US Elections 2008

[solomon]

Truly historic day, as an Afro American I'm proud to see Obama up there.

Still not sure who to vote for, I don't dislike McCain, he's just meh to me subjectively.

But seriously Barack HAS to do well in the Appalachia and the western mountains (but REAAAALLY in Appalachia, if he doesn't he's toast.

[Neki Ecko]

I think the states to look at for the GE is: Ohio, Penn, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey and potential switches from Red to Blue like Virginia and Georgia(finally, my state has a important part to play)

Because Obama has to win at least one or two southern states to counteract if McCain wins a state like Ohio or Penn. I think that if Virginia and Georgia turns blue and goes for Obama then McCain have to win Ohio to offset those victories, also Wisc, Minn and Flordia plays a big part as well.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

I think the states to look at for the GE is: Ohio, Penn, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey and potential switches from Red to Blue like Virginia and Georgia(finally, my state has a important part to play)

I'd come back to this in a month or two. There is still way too much volatility in the general public. Clinton supporters have to decide where they will stand for one.

Because Obama has to win at least one or two southern states to counteract if McCain wins a state like Ohio or Penn. I think that if Virginia and Georgia turns blue and goes for Obama then McCain have to win Ohio to offset those victories, also Wisc, Minn and Flordia plays a big part as well.

There are so many ways that Obama can lose most of the classic swing states and still (realistically) win the election and he doesn't need a southern state to do it. He must hold on to at least one of PA/OH/FL/MI though unless he puts together something amazing.

[Mystique]

BBC's view on how the rest of the world may be thinking for the next 5 months...

The interest in the US election is not just explained by the historic firsts: a woman, an African-American and a former prisoner-of-war septuagenarian vying to lead the most powerful nation on earth.
The rest of the world also understands that the US in 2008 is tackling some soul-searching questions.
What kind of nation does it want to be?

What is the right balance between security and liberty in a world threatened by extremism and suicide bombers?
Is America an imperial democracy, a democratic empire or neither?
Does this country want to be respected, feared or adored?

These are the underlying questions of the campaign, which the rest of the world wants answered as much as Americans themselves...

....The world seems once again prepared to give this country the benefit of the doubt.

The result will be minted in the cornfields of Iowa, the swamps of Louisiana or the mountains of Colorado.

But it will, let us face it, have some impact on all our lives.

America is the biggest goldfish bowl on this planet, so now all eyes are back on you guys.
As the last sentence states, somehow, someway, whatever way America sways, it'll impact the rest of us.

And dunno if it's been asked in here, but in the UK, on news, TV etc, we generally classify black people as 'black', white people as 'white' and mixed race people as such. Most kids go 'i'm part such and such' or 'im half white, half black', they don't call themselves 'black' we don't call them 'black'.

So to hear 'first black president' is strange to us, it pissed off my firend to no end who ended up writing to the BBC, seeing as racially she's the same as Obama (white mother, black father)

My question to the Americans being, are you lot over there so hung up over the whole black minoirty issue, that instead to focus on the fact that he's a product of an interracial relationship; two races that at one time no one in America could have ever imagined co-existing, let alone having kids (you'd think that'd be encouraged after all that went down in the first half of the 20th C, fighting for rights wise)
-that people are just focusing on half of him, being the gene that visually dominates, thus it's gonna cause some racial related problems in the 4 years to come if he is elected. :\
Is the focus that got people voting on only the fact that he's a different colour, or are you all truly focusing on his manifestos and his promises and beliefs and his stances on important econmical and social issues regarding America.

It's a topic that passes over here among the rest of us minorities in the UK from time to time, we never quite figured that one out with Americans to be honest.

On a mildly amusing note, if he does win, I wouldn't be surprised if Tupac's "changes" becomes the official victory song in the ghettos of America.

[Vexx]

The "multi-racial" concept is one that some of our "common folk" seem to have amazing difficulty wrapping their brain cells around (as if "white" actually meant anything *really*). The "you may only select one bubble" mentality (for years I told my kids to circle two anyway and argue the point) is just as moronic as the "one drop of blood test that got one labeled as "colored".

Skin color runs the spectrum, people can have multiple ethnic heritages. There are a lot of Americans who are really tired of the nonsense and hand-wringing over it. Unfortunately, yet again our mass media finds it an easy way to create controversy.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Skin color runs the spectrum, people can have multiple ethnic heritages. There are a lot of Americans who are really tired of the nonsense and hand-wringing over it. Unfortunately, yet again our mass media finds it an easy way to create controversy.

Blame the government. After all, it forces you to make your ethnicity in a group.

[Anh_Minh]

I blame justifiable laziness. To know Obama has a white parent, you'd have to care about such things. Maybe more than is healthy.

