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

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

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.

I love it when people trot out this horsecrap. The only reason Obama was elected because he was black. It had nothing to do with people thinking he'd do a better job than McCain. Nope. Pure white guilt. Purely for the novelty of having a black president.

[Skybird]

I think the dominat motive to vote for him was to vote for something/somebody that was as much different from Bush as possible in the field of candidates. People wanted the biggest possible contrast to Bush - and not just in skin colour.

I wonder if Obama would have gotten elected if the Republican candidate would have been for example Bill Clinton.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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

It was not meant as an insult. I have great respect for the "smarts" TS has shown the times I have had discussions with him. If it came across wrong, then I regret it.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

I do not see the "methodology" as good. Removing data that would "skew" his results is one thing - and I don't think its entirely unreasonable (though it discount white rappers - wouldn't they be racist?). However, drawing a conclusion of racism - when the researcher does not have any data on the ethinicity of those searching - and considers any mention of race as a show of racism - sorry that doesn't fly.

Now - had the research been based on the number of searches relevant to the number of CLICKS for such racist websites - the case for an inferred racism in a portion of those searching would be significantly stronger. But to base it on the search itself - without context of the searcher or the intent or the resultant action - fails to pass even common sense review.

In polls - there is a significantly closer relationship with the results as compared to the questions answered. The two can be tied together much stronger. While such polls do take a sample and extrapolate it out to the general populace, they are much more direct in the questions asked regarding the results.

For example:
"Do you approve of the job the current president is doing?"
Usually you get 5 options - strongly approve, somewhat approve, a neutral answer, somewhat disapprove and strongly disapprove.
Those then correlate directly to how many approve and disapprove as a percentage of the population.

Big difference between that and "anyone who searches Obama and anything regarding race is a racist and must have voted against him just because he isn't white, so based on the number of searches compared to the number of people in an area - he should have won by 3.1 -to 5.0% more." That is an indefensible conclusion necause the assumptions are simply huge reaches - especially when using aggregated search data.

The question isn't whether the study itself is an excuse. I don't think it is - in and of itself. However - the last 3 line MAKE it into an excuse.

"Losing even two percentage points lowers the probability of a candidate's winning the popular vote by a third," Stephens-Davidowitz explains. "Prejudice could cost Mr. Obama crucial states like Ohio, Florida and even Pennsylvania."

If it were not for that - I would see it as merely a flawed study. However, the fact that a large internet media outlet ran this on their "front page" speaks volumes. It is published for the pure reason to raise the "red flag" of WHY he could lose - if he does.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

Well said, I agree 100% Too many people are so polarized they cannot find anything to agree with on the other side. It's just as bad with the Obama-hating right wingers as the Bush-hating left wingers. Both are pretty sad people.

I give Obama full kudos for getting Osama ( being the leader who made the call, you know what I mean). I also applaud him for not shutting down the war in Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely like he campaigned and pledged he would (where are all the anti-war lefties now? I never see them protesting against their Messiah!). For those two reasons, I will consider him in the election. For crippling NASA, it's still not a certainty he gets my vote.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 certainly do agree with the abandonment of that way of categorizing people. It's very racist, deciding that if someone has a portion of black in in their make-up, then they are black. The reason that concept existed was because white people rejected anyone who was not 100% white--whoo, hard to believe so many still cling to that concept, even black and mostly black people

hard to believe so many still cling to that concept, even black and mostly black people

Neal, don't forget the hispanics, even the white ones.
Like you say, its hard to believe people still cling to those concepts, but they do.
Though I only went off on the intermarriage and breeding angle due to a measure which comes up in the study in question.

Now - had the research been based on the number of searches relevant to the number of CLICKS for such racist websites - the case for an inferred racism in a portion of those searching would be significantly stronger. But to base it on the search itself - without context of the searcher or the intent or the resultant action - fails to pass even common sense review.

So you still havn't read it
You should, I think you would be amused by the God bit, when he casts away the top result from his figures

However - the last 3 line MAKE it into an excuse.

CAPS LOCK strikes.
They do no such thing.
Get over it, nothing from the opening post or topic title stands up.
You appear to have gone off on one without reading and without thinking....again

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

(where are all the anti-war lefties now? I never see them protesting against their Messiah!)

