Race race?

[dr_mabeuse]

Heard a report that said the majority of white democratic voters in South Carolina favor Hilary while the majority of African American voters favor Obama, but if you ask them, both groups say it's not a question of race.

Question: if they don't recognize this as a racial issue, is this a racial issue?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Doc, as far as I have been able to follow the events over the past month, yes, this is a race race. Hilary Clinton does appeal to women voters, although she hasn't played that card as yet. Women simply tend to follow her rather than Obama.

Obama, on the other hand, has been playing the race card from the beginning, gathering Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfre and other well know blacks around him. Then twisting the statements of both Hilary and Bill Clinton to sound racist just to further his point.

Obama is inexperienced and ignorant of the American electoral process. I doubt he will survive long after losing in Carolina.

 

[Pure]

from the baltimore sun,

Zogby poll: Obama still holds big SC lead
by Frank James

After New Hampshire, we're all more skeptical about polls although it should be said in their defense that they more often than not do a good job of predicting in which direction a political race is headed.

Given that disclaimer, there's a new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll that suggests John Edwards helped himself somewhat with his performance Monday night in the Democratic presidential candidates' debate and that Sen. Barack Obama is showing a little slippage while Sen. Hillary Clinton appears to be flat.

Here's what the Zogby polling outfit reports. Keep in mind the margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent:


Utica, NY – Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s lead over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has shrunk by four points overall and by nine points among black voters, during the last 24 hours of polling, but he retains a sizable edge, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby survey shows.

The telephone tracking poll taken Jan. 21-23 shows Obama with 39% support from likely Democratic voters, compared to Clinton’s 24% support. The three-day daily tracking survey included 811 likely Democratic primary voters across South Carolina and carries a margin of error of +/-3.4 percentage points. In yesterday's tracking poll, Obama had 43% support to Clinton’s 25%.


So according to this poll, Obama still has a substantial lead in South Carolina of around 15 percentage points.


Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards still trails, but has gained four points and now has support from 19% of likely voters.

Obama still has a healthy lead among African American voters, but lost almost nine points since yesterday, dropping from 65% to 56% support among that group. Edwards, who registered no support from black voters the day before, picked up five points and Clinton added about two points to reach 18% of black support. Nearly one in five - 19% - of black voters said they were not sure for whom they would vote, which was up a point from the day before.


Obama lost nine points in one day with black voters? What's up with that? What changed on the ground in South Carolina that would cause that kind of volatility in a group that has been trending strongly towards him? Former Bill Clinton is good but is he that good? That nine percent drop seems fishy.

In the explanation of their methodology, the pollsters do say that the margin of error in the subgroups is larger than 3.4 percent. This nine percent shift may be an example of that. The Zogby press release continiues:


Obama, meanwhile, made gains among male voters, attracting 50% support, up from 42% the day before. Clinton held steady at 19% of male support, while Edwards leapt ahead of her, attracting 23% of male support, up from just 15% the day before. Obama continued to outdo Clinton among women, with 36% backing him to Clinton’s 29%.

The Illinois senator also had a slim lead over Clinton among voters over age 65, drawing 30% of their support, compared to Clinton’s 28%. Senior citizens and women have been groups that preferred Clinton in Nevada and New Hampshire. Obama continued dominate among the youngest voters, getting 42% of their number to Clinton’s 14%. Edwards beat Clinton in this category as well, taking the support of 25%.


If Obama is leading Clinton among women and over 65 voters in South Carolina, that has to be black voters producing those leads since in South Carolina, they make up 50 percent or more of the Democratic electorate.

As the Zogby summary indicates, Clinton crushed Obama in those categories in New Hampshire and Nevada and that may turn out to be the pattern in Feb 5 primary states with black populations that comprise a smaller part of Democratic voters than they do in South Carolina.

That's the challenge facing Obama in future states. But right now he appears to be holding on in South Carolina. If you believe the poll, that is.

Posted by Frank James on January 24, 2008 10:33 AM | Permalink

 

[gauchecritic]

Can somebody explain that? Why do you do that? Have public infighting and mauling between candidates of the same party?

It's just showing yourselves up. It's giving the real opposition more weaponry.

I'm assuming that these aren't actual elections involving the entire public, so why do the parties allow it to happen so publicly?

Yes I know, media and money, but the end result tends to be indifference rather than confidence. When you have public winners you also have public losers. How does that instil any confidence in the electorate?

Why do you do it? why?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Can somebody explain that? Why do you do that? Have public infighting and mauling between candidates of the same party?

It's just showing yourselves up. It's giving the real opposition more weaponry.

I'm assuming that these aren't actual elections involving the entire public, so why do the parties allow it to happen so publicly?

Yes I know, media and money, but the end result tends to be indifference rather than confidence. When you have public winners you also have public losers. How does that instil any confidence in the electorate?

