20/2008 6:53:34 PM
Obama will win the traditional Democratic states (CA, NY, NJ, MA, IL, etc.) easily, he won't do well in the south, & it will come down to most of the same swing states as the last 2 elections....
Also, Obama is making Indiana & Virgina competitive (esp. VA.), these 2 states haven't voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1964.....
As far as Iowa:
"Among women, Obama leads by 20 points; among men, Obama and McCain tie. Among voters younger than Barack Obama, Obama leads by 15. Among voters older than John McCain, Obama leads by 9. Among voters who are in-between the two candidates' ages, Obama leads by 7. Among white voters -- 95% of Iowa's likely voters -- Obama leads by 8 points. 11% of Republicans cross over to vote for Obama; 8% of Democrats cross over to vote for McCain; Independents break for Obama by 9 points."
Just one question to ponder. Why is it that 95%+ (a much higer percentage than has voted republican in previous presidential elections)of the African American voters have indcated that they are going to vote for Obama and that is not considered racist.
I hope we are too racist to elect Obama 
I'm with you. I don't care what we are "too" of as long as he doesn't get elected.
was written to target the white guilt factor in this country.
Sorry, but I don't feel guilty, and I will not vote for him because he is not qualified. Period the end.
I agree and he is a socialist as well .But if others vote for racist reasons I really do not give a damn as long as Obama is not electd.
Sorry if this was raised before, but I didn't have the patience to go through such a long tread.
In any event, Republicans would not vote for a Democrat regardless of color. If a black, white, pink, or green were running with Democratic ideas, the Republicans, by definition would vote against him.
Therefore, if he loses any votes, it must be from the people who otherwise would have voted for him, but won't because he is black.
The people who otherwise would have voted for him are Democrats who are voting against him only because of that reason.
Oooops. Did the pot just call the kettle - Better not finish or someone will think I am making a racist comment.