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Blame the government. After all, it forces you to make your ethnicity in a group.

Yeah but i work for a public library, which is a part of a London council, thus eventually part of the government.
When people join, we have the 'ethnic group' category and we got:

Black African, black carribean, black other
White british, white irish, white other (european)
Mixed african, mixed carribean, mixed other (white and another ethnicity)

And then we got chinese, pakistan and indian and 3 more groups after that etc. And if none apply we got 'other - please state'.
I figure cause we got a set number of ethnic groups that dominate from each region around the world in the UK, it'd be easier to classify, but London usually makes a point to focus and welcome diveristy and acknowledge it, so we all grow up doing the same...

I figure in Vexx's case he has some personal experiences regarding that, I'd go with the 'circle two bubble' idea too.
So it's more a govemental/media thing to focus on single ethnic group categories, rather the average american preference then?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Mystique

Yeah but i work for a public library, which is a part of a London council, thus eventually part of the government.
When people join, we have the 'ethnic group' category and we got:

Black African, black carribean, black other
White british, white irish, white other (european)
Mixed african, mixed carribean, mixed other (white and another ethnicity)

And then we got chinese, pakistan and indian and 3 more groups after that etc. And if none apply we got 'other - please state'.
I figure cause we got a set number of ethnic groups that dominate from each region around the world in the UK, it'd be easier to classify, but London usually makes a point to focus and welcome diveristy and acknowledge it, so we all grow up doing the same...

I figure in Vexx's case he has some personal experiences regarding that, I'd go with the 'circle two bubble' idea too.
So it's more a govemental/media thing to focus on single ethnic group categories, rather the average american preference then?

I was talking about the US system, which I personally know due to having lived in the Chicago Area for five years.

[Vexx]

The govt/media tends to perpetuate stereotypes and attitudes that might just fade away on their own. The reasons depend on your conspiracy meter setting but personally I blame laziness and stupidity as much as any desire to create divisions.

There isn't really any such thing as an "average" american --- but certain factions and groups fret more over ethnic group categories ("us' or "them"). You can see it in a lot of the immigration issues fear-mongering.

According to many forms, you can be only 1-(white/european, except Spain) 2-(latino) 3-Asian 4-Pacific_Islander 5-(black) 6-(native-american).

Notice the weight/bias/slant of the terms and how absurd they really are.

Now the last census actually tried to make sense of it with a lot of categories and allowing for combination answers, but that hasn't filtered into the forms we encounter every day. They don't *really* want to know what you are so much as what you might qualify for or what hiring percentages you might help meet.

Back to the election: I don't care if Obama is white/black/purple nor if he's male or female. A lot of people think that way as well.
But the media likes to focus on those who make "good story". That'd be those morons in West Virginia who voted based on skin tone or those idiots who will vote for McCain if Hillary didn't get the candidacy (because the next 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices will be appointed by the next president. Want more Scalia? :P ).

McCain *might* be more centrist but he's certainly bending over for people I don't want to have any influence or power about anything. We've seen enough of them for the last 8 years.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by bayoab

I'd come back to this in a month or two. There is still way too much volatility in the general public. Clinton supporters have to decide where they will stand for one.

There are so many ways that Obama can lose most of the classic swing states and still (realistically) win the election and he doesn't need a southern state to do it. He must hold on to at least one of PA/OH/FL/MI though unless he puts together something amazing.

But I think I was listening to Chuck Todd and he was saying that Obama would have to atleast win one of the South states because OH/PA did pick Clinton and if he can secure GA/VA or even NC, then that can counteract McCain win either one of the those states

[solomon]

Interesting point Mystique.

The fact is though that many in america identify as merely "White" unless they are immediate immigrants from europe or jewish.

I guess its just a point of calling themselves "American" so as to disavow most ties to European Ancestry.

As fer blacks (which im one of) the OVERWHELMING majority of blacks in the country are decendents of slaves brought over from africa. In america black is normally a shorthand for that, Black AFRICANS are slightly more disticnt in identification because they have africa as a direct homeland, while we have it as a distant homeland.

Technically, I'm an Afro-American. I personally just identify as american. I find myself more "American" then "African" in culture anyways.

It's just part of a larger identity crisis I see in America generally.


As fer Obama, I still say he needs some of Appalachia. Deep south states like Alabamie, Miissasippi and Louisiani he could be competetive in.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The govt/media tends to perpetuate stereotypes and attitudes that might just fade away on their own. The reasons depend on your conspiracy meter setting but personally I blame laziness and stupidity as much as any desire to create divisions.

There isn't really any such thing as an "average" american --- but certain factions and groups fret more over ethnic group categories ("us' or "them"). You can see it in a lot of the immigration issues fear-mongering.

According to many forms, you can be only 1-(white/european, except Spain) 2-(latino) 3-Asian 4-Pacific_Islander 5-(black) 6-(native-american).

