quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 substantiate that in the general election obama will get republicans, as well as more independents than clinton. It's pure conjecture to think that his success with those groups against a fellow democrat in the democratic race will follow in the general election against a republican. in addition, i'm sure there is a large group of conservative democrats that support clinton and won't vote obama for the simple reason that he is black. whether we like it or not race is a relevant issue for many people.

As I've said before, you have a choice between voting in the Democratic primary and the Republican primary. Up to and including Super Tuesday, both primaries were contested, and yet a greater number of independents voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary - those voters in greater numbers voted for Obama. They had a choice between voting for a Republican candidate or a Democratic candidate. Whether they vote for Hillary or for McCain is unknown, but it stands to reason that is a choice on an individual level and cannot be generalized as group behavior.

quote:

how exactly are you supposed to support that sort of statement? that's a real world observation that many people who live in these communities can see. People usually don't volunteer their prejudices for a college paper. In the real world people hate people and don't make it obvious for outsiders to monitor. if you don't think that there is a general discontent between the black community and the Hispanic community then you are delusional. perhaps your childhood in white Minnesota didn't expose you to that reality.

Sigh. See the article posted above.

To say that one ethnic group hates another ethnic group is painting with a pretty broad brush - and one that there is nothing but your own anecdotal observation to support. Obama won the Latino vote in Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois (before you naysay Illinois, perhaps you should think about discounting New York's results as well). For crying out loud, Hillary won the majority of blacks in New York and nearly in New Jersey as well - to think that it is a racial issue and not simply voting for the better known candidate... now that is delusional.

Also - you obviously don't know anything about my childhood. I won't make any blind inferences about yours.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov As I've said before, you have a choice between voting in the Democratic primary and the Republican primary. Up to and including Super Tuesday, both primaries were contested, and yet a greater number of independents voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary - those voters in greater numbers voted for Obama. They had a choice between voting for a Republican candidate or a Democratic candidate. Whether they vote for Hillary or for McCain is unknown, but it stands to reason that is a choice on an individual level and cannot be generalized as group behavior.

So how does that translate into independents not voting for hillary if obama loses? You claimed that obama means + republicans + independents, and hillary means + no republicans and + a few independents. while i can understand the theory, it doesn't necessarily translate. if you're going to call me out on an unsubstantiated claim then perhaps you should substantiate your claims.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Sigh. See the article posted above. To say that one ethnic group hates another ethnic group is painting with a pretty broad brush - and one that there is nothing but your own anecdotal observation to support. Obama won the Latino vote in Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois (before you naysay Illinois, perhaps you should think about discounting New York's results as well). For crying out loud, Hillary won the majority of blacks in New York and nearly in New Jersey as well - to think that it is a racial issue and not simply voting for the better known candidate... now that is delusional.

as for the article, i wasn't talking about the election (while i know this is an election thread). I was making a general statement that is based on personal observation. You can read all the washington post articles and new york times articles you want, but it won't give you a feel for what relations are like in the real world.

as for the election, clearly it is not entirely a racial issue or obama wouldn't be winning. but i'm sure in some way a republican will make it a racial issue, most likely with the rev wright stuff. There are certainly many Americans who still think on a racial level, and they will vote that way. Just because the media doesn't want to be politically incorrect and talk about race doesn't mean certain Americans discount race. If race was irrelevant then we would have more black and Hispanic people in power today.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Also - you obviously don't know anything about my childhood. I won't make any blind inferences about yours.

it wasn't really blind: Minnesota had 92% white population in 2000, which was probably higher before. The hispanic population was only 2.something% in 2000. It is highly probable that you didn't grow up in a neighborhood that was ethnically diverse. i'm just playing the statistics here.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 So how does that translate into independents not voting for hillary if obama loses? You claimed that obama means + republicans + independents, and hillary means + no republicans and + a few independents. while i can understand the theory, it doesn't necessarily translate. if you're going to call me out on an unsubstantiated claim then perhaps you should substantiate your claims.

