An Associated Pres poll released yeterday shows that if the election were held today Hillary Clinton would beat John Mc Cain by a vote of 50% to Mc Cain's 41% and that she has gained support with independents,youth and the elderly[along with the support she already had with women,Latinos and baby boomers].


The same poll shows the if the election were held today Barack Obama would beat Mc Cain by a vote of 46% to Mc Cain's 44%.

This is the first poll made up of data since Obama's "bitter" remarks in Pennsylvania and Reverend Wright's refusal to go away.

Obama is clearly damaged goods.

Link: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/04/28/D90B4LC80_presidential_race_ap_poli/index,html

You guys are so cute regurgitating the same tripe that comes in our daily emails from the campaign office.
Anyone who can get News Corp and the MSM after them, get Clinton to endorse McCain, and McCain to endorse Clinton, has got to be doing something right for the country.

An Associated Pres poll released yeterday shows that if the election were held today Hillary Clinton would beat John Mc Cain by a vote of 50% to Mc Cain's 41% and that she has gained support with independents,youth and the elderly[along with the support she already had with women,Latinos and baby boomers].


The same poll shows the if the election were held today Barack Obama would beat Mc Cain by a vote of 46% to Mc Cain's 44%.

This is the first poll made up of data since Obama's "bitter" remarks in Pennsylvania and Reverend Wright's refusal to go away.

Obama is clearly damaged goods.

Link: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/04/28/D90B4LC80_presidential_race_ap_poli/index,html

I thought you and Chach didn't pay attention to polls! :lol:
Only when you feel they say what you want to hear, huh?

:corn:

I thought you and Chach didn't pay attention to polls! :lol:
Only when you feel they say what you want to hear, huh?

:corn:

Are you saying the Associated Press has no credibility?


You guys are so cute regurgitating the same tripe that comes in our daily emails from the campaign office.
Anyone who can get News Corp and the MSM after them, get Clinton to endorse McCain, and McCain to endorse Clinton, has got to be doing something right for the country.


:confused:

I would say that if from the start Obama had been scrutinzed the same way Hillary has been for 16 years ,then he wouldn't have gotten this far.

Both Hillary and the press underestimated him and as a result he got no scrutiny,it's best this comes out now rather than later when the nomination can't be taken back.

Plus ,Obama has brought a lot of this on himself.


He is the one who misspoke himself in "Bittergate".

He is the one who handled the Wright and Ayers situations poorly.

He can't blame anyone but himself.

I thought you and Chach didn't pay attention to polls!
Only when you feel they say what you want to hear, huh?

Where'd you get that? My complaint was the lack of a single poll that would indicate who the two frontrunners are.

Are you saying the Associated Press has no credibility?


Of course not. I'm saying you have all sorts of excuses against polls unless they say what you want to hear :) Stop projecting on me: I'm not going to try to discredit this poll just because it bears news I don't like. I'm not like you...


Where'd you get that? My complaint was the lack of a single poll that would indicate who the two frontrunners are.

In your case, I refer to a couple of pages of debate between you and I in which you repeatedly ignored the polls that show that your age group was the only one to be prejudiced significantly against Obama when comparing him to McCain. In post after post, you ignored that information completely :)

M.

Are you saying the Associated Press has no credibility?




:confused:

I would say that if from the start Obama had been scrutinzed the same way Hillary has been for 16 years ,then he wouldn't have gotten this far.

Both Hillary and the press underestimated him and as a result he got no scrutiny,it's best this comes out now rather than later when the nomination can't be taken back.

Plus ,Obama has brought a lot of this on himself.


He is the one who misspoke himself in "Bittergate".

He is the one who handled the Wright and Ayers situations poorly.

He can't blame anyone but himself.

I've listened to all three candidates. Obama is the only one that offers up complicated answers to complicated questions. The rest want you to feel good and spout off nonsense or quip anecdotes (stop me when this sounds familiar). The media, Clinton, and McCain don't want you to think about America or think about the issues. They want you to play the popularity game they create. That's why the economy is in the toilet and we're talking about someone's preacher. Bush claims that God tells him what to do. Obama has a preacher that was a little over-amped. Tell me why one of those stories gets months of air play and the other gets passed over. The man with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on the face of the planet has admitted to something that at the very least normally results in medication and involuntary confinement.
I'm tired of pundits and their schemes. Rev. Wright is a pundit tactic. All of you that think it is more important than issues simply don't have answers and are embarrassed that someone else might.

NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll: Obama beats McCain by 3; Hillary beats McCain by 1 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24390690/)

Indeed, even though Democrats have an 18-point advantage over Republicans in a generic presidential ballot test (51-33 percent), this latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey shows Obama besting McCain by only three points (46-43 percent) and Clinton topping the Arizona senator by only one (45-44 percent).

“This poll,” Newhouse said, “continues to show a very difficult road for Republicans in the fall — with the exception of John McCain, who is running toe to toe with the Democrats.”

:shrug:

It's going to be a close election either way.

In your case, I refer to a couple of pages of debate between you and I in which you repeatedly ignored the polls that show that your age group was the only one to be prejudiced significantly against Obama when comparing him to McCain. In post after post, you ignored that information completely :)

Oh. Yes, those I don't pay attention to because when it comes to racial prejudice it is my opinion that people say one thing in public or on a survey and behave quite differently in private, such as in a voting booth.

This was born out early in the primary season when Obama was winning the caucuses (where people expressed their preference by a show of hands in front of friends, neighbors and the media) and Hillary won the primary elections (where the voter had nobody looking over his shoulder).

In that context, I believe people don't answer the poll questions truthfully, that they give the answer they would like to be seen as giving rather than one that they feel, and act upon, in private.

It's called being two-faced, and it's not uncommon. This isn't cynacism, just my experience in dealing with people.

If I haven't mentioned it, I registered as a Republican for 25 years so I could vote in that party's primary. As a "Republican" I schmoozed with people I wouldn't normally be drawn to associate with and I saw a good deal of hypocrisy and lip service to racial and civil rights issues, putting on one face in public while blatantly biased nudges and winks were going on in the background and in private. (You should hear the jokes I was told by people who thought I must be one of them.)

These are the same people who answer polls for the media and then vote. Do you really think they will vote they way they present themselves to others? They may be a dwindling minority in our society today, but they're still a demographic that can't be ignored in a close race.

Chachma v'Oz; Oh. Yes, those I don't pay attention to because when it comes to racial prejudice it is my opinion that people say one thing in public or on a survey and behave quite differently in private, such as in a voting booth.

This was born out early in the primary season when Obama was winning the caucuses (where people expressed their preference by a show of hands in front of friends, neighbors and the media) and Hillary won the primary elections (where the voter had nobody looking over his shoulder).

In that context, I believe people don't answer the poll questions truthfully, that they give the answer they would like to be seen as giving rather than one that they feel, and act upon, in private.

It's called being two-faced, and it's not uncommon. This isn't cynacism, just my experience in dealing with people.
If I haven't mentioned it, I registered as a Republican for 25 years so I could vote in that party's primary. As a "Republican" I schmoozed with people I wouldn't normally be drawn to associate with and I saw a good deal of hypocrisy and lip service to racial and civil rights issues, putting on one face in public while blatantly biased nudges and winks were going on in the background and in private. (You should hear the jokes I was told by people who thought I must be one of them.)

I applaud you for being honest enough to reveal this reality. I was myself hoping that they had mostly died out by now, but only recently, while assessing the Democratic primary results in Ohio and then later Pennsylvania, I realized they are still alive and kicking, and in numbers much more than I actually anticipated.

These are the same people who answer polls for the media and then vote. Do you really think they will vote they way they present themselves to others? They may be a dwindling minority in our society today, but they're still a demographic that can't be ignored in a close race.

They are definitely a factor.

Oh. Yes, those I don't pay attention to because when it comes to racial prejudice it is my opinion that people say one thing in public or on a survey and behave quite differently in private, such as in a voting booth.

This was born out early in the primary season when Obama was winning the caucuses (where people expressed their preference by a show of hands in front of friends, neighbors and the media) and Hillary won the primary elections (where the voter had nobody looking over his shoulder).

