GreekChat.com Forums - Obama scoring points with rural voters...

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - Obama scoring points with rural voters... (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=95376)

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1634341)

Poor rural people are never the targets of condescending social commentary? Really?

There was nothing condescending about his comments.

But, REALLY.

ETA: As I said before, his comments are nothing new. But the fact that they are receiving so much negative attention means there's a disconnect somewhere. :) The disconnect has to do with the people his comments are interpreted as being about---frame of reference provides the context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1634544)

You realize you haven't really said anything here, right?

ETA: oh, I guess you did say that his comments weren't condescending, which might be your opinion, but doesn't necessarily correspond with reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1635022)

You realize you haven't really said anything here, right?

If you don't understand, I can explain it to you. That "ETA" part wasn't directly to you. But don't take an asshole tone unless you want this thread take a bad turn ;)

The "ETA" part: The frame of reference provides the context. Meaning, he's offending the sensibilities of the "hard working," "hard praying," "right to bear arms defending" or whatever else people think characterizes the rural voters that he's talking about. That is interpreted as not only condescending but even "anti-American" to an extent. But removing the emotion from it all, even many rural voters can understand where he's coming from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1635022)

ETA: oh, I guess you did say that his comments weren't condescending, which might be your opinion, but doesn't necessarily correspond with reality.

The reality is that some people found it condescending. Okay.

That doesn't remove the truthfulness of what he and others have said regarding this topic. I certainly hope he does not apologize for his well-delivered and accurate comments.

Ouch - it's getting heated in here.:eek:

I live in PA and there are mixed emotions to Obama's comments. However, I doubt that the comments will negatively impact his voter base in the state.

But on top of the 'bitter' remarks what has caused additional stir in the Philly and Pittsburgh press is Obama's decision to not campaign in Black neighborhoods. I'm not sure I would have recommended this strategy if I was working on his campaign.

PA is an ify swing state that is very Republicrat. Voters are conservative in thought, liberal in many policies, and loyal to no party. It is one of the few states documented to have many people vote split ticket.

From what I have observed (and what insiders in his PA campaign have stated), Obama's reception in PA has been far less than what they expected. Both the Governor of PA and the Mayor of Philly are endorsing Clinton.

I think his comments may have been made out of frustration that his PA reception has been kinda lukewarm.

I have been guilty of trying to work something out in my head and then speak on it at an inappropriate time. I believe the intellectual in him was trying to understand (and rationalize to himself) why he hasn't won over PA yet. The comments were probably better for a 'closed door' discussion and he has stated that he regrets making them now.

The percentage gap is closing between him and Clinton but it's still very possible that she may win PA. I can see this fight between them going to the DNC Convention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1635041)

You can bring any tone you want. I'm not scared.:)

We'll see how his comments ultimately play out. I don't know if you'll be as happy he didn't apologize or that spoke this particular, pretty meaningless "truth" (or opinion, for the rest of us) if it costs him votes in states he still needs to win.

But hey, it doesn't matter to me. People who were going to vote for Obama already can keep wanting to vote for him, and everyone else can feel insulted or disgusted by his condescension and vote for Hillary or better yet, just vote for McCain in the general.

But nobody with any sense can say that this dust up helped Obama get closer to the Presidency.

We in Philly are mad about the way the dems and rep ran this place into the gound and made millions doing it
they don t care about any of us and it is about time we start caring about our self and the people around us
and start changeing the way thing run in this country

That is why Obama is the man

Quote:

Originally Posted by blklikeme (Post 1635098)

We can do this with out massive government involvement which strips people of liberty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1635066)

You can bring any tone you want. I'm not scared.:)

Shut up. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1635066)

We'll see how his comments ultimately play out. I don't know if you'll be as happy he didn't apologize or that spoke this particular, pretty meaningless "truth" (or opinion, for the rest of us) if it costs him votes in states he still needs to win.

I don't care if it costs him votes. I'm not an Obama supporter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1635144)

Shut up. :)

I don't care if it costs him votes. I'm not an Obama supporter.

So you just appreciate a guy sabotaging himself by "truth" telling? Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1635164)

So you just appreciate a guy sabotaging himself by "truth" telling? Okay.

I appreciate the truth and so do other people. Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1635177)

I appreciate the truth and so do other people. Okay.

Yep, but some things are opinion rather than truth, particularly when it comes to analyzing the voting patterns of other people whom you haven't even spoken to. One could speculate about why they might or might not vote for a particular candidate, but without asking or even knowing their specific circumstances, it's pretty arrogant to call it "truth."

But apparently neither of us are in danger of actually voting for him. I'm disappointed because I thought he might be better/smarter than to make such a clear unforced error, and I used to prefer him to Hillary and regard him as someone I'd be okay with in the White House (even though I would likely vote for the Republic candidate in the general because there's a sliver of a chance that the rate of government growth and taxation might be lower and because I think it's important to win in Iraq.)