Because prior to the Feb. 12 primaries (while there was a feasible choice between Republican and Democratic primaries), independents and republicans were voting for Obama, not Hillary. I didn't say they will all go back to McCain - only that a larger proportion will vote for Obama than for Hillary.

quote:

as for the article, i wasn't talking about the election (while i know this is an election thread). I was making a general statement that is based on personal observation. You can read all the washington post articles and new york times articles you want, but it won't give you a feel for what relations are like in the real world.

Good thing I used an article written by a sociologist and a political scientist and not a journalist then.

quote:

as for the election, clearly it is not entirely a racial issue or obama wouldn't be winning. but i'm sure in some way a republican will make it a racial issue, most likely with the rev wright stuff. There are certainly many Americans who still think on a racial level, and they will vote that way. Just because the media doesn't want to be politically incorrect and talk about race doesn't mean certain Americans discount race. If race was irrelevant then we would have more black and Hispanic people in power today.

For every American that thinks on a racial level, it appears that there are two that go "oh, we can't vote for the minority because someone else won't want to vote for him on the basis of race." Do you see the problem with that? Instead of losing one vote on the basis of his skin color, he suddenly loses three. And to risk being politically incorrect, I would offer that the majority of racists in this country wouldn't think about voting for a Democrat in the first place, regardless of whether it's Al Gore or Barack Obama.

quote:

it wasn't really blind: Minnesota had 92% white population in 2000, which was probably higher before. The hispanic population was only 2.something% in 2000. It is highly probable that you didn't grow up in a neighborhood that was ethnically diverse. i'm just playing the statistics here.

And as I said, you have absolutely no idea where I grew up.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I didn't say they will all go back to McCain - only that a larger proportion will vote for Obama than for Hillary.

support that! you have no idea that if obama loses those independents that supported obama wouldn't support hillary. Just because they initially voted for obama doesn't preclude them from supporting clinton. You are also suggesting that they will only vote if obama wins. support that claim. If independents are mad about the way the republicans ran the country the last 8 years why wouldn't they vote for clinton (who you admitted has nearly the same stance on most issues)?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Good thing I used an article written by a sociologist and a political scientist and not a journalist then.

i'm not going to argue about the accuracy of article because it doesn't even address what i was generally referring to.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For every American that thinks on a racial level, it appears that there are two that go "oh, we can't vote for the minority because someone else won't want to vote for him on the basis of race." Do you see the problem with that? Instead of losing one vote on the basis of his skin color, he suddenly loses three. And to risk being politically incorrect, I would offer that the majority of racists in this country wouldn't think about voting for a Democrat in the first place, regardless of whether it's Al Gore or Barack Obama.

most racists in this country aren't obvious about it. i'm sure you hear these words thrown around all the time, "racially tolerant." That's exactly how people are, they just tolerate other races. I live in a very diverse community where it's just like that. People don't say they don't like black people, hispanic people, etc... But the fact is when the black kids walk down the street all eyes are on them. White people tolerate black people in my community but the idea of black people moving into my neighborhood certainly isn't accepted. That's the kind of racism there is today.

EDIT: I live in a city controlled by democrats with about 60% white people. I would say that most white people in my town are slightly racists. Also, race isn't the only issue that someone like that thinks about. That's might not be the overriding issue. Someone can be slightly racists and still be an environmentalist that believes in universal healthcare, and fair wages. Therefore, that person would be likely to vote democrat despite any racists feelings. The two thoughts aren't mutually exclusive. However, when race is thrown in the mix in the presidential race, i'm not sure which way they would go.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And as I said, you have absolutely no idea where I grew up.

you're absolutely right, but your response suggests my conclusion.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Apr-28-2008 at 16:45

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Just because they initially voted for obama doesn't preclude them from supporting clinton.

Again, that's not what I am arguing. I said that it indicates that Obama is by far and away their first choice, and stands to reason that a greater number of them will reaffirm their original vote by voting for him in the general than will vote for Hillary. If 90% of them vote for Hillary in a general, that's great. But it's not as good as 100%. Get my drift?

Dems won't break in the proportions that independents and moderate Republicans will. Why? Partisanship. I really don't understand how this point isn't blatantly obvious.

quote:

you're absolutely right, but your response suggests my conclusion.

