Judge Obama on performance alone - from the WSJ

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

How did you come to that conclusion?

I mean besides obvious racists, I don't automatically assume that someone white voted for McCain because he was white. So I fail to see why people automatically assume that black people voted for Obama because he's black. Implicit in such statements is the notion that black people aren't intelligent enough to discern whether someone has the capability to run this country, and they only care about skin color.

I came to that conclusion because you said that people assume you voted for obama because of your skin color... that statement only makes sense if you're black.
I never said that I think you voted for him because he's black, simply that 98% of black people DID vote for him. Race was certainly an important factor in this decision- I will cite that Kerry only received 88% of the vote.
You can say that race wasn't a contributing factor to Obama's high totals in 2008 but I will wholeheartedly disagree. I think that his race helped him more than it hurt him.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

How did you come to that conclusion?

I mean besides obvious racists, I don't automatically assume that someone white voted for McCain because he was white. So I fail to see why people automatically assume that black people voted for Obama because he's black. Implicit in such statements is the notion that black people aren't intelligent enough to discern whether someone has the capability to run this country, and they only care about skin color.

PhiGam is just being PhiGam. There is no valid or reliable method of quantifying this.

Voting patterns are largely based on familiarity. It's also why many people blindly vote along party lines with little knowledge of actual platforms (not to mention the history of the political parties).

There are whites who voted for McCain because he was white. Some of them outright stated it and others hid it behind false claims of Obama being a terrorist and whatever other falsehoods. If many of these individuals had an understanding of politics and voted because of conservative or Republican platforms, the race effect would be less evident.

Similarly, there are blacks (and nonblacks) who voted for Obama because he's black. These are blacks (and nonblacks) who knew nothing of him other than he's black. It's not the same thing as what some of us did, which is know about his platform, and vote for him because of it---while acknowledge the historical relevance of a black POTUS.

In previous elections, race and gender mattered in a more abstract sense because they weren't reasons for voting someone. All the candidates were white male.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

In previous elections, race and gender mattered in a more abstract sense because they weren't reasons for voting someone. All the candidates were white male.

This is a good point and part of what makes this election fascinating.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I came to that conclusion because you said that people assume you voted for obama because of your skin color... that statement only makes sense if you're black.
I never said that I think you voted for him because he's black, simply that 98% of black people DID vote for him. Race was certainly an important factor in this decision- I will cite that Kerry only received 88% of the vote.
You can say that race wasn't a contributing factor to Obama's high totals in 2008 but I will wholeheartedly disagree. I think that his race helped him more than it hurt him.

You're mixing words now.

Your conclusion does not logically follow your premise.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I came to that conclusion because you said that people assume you voted for obama because of your skin color... that statement only makes sense if you're black.
I never said that I think you voted for him because he's black, simply that 98% of black people DID vote for him. Race was certainly an important factor in this decision- I will cite that Kerry only received 88% of the vote.
You can say that race wasn't a contributing factor to Obama's high totals in 2008 but I will wholeheartedly disagree. I think that his race helped him more than it hurt him.

remember too that is 98% of an approx. 12% population.

I think his age and his being in touch with younger voters, regardless of their color, is what gave him his edge also...don't forget that.

There were people out there who feared a McCain presidency due to his advanced age and to what lurked behind should something had happemed to him, if he had made office.

[fantASTic]

PhiGam, remember as well that in the past, blacks tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate regardless of whom it is. This indicates that the Dems usually represent their interests as a whole (as much as you can lump any group together, that is) and so the support for Obama would have likely been almost as high regardless of his skin color.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

PhiGam, remember as well that in the past, blacks tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate regardless of whom it is. This indicates that the Dems usually represent their interests as a whole (as much as you can lump any group together, that is) and so the support for Obama would have likely been almost as high regardless of his skin color.

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

A 10% increase, if it really did go from 88% to 98%, is likely statistically significant given the immense population size.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

I would think that this goes without saying.

I don't see why anyone would hold him less accountable because of it.

Probably the same reason DamonSeid holds Donovan McNabb less accountable.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by madmax

Probably the same reason DamonSeid holds Donovan McNabb less accountable.

You really just want to pick a fight with me today, don't you.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

Glad I read ahead. This is more accurate.

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

A 10% increase, if it really did go from 88% to 98%, is likely statistically significant given the immense population size.

Gotcha. Thanks for the info That is definitely more correct.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm a little tired of the 100 days evaluation period. I'm concerned that it pushes them to try to make sweeping changes immediately and I'm not sure that's it always good to "rush" into things that way. But, it has become a measure. At this point, he can really only deal with things that are executive orders because it takes Congress forever to pass just about everything.

I think that the emphasis on the first 100 days is important with this new administration. The past few presidents have come to office in a time of relative prosperity and stability, so it really wasn't as important what they did in those first three months. There's a real sense of urgency to stop this economic mess (I'm just going to call it a depression from now on), and I think it must be done quickly. Bush I, II, or Clinton did not have that sort of pressure on them; Reagan only did for his second term.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

A 10% increase, if it really did go from 88% to 98%, is likely statistically significant given the immense population size.

Well, compared to Republican support, it has been beneficial.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Well, compared to Republican support, it has been beneficial.

I'd prefer to actually see the comparison performed before I assented to this.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'd prefer to actually see the comparison performed before I assented to this.

I hope you aren't serious.