Obama only loses due to racism?

[Archaea]

http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/

So says Weinberg.

[MikeWaters]

It's going to play a significant role, no doubt.

Of course there will be some people that will vote for him BECAUSE of his race, but these are generally the people that would have voted for him anyway. There will be more people who vote against him because of his race, that would have voted for the white male democratic nominee had there been one.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's going to play a significant role, no doubt.

Of course there will be some people that will vote for him BECAUSE of his race, but these are generally the people that would have voted for him anyway. There will be more people who vote against him because of his race, that would have voted for the white male democratic nominee had there been one.

Because we're speaking in hypotheticals, we will never know, but IMHO, supporters are making a mistake discussing the race card, because I doubt people really see him as black, but rather a radically liberal politician who either appeals or doesn't appeal to them on the basis of politics.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/

So says Weinberg.

Sure, why not. It can't be because his ideas suck.

There are plenty of people out there, including myself, who would love to vote for a black man. I think it could go a long ways to heal some of the still existing racial divides in this country.

However, I don't think those divides are so big that it would be worth risking socialistic ideas taking over the government.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because we're speaking in hypotheticals, we will never know, but IMHO, supporters are making a mistake discussing the race card, because I doubt people really see him as black, but rather a radically liberal politician who either appeals or doesn't appeal to them on the basis of politics.

did you read the article?

That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

did you read the article?

He is highlighting some polling data, I bet without having read the surveys. However, the editor of a major publication hyping these facts will only marginalize Obama more than he already will be by some. In a close race, focusing upon his race will be harmful.

This looks like it comes as a hit piece by a McCain 527, not from Slate.

[Archaea]

I don't agree with this:

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

I disagree with that statement. Why are they "serious" because he arrogantly says so?

Sheesh.

It is an interesting analysis that for enough voters race may play enough of a role to make a decisive sway, but in light of other Democratic failures in campaigning for the Presidency who's not to say it's just a failure of the Democratic Party not to run a more centrist looking candidate?

[landpoke]

That does seem to be a bit of a reach. I'm not sure the rest of the world cares that much.

It's too easy to chalk a possible defeat up to racism. As Arch notes, it bespeaks a certain amount of delusion on the part of Democrats as to the flaws of their candidate.

[landpoke]

And whether his platform on the economy, energy etal is serious or not is moot. What matters is if people agree with him.

[MikeWaters]

Landpoke is right. One of his major flaws is that he is an uppity n*****.

You lose 10% of the white vote, and you are done.