Are Hillary and Obama still "unelectable"?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I'm going to show just how color/gender blind I am by voting for someone purely on the basis of color/gender. That'll show 'em. Maybe I'll get invited to neat parties.

Don't you see? It's the only way.

(I see the same comments from the left quite a bit on DZ.com - but I suspect those people are really more deep than that, they just throw that junk out there due to indoctrination or as a troll tactic or it's just the kids on the site - the average adult is a little smarter than that)

Bill -

Similar to the question I posed to Mike, is this a strawman or do you have evidence to support your assertions?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rehmwa 2]

I'll leave it up to you to do the searches and read the posts. It's all over in DZ.com.

But it's all hearsay (see say?)

heresay I tell ya

heersey

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It's all over in DZ.com.

What you assert you are seeing "all over in DZ.com," I'm not. What am missing? And I don't mean that sarcastically or snark-ily.
I provided three specific examples & one general (i.e., whole thread) counter-example.

The original assertion was explicit (& let's extend it even more broadly: or even implicity) assertion by a plural group of individuals claiming they are voting for a person specifically because the candidate is "black" or "female." Is there any evidence or is that a strawman argument?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

It's all over in DZ.com.

What you assert you are seeing "all over in DZ.com," I'm not. What am missing? And I don't mean that sarcastically or snark-ily.
I provided three specific examples & one general (i.e., whole thread) counter-example.

The original assertion was explicit (& let's extend it even more broadly: or even implicity) assertion by a plural group of individuals claiming they are voting for a person specifically because the candidate is "black" or "female." Is there any evidence or is that a strawman argument?

VR/Marg

Can you think of a better reason why 88% of Utah Republicans voted for Romney? Or 93% (IIRC) of black Georgian democrats voted for Obama? Or why Hillary is routinely winning the adult white female demographic?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'm not giving anyone a pass.

You brought up Clarence Thomas. He was never identified as doing anything. She lied and he denied her lies.

All he did was respond to a political smear campaign created by the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. You don't like that sort of smear campaign, you mentioned it earlier.

In the Paula Jones case, the judge said that BC lied and fined him.
In the Lewinsky case, BC admitted that he lied.

Two simple questions that you repeatedly avoid...
Are you against ANY sexual harassment in the workplace? (Pulling out your penis is real harassment.)
Are you against lying in a court of law?

Speaking of giving someone a free pass...
You sure don't criticize President Bubba for all the proven lies and harassment. As much as you talk about party politics, you seem to be all about it.

Would you say that it was wrong for BC to harass Paula Jones?

You are giving him a pass calling her a liar and him being innocnet..

WHO TOOK THE POLYGRAPH and WHO DID NOT.....DUH

So a Judge THOUGHT he lied... I guess that is good enough for you

While I think his actions were reprehensible with Monika....they were BOTH getting what they wanted..and she did not claim it to be sexual harrasment... and DUDE... there is a LOT more to sexual harrassment then whipping out your cock to your fellow co-workers. Clarence was talking some pretty nasty trash about beastiality.. I guess that is ok with you.. sure its not whipping out your cock but if someone in my workplace was pulling that shit.. I am not one of those go along to get along kind... I would get in your fucking face in front of a bunch of people and tell you EXACTLY how I felt about it... regardless of how it might affect MY carreer.. MOST women are too afraid to do anything like that.

You have to ask yourself.. if its wrong for him why do you give a pass to Clarence??? oh thats right.. he is a good little conservative.. always virtuous and standing for family values...AND he is a STAUNCH Republican so he must be what he says he is

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Can you think of a better reason why 88% of Utah Republicans voted for Romney?

Religion has more opportunities for free choice as opposed to sex or race. Also that was not the original assertion that was put forth as fact w/r/t plural group of individuals posting on dz.com.

Quote

Or 93% (IIRC) of black Georgian democrats voted for Obama? Or why Hillary is routinely winning the adult white female demographic?

A "better reason": yes, because the voters had a preference for one candidate's issues, proposed policies, approach, & leadership potential. (Otoh, I acknowledge that I don’t have overwhelming evidence to support that causality w/r/t the Georgia primary either ...)