Notice the weight/bias/slant of the terms and how absurd they really are.

Now the last census actually tried to make sense of it with a lot of categories and allowing for combination answers, but that hasn't filtered into the forms we encounter every day. They don't *really* want to know what you are so much as what you might qualify for or what hiring percentages you might help meet.

Back to the election: I don't care if Obama is white/black/purple nor if he's male or female. A lot of people think that way as well.
But the media likes to focus on those who make "good story". That'd be those morons in West Virginia who voted based on skin tone or those idiots who will vote for McCain if Hillary didn't get the candidacy (because the next 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices will be appointed by the next president. Want more Scalia? :P ).

McCain *might* be more centrist but he's certainly bending over for people I don't want to have any influence or power about anything. We've seen enough of them for the last 8 years.

during the last census it was the NAACP that was the resistant to having biracial check box for Black/White. As much as i could remember none of the other groups had any problem but NAACP and Black leaders.

[Mystique]

*looks up NAACP*

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (usually abbreviated as NAACP) is one of the oldest and most influential civil rights organizations in the United States.[3] The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909 by a diverse group composed of W. E. B. Du Bois (African American), Ida B. Wells (African American), Archibald Grimké (African American), Henry Moskowitz (Jewish), Mary White Ovington (white), Oswald Garrison Villard (German-born white), and William English Walling (white, and son of a former slaveholding family),[4][5] to work on behalf of the rights of African Americans. Its name, retained in accord with tradition, is one of the last surviving uses of the term "colored people." The group is based in Baltimore, Maryland.

I was about to say the use of 'coloured' seems kinda outdated.
But I see, it'd probably have to be something I'd have to take up more with other 'afro americans' i believe the PC term is, it's a constant state of curiousity and somtimes bizareness over on our side anyways.
(And yes, we learn about the whole 400 hundred slave history thing in secondary school too) since it applies for the carribbean countries too as well as America, so we're a lil clued up here, solomon

Anyways, that was my 'let's ask some americans about this' question for the day, lol.

I figure from now it's a red vs blue war and the mud will start slinging soon enough.
Saying that, it's time to give the thread back to it's original topic and I'll just lurk here and there.
BBC usually keeps us informed anyways....
Thanks for the responses tho. ^^

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

But I think I was listening to Chuck Todd and he was saying that Obama would have to atleast win one of the South states because OH/PA did pick Clinton and if he can secure GA/VA or even NC, then that can counteract McCain win either one of the those states

That was the "If Obama can't pick up the big states" strategy from what I recall. This is going to be one huge mess until polling can get everything sorted out. There is talk that McCain can possibly pick up New England states (beside the right leaning NH) such as CT and NJ. There are more interesting things happening in what I guess is the Rust Belt and the Great Lakes area. It is going to get even more bizarre once they pick their VPs if either of them pick someone who is well known.

[Xellos-_^]

I think McCain si going to pick someone known for his economic credentials. He already admit he doesn't know much in that area. Picking someone like Rommy would help him shore up his economic weak point and like him make a run at several of the NE states.

[Autumn Demon]

I'd be extremely surprised if Obama picks Clinton as his running mate; Clinton embodies much of what Obama has campaigned against so far (the 'status quo'). He may be under pressure to pick her, but in a month that will have died down. Obama has been doing bad with white working class voters and Clinton could help him get some of them to his side, but many white male politicians could do that just as well and wouldn't have as much baggage as Clinton has.

[Xellos-_^]

i doubt she would accept if he offer.

thier personality is too different and their organization would clash more then mesh.

I see Clinton sticking to being the New York Senator for the time being. Like i said in a pervious post, i doubt clinton would want to gamble of her future political career by tieing herself to Obama. If Obama mess up he will take her down with him.

[Mentar]

Guys, Obama is already leading in the electoral college against McCain BEFORE he has regained the third of Clinton voters that are still hurting over Clinton's loss. Even after McCain went unscathed for MONTHS now, time where he was abled to define himself uncontested.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.pollster.com/

Also, look at what happened to the GOP even in their "home districts" in the special elections - they LOST, and lost badly.

I'd be extremely surprised if he wouldn't win the elections by a large margin, even if Clinton decides to drag things out. Unless something really scandalous comes up.

[SeedFreedom]

True, after Bush, its going to be hard for Obama to lose this race. All the talk of division in the party will calm down and Hillary will throw her temper tantrum, but i doubt she will take it to the convention and ruin her party.

As for the joint ticket idea, theoretically it sounds like the perfect plan, but after she refuses to give Obama his spotlight, i doubt she'll end up getting the VP. The question would be, will Hillary ever give Obama the spotlight, even if she is second behind him. Don't think it will work.