New Poll Presents Mixed News for Obama
Full results here. It’s generally good news. He leads Clinton by 1o percentage points among Democratic primary voters, and beats McCain by 6 points in a hypothetical general election match up.
Despite the best efforts of Fox News to yet again distract from the issues, the Wright videos seem to have little impact on Obama’s support. This is because his response to the controversy was applauded by his supporters, and even won a favorable response from a significant number of those backing Clinton and McCain. This is good news, a milestone even. It shows that we might finally be getting past the gotcha-soundbyte politics epitomized by Fox News and the boorish talk radio subculture– a subculture that has dominated US politics since at least the mid 1990s. Could this herald the return of substance? Will politicians be once again admired for quoting Aeschylus? Maybe I’m being a little too optimistic here!
But there is a darker side to the poll results. Unfortunately, the race issue is not going away, which I think explains his low levels of support among older people, and among Asians and Hispanics:
“..Certain social beliefs and attitudes among older, white, working-class Democratic voters are associated with his lower levels of support among this group. In particular, white Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.”
I don’t know how Obama is going to overcome this lingering prejudice from an older generation, the generation that responded so well to Willy Horton and welfare queen provocations. But it’s clear that he needs to build his credibility with the white working class Democrats. How can be do that? Well, how about picking this guy as his vice president? A long shot, perhaps, but this whole campaign is based on hope!
Comments are closed.
Just call it Vox Obama and be done with it.
I prefer the Obama Cafeteria is Closed.
Unscientific observation ahead based on campaign signs: driving through the San Francisco Bay Area, I’ve concluded that Obama has the upper-class vote and the black vote. Almost all of the people who display Obama signs are in either very wealthy neighborhoods or are young professionals who rent in other areas. The more solidly middle-class (mostly Asian and white/hispanic) neighborhoods seem to have a plethora of Hillary signs, with a sprinkling of support for McCain. The counter-cultural areas still display the Ron Paul signs (though more Obama than before). And the heavily black neighborhoods are pretty much all Obama.
That’s just California, though.
As for me, I don’t know who to vote for. Hillary and Obama are out, especially Obama with his stridently pro-abortion platform. (I wouldn’t say Obama’s campaign is based on hope–it’s based on exploiting others’ hope for political gain.) But I’m also wary of McCain’s military position, as well as his weak stance on life issues.
JohnH,
Why would you think Sen. Casey would support Obama, given his “stridently pro-abortion platform?” Just wondering what you think his rationale might be. I haven’t seen that addressed.
I think Casey is endorsing along party lines, just as we saw Ray Flynn stumping for Clinton despite her position on abortion.
‘Could this herald the return of substance?’
Alas, no. The triumph of credulity is more like it. Folks just want to believe…unless they have not fallen under the spell to begin with.
Well, there’s always hope that Obama will go the Jim Jones way. Obviously, there’s already something potent in his Kool-Aide.
‘Could this herald the return of substance ?’
It heralds the wide-spread nature of substance abuse.
“Could this herald the return of substance?”
It already has. Witness Obama’s speech, “A More Perfect Union.” Substance there, and powerfully expressed.
“race issue is not going away”
It’s unreasonable to expect it would, given that it has been used for political gain for four decades.
Though it would certainly be a nice sign of openness–and certainly something I could imagine Obama doing in a vacuum, given his frequently-voiced respect for pro-lifers–it’s just not going to happen. Given that his support rests quite solidly upon secular, pro-choice upper middle class Democrats, the party simply isn’t going to allow a pro-life politician to be their vice-presidential nominee and place a “heretic” so close to the presidency under their banner.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
MM – This blatant political cheerleading is absolutely indefensible.
Tim, not that I’d expect a feverish partisan like yourself to understand, but a post like MM’s here is hardly cheerleading. Hoping that the political system can finally triumph over the racism of earlier generations is hardly cheerleading. Hoping, on a Catholic blog, that the Democratic Party might show some flexibility on the life issue is hardly cheerleading. Hope itself, Tim, is hardly partisan. It does genuinely mean specific things. Like good men beating a system rigged in so many ways in the establishment’s favor (though Obama, admittedly, is hardly anti-establishment). Like a campaign working hard to concentrate on issues, while the ugliest faces of the left and right have bared their teeth against him. You don’t have to support Obama to recognize that one of the best outcomes of this election would be for the Clintons to disappear forever into ignominious defeat, and for the “right wing noise machine” to finally have a sock stuffed in it (I should clarify that I refer specifically to that portion of the right which is Republican first and Christian second).
In other words, Tim, don’t assume, from a dualistic mindset, that if one isn’t criticizing Obama, one must be supporting him. I don’t know MM’s mind here, so I won’t assume anything. Neither should you (unless I’ve missed something, and MM has issued an endosement of some kind).
In the interest of disclosure: I’m not supporting anyone in this election.
Well, there’s always hope that Obama will go the Jim Jones way.
You’re calling for his suicide?
A clarification: I don’t intend anything in that post to imply, Tim, that I include you among those who are “Republican first and Christian second.” I therefore revoke the accusation of “feverish partisanship” and apologize for it. But everything after that first dependent clause stands.
Is it wrong to attach certain policy biases to Obama because of his race? Blacks vote for Obama, at least in part, because as a black man, they believe he will hold positions more favorable to the black community. So what’s so wrong with old whites, Asians, or Hispanics voting against Obama for the same reason?
