Why angry women will not vote for McCain

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Women
In summary, much of what we've heard from angry voters in the last few days has been said in the heat of the moment. After the general election starts, especially after Obama contrasts himself with McCain, cooler heads will prevail.
  • #36
I doubt that angry women will vote for McCain when there are better choices out there. http://writehillaryin.com/" . The site says: A vote should never be a lie, and I agree with that whole-heartedly. It makes me sick to see citizens of a free country voting for candidates they don't want to win, while better alternatives are out there. No wonder we are in the thrall of a two (one really) party system. She had the nomination taken away from her by the DNC and its delegate apparatchiks, not by the voters. Women, and progressive thinking men, it is in your power to correct matters. Write in Hillary Clinton for President in November 2008.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
jimmysnyder said:
I doubt that angry women will vote for McCain when there are better choices out there. http://writehillaryin.com/" . The site says: A vote should never be a lie, and I agree with that whole-heartedly. It makes me sick to see citizens of a free country voting for candidates they don't want to win, while better alternatives are out there. No wonder we are in the thrall of a two (one really) party system. She had the nomination taken away from her by the DNC and its delegate apparatchiks, not by the voters. Women, and progressive thinking men, it is in your power to correct matters. Write in Hillary Clinton for President in November 2008.
Yes! Let's put McCain in the White House so that he can make Bush's tax cuts permanent and make the Iraq occupation permanent. That would be a step forward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
turbo-1 said:
Yes! Let's put McCain in the White House so that he can make Bush's tax cuts permanent and make the Iraq occupation permanent. That would be a step forward.
You are just the kind of voter I'm talking about. You give no support to Obama of any kind, you just want to throw chaos into the electoral system. A strong write in campaign for Hillary will allow committed voters the chance to vote for someone not against someone. She will be the next President while you will be complaining about the weaknesses of the two party system.
 
  • #39
Here is the positives and negatives, as I see it:

McCain (Positives):
Is a liberal republican, making him a moderate that appeals to undecided voters.
Is one of the few Republicans popular among Hispanics.

McCain (Negatives):
Is a Republican (normally not a negative, but Americans have taken an increasingly negative view of Republicans in the last few years. Normally, a liberal Republican would be able to make a clean sweep of the November election).
Is Old

Obama (Positives):
Is young and may bring younger voters to the polls (who traditionally do not vote in very large numbers).
Is a Democrat (everything being equal, it is better to be a Democrat right now).
Is a new face (may appeal to some who view him as a "Washington Outsider")

Obama (Negatives):
Muslim Heritage (the majority of Americans have a negative view of Muslims)
Leftist Liberal positions (Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007).
Too Young (Older voters tend to distrust people like Obama who seem young, underqualified, and Naive. Older voters tend to vote in large numbers, unlike younger voters).
Unpopular among Hispanics (Hispanics are an important demographic that Democrats must do well with, and Obama has proved very unpopular with Hispanic voters. Hispanic voters could decide important swing states like Florida and New Mexico)
Unpopular among lower-middle class and working class whites (this demographic is extremely important, since it will determine the fate of large swing States such as Ohio and Pennsylvania).
Unpopular among Florida Jews (Jews are normally a reliable Democratic vote, but rumors of Obama being anti Semitic and/or Anti-Israel are turning off a lot of Florida Jews, especially older ones who could decide the fate of the most important swing State.)
October surprise (Obama is a new face, and has not been vetted by the opposition. Most people have made up their mind about Hillary and McCain, and all the daemons in their respective closets have come to light. People have not made up their mind about Obama, and while this could end up being good for him, my guess is that it will be a negative, especially after the Republicans start digging deep and bring the smear campaign to full power.)

In summary, I think that Obama has way too many negatives to beat McCain. Hillary might have been able to pull it off, but not Obama. It will still be a close election though.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
jimmysnyder said:
I doubt that angry women will vote for McCain when there are better choices out there. http://writehillaryin.com/" . The site says: A vote should never be a lie, and I agree with that whole-heartedly. It makes me sick to see citizens of a free country voting for candidates they don't want to win, while better alternatives are out there. No wonder we are in the thrall of a two (one really) party system. She had the nomination taken away from her by the DNC and its delegate apparatchiks, not by the voters. Women, and progressive thinking men, it is in your power to correct matters. Write in Hillary Clinton for President in November 2008.

