Obama to put basketball court in White House

[nate2512]

Null point. Obama won't make the white house.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Null point. Obama won't make the white house.

Especially when frightened white people are playing on existing racial images to discredit Obama. When the political approach doesn't work, just call him a "Curious George looking, basketball playing negro" and see if that works.

Just like people used existing gender images to attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Especially when frightened white people are playing on existing racial images to discredit Obama. When the political approach doesn't work, just call him a "Curious George looking, basketball playing negro" and see if that works.

Just like people used existing gender images to attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton.

And when all else fails, just call McCain old and decrepit. It's not just one side.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

And when all else fails, just call McCain old and decrepit. It's not just one side.

Sure, people will use any apolitical jab they can use. Age, race, gender, infidelity, etc.

That doesn't make it less one sided. People know which apolitical attempts are the most salient at a larger scale. The larger scale is what matters.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Especially when frightened white people are playing on existing racial images to discredit Obama. When the political approach doesn't work, just call him a "Curious George looking, basketball playing negro" and see if that works.

Just like people used existing gender images to attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton.

I don't think they needed "gender images" to successfully discredit Hillary Clinton.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I don't think they needed "gender images" to successfully discredit Hillary Clinton.

That's subjective. The fact is that gender images and stereotypes were used.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Especially when frightened white people are playing on existing racial images to discredit Obama. When the political approach doesn't work, just call him a "Curious George looking, basketball playing negro" and see if that works.

Just like people used existing gender images to attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton.

It'll be interesting.

In another era, I recall people attacking JFK as a candidate because he was Roman Catholic. The rhetoric was that the Vatican (Pope) would be running the country.

The American people got past that. Whether they can get past race (or gender someday), we'll simply have to see in November.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

It'll be interesting.

In another era, I recall people attacking JFK as a candidate because he was Roman Catholic. The rhetoric was that the Vatican (Pope) would be running the country.

The American people got past that. Whether they can get past race (or gender someday), we'll simply have to see in November.

Agreed and Irish Catholics had that struggle to assimilate into "whiteness."

Unfortunately, if America gets past race for the November election, that doesn't mean the structural inequalities have been overcome. It means that Obama (if he wins) was considered "an exception." I hope people who want substantive and long lasting change do not become complacent and comfortable if Obama is elected.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

It'll be interesting.

In another era, I recall people attacking JFK as a candidate because he was Roman Catholic. The rhetoric was that the Vatican (Pope) would be running the country.

The American people got past that. Whether they can get past race (or gender someday), we'll simply have to see in November.

The Catholic thing actually makes a little bit of sense though.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

The American people got past that. Whether they can get past race (or gender someday), we'll simply have to see in November.

Won't that be tough to tell, though? I mean, I understand that there are people who will make their decision based on race, but there will also be people whose reasons have nothing to do with race, and won't vote for Obama because of disagreements with his platform and proposed stances on issues.

I think it will be difficult, when looking at the voting totals, to see just how much of a role racism will play in people's decision-making.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Won't that be tough to tell, though? I mean, I understand that there are people who will make their decision based on race, but there will also be people whose reasons have nothing to do with race, and won't vote for Obama because of disagreements with his platform and proposed stances on issues.

I think it will be difficult, when looking at the voting totals, to see just how much of a role racism will play in people's decision-making.

it won't be difficult at all, it's been done all along. Each primary they divvied up the totals by race and gender and that part has never ever played suck a front seat role until this election season.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

it won't be difficult at all, it's been done all along. Each primary they divvied up the totals by race and gender and that part has never ever played suck a front seat role until this election season.

That's a different question, though. It will be easy enough, for example, to break down how many whites voted for McCain/against Obama, but it won't be nearly as easy to break down how many of those whites voted against Obama because of his race vs how many voted against him because of his politics or because he's a Democrat and they always vote Republican, Libertarian, Green, or whatever.

The only way to ascertain how much his race played a part in their decision is by asking those white voters something along the lines of "why will you/did you vote against Obama" or "did Obama's race affect your decision not to vote for him." I'm guessing a significant lack of candor, and maybe even of self-awareness, could come into play in answering that question.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm guessing a significant lack of candor, and maybe even of self-awareness, could come into play in answering that question.

Co-sign. A good number of people will give the "right" answer to a pollster but vote a different way in the privacy and anonymity of a voting booth.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That's a different question, though. It will be easy enough, for example, to break down how many whites voted for McCain/against Obama, but it won't be nearly as easy to break down how many of those whites voted against Obama because of his race vs how many voted against him because of his politics or because he's a Democrat and they always vote Republican, Libertarian, Green, or whatever.

The only way to ascertain how much his race played a part in their decision is by asking those white voters something along the lines of "why will you/did you vote against Obama" or "did Obama's race affect your decision not to vote for him." I'm guessing a significant lack of candor, and maybe even of self-awareness, could come into play in answering that question.

I guess that just leaves West Virginia

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

it won't be difficult at all, it's been done all along. Each primary they divvied up the totals by race and gender and that part has never ever played suck a front seat role until this election season.

He's talking about getting beyond the descriptive statistics and identifying explanatory variables.

This is where researchers and research engines can collect qualitative data to supplement the quantitative data. We can never assume that racial bigotry is the key explanatory variable. We can hypothesize that it's probably the case, based on context clues and societal tendencies, but to be certain we would analyze it. And this has been done in the past and will most likely be done after this election. It would be too grand a project to pass up.