A not-so-shining example of that is the Clinton impeachment. On the one hand you have the right, who were so hot to "get" Clinton that they had to squirm and wriggle their way through some thoroughly silly charges (not much different than the left's earlier attemt to "get" Reagan). On the other there was the left, most notably the feminists, who absolutely hated cheating lying men, except when he's on their side of the political bandwagon.

Like they say, "Haters gonna hate". Or "politics as usual".

[Tchocky]

Another thing to remember is that Obama never said he wanted to end the war in Afghanistan. In fact he was in favour of reinforcing the US presence there. This is something that a lot of disappointed Obama voters forget. Neal's right: he was a stark contrast to Bush, so much so that many people projected their own disappointments from 2000-2008 onto a young and fairly unknown candidate. THere's a lot of false disappointment out there. Plenty valid, too.

Iraq is of course another story.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I also applaud him for not shutting down the war in Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely like he campaigned and pledged he would (where are all the anti-war lefties now? I never see them protesting against their Messiah!).

Thinking about that from a different angle: it means you applaud a politician here who does different than he says.

I would say that is part of the reason why politicians mean so much trouble for mankind.

If you say "it'S just campaigning, you must make big pormises to get elcted even when you know you cannot or will not keep them", I again would say that is a fundamental design flaw in how things work, and it costs us dearly.

It is this discrepance that today is one of the major reasons why I am not longer in principal support of democracy. I have no realistic idea of how to manage entities the size of nations today or even international organisations any better. But still, the thing we have today is leading us into our dawnfall and has given birth to oligarchies that behave and argue like aristocracies of eras long forgotten.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thinking about that from a different angle: it means you applaud a politician here who does different than he says.

I would say that is part of the reason why politicians mean so much trouble for mankind.

If you say "it'S just campaigning, you must make big pormises to get elcted even when you know you cannot or will not keep them", I again would say that is a fundamental design flaw in how things work, and it costs us dearly.

It is this discrepance that today is one of the major reasons why I am not longer in principal support of democracy. I have no realistic idea of how to manage entities the size of nations today or even international organisations any better. But still, the thing we have today is leading us into our dawnfall and has given birth to oligarchies that behave and argue like aristocracies of eras long forgotten.

Good post Skybird. It is a taunting task to "run" a country and I do not believe (at this stage in my life) it can be done efficiently from a one body entity. Democratically or otherwise. In this case Washington DC. I do not know what the answer is but I'm inclined to believe that each state in the union should have more control of said state. Less dependence imposed, accepted or rejected from the Federal government. The relationship between the two has become a game of cash flow for support and legalized extortion. I guess the old mantra of "No big government" would apply.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I do not know what the answer is but I'm inclined to believe that each state in the union should have more control of said state. Less dependence imposed, accepted or rejected from the Federal government.

I completely agree. The original concept behind a central government in the first place was threefold: First to arbitrate when states could not agree, Second to handle projects that spanned multiple states, such as canal and later highway development, and Third to represent a united front to foreign powers, since having each individual state deal with foreign trade separately was impossible, mainly because the foreign powers refused that option.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

IfHowever I also think Race is also a part of why he got elected to begin with. Of course to prove or disprove that, all you need to do is look up percentage of white vs non white voter turn out during that election year. I'm pretty sure alot of blacks (if not most blacks?) voted for Obama because he was black and for no other reason.

Since this topic is not that important to me, ill let someone else do that research if its such a burning issue. EDIT:
It's also worth mentioning that the voter demographic is changing. Insert my standard rant about illegal immigration here.

After the election it was announced that three million whites voted for President Obama in the general election and that the total tally for winning was three million votes also, a bit odd not to mention how they came to that conclusion.

My emails come from a varied sorces of military to seniors to the working class and most have been negative Obama comments and jokes with one or two for Romney.

As for the illegal people crossing our borders ... it ain't going to stop and you can't send them all back only leaves an option for wise men in charge.

as one poor Mexican on the show Border Patrol said, "Hey man were humans just iike you" trying to get a break for the border patrol.

