or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's "Appalachia Problem"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's "Appalachia Problem" - Page 2

post #41 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Wait, so if Obama refers to working class whites as "bitter", that's proof of his "elitism", but if the mainstream media goes out of its way to avoid labeling working class whites as "racist", that's proof of their elitism?

It's proof of his elitism according to Republicans and of course according to Hillary Clinton. The media hasn't gone out of the way to avoid labeling anyone who doesn't vote for Obama as a racist at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Exclusively?

Words do mean something.

I'm pretty sure "racism" is more than just a tool for discrediting Republicans.

It is as a general definition, but I was referring specifically as to why Democrats would not label other Democrats practicing racism as racists, but instead as an Appalachia problem.

You know it was that whole thread-topic thing I was addressing.

Words do mean something. When Democrats practice racism, they should be called racists. The media won't call them that and neither will fellow Democrats.

Why don't you show words do mean something Shawn. Why don't you call major segments of the Democratic party what they plainly are... racists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You know, this drives me crazy. Democrats bend over backwards trying to make nice to rural and southern people. In fact, all recent Democratic presidents have been southerners. But when something slips out that can be interpreted as insulting, it's a huge deal. And yet a major part of the overt politicking by Republicans involves regional and class division.

A constant line is to criticize liberal elites on the coasts.

Part of George Bush's stump speech, which he gave almost every day for several weeks in 2004, directly mocked Massachusetts and Kerry for having Massachusetts values. It was explicit regional division.

There's an ad out right now depicting a Missouri Democrat as having "San Francisco values," showing an interracial group dancing to crazy music. It's explicit regional division.

There's nothing that Democratic politicians do - in reverse - that even comes close to this.

The problem of course is that being nice to me in my backyard and then going back to your own neighborhood and talking about how nice you were to the "trailer trash" down the block manages to get back to me, and then I see it for what it is which isn't nice at all.

Clearly Obama understood what he was saying to the crowd in San Francisco and also understood why he was saying it. It isn't "interpreted" as insulting. It is an outright insult that he simply didn't think it would be recorded.

As someone who lives on one of those coasts, and who has works in a field that pretty much IS the Democratic party, I can toss out a few empty phrases to create an opening in what would be closed door company and know exactly what is said about those who are religious, who own guns, believe in traditional families or live in fly-over country.

Being nice while stabbing someone in the back doesn't excuse the stabbing. As for doing the reverse, let me suggest and I mean this politely, that you remove the blinders BRussell. You can read these same closed-door comments on any leftist blog or site on the web. The reverse is calling all Republicans racists, sexists, oppressors, rich guys who think of no one else, people who hate the planet, their fellow humans, and of course they are more than willing to tar entire sections of the country with it.

I didn't just imagine "What the Matter with Kansas?" did I?

I've gone to the Huffington Post where there is an article with Jim Webb addressing the topic of this thread.

The comments there are generally positive, and this is because Webb explains what most Democrats believe impossible, that you can a white male and GASP not have a privileged background.

However go to this thread and of course every Republican is a racist, sexist, etc.

Oh and of course anyone who associates with them and is of color is a ..token... never legitimate. I'd say that not only comes close, I'd say it surpasses by far anything Republicans can do.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #42 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Why don't you call major segments of the Democratic party what they plainly are... racists.

It does seem like that's more so the case in Appalachia.

I'm not sure for how many voters race played a role. Anyone have any numbers?
post #43 of 163
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

It does seem like that's more so the case in Appalachia.

I'm not sure for how many voters race played a role. Anyone have any numbers?

There were stats about something like 21% of the voters for Clinton who said that race was an issue. There was a state about how 80% of those reported something horrible, but I honestly can't remember what.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #44 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It's proof of his elitism according to Republicans and of course according to Hillary Clinton. The media hasn't gone out of the way to avoid labeling anyone who doesn't vote for Obama as a racist at all.

I thought that was the topic of the thread-- that the national media are speaking of Obama's "Appalachian problem", when it seems like he has a race problem.

Quote:
It is as a general definition, but I was referring specifically as to why Democrats would not label other Democrats practicing racism as racists, but instead as an Appalachia problem.

You know it was that whole thread-topic thing I was addressing.

Um, again, I believe the topic was how the national media is portraying this, not what "other democrats" are saying. Yeah, I know, the idea that the national media might be circumspect when talking about the motivations of lower class whites doesn't conform to your General Theory of Liberal Hypocrisy, so it is invisible to you.

Quote:
Words do mean something. When Democrats practice racism, they should be called racists. The media won't call them that and neither will fellow Democrats.

Wait, so it is "the media." And Democrats. Well, hell, where are the straight shooting Republicans in all this? Shouldn't they be calling the voters of Appalachia "racist"? I mean, not being burdened with Super Double Standard Hypocrisy, and all.

But wait: I thought the other theme of this thread is that calling lower class whites names was the heart and soul of elitist horribleness? So now it is your contention that the lower class whites of Appalachia are racist? Or is it just the Democratic voting lower class whites? But what about Operation Chaos? Isn't that sending lots of Republican voters out to pull the lever for Hillary? Man, this all gets so confusing.

Quote:
Why don't you show words do mean something Shawn. Why don't you call major segments of the Democratic party what they plainly are... racists.

Well, that's pretty clear. You're an elitist that hates working class white people. I'm clipping and saving this startling admission, and will post it each and every time you start to drone on about liberal arrogance.


Quote:
The problem of course is that being nice to me in my backyard and then going back to your own neighborhood and talking about how nice you were to the "trailer trash" down the block manages to get back to me, and then I see it for what it is which isn't nice at all.

You're trailer trash? Man, this changes everything-- I though you were getting on pretty well. Oh, unless you were presuming to speak for "trailer trash" by reading their minds, in which case, God, you are such a fucking elitist.

Quote:
Clearly Obama understood what he was saying to the crowd in San Francisco and also understood why he was saying it. It isn't "interpreted" as insulting. It is an outright insult that he simply didn't think it would be recorded.

Yes, I'm sure that's right-- presidential candidates addressing rooms full of donors generally assume it's much like talking to your cousin on the back porch. But then, what the hell are you complaining about? You think those same voters are racists, which is a good deal more severe than "bitter." You make Obama's elitism look positively genteel.

Quote:
As someone who lives on one of those coasts, and who has works in a field that pretty much IS the Democratic party, I can toss out a few empty phrases to create an opening in what would be closed door company and know exactly what is said about those who are religious, who own guns, believe in traditional families or live in fly-over country.

I work at a school, myself. In freaking San Francisco. And those people are from "fly over country", or have family there. Are your coworkers perhaps coming from the same crew that drive Priuses by your house shouting "better than you!" as they pass? Has it occurred to you that everyone you know is fucking with you, because you're such an easy mark?

Meanwhile, I grew up in Alabama and visit frequently, and I can assure you that just lots and lots of those folks talk about "liberals" precisely like an earlier generation would have talked about "jews." Hey, do I get to claim that Alabama is "pretty much the Republican Party?

