I think the constant harping on how black people will stay home if Obama isn't the nominee is an exercise in reverse racism - kind of like saying "You know those angry black people and their inability to think past their own rage" Totally insulting and if I were a black person I would be pissed off.
You mean the black people in the article who are saying they'll stay home should be pissed off?
So that is what, a handful of black people? I think the constant reminder that black people won't vote is totally insulting to the intellect of black people in general. It's a stereotypical dog whistle to try and make white people nervous and what those scary angry black folk might do if they don't get their way. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
how is that any different then women posters here saying
women will stay home if Hillary is not the nominee? how is that different?
There is a ting of racial undertones to the threat over black voters. I just find it insulting to black voters to suggest they can't control their own anger enough that they will just pass up an opportunity to keep a Republican out of the White House for spite.
I find the exact same thing every time a female poster says women won't take his we are 50% of the population.
so once again I ask, how is it different?
The difference to the sd's is that Obama is polling 92% of AA's while Clinton isn't polling 92% of white women. That's why the sd's are TERRIFIED of Clinton's winning but they're too chicken to actually admit it.
It's not.
Next strawman question.
Actually Clinton appears to be polling at about 50-60% rather than 90% in a hypothetical GE matchup against McCain. And that's without any perceived pushing out of Obama.
What is being said here (and I think you know this) is that it will look like discrimination if he is the leader in delegates and every other criteria and then is pushed aside for a white person. That's what we're talking about. It's about fairness and honesty.
How many times have you heard that the superdelegates have to make a decision based on who is more electible. Even the great Howard Dean says that. So what if they make the determination that it isn't Obama? Should they throw the nomination to him to keep black people from getting angry even if they feel he will get beaten in the GE?
If black people are told that the winner of the election process is less electible (and lets be honest here, the argument is that he's less electible because he's black), then how do you think they are going to take that?
Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.
The argument is NOT that he is less electible because he is black! What a bunch of nonsense.
Absolutely. How many votes lost for gender? Move beyond that argument.
I think that is what it boils down to.
If you say he can't be elected because of his ties to Rev. Wright, and blacks see Rev. Wright as a part of the black community, then you are telling them he can't be elected because he's black.
Good grief. IMO his problem isn't his ties to Rev. Wright. It is how he handled his ties to Rev. Wright. Look, for me, if he had just come out and admitted the whole thing from the get go instead of saying "I never heard him say such things" and "my church isn't particularly controversial" then this would have gone a long way to make him look less like he was trying to skate by. Once it all came out that he wasn't exactly open.. this is what hurt him. I have never once felt Obama agrees with some of Rev. Wright's more controversial opinions. I do feel he was trying to play cute when the whole thing came out and he has wasted two months two stepping around it instead of just saying "yeah I heard him say some pretty inflammatory stuff and I didn't like it but so what?"
That's just it... Trinity isn't particularly controversial but you are telling the black community that it is.
And until Wright came out this week took what had been scattered nutty statements made over years, and consensed and reinforced them into a 30 min press conference, he wasn't that controversial either.
That's why there was a difference in the way Obama handled the two situations, not because he was trying to play cute.
Even people from the black community are saying Rev. Wright is out there. I am not saying he should have thrown him under the bus from the beginnning.. in fact I think he could have cut this all off at the pass by saying what I suggested. He perceived ducking and dodging is what has stirred all this crap up.
How about Trinity?
Were McCain and Clinton required to handle their ties to Parsley and Coe?
That is such horseshit. And insulting horseshit.
Actually saying Obama is unelectable because of Wright is horseshit. Insulting horseshit.
I heard it as many times as the Clinton campaign has told me. I've lost count
The only core demographic in the Dem party Barack is carrying is the AA vote. He's not carrying the "senior" vote; he's not carrying the "women" vote; he's not carrying the "blue collar" vote. How does he become the Dem nominee without the Dems?
By getting more delegates.
Understand you point. Seems to me the argument has been that if the nomination is "taken away" from Obama by Supers, there would be hard feelings by AA. But it is a delegate race.
If Hillary legitimately closes the gap to fewer than 30 delegates, and THEN the SDs move to her, I don't think there will be a problem. If the gap is 100+ and SDs still somehow give it to her (unlikely), there will be a HUGE problem. I don't know that these two points are that debatable, but I could be wrong.
The gray area is what if the gap is 30-100? What happens then? No one knows.
we will figure it in once the DNC says to figure them in.
until why would we? the DNC doesn't recognize those votes.
You mean if you give Obama a zero in MI? Yeah. That would seem unfair.
Voters who "would have" voted for Obama but didn't vote shoudl be counted? Whaaa?
We have exit polls showing the breakdown and it shows that a substantial number of voters who voted either for Hillary Clinton or Uncommitted would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot. But like he pledged to do, he didn't participate. Like Gore and Bradley.
If Michigan is split fairly (55-45?) and both states are penalized by 1/2 their total delegates (which is what the rules say), and that gets Hillary to within 30 at the end of all this, all bets are off. I would be disappointed if she then won, but I wouldn't be crushed.
If she's still behind by 30+ and gets the nomination anyway, I will be pissed.
Seems arbitrary. Why 30?