Since Rezko, Rev. Wright and this pretending-to-know-the-minds-of-rural-voters-and-getting-it wrong stuff, I think he's just a more charismatic version of the same ol' political BS. It's just a slightly different kind of packaging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta (Post 1633155)

Read the book What's the Matter with Kansas?. What Obama said is certainly true (I find the religion dropped in there to be very odd in its phrasing, though), and those are things that the Conservative Right have preyed upon for political gain.

A lot of what's being said in this thread is exactly what I was expecting - the rhetoric that liberals can't be for family values, can't be patriots, can't have religious convictions.

My undergraduate degree is in Sociology, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of immediately looking at how outside forces shape people's thinking, rather than focusing on "personal accountability" or making decisions in a vacuum like many psychologists make things out to be. I constantly look at the context in which a person makes a decision, how society has limited their options, or pushed other ideas to the forefront or so on. There's a subtlety in what Obama said, that when I read it, I found it to mean that it's NOT that people are "clinging" to these items/ideas and they're wrong to do so, but that they're "clinging" to them in their politics and politicians have used these ideas to win votes, when the economic policies that these politicians espouse are detrimental to these very same rural voters. It's that subtlety that is undoubtedly being lost by the talking heads, and has lead to Obama going into damage control mode.

In What's the Matter with Kansas?, the author does a pretty impressive job of showing how for the most part, Conservative politicians who run on abortion, gun control, religion in schools, and similar platforms have time and time again failed to make any significant headway on these issues, and yet still win voters by using them over and over. Kansas in particular has essentially become a 3 party state in which there is a ton of infighting between Conservative Republicans (typically poor rural voters worried about cultural items), Moderate Republicans (upper middle class voters from the Kansas City suburbs worried most about economic issues) and Democrats (urban voters in KC and Wichita taking normal Democratic positions). What Obama said, pretty much sums up what has happened in Kansas. Rural voters go against their economic interests because of social issues, vote Republican, which typically results in economic decisions that further harm these rural voters. The mods, they're generally happy enough to take in the social issues for the larger economic goals. It's most notable in Kansas though, that the conservatives have made the Mods uncomfortable about these social issues, because of what that has resulted in (Kansas striking evolution from state science standards and the like).

What this will ultimately end up meaning for Obama, I don't know. I appreciate how he avoids being a 'sound bite' politician, but sometimes it's hard to get your point across when you explain the shades of gray.

There is an excellent conversation from a 2004 Charlie Rose Show that has this book being talked about between Rose and his guest, who happened to be Barack Obama. In this interview, Obama does a much better job of talking about how the people are "bitter" about government... the gist of his argument is that people who have had labor jobs that are going away face an uncertain future, and that because of this uncertainty, and because the government is not giving them a plausible economic package, they are voting issues. The Democratic Party has a reputation for being condescending to gun owners and people of faith... a few things that these people do cling to in times of economic uncertainty (I'm from rural south, and I've seen it with the textile mills going out of business) because it is something that gives them something solid to stand on...TRADITION. Obama's argument is that if we (Dems) don't give these people hope for something better on the economic front, and we (Dems) don't seem to support the things that give these people some solace (guns, religion), then we will continue to lose votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90

Quote:

Originally Posted by scbelle (Post 1635280)

In this interview, Obama does a much better job of talking about how the people are "bitter" about government... the gist of his argument is that people who have had labor jobs that are going away face an uncertain future, and that because of this uncertainty, and because the government is not giving them a plausible economic package, they are voting issues.

This I can buy. It makes sense. It is actually a good thing. If more people voted for government based on their economic needs instead of social issues then we would have a much better government that was keyed in on addressing matters that a government can reasonably manage.

The trouble is that Obama went a step further and pretty well stated that such people cling to guns and religion for solace.

Compounding the problem is that Obama has not presented himself and his positions in clear terms compared to the other candidates, and he has also run on some notion of hope and change for America- which should presumably include the hopes and dreams of these gun-toting Bible-beating rural folks he disparaged.

If the average voter had a clearer idea of what Obama is about, then it would be easier to put these comments in an appropriate context. The fact he has not provided such a context is in itself a big worry.

As it stands, one has to assume that he is a far left liberal who believes government is the answer. Not all liberals are far left, mind you. But Barack's comments speak to a very far left position that believes religion is inferior to government as a guiding influence in life, and also that the Second Amendment should be restricted- if not repealed.

Smart people are perfectly rational to assume the worst about what Obama said- especially since his comments very neatly fit into two key arguments for far left liberalism, i.e. the danger of religion and the necessity for gun control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EE-BO (Post 1635287)

I agree with that, I think social issues should be left up to local governments maybe state level if there were enough state-wide controversy but it should stop at that level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1635200)

Yep, but some things are opinion rather than truth, particularly when it comes to analyzing the voting patterns of other people whom you haven't even spoken to.

That depends. If he had pulled from a citable source, it would be less of his opinion (it already isn't just his opinion to those of us who are familiar with this explanation of social patterns). Would that make it less condescending to some? That's funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1635200)

But apparently neither of us are in danger of actually voting for him.

I might vote for him. I'm just not an Obama supporter.