News Why angry women will not vote for McCain

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Women
AI Thread Summary
Many women are currently angry over Hillary Clinton's nomination loss, raising concerns that her supporters may not vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming election. John McCain's stance on issues like Roe v. Wade and his voting record on women's rights have led to skepticism about whether he can attract these voters. The potential for Clinton to be on the ticket as vice president is debated, with some arguing it could energize both Democratic and Republican bases, while others fear it could backfire. The discussion highlights the importance of women's votes in swing states and the potential consequences if they choose to abstain from voting. Ultimately, the dynamics of the election may shift as the general campaign progresses, influencing voter sentiment.
  • #51
vociferous said:
Polls showed that a lot more Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if Obama were the nominee than vice versa.

Yeah, but people always say things like that during primary season, even though they don't mean them. They figure that the poll results will cow supporters of other candidates into backing their horse instead. Even if the sentiments are genuine, they still predate the general campaign wherein, again, Hillary will be encouraging her followers to vote for Obama.

vociferous said:
I fully expect that most Hillary supporters will end up backing Obama, but the fact remains that some will not, and with many important States likely to be decided by a few votes, this could play a huge role.

This is getting awfully speculative for me. I'll agree that, should the election come down to a question of Florida and Ohio, Obama may be in trouble, but I'm not at all convinced that such will be the case. Nor am I convinced that Hillary wouldn't have just as much trouble in different places.

vociferous said:
As for young voters, in recent years, a large upswing in enthusiasm (again, something seen with Kerry in 2004) among the young during the primary is unlikely to translate to a significant increase at the ballot box. The only thing that keeps old people at home on election day is bad weather and Alzheimer's. Young voters always show up in abysmal numbers, and that seems pretty unlikely to change.

Is it possible that young voters might increase their participation in some significant way? Yes. Is it a good bet? Not a chance.

Perhaps you're right, but I can't say that the same argument applies to black voters. Could be an interesting election in certain southern states...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
russ_watters said:
With the laundry list of negatives against Obama, you'd think he'd stand no chance. But he's in the race at all almost exclusively because of one positive that you missed: charisma.
Here's another one: the character of his campaign!
 
  • #53
vociferous said:
Actually, if you tally up the popular vote, he did not;

Proof?

If you're relying on Clinton's numbers, please be aware that she a) does not count any votes in Michigan as Obama votes; and b) does not count any caucus states.

As someone who lives (and votes) in a caucus state, I find this maddening. She insists that all votes in Florida and and Michigan get counted, but then won't she count my vote? My state followed all the rules, and I have two days (because I was a delegate) invested into this process!

Besides, only delegates count, and that informs how the contestants run the race.
 
  • #54
lisab said:
Proof?

If you're relying on Clinton's numbers, please be aware that she a) does not count any votes in Michigan as Obama votes; and b) does not count any caucus states.

As someone who lives (and votes) in a caucus state, I find this maddening. She insists that all votes in Florida and and Michigan get counted, but then won't she count my vote? My state followed all the rules, and I have two days (because I was a delegate) invested into this process!

Besides, only delegates count, and that informs how the contestants run the race.


Obviously the claim is somewhat disputable, but major media sources seem to have concluded that when you add up the actual numbers, Clinton seems to have more votes than Obama by most reasonable standards. Obviously, Caucus states are not going to count because they have no numbers to provide.

Like you wrote, the rules are ultimately what counts, and unless Clinton sucessfully challenges the Florida and Michigan decisions (seems more likely that she will concede soon), Obama has won by the rules. Just like in 2000, Bush lost the popular vote but won by the law. Somehow, I think if the super delegates had decided to push Clinton over the winning threshold, a lot of Obama supporters would be pretty bitter.

At the end of the day, the delegates actually did not matter; it was the super delegates, the elite Democrats who decided the election, not the will of the majority of Democratic primary voters. It is no wonder that so many Hillary supporters are bitter, and will be of little surprise to me if a lot of them stay home, vote McCain, or write in Hillary in November.

The primary system has worked well because one candidate generally obtains an insurmountable lead. When you have two candidates finishing in a virtual dead tie, with the party elites deciding the winner, you have a recipe for disaster and defeat in November. I wish that the Democrats would use this as a lesson to overhaul the primary system. Either the elites should pick the nominee (like in the old days), or it should be made into a popular contest. The candidate with the most votes wins.
 
  • #55
russ_watters said:
No, the point is that whether or not McCain gets those votes is a matter of how those votors perceive him on those issues. Jeez, the bias is thick in here! It's really simple, guys:

Old = fact
Too old = perception

And the reason I listed those issues - the whole point of that list - is that these are issues where the perception could create a real problem.

I was responding to seycyrus but didn't make that clear.
 
  • #56
vociferous said:
Actually, if you tally up the popular vote, he did not; I am not saying that he was not the legitimate nominee, just like Bush was the legitimate winner in 2000, but I will point out that, just like in 2000

This is not true because we don't have caucuses in the general election. This entire notion that one can claim the most votes without counting caucuses is precisely the sort of Clinton double-speak that helped to cost her the election [and got her husband impeached!].
 
