So if Obama loses - its all because or racism....

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The problem with Hillary, is i think a lot of people remember her when she was the first lady, and were left a distinct impression that she was power hungry.
Remember those bumper stickers that said, "Fire the President and her husband too!"?

Hillary was squashed by her own party. She was thrown a bone with the appointment of Sec of State. Obama was being groomed for the Presidency.

[Takeda Shingen]

I fail to see how this is an 'excuse'. Stephens-Davidowitz wrote this as a thesis and does not indicate that he is in any political camp. Frankly, his methodology is excellent. He'd get my approval.

[Bubblehead1980]

Things would have been just as bad under Hillary, she is a far left radical herself.People hang out to her hoping she would emulate Bill, who is a guilty white man, bleeding heart liberal type BUT he was not so rigid he could appear to move to the center(appear to) enough to avoid being labeled a fellow traveler, ie he is more intelligent than his wife or certainly Barry.Clinton was an okay President, he definitely lucked out as the economy began to recover in the period between election 92 and his inauguration in 1993, this gave him a boost, after trying to run wild with his liberal crap, he took the message from the people and quit for the most part when they lost so big in the 94 mid terms.Hillary would not have and Barry certainly did not and things just keep getting worse.

There will always be racist people, from all cultures, black, white etc. Racism is not the wide spread problem people try to make it out to be now days, sorry it just is not.Obama loses this election, it will be because he has shown he is real piece of garbage and not what a lot of people fell for four years ago.The refusal to change course, the constant mismanagement of things etc.

Ducimus, obama's presidency is different not because of race but because of the man himself, his shady background, his shady associates, his constant lying and hyprocrisy.Now, have we had shady characters elected before? Sure, you have to have a shady to side to be in politics really.However, as shady as Richard Nixon was, his background was never even really questionable as far as his citizenship etc.I used to think the birthers were total morons and many are, but some interesting things are out there that show a real investigation needs to be conducted.

Off the top of my head, things such as his refusal to show his birth certitificate for a long time, then suddenly, a questionable copy is released.The whole debacle with his social security number, the money he has spent to keep certain records sealed etc Usually where there is smoke, there is fire, there is fire here. Add in his shady associations which show he subscribes to a very non American type of political belief systems, all just starts to add up.I believe eventually, the truth will come out, perhaps after he is out of office. I have said it a million times, if everyone would have read his book, he would never been elected.I was open to him until I read his book and if he showed things had changed for him, I would accept it as such, but he has behaved on numerous occasions to just the impression I got from his book.Really, if there is any major racist component in this election, it is Obama, he has admitted to some pretty racist thoughts and his behavior has shown nothing has changed.The cop incident ring a bell? New Black Panthers? Admitting they don't care if they get the white vote or not.Yep, real racism from the POTUS.Ah, November just can not come fast enough.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I fail to see how this is an 'excuse'. Stephens-Davidowitz wrote this as a thesis and does not indicate that he is in any political camp. Frankly, his methodology is excellent. He'd get my approval.

Confirmation bias at work. People see what they want or expect to see.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I fail to see how this is an 'excuse'. Stephens-Davidowitz wrote this as a thesis and does not indicate that he is in any political camp. Frankly, his methodology is excellent. He'd get my approval.

Two issues here Takeda.

First - the "his methodology is excellent" comment. C'mon now - your smarter than this!

1) He chooses as his search criteria the "N" word - which is "racially charged" and derogatory.

2) He then disregards the leading source of the word - rap lyrics. This alone should toss the study - because if the word is derogatory - who seems to be using it the most? He has to take it out - or else his "study" would show that the most racially biased group against African Americans is - African Americans! Since that can't be right, he just ignores it.
3) Next he takes the modified, aggregate data and determines that the rest of the searches lead to primarly derogatory material about African Americans.

4) He then proceeds to 2008 - and finds "Obama" was "one of" the most searched items that were "racially tinged". Notice the difference in wording here - racially charged is a negative - racially tinged is not necessarily the case. A person searching "Obama Indian" would have created a "racially tinged" search. Yet there is nothing inherently racially baised in such a search. It would be the same as searching "Obama Hawiian". His choice to make anything speaking to race equate to a form of racism is a severe technical flaw.

5)At no time does he have data demonstrating the race of the searcher. His conclusion of racism based purely upon the search term makes a clear assumption regarding the race of the searcher. For such racism to be inferred, he must also assume that the searchers are all non-african in descent.

To come to the conclusion that he did - the study implied that racism cost Obama 3.1 to 5.0 percentage points in the last election - is absolutely without basis. Why is issue 2.

1) There is no correlating data that demonstrates how many "racist" searchers cast a vote.

2) There is no supporting data that shows who such "racist" searchers voted for.

As he states - the mere "racially tinged" search "implies" racial hostility - a flawed implication to start. He then takes that and concludes that such racial hostility "implies" a significant cost to Obama in the previous general election.

