The Associated Press, found stark evidence that Mr. Obama?s race could be a problem in the general election

[LTC8K6]

"one other thing... I HATE blogs. I am going to start a blog that says all blogs are full of sh!t and maybe people will then hate all blogs too!! "

Powerline is not the source of the info, so why hate them? The line is from Obama's campaign manager. The source is NPR.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
My surprise was that you concluded that Obama doing very well in those states could be due to the fact that they are "states" where "you don't see much racism."

Of course, my follow up question has to be: could I then conclude that if we lived in a country where "you don't see much racism," then what would this primary race look like?

I think the bigger question is this...

White people who don't interact with blacks have no problem voting for a black.
White (at least some) people who do interact with blacks have a problem voting for a black.

Why is that?

Let's answer my question first: If we lived in a country where "you don't see much racism," (e.g. filled with states like IA, ME, VT, and ND) then what would this primary race look like?

I've never thought of NJ, NY, Mass, CA, or FL as particularly racist states.

So, besides the fact that Obama did extremely well in them and besides the fact that they're very White, what else do IA, ME, VT, and ND, (and ID, UT, and WY for that matter) have in common?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
My surprise was that you concluded that Obama doing very well in those states could be due to the fact that they are "states" where "you don't see much racism."

Of course, my follow up question has to be: could I then conclude that if we lived in a country where "you don't see much racism," then what would this primary race look like?

I think the bigger question is this...

White people who don't interact with blacks have no problem voting for a black.
White (at least some) people who do interact with blacks have a problem voting for a black.

Why is that?

Let's answer my question first: If we lived in a country where "you don't see much racism," (e.g. filled with states like IA, ME, VT, and ND) then what would this primary race look like?

I've never thought of NJ, NY, Mass, CA, or FL as particularly racist states.

So, besides the fact that Obama did extremely well in them and besides the fact that they're very White, what else do IA, ME, VT, and ND, (and ID, UT, and WY for that matter) have in common?

they held undemocratic caucuses?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
My surprise was that you concluded that Obama doing very well in those states could be due to the fact that they are "states" where "you don't see much racism."

Of course, my follow up question has to be: could I then conclude that if we lived in a country where "you don't see much racism," then what would this primary race look like?

I think the bigger question is this...

White people who don't interact with blacks have no problem voting for a black.
White (at least some) people who do interact with blacks have a problem voting for a black.

Why is that?

Let's answer my question first: If we lived in a country where "you don't see much racism," (e.g. filled with states like IA, ME, VT, and ND) then what would this primary race look like?

I've never thought of NJ, NY, Mass, CA, or FL as particularly racist states.

So, besides the fact that Obama did extremely well in them and besides the fact that they're very White, what else do IA, ME, VT, and ND, (and ID, UT, and WY for that matter) have in common?

they held undemocratic caucuses?

Ha ha. But NV's caucuses were very democratic

Fair enough. The Whitest states that didn't hold fascist caucuses were, in order, Vermont, Utah, and Wisconsin. Obama won those by 20%, 18%, and 17%, respectively.

Off topic, perhaps the oddest bit of correlative info that I got from surfing the net for this data is that the less Black a state is, the more likely it is to hold caucuses

 

[nageov3t]

Ha ha. But NV's caucuses were very democratic

it's true, only states where Hillary won qualify as democratic

 

[Ronstang]

I could have told you that race was an issue a long time ago. My girlfriend's parents are from Mass. and very staunch Democrats. So much so they work for the party doing all sorts of things all the time. They told me when all this Obamadramarama started that neither them nor any of their friends (lifelong Dems) would vote for a Black man for president. They will all vote for McCain. I am talking about people that have been diehard Democrats longer than just about anyone on this board has been alive. The old people still have a lot of clout. They have most of the money and they ALWAYS vote. All it takes is a few misspoken words from Obama and more of this Reverend Wright drama and his support will slowly erode even further.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...es2/2008/04/020367.php

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years."

Guess they really don't need "us".

Axelrod is responding to a question of how Clinton receives more of the working class votes than Obama. His response was that historically, the working class, blue collar workers have had a Republican leaning stance since the Clinton days thus challenging the idea that blue collar workers will storm heavily to Clinton's side in a general election against a Republican and not a fellow Democrat. There's a huge distinction between what was said and what you're implying. Nowhere did he say that Obama is not going to push to include the blue collar working class but that historically, they have not voted for Democrats. Do you people view everything through a I hate Obama filter?

Edit:
I should add that that is most likely why people like OrByte have criticisms of blogs. They take snippets of information without context and then make a judgment of the situation to bias their readers. Blogs in general have this problem just like Op-Eds.

