US Elections 2008

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

No, this is definitely not limited to African-Americans. I'm Mexican-American, as are many in Los Angeles, and our mayor is Mexican-American, as is our city attorney. That is not a coincidence.

That's just one interpretation of things. The previous mayor was James Hahn. As far as I know, Hahn was Caucasian. The mayor before James Hahn was Richard Riordian, who was most certainly Caucasian. Before Riordian was Thomas Bradley, an African American. You can see the full list of mayors for yourself - I didn't look into their backgrounds much beyond Bradley, but the names certainly seem "white." While the population of Mexican-Americans (and Central American immigrants) has been rising, the population wasn't drastically different back when Hahn or Riordian were elected - it isn't as if there was no presence of a Mexican American population here four years ago.

Your interpretation isn't necessarily wrong, but I disagree with the extents that you seem to be applying it to. I'd have expected there to be more Mexican Americans in the local government not because they automatically win the Mexican American votes, but because there's a large population of Mexican Americans here and perhaps more would be trying to get into the government. That's not necessarily correct, but I offer it purely as a different interpretation.

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That's just one interpretation of things. The previous mayor was James Hahn. As far as I know, Hahn was Caucasian. The mayor before James Hahn was Richard Riordian, who was most certainly Caucasian. Before Riordian was Thomas Bradley, an African American. You can see the full list of mayors for yourself - I didn't look into their backgrounds much beyond Bradley, but the names certainly seem "white." While the population of Mexican-Americans (and Central American immigrants) has been rising, the population wasn't drastically different back when Hahn or Riordian were elected - it isn't as if there was no presence of a Mexican American population here four years ago.

Your interpretation isn't necessarily wrong, but I disagree with the extents that you seem to be applying it to. I'd have expected there to be more Mexican Americans in the local government not because they automatically win the Mexican American votes, but because there's a large population of Mexican Americans here and perhaps more would be trying to get into the government. That's not necessarily correct, but I offer it purely as a different interpretation.

Antonio Villaraigosa was really the first viable Latin American mayoral candidate to ever run. Not unlike Barrack Obama being the first viable African American candidate to run for president.

For example, people could bring up Jesse Jackson, but he was so extreme a candidate, who catered so much to one group (i.e. African Americans), that it was not possible for him to win the presidency.

I think from here on out, if there is a viable Latin American candidate running in every mayoral election for Los Angeles, it will be near impossible for the person in question to be beat. There are simply too many people of that subgroup in Los Angeles county for that not to be the case.

Also, I would caution with using Latin American as a designation for ethnicity. Even though I was born in Mexico City, if you were to look at me, you'd never think that. To put it bluntly, I am what you consider "white" or Caucasian even though I am the very definition of Mexican American.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Oh, and your "facts" just happen to include both normative and positive statements; i.e. you have the facts, then you state your opinions about it. Then when others state their opinions about the same facts, you are arguing that they are refusing to acknowledge the facts.

*cough * a classic logical fallacy it is *cough*

And I think you're a hypocrite.

Anyway, if you want to talk about how this issue is complex? Well I think you are just supporting my argument more by saying that. Take a look at this article

One quote from it for those that don't want to read it...

“When the black population is really small, racial polarization is small enough that Obama can win, and when the black population is large, any polarization is drowned out by the overwhelming size of the Democratic black vote,” says Schaller, who recently authored the book Whistling Past Dixie analyzing demographic voting trends. “But in the middle range, polarization is sizable enough that black voters cannot overcome it, and these are the states where she wins.”

Stating that several African-Americans vote for their own skin color is shown by Oprah... And it is definitely not being racist.

I've also argued against this very notion of the racist voters who are white. While it does show that 15-20% of whites or what ever considered race to be a factor in certain states, this poll does not specify what they mean by it being a factor. You cannot simply write this off as being racist, that would be statistical bias.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

I agree with you completely. I think overwhelmingly African-Americans are voting for Barrack Obama because he is black, not because Hillary Clinton is white.

You are doing the same thing the Hillary supports who cry sexism do.

1)African Americans vote for Obama because he is black.
2)African Americans vote for Obama and he is black.

These are two separate groups and you are combining them into one. The equivalent with Clinton is:

1)Someone votes against Clinton because she is a woman.
2)Someone votes against Clinton and she is a woman.

In both cases, the majority say #2 is the truth in exit polls.

And the actual rational is probably:
Vote for Obama BECAUSE (not Clinton AND is potentially electable) AND (is black)

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by bayoab

You are doing the same thing the Hillary supports who cry sexism do.

