US Elections 2008

[bayoab]

And... my usual statistics and links post:

As expected, Hillary wins KY and Obama wins Oregon. Obama now has the majority of pledged delegates which means the only way he could lose is by the superdelegates voting for Clinton or some pledged delegates reversing their position on a second vote. They are allowed to do this in some states. There is even talk that Clinton has managed to convince some delegates to vote for her instead of Obama on the first and/or second vote. This gets extremely complex due to every state having different rules for pledged delegates. Note: Any elector or pledged delegate who does this may get blacklisted from the party or get ousted by the general public in response.

Interesting statistic: Exit polls show that voters had mostly ignored the recent campaigning in KY.

From fark:
Reverse sexism or "why women are irrational creatures".

Choice quotes:

De Rubens says no. She won't vote for Obama, even if that means not voting at all. She estimates that half the members of her grass-roots campaign teams won't either.

"His inexperience does more than irritate me, it frightens me," she said. "The job of the U.S. president is not an entry-level position."

Mathematical note thanks to fark: As far as counting years in elected office, Obama has more than Hillary (11-6).

And here is the reverse sexism. This is probably the n+1st time I've seen this, especially on sites like hillaryis44.org (Warning: This site is filled with ideas that defy all conventional logic. Oh and the kicker: the admin is a guy.)

Nobu Sanusi, 28, a high-school teacher in Kirkland and a staunch Clinton advocate, says she and fellow Clinton supporters have felt disheartened and betrayed by women who did not back Clinton.

"What's really sad is she's not really getting the female vote. I don't understand why women don't support women. I think that's really upsetting," she said.

So, we have a bunch of people to which all that matters is she is a woman. On political issues, they clearly wouldn't vote for her if she was a he if you follow the logic in this article.

And Clinton has finally clearly played the sexism and racism cards to the press. This is despite the fact the press has been almost ignoring racism from the actual campaign trail and using the statistics to run the story. Obama had actually asked the press not to push stories of his supporters encountering racism on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, Clinton complains of her supporters encountering rampant sexism and that the press has been ignoring it.

This is despite there being two things that are very hard to differentiate. One is "I don't like Clinton BECAUSE she's a woman." The other is "I don't like Clinton AND she's a woman." There are Clinton supporters who love to call the second one sexism when it is not and they don't even try to differentiate between the two. If you call Clinton evil or a bitch, they will claim the first one regardless of the actual reason for the opinion.

When the campaigns first started, there were a number of polls asking people if they approved of Hillary Clinton. Just her name alone was enough to get people not to vote for her. A lot of people just don't like her because of who she is and that just happens to include that she is female since she is married to Bill Clinton. Now, if Hillary was a male and this was a gay marriage/civil union, the results would be even more hilarious imo.

At the same time, why is she asking them to play up the sexism card? Are we supposed to feel guilty for her? Is she trying to rally women around her for being the oppressed woman in the male dominated world? Who really cares that her supporters have experienced sexist ideas on the campaign trail. This doesn't change what her positions are or who she is.

Also mentioned is:

Speaking with NBC Tuesday, Ferraro pointed to New Hampshire Clinton rally during which a man in the audience displayed a sign saying "Iron my shirt."

Considering this was a prank pulled by some radio personalities, this is one great way to distort facts.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by bayoab

At the same time, why is she asking them to play up the sexism card? Are we supposed to feel guilty for her? Is she trying to rally women around her for being the oppressed woman in the male dominated world? Who really cares that her supporters have experienced sexist ideas on the campaign trail. This doesn't change what her positions are or who she is.

Also mentioned is:

Considering this was a prank pulled by some radio personalities, this is one great way to distort facts.

From the article:

"Suppose somebody at that Barack Obama rally said 'Shine my shoes,'" Ferraro said. “The person would have been swamped by the media saying, ‘what, are you a racist?’ Hillary barely saw press on this. It is not only the Obama campaign. It is how the press has handled this."

Considering we've just spent the last two or three pages arguing about racism, I'd say she's got a point. Prank or not, it's pretty damn offensive, and if the press can insult a man on national television for creating shirts mocking Obama using a Curious George image then issues like this should be brought up too.

I'm positive that women in politics are at least somewhat affected by misogynist attitudes. It happens everywhere else and I wouldn't expect it to be different there. But it won't matter in the end, because people have been writing her off since this whole thing started. And soon no one will care about her because it will be McCain versus Obama. So it's not much shock that the press is ignoring it since they've been pretty much downplaying her for the past month.

[Neki Ecko]

I think that the fat lady is about to sing, because Obama won the majority of the pledged delegrates, some of the SD will be going to Obama to finish this race off because the longer they go, McCann will have the advange.

