It's Not Race, It's Arugula

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
Weekly Standard



Quote:

The second school of thought admits the presence of bias as a contributing factor, but not the most important one. The real cause, it thinks, is a cultural divide among whites that splits them on matters of worldview and attitude into hostile and competing camps. Let us call this rival approach the Barone Manifesto, after its author, political analyst Michael Barone, who crunched the poll numbers for Obama's primary battles with Hillary Clinton and discovered that while the former did exceedingly well with white voters in university towns and state capitals, he did poorly almost everywhere else. From this, Barone broke the electorate down into two large divisions--academics and state employees who live in these places, whom he calls Academicians, and Jacksonians, who live elsewhere, especially in the regions close to the Appalachian mountains.



A persuasive article that notes the principle weaknesses in Obama and his campaign have nothing to do with race and everything to do with his positions.



Time



USA Today



Commentary Magazine



RCP



Quote:

So many questions, so little time. If Obama really means to change the political landscape, he ought to agree to lots of open exchanges with McCain. And if he won't, the media should ask, why not?



Quote:

Their campaign is definitively saying 'Thanks but no thanks,' and Barack Obama knows it," Bounds said.



McCain, who is behind Obama in some national polls, has proposed a series of 10 weekly sessions leading up to the presidential nominating conventions. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe countered Friday with a plan for two pre-convention encounters: a town hall over the Fourth of July and "an in-depth debate on foreign policy" in August.



Quote:

Though initially receptive to the idea of joint town halls, the Obama campaign has so far opted to treat McCain's ambitious proposal as a calculated political threat, not a high-minded invitation to improve the democratic process. On Friday, the Obama campaign said that it would agree to a single town hall, on the Fourth of July, and an additional forum on foreign policy, a counteroffer that McCain quickly deemed unacceptable. The Obama camp may have genuine concerns about how their candidate will stack up against McCain in such a format. But they are also well aware that so many joint appearances only help McCain, who badly trails Obama in fund raising, rack up the free media exposure he needs to keep pace with his opponent.



Quote:

The November election is, and remains, Barack Obama’s to lose. Usually, candidates whose victories are entirely in their own hands make it through. It is clear Obama’s path to victory is through the teleprompter. Let him give a big speech and he drives it like Tiger Woods hitting a fairway, as he did Sunday with his stunning sermon about the importance of fathers. But let him sit for an interview with a well-prepared reporter who isn’t interested in shilling for him and Obama makes mistake after mistake.



A few more that note the best means of going after Obama is trying to get him away from a teleprompter and into another format.



You're welcome. There is nothing about race that is in the cards or even necessary to make Obama lose this race. As the articles note it is still his to lose however he is an Academicians instead of a Jacksonian. Everytime he opens his mouth away from a teleprompter the weaknesses appear in the armor. The more specifics he has to spill about his positions, the more he will turn off the electorate.



Big money, big commercial buys, distance yourself from the press, from press conferences and stay vague. This is the "new" politics of Obama.
«13

Comments

  • sslarsonsslarson Posts: 923member
    The 4th of July? That's priceless. Is that as obvious and transparent to everyone else as it is to me?
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Every time he opens his mouth away from a teleprompter the weaknesses appear in the armor.




    Really? This is a new line of attack, I think. So Obama's just a mouthpiece for a good speechwriter? How, specifically, does he fail when not delivering a prepared speech?
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Really? This is a new line of attack, I think. So Obama's just a mouthpiece for a good speechwriter? How specifically, does he fail when not delivering a prepared speech?



    It's stupid. Obama off-the-cuff doesn't compare to Obama teleprompter only because of how well he gives speeches. He hardly fails in that other setting. And the idea that McCain's "strength" is in informal "town hall" settings is perplexing, too. McCain's best gaffes happen in those settings. 100 years in Iraq, anyone?
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    trumpt:



    Re: "nothing to do with race"



    The voters say otherwise.



    - Kentucky

    78% of those who said race was one of several important factors voted Clinton

    81% of those who said race was important voted Clinton

    88% of whites who said race was a factor voted Clinton



    - West Virginia

    86% of those who said race was the single most important factor voted Clinton

    80% of those who said race one of several important factors voted Clinton

    6% of the people who said that only Barack Obama shares their values voted Clinton (0% the other way)

    82% of those who said race was important voted Clinton

    84% of whites who said race was a factor voted Clinton







    McCain's townhalls are staged, planted with supporters.



