Political Insider

By Zathras

May 12, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Here’s the key question for Sen. Obama in this area: will white Democrats unwilling to vote for him over a white Democratic candidate also be unwilling to vote for him against a white Republican?

In other words, if we accept what Abramowitz is saying about the persistence of negative attitudes by specific groups of white voters toward African Americans, we still don’t know how deeply felt these attitudes are. This election will be a good test, because many of the lower income, less educated white voters Abramowitz describes as looking down on African Americans also dislike President Bush pretty intensely. Which set of attitudes will guide their vote?

My guess is that by November it will be their dislike of President Bush, which will translate to Sen. McCain — not, perhaps, as directly as it would have to one of the other Republicans running this year, but more than enough. This doesn’t necessarily mean lower income, less educated white voters suddenly develop more progressive views about race; some of them may indeed rationalize a vote for Sen. Obama by saying to themselves that he is not a “typical” black man. But the alternative this year will be to vote for the candidate of President Bush’s party, after a two-term Presidency widely seen to have been a disaster. By November, I predict that a lot of white Democrats in places like West Virginia, Ohio and even Georgia who did not want to vote for Obama against Clinton or Edwards will decide they can support him against the Republicans.

By RJ

May 12, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

The significant and untested question this poll results pose is given the choice between voting against a person because of his or her race and voting to continue the policies of George W. Bush, which will you choose?

By KenC

May 12, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Article is right on. I am white male with BS degree. I have looked very hard at Obama and was very seriously considering voting for him. It was so refreshing having a black not playing, and even running from, the race card. Then Rev. Wright came along and he put an end to my potential vote for Obama.

Look at the church web site where Obama attended for years. I firmly believe that today, the number one racist group remaining in this country is the black population. Furthermore, political racism is continually being fermented by the black church leaders. They will not let the past go! Yes it was wrong but for the most part it is over if only they would let it die. If I started up a group called the National Association for the Advancement of White People, how long would it be before it was branded racist? All of those type organizations need to die, such as Jesse etc., and let us work together.

I will never support a person with my vote, black or white, who spews or associates with those who spew such venom regarding the other race or gender from their mouth. It is long past time to put that kind of hate to bed. If Obama had abandoned that church 5 years ago, I could support him but not now abandoning for political expediency in the heat of the battle. And we so desperately need someone other than a Republican in office, but not Obama with his very recent close ties back to a very racist church.

By Gary

May 12, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

Its funny how liberals keep pounding this McCain will be a 3rd term of Bush nonsense. The only Bush policy that McCain supports is the war in Iraq. Other policies such as spending, environment, taxes, healthcare, education, etc….McCain has not towed the Bush line. In fact it was him who said the President needed to change course in Iraq and now. McCain is a totally different candidate and a better candidate than President Bush.

Now the question is how can Obama win the votes of Appalachia? Take a look at the maps of this region and the statistics of the voting patterns. Obama is not only losing these people, he is getting creamed by 30% and 40% at times. Margins like that will not allow him to win a general Election because these states are either huge swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia) or states he, for some strange reason, thinks he can put into play(North Carolina, Virginia). He needs most of these states to win a general election and turning out the black vote and liberal vote alone is not going to get it done. He has to connect with rural, white voters who, yes even in times like these, will vote for a Republican who they feel is the better leader. The voted for Reagan and will vote for McCain too. If McCain holds Ohio and West Virginia and manages to take Pennsylvania, it will be a long night for Obama. He HAS to win two of these states to have a chance to win the Election.

By Mr. Reality

May 12, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

I really want someone to address an issue I have that’s really alarming to me.

WHY WON’T ANYONE ACKNOWLEDGE THE POSSIBILITY THAT A TAPE EXISTS OF OBAMA ATTENDING ONE OF THOSE “FIERY” SPEECHES?

I truly believe that conservatives are holding on to this until Obama is made the nominee and will drop it then.

If so, am I the only one who believes that the election would officially be over? DO WE REALLY WANT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE?

This Year’s Presidential Campaign Is Significant for Everyone! The Way we LIVE, WORK AND PLAY depends on our CHOICES this November.

LEAVE A MESSAGE AND SAY WHAT YOU THINK AT (678)WE VOTE-1 (678) 938-6831

SEE YOUR OPINIONS POSTED AT www.farrelvotes.blogspot.com

CHECK OUT THE SITE, COMMENT ON OTHERS AND DISCUSS ISSUES IMPORTANT TO YOU AND YOUR AMERICA!

By Jeff

May 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Obama just became irrelevant.

Bob Barr just entered the race, and he’s got at least one vote in South GA!

By Won'tvoteforhimnow

May 12, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

I am a white female with a graduate degree in Political Science. I am an extremely politically liberal person (I campaigned for Dukakis!). I remember wishing Obama would run for President back when he spoke at the last Dem Convention. But his affiliation wtih Rev Wright and that church has shown me that he is not the person I thought he was. Now I do not trust him at all and fear his true agenda.