In Georgia, Sen Obama reportedly received 67% of the overall vote in the Democratic primary.

From the local Atlanta Journal Constitution:

“Illinois U.S. Sen. Barack Obama won an overwhelming victory in Georgia Tuesday with strong support from young and middle-age voters.

“About 77 percent of voters ages 18-29, about 74 percent ages 30-44 voted for Obama, according to exit polls. [Senator Obama appears to have the less than 44 age demographic, how does one explain that?]

“The only age group going for Hillary Clinton was voters 60 and older, according to the exit polls.

“Obama received more than 60 percent of the vote from both men and women.

“Clinton beat Obama among whites, 57 percent to 39 percent, while Obama polled 88
percent of the black vote, according to the poll.”

Similar, but not exactly the same numbers, from another source:

“In Georgia, exit polls showed black voters made up 52 percent and Obama captured 86 percent. But Obama also won 43 percent of the white vote, a sharp increase over the South Carolina results, a trend that could mean problems for Sen. Hillary Clinton in other states.”

So it looks like across the Georgia Democratic primary voters, there was a mixed absolute correlation (result) w/r/t sex & race of candidates & voters, but still no overwhelming evidence w/r/t causality.

Is there an assumption being made that black voters will vote based on race rather than characteristics, issues, etc of the candidate? Why is that considered a valid assumption? Similar for women.

The NY Daily News reported on the issue, which seems to reflect many folks assertions:

“Many voters in Georgia said Tuesday they were moved by Obama's message more than his skin color.

"‘I didn't want to vote for Obama just because he was black,’ said Jacqueline Jenkins, 42, a black administrative assistant and part-time college student who voted outside Albany [GA]. ‘I didn't want to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. I think both bring a lot to the table. I just think Obama would be a better choice.’”

While it is interesting to consider voting demographics in Georgia’s primary (at least to me since I live here), it’s still not evidence to support the original assertion.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Clinton beat Obama among whites, 57 percent to 39 percent, while Obama polled 88
percent of the black vote, according to the poll.”

. . .

Quote

“In Georgia, exit polls showed black voters made up 52 percent and Obama captured 86 percent. But Obama also won 43 percent of the white vote, a sharp increase over the South Carolina results, a trend that could mean problems for Sen. Hillary Clinton in other states.”

Is there an assumption being made that black voters will vote based on race rather than characteristics, issues, etc of the candidate? Why is that considered a valid assumption? Similar for women.

If you think that's merely an issue-related correlation with no causality, we'll have to agree to disagree. And I'm not saying it was only the blacks or only the women. I think it whites and men were just as guilty. I'm also not saying it was *all* the blacks, whites, women, or men. But some significant percentage of each were certainly opting to vote their own color and/or gender rather than for a specific platform. If color and gender did not factor into people's decisions, we wouldn't see such obvious lines of demarcation.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If you think that's merely an issue-related correlation with no causality, we'll have to agree to disagree.

W/r/t to the larger electrorate and voting patterns, I'm cool with that.

The validity of the original assertion (possibly straw man?):

Quote

how many posts on here do you see from the libs saying "we need a black president" or "we need a woman president". There's very little discussion about their views on issues, just talk about race and gender.

remains un-affirmed.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[livendive 8]

Quote

The validity of the original assertion (possibly straw man?):

Quote

how many posts on here do you see from the libs saying "we need a black president" or "we need a woman president". There's very little discussion about their views on issues, just talk about race and gender.

remains un-affirmed.

And that, I agree with.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

I'll leave it up to you to do the searches and read the posts. It's all over in DZ.com.

But it's all hearsay (see say?)

heresay I tell ya

heersey

I don't think anyone denies tht there is bigotry in any self-identified set of people. The issue here (see thread title) is whether it makes certain people unelectable. Given that minorities are just that, minorities, they are clearly disadvantaged by bigotry to a greater extent than majorities.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

LoL. Were the alternative indeed better, I would be an adherent to the principles (at least a few of them) of the alternative political philosophy. Not that I adhere to all conservative principles - my desire to legalize most illicit drugs doesn't earn me many fans in their ranks.

