The Unintended Consequences of Minority Turnout (US)

[jackson33]

Race being a factor is different than "playing the race card." Obviously many black people voted for Obama because of his race, but that doesn't mean he deliberately encouraged that. In fact, I'd say he was extremely careful not to do that, so he wouldn't be "the black candidate."

 

"They are going to tell you, he has a funny name, and by the way, did you notice, he is black"....

 

This statement, I heard no less than 10 times by Mr. Obama and have no idea how many times over media, is as 'Race Card' as any statement I have ever heard. "This is not Black America, White America, Mexican America....but one America".

 

Who were they; Aside from the Clinton's and few Democrats, like the Reverend Jackson or friends of Obama, like the Reverend Wright, I never heard any person bring race up or in fact we had a divided America. During the Campaign, on two conservative forums, I saw very little comment on his race at all and any comment attacking his policy (what there was) was met by pundit responses of racism.

 

I understand what your saying however, just as I would consider a candidate from my State, hopefully still voting on issues, many folks voted for Obama BECAUSE he is black (all races and for various reason) and certainly if I were black I would have voted off policy for him. I would further argue, if he was not black, did not have funny name, he nor any other person with his background would have won one primary, much less the General Election...In My Opinion. I don't know of any primary season or legislative picking of candidates through history that had so many qualified candidates, where the two least likely were picked w/o credentials, as this cycle.

[Sisyphus]

"They are going to tell you, he has a funny name, and by the way, did you notice, he is black"....

 

This statement, I heard no less than 10 times by Mr. Obama and have no idea how many times over media, is as 'Race Card' as any statement I have ever heard.

 

Gonna have to disagree with you there. For one thing, I only heard him say anything like that a couple times, which is actually pretty amazing considering the effectively two-year campaign and a press corps ready to pounce on, take out of context, and endlessly repeat absolutely anything he would say on the subject of race. (Compare with how many times you heard the word "maverick.") And second, that's not even playing the race card. He's not saying, "it's time to elect a black man!" Quite the contrary, he's saying, "don't let my race or unusual background be a factor." Now I'm sure you'll claim the "race card" was implied or something, but even if that's true, I don't know how you can possibly compare that with, say, the relentless pandering of Al Sharpton, let alone call it "as 'Race Card' as any statement I have ever heard." Please.

[jackson33]

Gonna have to disagree with you there. For one thing, I only heard him say anything like that a couple times, which is actually pretty amazing considering the effectively two-year campaign and a press corps ready to pounce on, take out of context, and endlessly repeat absolutely anything he would say on the subject of race. (Compare with how many times you heard the word "maverick.") And second, that's not even playing the race card. He's not saying, "it's time to elect a black man!" Quite the contrary, he's saying, "don't let my race or unusual background be a factor." Now I'm sure you'll claim the "race card" was implied or something, but even if that's true, I don't know how you can possibly compare that with, say, the relentless pandering of Al Sharpton, let alone call it "as 'Race Card' as any statement I have ever heard." Please.

 

IMO; Any comment made, making race an issue to influence the electorate is playing the race card. In making those and a few others not mentioned, he was directing comments to two select groups...(The Young and those that harbor some guilt from their ancestor's policy). Personally, I would have done the same or advised him to do so, taking the potential issue off the table. Regardless how you accept the mention, it did work and he went on to take both demographics.

 

As for McCain and "Maverick" or "My Friends" I certainly agree. He probably lost more votes using those two 'slogans' then Obama gained by his, or many just sat out the election. Think you know, but the Maverick tag was placed on McCain, while in the Hanoi Hilton and never had anything to do with his politics.

[iNow]

IMO; Any comment made, making race an issue to influence the electorate is playing the race card.

I presume you either didn't read or didn't comprehend the post made in response to you by Sisyphus. Obama was explicity trying to PREVENT race from being an issue, asking the electorate to judge him on his abilities and character, not simply on the melanin content of his dermal layer. Your interpretation seems to me very far removed from the reality of the situation.