In that context, I believe people don't answer the poll questions truthfully, that they give the answer they would like to be seen as giving rather than one that they feel, and act upon, in private.

It's called being two-faced, and it's not uncommon. This isn't cynacism, just my experience in dealing with people.

If I haven't mentioned it, I registered as a Republican for 25 years so I could vote in that party's primary. As a "Republican" I schmoozed with people I wouldn't normally be drawn to associate with and I saw a good deal of hypocrisy and lip service to racial and civil rights issues, putting on one face in public while blatantly biased nudges and winks were going on in the background and in private. (You should hear the jokes I was told by people who thought I must be one of them.)

These are the same people who answer polls for the media and then vote. Do you really think they will vote they way they present themselves to others? They may be a dwindling minority in our society today, but they're still a demographic that can't be ignored in a close race.

I recognize the truth in these words, but I think you are being slightly single minded about race here. The same mechanism applies to many other factors. There are a multitude of reasons why one might pretend to favor one candidate but actually vote for a different one. Race may be one of the major reasons, but gender is right up there with it.

When it comes to gender, however, you do not allow it to worry you in embracing the polls you prefer.

Also, your argument applies strongly to the caucuses example, but far less so to polls conducted over the phone since they are not conducted in private, and the polled individual has no reason to state anything other than his or her intentions.

M.

I recognize the truth in these words, but I think you are being slightly single minded about race here. The same mechanism applies to many other factors. There are a multitude of reasons why one might pretend to favor one candidate but actually vote for a different one. Race may be one of the major reasons, but gender is right up there with it.

When it comes to gender, however, you do not allow it to worry you in embracing the polls you prefer.

Also, your argument applies strongly to the caucuses example, but far less so to polls conducted over the phone since they are not conducted in private, and the polled individual has no reason to state anything other than his or her intentions.

M.I assumed the polls are taken by phone in most cases. Subconsciously or otherwise, the resident know these people have his phone number, so he's not entirely anonymous. This is speculation on my part.

What I say about the racial effect is also true about sex, but to a lesser degree. I am of the opinion that fewer people have hangups about leadership by women. I've heard that there are men who hate the idea of working for a woman, though I've never felt any vibes from co-workers in that direction anywhere near the passion with which they've expressed distaste for anyone or anything Black.

I have a theory about such things where I attribute a lot of our prejudices to tribalism as a result of our evolution. Our Tribe good - Other Tribe bad. It's primal, for survival of the tribe. It runs deep even today.

All tribes have women. Their existance is not only acceptable, it's integral for survival and some tribes elevate them to leadership status.

The Other Tribe looks very, very different. They can be attacked in every sense of the word with the most righteous of motives - maintaining Our Tribe as it is, the status quo. Us good - them bad. We may be able to live in the same vicinity, but for Goodness' sake don't encourage them. The preservation of Our Tribe is foremost.

I don't think this undercurrent of tribalism is a thing of the past. I think it is very real in many areas of life today. It's why we have unions, associations, lobbys, a multitude of groups who band together to promote an angenda. I also think that it is the root of racism, worldwide.

And I think that it runs so deep in our country yet today that racism trumps biology in our political psyche. So deep that a person responding to questions about how he feels about race might well present himself as he would prefer to be seen rather than how he really feels, and will behave, in private.

That's how I see it based on my personal experience and analysis of what I have observed.

I'm still waiting for any decent justification for the blatantly racist voting preferences of blacks, and to a lesser extent hispanics. White voting is clearly less racist in PA than black voting is, obviously. Nobody can whine about it and handwave racism away for one group while endorsing it for another as 'justifiable'. Not that the usual suspects won't try anyway, but therein lies the way of hilarious cognitive dissonance and bizarre circular logic constructs that are very entertaining, like sniveling about Hagee while having no idea if Rev. Wright believes many of the same things Hagee does re the new testament.

I know from Wright's website his church goes in for faith healing, laying on of hands. Wonder how much money that brings in for the Rev.? Why is insanity okay for the black guy but not the fat German guy in San Antonio? Just one hilarious hypocrisy making the rounds, among many.