1)African Americans vote for Obama because he is black.
2)African Americans vote for Obama and he is black.

These are two separate groups and you are combining them into one. The equivalent with Clinton is:

1)Someone votes against Clinton because she is a woman.
2)Someone votes against Clinton and she is a woman.

In both cases, the majority say #2 is the truth in exit polls.

Answer:

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

Identity politics affect many different sectors of the electorate. No doubt many women, of all races, are voting for Hillary Clinton because she is one of them (although, curiously, not African-American women).

And as for my facts, they have been cross referenced against all possible variables (i.e. socioeconomic status, marriage status, sex status, religious status, etc.) Unlike every other group in the Democratic electorate, none of these things have any effect on the African-American voting block and their preference for the Democratic nominee: Barack Obama.

How would you explain that fact? Will you not at least admit it is a little curious? How come every other voting group in the primaries can be subdivided based on these quantifiers but African-Americans in mass vote for one candidate? Is this pure coincidence?

Women do not vote for Hillary Clinton in mass. Women under 30, Women with a high level of education, and women in the highest income brackets, actually vote for Barrack Obama.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

And I think you're a hypocrite.

Why?

Anyway, if you want to talk about how this issue is complex? Well I think you are just supporting my argument more by saying that. Take a look at this article

And it supports your argument how?

The article is focused entirely on the "Race Chasm" phenomenon. I'm not even sure how valid this is, but I'll assume so for the sake of argument. It only makes passing reference to the behavior of black voters and the only trace of their motivations, the whole bloody thing we were debating about, are implied and obscurely at that.

And yes, I read the whole article. It's a courtesy I tend to give my fellow debaters when I have time to. I even checked the About Us page to make sure they're not some loony websites people sometimes post as if they're valid. And I think this one's fine enough by the way.


Let me summarize our positions again so we don't get lost here:

You guys = they vote that way 'cause Obama is black; and he is getting some kind of unfair advantage there. I also notice a certain...antagonism at this "advantage" as if he doesn't deserve the Primary and is winning because the electorate is race-obsessed or something.

Of course Alleluia_Cone is denying anything like that right now, but he was certainly giving that vibe in his posts two pages ago, complaining about this and that 'n stuff about Mr. Obama.

Me (I won't speak for others, though I think they agree) = it plays a big role, may be even decisive, among the black electorate -- but there might be other reasons; there's ALWAYS other reasons, rather, and the "unfair advantage" argument makes no sense in the big picture because there are other voters than blacks too, and many of those might just happen to be anti-black racists, who knows.

Stating that several African-Americans vote for their own skin color is shown by Oprah... And it is definitely not being racist.

Stating that they only vote because of that is racist. I really didn't want to throw this epic card out but I was honestly getting annoyed at all this.

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

And as for my facts, they have been cross referenced against all possible variables (i.e. socioeconomic status, marriage status, sex status, religious status, etc.) Unlike every other group in the Democratic electorate, none of these things have any effect on the African-American voting block and their preference for the Democratic nominee: Barack Obama.

One question: who did this and where?

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

One question: who did this and where?

You can find those numbers and more on the ABC election website, the NBC election website, RealClearPolitics, Politico.org, and various other information services. They are also available through professional polling services, like Rasmussen reports, etc. And if you really went to get detailed, state-by-state information, even the state voting websites have such information.

[james0246]

Having seen the recent news blitz on Clinton and hearing the rant of Keith Oberman, I can't help but ask the forum if there was anything wrong with Clinton's use of Bobby Kennedy in a recent interview, specifically the knowledge that he was in a primary in California in mid-June during his tragic assassination? I personally have no problem with the name drop, and I am befuddled by the hatred that is being spewed because of said name drop.

[xxmimixx]

lol I scored a 51 of Hillary Clinton and a 44 on Barack.
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Well, whoever wins in the democratic side (which its obvious), this will bring America diversity instead of just White man as president. It makes the country feel blah.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by james3wk

Having seen the recent news blitz on Clinton and hearing the rant of Keith Oberman, I can't help but ask the forum if there was anything wrong with Clinton's use of Bobby Kennedy in a recent interview, specifically the knowledge that he was in a primary in California in mid-June during his tragic assassination? I personally have no problem with the name drop, and I am befuddled by the hatred that is being spewed because of said name drop.