I agree with every word written here by Ken C:

I have looked very hard at Obama and was very seriously considering voting for him. It was so refreshing having a black not playing, and even running from, the race card. Then Rev. Wright came along and he put an end to my potential vote for Obama.

Look at the church web site where Obama attended for years.

I will never support a person with my vote, black or white, who spews or associates with those who spew such venom regarding the other race or gender from their mouth. It is long past time to put that kind of hate to bed. If Obama had abandoned that church 5 years ago, I could support him but not now abandoning for political expediency in the heat of the battle. And we so desperately need someone other than a Republican in office, but not Obama with his very recent close ties back to a very racist church.

By Lily Toad

May 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Jeff, were you going to vote for Obama before Bob Barr announced his candidacy? If not, why would Barr’s entry make Obama irrelevant? If you were leaning toward McCain, wouldn’t Barr’s entry make McCain irrelevant? Do you think Barr will take more votes away from Obama or McCain?

By tom ga hunter

May 12, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Bob Barr=None Of The Above.. the only choice in this mess

By Lily Toad

May 12, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

What did Wright say about white people? I heard him accusing the govt. for AIDS, and saying the chickens have come home to roost regarding the Sept. 11 attacks, abd GD America, but did he say anything about the white race? I don’t watch much TV so I may have missed something.

By Jeff

May 12, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Lily:

Before Barr, Obama stood LITTLE chance of surviving the McCain/Paul double whammy.

WITH Barr, Obama stands NO CHANCE of survival.

Quite simply, those that love FFFFRRRRRREEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!! (said in my best imitation of Mel Gibson’s William Wallace) and GENUINE change will vote for Barr.

Those that want empty promises will vote for Obama.

Those that want the status quo maintained will vote for McCain.

Now, how many people do you know that genuinely want empty promises?

By jane

May 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

Working class Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics view themselves as in competetion for jobs. Obama needs to take a possition on Affirmitive action. That will define how the working class Whites vote. Affirmitive Action was a tool that helped create the Reagan Democrats in 1980. It could be used to create McCain Latinos and McCain blue collar voters this year. Obama needs to make a statement on wiether he ever recieved assistance because of his race. No matter what he says it could be tough for him.

By HB

May 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Jeff, Barr entering as a 3rd party candidate could help Obama (if he garners enough votes to have any impact at all) as he is more likely to siphon off Republican votes, much like Perot helped Clinton in ‘92 and Nader helped Bush in 2000. Highly unlikely it will hurt his run in any way, and I’m sure McCain isn’t thrilled about this new development.

By Somethingdifferent

May 12, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Could symbolic racism actually mean that uneducated white people fear taking orders or see their commander in chief as a black man. Remember when Obama first announced he was running everybody was fearful he would be killed. And Obama’s security detail equals the current elected president. Why? A friend once said picture how many white people would flee churches if Jesus was depicted as black. A lot of so called non racist white people could not handle it.

By Jeff

May 12, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

HB:

What is the third party?

There is ZERO ACTUAL difference in Republican and Democrat. The only difference is words/methodologies. The ideals are the same. Essentially: Big Brother.

Barr is entering as a SECOND party.

By god damn our racists hearts

May 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Curious that good folks were once seriously considering Obama until they heard some of his pastor’s “outrageous” sermons - oh my, the big black man in the fancy clothes said a wordy dird, and he raised his big black voice, and he called into question our obsession with violence and power often at the expense of the meek and humble. Don’t fear such mild venom folks. Don’t let the boob tube and racist inclinations overcome our braver spirit.

By Lily Toad

May 12, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Um, Jeff, I think everyone values freedom. What do the libertarians mean by “freedom”?

By HB

May 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

I disagree, Jeff, but your idea that we have only one party doesn’t do anything for your argument that Barr will hurt Obama anyway. If Barr pulls a signicant number of votes away from another candidate, it will be from McCain, not Obama. Other possibilities: 1) Barr doesn’t get many votes at all, or 2) he does but not so much by pulling from McCain as by mobilizing voters who otherwise would not have shown up at all. No matter how you look at it, though, Barr’s candidacy doesn’t bode badly for Obama.

Again, look at 2000. Did Nader hurt Gore by pulling over people who would have voted Democrat, or did he mobilize Green voters who otherwise would have stayed home? I don’t know, but neither scenario was bad for Bush.

By Lily Toad

May 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

I would love to see more than two parties in this country and I have to agree with Jeff that the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike. I strongly favor the Green Party and in 2000 I voted for Nader because he was on the Green Party ticket and if the Green Party pulled in over 5% of the popular vote it would have a place on future ballots without having to jump through additional hoops that the Dems and Repubs don’t have to do. But this year I’ll vote Dem because we badly need a Dem in the White House.