 

Just because the McCain campaign and Faux News accused him of doing this doesn't mean that he actually was. If you think it does, then I've got a bridge I want to sell ya.

 

 

It might help if you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card

Edited December 3, 2008 by iNow

[ParanoiA]

He made race an issue once he made race an issue. Pointing out that he looks funny or whatever and that "some will say" this and that is making it an issue. It doesn't matter if it was pretentious nobility or desparate race-baiting, he made his race an issue. If he wanted to be judged by his merits only, then he would only speak of his race when asked - otherwise, if one is truly color blind, then why would one notice color?

 

That's not to say he didn't do it with class, and much restraint. And he had to. Any moron would have known better than to use the race card since everyone was expecting it. And he probably had to address the elephant in the room, again, somewhat tastefully. But I'm distrustful of politicians, for good reason, and he's a smart one.

 

He was doomed to make it an issue by making it an issue about not making it an issue. It's the ole underdog, outsider fighting the establishment nuance. And it works perfectly with "change".

[Pangloss]

That could just as easily be turned around by simply attaching another "if" in front of that responsibility chain. But I think you're putting the starting foot in the wrong camp. I saw no evidence that he was the one who was bringing up race in the first place.

[ParanoiA]

Unless his prescient statements on republican strategy to point out that he doesn't look like those other presidents and "did you notice he's black" were a reply, then his camp contributes to the footing, considerably. As the face of the party that lends more weight, and I did note that he handled it somewhat tastefully, without wearing out his welcome.

[iNow]

You're quite right about being tasteful. His speech on race was both inspired and inspiring.

 

 

 

However, IIRC, it was the opponents endless cycling of his preacher, Jeremiah Wright, to inspire the "hey, he's different" outgroup mentality, and the snarky use of his middle name, Barack Hussein Obama, or that he was an arugala eating gun hating uppity elitist which prompted his response.

 

While he did it with class, and while his desire NOT to talk about it in some sense was a way of bringing it to the conversational table by all of us spectators, I think the chronology of the election shows clearly that he was responding to, not generating the issue. If my assertion is correct, this would mean the suggestion that he was "playing the race card" falls flat on its face, and ignores the actions of those who truly were involved in such a wedge driving card game among our populace.

[Pangloss]

Unless his prescient statements on republican strategy to point out that he doesn't look like those other presidents and "did you notice he's black" were a reply, then his camp contributes to the footing, considerably. As the face of the party that lends more weight, and I did note that he handled it somewhat tastefully, without wearing out his welcome.

 

Well I don't know about "prescient", but whether it was proactive or reactive my main point is just that these things are almost always cyclical and self-feeding in nature. If you really feel a need to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first, I recommend switching to beef.

[ParanoiA]

Well I don't know about "prescient", but whether it was proactive or reactive my main point is just that these things are almost always cyclical and self-feeding in nature. If you really feel a need to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first, I recommend switching to beef.

 

However, IIRC, it was the opponents endless cycling of his preacher, Jeremiah Wright, to inspire the "hey, he's different" outgroup mentality, and the snarky use of his middle name, Barack Hussein Obama, or that he was an arugala eating gun hating uppity elitist which prompted his response.

 

I don't believe "hey, he's different" had squat to do with Jeremiah Wright, that's quite a stretch. It was clear it wasn't about "different" - that's a positive since everyone was wooed by "change", as if we don't hear that every election. It was about not trusting his stated intentions, making believe he had anti-american intentions - this "america sucks" movement, if you will.

 

His comments about his funny name were certainly a rebuttal and without any racial overtone, in my opinion. But he used that as a segway, to pretend as if the republican opposition was pandering to covertly prejudice americans. That's why he went right into this business about "he doesn't look like those other presidents on the dollar bills", "and did you notice he's black", following his reply to the silliness about his middle name. That is disingenuous. Although I believe the republicans asked for it by using his name as an issue - like children on the playground. They invited this to happen, and Obama walked right in and stole their thunder.