I don't have that much of a problem with the name drop, but Clinton was quite wrong in her comparison. RFK's primary campaign started in May, and he was assassinated in June, while this campaign have been run since January. I think a lot of people are mad at Clinton because Obama have faced numerous assassination threats, they are just not reported in the media.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

Blacks just have some monolithic tribe mentality that causes them to support anyone with the same skin color, regardless of their ideas and policies? What is this assertion based on?

See Alleluia_Cone's comment (quoted below)

Also, I said majority, haven't I?

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

It should probably be put into context. It isn't just race. You're right.

However, you have to eliminate Alan Keyes as a comparable example, since blacks have not voted for a Republican in any great number since before FDR. In any case, this is not even relevant to the issue at hand. What I'm arguing is specific to this election.

Political positions also cannot be used as a factor since numerous polls of African-Americans voters have determined that they cannot distinguish the policy differences between the two candidates.

So what does that leave?

Are African-American voters simply voting for Barrack Obama against Hillary Clinton in this election because he has the same color skin as them?

Answer: YES

Is there anything wrong with this?

Answer: No, it is their right.

Is there anything wrong with people trying to pretend that this is not the case?

Answer: You bet there is!

Exactly the case.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

This implication that blacks can only think about the skin color is a racist statement. It implies that blacks just aren't smart enough to recognize that candidates are a lot more than their skin color, that they cannot see the real issues as good as other ethnicity can. These black people must've been really stupid with their one-track mind and all.

Let me be blunt with you: Many black actually don't think about the issues at hand. No, I'm not saying they're ignorant, but rather, most of them aren't really into politics in the first place, and can't tell the difference between Hillary and Obama (come to think of it, can most people tell the difference?)

Given the small difference (which are noticed only by those who actually look closely into it) between Clinton and Obama, the race issue becomes a major factor in deciding who to vote for.

Remember this: Most people aren't as politically "intelligent" as we're assuming here. Although most of us here have probably kept in touch with what both candidates are advocating, the majority of the US population aren't really into the small facts and look at only the big differences. When there isn't a big difference, factors such as race, sex, and supporters comes into play.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Given the small difference (which are noticed only by those who actually look closely into it) between Clinton and Obama, the race issue becomes a major factor in deciding who to vote for.

KSJ, from what you've written before you seem to support Clinton over Obama. What's the reason?

And a question I've been wanting to ask for a while: why do you always write your posts in bold and blue text?

[bbduece]

Becareful how you respond in this thread because your "racism" (stereo-typing or institutionalize or etc) will show. Overt racism is apparent on this thread. Racism is stigmatize because it pisses people off.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

KSJ, from what you've written before you seem to support Clinton over Obama. What's the reason?

1. Biofuel: Obama has always been a major supporter of it, while Hillary recently changed her position to get the corn-growers' vote. Overall, I'm betting that Clinton will move to cut the outragous subsidies that the US goverment is giving for biofuel, which is one reason the food price is going up.

However, I do admit that McCain will be more forceful on this issue.


2. Foreign policies: I would say Clinton is a realist while Obama is a liberal. Given my realist view of world affairs, I tend to side with Clinton.


3. Political stance changes: Although many people say that Clinton changes colors a lot, I would say that is a potential asset. Yes, Clinton tends to move TOO much for my comfort, but for it, it seems she's a bit more flexible when it comes to changing policies to fit needs. Although Obama is for change, I'm afraid that he'll be too stiff when there is the time to change his policies.


4. Economics: Obama is filling to scratch FTA to "protect" US industries, while Clinton is a more of a free-tradist.

I notice there's a major difference on health care, but it doesn't concern me.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

And a question I've been wanting to ask for a while: why do you always write your posts in bold and blue text?

A habit that came over from the Aquastar forums. I like the royal blue text on the cream background.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by bbduece

Becareful how you respond in this thread because your "racism" (stereo-typing or institutionalize or etc) will show. Overt racism is apparent on this thread. Racism is stigmatize because it pisses people off.

I don't see racism in this thread. I see people discussing it, and the topic is that some question how biological differences are impacting this race. If there was true racism going on here, someone would have been reported and the mods would have taken action.

"I believe Obama is getting votes because he is black" is not a racist comment. It's someone making an observation and when someone says "I don't believe Obama is getting votes because he is black" they are offering a counterpoint to that observation. The two sides discuss (sometimes heatedly) and hopefully a common understanding is established.

Nothing good comes from people refusing to think about something outside their own sphere of thought, and nothing good comes from people too afraid to speak without fear of offending others.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

[B]Let me be blunt with you: Many black actually don't think about the issues at hand. No, I'm not saying they're ignorant, but rather, most of them aren't really into politics in the first place, and can't tell the difference between Hillary and Obama (come to think of it, can most people tell the difference?)