However...in this case the alternative is utterly unpalatable. Kind of like choosing between Time-Warner cable and an old radio stuck on AM only.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Given that minorities are just that, minorities, they are clearly disadvantaged by bigotry to a greater extent than majorities.

I wonder if the anti-minority-at-all-cost bigots are, over the large scale of the population, about balanced today by the pro-minority-at-all-cost bigots. (Sorry libs, you have to acknowledge the 2nd group exists to join this conversation)

It's an interesting situation - the bigotry, instead of being cured, has perpetuated to the point of still being everywhere, it's just the idiots cancel each other out.

I believe idiots from opposing and unreasonable viewpoints cancelling each other out is much more common than many out there think.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if its wrong for him why do you give a pass to Clarence???

Because not even the Dems in the Senate believed it when the dust settled. They believed that he did not do what others said Anita Hill said he did.

If he did it, then, yeah, he should be held accountable. That Clinton got a blowjob from a subordinate is true beyond a reasonable doubt. That Thomas made sexual innuendo is likely true, but never PROVEN. Get it?

Remember, another employee said that Thomas harassed her, subsequent to his firing her for calling another staff member a "faggot." Oooh, sour grapes from a woman for a Republican not tolerating name calling? Biden thought so.

And anothe rassistant who made statements, but emphatically declined to call it sexual harassment?

And Anita hill? She reported that thomas spoke about what he saw in these porno movies. Unacceptable, yes. Totally believeable and proven? No. It's not like he came on her blue dress.

I don't defend it if it happened. He shoulda just gotten a bj from her and lied about it. Then you'd find it acceptable. You'd "be proud of him," right?

And don't call him a hypocrite on it. I recall that Thomas himself denounced the tactics used to try to impeach Clinton. He called it a witch hunt. But, then again, his defense of Clinton would lead you to suspect ulterior motives, right?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

While I think his actions were reprehensible with Monika....they were BOTH getting what they wanted..and she did not claim it to be sexual harrasment...

Paula Jones did. She claimed sexual harassment.
You were discussing people who have claimed SH.
She made that claim. It did upset her.

We have finalllllly established that you are against sexual harassment (hopefully against anyone, not just dems), and you are unhappy about the unfounded and unproven allegations of Anita Hill.

You should be angry about what happened to Paula Jones. Angry at Bill Clinton.

It seems that you do not have one set of morals.
They are applied, or more appallingly ignored, in the interest of party politics.

The NOW? Parading around and supporting Anita Hill. Totally silent about the repeated Clinton harassment of women.
The ethics of party politics are not really ethics.

"...and tell you EXACTLY how I felt about it... regardless of how it might affect MY carreer.. MOST women are too afraid to do anything like that."

Paula did.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It seems that you do not have one set of morals.
They are applied, or more appallingly ignored, in the interest of party politics.

The NOW? Parading around and supporting Anita HillClarence Thomas. Totally silent Blathering on and on and on about the repeated Clinton harassment of women.
The ethics of party politics are not really ethics.

Fixed it for you


DUDE.. got a mirror....

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems that you do not have one set of morals.
They are applied, or more appallingly ignored, in the interest of party politics.

The NOW? Parading around and supporting Anita HillClarence Thomas. Totally silent Blathering on and on and on about the repeated Clinton harassment of women.
The ethics of party politics are not really ethics.

Fixed it for you


DUDE.. got a mirror....

You brought up Clarence Thomas, not me.
You brought up unfounded charges to continue a liberal smear campaign.

I am against proven instances of sexual harassment. Too bad that you refuse to make an ethical stand by saying the same thing.

I brought up BC to give you that opportunity.

BC sexually harassed Paula Jones and then was fined by the judge for lying about it.

Why not go on record and say that it was wrong?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You brought up Clarence Thomas, not me.
You brought up unfounded charges to continue a liberal smear campaign.

I am against proven instances of sexual harassment

More situational ethics... tsk tsk tsk...