 

To be clear, I'm referring to his speech on July 21. I can't seem to find the video now, but I'm sure it's out there. I'm at work and can't view anything, but I believe it was captured by CNN. When I get home I'll try to find the link I ran into last night - it's a popular speech though, which puts these comments in context and explains my use of "prescient" statements of republican party intents.

[iNow]

This Faux News clip seems to support the point you're making:

 

And the other side presented by Keith Olbermann (which gives the clips of Obama which seem to present the context you referenced):

[ParanoiA]

For the record though, I agree that he didn't "pull the race card" so to speak. A subjective distinction I guess, but I don't take those subtle references in a couple of speeches as all out pulling the race card. We won't be reading that in our history books; it was far too isolated and trivial.

[jackson33]

"my grandmother, a typical white woman" would cross the street rather than confront a couple black guys or " I don't look like that guy on the dollar bill" are racially toned statements intended to create sympathy from a segment of the electorate, IMO.

 

I'll ask again; Does any one think, Obama would have received the required national press coverage, the attention he did receive or even one primary victory, if he was a white guy from Des Moines, with the exact same history?

Add to this the resumes, credentials and experience of what his ten opponents, which he apparently now has embraced, and the only answer is NO.

 

iNow; It is my opinion, he, Axlerod and the rest of his team wanted race an issue, BUT UNDER their terms. They knew well, name recognition would be required and what other characteristic/qualifications of this man could he have achieved this purpose. Since you seem to have an obsession with open discussion on race, let me repeat; If I were one of those advisor's or the candidate himself, I would have done the same thing.

[iNow]

"my grandmother, a typical white woman" would cross the street rather than confront a couple black guys or " I don't look like that guy on the dollar bill" are racially toned statements intended to create sympathy from a segment of the electorate, IMO.

 

I'll ask again; Does any one think, Obama would have received the required national press coverage, the attention he did receive or even one primary victory, if he was a white guy from Des Moines, with the exact same history?

In sum, YES, I do.

 

As pessimistic as I am about the current state of our culture (if I can even legitimately call it that anymore), I still think there are enough people out there who couldn't give two shits about race. He tapped into a deep seated anxiety and resentment in the populace, and awakened the realization that we didn't have to live with it anymore.

 

NONE of that had to do with the melanin content of his dermis.

 

 

Add to this the resumes, credentials and experience of what his ten opponents, which he apparently now has embraced, and the only answer is NO.

Please see above.

 

 

Since you seem to have an obsession with open discussion on race, let me repeat; If I were one of those advisor's or the candidate himself, I would have done the same thing.

 

What makes you think that I am obsessed with an open discussion on race? What relevance does that have to any of the points I've made? How is that supposed to some how make your points any more valid?

 

I don't really care. You shared an opinion, and it has been shown to be pretty far from reality. You're welcome to that opinion, so don't get me wrong, but it seems a strange position since the facts of the situation argue very heavily against it.

 

I agree that politicians will do many things to win. I agree that advisors will always try to leverage strengths. The difference between your POV and mine is that you see his race as a primary strength, and I see his message as his primary strength. THAT's what won him the election, IMO.

 

 

EDIT: Anyway, this all has squat to do with the factors playing into the passage of Prop 8. Did anyone watch the musical?

Edited December 4, 2008 by iNow

[jackson33]

iNow; Your perceiving change desired by the electorate as equal to that of you. The US demographics have changed dramatically in the past 50 years. Woman are taking prominent rolls in Business/Society/Politics and we have a large number dependent on Government in some way, even if just Social Security.