  • #57
russ_watters said:
...But people tend to look at things differently when they look at them from different angles. Most of the issues I listed for all three are tion of facts and perceptions. "Angry black man" isn't a temper reference, it is a militant black reference (I did forget about McCain's temper, though - it should be on the list, though it hasn't made any news recently). It is a reference to the fact that his background, his associates, his wife! is militant black nationalism.

How did you come up with that one? I think you are just making that up.

Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years.[8] He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.[9] Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group.[10][11]

After four years in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprised of eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[10][12] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[13] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[14] In summer 1988, he traveled for the first time to Europe for three weeks then Kenya for five weeks where he met many of his Kenyan relatives for the first time.[15]

He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.[16] His election in 1990 as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review was widely reported.[17] Obama graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, then returned to Chicago where he headed a voter registration drive and began writing his first book, Dreams from My Father, a memoir published in 1995.[18]

Obama worked as an associate attorney with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 2002. After 1996, he worked at the firm only during the summer, when the Illinois Senate was not in session.[19] Obama worked on cases where the firm represented community organizers, pursued discrimination claims, and on voting rights cases. He also spent time on real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.[20] Mostly he drew up briefs, contracts, and other legal documents as a junior associate on legal teams.[20] Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.[21]

Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in spring 1993.[10][22] He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993–2002,[10][23][24][25] and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation from 1994–2002.[10][24][26] Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.[10][23][27] He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.[10]
wiki

Yes Russ, they always put angry black radicals in charge of the Harvard Law Review. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Obama is going to be Hillary's hanging chad. She'll push for him, but she won't push hard. Even now she maintains a web site, http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/06/04/030945#view_comments" in which people write about how the DNC hijacked the nomination, that they would never vote for Obama, and about a write-in campaign for Hillary. And yet Hillary wants Obama and the DNC to provide her with money for her campaign which is paying for that web site. This amazes me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
And in that Blog, any entries pointing out McCain's anti-feminist history are deleted, while entries insulting Obama are allowed. I know because I tried.
 
  • #60
Gokul43201 said:
And in that Blog, any entries pointing out McCain's anti-feminist history are deleted, while entries insulting Obama are allowed. I know because I tried.
I admire your empirical approach. I'm going to try to add an entry insulting Obama too.
 
  • #61
Gokul43201 said:
I said they were based on facts - that he is pretty old and pretty white are facts. Whether the age or the whiteness is a serious enough factor is in the eye of the beholder.
Those are subjective calls, not facts.

Ain't no bias.

You are making credibility calls on the perception of the *facts*. If we go over them one at a time using the same criteria, it is quite plain to see that the*facts* for Obama are just subjective as real as those for McCain.

Obama
 
  • #62
Gokul43201 said:
I said they were based on facts - that he is pretty old and pretty white are facts. Whether the age or the whiteness is a serious enough factor is in the eye of the beholder.
Those are subjective calls, not facts.

Ain't no bias.

You are making credibility calls on your perception of the basis for these *facts*. If we go over them one at a time using the same criteria, it is quite plain to see that the*facts* for Obama are just as subjective as those for McCain.

Obama
Angry Black Man - Based on the very real fact of some emotionally charged speeches given by Wright (Doesn't he even identify himself as angry in one of his speeches?) and perhaps others. One might question the legitimacy and/or the strength of the connection between Obama and these statements, but we cannot make the claim that this flaw is not being based on a fact.

Angry Black Wife - Very factually based. If she continues to make statements along the same lines that she made earlier, without modification, it will cost Obama a significant percentage of votes.

Muslim - Okay, this one is stupid.

Age - Certainly based on fact. Obama being young can be directly contrasted to McCain being old. it's a stigma of society that in general, people get older as they age. Are you more or less wiser than you were 20 years ago? :)

Experience - Compared to mcCain, he certainly has at least more quantitative experience. Many would say qualitiative as well. This goes hand in hand with McCain being OLD.

Extremely liberal - Liberal is based on facts. Extremely could be viewed as subjective, but certainly not as subjective as the term "wishy-washy".

Your bias lies in your assignment of legitimacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
seycyrus said:
You are making credibility calls on the perception of the *facts*.
No, I'm not. I agree that the perceptions exist. I was making the observation that in one case, the perceptions were much more based on facts than in the other case.

seycyrus said:
If we go over them one at a time using the same criteria, it is quite plain to see that the*facts* for Obama are just subjective as real as those for McCain.
I don't understand that sentence, but sure, we can go over the points and decide which ones are based on facts, and which not.

McCain:
Not very right wing=hard to say...used to be a fact, but not so much recently
Old=fact
White=fact
Pro-life=limited truth, pro-life only in certain circumstances
lobbyist issues=fact
affair with 25-year old millionairess beauty queen after wife was crippled=fact

Obama:
Angry/militant black man=not fact (angry/militant) + fact (black man)
Angry/militant black wife=not fact(angry/militant) + fact (black wife)
muslim=not fact
age/experience=fact
liberalness=disputed (two different studies rank him very differently)

seycyrus said:
Obama
Nice sig.
 