A conclusion build on an implication of an implication that ignores some data and assumes other data not available - with "standards" like that, why isn't this guy researching global warming???? He could be getting major government grants with practices like that!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Two issues here Takeda.

First - the "his methodology is excellent" comment. C'mon now - your smarter than this!

1) He chooses as his search criteria the "N" word - which is "racially charged" and derogatory.

2) He then disregards the leading source of the word - rap lyrics. This alone should toss the study - because if the word is derogatory - who seems to be using it the most? He has to take it out - or else his "study" would show that the most racially biased group against African Americans is - African Americans! Since that can't be right, he just ignores it.
3) Next he takes the modified, aggregate data and determines that the rest of the searches lead to primarly derogatory material about African Americans.

4) He then proceeds to 2008 - and finds "Obama" was "one of" the most searched items that were "racially tinged". Notice the difference in wording here - racially charged is a negative - racially tinged is not necessarily the case. A person searching "Obama Indian" would have created a "racially tinged" search. Yet there is nothing inherently racially baised in such a search. It would be the same as searching "Obama Hawiian". His choice to make anything speaking to race equate to a form of racism is a severe technical flaw.

5)At no time does he have data demonstrating the race of the searcher. His conclusion of racism based purely upon the search term makes a clear assumption regarding the race of the searcher. For such racism to be inferred, he must also assume that the searchers are all non-african in descent.

To come to the conclusion that he did - the study implied that racism cost Obama 3.1 to 5.0 percentage points in the last election - is absolutely without basis. Why is issue 2.

1) There is no correlating data that demonstrates how many "racist" searchers cast a vote.

2) There is no supporting data that shows who such "racist" searchers voted for.

As he states - the mere "racially tinged" search "implies" racial hostility - a flawed implication to start. He then takes that and concludes that such racial hostility "implies" a significant cost to Obama in the previous general election.

A conclusion build on an implication of an implication that ignores some data and assumes other data not available - with "standards" like that, why isn't this guy researching global warming???? He could be getting major government grants with practices like that!

A conclusion built on an implication of an implication is something that statisticians do every day when doing things like, oh say, creating the polls that you and others like to cite. I would reitterate that his methodology is quite good, especially in the light that this may be what he wants to do with his life. He isolated the data which would skew results and created clearer picture of the way things stand. It is good work.

Sometimes you just have to take the political hat off.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

C'mon now - your smarter than this!

Insulting your opponent's intellect is not usually considered an honest debate tactic.

[Skybird]

Meanwhile a German survey shows that the love of Germans for Obama has cooled down tremendously. What I am surporised by is that there has been a trend chnage in the relation between age and sympathy/antipathy for America. In the past it were the elder who tend to be more poro US,m and the younger being contra. This has hcnaged by now. Today more elder are against America than younger Germans.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pew-survey-shows-germans-disillusioned-by-the-us-and-president-obama-a-838537.html

(...)
Obama's personal popularity has always exceeded German support for America. And today only half the Germans (52 percent) have a favorable view of the United States, down 10 percentage points since just last year and 12 points since Obama was elected. Among the eight European nations surveyed, only in Greece (35 percent) is pro-American sentiment weaker. And German views of the United States divide along generational lines. Germans 50 years of age and older are now far less pro-American (49 percent) than Germans ages 18 to 29 (61 percent). But overall German support for the United States is still far greater than in 2007, when only 30 percent of Germans had a positive view of the US.
(...)

[Sailor Steve]

I've never agreed with Obama or even liked him much. But then I never liked any of his predecessors very much either. That said, I see a big difference between disliking someone and actively hating him. I thought Bush taking us into Iraq was a mistake, but I never hated him for it. The ones who hated him did so before he was elected, and were looking for an excuse to legitimize their hate.

It's the same here. The people who hated Obama from the start were also looking for some reason that would justify their hate. It's not the fact that they question his birth; it's the vehemence with which they go about it, and every other move he's made. You can tell by the way they jump on every single mistake or decision. That's not legitimate questioning. That's hate.

Insulting your opponent's intellect is not usually considered an honest debate tactic.

Given that he was unable to counter the arguement and considering that with that part of the arguement and the implications from the original post in relation to the substance of the study(as in not even looking or thinking) is there any real scope for honest debate from that quarter?

Half black. Don't forget he is just as white as he is black, 50%.

Only if you agree with the abandonment for example of old traditional marraige laws in certain quarters which specified which percentage of "black" blood made a white person definately black and not at all white

I've never agreed with Obama or even liked him much.

Come on Steve even the biggest dickhead of a politician(apart from the far fringes) must come up with one policy you can agree with, Obama is no different in that respect is he.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've never agreed with Obama or even liked him much. But then I never liked any of his predecessors very much either. That said, I see a big difference between disliking someone and actively hating him. I thought Bush taking us into Iraq was a mistake, but I never hated him for it. The ones who hated him did so before he was elected, and were looking for an excuse to legitimize their hate.