Quote:
Being nice while stabbing someone in the back doesn't excuse the stabbing. As for doing the reverse, let me suggest and I mean this politely, that you remove the blinders BRussell. You can read these same closed-door comments on any leftist blog or site on the web. The reverse is calling all Republicans racists, sexists, oppressors, rich guys who think of no one else, people who hate the planet, their fellow humans, and of course they are more than willing to tar entire sections of the country with it.

Left blogs have closed-door commentary? And you managed to sneak in? I must alert supreme commander Kos!

As far as finding a bunch of comments calling "all Republicans" anything in particular: you're literally making that up. Lying. More charitably, maybe your hatred makes you hallucinate.

Quote:
I didn't just imagine "What the Matter with Kansas?" did I?

Which is synonymous with the Democratic Party! So ha!

Hey, consider this: on the one hand, a book about the counter-intuitive voting patterns of folks in Kansas, ascribing it the powerful use of cultural wedge issues by the right; and on the other, pretty much anything by Ann Coulter, suggesting that the best thing to be done with "liberals" is to hit them with bats or round them up and put them in detention camps.

Quote:
I've gone to the Huffington Post where there is an article with Jim Webb addressing the topic of this thread.

The comments there are generally positive, and this is because Webb explains what most Democrats believe impossible, that you can a white male and GASP not have a privileged background.

I find it bemusing that, in a post strenuously arguing for the appalling lack of nuance amongst liberal commentators re "the fly over states", you can blithely assure us that "most Democrats" believe that it is impossible to be a white male and not be privileged.

Wait, did I say "bemused"? I meant "Jesus fucking christ, do you live in a cartoon where they banned irony?"


Quote:
However go to this thread and of course every Republican is a racist, sexist, etc.

Oh and of course anyone who associates with them and is of color is a ..token... never legitimate. I'd say that not only comes close, I'd say it surpasses by far anything Republicans can do.

Hmmmm....... on this hand, largely made up blog comments. On the other, the fundamental, oft repeated notion of the Republican Party that "liberals" are a scourge, traitorous, amoral, and an anathema to every right thinking real American, God bless their industrious souls.

And, dude, do you really want to play dueling blog comments? Because "die, you fucking faggot aids ridden douchbag go back to Iraq and suck bin Laden's dick" is available in abundance, as is "hope it comes to a civil war because we have all the guns can't wait to put a cap in some liberals pussy, faggot loving ass."

But hell, let's not go there. It might be more instructive to pay attention to what actual representatives of the Democratic and Republican Parties actually say, as opposed to making sweeping generalizations about a certain class of people. Because we know how you hate that.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #45 of 163
the problem with the interpretation that BRussell put forth with respect to numbers of blacks and how the whites vote is cities, everywhere. Even in rural states blacks tend to congregate to the cities, which have historically been liberal compared to their rural environs. The feature observed isn't so much an aspect of race but of the threat to rural life that race, in states with sizable cities with sizable black populations, seems to carry... Basically, blame gets tossed onto black urban dwellers for the ills/scariness of the cities and this translates into a voting trend to protect the ways of living of the rural whites.

In the absence of cities with large minority populations, voters cannot tack their fears onto an unknown -- urban blight in white cities is looked at as a class problem, something that Obama clearly has no relation to...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #46 of 163
I think the obvious conclusion to this thread is not that this is Obama's "Appalachian problem". It is America's. It's just that nobody's honest enough to say so.
post #47 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I thought that was the topic of the thread-- that the national media are speaking of Obama's "Appalachian problem", when it seems like he has a race problem.

They are calling it that because the media, who vote 80+% Democratic, will not note that their own party has a race problem and people who are racist in it.

Quote:
Um, again, I believe the topic was how the national media is portraying this, not what "other democrats" are saying. Yeah, I know, the idea that the national media might be circumspect when talking about the motivations of lower class whites doesn't conform to your General Theory of Liberal Hypocrisy, so it is invisible to you.

You fail to see that the two are one in the same.

Quote:
Wait, so it is "the media." And Democrats. Well, hell, where are the straight shooting Republicans in all this? Shouldn't they be calling the voters of Appalachia "racist"? I mean, not being burdened with Super Double Standard Hypocrisy, and all.

The Republicans are enjoying the break and enjoying watching the party tear itself in half. There is no need for them to pile in and muddy the waters with regard to motivations and outcomes.

Quote:
But wait: I thought the other theme of this thread is that calling lower class whites names was the heart and soul of elitist horribleness? So now it is your contention that the lower class whites of Appalachia are racist? Or is it just the Democratic voting lower class whites? But what about Operation Chaos? Isn't that sending lots of Republican voters out to pull the lever for Hillary? Man, this all gets so confusing.

Well you get back to your own deluded reasoning on this which is that any one who doesn't pull the lever for Obama is automatically racist, and secondly no matter the outcome, it all still comes down to evil Republicans.

I think you've shown exactly why Republicans don't rush in to participate in this slamfest between the two candidates and their campaigns that consist of tossing and claiming victimization of an -ism by each other respectively.

Quote:
Well, that's pretty clear. You're an elitist that hates working class white people. I'm clipping and saving this startling admission, and will post it each and every time you start to drone on about liberal arrogance.

You already think I am that because that is your definition of Republican.

Quote:
You're trailer trash? Man, this changes everything-- I though you were getting on pretty well. Oh, unless you were presuming to speak for "trailer trash" by reading their minds, in which case, God, you are such a fucking elitist.

Of course I am trailer trash by liberal definitions. I live in those suburb/ex-urbs. I drive a pick up and own an SUV which is code for killing the planet while owning a second vacation home is not.

Also reading the minds of my fellow trailer dwellers doesn't make me elitist, it makes me populist. I know this because John Edwards told me this while we were lunching at the hedge fund.

Quote:
Yes, I'm sure that's right-- presidential candidates addressing rooms full of donors generally assume it's much like talking to your cousin on the back porch. But then, what the hell are you complaining about? You think those same voters are racists, which is a good deal more severe than "bitter." You make Obama's elitism look positively genteel.

Actually Obama thinks they are both bitter and racist. The difference being the party affiliation. If you don't think that candidates speak more candidly in a room full of donors, then clearly you haven't been one.

Quote:
I work at a school, myself. In freaking San Francisco. And those people are from "fly over country", or have family there. Are your coworkers perhaps coming from the same crew that drive Priuses by your house shouting "better than you!" as they pass? Has it occurred to you that everyone you know is fucking with you, because you're such an easy mark?

I was wondering when the spittle would fill the screen and this would become about me instead of the topic. I know suggesting that working in a field that is 95% female, and 95% Democratic makes it hard to believe they would mirror negative Democratic feelings but it is true.

Meanwhile, you are as predictable as a two headed quarter.

Quote:
Meanwhile, I grew up in Alabama and visit frequently, and I can assure you that just lots and lots of those folks talk about "liberals" precisely like an earlier generation would have talked about "jews." Hey, do I get to claim that Alabama is "pretty much the Republican Party?

If we had a working search function, I'm sure I could dig up a few red state rants from you.

Quote:
Left blogs have closed-door commentary? And you managed to sneak in? I must alert supreme commander Kos!