    Bemoaning Obama's absence as these things is like wondering why McCain doesn't come to some "open townhall" that's hosted by MoveOn.org and stocked with members of Code Pink.
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Obama is outpolling McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania, so analyzing the source of Obama's "problem" in that regard is pure wishful thinking on the part of the Weekly Standard and concern trolling at its finest.



    More generally, playing mind reading games with what motivates a given voter has precisely nothing to do with what a given party and a given party's cohorts are willing to do to eke out a few more percentage points on election day.



    If the right thinks the real divide is some kind of fatuous class distinction, why aren't they handing out "Why Can't Obama Clear Brush?" buttons at their conventions? Why doesn't Fox have a little fun at the Obama's expense by calling Michelle his "lawyer lady"? Why don't the right wing blogs get a hard on for his association with hard core academics and various upper class sorts?



    It's not like that's not the template, "elitist" has been the go-to slur for a while now. But you have to choose between "elitist" and "scary black man". The more you focus on, say, the fact that the Obamas actually live in a nice house, the harder it is to imply that they'll ruin the neighborhood.



    The right doesn't need to worry about voters who think raising taxes is the devil's work, or who think withdrawing from Iraq is cowardly, or who feel that surveillance and torture are American values, or who think gummit programs is code for black helicopters, or who are inclined to react reflexively to "liberalism". These are the people who "disagree with Obama's ideas."



    The trouble is, there aren't enough of them to win the election. So the Republicans have to come up with something other than "ideas" to get their guy across the finish line.



    Gee, I wonder what they might come up with?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Really? This is a new line of attack, I think. So Obama's just a mouthpiece for a good speechwriter? How, specifically, does he fail when not delivering a prepared speech?



    It may be new for you, but a search will show that I was of the view that the more Democratic debates there were before primaries, the worse Obama did. I said several times that Clinton bested Obama in debates and also that Obama was not holding his own.



    The way he specifically fails is that he has to speak in more than platitudes and is forced to take positions when pressed with follow-up questions. The best example of this was the Wright speech versus the Wright news conference.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    trumpt:



    Re: "nothing to do with race"



    The voters say otherwise.



    - Kentucky

    78% of those who said race was one of several important factors voted Clinton

    81% of those who said race was important voted Clinton

    88% of whites who said race was a factor voted Clinton



    - West Virginia

    86% of those who said race was the single most important factor voted Clinton

    80% of those who said race one of several important factors voted Clinton

    6% of the people who said that only Barack Obama shares their values voted Clinton (0% the other way)

    82% of those who said race was important voted Clinton

    84% of whites who said race was a factor voted Clinton







    McCain's townhalls are staged, planted with supporters.



    Bemoaning Obama's absence as these things is like wondering why McCain doesn't come to some "open townhall" that's hosted by MoveOn.org and stocked with members of Code Pink.



    Wow, that is perhaps the most distorted manner I have seen you put forward numbers.



    For example the first number.. 78% of the 14% or in reality....11% of Democratic voters. However even this is a distortion because Clinton won the state so handily that all numbers involving her voters here look large.



    The rest is just more of the same, percentages of percentages. Your approach is profoundly dishonest as you intentionally omit the context and try to inflate the numbers.



    Quote:

    McCain's townhalls are staged, planted with supporters.



    Bemoaning Obama's absence as these things is like wondering why McCain doesn't come to some "open townhall" that's hosted by MoveOn.org and stocked with members of Code Pink.



    My links never attempted to claim that McCain only has altruistic motives in desiring townhall meetings. The point is to note that it isn't about race. McCain wants townhalls, not to discuss if Obama is Muslim, what his middle name is or any other such nonsense. He believes that the more Obama speaks off the cuff, the more he hurts himself. The more he clarifies his positions, the more people will not vote for him. Clearly all of his efforts, political or not, are aimed in that direction.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    [CENTER]
    Quote:

    The Weekly Standard is an American conservative opinion magazine published 48 times per year. It is owned by News Corporation and made its debut on September 17, 1995. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes.



    [/CENTER]



    Conservative opinion magazine, what's that?



    Bill Kristol, who's that?



    Fred Barnes, who's that?



    News Corporation, what's that?



    [CENTER]
    Quote:

    News Corporation is the world's largest media conglomerate company by market capitalization. The company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is Rupert Murdoch and the President and Chief Operating Officer is Peter Chernin.