No, actually it doesn't.

http://www.mcgillreport.org/Rochester%20Immigration.htm

In conjunction with my academic interest, I'll let you take a guess which neighborhood I grew up in.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Again, that's not what I am arguing. I said that it indicates that Obama is by far and away their first choice, and stands to reason that a greater number of them will reaffirm their original vote by voting for him in the general than will vote for Hillary. If 90% of them vote for Hillary in a general, that's great. But it's not as good as 100%. Get my drift?

in fact, yes it is. I bring you back to your original comment that started this:

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Obama = Democrats + Majority of Independents + A Few Republicans Clinton = Democrats + Minority of Independents + No Republicans Who is more electable in a general election?

if all you were saying is that obama is the first choice then you wouldn't have said Clinton = democrats + minority of independents.

Listen, i'm not trying to be difficult, and i understand your point. in fact, i don't necessarily disagree with your point. You just aren't accounting for the fact that obama will also lose votes. I honestly think that there is a large group of center leaning democrats who currently support clinton that may not support obama in the general election. You math equation doesn't account for votes that will be lost. that's my point.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Dems won't break in the proportions that independents and moderate Republicans will. Why? Partisanship. I really don't understand how this point isn't blatantly obvious.

how can you separate republicans into moderate republicans and the rest and then not do the same for democrats and conservative democrats. it's a little disingenuous to say that the democrats as an entire group won't break like a small portion of the republican party will.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov No, actually it doesn't. http://www.mcgillreport.org/Rochester%20Immigration.htm In conjunction with my academic interest, I'll let you take a guess which neighborhood I grew up in.

85.5% white....i guess that's diverse for minnesota.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Apr-28-2008 at 17:27

well my mind is made up....

quote:

Roger Waters plays `Dark Side,' unleashes giant pig By JAKE COYLE – 9 hours ago INDIO, Calif. (AP) — Roger Waters brought Coachella to a close with an epic two-set performance that included playing all of "Dark Side of the Moon" and unleashing a giant inflated pig into the night sky. The 64-year-old Waters, the third headliner of the three-day music festival following Prince and Jack Johnson, performed an elaborate, almost retrospective concert Sunday featuring music from throughout Pink Floyd's catalog. Old photographs of the band often flashed across the screen behind Waters and his current band, which played songs from "The Wall," "Wish You Were Here" and "Animals," among other Floyd albums. They also played "Dark Side" in its entirety, culminating with the album's iconic triangle prism rising above the stage. But Waters' biggest prop was an inflatable pig the size of a school bus that emerged while he played a version of "Pigs" from 1977's capitalism critique, "Animals." The pig, which was led above the crowd from lines held on the ground, displayed the words "Don't be led to the slaughter" and a cartoon of Uncle Sam wielding two bloody cleavers. The other side read "Fear builds walls." The underside of the pig simply read "Obama" with a checked ballot box alongside. As Waters drew the song to a close, flame bursts exploded on the sides of the stage and the swine floated into the night sky. Waters said sadly and comically, "That's my pig." The performance also included speaker towers placed around the outside of the crowd. Smoke machines funneled across the stage and over the audience, thickening the atmosphere.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5...celvBwD90AO9SG0

quote:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright appeared at the National Press Club on Monday morning, speaking out in what he called a defense of the traditional black church, and charging that he will "come after" Barack Obama if he is elected president, since Obama would represent a government whose policies harm the poor. "How long do you let someone say something about your faith tradition before you speak up and say something?" he told a packed crowd of journalists and supporters, many of whom stood and cheered throughout his remarks and Q&A session. In the clip below, Wright addresses questions about his patriotism, his thoughts on Louis Farrakhan, and his relationship with Obama. Some more details from Politico's Ben Smith: Well, if you had any doubt about whether Jeremiah Wright's new high profile was in the service of the Obama campaign, his cheerfully combative performance in a Q&A at the National Press Club should put that to rest. "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he siad he would not get elected," Wright said of Obama's denunciations. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability ... based on polls," he said. He also closely parsed Obama's words. "He did not denounce me. He dismissed himself from some of my remarks. Like most of you not having heard the sermon," he said. "He had to distance himself because he's a politician from what the media was saying I had said which was anti-American. He said I didn't offer any words of hope -- how did he know? He didn't hear the rest of the sermon," he said. ... Wright explained his media tour, repeating that criticism wasn't an attack on him or Obama, but on the black church. "If you think i'm gonna let you talk about my momma and her religious tradition and my daddy and his religious tradtion ... you've got another think coming," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/...on_n_98949.html