[SeedFreedom]

Was just watching CNN and saw something very disturbing. Around 21% of Clinton support tonight said they would not vote for Obama simply because of his race. If Clinton loses this primary, and she doesn't address this issue, she will have more problems with black voters if she decides to run again later on. She needs to take the high road and say "I don't want the vote of racist. Thats not what this country believes in". Her huge ego however probably will end up doing the opposite and ruin her campaign, Obama's campaign and and future campaigns

Originally Posted by Solace

From the article:

I'm positive that women in politics are at least somewhat affected by misogynist attitudes. It happens everywhere else and I wouldn't expect it to be different there. But it won't matter in the end, because people have been writing her off since this whole thing started. And soon no one will care about her because it will be McCain versus Obama. So it's not much shock that the press is ignoring it since they've been pretty much downplaying her for the past month.

The numbers still show that more people are unwilling to vote due to Obama's race than Clintons gender. She can cry all she wants, but in this debate Obama is the one fighting the tougher battle.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

When you start imposing a minimum quota of "minorities" inside a classroom, you're acknowledging the existence of people that are different merely because of their appearance. That's veiled racism--and it is an indication of a problem within society.

Or can it be acknowledging that there are differences in ethnicity?


That's something you might not accept, but that is how it is in most of the world. TO ignore it is to ignore the world.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

When you start imposing a minimum quota of "minorities" inside a classroom, you're acknowledging the existence of people that are different merely because of their appearance. That's veiled racism--and it is an indication of a problem within society.

Thank you for your clarification. I am not a fan of Affirmative Action in America...anymore. There used to be a significant reason for the use of affirmative action in our society, specifically in the 1950s-1970s (Brown v Board of Education and Executive Order No. 10,925 more or less created affirmative action (as well as the 14th Amendment, of course.) My chief reason for believing in the use of affirmative action back-in-the-day was due to three specific reasons:

1.) Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost. Pre-Civil Rights movement minorities had literally no means of succeding in America, due in large part to the rampant racisms of the day. It is a sad but true statement that the majority of all African American citizens lived in relative obscurity as second-class citizens. So, Affirmative Action was needed to actually get the students into a school, not necessarily the best, but certainly better than previously allowable.

2.) Affirmative Action drew many minorities to work and study previously thought to be unattainable purely due to racial tensions. Specifically, Affirmative Action made it possible for smart and intelligent people that are forced into specific societal roles, to break free of said roles and become what they wish to be and not what is only available to them because of their race or creed.

3.) It was thought that some Stereotypes may never be broken without forced affirmative action. For decades, if not centuries, African Americans were considered "less" capable than Caucasian/European-Americans (in the US). This stereotype was so ingrained into the society, that the idea of a Black Professor or a Black Doctor was literally ludicrous. Ultimately, the issue of affirmative action, was an issue of stereotyping. It ws thought that by mandating the role and participation of minorities, the formly racist individuals (who based their opinion purely on stereotypes) would be proven wrong, and learn that minorties were and are the same (this would create a "colour-blind" society).

In these three respects Affirmative Action helped to change the country for the better; helped to redirect the country away from its destructive route, toward a more unified country (and in many respects, Affirmative Action succeded quite admirably).

The problems started to form, though, in the 1980s due to the fact that Affirmative Action had allready greatly succeded. Specifically, those mentioned in the mandates regarding Affirmative Action no longer trully needed said action in order to attain jobs and education that was once deemed as being unattainable. Rather, due to the rise of the minorities on the social ladder, a new minority was being created (specifically underprivalged poor whites) that was not being addressed. Affirmative Action, now adays, needs to be lead away from racial/ethnic/gender minorities, and just focus on economic difference, if at all.

[WanderingKnight]

Or can it be acknowledging that there are differences in ethnicity?


That's something you might not accept, but that is how it is in most of the world. TO ignore it is to ignore the world.

But what difference does skin color make?

There are differences to be made between people, but that either has to do with money or with health-related issues. Any other difference made on a legal/official level is an unnecessary one which simply helps to divide and introduce a new form of discrimination.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But what difference does skin color make?

Ethnicity goes deeper than skin color, you know.


Try reading james3wk's post above, it has a good introduction to the United States.

[WanderingKnight]

Yes, but as he also pointed out, it's making things worse now. It's easy to see how, despite the initial success, it's only helping the fragmentation of the society and the stereotyping of it even further (just turn on MTV, for chrissake).

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Yes, but as he also pointed out, it's making things worse now. It's easy to see how, despite the initial success, it's only helping the fragmentation of the society and the stereotyping of it even further (just turn on MTV, for chrissake).

I'm also against affirmative action, due to it upgrading into reverse racism.


Although I'm also against people who consider ethnic differences to be nonexistent.

[WanderingKnight]

Look, ethnic differences in the US were born BECAUSE OF RACISM. Black people were discriminated and segregated, and it lead to them forming a counter-culture of their own.

Being of a particular skin color doesn't mean that you will form an ethnicity of your own.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Yes, but as he also pointed out, it's making things worse now. It's easy to see how, despite the initial success, it's only helping the fragmentation of the society and the stereotyping of it even further (just turn on MTV, for chrissake).