    [/CENTER]



    Rupert Murdoch, who's that?



    Barack Obama, now that's a name I recognize, he's got my vote, no questions need be asked.
  • giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    tl, dr. eruca sativa is yummy, but if you prefer the taco hell shits then good luck with the epic fail that entails.



    Regardless, there are 1001 reasons why you aren't a RAD kat, trumpt (you know what I mean), but obama is swell this season.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Do I know what you mean giant? Why don't you spell it out for us all?
  • giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Do I know what you mean giant? Why don't you spell it out for us all?



    The world increasingly looks at you through the rear-view mirror and you still don't understand what that means.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    trumptman:



    How the fuck is quoting percentages like that misleading? If you don't understand the goddam numbers when you first see them and are misled then that's your own brain misleading itself.



    The point is clear; race certainly was a factor for many voters, and those voters were against Obama because he was black. You tried to say that it had "nothing to do with race". When, in reality, it did.



    You could have said "race wasn't a major factor" and it would've been a reasonable statement. But since you were going for childish hyperbole you overreached and needed to be brought back to earth.



    Quote:

    My links never attempted to claim that McCain only has altruistic motives in desiring townhall meetings.



    Sure, but your pathetic and insipid commentary was aimed at Obama as if he were ducking fair scrutiny. As usual, it's not the facts that are the problem, but you. You reach past where your cover is and it makes you look stupid.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by giant View Post


    The world increasingly looks at you through the rear-view mirror and you still don't understand what that means.



    Do I know what you mean giant? Why don't you spell it out for us all?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    trumptman:



    How the fuck is quoting percentages like that misleading? If you don't understand the goddam numbers when you first see them and are misled then that's your own brain misleading itself.



    I understood them perfectly and pointed out how you were attempting to mislead. I didn't misunderstand what you typed, rather you are clearly pissed off that you were found out and that percentages of percentages make the numbers much smaller than what you were trying to represent.



    Quote:

    The point is clear; race certainly was a factor for many voters, and those voters were against Obama because he was black. You tried to say that it had "nothing to do with race". When, in reality, it did.



    Wrong again. Race can be a factor for a white voter who believes it is time we had a black president. The polling didn't break it out to that degree but it might be extrapolated from other data. You assume the negative state of race on the contest.



    Quote:

    You could have said "race wasn't a major factor" and it would've been a reasonable statement. But since you were going for childish hyperbole you overreached and needed to be brought back to earth.



    It still isn't a major factor. Are the 90% of blacks who voted for Obama automatically racist? 11% of white voters said race was a factor but did not say in what direction. Perhaps you should challenge your own assumptions a bit more.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    I understood them perfectly and pointed out how you were attempting to mislead.



    You said it had "nothing to do with race". I showed you that race was part of it. You freak out like a drama queen accusing me of being misleading for posting statistics. It's not my fault the statistics destroyed your stupid argument that it "had nothing to do with race".



    It obviously did have something to with race for tens of thousands of people.



    Quote:

    You assume the negative state of race on the contest.



    Yes, because I'm not fucking retarded. Whites who said race was a factor broke heavily for Clinton. If they did so to make sure it was a black man's turn then there's some crazy fucking interstellar geometry going on somewhere.







    Quote:

    It still isn't a major factor.



    Shift those goalposts, baby. From "nothing to do with the race" to "isn't a major factor". If only you hadn't gone the exaggerating drama queen route in the first place... Christ.



    Quote:

    Are the 90% of blacks who voted for Obama automatically racist?



    No, why would we think they were?

    Who called anyone "racist"? Stop being such a fucking drama queen.



    Quote:

    11% of white voters said race was a factor but did not say in what direction.



    In Kentucky, 88% of whites who said race was a factor voted Clinton.

    In West Virginia, 86% of those who said race was the single most important factor voted Clinton.



    Among those for whom race was a factor, whites dominated and they were largely voting against the black one.



    And your "whites could vote based on race for a black person!" idea actually has a data set if you bothered to look past your tears.



    In Kentucky, 9% of whites who said race was a factor voted for Obama.

    The exact same result was found in West Virginia.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Weekly Standard







    A persuasive article that notes the principle weaknesses in Obama and his campaign have nothing to do with race and everything to do with his positions.