It is arbitrary. :-)
Seemed like a good number at the time. I think that number is different for everyone. For some people it's 100. For some it's 50. For some it is 1. For me it's roughly 30. 20 would be 1% of the total needed, so maybe that is a better number? I mean, if the candidates are within 1% of another at the end, it's a virtual tie. At that point, whatever happens happens.
100 would be 5% which is obviously a big gap, despite some Hillary supporters trying to say it isn't.
If she closes the gap by that much then yes I think it would be fairly easy for her to get the nomination without a huge fallout.
I know I know HRC supporters hate the word, but its basically impossible at this point.
even when Hillary won by 10% she netted 10 delegates, that dropped his lead to 140.
there aren't enough states with enough delegates where she can get big enough margins to get even under 100.
It is and if the only reason the supers go her way after he wins more delegates is because of Wright then it'll be a problem. Certainly that's her argument to the supers.
How insulted are you when it is applied to women supporting Hillary...? I have heard the same argument.
Uh, women are not supporting Hillary by 90%. When that happens, we can talk about "reverse sexism."
What's the % where it becomes an "ism"?
Who was it that said on CNN the other day "You can't get 90% of Americans to agree that the sun is hot." There is something else going on there besides policy positions.
What % does it take to become an "ism"? And who the fuck said that on CNN?
Maybe it was Flat-Earth Day?
And the % becomes an ism whenever it starts to help an argument that is pro-Hillary.
I would never use the term "reverse racism" period... It is a Right-wing term to lend victimhood to white people who felt oppressed by affirmative action.
That's why I put it in quotes...
I don't know what else to call it. What is a better way to describe trying to use racial stereotypes to your own advantage? Like I said, I detect a tone of "you know we are scary when we are mad" coming from people who are saying black people will behave irrationally if Obama isn't the nominee. I have even heard little things dropped here and there about rioting in Denver at the convention. What could be the intended response to those type of comments except to make white people nervous about what black people might do if things don't go the way they want them too?
Former Gov. Wilder, VA, flatly said that on Face the Nation.
Sorry, but as someone here pointed out, I am a product of Liberal education....
Racism is not just using race to your advantage... it is a tool of oppression that denies people rights using power to do so.. In order to do this, you need to have broad spectrum power to begin with. Minorities in this country have not achieved the power necessary to be racists... therefore, reverse racism is simply not possible.
Rioting? You mean marching perhaps.
It's quite rational to stay at home if Obama is pushed out despite having a lead in delegates.
Do you refer to "pledged" delegates or total delegate count of at least 2024 (or 2208 depending on FL and MI)?
Not really up to me. It's all about what looks fair.
So is your point that the pledged delegate leader may not be the overall delegate leader and that would be unfair?
My point is that if it appears unfair it's a problem. For example, if a bunch of supers said "I was going to go with Obama but Clinton convinced me that Rev. Wright was too much of a problem". That'd seem unfair.
So that's the crux of the problem. It's unfair that Wright is tied to the hip of Barack which may cost him the nomination?
Isn't the problem clear from the article? White candidates are not unelectable because of their crazy pastors. If Obama is deemed unelectable because of his and it appears that the nomination is taken away from him despite him winning the pledged delegates then it'll be a problem.
But how many other candidates sat in the pew for 20 years. That's the issue; not all the crazies but what is the relationship to the crazies? It's not race unless you want it to be.
Clinton has been in a sex segregated cell of The Family for 15+ years. When is she called to account for that?
How about "racism"? "Reverse racism" is a stupid term. If it's racist, it's racist. Black people can be racist, too. It's not a word that means "When white people view black people as inferior because of their race." It means "When PEOPLE view other PEOPLE as inferior because of their race."
I hate the term "reverse racism," if you couldn't already tell. :-)
Ok, reverse racism is not appropriate. How about playing into stupid people's racist fears that black people are too violent and/or stupid to control their actions and anger and they will do stupid stuff if they don't get their way? That is very upsetting to me for personal reasons and it doesn't do anything to help the image of black America in general.
I hope no one is making that argument.
I feel they are indirectly making the argument by implying that black people will stay home in November in protest if Obama is not the nominee. As if black people are unable to be rational about the future of this country and can't help but be too angry to actually keep a Republican from screwing us for at least the next 4 years.
First of all, I don't think Hillary is going to win the nomination, so it may be a moot point.
Second, if she does win it, I think most African Americans (and Obama supporters in general) will come around and vote for her.
Third, the argument has been made that women, or seniors won't vote for Obama because they would be too bitter and angry if Hillary lost. I don't buy that for a second. I DO however, think that more Hillary supporters won't vote for him because they are closer to McCain on many issues. Hillary is center-left on everything but health care. For many Hillary supporters, McCain makes more sense.
I happen to think McCain is a terrible human being after hearing about his affair, his dumping of his first wife, and calling his second wife a "C#@t" in public. So I think a vote for McCain is a vote for a bastard. But I think he is much closer to many HRC supporters' positions than we often talk about.
Strikes are quite rational.
Yeah, they're basically analogous to the "I can has woman preznit" crowd. Unfortunately, there may be a lot of those people...
Not "if Obama is the nominee". It's if Obama is the leader in delegates and isn't the nominee. That would look like exactly what it is. Please don't try to make blacks sound petty.
If Obama leads in the metrics he is leading in currently and does not get the nomination, I do not think it will only be black people who are upset at the situation....
