Wall looming before Obama?

[MikeWaters]

Obama is not an extremist. Bush is an extremist.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Obama is not an extremist. Bush is an extremist.

Am I speaking to exUte now?

He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

He opposes gun ownership.

He wants a new bureaucracy for health insurance and wants universal health care.

He wants unilateral withdrawal from Iraq.

He is not pro-choice, but PRO ABORTION.

He has attended for 20 years a racist church which is down on America and whose pastor believes the US government created AIDS to hurt blacks. His pastor believes the brains of blacks and whites are different.

He doesn't believe taxes are high and wants loads and loads of new costly programs.

On what aspect is he NOT radical?

Bush is simply misguided and wrong-headed, and too liberal. He wanted to please everybody and ended up pleasing nobody.

[Spaz]

I'm loathe to post in the politics section, but this thread piqued my interest a bit.


-I know very few people who would vote for a person based solely on their skin color. Anyone claiming Obama will lose a significant portion of votes due to skin color is overstating the affect, IMO.

-Obama is certainly not a middle-leaning Democrat. IMO, his stances on issues appeal to few middle-right voters, and even some middle-left voters will be turned off by him.

-Black people tend to lean Left. 88% of blacks voted for Kerry in 2004. I wouldn't be surprised to see that number rise a bit for Obama. 41% of whites voted for Kerry in '04. I don't think the blacks who vote for Obama solely because he's black (and there will be some, just as there'll be whites who vote against him for that sole reason) will make a large difference in the election.


Perhaps the biggest potential difference that comes about due to Obama being black is the potential for more black voters to actually vote.

[MikeWaters]

there is a well-established phenomenon of white people when polled saying they will vote for the black candidate and then voting against the black candidate.

Why? Because they feel social pressure to not say they are against the black candidate. Why would they feel social pressure? Because they believe racism is not socially acceptable, and they are racist.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

there is a well-established phenomenon of white people when polled saying they will vote for the black candidate and then voting against the black candidate.

Why? Because they feel social pressure to not say they are against the black candidate. Why would they feel social pressure? Because they believe racism is not socially acceptable, and they are racist.

There may be some racism in their selection but you can't deny a black candidate who stays black on the issues also creates some of the problem of failing to transcend his subculture.

For a black candidate to be successful, he must transcend the stereotypes, i.e., he must not be radically liberal, he must avoid racist divisive speech, he must appeal to voters outside his base. Obama does none of this.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There may be some racism in their selection but you can't deny a black candidate who stays black on the issues also creates some of the problem of failing to transcend his subculture.

For a black candidate to be successful, he must transcend the stereotypes, i.e., he must not be radically liberal, he must avoid racist divisive speech, he must appeal to voters outside his base. Obama does none of this.

He was doing okay presenting himself as such until Reverand Wright crawled out of his undersea cave and reared his head (stirreed to life by Obama's enemies?). Wright struck Obama right in his Achilles heal.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

There may be some racism in their selection but you can't deny a black candidate who stays black on the issues also creates some of the problem of failing to transcend his subculture.

A candidate who stays "black" on the issues? Failing to transcend his subculture? When was the last time a republican candidate didn't stay "white" on the issues? Hell, republicans don't even bother to recruit the black vote because they know they have little to offer.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but you shouldn't suggest that Obama is somehow singular because he chooses to pander to his constituents.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

A candidate who stays "black" on the issues? Failing to transcend his subculture? When was the last time a republican candidate didn't stay "white" on the issues? Hell, republicans don't even bother to recruit the black vote because they know they have little to offer.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but you shouldn't suggest that Obama is somehow singular because he chooses to pander to his constituents.

Whoa, wait a minute. Republicans have made massive efforts at courting the black vote, especially under George Bush. That little doozy alone calls your credibility on this issue into question.

As for staying "white" on the issues ... it's a poor comparison because whites are the majority race. We don't speak of the "white community" (as such), celebrate White History Month, or watch White Entertainment Television. Blacks have identified themselves as a separate political group and been very in-your-face about it too. This automatically puts a stigma on a black candidate as it concerns whites, and fairly so.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

A candidate who stays "black" on the issues? Failing to transcend his subculture? When was the last time a republican candidate didn't stay "white" on the issues? Hell, republicans don't even bother to recruit the black vote because they know they have little to offer.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but you shouldn't suggest that Obama is somehow singular because he chooses to pander to his constituents.

Republicans would fall all over themselves to get an acceptable black candidate. You'd see one big circle jerk if one materialized.

The issue is this, if one is black and black in terms of cultural identity not in terms of skin color, one is already insular and disconnected from the majority.

Many white subcultures are already connected to the majority, so for a white candidate to reach out to blacks, he is necessarily narrowing himself.

Minorities need to shed their ethnic status to join the majority but the majority do not need to become ethnic to attract the minorities, they must merely retain majority issues so that if and wen minorities are attracted to majority issues, they have them ready to offer.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Republicans would fall all over themselves to get an acceptable black candidate. You'd see one big circle jerk if one materialized.

The issue is this, if one is black and black in terms of cultural identity not in terms of skin color, one is already insular and disconnected from the majority.

Many white subcultures are already connected to the majority, so for a white candidate to reach out to blacks, he is necessarily narrowing himself.

Minorities need to shed their ethnic status to join the majority but the majority do not need to become ethnic to attract the minorities, they must merely retain majority issues so that if and wen minorities are attracted to majority issues, they have them ready to offer.

Absolutely. Black republicans are heroes in the party. JC Watts, Condi Rice, General Powell, Steele, Clarence Thomas. Culturally it is tough for them to break away from the democratic party.