 

The change you feel seen in Obama (if just another white guy), would never have been accepted over that of the obvious change in direction offered by Ms. Clinton or what was obvious to me in Ms. Palin. I don't have the time to check out all the names, but many members of 'so called' minorities have been elected in increasing numbers over the past 50 years and this influence has been felt on the National Level. I first noticed this with Ann Armstrong, Elizabeth Dole, Ma Richards and more recently in Governor Jindal of Louisiana. IMO, its almost inevitable we will have a woman President in 4 years or 8 at the most. On message; Including Reagan, in higher degrees all candidates since, the message offered in campaigning and actions of the winner have had no commonality. You would probably have to backtrack to FDR, to find any resemblance to 'Party Platform' and the actual operation of an administration.

 

If race makes no difference to the electorate, why didn't McCain get at least 10% of the black vote. He adopted and helped raise two children from Africa, along with his own kids and during a period this was not 100% acceptable, at least in Arizona. He advocated bringing 'Illegal Aliens' into the society and spent most of his life in the struggle for equality of all races, including a formal forgiveness to a people, who imprisoned him for five plus years. He lost both the Latino and Asian vote. His educational policy was directed at placing minorities on an equal playing field and in both National and Arizona has advanced/influenced Native American policy. Does three years working with ACORN, or opposing Constitutional Law, really equate to MCains 30 years?

[Pangloss]

Does any one think' date=' Obama would have received the required national press coverage, the attention he did receive or even one primary victory, if he was a white guy from Des Moines, with the exact same history?

 

Add to this the resumes, credentials and experience of what his ten opponents, which he apparently now has embraced, and the only answer is NO.

 

If race makes no difference to the electorate, why didn't McCain get at least 10% of the black vote.

 

Does three years working with ACORN, or opposing Constitutional Law, really equate to MCains 30 years?[/quote']

 

Oh boy, I think you have really missed what's gotten Obama elected. It's not something you can toss off as a freak result of racism and ACORN tampering. Sure race is an issue to some people. So what? That's not enough to get you elected -- if that were the case we'd have had President Jesse Jackson 20 years ago.

 

The association between Barack Obama and the concept of change is closer and deeper than any association between a candidate and a concept that I have ever seen. Race and 'outsider status' certainly have played a role in that identification, as has the concept of rejecting the incumbent party. But whatever the reason, so significant is this association that, in political terms, it actually changed the meaning of the word. People didn't vote for "the black guy", and for once they didn't vote "against" something either. They voted for something. That's incredible.

 

Something significant happened in this country on November 4th. I don't think anybody knows exactly what it was yet. But what it wasn't is quite clear -- it was not politics as usual. And to dismiss it as a product of white guilt and black racism is really, badly misunderstanding the mood and intent of the people of this country right now.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Pangloss

[ParanoiA]

I don't know man, that's a bit romanticized. Jesse Jackson couldn't be successful with the race card or ride in on white guilt since he comes off so polarized. He clearly represents black people, not just people. And it's pretty obvious.

 

But Obama is the first black candidate I've seen that shrugs off the "black folk advocate" in favor of "people advocate". That's what everyone's been waiting for. We get it drilled in our heads that racism is wrong, judging folk by their skin color, while we get black candidates focused on skin color and racism and out to "represent" their people in government offices that are supposed to be about all the people.

 

So, Obama swoops in with the "change" logo, and it's followed through with his apparent committment to all the people - finally, that fits the philosophy beaten into our heads all of these years. He doesn't scare white people with any noticeable "black cause". We would have had a black president sooner if that would have happened sooner.

 

It's for that reason that I don't see anything incredible here at all. Just good political maneuvering. He is the image that he knew we wanted. Most black folk voted for him to "represent", for the most part. Sorry, but it's obvious. That doesn't make it Obama's fault, but it also doesn't make it magical. And I didn't see where Jackson33 made the case for white guilt and black racism.

[iNow]

The only group who voted for John McCain in any greater percentages than Obama were older white people. Virtually every other demographic, other races, other income levels, and younger white people included, to a high order of magnitude voted strongly in favor of Obama.

 

While race played a role, the lack of votes for McCain actually had extraordinarily little to do with race, and no matter how romantic or objective you view this, that is still a fact.