As far as finding a bunch of comments calling "all Republicans" anything in particular: you're literally making that up. Lying. More charitably, maybe your hatred makes you hallucinate.

Well apparently I should go into the drug trade because I've hallucinated thousands of comments across Daily Kos, TPM, Huffington Post and so on.

Quote:
Which is synonymous with the Democratic Party! So ha!

Absolutely. If I write a book about a state and suggest that the voters in it are suffering from a mental delusion that can be remedied by voting for the party other than the one they are currently supporting, you can link me with that party as well.

Quote:
Hey, consider this: on the one hand, a book about the counter-intuitive voting patterns of folks in Kansas, ascribing it the powerful use of cultural wedge issues by the right; and on the other, pretty much anything by Ann Coulter, suggesting that the best thing to be done with "liberals" is to hit them with bats or round them up and put them in detention camps.

Could I get a citation on the Coulter quote?

I find it hilarious that people expressing what they want via their own vote is "counter-intuitive" because they didn't vote the way you want. Of course the book itself was garbage that was nothing more than anecdotal pondering and whining supported by nothing. The only supporting numbers he had in the book were page numbers.

Quote:
I find it bemusing that, in a post strenuously arguing for the appalling lack of nuance amongst liberal commentators re "the fly over states", you can blithely assure us that "most Democrats" believe that it is impossible to be a white male and not be privileged.

Wait, did I say "bemused"? I meant "Jesus fucking christ, do you live in a cartoon where they banned irony?"

Apparently the gender gap was part of your ironic cartoon instead of part of reality.

Quote:
Hmmmm....... on this hand, largely made up blog comments. On the other, the fundamental, oft repeated notion of the Republican Party that "liberals" are a scourge, traitorous, amoral, and an anathema to every right thinking real American, God bless their industrious souls.

And, dude, do you really want to play dueling blog comments? Because "die, you fucking faggot aids ridden douchbag go back to Iraq and suck bin Laden's dick" is available in abundance, as is "hope it comes to a civil war because we have all the guns can't wait to put a cap in some liberals pussy, faggot loving ass."

But hell, let's not go there. It might be more instructive to pay attention to what actual representatives of the Democratic and Republican Parties actually say, as opposed to making sweeping generalizations about a certain class of people. Because we know how you hate that.

I would love to read a blog comment that actually says what you just typed. Find it for me. Link it up. Just do us all a favor and make sure it has a time stamp before you just going to register right now and adding it to the comments to prove your point. You know because we don't have any history of "activists" in the Democratic party making false sexism or racism charges. I don't have time to watch you hang some nooses from your own door so you can call me a racist.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #48 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The problem of course is that being nice to me in my backyard and then going back to your own neighborhood and talking about how nice you were to the "trailer trash" down the block manages to get back to me, and then I see it for what it is which isn't nice at all.

Clearly Obama understood what he was saying to the crowd in San Francisco and also understood why he was saying it. It isn't "interpreted" as insulting. It is an outright insult that he simply didn't think it would be recorded.

As someone who lives on one of those coasts, and who has works in a field that pretty much IS the Democratic party, I can toss out a few empty phrases to create an opening in what would be closed door company and know exactly what is said about those who are religious, who own guns, believe in traditional families or live in fly-over country.

Being nice while stabbing someone in the back doesn't excuse the stabbing. As for doing the reverse, let me suggest and I mean this politely, that you remove the blinders BRussell. You can read these same closed-door comments on any leftist blog or site on the web. The reverse is calling all Republicans racists, sexists, oppressors, rich guys who think of no one else, people who hate the planet, their fellow humans, and of course they are more than willing to tar entire sections of the country with it.

I didn't just imagine "What the Matter with Kansas?" did I?

I've gone to the Huffington Post where there is an article with Jim Webb addressing the topic of this thread.

The comments there are generally positive, and this is because Webb explains what most Democrats believe impossible, that you can a white male and GASP not have a privileged background.

However go to this thread and of course every Republican is a racist, sexist, etc.

Oh and of course anyone who associates with them and is of color is a ..token... never legitimate. I'd say that not only comes close, I'd say it surpasses by far anything Republicans can do.

Yes Obama was caught saying something condescending and was called on it. In the meantime, a substantial part of just about every Republican politician's rhetoric is to openly stereotype and criticize people from San Francisco and Massachusetts.

I'm sure liberal commenters are mean to rednecks, but I'm also sure conservative commenters are mean to latte-sipping elitists. The difference is that this kind of class and regional division is a large and accepted part of the rhetoric of one party, but it's a huge gaffe with wall-to-wall media coverage when it slips out once in the other party.
post #49 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Yes Obama was caught saying something condescending and was called on it. In the meantime, a substantial part of just about every Republican politician's rhetoric is to openly stereotype and criticize people from San Francisco and Massachusetts.

I'm sure liberal commenters are mean to rednecks, but I'm also sure conservative commenters are mean to latte-sipping elitists. The difference is that this kind of class and regional division is a large and accepted part of the rhetoric of one party, but it's a huge gaffe with wall-to-wall media coverage when it slips out once in the other party.

Last I checked Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter weren't running for president. However regardless of that they are indeed occasionally covered in the media for their statements. Both have lost paying gigs for comments they have made as well.

The real issue here though is that Obama was bashing segments of his own party, swing states and well... people he expects to vote for him. You can say what you want about conservatives bashing on San Francisco and Massachusetts, but the reality is that conservatives aren't scratching their heads afterwards wondering why both don't turn out for them at the voting booth. The reverse is not true for Obama. He is the one tossing out the bitter comments, and also having supports elude to racist motivations and then scratching his head and wondering why there is a problem with white, Catholic and other associated types of voters.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #50 of 163
trumptman, I'm not talking about Limbaugh and Coulter, I'm talking about George W. Bush and the RNC. Look at the ad in my first post about this. Look at Bush's 2004 stump speeches where he spits out "Massachusetts values" derisively and then gets huge applause. There's no comparison to that in Kerry or Democratic politicians or the DNC. Maybe they should - maybe Democrats ought to go around the country demonizing the south as the epitome of dumb redneck Republicans, trying to drive a wedge between them and the rest of the country. It would probably work. But it would be wrong, wouldn't it?
post #51 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You know, this drives me crazy. Democrats bend over backwards trying to make nice to rural and southern people. In fact, all recent Democratic presidents have been southerners. But when something slips out that can be interpreted as insulting, it's a huge deal. And yet a major part of the overt politicking by Republicans involves regional and class division.

A constant line is to criticize liberal elites on the coasts.

Part of George Bush's stump speech, which he gave almost every day for several weeks in 2004, directly mocked Massachusetts and Kerry for having Massachusetts values. It was explicit regional division.

There's an ad out right now depicting a Missouri Democrat as having "San Francisco values," showing an interracial group dancing to crazy music. It's explicit regional division.

There's nothing that Democratic politicians do - in reverse - that even comes close to this.

You are 100% correct.