    Time



    USA Today



    Commentary Magazine



    RCP



















    A few more that note the best means of going after Obama is trying to get him away from a teleprompter and into another format.



    You're welcome. There is nothing about race that is in the cards or even necessary to make Obama lose this race. As the articles note it is still his to lose however he is an Academicians instead of a Jacksonian. Everytime he opens his mouth away from a teleprompter the weaknesses appear in the armor. The more specifics he has to spill about his positions, the more he will turn off the electorate.



    Big money, big commercial buys, distance yourself from the press, from press conferences and stay vague. This is the "new" politics of Obama.



    How much do you want to bet McCain doesn't last long in a debate with him?



    The first 2 links just talked about McCain and the others that did talk about Obama are kind of biased.
  • flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Giant's doing his best DMZ impression
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by giant View Post


    obama is swell this season.



    That was one of the best concerts I have ever seen.
  • bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    However even this is a distortion because Clinton won the state so handily that all numbers involving her voters here look large.



    And why could it be that she won handily in those states? Hmmm.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    And why could it be that she won handily in those states? Hmmm.



    It's pretty simple, actually. Race isn't a factor because in states with large white populations, among those who said race was a factor in their vote, a large percentage broke for Clinton, and so she won those states by a large margin. See? Race isn't a factor because it's a percentage of a percentage!
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    You said it had "nothing to do with race". I showed you that race was part of it. You freak out like a drama queen accusing me of being misleading for posting statistics. It's not my fault the statistics destroyed your stupid argument that it "had nothing to do with race".



    Clearly you didn't understand my argument then. The contention has been that Obama can only lose due to racism and that Republicans will attempt to exploit racism to force him to lose. I showed that the tactics McCain is using have "nothing to do with race." In post after post, I've noted that if you can show Obama as a person of typical political motivations, and remove from him the messianic, once in a generation label he gives himself, you stand a good chance of beating him. Additionally if the Republican campaign can make this about policy instead of personality then Obama falls down quickly.



    Quote:

    It obviously did have something to with race for tens of thousands of people.



    It obviously did not stop Douglas Wilder from winning. Jacksonian Democrats may use race as a factor but the overriding factor is whether the person aligns with their warrior beliefs. That first article explains a lot of why 2006 was good year from Democrats. Many of the type of Democrats who won were Jacksonian. You had the Jim Webb as probably the best example and someone who also took George Allen from presidential contender to doormat.



    Quote:

    Yes, because I'm not fucking retarded. Whites who said race was a factor broke heavily for Clinton. If they did so to make sure it was a black man's turn then there's some crazy fucking interstellar geometry going on somewhere.



    Those races broke heavily for Clinton in all categories. Clinton's +/- against Obama on those races were 35-40+%.



    Quote:

    Shift those goalposts, baby. From "nothing to do with the race" to "isn't a major factor". If only you hadn't gone the exaggerating drama queen route in the first place... Christ.



    Hahahahahahahaha You don't need race to beat Obama. I never contended that some people won't use race as a consideration. My contention is that you don't have to use race to beat him. It's in the thread title for goodness sakes.



    Quote:

    No, why would we think they were?

    Who called anyone "racist"? Stop being such a fucking drama queen.



    I'm going to ask you to consider the fact that the board software doesn't allow me to ignore your posts and request that you get the insult to salient point ratio down to say 3:1.



    Quote:

    In Kentucky, 88% of whites who said race was a factor voted Clinton.

    In West Virginia, 86% of those who said race was the single most important factor voted Clinton.



    Among those for whom race was a factor, whites dominated and they were largely voting against the black one.



    And your "whites could vote based on race for a black person!" idea actually has a data set if you bothered to look past your tears.



    In Kentucky, 9% of whites who said race was a factor voted for Obama.

    The exact same result was found in West Virginia.



    Yes and apparently the data set was too small but the numbers were similar for blacks voting for Obama roughly 90-10. If you have two groups, whites using it as a factor being 11% and blacks overall being 9% and each votes 90-10 for their respective candidate, you are talking about a roughly 2% advantage of votes in a race that was a won by Clinton by 35 percentage points.



    You want to call this major. I don't. Eitherway it isn't race it is arugula. Obama does badly when he has to leave the abstractions, when he has to pick a side, when he cannot dazzle with platitudes and personality. McCain campaign tactics should steer toward that and they appear to be attempting to do so.
Sign In or Register to comment.