I wondered when someone would notice that blacks were much more racist in this election than their white counterparts. Or is it that Hilary is just really a terrible candidate but a large number of white people can't bring themselves to vote for a black man while blacks don't have that problem?
Actually, it is probably a lot of the former and a little of the latter. Obviously race is still an issue in this nation. But even that is something Obama presents good and honest thoughts on.

You know Grim, the 'racism' that is probably present to some degree in Obama's popularity among African Americans is certainly not to be amalgamated with racism as we generally understand it.

African Americans have NEVER had a president who displayed any real understanding of the African American experience. To find such a candidate attractive for that reason should not be considered racist.

So yes, perhaps some black people will vote for Obama simply because of the color of his skin, but I contend that most who are taking his racial identity into account will be doing so indirectly, via the UNDERSTANDING he displays of their demographic, and indeed of race relations in general in our country.

If you are able to put yourself in the shoes of black people for a moment, you will understand that after centuries of having to sweat blood to obtain fair treatment in our country, the prospect of having a leader who intrinsically understands us and the dynamic that links us to American society as a whole - is extremely powerful.

If you want to do a thought experiment to test whether I am on the right path, consider an election in which an African American candidate with NO understanding of race relations were pitted against a European American candidate who has spent his life promoting harmony and collaboration between ethnic groups in our country. Imagine the African American candidate has lived a gilded life completely detached from the bleeding edge of African American experience, and displays in his speeches the type of rhetoric you would expect to hear from a WASP. I think that rapidly, the African American vote would pour over to the European American who truly displays an understanding of minority experience in our country, Grim. The fact is, we have NEVER been offered such a candidate, until today - and he is black.

M.

Well consider this as a counter-point: women were given the right to vote after blacks. Women still, on average, make less than their male black counterparts. Women still have to fight to self-determine what they can do with their own bodies.
And yet, while women favor Clinton 60/40, blacks favor Obama around 90/10. The definition of racism is making choices based upon race alone. And the black community has come out in some sectors denouncing Obama because he was not descended from slaves, but is an honest to goodness African-American, being born to an African and an American. I don't think a black person can ever understand the white experience in this country, but I don't see white people lining up 90/10 against Obama.

A new poll showe that if the election were held today and it was Clinton v. Mc Cain ,that Hillary Clinton would get around 80% of the African-Amercian vote in three key swing states.

That would tell me that while Hillary Clinton is not the first choice amongst African-Americans ,that most African-Americans would still vote for her.

Well consider this as a counter-point: women were given the right to vote after blacks. Women still, on average, make less than their male black counterparts. Women still have to fight to self-determine what they can do with their own bodies.


These are very sad facts.


And yet, while women favor Clinton 60/40, blacks favor Obama around 90/10.


This is not a counter point: these are figures which say nothing of the thought processes resulting in them. There are a multitude of reasons why 'women would not be as pro-Clinton as blacks are pro-Obama. From where I am standing, I could EASILY understand how alot of women would dislike Hillary. I have heard over and over again: "for the first time our nation has a shot at electing a female president, and it has to be Hillary Clinton of all women?"


The definition of racism is making choices based upon race alone.


True, but the thought experiment I proposed, and which you have ignored, was precisely to explore whether these figures truly are based on race alone, or rather on a mixture of race, and racial understanding. I maintain that a European American who made a speech like Obama's on race, in Philadelphia, would garner the support of the African American population against a black Hillary Clinton. Perhaps not in the same extreme proportions as we are seeing now, but he would win our demographic. We want a president who understands us, whether black or white, his or her decisions are what count to us more than the color of his skin.
I do not discount the portion of black America that will vote purely along racist lines, but I contend it is smaller than you wish to portray it as, by providing no nuances to the 90-10 black support for Obama.


And the black community has come out in some sectors denouncing Obama because he was not descended from slaves, but is an honest to goodness African-American, being born to an African and an American.


Yes, there are morons everywhere. The African American community is no exception.


I don't think a black person can ever understand the white experience in this country, but I don't see white people lining up 90/10 against Obama.

Well that's a far more racist claim than mine, which is that anyone can go a long way to understanding the various ethnic experiences in our nation, and that it is that understanding that will win the votes of minorities, whether that leader is black, native american, hispanic or european american.