I grew up here in Dallas / Fort Worth but I have traveled and I have been to Boston MA and absolutely loved it and the people. It was a place filled with history, diversity of culture like the north end with the Italian influence etc. I found the people there to be less "snooty" and less "power trip" ish than the yuppies I see here in the Dallas area and certain suburbs like Plano, Southlake and Colleyville. The people in Boston were not cold but in fact very down to earth. That is said only to add to my agreement with you as to my disgust of political tricks and tactics employed by some in politics seeking to try to wedge disharmony with regional diversity for political gain.

SHAMEFUL and America should demand better.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #52 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

trumptman, I'm not talking about Limbaugh and Coulter, I'm talking about George W. Bush and the RNC. Look at the ad in my first post about this. Look at Bush's 2004 stump speeches where he spits out "Massachusetts values" derisively and then gets huge applause. There's no comparison to that in what Democrats do.

Did Bush expect Massachusetts and San Francisco to vote for him? It is a pretty simple question to answer. Bush played to his base in 2000 and played to it even harder in 2004.

The question isn't do politicians pander to certain voter segments because they all certainly do. The question is why is one of them deluded enough to question afterwards why that voter segment didn't turn out for them when they were the ones who had aspirations cast about them by that same candidate.

Bush isn't the one scratching his head wondering why he can't secure the nomination when the voters with "Massachusetts values" didn't vote for him in droves. It is Obama wondering why those who are "bitter" haven't yet given him the nomination within his own party and also wondering why a broad, crossover, populist candidate like himself cannot secure the nomination without the super-delegates.

I don't believe a person can win the presidential campaign running on a false premise. We can call it swift-boating or cry about sour grapes, but I think it true. Clinton for all his flaws ran on what he truly was which is a policy-wonk who likes his AstroTurf. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative and tossed out a bunch of new spending, and then ran as a war president who is indeed considered a monger by those who don't agree with him. Gore ran as... well no one was quite sure. Kerry ran as a war hero, reporting for duty who would run a "better" war. It was easily undermined because it was false.

Clinton ran on experience and others, including myself have pointed out the falseness of that premise. I would say she hasn't been very successful. Obama has run, regardless of what blinders people want to wear, as a candidate who is special not because of policy but because of who he happens to be. There has been resonance to that, but it seems to start to fall down when considering governance or policy. I think this is why Clinton has been most effective with her ads that basically question how Obama would lead. (3 am anyone?)

McCain is trying to run as a new type of Republican, but it appears to be a tightrope he is walking. He does have the "maverick" reputation and clearly has walked that tightrope for a while, but I am not convinced it is a winning narrative.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #53 of 163
the above is a great discussion

the potential problem with mr obama, is the demographics for hilliary, he also has to deal with perception of "elitist and america hater" he needs to come forward and address these issues, and the comments from his wife. remember he is coming off this rev wright thing, if he can't deal with this, it will stick . those demographics that follow hilliary MUST come on board at the convention, this is where the "hilliary deal " comes in. Mr obama's wife doensn't want hilliary, so he must chose someone that can capture those demographics. the big question is whether the dnc machine believes obama can really win this november, time and the convention will tell.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #54 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Did Bush expect Massachusetts and San Francisco to vote for him? It is a pretty simple question to answer. Bush played to his base in 2000 and played to it even harder in 2004.

So then this means no one would bat an eye if Obama suddenly called Appalachian voters racists, right? Right? After all, they're not going to vote for him, right? Right? He'd just be playing to his base, right? Right?

Your whole freaking "argument" is once again... moronic.
post #55 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Bush isn't the one scratching his head wondering why he can't secure the nomination when the voters with "Massachusetts values" didn't vote for him in droves.

What does it say about those "the base" who supported and showed up for Bush when comments about "Massachusetts values" galvanize and strengthen or shore up the vote within this base.

What does it say about those who respond to regional bashing and disharmony?

Don't you find this sort of sad that so many respond and are attracted to such cheap political tricks?

Tricks which are not used to unify the country but instead used for political gain.

Nick despite all the forces which seem to serve to destruct this country the name of our country is:

The United States of America.

Not

The Divided States of America.

Nick I would hope that you and other conservatives would cry foul when your leaders use tactics which are designed to divide the country.

I hope the very same for all left leaning and center leaning folks as well.

It should be a universal understanding that Divided we fail. Now when are we going to learn this vital lesson???????

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #56 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So then this means no one would bat an eye if Obama suddenly called Appalachian voters racists, right? Right? After all, they're not going to vote for him, right? Right? He'd just be playing to his base, right? Right?

Your whole freaking "argument" is once again... moronic.

Obama has been playing to his base. The problem is his base isn't enough to get elected and that is why Clinton has been hanging around and keeps hitting the super-delegates with the "electability" argument.

There is nothing inherently wrong with running on your base, unless of course you are a once in generation, racial healer who wants to unite the country and move us all forward. Then running to your base is a big problem because it is a false premise. If Obama is not a uniter of Democrats, how will he be a uniter of a country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

What does it say about those "the base" who supported and showed up for Bush when comments about "Massachusetts values" galvanize and strengthen or shore up the vote within this base.

What does it say about those who respond to regional bashing and disharmony?

Don't you find this sort of sad that so many respond and are attracted to such cheap political tricks?

Tricks which are not used to unify the country but instead used for political gain.

Nick despite all the forces which seem to serve to destruct this country the name of our country is:

The United States of America.

Not

The Divided States of America.

Nick I would hope that you and other conservatives would cry foul when your leaders use tactics which are designed to divide the country.

I hope the very same for all left leaning and center leaning folks as well.

It should be a universal understanding that Divided we fail. Now when are we going to learn this vital lesson???????

Fellows

The platitudes are nice to consider Fellowship, but the reality is that there is an authoritarian streak within the larger states, the blue states, and there are times they do like to push it onto the red states. You can complain that Texas is more uppity than Massachusetts but it isn't Texas trying to force Massachusetts to change the definition of marriage for example. I can complain it is "sad" that so many respond to it but the reality is that when you ask someone to open their pocketbook they want some satisfaction in return. I have no doubt that is what Obama was giving those folks in San Francisco. I don't think he is a terrible person for it. I only think it quizzical that he asks for money with one hand and wonders why the people he bashed won't give him their votes with the other.

Also even if I want unity in the end, it doesn't change the fact that until that time, our system, and all political systems are adversarial to certain degrees. Those are the facts of life.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You can complain that Texas is more uppity than Massachusetts but it isn't Texas trying to force Massachusetts to change the definition of marriage for example.

WHAT!?

Of COURSE it's Texas trying to change the definition of marriage in Massachusetts!!!!

Massachusetts is definitely not trying to change the definition of marriage in Texas! Massachusetts is defining marriage in Massachusetts.

Texas, for "butting in" on Massachusetts' right to do so, is definitely the one being "uppity".

