Look, my friends, this is the new POLITICS THREAD

by **Monkeyboy** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 02:15:16

Good post, swish. I grew up in central PA, where that sort of attitude is pretty common, including among members of my own family. What I hear again and again from people is that they just don't like Obama, but they're not sure why.... they "just can't put their finger on it." I've heard that phrase waaaayyyyyy too many times when describing Obama. But I agree these aren't bad people. It's an attitude that you grow up with. I think it's getting better though.

For my part, I don't think this election is over by any stretch, partly for the reasons already discussed and partly for other reasons. I would be surprised if the GOP doesn't have another trick or two remaining in their bag. I also wouldn't dismiss the possibility that terrorists will try to influence the election. McCain's angry rhetoric might appeal to the public if we're attacked again. And call me crazy, but it's hard to trust voting machines with no paper trail. Put it all together and I won't feel good until Obama has the 270.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 04:07:19

Monkeyboy wrote:Good post, swish. I grew up in central PA, where that sort of attitude is pretty common, including among members of my own family. What I hear again and again from people is that they just don't like Obama, but they're not sure why.... they "just can't put their finger on it." I've heard that phrase waaaayyyyyy too many times when describing Obama. But I agree these aren't bad people. It's an attitude that you grow up with. I think it's getting better though.

The "can't put their finger on it" thing isn't necessarily about race for some (or perhaps many) people. This excerpt from an article by a Cornell law professor might explain why some people may have some trepidations regarding Obama...

Barack Obama also reminds me of many lawyers I have dealt with in my career. He's the smooth talking lawyer on TV who will get you "the settlement you deserve." But he has no credibility where it counts because he hasn't beaten the insurance companies at trial. He is a paper lawyer who fools only his own clients. So Barack Obama can promise "tough diplomacy" with the likes of Iran, but he hasn't fought the tough fights that would cause dictators and tyrants to take him seriously.

Barack Obama also is the deep thinker who ponders great things. And the thing that Barack Obama seems to ponder most is his own greatness. He doesn't write biographies, he writes only autobiographies. He gives speeches which he declares to be historic. He recognizes his place in history long before he has created history. This nation is but a stage upon which Barack Obama creates his life story, and it's all about him.

Yet Barack Obama has never been in one place long enough to make a real difference, or to fight the hard fights. He was a community activist for a few years, then a law student, then in private practice for not too long, then a state senator for not too long, then a United States Senator for not too long. The paint was barely dry in his Senate office when he began running for President. Barack Obama's career is a series of not-too-long positions, each one more grand than the one before it.

Yet what great achievement has Barack Obama obtained other than his own political advancement? What historic law did he author, what historic court case did he argue, what historic battle did he fight, what cause greater than himself warranted more than a passing interest in his historic life? If my life were on the line, I wouldn't hire Barack Obama as my lawyer. I'd be concerned that he'd be up late at night working on a draft of his book about how my case affected his life.

This is obviously the author's opinion. The impression the author has of Obama. But perhaps this might addresses that "something" that some people "can't put their finger on". Perhaps some of these people get a sense that Obama has some degree of narcissism. Whether he actually does, dunno. But he might give such an impression to some people, hence their trepidations.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 08:06:12

FTN wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:Where has there been any evidence of racism influencing a poll in 2008?

No one answers polls honestly.

If you ask a racist person "did race impact your vote", do you expect to get an honest answer?

There was no evidence of any Bradley effect in the Democrat primaries, the pre-polls came clean when compared to the outcome. Until the election, that's the closest one can come to discovering the effect and it didn't present.

by **Woody** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 08:11:28

Heard on the way into work this morning that Michael Smerconish is voting for Obama. Son of a bitch traitor.

"I’ve decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates’ memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.

"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I’m voting for a Democrat for president.

...

"Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it’s the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and, instead, invaded Iraq.

"No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.

"Last spring, Obama told me, 'It’s not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It’s that I felt we had a war that we had not finished.' Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me just last Friday that 'the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today,' is the FATA."