You fail to understand a very basic thing about African American experience, and that is that many of us were light-skinned enough to consider ourselves 'white', and to see the world from a 'white' perspective, all the while knowing that the 'white' world considered us 'black' when it suited it. African American experience has provided us with a better understanding of race for the simple and powerful reason that race has imprinted itself on us in a way it never affected European Americans.
It is a psychological fact that the victim bears far more empathy for the kidnapper than the kidnapper does for the victim. It is part of the psychological process of coping with abusive trauma for the victim to try as best as he can to understand the psychological reality of the abuser that has caused this experience to befall him.

Anyway, to address directly your attempt at a counterpoint here, saying you don't see whites lining up 90/10 against Obama, have you considered that maybe white people don't have the same need to be understood? European Americans have enjoyed an uninterrupted procession of presidents who understand their racial experience (privileged such as it was) since the founding of this nation. What makes you thing that your 'counter point' is somehow meaningful in this light?
I contend that European Americans have every reason to take for granted that the presidency of this country will not substantially harm their demographic.

For European Americans to line up 90/10 against Obama, Obama would need to demonstrate in his words and actions that he is a break in this uninterrupted lineage of presidents who treat European Americans fairly, and he does not represent such a break.
This effectively renders your counterpoint null and void.

M.

True, but the thought experiment I proposed, and which you have ignored, was precisely to explore whether these figures truly are based on race alone, or rather on a mixture of race, and racial understanding. I maintain that a European American who made a speech like Obama's on race, in Philadelphia, would garner the support of the African American population against a black Hillary Clinton. Perhaps not in the same extreme proportions as we are seeing now, but he would win our demographic. We want a president who understands us, whether black or white, his or her decisions are what count to us more than the color of his skin.
I do not discount the portion of black America that will vote purely along racist lines, but I contend it is smaller than you wish to portray it as, by providing no nuances to the 90-10 black support for Obama.

This is, of course, untestable. So it is a convenient argument in that it relies purely on imaginary circumstances that will never have to be demonstrably proven.

Well that's a far more racist claim than mine, which is that anyone can go a long way to understanding the various ethnic experiences in our nation, and that it is that understanding that will win the votes of minorities, whether that leader is black, native american, hispanic or european american.

You fail to understand a very basic thing about African American experience, and that is that many of us were light-skinned enough to consider ourselves 'white', and to see the world from a 'white' perspective, all the while knowing that the 'white' world considered us 'black' when it suited it. African American experience has provided us with a better understanding of race for the simple and powerful reason that race has imprinted itself on us in a way it never affected European Americans.
It is a psychological fact that the victim bears far more empathy for the kidnapper than the kidnapper does for the victim. It is part of the psychological process of coping with abusive trauma for the victim to try as best as he can to understand the psychological reality of the abuser that has caused this experience to befall him.

Anyway, to address directly your attempt at a counterpoint here, saying you don't see whites lining up 90/10 against Obama, have you considered that maybe white people don't have the same need to be understood? European Americans have enjoyed an uninterrupted procession of presidents who understand their racial experience (privileged such as it was) since the founding of this nation. What makes you thing that your 'counter point' is somehow meaningful in this light?
I contend that European Americans have every reason to take for granted that the presidency of this country will not substantially harm their demographic.

For European Americans to line up 90/10 against Obama, Obama would need to demonstrate in his words and actions that he is a break in this uninterrupted lineage of presidents who treat European Americans fairly, and he does not represent such a break.
This effectively renders your counterpoint null and void.

M.

So, your argument is that I'm far more racist for suggesting that a black person would less understand the white experience in America than you are for saying a white person is less likely to understand the black experience? You also content that white people don't need to be understood by their leader, and that the only valid reasons for whites to want representation is if they were to be in danger of being substantially harmed.
So, to sum up, it isn't racism but a need for blacks to have someone with a unique understanding of their issues as blacks that isn't necessary for whites and while blacks need a leader that understands the black experience, whites simply need one that won't cause substantial harm to their race. And that way of thinking is supposed to prove that racism is not the issue at all?