God, sometimes I think there is a logic gene and certain people just don't get it.
post #58 of 163
here's the BIG problem
iF you DON'T vote for:
obama--you are a racist
hilliary--you are a sexist
mccain--age-ist
the media and pro-whatevers can't wait to stick you with one of these.
let's look at their policies, attitudes, character, they have to "connect" with the majority of VOTERS, that's who will win. now you could say, they have to also connect to a voters appathy...but that's being cynical
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #59 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

There is nothing inherently wrong with running on your base, unless of course you are a once in generation, racial healer who wants to unite the country and move us all forward. Then running to your base is a big problem because it is a false premise. If Obama is not a uniter of Democrats, how will he be a uniter of a country?

Yup.

Quote:
I have no doubt that is what Obama was giving those folks in San Francisco. I don't think he is a terrible person for it. I only think it quizzical that he asks for money with one hand and wonders why the people he bashed won't give him their votes with the other.

Yup.

I think there is a simple answer to all of this... "politics." To claim that politicians from either party will not act like, well, politicians, is stunning in its ignorance. Bush is really no more a Texan than Prescott or GB41- he, like Kerry, is a northeastern elite. Truly the "Connecticut Yankee." Like trumpt said, he was playing to his base, southern evangelical conservatives who agreed with his stated values and stated goals. Politicians say what they think people want to hear... a lot of times they believe what they are saying, many times they do not.

Now, let's take a look at Kerry... who, despite having values that were very contrary to those same voters, donned a hunting vest with the tags still on it and asked "can I get me a huntin license," when everyone in the room knew that he never spoke like that off the campaign trail. This kind of simply stupid pandering was completely transparent... and the response was offense among the very people Kerry was trying to woo. And Clinton... "she don't feel no ways tired..."

Obama tipped his hand with the "bitter" thing. I must have heard the word "bitter" 150 times in three days in Louisville this last weekend. It's become a wonderful mechanism of esprit de corps- when someone asks how you are, you reply simply "bitter." Good times all around.

The problem that Clinton, Kerry, and Obama have is that they reveal a certain disdain for these voters, even as they try to say and act in a way that will obfuscate their opposition to the voters' values. Because they are out of touch with these people, they fall back to their own stereotypes of "clinging to guns and Bibles and racism" and "gettin me a huntin license." And people don't really care to see caricatures of themselves by someone who claims emphatically to be "for them" and "one of them."

I'm just waiting for some conservative Republican to dawn an arrogant, aloof affectation for the explicit purpose of pandering to people that do not share the same values... in an attempt to make themselves appear as "one of them."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #60 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Massachusetts is defining marriage in Massachusetts.

*coughfullfaithandcreditcough*
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #61 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

WHAT!?

Of COURSE it's Texas trying to change the definition of marriage in Massachusetts!!!!

Massachusetts is definitely not trying to change the definition of marriage in Texas! Massachusetts is defining marriage in Massachusetts.

Texas, for "butting in" on Massachusetts' right to do so, is definitely the one being "uppity".

God, sometimes I think there is a logic gene and certain people just don't get it.



You are hilarious.

I'll that one stand all by itself.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #62 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Did Bush expect Massachusetts and San Francisco to vote for him? It is a pretty simple question to answer. Bush played to his base in 2000 and played to it even harder in 2004.

The question isn't do politicians pander to certain voter segments because they all certainly do. The question is why is one of them deluded enough to question afterwards why that voter segment didn't turn out for them when they were the ones who had aspirations cast about them by that same candidate.

Bush isn't the one scratching his head wondering why he can't secure the nomination when the voters with "Massachusetts values" didn't vote for him in droves. It is Obama wondering why those who are "bitter" haven't yet given him the nomination within his own party and also wondering why a broad, crossover, populist candidate like himself cannot secure the nomination without the super-delegates.

I don't believe a person can win the presidential campaign running on a false premise. We can call it swift-boating or cry about sour grapes, but I think it true. Clinton for all his flaws ran on what he truly was which is a policy-wonk who likes his AstroTurf. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative and tossed out a bunch of new spending, and then ran as a war president who is indeed considered a monger by those who don't agree with him. Gore ran as... well no one was quite sure. Kerry ran as a war hero, reporting for duty who would run a "better" war. It was easily undermined because it was false.

Clinton ran on experience and others, including myself have pointed out the falseness of that premise. I would say she hasn't been very successful. Obama has run, regardless of what blinders people want to wear, as a candidate who is special not because of policy but because of who he happens to be. There has been resonance to that, but it seems to start to fall down when considering governance or policy. I think this is why Clinton has been most effective with her ads that basically question how Obama would lead. (3 am anyone?)

McCain is trying to run as a new type of Republican, but it appears to be a tightrope he is walking. He does have the "maverick" reputation and clearly has walked that tightrope for a while, but I am not convinced it is a winning narrative.

... HRC fits the demographics better than BHO in KY and WV. After all it's not like the Democrats have just one potential presidential candidate, they have two, and the respective turnouts of the Democrats versus the Republicans in all the primaries proves this one salient point.

Obama gets his ass handed to him in KY, but still manages to get more votes than all the Republicans combined, Obama gets his ass handed to him in WV, but still manages to get more votes than McCain. And McCain is the Republican nominee.

So basically, what I see here, is someone crying about sour grapes, since Huckabee dropped out, McCain still can get just barely 75% of the total Republican votes cast.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #63 of 163
Racism isn't as rampant as it was, but, it's still there.
Some still wear it on their sleeve but most keep it hidden, saying the right things, but when it comes down to it, behind the curtain, will they vote for the black guy?

Hypothetical, what if some of these voters, just can't do it and it comes down to a win for McCain, even though all the polls, exit polls, say Obama should have won.
What would happen then?

An eg. of the retired Florida thinking on Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us...jewish.html?hp
Quote:
The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel, Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

Theyre going to vote for McCain, she said.

Ms. Grossman, 80, agreed with her friends conclusion, but not her reasoning.

Theyll pick on the minister thing, theyll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color, she said, quietly fingering a coffee cup. Ms. Grossman said she was thinking of voting for Mr. Obama, who is leading in the delegate count for the nomination, as was Ms. Weitz.

She's thinking of voting for Obama but,
Quote:
But Ms. Grossman does not tell the neighbors. I keep my mouth shut, she said.

Because she has to live there.

Some go along and some keep their mouth shut, interesting.
post #64 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Obama gets his ass handed to him in KY, but still manages to get more votes than all the Republicans combined, Obama gets his ass handed to him in WV, but still manages to get more votes than McCain. And McCain is the Republican nominee.

This has nothing to do with... anything. The Republican nominating process is over- has been for awhile- and turnout after the race is already decided does not mean squat WRT the general.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #65 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Bush is really no more a Texan than Prescott or GB41- he, like Kerry, is a northeastern elite. Truly the "Connecticut Yankee." Like trumpt said, he was playing to his base, southern evangelical conservatives who agreed with his stated values and stated goals. Politicians say what they think people want to hear... a lot of times they believe what they are saying, many times they do not.