It's the same here. The people who hated Obama from the start were also looking for some reason that would justify their hate. It's not the fact that they question his birth; it's the vehemence with which they go about it, and every other move he's made. You can tell by the way they jump on every single mistake or decision. That's not legitimate questioning. That's hate.

Yep good summary, I suppose love and hate is pretty much the name of the game when it comes to being partisan.
Nothing really changes from one administration to the next, only thing I dont understand why more people arent exasperated with the whole thing, its clearly not working out very well, no matter which side of the fence you are on. It seems that real change can only be delivered by force. Like the global economy for example, we will patching it up until we run out of glue.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

t's the same here. The people who hated Obama from the start were also looking for some reason that would justify their hate. It's not the fact that they question his birth; it's the vehemence with which they go about it, and every other move he's made. You can tell by the way they jump on every single mistake or decision. That's not legitimate questioning. That's hate.

It's a reflection of that primal tribal spirit...people naturally gravitate towards a tribe since that gives you the best chance to survive. When our tribe does well, our chances to survive go up. Belittling and fighting the other tribe is the surest way to ensure your survival. That's all modern day politics is - a pissing match between two tribes of cavemen. It's not based on reason and pragmatic rational thought. It's hitting the other guy with sticks and rocks because he's trying to take your tribe's food.

There's your amateur psychology moment for the day.

[Rockin Robbins]

Racism, like "the game was rigged anyway" is too often a convenient excuse for failure. It is only normal that given the euphoria on his election of people projecting their dreams of an uberman combining the characteristics of John F Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Mahatma Ghandi, disappointment was bound to follow, even if he had some successes.

Unfortunately, he has had conspicuous failures and now his initial detractors see blood in the water while his supporters feel let down. Maybe that is for the best. His qualifications were not what got him elected. He was elected because he was an unusually articulate man who happened to be black in appearance but not sharing the urban black culture. Those are terrible reasons to elect a president and we are paying the piper for that choice. Unjustified uphoria and wishful thinking are precursors of terrible disappointment.

But the undeniable good he has done is that he has broken the ice as the first black president and has not been an unmitigated disaster. While we have learned that voting for him because he is black was wrong, we have also learned that we can vote with confidence for someone who does not look like we do.

In the end, I believe that history will treat Obama as a critically important president who didn't have the abilities to earn a second term. He ran for a job he wasn't ready for. Let's hope some ambitious but newbie legislators take the lesson seriously and don't similarly get themselves elected to positions where their lack of experience will bring them failure.

There are plenty of "stars" of all political persuasions who need to watch and learn.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

There's your amateur psychology moment for the day.

I like that, so I'm taking your moment and running with it...

No matter what I study, my major or one of the various minor subjects, sooner or later I always bump into some author saying (one way or another): "We define who we are by defining who we are not." This is funny seeing that no form of psychology is my minor, let alone major, but it always comes up in one form of another.

So I suppose the hate is not there to convince anyone: the "them" won't take it seriously and the "us" already share the opinion more or less strongly. It's more there to make someone a "me", which is also pretty fundamental part of the mankind.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Racism, like "the game was rigged anyway" is too often a convenient excuse for failure. It is only normal that given the euphoria on his election of people projecting their dreams of an uberman combining the characteristics of John F Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Mahatma Ghandi, disappointment was bound to follow, even if he had some successes.

Unfortunately, he has had conspicuous failures and now his initial detractors see blood in the water while his supporters feel let down. Maybe that is for the best. His qualifications were not what got him elected. He was elected because he was an unusually articulate man who happened to be black in appearance but not sharing the urban black culture. Those are terrible reasons to elect a president and we are paying the piper for that choice. Unjustified uphoria and wishful thinking are precursors of terrible disappointment.

But the undeniable good he has done is that he has broken the ice as the first black president and has not been an unmitigated disaster. While we have learned that voting for him because he is black was wrong, we have also learned that we can vote with confidence for someone who does not look like we do.

In the end, I believe that history will treat Obama as a critically important president who didn't have the abilities to earn a second term. He ran for a job he wasn't ready for. Let's hope some ambitious but newbie legislators take the lesson seriously and don't similarly get themselves elected to positions where their lack of experience will bring them failure.

There are plenty of "stars" of all political persuasions who need to watch and learn.

Another lesson to be learned is a great opportunity was wasted on this guy.The first black president should have been someone with who was capable and had the right background.The Dems wanted to win though so they overlooked his obvious flaws and pushed him in.I will be honest, I enjoy ridiculing friends of mine who were all for him back in 08, because I told them he would be a disaster and he just was not a good person.All it took was to read his book and he lost my support before he was elected, then he has just proven he subscribes to the same failed and flawed he always has.America has learned, just a travesty that the first black Presidency was wasted on Barry.