The Politics Thread

[Montreal Wanderer]

Your second link doesn't work for me, but I can't diasgree with what much of what you're saying. The mythical story of the Bradley exit polls predicting a healthy win for Bradley and then the actual votes delivering a defeat does become distorted and exaggerated each time it is told. I mention it half in jest....

McCain's toast... the Obama machine with its army of invigorated disciples, and the normal factors that weigh against incumbent governments give him no chance at all. Time to strap in and hope that our worst fears about the man who has written two biographies before having a career don't come to pass.

Actually PB the Bradley Effect does exist, but may be exaggerated. It is said a black candidate needs 7% to be safe, but the actual percentage may be somewhat less. McCain's handlers now pulling out all the dirty tricks which don't seem to help. The Palin spike is turning in to a liability. I'll be glad to see Obama in tbh.

[Prufrock]

hmmm. his basic point seems sensible enough, that people who were always going to vote Republican wont vote Obama, not because they are racist, but because they are republican. That doesnt mean they arent, or that all of them are, but he does seem to be suggesting that everyone is either a definate republican, or a definate democrat. there are always people in the middle who can be swayed. Im not the biggest fan of Obama, i dont think he has many genuinly inovative ideas for this 'change' everyone is obsessed with; however, i would much rather him get in than McCain. And that is what i think most people feel like as well. It seems that the Democrats arent so much going to win this election, as the republicans, both over the course of this election campaign, and the last 8 years, will have lost it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Some of you may enjoy the latest catchy election song (apologies if previously posted).
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

[Prufrock]

In the interests of fairness, we might as well post another article from that website, from prominent right-wing commentator, Jonah Goldberg.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ard_o.html

[.....]

This spectacle is grotesque. It reveals how little the supposedly objective press corps thinks of the American people -- and how highly they think of themselves ... and Obama. Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in this view.

Similarly, McCain's experience, his record of bipartisanship, his heroism: These too count for nothing.

Racism is all there is. Obama wins, and America sheds its racial past. Obama loses, and we're a nation of "Bull" Connors.

Much of the argument for the centrality of race in this election hinges on the so-called Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, Los Angeles' African American mayor, was polling well among white voters in the race for California governor. Bradley lost, suggesting that large numbers of whites had lied to pollsters about their intention to vote for him.

I have no doubt that the Bradley effect is real. But what often gets confused is that the Bradley effect does not reflect racism; it captures voters' fear of appearing racist. There's no reason to assume those who lie to pollsters are the racists. (Actual racists might lie about why they aren't voting for the black candidate, but it's unlikely they would lie about voting for him.) But for Obama supporters and the media, poll results are some kind of sacred, binding covenant. And if voters don't keep their promise, the media have no problem seeing racism at work.

The media's obsession with race in this election is, in fact, probably fueling the Bradley effect. Repeating over and over that voting against Obama is racist only encourages non-racist people to be embarrassed to admit that they plan to vote for McCain.

Another rich irony is that the only racists who matter in this election are the ones in the Democratic Party. News flash: Republicans aren't voting for the Democratic nominee because they're Republicans. A new AP-Yahoo News poll confirms this. It claims that racial prejudice is a significant factor among the independents and Democrats Obama needs to win, specifically among Hillary Clinton's primary voters. According to the pollsters' statistical modeling, support for Obama is six points lower than it would be if there were no white racism.

I'm skeptical about those findings, as well as the overemphasis on race generally. But to the extent that race is a factor, here's the richest irony of all: Obama's problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks. Of course, Democrats can't openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist.

If the media were more objective, we'd be hearing a lot more about the racism at the heart of the Democratic Party (imagine if the black nominee this year were a Republican!). But such objectivity would cause too much cognitive dissonance for a press corps that defines "racist" as shorthand for Republican and sees itself as the publicity arm of the Obama campaign.

Copyright 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Also, the bold bit is bollocks. If his point was the Bradley effect might not solely reflect racism, but also people's fear of appearing racist, then fair enough. he seems to be suggesting that a true racist wouldnt have the brains to lie, and that ALL the people who lied about their vote were in fact just scared of appearing racist. A theory he has NO evidence for apart from his biased logic.

[Lord Kangana]

Quality Monty

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's not a complicated point.

Republican racists are not relevant when considering what effect racism might have on the voting, because they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee whatever, his colour.

There's a reason Goldberg precedes that with *NEWSFLASH*.

So do you think there are more voters who will vote for Obama because he is black, than there are who will vote for McCain because Obama is black?

Essentially the inherent racism of republicans is fine is what you're saying.

I'm saying no such thing - all racism is to be abhorred. I thought Goldberg's point was misrepresented, that's all, but now I'm bored of it....

As for using the "better candidate" card, I imagine you would have supported Gore because other than in the eyes of a retard he was clearly the better candidate?

Eight years ago I was 14 and not much interested in American politics.

To be honest given the inherent and appalling racism that is still rife in the USA I think its probably only fair that some people might be so ashamed they vote for the black candidate.

Oh dear. It's a shame that statement can't be dismissed, as it deserves to be, as being ridiculous.... but the fact is that liberal guilt over the plight of African Americans has indeed played a significant role in propelling Obama into the position he is in today.

I remain unashamed to state my view that Obama is the affirmative action candidate and that a white man with the same resume would not have a prayer of becoming President.