By Jeff

May 12, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Lily:

Freedom - A Manifesto. I’ve read every word of that, and while there are certain areas I have issues with (drugs primarily), by and large the stated goal of Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility is something that needs to be returned to.

HB:

Obama proclaims ‘change’ yet is nothing of the sort. Now that Mr. Barr is on the scene and IS change, Obama can be noted as the wolf in sheep’s clothing that he really is.

Therefore, the people who GENUINELY want change will vote for Barr - NOT Obama.

Obama’s campaign outside of ‘change’ has been to paint McCain as just another W Republican, and it is moderately accurate. Using this campaign, the idea is to draw on the dissatisfaction with Bush and have people vote against McCain. And that is fine, so far as it goes.

The problem is that with Barr now on the scene, Obama cannot just run on ‘I’m not McCain/Bush.’, because neither is Barr. Which forces him to go back to the ‘change’ rhetoric. And there is Barr AGAIN promoting GENUINE change. Meaning Obama is up the creek with EITHER of his current strategies.

By margaret

May 13, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this

We go to church to pray to God NOT to pray to a pastor. So please, stop distracting voters by using Pastor Wright.

One watching the negative power overwhelming Pastor Wright cannot help feeling that something needs to be done to stop such a destructive force from destroying society. I guess that is what drives people like Obama.So you could argue that it is watching such sermons over a long period of time that made him think deeply ad come up with the idea of the movement.

At this stage we ought to be looking more to how capable the man is to do the job, associates will not do this job for him.

While I respect Clinton’s stance to go to the end, I am worried that in so doing all she is concerned about is herself;show that she is not a quitter, she is tough, etc.. while what we would very much like is that she concerns herself with issues that concern the country and it’s people. She should not be so proud of being devisive, this country has reached a point where it needs to be more united now, irrespective of whether you are white coloured, unemployed or an educated black etc… you are all American citizens and all you need to do is debate how to best run your country.The rest is imaterial!

Margaret, London.

By Churchill

May 13, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

Symbolic racism, my eye. Their is actual racism on the left. Yes, the same left that has lectured the right about race for decades. After this primary the left has lost its credibility on the race issue. Hell, even the first Black President (BJ Clinton) was running all over the country using race to divide his own party. We have the wrong Rev. Wright spewing his racist hate from the pulpit of his church (Is this what the democrat party meant by goiing after religious voters?). The racism on display in this country is soley on the left, in the Democrat party. Peace.

By Free your minds

May 13, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

Once again, we have allowed the MEDIA to brainwash us. What ever happened to researching the issues and formulating your own opinions?

Pastor Wright is one person, but yet this one person and the attention the media has given this one person, has somehow managed to brainwash people. Using Rev. Wright was just a good out for many of you somewhat, kinda sorta, leaning, ummmmm maybe, but not quite sure…not voting for Obama.

Please people, do not let the media brainwash you. This is regarding your vote for all candidates, including the newest one, Bob Barr. By all means vote for the right man or woman…but do it based on your own beliefs and knowledge and not solely on the media.

The media can be a great tool at times, but it can also be a dangerous weapon.

By Churchill

May 13, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

So the media is lying to us when they report that Obama sat in the pew of that church, for 20 years, and did not understand what Rev Wright was saying. As said before, by some one here, Obama is either lying or he is stupid. He knew what Rev. Wright said and lied about it, or he was to stupid to get the point of all those sermons. Either way Obama is unfit. For me it has nothing to do with race, just judgment. Peace.

By Stinkfinger Willie

May 15, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Reverend Wright didn’t say anything thing offensive about white people at all. That should tell you that these posters here are only using him as an excuse to not vote for him, as most closeted racists are always desirious to identify a black racist equivelency to vindicate themselves

By Churchill

May 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

Really? The man hates white people. The Wrong Reverend Wright is a racist of the first order. If you are right Willie, why did Obama throw him under the bus?

By Copyleft

May 15, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Well, you may want to write to President Obama and ask him about that, Churchill. I understand he tolerates a wide variety of views in his efforts to lead this country.

Heck, he even put up with Rev. Wright’s flaws, so he can probably handle yours!

By Churchill

May 15, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

I will not vote for Obama because he is an inexperienced lib, with a dangerous approach to health care, the economy (he hasn’t the slightest idea on what to do, did you guys catch his idiotic comments on the Capital Gains Tax?), National Security. The guy has no substance. He is to the left of John, I served in Vietnam, Kerry. One thing has become clear, though. If you do not support Obama, if you challenge him, you are racist. You libs can play by those rules in your own racist democrat party and during your primary, if you want. But do not expect the rest of the country to play by your backward game. Peace.

By Churchill

May 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, you are putting the cart before the horse. Copy that?

By Wackolibhack

May 15, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

It is Bush’s fault that when Obama loses those who voted against him will be racist. Bush made the country racist. Bush made Obama go listen to that racist preacher for 20 years. It is all Bush’s fault. I Hate Bush!!!