To be honest, this is what I have been considering. I do not dislike McCain or Obama, but I have really deep reservations about either one becoming President, and despite McCain's liberal stances, I doubt the vote will be very close in California, so writing in "Hillary" will be unlikely to change the outcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
jimmysnyder said:
You are just the kind of voter I'm talking about. You give no support to Obama of any kind, you just want to throw chaos into the electoral system. A strong write in campaign for Hillary will allow committed voters the chance to vote for someone not against someone. She will be the next President while you will be complaining about the weaknesses of the two party system.
You seem to have a prescient (though 180 degrees wrong!) insight into what I think. Perhaps you should read what I write and consider that people can honestly disagree with you and not be motivated by some arcane conspiracy-plot. I am an independent conservative that wants to end the lock of the Republicans on the administration so that we can roll back some of the neocon initiatives that Bush and Cheney have foisted on us. Their actions have resulted in theft from conservative people like myself to reward wealthy risk-takers who are gaming the system.
 
  • #42
vociferous said:
Here is the positives and negatives, as I see it:

McCain (Positives):
Is a liberal republican, making him a moderate that appeals to undecided voters.
Is one of the few Republicans popular among Hispanics.

McCain (Negatives):
Is a Republican (normally not a negative, but Americans have taken an increasingly negative view of Republicans in the last few years. Normally, a liberal Republican would be able to make a clean sweep of the November election).
Is Old

Obama (Positives):
Is young and may bring younger voters to the polls (who traditionally do not vote in very large numbers).
Is a Democrat (everything being equal, it is better to be a Democrat right now).
Is a new face (may appeal to some who view him as a "Washington Outsider")

Obama (Negatives):
Muslim Heritage (the majority of Americans have a negative view of Muslims)
Leftist Liberal positions (Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007).
Too Young (Older voters tend to distrust people like Obama who seem young, underqualified, and Naive. Older voters tend to vote in large numbers, unlike younger voters).
Unpopular among Hispanics (Hispanics are an important demographic that Democrats must do well with, and Obama has proved very unpopular with Hispanic voters. Hispanic voters could decide important swing states like Florida and New Mexico)
Unpopular among lower-middle class and working class whites (this demographic is extremely important, since it will determine the fate of large swing States such as Ohio and Pennsylvania).
Unpopular among Florida Jews (Jews are normally a reliable Democratic vote, but rumors of Obama being anti Semitic and/or Anti-Israel are turning off a lot of Florida Jews, especially older ones who could decide the fate of the most important swing State.)
October surprise (Obama is a new face, and has not been vetted by the opposition. Most people have made up their mind about Hillary and McCain, and all the daemons in their respective closets have come to light. People have not made up their mind about Obama, and while this could end up being good for him, my guess is that it will be a negative, especially after the Republicans start digging deep and bring the smear campaign to full power.)

In summary, I think that Obama has way too many negatives to beat McCain. Hillary might have been able to pull it off, but not Obama. It will still be a close election though.


We're still way, way too far from the general election to make any sort of final proclamation. It's a whole new game now. The way Obama ran in the primary is going to be totally different from the general.

And there's one thing Obama has going for him that's HUGE: He beat the Clintons! No small feat!
 
  • #43
lisab said:
And there's one thing Obama has going for him that's HUGE: He beat the Clintons! No small feat!

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, the "winning by the rules but loosing by the popular vote" aspect of his victory is going to make a lot of Hillary supporters very bitter, and where you look at the places he won (young voters, heavily Republican states, liberal voters, urban voters, black voters) and you look at where Hillary won (swing states, Latino voters, working and lower-middle class whites, Jews, the elderly), it does not bode well for Obama.

Young voters do not show up to the polls (and the few who do vote heavily Democratic anyway), urban and liberal voters are going to pick the Democrat no matter what, heavily Republican states are irrelevant in the general election, black voters always vote heavily Democratic no matter who the nominee is. Barrack lost heavily to Hillary among every demographic that will matter in the general election, so I think it is a bad harbinger for him. I was really surprised by how many super delegates decided to support him, but c'est la guerre.
 
  • #44
turbo-1 said:
You seem to have a prescient (though 180 degrees wrong!) insight into what I think. Perhaps you should read what I write ...

turbo-1 said:
The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies.

You want to get beyond a 2 party system, and yet when I tell people to vote for the candidate that they want, you say no, vote against someone you don't want, someone from one of the 2 parties. There is no way I could be anything other than 180 degrees wrong.
 