Ditto, that will be a major problem for Obama in the General, just that people doesnt won't vote for him because of his race but at the same time, crying about people wont vote for Clinton because she is a woman. Even know that we want change, people still want to live in the dark ages.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Look, ethnic differences in the US were born BECAUSE OF RACISM. Black people were discriminated and segregated, and it lead to them forming a counter-culture of their own.

I would disagree, but then, we live in totally different enviroments, both between us and the United States.


Allow me to say this: Racism is only part of it, and I say this as a person who has lived in the US, in the relatively liberal area of Chicago. To say that ethnic differences are form due to ONLY racism is ignorance.

[Vexx]

The term "ethnic" does not equal the term "race" ... you keep switching back and forth in your assertions. There are differences between people due to their cultural upbringing. There are not innate differences because of skin color or other decorative variations, as you seem to keep implying.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

There are not innate differences because of skin color or other decorative variations, as you seem to keep implying.

The difference in skin color itself is a difference (although one that is skin-deep)

However, to simply say that such differences are "decorative variations" are an insult to the history of human evolution. Plus, quite a bit of cultural identity itself is based on race: An African will never be a Korean, no matter how that person grew up. Race IS a difference, a difference that is important, no matter how skin-deep it is by itself.

Yes, what I say may sound like BS to you, but then, my enviroment is different from the multiethnic one of the United States, an enviroment where bloodlines are still important. I may have lived in Chicago for 7 years, but it surely hasn't made me a multiethnic-liking person.



We seem to have diverged too much from the topic at hand. Vexx, may I ask who you support? I seem to have forgotten your opinion in the middle of our talk.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

However, to simply say that such differences are "decorative variations" are an insult to the history of human evolution.

Creationism beotch !

I agree with you, there isn't such a fine distinction between ethnicity and race. Race pretty much dominates ethnicity, but of course as with everything there are exceptions...
--

As my brother said the other day Obama = Carter Part 2. I hope bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-Iran Mccain can somehow pull this election out since Hilary is pretty much screwed as we can see...

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

As my brother said the other day Obama = Carter Part 2. I hope bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-Iran Mccain can somehow pull this election out since Hilary is pretty much screwed as we can see...

If McCain manages to NOT lose the evangelists, I would say he has a good chance.

[Vexx]

I'll just close the matter that it appears what we're discussing is the tension between traditional ideas about "bloodlines" and the actualities that science illuminates.

As far as the elections go, I came into the elections saying if the Democrats ran an ashtray as their presidential candidate I'd vote for it because the Republicans need a massive time-out in the corner and a serious purging of the "neocons" and Cheney-ites that hijacked it.

Until the last few months I was fine with either Clinton or Obama. Obama is actually not inexperienced and Clinton isn't as experienced as she paints (both memes are false). Obama is able to converse intelligently on-the-fly about most topics (like Gore or Kerry and unlike Bush or McCain). Clinton is articulate and sounds as if she's done her reading as well. Both Clinton and Obama have essentially identical policy statements. Clinton raises more ire with independent voters because of her track record with her husband in the '90s and for more irrational reasons. Obama has a skin color that makes some people nervous though not to the general extent the media likes to play up. West Virginia's embarrassing noises are negated by other mostly "white" states that voted for Obama.

Clinton and Michele Obama should feel some empathy with each other since they are both often eviscerated for having intelligence and wit. There's a level of sexism that gets ignored or perpetuated by the lazy press.

I have a slight preference for Obama because I think when the debates with McCain happen, Obama will obliterate him because of Obama's demonstrated ability to think on his feet - it'll be like Kennedy vs Nixon televised debate in 1960. The Republicans have a lot more dirt they can hurl at Clinton. So far I've seen neither Clinton nor Obama really take a shot at dismantling the false picture of McCain that's been crafted. I only hope whichever one goes against him has a campaign team with some clues.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I have a slight preference for Obama because I think when the debates with McCain happen, Obama will obliterate him because of his ability to think on his feet - it'll be like Kennedy vs Nixon televised debate in 1960.

I remember form the history books Nixon actually won the debate but Kennady look better in it.

The Republicans have a lot more dirt they can hurl at Clinton.

old dirt, nothing new. As for Obama, they will be digging and as a politican Obama will have soemthing they can dig up

So far I've seen neither Clinton nor Obama really take a shot at dismantling the false picture of McCain that's been crafted. I only hope whichever one goes against him has a campaign team with some clues.

I see Clinton as the more likely of the 2 to come out of the general campaign burying McCain under a mountain of dirt.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll just close the matter that it appears what we're discussing is the tension between traditional ideas about "bloodlines" and the actualities that science illuminates.

I'll also close this with a comment: "Science" is as accurate as traditional beliefs. All the belief that science has the answers is the same as the belief that religion has the answers.

Originally Posted by Vexx

So far I've seen neither Clinton nor Obama really take a shot at dismantling the false picture of McCain that's been crafted.

Probably because they're too busy trying to beat each other