Why do you do it? why?

It's the way things are done, even though it is destructive in the long run. In order to reach the general election, a candidate must win the nomination, and some of them go all out to do so. If one candidate has a commanding lead, and that candidate's opponents know they aren't going to win, but want the exposure, they will campaign wearing kid gloves.

I would be very distrustful of polls regarding race and gender. Almost nobody wants to be thought of as a bigot. A voter might say he or she is voting for Obama but, in the privacy of the voting booth, decide "I ain't votin' for no n----r." That same voter might state the intention to vote for Rodham-Clinton, but think later, "I ain't gonna vote for that dumb broad."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lincoln was quite impressive in his debates with Stephen Douglas. Very clear, direct, and articulate in his responses. He was an illiterate buffoon from the sticks, not a Yale law school grad.

Hillary can do better. Obama can do better. Edwards, I dont know.

It's sad that American candidates cannot be honest about their real intentions in office, and its worse that voters relish the shit candidates serve tepid and aromatic.

If this is the best the Democrats and Republicans have to offer, we're fucked.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Lincoln was quite impressive in his debates with Stephen Douglas. Very clear, direct, and articulate in his responses. He was an illiterate buffoon from the sticks, not a Yale law school grad.

Hillary can do better. Obama can do better. Edwards, I dont know.

It's sad that American candidates cannot be honest about their real intentions in office, and its worse that voters relish the shit candidates serve tepid and aromatic.

If this is the best the Democrats and Republicans have to offer, we're fucked.

Lincoln had little formal education, but he was hardly illiterate. He was a lawyer, and had to be able to read law books and write briefs. He was somewhat from the sticks, though, although he had been a member of Congress.

Being an illiterate buffoon and a member of Congress are not mutually exclusive.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

You know what I meant. We wouldnt give him the time of day in 2008.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

'People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason.'
Christopher Hitchens

 

[cloudy]

I think a lot of people would like to make it about race: its easier and requires less thought to dismiss someone because of their skin color than to actually think about each candidate, and their strengths and weaknesses.

It's not about race or gender to me at all...they are who they are.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CLOUDY

People confuse race with ethnocentricity. No one seriously believes one race is better than another, but almost everyone believes their clan or tribe is the best.

African-Americans are nothing like Nigerians or Liberians or Bahamians.

I'm Virginian-Scots and assume I'm better than everyone....especially the Johnny-Come-Lately Puritans who arrived 13 years after my ancestors settled in Virginia. God, of course, is a WASP. What else would he be?

 

[cantdog]

The punditry is going to scout for race angles and gender angles. That's all they care about, really.

I'm already losing interest. I want a brokered convention.

 

[SeaCat]

I have been having a hard time with the political race. Mainly because of what I think is important and what the media and the candidates think are important.

I want to know how they feel about things like the war in Iraq. How they feel about Universal Healthcare. Crime and punishment. Alternative Energy. Welfare.

I could care less about how any girl or boyfriends thay have had. Their dietary likes and dislikes don't matter to me. Their race and gender don't matter a whit to me.

The political mudslinging is disgusting.

I would love to have the candidates come down here for a hometown debate.

Lets start it with a little cook out. Let me cook up a mess of Mudbugs and some grilled Gator Tail. (If you know my style of cooking you know they would be sweating by the end of the meal.)

Then we'll strip them to their skin and toss them in a mudbog and let them wrestle for a bit. The winner of the wrestling gets to lead off the televised debate. (Unwashed of course.)

Let them each answer the questions of the crowd, none of it scripted. (Anyone found to be asking questions they are fed are to be tossed into the mud.)

Hose the candidates off then give them some strong drink. Give them some Cajun Food so spicy it makes them sweat. Then ask them the same questions. Make the candidates deal with the same conditions their voters deal with. Make them deal with what is important.

Do you as a working American give a shit about who's family had slaves in 1700, or do you give a shit about who is going to raise your taxes? Do you give a shit about who smoked dope in college or do you worry about who is receiving your tax money?

Cat

 

[cloudy]

I'd give anything to be able to go to one of those "town meetings" and ask them a few questions. I've not heard a single one address any native issues at all, not even gaming.

We're invisible.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

They wont answer the questions, or youre evicted from the forum for asking.

And they wont answer the questions because they have no solutions and you wont like the answers they have.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

CLOUDY

People confuse race with ethnocentricity. No one seriously believes one race is better than another, but almost everyone believes their clan or tribe is the best.

African-Americans are nothing like Nigerians or Liberians or Bahamians.

I'm Virginian-Scots and assume I'm better than everyone....especially the Johnny-Come-Lately Puritans who arrived 13 years after my ancestors settled in Virginia. God, of course, is a WASP. What else would he be?

