Dem Racists and Obama?

I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague from the great state of Ohio [hat or no hat]. When Obama loses this election, it will be primarily because of race. There are probably as many racist Democrats as there are racist Republicans, and that's a lot. We are, fundamentally, a racist society. It's as American as apple pie.

For the most recent example, take a look at polls that show that Democrats are favored over Republicans by as much as 30 points in terms of "best party to handle the economy" but the difference between McCain and Obama is usually 1-3 points.

Bloggers and politicians across the country have been digging and mining and coming up with tidbits that point out flaws in Obama -- face it, there's plenty of flaws there. The primary reason for doing this is to provide independents and non-Yellow Dog Democrats with COVER for voting against Obama. A good majority of them are pre-disposed to vote against Obama anyhow, but they're looking for a reason to do so that isn't tied to his race. They've been scrambling lately because McCain campaign took away the major "cover" reason for not voting for Obama -- his lack of experience -- when Palin got the VP nomination.

Way back before who the Democratic candidate would be was certain, I posted saying that McCain would beat Clinton by around 100 electoral votes, and would beat Obama by around 150-200 [I may be inexact about the numbers]. I figured that a Hillary nomination would rally the Clinton haters to write checks never before seen. I figured that an Obama nomination would pretty much guarantee that only the Democrat's strongest base and the new voters recruited by the Dems at that time would vote for him. This would certainly not be enough to carry any of the South and Mountain West, while eroding Democratic support in union stronghold states.

Now I'm not calling the bloggers or the RNC racist. They're just trying to get their guy elected. What I'm saying is that, ultimately, the more the American people see McCain and see Obama, the more likely they're inclined to vote for the Republican. Remember that even in elections where there is a strong difference between the candidates on major issues -- not so much the case in 2008 -- about 25% of the voters make up their minds who to vote for in the last few days before the election.

And, as I've said on many occasions, I think that we'll be better off with President McCain, than we will be if Obama wins. I like the idea of large Democratic majorities in both houses with a conservative Republican in the White House -- especially one who is so good at bi-partisan team building. I think he'd be much more effective in working with a Democratic Congress than would President Obama [I'm old enough to remember the last time a young, exciting, attractive Democratic junior senator entered the White House with good Democratic majorities in each house. They pretty much hamstrung their own president's agenda. Kennedy was a complete failure as president in terms of getting Congression action. Johnson got more through Congress in six months than Kennedy did in almost three years. I see the same occuring in the unlikely event of an Obama election].

Anyhow, them's my two cents.

 

shhhh. Could be divorce lawyers reading these posts!

 

I did. I was interested in the comment that Yahoo pulled the article for its US editions. This led me to wonder if Spencer saw it because he's in Canada now.

I don't find it among the headlines of Google either. Is it in Yahoo USA?

 

If you google George Fox University and hit the news section a bunch of articles pop up, so no US blackout.

Link

 

I've been rolling this around in my brain for quite a while now. It's said so often that it almost sounds like the truth. It isn't, however, and it's a bit insulting -- as if everyone decided that now was the time to have a black nominee and Obama just happened to be standing in the right place.

Obama's national constituency was built in the exact same manner as was FDR's and Ronald Reagan's. Obama's speech at the 2004 national convention electrified delegates and gave them the idea that here was a new type of politician that might excite Democrats who had been turned off by lackluster candidates, and might even bring young people into the party. Just as happend when FDR gave the nominating speech for Al Smith in 1928 [his "Happy Warrior" speech is still studied for its brilliance], and when Ronald Reagan did the same for Barry Goldwater in 1964, party professionals started rubbing their hands together thinking "this is the new Democrat/Republican/Democrat we need to turn our fortunes around.

Yes, Obama was black, but it must be pointed out that this was NOT why he electrified the party professionals. African Americans have been solidly Democratic for more than 40 years now, and there is no benefit to having someone whose race will appeal to one of your guaranteed bases while alienating the moderates you have to attract in order to win.

Now, did Obama become a senator because he was black? No, he became a senator because Illinois Republican leadership is [and it amazes me to be typing this] even more stupid than Texas' Democratic leadership. First they nominate a wife abusing sexual-deviant to run for senator and then, when it becomes obvious that "the black guy" might beat "the deviant," the Party bounces him and gets their "own black guy" -- and here's the really brainy part: the guy they pick is a resident of MARYLAND. Would Obama have won the senatorial race against a non-wife abusing, non-sexual deviant white guy from Illinois with actual credentials? Nobody knows. Had the Illinois Republican Party not had their heads so far up their asses, Obama might have lost and we wouldn't be exciting all these electrons.

Now, one point about "race voting" from my personal experience living in Virginia in the late 80s. Doug Wilder was elected governor while I was living there, and it made a lot of headlines across the country. Wilder was very strong in the southern part of the state, but it was perceived wisdom that only a Northern VA Republican could lose the election to him. The non-DC area most likely candidate was asked about a certain Marine Lt. Colonel who was, at that time, being investigated for his activities in Iran-Contra. The guy said something along the lines of "They're still investigating. I think it's a little early to call for either conviction or pardon." This drove the VA Party so nuts that they bounced this guy and replaced him with a Northern Virginian, who lost -- in a squeaker -- to Wilder.

Voter analysis in mostly black districts revealed that the percentage of black voters who voted for Wilder was very similar to the percentage of black voters who voted for the white Democrat in the previous election.

Two years later, the Republicans nominated an African American to be the ritual sacrifice in the senatorial race against Chuck Robb. He lost BIG TIME.

Voter analysis showed that in heavily white precincts around the state, over 75% of people voted for the Republican candidate in every race OTHER than senator. In those heavily Republican areas, the African American Republican US Senatorical candidate got a little under 15% of the vote. In the heavily black districts, the black Republican candidate also got a little under 15% of the vote. In other words, in both elections, VA's African Americans voted the same for the black guy as they did for the white guy, while VA's white voters ... .

Now that was 20 years ago -- and I'm not saying that this will happen this year in Virginia or anywhere -- but it is a clear, documented example of the results of "voting for the same race" in the same state only two years apart.

 

You got me. I lied:

1. FDR didn't get his national constituency by nominating Al Smith. It was Daffy Duck who did that.

2. Reagan actually nominated Daffy Duck in 1964.

3. Alan Keyes really wasn't a registered voter in Maryland when he ran against Obama.

4. I never lived in Southern Virginia, especially not in the late 1980s.

5. Chuck Robb didn't run against a black guy for senator.

6. Obama DID get the nomination because Howard Dean wanted a black guy and he was standing nearby at the time. AND

7. Oh, and there is NO political organization as ignorant as the Texas Democratic Party.

Anything else I "lied" about?

Nice to have you back, 'fog.