RIGHT.. PROVEN.. so your Right wing perv( one of so many as we have seen lately) can do any damn thing he wants. with his underlings....disgusting shit... bestiality PORN and wanting to discuss it on more than a few occasions because it gives him a stiffy. An you let him get away with it because he will not allow it to be proven against him take the polygraph.. oh no.... not him... must have something to hide.. Anita took a polygraph and passed... funny that..... yet YOU claim she is the liar.

As far as Monika and Bill.. that is how a LOT of women have and probably will get ahead in their carreers.. and no I do not condone it... it works for some.. but they are big girls... and as long as its going their way.... its all good ... but that old scorn thing is full on once a rejection happens.. then they trot out the sexual harrassment. Perhaps that is what happened with Paula... oops that right you want so hard to believe she is pure as the snow. Seems you forget that part so conviently

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I am against proven instances of sexual harassment. Too bad that you refuse to make an ethical stand by saying the same thing.

I brought up BC to give you that opportunity.

BC sexually harassed Paula Jones and then was fined by the judge for lying about it.

To be precise, sexual harassment was not proven in the Paula Jones case. After the perjury regarding ML got her a new trial, Bill Clinton settled with her privately. The fine was related to the perjury, not the claim of sexual harassment.

[happythoughts 0]

The fine for the perjury was $91,000.

CNN

The out of court settlement was $850,000.
***WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 12) -- U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition.

That money was separate from the civil suit.
It was to compensate PJ for legal expenses.

The phrase "intentionally false" was used a lot.

Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Perhaps that is what happened with Paula... oops that right you want so hard to believe she is pure as the snow. Seems you forget that part so conviently

First, I find your "she was asking for it" defense disgusting. I don't care what she was wearing or what her previous/current sexual experience was. No means no.

In her deposition, she said that she rejected his advances several times.

Since you are a supporter of lie detectors...
In 2005, Paula Jones appeared on the debut show of Lie Detector and was given a polygraph exam.

She was asked if then Governor Bill Clinton had — in a hotel room in 1991 — dropped his pants, exposed himself, and asked for sexual favors from her then he committed sexual harassment.

Jones said yes and the polygraph operator determined she was telling the truth. Lie Detector offered to test Clinton, but he did not respond to the request.

So, according to the lie detector test (that Clinton refused), PJ was telling the truth.

You support lie detector tests unless they are against BC. There is no level of proof that you will accept.

Since you are so accepting of the repulsive "blame the victim" excuse, I don't think that I wish to continue.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Since you are so accepting of the repulsive "blame the victim" excuse, I don't think that I wish to continue.

Great.... just think you will soon have 8 more years of Clinton bashing.....

cant wait to see what you good ole a Bubbboys come up with to smear and slander Mrs Clinton

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Given that minorities are just that, minorities, they are clearly disadvantaged by bigotry to a greater extent than majorities.

I wonder if the anti-minority-at-all-cost bigots are, over the large scale of the population, about balanced today by the pro-minority-at-all-cost bigots. (Sorry libs, you have to acknowledge the 2nd group exists to join this conversation)

It's an interesting situation - the bigotry, instead of being cured, has perpetuated to the point of still being everywhere, it's just the idiots cancel each other out.

I believe idiots from opposing and unreasonable viewpoints cancelling each other out is much more common than many out there think.

Yes, the second group exists. As does the first group. Whether they each represent an equal proportion of the population is unclear. I suspect the first group is larger, based on personal experience, but I readily acknowledge that having spent the overwhelming majority of my life in states generally considered to be "red," My perspective is not without the bias of the local political beliefs.