This is exactly right. Racism never was about skin color; it was about culture, the way people act, and this culturocentrism fades into classism and sexism and religionism and hairstylism and speechism and those are the isms upon which we elect a president.

I'd imagine the 'ism' voters outnumber the policy voters by something like 3 to 1,

 

[cantdog]

And, nothing is gonna make 'em tell you in some poll that they are voting on racist grounds, whether they are or not.

For once, it'd be nice to see people actually vote to support their own best interest. But they think the election is the same idea as the super bowl. Most of the story about it in the news is about 'electibility.' Did you back the guy who won?

We aren't having the Belmont Stakes, but an election. You don't pick the winner, you choose the leader of the country.

It's actually supposed to use different criteria than electibility.

 

[rgraham666]

And, nothing is gonna make 'em tell you in some poll that they are voting on racist grounds, whether they are or not.

For once, it'd be nice to see people actually vote to support their own best interest. But they think the election is the same idea as the super bowl. Most of the story about it in the news is about 'electibility.' Did you back the guy who won?

We aren't having the Belmont Stakes, but an election. You don't pick the winner, you choose the leader of the country.

It's actually supposed to use different criteria than electibility.

But, but, that's so complicated!

I'd have to know about and study things like history, and economics, and political science, and philosophy. It would make my tiny brain hurt.

So much easier to elect someone on how they look and sound.

 

[cantdog]

Well, how they look and sound might be relevant, in a small way. To the extent that a President must be a diplomat.

Do you imagine they chose Bush for how he sounded? Bush? Really? Or his looks?

 

[cantdog]

Nah, it comes down to resonance with one's prejudices, mostly. But there's also this thing with picking the winner.

We are over-identifying with the media. It is important to a television network to be able to pick a winner, arguably. They use computers to project them, they support polling organizations. But that is the network, the papers. For the electorate, all that is completely beside the point, yannow.

Really. As a citizen, or as a voter, you shouldn't let that sort of poppycock distract you from the task at hand.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And, nothing is gonna make 'em tell you in some poll that they are voting on racist grounds, whether they are or not.

For once, it'd be nice to see people actually vote to support their own best interest. But they think the election is the same idea as the super bowl. Most of the story about it in the news is about 'electibility.' Did you back the guy who won?

We aren't having the Belmont Stakes, but an election. You don't pick the winner, you choose the leader of the country.

It's actually supposed to use different criteria than electibility.

It isn't picking a winner it's picking somebody who can beat the other candidates. A Rep. might look at the Dems and say: "Omigod, Obama and Clinton! Two disasters! Huckabee is the best, and I wanna vote for him, but I don't think he can beat either of those two. McCain can, though, so I'll vote for him."

In other words, vote for somebody who can beat the terrible choice the other party is going to make.

That's an example, by the way. From what he has said, I think of Huckleberry as being an American Taliban. I will vote for ANYBODY in preference to him.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

It isn't picking a winner it's picking somebody who can beat the other candidates. A Rep. might look at the Dems and say: "Omigod, Obama and Clinton! Two disasters! Huckabee is the best, and I wanna vote for him, but I don't think he can beat either of those two. McCain can, though, so I'll vote for him."

In other words, vote for somebody who can beat the terrible choice the other party is going to make.

That's an example, by the way. From what he has said, I think of Huckleberry as being an American Taliban. I will vote for ANYBODY in preference to him.

Now why in the world couldn't we have done that against Dubya??

 

[neonlyte]

Now why in the world couldn't we have done that against Dubya??

In Florida, they voted for Hanging Chad... they still got Dubya?

Voting for the least worse based upon colour or sex, and occasionally, politics, sounds like 'first past the post' democracy has had it's day. If you gonna choose according the non-political ideology, adopt the single transferable vote system so the merely mediocre can rise to the top.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Now why in the world couldn't we have done that against Dubya??

Both parties do the same kind of thing - nominating somebody who has no chance, and losing to someone who should have been easily beaten. Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972 and Kerry in 2004, and probably some others. Dukakis in 1984, but I doubt that anybody could have beaten Reagan that year.

 

[cantdog]

In Florida, they voted for Hanging Chad... they still got Dubya?

Voting for the least worse based upon colour or sex, and occasionally, politics, sounds like 'first past the post' democracy has had it's day. If you gonna choose according the non-political ideology, adopt the single transferable vote system so the merely mediocre can rise to the top.

This is so frustrating. We don't vote on issues, or a platform of issues. The horse race system places the vote on a personality. The candidates avoid a platform and duck issues, in order not to alienate anyone. (Huckabee has a platform, God wot, but it's every bit the nightmare Box says it is.) This makes the parties unresponsive, disenfranchises the center, opens the field for the corporations and lobbies. No one is interested in running a country, or at least, not enough to tell us what they might have in mind to do.