  • #45
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, the "winning by the rules but loosing by the popular vote" aspect of his victory is going to make a lot of Hillary supporters very bitter, and where you look at the places he won (young voters, heavily Republican states, liberal voters, urban voters, black voters) and you look at where Hillary won (swing states, Latino voters, working and lower-middle class whites, Jews, the elderly), it does not bode well for Obama.

Young voters do not show up to the polls (and the few who do vote heavily Democratic anyway), urban and liberal voters are going to pick the Democrat no matter what, heavily Republican states are irrelevant in the general election, black voters always vote heavily Democratic no matter who the nominee is. Barrack lost heavily to Hillary among every demographic that will matter in the general election, so I think it is a bad harbinger for him. I was really surprised by how many super delegates decided to support him, but c'est la guerre.

It's really unfortunate that the Democratic party uses a nomination process that almost ensures defeat in the general election. They seem to ignore the states where the decisions are really made and give the most weight to the states that are going to have Democrat victories regardless of which candidate runs. If they want to win the general election, they need to select candidates who can appeal beyond the traditional "blue states."
 
  • #46
vociferous said:
Actually, if you tally up the popular vote, he did not

Since the popular vote is not the mechanism used to decide the contest, this line of thinking is irrelevant. Everyone involved would have campaigned differently if the popular vote had been the important thing, and so it's meaningless to evaluate the actual results under that metric. I understand that you're simply citing it as an example of why Hillary supporters might be bitter, but there are very good reasons why the popular vote is not used to decide the nomination, and it's telling that nobody gave a hoot about the popular vote until they got an outcome they didn't like.

vociferous said:
Barrack lost heavily to Hillary among every demographic that will matter in the general election,

Well, then, I guess it's a good thing he's not running against Hillary in the general election. That the voters in question might have preferred Hillary to Obama does not imply that they're going to vote for McCain, or even that they're going to decline to vote. Obama still has plenty of time to reach out to them, and, given that Hillary is going to be supporting his campaign, all but the bitterest of losers will probably come around in the end.

Also, with regards to young and/or black voters, the remarkable thing about Obama campaign is not that he won those groups, but the unexpected surge in participation. So the expectation is that said groups will go to the polls for him in unusually large numbers.
 
  • #47
Gokul43201 said:
Russ, I find it curious that McCain's flaws are based on facts while most of Obama's are not.
Looking over the list again, I find it curious that you have that perception of it!

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 a combination of facts and perceptions.
Surely you don't think Obama is more angry than McCain? There's no doubt about which of those two has the bigger temper.
"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. He talks a good game, but whether he can sell people on him having outgrown his history is going to be a serious problem for him, especially considering how recent the history is, ie., with his church.
As for the extremely liberal bit, that sounds like it needs more persistent debunking.
I've never been part of the discussions, but I've seen where people posted ratings of congressmen and he's pretty consistently on the far left. A google finds it easily: he's the most liberal senator we have! http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

So that's another fact...
In any case, I think McCain's biggest problem may be that he's taking the far right stance on so many issues lately, he no longer looks anything like the maverick he used to be a decade ago.
That could be a problem, but we'll have to wait and see how he plays it in the campaign. Remember, he had a serious challenge from far-right conservatives during the early part of the primaries. He had to be more conservative. Then, after he wrapped-up the nomination, he started cutting ties with the far-right wing types. So we'll just have to see where he ends up during the campaign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
Ivan Seeking said:
So you are saying that McCain will get the young vote, the black vote, and the fundamentalist vote?
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.
 
  • #49
vociferous said:
Here is the positives and negatives, as I see it:
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.
 
  • #50
quadraphonics said:
Well, then, I guess it's a good thing he's not running against Hillary in the general election. That the voters in question might have preferred Hillary to Obama does not imply that they're going to vote for McCain, or even that they're going to decline to vote. Obama still has plenty of time to reach out to them, and, given that Hillary is going to be supporting his campaign, all but the bitterest of losers will probably come around in the end.

Also, with regards to young and/or black voters, the remarkable thing about Obama campaign is not that he won those groups, but the unexpected surge in participation. So the expectation is that said groups will go to the polls for him in unusually large numbers.

Polls showed that a lot more Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if Obama were the nominee than vice versa. 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.

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.
 
  • #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...
 
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
87
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
64
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top