Personally, I was hoping the old white guy Gravel would get more support. While I disagree with his support of the Fair Tax, for the most part, I believe he is a man of integrity. Case in point, a few months back I had the opportunity to see him give a speech. Afterwards, he was fielding questions from the audience (without any pre-screening). One girl in the audience asked him about his position on gun control. The manner i which the question was asked left little doubt the the questioner was in favor of gun control. Gravel opened his response by saying that he was a gun owner, and kept a handgun in a drawer in his home (No mention of trigger locks or cabinet locks). He stated that he recognized that there was a definite problem in America with gun related violence that badly needed to be addressed. Then he said something one does not commonly hear from politicians running for office. He told us in no uncertain terms that he didn't have a solution to the problem. He went on to say that the answer to the problem is not as simple as either side would like people to believe. Speaking to a room of left leaning students, that was not the safest answer Gravel could have offered. It took integrity to say what he thought, and not what he thought would be best received.
Gravel also made it clear that neither he nor any other candidate could fix the problems with America's government, that that would require the people to take the initiative to take back control for themselves. He claimed to be willing to help make that possible, but in the end it was up to us.

Clearly, barring a major, unforeseen change in circumstance, Gravel does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting his party's nomination. Some might say that it is because he is an old white guy. I tend to think that it's because he is honest, and honesty has no place in today's politics. Special interests won't support any candidate who is just as willing to chastise his own party members when they screw up as he is willing to call out members of the opposing party when they screw up.

So, since it appears that the best the Republicans have to offer is McCain, my choice is for Hillary or Obama. Of the two, I think Hillary is better qualified, but Obama is more charismatic. Both characteristics are valuable.

Obama has mobilized young voters like no one in recent years has been able to do. Part of that is almost certainly because he is phenotypically black. And part of that is because he is a relatively young candidate. I believe a much bigger reason is that Obama is one charismatic sumbitch. People want to believe him. Many younger voters are not old enough to have been following politics seven years (or more) ago. But they are tired of having a president that appears to be lying every time his lips move. They want a president they can believe. They want a president they can believe in. They are in desperate need of real leadership in the Whitehouse. They aren't interested in the kind of president that commands through fear while hiding behind the world's largest military. They want a president that can rally the people, someone who can make them proud to be American instead of ashamed of it. In that sense, Obama is more like Ronald Reagan than any candidate since 1984.

Unfortunately, many young Americans who registered to vote because of Obama won't even bother voting if he doesn't get the nomination. They don't care about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. They want a charismatic leader. No other candidate can offer that like Obama, so they are not interested in any other candidate.

(Incidentally, some of these same people ridicule Gravel because Gravel expects people to take responsibility for their own government.)

Sadly, America has not yet escaped her troubled past. For many Americans this election will be between McCain and the woman or McCain and the black guy. Once again, Edwards, the Dems most electable candidate, a likable middle aged white guy who was born into a less than privileged family, will not get the nomination. (OTOH, the Rep's most electable candidate, Colin Powell, the only conservative to appear to show remorse for his role leading up to the Iraq invasion/occupation, chose not to run.)

Between a white female or a black male, who are comparatively qualified for the job, I believe Clinton has the better chance of winning. I still see racism raise its ugly head too often to believe that a large majority of Americans are willing to place a black man in the nation's highest political office. I hope I'm wrong about that, but nonetheless, I hope Hillary gets the nomination because I believe she is the more electable of the two, and that she would make a slightly better president than Obama.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[tbrown 26]

With McCain all but certain to be the Republican candidate, I'm thinking he can beat Hillary, but maybe not Obama. People near McCain reportedly think so too.

If the Reps go for ideological purity and run Preacher Huckabee instead, either Dem will kick his ass.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Zenister 0]

Quote

With McCain all but certain to be the Republican candidate, I'm thinking he can beat Hillary, but maybe not Obama. People near McCain reportedly think so too.

If the Reps go for ideological purity and run Preacher Huckabee instead, either Dem will kick his ass.

you have to wonder what sycophants in both camps (Clinton and Huckabee) are pushing them given the above 'fact'

I agree a Huckabee win will sink the Republican chances, while a Clinton win will sink the Dems.

'conventional wisdom' is that a McCain/Obama race will be one of the few that actually addresses the issues during the campaign.. I'm hoping this happens.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,116]

> With McCain all but certain to be the Republican candidate, I'm
>thinking he can beat Hillary, but maybe not Obama.

Agreed. I think the Hillary/McCain race would be a close one, but McCain would win. Obama/McCain would result in an Obama win. Just imagine the debates - you'd have the JFK/Nixon effect writ large.