I had to agree they're humans too and need a wise man to decide this border conflict ...

[CaptainHaplo]

And for those wondering if this had any political bent to it....

The "researcher" - who is supposed to be an economics PH. D. candidate - took the time to write this non-economic "study" for what reason? Curiosity? Then submitting it for publishing?

It couldn't be due to him having worked at the Brookings Institute (described as left leaning by the LA Times) as a research assistant for the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (the ever quoted, "non partisan" one that has had to "correct" its cost figures for Obamacare how many times?) - Peter Orszag - an Obama appointee - now could it?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

So yes - there can't be any political intent or skew - now can there? No way that Team Obama puts out the word they want a researcher - old friend Pete recommends his former research assistant back in the days of liberal think tanking - and ole Seth the researcher gets a call to produce this racism study. No matter that its outside his field. No matter that as a PH.D. candidate - he likely has a lot more things to be doing. That just couldn't happen. Not with squeaky clean, former "New Party" member - "I'm going to unify this nation and not play partisan politics" Barack! Say it ain't so!

Now - wait till the money aspect drops........ Cuz you know ole Seth the researcher didn't do this for free.....

[Sailor Steve]

That's the left shoe. And the right shoe? You wrote this because you're an unbaised observer of the system with no opinion either way? I see no purpose in this if it's not to play politics.

[Rockin Robbins]

I would argue that the states lost any real power when Woodrow Wilson, not understanding that the appointed Senators were appointed by the state legislatures as representatives of their state government decided to play the democracy card and go for popular election of senators.

Simply not understanding or not caring about their true function, Woodrow Wilson's initiative became a constitutional amendment that rendered state government impotent. Can you imagine the crippling burden of unfunded mandates if the states had any power within the federal legislature. Wouldn't have happened! But now, since the senators have no connection with their state governments at all, and in fact feel superior in every way, they have no hesitation to passing a requirement to that state without funding it, leaving that state to carry somebody else's burden.

We are not and should not be a democracy. A democracy is two cats and a mouse voting over what's for dinner. Democracy is the mob rule and murder of the French Revolution. That is why our founding fathers hated democracy. They wanted the best qualified people among the populace to be elected to govern for a definite length of time between new elections. The way the people would participate in government is to select those who operate that government.

So we want to paint the Oval Office. Now we need a national referendum at the cost of billions of dollars so everyone can vote on it? Don't make me laugh. Democracy is a cheap joke, not worthy of anything but contempt. What we have and need to fight to preserve is representative government with representatives subject to the people, enforced by the power of the vote. We are not, have never been and better not ever be a democracy. If we do become one our life expectancy is about ten years before tyranny.

So, since the institution of popular election of Senators totally removed any voice of the states in the legislature, how does anyone propose we can turn the clock back and give any power at all back to the states? I think the door opened, the cow left and we can close the door but the cow's gone.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And for those wondering if this had any political bent to it....

The "researcher" - who is supposed to be an economics PH. D. candidate - took the time to write this non-economic "study" for what reason? Curiosity? Then submitting it for publishing?

It couldn't be due to him having worked at the Brookings Institute (described as left leaning by the LA Times) as a research assistant for the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (the ever quoted, "non partisan" one that has had to "correct" its cost figures for Obamacare how many times?) - Peter Orszag - an Obama appointee - now could it?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

So yes - there can't be any political intent or skew - now can there? No way that Team Obama puts out the word they want a researcher - old friend Pete recommends his former research assistant back in the days of liberal think tanking - and ole Seth the researcher gets a call to produce this racism study. No matter that its outside his field. No matter that as a PH.D. candidate - he likely has a lot more things to be doing. That just couldn't happen. Not with squeaky clean, former "New Party" member - "I'm going to unify this nation and not play partisan politics" Barack! Say it ain't so!

Now - wait till the money aspect drops........ Cuz you know ole Seth the researcher didn't do this for free.....

In short, that's not at all how these type of degree programs work. If you do not like the conclusions, then that is fine but it does not mean that there is a political slant. I would go as far to say that it is individuals such as yourself that put the political slant on things. Frankly, you are going through a lot of mental gymnastics in a number of posts here to do so.