[Lord Kangana]

I'd vote for Baldrick over McCain and Palin, so I guess thats just a cheap shot, really.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

hmmm. his basic point seems sensible enough, that people who were always going to vote Republican wont vote Obama, not because they are racist, but because they are republican. That doesnt mean they arent, or that all of them are, but he does seem to be suggesting that everyone is either a definate republican, or a definate democrat. there are always people in the middle who can be swayed.

He mentions 'independents'. I am staggered at the attention this innocuous snippet has attracted.

Im not the biggest fan of Obama, i dont think he has many genuinly inovative ideas for this 'change' everyone is obsessed with; however, i would much rather him get in than McCain. And that is what i think most people feel like as well. It seems that the Democrats arent so much going to win this election, as the republicans, both over the course of this election campaign, and the last 8 years, will have lost it.

The Obama machine is formidable - well organised, well-funded and very very effective. When the Democrats win, it won't be by default or accident.

Also, the bold bit is bollocks. If his point was the Bradley effect might not solely reflect racism, but also people's fear of appearing racist, then fair enough. he seems to be suggesting that a true racist wouldnt have the brains to lie, and that ALL the people who lied about their vote were in fact just scared of appearing racist. A theory he has NO evidence for apart from his biased logic.

I don't think he's suggesting anything to do with a lack of brains.

And the theory exists entirely independently of his 'biased logic'.

[Puskas]

I remain unashamed to state my view that Obama is the affirmative action candidate and that a white man with the same resume would not have a prayer of becoming President.

Really?

So in a country which is effectively a two party state, when the governing party has presided for eight years, and included in its term an unpopular war and an economic meltdown, you don't think that the opposition could put up pretty much any candidate (within reason) and have a decent chance at winning?

You're not, by any chance, trying to show-off your "anti-pc" credentials, by doing the usual job of attacking a straw man are you?

[BWFC_Insane]

I'd vote for Baldrick over McCain and Palin, so I guess thats just a cheap shot, really.

But LK would you vote for Megson over oven chips?

[Lord Kangana]

Difficult choice.

I'd have to see what formation the oven chips would start with before making my decision

[a1]

Eight years ago I was 14 and not much interested in American politics.

to be fair you probably voted the same amount of times then (zero) , than paris hilton , puffy daddy , and the rest of the mithering know alls had done when they were bitchin' to youtube 'bout george bush getting in.

[Verbal]

I remain unashamed to state my view that Obama is the affirmative action candidate and that a white man with the same resume would not have a prayer of becoming President.

Really?

So in a country which is effectively a two party state, when the governing party has presided for eight years, and included in its term an unpopular war and an economic meltdown, you don't think that the opposition could put up pretty much any candidate (within reason) and have a decent chance at winning?

You're not, by any chance, trying to show-off your "anti-pc" credentials, by doing the usual job of attacking a straw man are you?

It isn't like the comparitively huge CV's of Kerry and Gore did them any good either.

Or shall I be cynical and say that a black, inexperienced senator with no/little executive experience is more likely to unify the party than, gasp, a Clinton?

[mofgimmers]

It's funny to hear everyone banging on about race so much... I've not heard many US Democrats harping on about it, compared to the Republican ticket that seemingly can't make up its mind... first it slates Hillary Clinton for talking about the importance of a woman standing... in fact, on CBS, someone from the Republican party did their best to imply that Hillary was a big cry-baby who kept playing the gender card every time she had to speak up... and then, lo-and-behold, Palin appears on the scene and it's all 'DO IT FOR THE SISTERS!'

I think this is a lot closer than people think and as usual, will go down to the wire, by virtue of the fact that 95% of America has already made up its mind who their vote will go to, by voting the way they've always voted. It makes no odds who is at the helm.

To sound like a paranoid conspiracist, I don't think it matters too much, as America is pretty much run by the same people regardless of who is in power. With that, I kinda look at America like it's a big film, and for that reason, I want the cool guy to get the lead role... and that's Barack Obama. I can't bear the thought of McCain being on my telly for the next four years, by virtue of the fact that, when he lowers his voice to 'friendly', he sounds like a pervy uncle.

[ratbert]

I work with someone who's just recently returned from the USA - he says race has not been much of an issue in this election. As with all political contests over the coming years, "it's the economy, stupid".

[Worthy4England]

If it's going to run that close Mof, please could we understand what and what isn't to be counted in Florida? It seemed to cause no end of problems last time around....

[superjohnmcginlay]

Thought that was the time before?

[a1]

If it's going to run that close Mof, please could we understand what and what isn't to be counted in Florida? It seemed to cause no end of problems last time around....

what gets me is people vote without understanding the rules. the whole popular/electoral college votes thing did me head in with retards moaning "i didnt vote for this", 'well yeah, you did - look heres the rules, bet youve never seen these before even though theyre about 200 years old..'.

[Worthy4England]

Thought that was the time before?

Aye it was.

[Lord Kangana]

If it's going to run that close Mof, please could we understand what and what isn't to be counted in Florida? It seemed to cause no end of problems last time around....

what gets me is people vote without understanding the rules. the whole popular/electoral college votes thing did me head in with retards moaning "i didnt vote for this", 'well yeah, you did - look heres the rules, bet youve never seen these before even though theyre about 200 years old..'.

So is that a failure of the people who the rules are imposed upon, or the democratically elected rule makers whose job it is to act transparantly and create a fair and understandable system.

I hear the banking industry using the same excuse "you wouldn't understand". Try us.