 

Jacksons suggestion is that Obama would have lost if he were white, and implicit in such a comment is that he only won because he is black. That is so far from the truth (just look closely at the stats, it's quite clear and plain that this assertion falls flat on its face) that he probably heard it on Faux News or Rush and is just regurgitating it here.

[john5746]

Jacksons suggestion is that Obama would have lost if he were white, and implicit in such a comment is that he only won because he is black.

 

I think Obama being an African American helped him win, especially in the primaries. Clinton had the black vote otherwise. That doesn't mean he "only" won because he was black, just that it actually helped him. McCain being old helped him win Florida, which sealed his lead in the primaries. Same deal.

[iNow]

I, too, think his race played a role. What I disagree with is that he would not have won if here were white. That's just plain wrong and unfounded. Doesn't matter though, he did win and he's not white.

[ParanoiA]

I don't think he would have won if he were white, no way. The fact he was black demonstrated change. The fact he was black and stood for all of the people, demonstrated change. Another white dude with the same rhetoric doesn't demonstrate any kind of change.

[jackson33]

 

Jacksons suggestion is that Obama would have lost if he were white, and implicit in such a comment is that he only won because he is black. That is so far from the truth (just look closely at the stats, it's quite clear and plain that this assertion falls flat on its face) that he probably heard it on Faux News or Rush and is just regurgitating it here.

 

Before the primary season and well before Fox News or Rush, even considered a potential upset by Obama over Ms. Clinton, I wrote much the same on PL and under my real name for publication (won't divulge). It was in response to the statement 'Obama Hussein Obama' a black liberal, with a questionable past and little known, had no possible way of defeating Hillary Clinton, in the up coming primary season'. My response then was very simple and stated, 'Be very careful here, because those things are exactly why and how he could defeat Ms. Clinton'. For the record however, I also said, it would depend on our candidate but most likely lose to the Republican Candidate, even in what should be a easy Democrat Cycle victory. My conclusion in those articles was "Clinton would, most likely be elected" over each of the then known Republican Candidates. At the time, I did not consider an Obama victory, primary or general election a probability. Later, I advocated a thousand times to GET OFF the name/Wright/messiah and other comment/issues, as was turning into sympathy factor, where media was picking up the issues as 'dirty politics, as usual'. I don't recall Limbaugh or FNC, ever mentioning these opinions and what was mentioned, fell along other media comments. Your welcome to think I have no personal opinions or capable of self thought, pick the above apart on 'hind sight/made up' comments and continue to think Obama if John Smith a white from Omaha, with identical credentials would have pulled this off, but frankly IMO, that is an absurd opinion, thought, with out any historical precedence.

[iNow]

Okay, guys. He did win. He is black. I don't really care about much else in retrospect. How does any of this have anything to do with voter turnout in support of Prop 8?

[ParanoiA]

Because if he was white there wouldn't have been the voter turn out for prop 8, no? Isn't that the very premise of the thread?

 

But that's just how I 'lawyer up'. It really doesn't relate on any deep level, it was just a side conversation. I was about to toss my cookies reading Pangloss's post and had to respond...J/K

[jackson33]

Because if he was white there wouldn't have been the voter turn out for prop 8, no? Isn't that the very premise of the thread?

 

But that's just how I 'lawyer up'. It really doesn't relate on any deep level, it was just a side conversation. I was about to toss my cookies reading Pangloss's post and had to respond...J/K

 

If anything the turnout was light where traditional voters were concerned and believe one point of the thread. Wouldn't it then be logical those rather conservative 'referendums' on 'same sex' or 'abortion' 'gun issues' have been defeated more soundly. Then noting PE Obama's various statements, how many of these issues would he rather have turned out different. To vote or base a vote on change (Obama), then voting for 'status quo' (referendums)seems to make no sense...or at best showing a very weak case FOR Obama.

 

I am curious on what change you personally are expecting, or for that matter anyone idea of expectations from an Obama administration? If he continues to follow Clinton's policy, with my blessing certainly seems to be, he will lose his base.