Early life of George W. Bush

[CENTER]
Quote:
Bush was raised in Midland and Houston, Texas, with siblings Jeb, Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy.
.
.
.
Bush attended Sam Houston Elementary School and San Jacinto Junior High School in Midland, Texas. He later moved to The Kinkaid School in Piney Point Village, Texas for two years. .
.
.
After graduating from Yale University, Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, during the Vietnam War, with a commitment to serve until May 26, 1974. He was promoted to first lieutenant on the November 1970 recommendation of Texas Air National Guard commander Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He served as an F-102 11 pilot until 1972.
.
.
.
Arbusto Energy (sometimes referred to as Arbusto Oil) was a petroleum and energy company formed in Midland, Texas, in 1977, by President of the United States George W. Bush and a group of investors which included Dorothy Bush, Lewis Lehrman, William Henry Draper III, Bill Gammell, and James R. Bath.
.
.
.
As managing general partner of the Rangers, Bush assisted the team's media relations and the construction of a new stadium. His public role generated valuable goodwill and reinforced name recognition throughout Texas that was already high as he had the identical name as his father who was President during this era.
.
.
.
As Bush's brother Jeb sought the governorship of Florida, Bush declared his candidacy for the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. Winning the Republican primary easily, Bush faced popular Democrat incumbent Governor Ann Richards.
.
.
.
In 1998, Bush won re-election with nearly 69 percent of the vote. Within a year, he had decided to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency.
.
.
.
Prairie Chapel Ranch is a 1583 acre (6.4 km²) estate located seven miles (10 km) northwest of Crawford, Texas, considered the Western White House of President George W. Bush.
.
.
.
In 1999 shortly after earning a $14.3 million profit from the sale of the Texas Rangers, Texas Governor Bush bought the land for an estimated $1.3 million from the Engelbrecht family.
.
.
.
On May 10, 2008, the President's daughter Jenna Bush's wedding to Henry Hager was held at the ranch. This was a relatively simple ceremony attended by roughly 200 friends and family members.

[/CENTER]

Nope, Bush isn't a Texan, he's just "playing" to his base, for his entire life.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I think the obvious conclusion to this thread is not that this is Obama's "Appalachian problem". It is America's. It's just that nobody's honest enough to say so.

I don't agree with you about it being America's problem. Most of America has moved on, and you can't change the opinions of people who don't want their opinions changed. I don't consider myself a cheerleader or supporter for Obama, but that's only because of his party affiliation and his proposed policies.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #67 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

This has nothing to do with... anything. The Republican nominating process is over- has been for awhile- and turnout after the race is already decided does not mean squat WRT the general.

Tell that to the voters.

Oh, and Republican turnout didn't amount to squat before the race was decided either. In one word it was anemic!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #68 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

here's the BIG problem
iF you DON'T vote for:
obama--you are a racist
hilliary--you are a sexist
mccain--age-ist
the media and pro-whatevers can't wait to stick you with one of these.
let's look at their policies, attitudes, character, they have to "connect" with the majority of VOTERS, that's who will win. now you could say, they have to also connect to a voters appathy...but that's being cynical

Nofeer, I have no problem whatsoever not voting for any of those fools you've listed.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #69 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Tell that to the voters.

I don't need to.. they are the ones (republicans) who are going to the beach or mowing the lawn, rather than spending time voting in a race that has already being decided.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #70 of 163
Good thread, mid. I haven't read through all the posts. That said, I was going to start something similar.

I've never heard the term, but it seems apt enough. The most recent set of democratic exit polling is very. very bad for Obama. This is from a blog, but it's the numbers that would concern me if I was a dem...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...olls-spel.html

Quote:
Those figures found that only a third of Clinton supporters would vote for Obama in November, while about 40% would cast their ballot for Republican John McCain and the rest -- roughly a quarter -- would stay home.

Again, these are exit polls of DEMOCRATS. More:

From WashPo:

Quote:
Working-class whites in Oregon divided, 50 percent for Clinton, 49 percent for Obama.

One more:

Quote:

Reflecting their discomfort with Obama, nearly half of Kentucky Democrats said they would not support him in a November election against John McCain, again similar to the result in West Virginia. In Oregon, by contrast, only 12 percent said they wouldn't vote for Obama against McCain, as many as wouldn't support Clinton as the nominee.

It's that last part that gets me: 12% say they will not vote for Obama. This goes to support what I've been saying...a significant portion of Clinton voters simply will not support Obama. Even in Oregon, one of the most liberal and Obama-friendly states--the number is significant. He'll obviously win OR in the general, but he can forget about the South. The numbers are just as bad in the South.

Swing states are not as bad for him, but bad enough. PA and OH are closer to KY than OR is. For that matter, so are FL, MI and WI.

So it's not just an Appalachia problem. It's an "Obama can't win" problem. The national polls are meaningless on this. I think the party leadership knows full well how bad these numbers are for him. Clinton may not be done yet. She can beat McCain. The question is whether or not the dems have the balls to give it to her. My money says they won't.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #71 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Good thread, mid. I haven't read through all the posts. That said, I was going to start something similar.

I've never heard the term, but it seems apt enough. The most recent set of democratic exit polling is very. very bad for Obama. This is from a blog, but it's the numbers that would concern me if I was a dem...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...olls-spel.html



Again, these are exit polls of DEMOCRATS. More:

From WashPo:



One more:



It's that last part that gets me: 12% say they will not vote for Obama. This goes to support what I've been saying...a significant portion of Clinton voters simply will not support Obama. Even in Oregon, one of the most liberal and Obama-friendly states--the number is significant. He'll obviously win OR in the general, but he can forget about the South. The numbers are just as bad in the South.

Swing states are not as bad for him, but bad enough. PA and OH are closer to KY than OR is. For that matter, so are FL, MI and WI.

So it's not just an Appalachia problem. It's an "Obama can't win" problem. The national polls are meaningless on this. I think the party leadership knows full well how bad these numbers are for him. Clinton may not be done yet. She can beat McCain. The question is whether or not the dems have the balls to give it to her. My money says they won't.

Yup, no one would ever change their mind, because, you know, SDW said so.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #72 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I don't need to.. they are the ones (republicans) who are going to the beach or mowing the lawn, rather than spending time voting in a race that has already being decided.

[CENTER]
Quote:
Oh, and Republican turnout didn't amount to squat before the race was decided either. In one word it was anemic!

[/CENTER]
Yeah, you're right, because it just takes sooooo much time tooooo vote.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #73 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yup, no one would ever change their mind, because, you know, SDW said so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yeah, you're right, because it just takes sooooo much time tooooo vote.


Frank=



BTW, I never claimed that "no one would change his mind." I've said a significant percentage of Clinton voters won't vote for Obama. Some will vote for McCain, and some will stay home. It doesn't have to be anything close to the Kentucky numbers to have an impact. Hell, it doesn't have to be close to the 12% Oregon number. Imagine if only 5% of Clinton supporters went McCain? It would be a disaster.

In PA, over two million people voted in the primary. Obama got about 1,000,000 votes. Imagine if only 5% of Clinton voters (55,000+) voted for Mccain instead, and another 5% stayed home. It could mean a 3-5 point swing in the general election. Given that Kerry only carried PA by 2.5%, it's not hard to see that Obama would have real trouble. OH is the same way, if not worse for Obama. And...none of this takes into account that Obama has trouble in some of these states anyway. Kerry was a better candidate for places like PA, OH and FL.