 

[lopri]

There are people who won't vote for a black and there are people who won't vote for a woman, and that's why Hillary has been so determined to look 'tough' from the beginning (commander-in-chief) and that's why Barack has been trying so hard to look 'transcendent'. I for one would be in heaven if the competition between the two were a general election.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...es2/2008/04/020367.php

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years."

Guess they really don't need "us".

Axelrod is responding to a question of how Clinton receives more of the working class votes than Obama. His response was that historically, the working class, blue collar workers have had a Republican leaning stance since the Clinton days thus challenging the idea that blue collar workers will storm heavily to Clinton's side in a general election against a Republican and not a fellow Democrat. There's a huge distinction between what was said and what you're implying. Nowhere did he say that Obama is not going to push to include the blue collar working class but that historically, they have not voted for Democrats. Do you people view everything through a I hate Obama filter?

Edit:
I should add that that is most likely why people like OrByte have criticisms of blogs. They take snippets of information without context and then make a judgment of the situation to bias their readers. Blogs in general have this problem just like Op-Eds.

these blue-collar working class voters are called Reagan Democrats. Reagan won them over. Bill Clinton won enough of them to win. Axelrod just in essence said they can win without them. Remember that Obama at his SF fundraiser was talking about why he wasn't winning the working class voters in small towns in PA and across the country. His answer was because they are bitter so they cling to their guns or their religion. This is not the new politics of hope and change (TM).

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

these blue-collar working class voters are called Reagan Democrats. Reagan won them over. Bill Clinton won enough of them to win. Axelrod just in essence said they can win without them. Remember that Obama at his SF fundraiser was talking about why he wasn't winning the working class voters in small towns in PA and across the country. His answer was because they are bitter so they cling to their guns or their religion. This is not the new politics of hope and change (TM).

I think you should re-read the entire speech. He said that blue collar workers have watched as the political process has pushed many of them to near financial collapse. They feel that they have no say in the government because of all the false promises they have heard in the past. Then Obama goes on to say that him being a new face to politics and also a black man makes it even harder to believe that he's out to support the blue collar workers and that's why he has a hard time with that demographic. He continues on to say that those same people have become bitter about the political process and have decided to cling to things that they feel they have a direct connection with which are issues with guns, religion, etc. Those workers do not feel that they have much of a say when it comes to larger scale issues like the economy, the war, etc.

This entire statement by Axelrod does not show that the Obama campaign doesn't care for those votes or those people but that historically, it's difficult to win over that grouping of people for a Democrat, not to mention a black Democrat who doesn't have goodwill attached to his last name. Like I said, you're taking the question out of context as it was addressing Steve Inskeep's question of why the fact that Clinton can draw more blue collar workers in a Democrat versus Democrat primary is not as pervasive as the Clinton campaign wants to make it seem because when the general election comes around, it's not going to be Democrat versus Democrat but Democrat versus an arguably maverick of a Republican.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ why so surprised? Is it because you have never lived in a state like that?

Let's look at murder rates per 100,000 people in 2005

Iowa 1.3
Maine 1.4
Vermont 1.3
North Dakota 1.1

Now the worse states:
Louisiana 9.9 64% white 33% black
Maryland 9.9 65% white 30% black
Nevada 8.5 84% white 8% black
Alabama 8.2 72% white 26% black

Let's also look at some countries with the low murder rates and and then see how diverse they are.
Japan 99.4% Japanese
Hong Kong 94.9% Chinese
Greece 98% Greek (they don't track ethnic make up)
Norway: 95+% are either Norwegian or from other European countries. (no racial stats)
Denmark 91% Danish
Germany 91% German about 7% non-European

There certainly seems to be a correlation between how homogenous a population is and how violent the people within it are.
This shouldn't be a surprise since nearly every war ever fought had some component of religious or ethnic differences as justification.

:roll: Most murder is within race; whites killing whites and blacks killing blacks: people killing who they know and associate with.

The distinguishing factor in the bad states you list is impoverished areas.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
My surprise was that you concluded that Obama doing very well in those states could be due to the fact that they are "states" where "you don't see much racism."

Of course, my follow up question has to be: could I then conclude that if we lived in a country where "you don't see much racism," then what would this primary race look like?

I think the bigger question is this...

White people who don't interact with blacks have no problem voting for a black.
White (at least some) people who do interact with blacks have a problem voting for a black.

Why is that?

if all the blacks u deal with are on primetime tv comedies, u rn't afraid of blacks... they r cute and funny and non-threatening... or if they are suburban, achieving blacks who's yards look nicer than yours u rn't afraid of them...

the more blacks u bump into means the better chance that u bump into poor and/or obnoxious (gangsta wannabe or al sharpton) ones... these types just plain bother us honkies, dem or republican... the difference between the dems and republicans is like the north and the south: the north practices polite, undercover racism and the south is just more straight up about it...