Smerconish is taking a lot of heat from his fellow GOPers, as one might imagine.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 08:18:35

swishnicholson wrote:I feel so hopelessly out of touch. In my experience I have come across plenty of people who could never imagine voting for a black person for president. And I don't mean virulent racists and I certainly don't mean republicans. I mean people for whom blacks are always the "other", who fear them or have left the city and blame them or simply see them as somehow different and something to be wary of. These people I can easily see being swayed by arguments that Obama is somehow dangerous or mysterious, if they needed to be swayed at all.

I have to agree with this. I know it's impossible

but the most racist people I know are Democrats (considering where I live, most people I know are Democrats so I'm not claiming any universal pattern here). I've wondered quite often if these folks will vote for Obama. My guess at this point is that they won't vote at all, it seems unlikely to me that they will go so far as to vote for McCain in order to keep Obama from winning. It won't keep Obama from winning a state like NJ though.

swishnicholson wrote:I'm sure you can come back and say what about all the people who will vote for Obama simply because he is black. My thought would be that virtually all of of the people who could be swayed by this reason would have voted Democratic anyway, with maybe a few Green party guys tossed in.

I wouldn't make the "because he is black argument", exactly for the reasons you state. Even if there are folks who register and come out to vote because he is black, I don't hold it against them or even feel critical about it - new voters or a return from disaffected voters is a good thing.

swishnicholson wrote:However, many, though certainly not all who might be hesitant to select Obama due to race are part of a traditional democratic base. And yes I can see it as quite likely they would respond one way to a pollster and a different way in the privacy of a polling booth.

I've met, worked with, known well, plenty of people like this over the course of my life, many of them decent people in other ways, but also happy to dismiss, fear or ridicule blacks and bear with them at all times a constant if low-level "suburban" racism(by which I mean the tenor of the attitude, not a geographical location). Obama may very well have won some of these people over, but there's no way I can see that it is not an issue.

Back to my original point though, this hasn't played out yet. There's no evidence if this happening in any of the primary elections.

This does actually hone a missed point in discussions of the Bradley Effect though. People lying to pollsters saying they're going to vote for the black dude... why on Earth would they do this? Isn't the only reason to do this embarassment or fear of being called a racist? If I understand correctly, that's the evaluation and point of the Bradley Effect.

Not that these people are racists, but that they fear being accused of being a racist.

There's a big difference between those two points.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 08:19:05

Woody wrote:Heard on the way into work this morning that Michael Smerconish is voting for Obama. Son of a bitch traitor.

"I’ve decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates’ memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.

"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I’m voting for a Democrat for president.

...

"Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it’s the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and, instead, invaded Iraq.

"No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.

"Last spring, Obama told me, 'It’s not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It’s that I felt we had a war that we had not finished.' Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me just last Friday that 'the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today,' is the FATA."

Smerconish is taking a lot of heat from his fellow GOPers, as one might imagine.

He's lining up for one of the Fairness Doctrine slots opposite Limbaugh.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 08:22:00

Monkeyboy wrote:And call me crazy, but it's hard to trust voting machines with no paper trail. Put it all together and I won't feel good until Obama has the 270.

I was thinking about this. The paranoids who really believe Diebold is deciding elections will have a lot of fiction to write of Obama wins.

by **Woody** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 08:22:49

Ha. He took a caller that basically accused him of that. He countered it quite well and said if he wanted to boost his career all he'd have to do is start acting like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 09:14:06

On the reverse Bradley effect--the speculation (and it's nothing more than that) is that in many communities, the fear is that by supporting Obama, they will be somehow ostracized by their communities. That is, there is a sense of, "I'm voting for the black guy, but don't tell my neighbors or relatvies, because they're so racist."

Moreover, around these parts, lots of preachers are saying vote McCain, and there is some speculation (again, that's all it is) that people are not willing to publicly defy their pastor but intend to vote Obama.

A lot of people are conflating two things--whether race is a factor in the election, which it most certainly is and the Bradley effect, which is that polling overstates support for the black candidate. There is no systematic evidence for this Bradley effect.

by **pacino** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 09:17:50

Wow, Glen Beck is terrible. This guy makes millions, most likely. I'm depressed now.

by **stevemc** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 09:33:10

TenuredVulture wrote:On the reverse Bradley effect--the speculation (and it's nothing more than that) is that in many communities, the fear is that by supporting Obama, they will be somehow ostracized by their communities. That is, there is a sense of, "I'm voting for the black guy, but don't tell my neighbors or relatvies, because they're so racist."