  • #64
I absolutely cannot believe how stupid these people on Hillary's blog are. This is how many people vote though, which is really, really scary. They vote on a personal level. Forget all about the trivial fact that this person is going to run our country for the next 4 years.

You'd think these people were voting from Prom Queen.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
seycyrus said:
Obama
Angry Black Man - Based on the very real fact of some emotionally charged speeches given by Wright (Doesn't he even identify himself as angry in one of his speeches?) and perhaps others. One might question the legitimacy and/or the strength of the connection between Obama and these statements, but we cannot make the claim that this flaw is not being based on a fact.
That fact is only evidence that Wright is an angry, black man - not Obama.

Angry Black Wife - Very factually based. If she continues to make statements along the same lines that she made earlier, without modification, it will cost Obama a significant percentage of votes.
I must have missed these angry rants from Michelle. Which ones were they?

Muslim - Okay, this one is stupid.

Age - Certainly based on fact. Obama being young can be directly contrasted to McCain being old. it's a stigma of society that in general, people get older as they age. Are you more or less wiser than you were 20 years ago? :)
Depends on whether I'm 25 or 95.

But I agree on both counts.

Experience - Compared to mcCain, he certainly has at least more quantitative experience. Many would say qualitiative as well. This goes hand in hand with McCain being OLD.
I think you may have miswritten that, but the point is undisputed.

Extremely liberal - Liberal is based on facts. Extremely could be viewed as subjective, but certainly not as subjective as the term "wishy-washy".
If by liberal, you mean he is a member of the Democratic party, that is an undisputed fact. If by the word, you mean he is among the leftmost fringe of the party, that is very much in dispute. We are talking here about a very openly religious person who has written and sponsored a greater fraction of his legislation with Republicans than almost every other democrat.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
Gokul43201 said:
I must have missed these angry rants from Michelle. Which ones were they?
This one gets a lot of play:

Michelle Obama said:
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/michelle-obam-1.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Gokul43201 said:
That fact is only evidence that Wright is an angry, black man - not Obama.

Well certainly. I tried to point that out. One can watch Obama speak and see that he is not angry. I don't think Russ was saying that Obama is an angry person. His connection to ABM is the flaw.

Gokul43201 said:
I must have missed these angry rants from Michelle. Which ones were they?

Ok. I sort of glossed over the *angry* part and replaced it with *not proud of her country for the majority of her life*


Gokul43201 said:
If by liberal, you mean he is a member of the Democratic party, that is an undisputed fact. If by the word, you mean he is among the leftmost fringe of the party, that is very much in dispute.

Does he go on the liberal shelf or the conservative shelf?


By my modified count, it seems to be 4-3 more McCain McCain fact than Obama facts. Certainly don't see that *Most* of Obamas are not based on fact.
 
  • #68
jimmysnyder said:
This one gets a lot of play:



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/michelle-obam-1.html"
I've heard that one, but that may explain that Michelle is proud, or maybe dishonest, or disgruntled, or she just said something stupid. I don't see how this makes her an angry, militant black wife.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
Gokul43201 said:
I've heard that one, but that may explain that Michelle is proud, or maybe dishonest, or disgruntled, or she just said something stupid. I don't see how this makes her an angry, militant black wife.

Most people equate pride as an extension of being happy or satisfied with something.

If you apply the converse of her statement (which might be a logical fallacy in the strictest sense) it appears that for the majority of her life, she was unhappy with her country...

Which leads to the dark side, young jedi.
 
  • #70
seycyrus said:
Most people equate pride as an extension of being happy or satisfied with something.

If you apply the converse of her statement (which might be a logical fallacy in the strictest sense) it appears that for the majority of her life, she was unhappy with her country...

Which leads to the dark side, young jedi.

She was proud; now (for the first time) she's really proud. And this makes her militant? Quite a stretch. Not very logical.
 
  • #71
seycyrus said:
By my modified count, it seems to be 4-3 more McCain McCain fact than Obama facts. Certainly don't see that *Most* of Obamas are not based on fact.
After the points about Obama and Michelle's angry militantism are rewritten so they are actually about Obama's church problem (which is a big issue) and Michelle's statement about her pride (which may also be a big deal, but no worse than Cindy's drug abuse/theft problems), then I admit that the list is more balanced.
 
  • #72
lisab said:
She was proud; now (for the first time) she's really proud. And this makes her militant? Quite a stretch. Not very logical.

Oh c'mon on now. In the one speech she just said "proud", not really proud. In the other, which came later, she said *really proud*.

Regardless, we're talking about the perception of her comments.

Are you on a one woman campaign to change this perception? If so, don't bother with me, I don't think Michelle is an ABW. You're wasting your energy.
 
  • #73
You first posted,

Angry Black Wife - Very factually based. If she continues to make statements along the same lines that she made earlier, without modification, it will cost Obama a significant percentage of votes.

Now you say,

seycyrus said:
I don't think Michelle is an ABW.

My one-woman campaign must have worked :wink: !
 
  • #74
lisab said:
You first posted,



Now you say,



My one-woman campaign must have worked :wink: !

Notice how her second speech was in fact, modified from the first. She must have read my post on PF and time traveled back.
 
Back
Top