Still think McCain is going to get traction hitting Obama on Wright?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/...on_n_98949.html Still think McCain is going to get traction hitting Obama on Wright?

i'm actually glad to hear that. i take the position that is counter to yours in regards to obama/hillary, but that doesn't mean i am voting mccain. I see the inevitable defeat of hillary coming in the next few weeks, and i don't want obama to be damaged. but if obama is damaged that isn't hillary's fault; rather, the damage is the result of something obama did, didn't do, or should have done. I still think the republicans will find something to twist. McCain has somehow fooled the public into believing he is a moderate republican. As i have expressed, i'm concerned that some conservative democrats will lean his way if it's McCain v obama because of the race issue. that's all, my intent was nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i'm actually glad to hear that. i take the position that is counter to yours in regards to obama/hillary, but that doesn't mean i am voting mccain. I see the inevitable defeat of hillary coming in the next few weeks, and i don't want obama to be damaged. but if obama is damaged that isn't hillary's fault; rather, the damage is the result of something obama did, didn't do, or should have done. I still think the republicans will find something to twist. McCain has somehow fooled the public into believing he is a moderate republican. As i have expressed, i'm concerned that some conservative democrats will lean his way if it's McCain v obama because of the race issue. that's all, my intent was nothing more.

I really don't think that is going to be the case - Democrats are united in a way they weren't in 2000 or 2004. I don't think there will be many defections, regardless of the nominee. McCain can paint himself as a moderate all he wants, but it won't stand up to scrutiny. In just the last four days, McCain went against an equal pay amendment, saying women need more training than men, and was accused of yet another campaign finance violation. I also find it hilarious (and shameful) that the media isn't reporting that 25% of the vote in the Republican primary in PA went for "Other".

The NYTimes reported today that Obama is getting bored by continuing a campaign that he won two months ago, and that he is anxious to get on to the general election where he supposedly needs all the help he can get (according to Clintonistas). And I have to say, even if that report is inaccurate, it describes my sentiments pretty accurately.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The NYTimes reported today that Obama is getting bored by continuing a campaign that he won two months ago, and that he is anxious to get on to the general election where he supposedly needs all the help he can get (according to Clintonistas). And I have to say, even if that report is inaccurate, it describes my sentiments pretty accurately.

then he should stop campaigning. if he's too bored to lock up the campaign when it hasn't been given to him yet, then he should just give up. If it's such a sure thing he'll win then he should be able to hide until the democratic national convention, right?

What kind of BS is that. This is like not playing the 9th inning of a baseball game because you have the lead. If he wants to be the president it's his obligation to see to it that he locks up the nomination. It's not hillary's fault that she is fighting to the end. That's how you're supposed to battle. If he is such a strong candidate none of this should even matter, he will close it out. if he can't, then he's not as good as you guys think.

This entitlement shit from obama and his supporters is getting old. Everyone keeps talking about how hillary needs to follow the rules that she and all the candidates agreed to and give up on the michigan and florida votes. Well obama supporters, the democratic party rules give superdelegates votes that conceivably could have clinton as the presidential nominee. Why don't you guys live by your words and let this play out by the rules that everyone agreed to as well. Obama supporters only seem to want to stand by rules that are strictly in his favor.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Apr-28-2008 at 18:34

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 then he should stop campaigning. if he's too bored to lock up the campaign when it hasn't been given to him yet, then he should just give up. If it's such a sure thing he'll win then he should be able to hide until the democratic national convention, right? What kind of BS is that. If he wants to be the president it's his obligation to see to it that he locks up the nomination. It's not hillary's fault that she is fighting to the end. That's how you're supposed to battle.

Well to be fair, the Times didn't have a quote from Obama or an aide or anything - they were just commenting on a slowdown in campaign stops since PA. In reality, we're seeing Obama start training on McCain a little more frequently in remarks, etc. The primary is winding down and Obama is looking toward the election. Inertia will give him the nomination by a fairly wide margin. I don't have a problem with looking forward to November.

___________________