Moreover, around these parts, lots of preachers are saying vote McCain, and there is some speculation (again, that's all it is) that people are not willing to publicly defy their pastor but intend to vote Obama.

A lot of people are conflating two things--whether race is a factor in the election, which it most certainly is and the Bradley effect, which is that polling overstates support for the black candidate. There is no systematic evidence for this Bradley effect.

I have been seeing the same. I know several people who in public will avoid political talk because they have been long time Republicans and don't want the ridicule that accompanies their "traitor" ways but they will vote Obama.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 09:46:11

stevemc wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:On the reverse Bradley effect--the speculation (and it's nothing more than that) is that in many communities, the fear is that by supporting Obama, they will be somehow ostracized by their communities. That is, there is a sense of, "I'm voting for the black guy, but don't tell my neighbors or relatvies, because they're so racist."

Moreover, around these parts, lots of preachers are saying vote McCain, and there is some speculation (again, that's all it is) that people are not willing to publicly defy their pastor but intend to vote Obama.

A lot of people are conflating two things--whether race is a factor in the election, which it most certainly is and the Bradley effect, which is that polling overstates support for the black candidate. There is no systematic evidence for this Bradley effect.

I have been seeing the same. I know several people who in public will avoid political talk because they have been long time Republicans and don't want the ridicule that accompanies their "traitor" ways but they will vote Obama.

Given the response to Powell and I guess Smerconish, it seems those fears are reasonable.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 09:56:27

Woody wrote:Ha. He took a caller that basically accused him of that. He countered it quite well and said if he wanted to boost his career all he'd have to do is start acting like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity.

Right, cause that worked so well for him when he tried.

I'm biased though, I've always hated Smirconish and it has nothing to do with Obama. You can only chomp on so many cigars, wear so many leather dusters, and have lifts so high before you're a complete and total joke. Plus he has a voice for local radio.

by **Woody** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 09:57:42

at least you're not bitter :lol:

i find him to be the only one that's listenable on that station

by **dajafi** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:01:43

VoxOrion wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:And call me crazy, but it's hard to trust voting machines with no paper trail. Put it all together and I won't feel good until Obama has the 270.

I was thinking about this. The paranoids who really believe Diebold is deciding elections will have a lot of fiction to write of Obama wins.

What a whiny hack you've become. Pretty much every post of yours in this thread lately.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:59:51

dajafi wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:And call me crazy, but it's hard to trust voting machines with no paper trail. Put it all together and I won't feel good until Obama has the 270.

I was thinking about this. The paranoids who really believe Diebold is deciding elections will have a lot of fiction to write of Obama wins.

What a whiny hack you've become. Pretty much every post of yours in this thread lately.

What are you talking about? I spent like 10 minutes responding to swish this morning.

by **Philly the Kid** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 13:05:29

mpmcgraw wrote: I am wrong as usual.

by **phdave** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 13:31:17

Factcheck.org evaluates the ACORN situation. I skimmed through it but it looks like their conclusion is that the claims about ACORN's activities leading to voter fraud are incorrect. They also say that Obama did not discuss all of his indirect connections with ACORN when asked about his relationship with ACORN. It seemed like all of the instances of Obama not giving all of the details are because he had a relationship with an organization affiliated with ACORN. But I guess if the conclusion is that ACORN is not connected with voter fraud to begin with, what is the big deal?

by **BuddyGroom** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 15:51:07

Talking Points Memo's aggregate of the national polling available on the presidential race has Obama ahead 6.4%. That may be a bit of narrowing but that's still quite substantial. I believe the percentage breakdown was Obama 50.1, McCain 43.7.

by **Rev_Beezer** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 16:18:25

TenuredVulture wrote:
Moreover, around these parts, lots of preachers are saying vote McCain, and there is some speculation (again, that's all it is) that people are not willing to publicly defy their pastor but intend to vote Obama.

Those preachers/pastors know that they're putting their church's tax-free status at risk, don't they?

Archived

Look, my friends, this is the new POLITICS THREAD