Oh, and I adjusted the numbers downward using Oregon as a baseline. Oregon is an ideal Obama state. In some states, the polls indicate that as many as one third of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama. In some of the more moderate swing states, we could be talking about 15% of Clinton supporters (150,000+) going to McCain, with another 10-15% staying home.

He's going to lose. Big.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #74 of 163
Here's the text of Obama's remarks in SF, since we seem to be accepting Nick's typically skewed world view as a reasonable basis for further discussion:

Quote:
OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

Now in Nick's world, this apparently amounts to "bashing" decent normal folk for the amusement of elitist San Francisco buddies. From the way trumpt carries on, you might have thought there was course laughter in the room as Obama tried out his "coal miner" accent-- something he thought he could "get away with" because he "didn't realize he was being recorded."

Moreover, I'm supposed to accept as fact that putting forth the idea that that working people might feel betrayed by repeated empty promises from government, to the point that they would vote cultural issues before economic, is a savage insult not materially different from the typical Republican tone of evoking "liberals" as if they were a disease. Oh, but it is different because Obama is Jesus (according to Nick, because he never met a crude straw man he didn't want to make out with), and Jesus has no business "bashing" people he expects to vote for him. As opposed to the refreshingly honest right, who have decided that the üntermenschen are of no use to them and are therefore free to eviscerate in any way they please without triggering Nick's finally honed sense of outrage.

From there it looks like we're going to head into the weeds of liberal fascism again, but let's leave that for now, since I can only keep so much irony in head at one time before becoming physically ill.

Obama wasn't "bashing" anyone, and using his SF remarks as an exemplar of how the left hates on regular folk (much like the right hates on liberals, but different since the left is always whoring around for votes) is contemptibly stupid. Utterly predictable, but stupid none-the-less.

At worst, Obama is guilty of being mildly patronizing, in one sentence of some pretty thoughtful remarks on the topic of why lower class whites would be motivated to vote for him, and explicitly in the context of looking past the simplistic idea that he's "the black guy."

It's as if the "liberal elitist hate normal people" meme is so hardwired into some people's thinking, at this point, that it would be literally impossible for any Democratic candidate to say anything without that robotic response.

Look at the case at hand: after many months of a grueling primary fight, the best the right can come up with devolves to pretty much a single word--"bitter"-- yet that is enough to inspire these lengthy flights of fancy regarding "the left's" deep seated animosity towards "normal people."

Really, at this point, fuck 'em. Fuck you thin skinned whiney ass titty babies that can't walk two feet without being mortally outraged by some perceived slight, all the while belly aching loudly about the "liberal culture of victimization."

The Republican Party is about to burn to the ground, is indeed already well ablaze, and it can thank, in part, the reflexive use of Rovian bullshit as the answer to all questions. They've been telling the country that "liberals" are the source of every ill for a long time now, but here's a problem-- when "the liberals" seem to have the positions that the majority of the people agree with, that suddenly becomes "we think America is the problem." The Republican Party, if we are to take it at its word, thinks the majority of Americans are traitorous fucks, even while they continue to transparently pander to those same treasonous fucks on specious "values."

Meanwhile, if you keep telling voters that someone like Obama is a snickering fop who hates your God and your sacrifice, and then they get a look at the guy, they may start to wonder what else you're lying about.

Yes, there are areas of the country where "bittergate" and "elitist" still play. But those areas are shrinking, I would say in part because "bittergate" and "elitist" are all the party has to offer, anymore. In a time of economic decline and a need for actual leadership voters may look past convenient demagoguery and listen to what each candidate is actually likely to do.

At that point: Republicans lose.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #75 of 163
Oh, right, standard Nick disclaimer: all of the above was typed in a state of apoplectic rage, my screen is awash in spittle, etc.

Because you know how irrational and hateful us liberals are, especially when it comes to belittling and mischaracterizing people we apparently know nothing about.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #76 of 163
SDW:

1. Obama is currently leading McCain by around 5 points in Pennsylvania, so the fact that lots of people are saying they won't vote for him doesn't seem to be doing damage to him there.

2. My understanding is that the number of people in this Democratic primary saying "I won't vote for the other candidate if he becomes the nominee" is actually relatively low compared to previous elections. I'd also be interested in seeing how many Republican primary voters have said they wouldn't vote for McCain. My guess is that's it's higher than the number saying they won't vote for Obama.
post #77 of 163
here is the BIG problem
pro whatever's want to label you
IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR:
obama--you are a racist
hilliar--you are a sexist
maccain--you are a age-ist
what about character, policies, views of the world, the one that can connect to the majority of voters come november wins.....the candidates can also connect to the "apathy" and see where that gets this country.

the other issue is that these polls don't take into consideration that the polled voter "lies" how is that tabulated??
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #78 of 163
"Magoffin County -- which according to the Lexington Herald-Leader has been identified by the Census Bureau as "the least diverse place in the nation" -- delivered Clinton her largest share of the vote among Kentucky's 120 counties.

She racked up 93% of the vote in Magoffin (named for a former governor and located in the state's eastern half). In raw votes, the totals were Clinton, 2,714; Obama, 146.

How homogenous is the county? According to the 2000 census, 99.29% of its population of 13,332 was white."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...st-kentuc.html

That is kinda crazy if you ask me.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #79 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Frank=



BTW, I never claimed that "no one would change his mind." I've said a significant percentage of Clinton voters won't vote for Obama. Some will vote for McCain, and some will stay home. It doesn't have to be anything close to the Kentucky numbers to have an impact. Hell, it doesn't have to be close to the 12% Oregon number. Imagine if only 5% of Clinton supporters went McCain? It would be a disaster.

In PA, over two million people voted in the primary. Obama got about 1,000,000 votes. Imagine if only 5% of Clinton voters (55,000+) voted for Mccain instead, and another 5% stayed home. It could mean a 3-5 point swing in the general election. Given that Kerry only carried PA by 2.5%, it's not hard to see that Obama would have real trouble. OH is the same way, if not worse for Obama. And...none of this takes into account that Obama has trouble in some of these states anyway. Kerry was a better candidate for places like PA, OH and FL.

Oh, and I adjusted the numbers downward using Oregon as a baseline. Oregon is an ideal Obama state. In some states, the polls indicate that as many as one third of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama. In some of the more moderate swing states, we could be talking about 15% of Clinton supporters (150,000+) going to McCain, with another 10-15% staying home.

He's going to lose. Big.

... doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I don't engage in wishful thinking.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #80 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Here's the text of Obama's remarks in SF, since we seem to be accepting Nick's typically skewed world view as a reasonable basis for further discussion:

Dude, you are totally right. That whole "bitter" thing was just an insanely retarded meme I am pushing. No one in the media has written about it, responded to it, discussed it or given it any time. It is just me out there pushing it against the world which has ignored it.

I also made up the part about it being a fundraiser as well.

Quote:
Now in Nick's world, this apparently amounts to "bashing" decent normal folk for the amusement of elitist San Francisco buddies. From the way trumpt carries on, you might have thought there was course laughter in the room as Obama tried out his "coal miner" accent-- something he thought he could "get away with" because he "didn't realize he was being recorded."