That is a little...heavey handed. Rather than saying most black people, you should simply say most people, since the majority of voters vote simply along their personal beliefs etc. Yes, Black people are voting for Obama because he is black, but white people are voting for Clinton because she is white. Women are voting for Clinton because she is a woman. Etc. The majority of voters will simply vote for a member of their "group". This is not the problem, nor is it a question. Rather, the real question is what is driving so many Black people to the polls to vote?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by james3wk

Rather, the real question is what is driving so many Black people to the polls to vote?

Probably since Obama is the first good chance for a Black President to appear since Jackson.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by james3wk

Having seen the recent news blitz on Clinton and hearing the rant of Keith Oberman, I can't help but ask the forum if there was anything wrong with Clinton's use of Bobby Kennedy in a recent interview, specifically the knowledge that he was in a primary in California in mid-June during his tragic assassination? I personally have no problem with the name drop, and I am befuddled by the hatred that is being spewed because of said name drop.

As Olbermann pointed out, the main issue is with her using the word "assassination", not the actual name drop. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be using that word in an election. This basically comes across as "I'm still in the race in case the worst should happen to my opponent." There is nothing wrong with mentioning her husband or anyone's race taking a long time.

And as Olbermann says, she could suspend her campaign and if Obama were hit by a major scandal or something that caused him to drop out of the race, there is no reason why she couldn't just come back in. You do not lose your delegates by suspending your campaign.

As for the name drop, I just decided to look further into the history of that election and it is an inaccurate comparison. Kennedy was running in second as of that date and was not the front runner yet. He was being led by the eventual nominee Hubert Humphrey. At the same time, the primary season had begun in March and was still competitive and ongoing in June. Our primary will be over when we reach June.

Also, repeating it at the same time as Ted Kennedy's health problems and other issues in America, this is rather untimely and a poor choice of words.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Why?

Because you are acting no different than either I or Alleluia_Cone, and with the comment you made, you must be perpetrating the same thing. I don't agree that we are doing that btw. It's just that if you are stating an opinion, why would you say you agree with the other person? Opinions are thoughts you hold to be true, therefor there is not a very fine line between what you consider fact in your head and what is an opinion.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

And it supports your argument how?

I'm trying to debunk the idea that racist voting is indeed hurting him in this primary in any major way. This is not proof of the blacks voting for their own people. However, what Alleluia_Cone pointed out is good enough, and it is not a fact but it is so heavily suggested that it is not something we can ignore in this primary.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Let me summarize our positions again so we don't get lost here:

You guys = they vote that way 'cause Obama is black; and he is getting some kind of unfair advantage there. I also notice a certain...antagonism at this "advantage" as if he doesn't deserve the Primary and is winning because the electorate is race-obsessed or something.

Of course Alleluia_Cone is denying anything like that right now, but he was certainly giving that vibe in his posts two pages ago, complaining about this and that 'n stuff about Mr. Obama.

Me (I won't speak for others, though I think they agree) = it plays a big role, may be even decisive, among the black electorate -- but there might be other reasons; there's ALWAYS other reasons, rather, and the "unfair advantage" argument makes no sense in the big picture because there are other voters than blacks too, and many of those might just happen to be anti-black racists, who knows.

Stating that they only vote because of that is racist. I really didn't want to throw this epic card out but I was honestly getting annoyed at all this.

Let me make something clear here, I'm just stating his advantages. Did I call it unfair? No, people have their right to vote, this is Democracy. And this is definitely not the first primary, lmao, to have been voted on in a BS way (My opinion). I stated this many pages ago, and KSG is kind of saying it now, but a great amount of people don't pay serious attention to the details of certain politics of the candidates. Elections are won on very general policies, personalities, and background.

There has not been as large of factor as this in the primary election. Again, the racist card is stupid. I'm not saying anything that demeans African-Americans. They are doing a very human thing by voting him in. I could've said the same thing about Catholics if I was alive during Kennedy's election. Am I being prejudice? No. Half of my family is Catholic and I don't churn them for it. The only reason people would even throw the racist card out there again is this PC stigma that is being overinflated. I think it is more racist or prejudice to be overly PC personally.

[JustInn14]

Soo, it basically boils down to this....


PEOPLE who vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black.

And, people who vote for Obama and he Happens to be black.

"Happens to be" is the clue, here, IMO. That's all I have to say about this, .