Everyone here (except you apparently) understands the definition of a pejorative word or phrase. It isn't as if Bush or anyone on the right conjured negative words to describe those "Massachusetts values." They have turned the phrase itself into something negative.

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pejorative phrase. I get it. You should get it. The media got it and harped on it for several news cycles. Oh wait... I just imagined that, strike that. I also imagined the LAUGHTER when it is suggested that these bitter people would vote for him.

Obama managed to take the Kansas book and turn it into a one sentence summary. I would marvel at his articulate manner, but then I would be accused of being a racist.

Quote:
Moreover, I'm supposed to accept as fact that putting forth the idea that that working people might feel betrayed by repeated empty promises from government, to the point that they would vote cultural issues before economic, is a savage insult not materially different from the typical Republican tone of evoking "liberals" as if they were a disease. Oh, but it is different because Obama is Jesus (according to Nick, because he never met a crude straw man he didn't want to make out with), and Jesus has no business "bashing" people he expects to vote for him. As opposed to the refreshingly honest right, who have decided that the üntermenschen are of no use to them and are therefore free to eviscerate in any way they please without triggering Nick's finally honed sense of outrage.

Yeah, I tried running that through my online Addabox translator. It came out just as unintelligible.

You don't have to take it from me that the working/small town people feel insulted when you attribute their voting motivations to something other than their own desires and best interests. You can just watch the candidates you support continue to lose their votes. You can read or perhaps even write the sequel to the Kansas book, what is the matter with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, the South, etc.

You may not like the label liberal or may like it but not like how others use it as a pejorative. Either way I don't see anyone claiming you don't understand why you are voting the way you are and that you are deluded, bitter, misinformed, or some other negative characterization in voting as you desire.

Why is it so hard to believe that people can know everything you know and still come to a different conclusion about the solution they want? Are you really that high and mighty? Is your own intellect truly that infallible?

Perhaps you understand why the elitism tag comes into play because you and those who share your views, keep putting down those who disagree with you instead of simply respect their choices and solutions. You find it impossible to disagree though. Those who do are simply mentally ill, maladjusted or some other nonsense. Something is WRONG with them.

Quote:
From there it looks like we're going to head into the weeds of liberal fascism again, but let's leave that for now, since I can only keep so much irony in head at one time before becoming physically ill.

Of course it leads to fascism. I mean these people are not lucid in their thinking. They are deluded since they have been waiting for jobs to reappear that aren't going to come back. They are "bitter" about teh Change that must occur. If I can just get enough of your dollars and votes, we can for these people to get past what is WRONG with them whether they want it or not.

Quote:
Obama wasn't "bashing" anyone, and using his SF remarks as an exemplar of how the left hates on regular folk (much like the right hates on liberals, but different since the left is always whoring around for votes) is contemptibly stupid. Utterly predictable, but stupid none-the-less.

The right CAN hate on the left. The right can say "We don't want those San Francisco values in our home state." What they do not say is that those people in San Francisco really don't hold those values. They do not think the people in San Francisco have been fed a pack of lies, have given up hope from empty promises and are deluded in pursing the path they are on and voting as they do.

Quote:
At worst, Obama is guilty of being mildly patronizing, in one sentence of some pretty thoughtful remarks on the topic of why lower class whites would be motivated to vote for him, and explicitly in the context of looking past the simplistic idea that he's "the black guy."

I'll give you a hint. If you share the values of the person doing the patronizing, it might come across as mild. If you are the party being discussed and he is giving you the talking points so that you will be able to help the other people get past their bitterness and delusions, it isn't mildly patronizing, it is insulting.

In my next post, I'll be discussing the talking points you can use to help the Addaboxes of the world get past their limited worldview. He feels so betrayed by Republicans that when he hears a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about the individual, then a part of him just doesnt buy it. And when its delivered by its true that when its delivered by a 38 (Happy Birthday to me)-year-old white man with the handle of Trumptman, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get Addabox persuaded that we can make progress when theres not evidence of that in his daily life.

Etc...etc...

See Adda... it isn't your fault. Your eyes and ears just didn't see or hear the right things. However with my magical talking points, I will cure you of your delusions and bitterness. Then you can actually vote for your self-interest as opposed to voting based secondary concerns. Secondary concerns being defined as whatever it is I ascribe to you not voting the way I want you to vote.

Quote:
It's as if the "liberal elitist hate normal people" meme is so hardwired into some people's thinking, at this point, that it would be literally impossible for any Democratic candidate to say anything without that robotic response.

Spittle... short circuiting robotic response... fatal error...

Quote:
Look at the case at hand: after many months of a grueling primary fight, the best the right can come up with devolves to pretty much a single word--"bitter"-- yet that is enough to inspire these lengthy flights of fancy regarding "the left's" deep seated animosity towards "normal people."

Get Walmart out of here. I'm not going to stay home, bake cookies and stand by my man. The car you drive makes the world hate you and you are killing the planet. How dare you turn that air conditioner! Don't watch the Super Bowl because it will make you beat your wife. etc...etc....

Quote:
Really, at this point, fuck 'em. Fuck you thin skinned whiney ass titty babies that can't walk two feet without being mortally outraged by some perceived slight, all the while belly aching loudly about the "liberal culture of victimization."

Don't hold back... how do you really feel?

Quote:
The Republican Party is about to burn to the ground, is indeed already well ablaze, and it can thank, in part, the reflexive use of Rovian bullshit as the answer to all questions. They've been telling the country that "liberals" are the source of every ill for a long time now, but here's a problem-- when "the liberals" seem to have the positions that the majority of the people agree with, that suddenly becomes "we think America is the problem." The Republican Party, if we are to take it at its word, thinks the majority of Americans are traitorous fucks, even while they continue to transparently pander to those same treasonous fucks on specious "values."

A lot of Republicans have stopped being Republican. They care more about their earmarks than their country. Good Republicans won't vote for those types or will stay home if that is the only choice. The party might get smaller but better. I can remember Democrats praying for the same thing not too long ago.

Quote:
Meanwhile, if you keep telling voters that someone like Obama is a snickering fop who hates your God and your sacrifice, and then they get a look at the guy, they may start to wonder what else you're lying about.

I don't have to speak for Obama. He sticks his own foot in his own mouth just fine.

Quote:
Yes, there are areas of the country where "bittergate" and "elitist" still play. But those areas are shrinking, I would say in part because "bittergate" and "elitist" are all the party has to offer, anymore. In a time of economic decline and a need for actual leadership voters may look past convenient demagoguery and listen to what each candidate is actually likely to do.

At that point: Republicans lose.

Republicans probably will lose and since they haven't limited spending, haven't met an earmark they don't like, and care more about keeping power than keeping principles, I'll not shed a tear. Republicans can and probably will have lost their way but that doesn't mean Democrats have found their way or that their solution will be correct in a vacuum.

Quote:
Oh, right, standard Nick disclaimer: all of the above was typed in a state of apoplectic rage, my screen is awash in spittle, etc.

Don't be so bitter.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's "Appalachia Problem"