Because, Third, people who rule out a candidate because of his race are doing so based on . . . well, his race. They don’t like black people. Policy arguments are irrelevant to them, and are usually crafted as an ex post facto justification.
And yes. It would be wrong to say “Obama’s black, and all black people do/say/think x.”
Collectivist arguments are, almost as a rule, indefensible, and racism is collectivist by nature.
On it’s own, though, I wouldn’t be prepared to label it racist. Just dumb.
No,no,no – not just him. The Obamaniacs have to drink up, too. :D
So blacks who take Obama’s race into consideration are dumb?
Granted, policy should be the primary criterion. Blacks would probably vote for Clinton over a Clarence Thomas. But suppose, as is the case with Obama and Clinton, there are no policy differences between the two. What criteria do we use then? What is the best indicator of how a candidate, if elected, would decide future unforeseen issues? One could make a strong case for using race among other criteria. Not that there aren’t exceptions but I think it’s safe to say that on average blacks are more likely to take positions that are more favorable to the black community than whites are.
I think it’s safe to say that a lot of the people caught up in the heat of this primary think there are significant policy differences between the two.
Voting for someone because of a similarity like ethnicity seems to be quite different from opposing someone because of the difference in ethnicity. And even then, it’s complicated. Personally, I can’t imagine myself ever voting for a candidate solely because they’re white. As for using race as one among several criteria, I think there legitimate grounds for such a thing, but again, only in the case of supporting someone.
Here’s an example, slightly altered. I’m someone who often thinks about sexism and other issues surrounding women’s rights. If I’ve got two candidates in front of me, both of whom have policies I like, and one of whom is a woman, then with policy out of the way I’d probably vote for the woman because she’s a woman. (This will make the
assumption you made in your comment above, i.e. similar policies).
As for the other criteria, what else do you have to go on but the candidate’s stated positions, their political history, the advisors around them, and other character-related concerns? You simply can’t even try to predict based on race (at least, I wouldn’t).
The irony being that welfare programs and the ‘war on povery’ destroyed black urban areas – when they’d been improving before government came to ‘help’. But victim status is definitely helpful to the Democrat party. See: Thomas Sowell: The Vision of the Anointed & Charles Murray: Losing Ground. Of course the libs will never change course because their failed policies just feeeeel so good and generous – as Sowell says, self-congratulation as basis for social policy.
Voting against Obama because he’s black can be stated positively as voting for Clinton because she’s white.
‘Will politicians be once again admired for quoting Aeschylus?’
On a side note, I agree that RFK’s speech on the death of MLK was impressive, but I wonder if he understood the point of those verses from Aeschylus (supposedly his ‘favorite poet’). Zeus’ ‘violent grace’ and the acts of vengeance that accomplished it are probably not what RFK had in mind. So much for quoting the classics.
Greensburg, PA. Obama for America PA Town Hall Bus Tour. Today from 5:30-7:20PM
The rallies have give way to even more really hard talk.
The candidate answered substantively questions from the 2500 person crowd, the average answer being approximatetly 10+ minutes of policy discussion and elaboration. Topics; the return to a realist foreign policy, understanding that America is a part of the world community, and military might is not the most effective means of dealing with conflict ; the progressive tax code; the lending crisis; implementing equitable health care reform; fulfilling the promise of public education and higher education; and dealing with the upcoming challenges of baby-boomer Social Security.
It’s a galling statement of how far our political discourse has fallen that it’s truly exciting to think of a presidential candidate maybe possibly managing to quote the same Classical authors as the opening of the last Harry Potter novel…
Time was when a knowledge of Aeschylus would have been considered a minimum for an educated man, rather that the summit of education.
“The irony being that welfare programs and the ‘war on povery’ destroyed black urban areas…”
Perhaps one should read Thomas Sugre in addition to Thomas Sowell.
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Urban-Crisis-Inequality-Princeton/dp/0691121869/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206759395&sr=1-19
“In other words, Tim, don’t assume, from a dualistic mindset, that if one isn’t criticizing Obama, one must be supporting him. “
Did you read the same post I did?
“Good news”, “favorable response”, “milestone”, “admired”, “herald the return of substance”
It’s literally gushing over Obama. I pictured MM gleefully producing his own “I love Obama” youtube video and screeching like a prepubescent girl for a boy band while he wrote this piece.
Let’s also keep in mind: Obama is as much a white man as he is a black man. Isn’t it racist to label him something he’s not?
TT,
In case you forget, the fractions 1/64 and 1/32 are very significant in our country’s history and present psyche.
And was he is much a white baby as a black baby in 1961, especially if his mother would have travelled with him through, say, Mississippi that year?
Soldiers and Sailors Hall, in my beloved hometown of Pittsburgh, PA:
http://www.post-gazette.com/multimedia/?videoID=100304
“In case you forget, the fractions 1/64 and 1/32 are very significant in our country’s history and present psyche.”
Seems the only people that care now are the people that want to take advantage of the “protection” of the race card, and affirmative action “benefits”
“Seems the only people that care now are the people that want to take advantage of the “protection” of the race card…”
Oh, really, Tim? Like these people, with whom I will now end any further attempt of /at good will/dialogue:
http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=37818
“Oh, really, Tim? Like these people, with whom I will now end any further attempt of /at good will/dialogue:
http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=37818“
Uh, that had absolutely nothing to do with the current conversation…
What planet do you people hail from?
Oh, really, Tim? Like these people, with whom I will now end any further attempt of /at good will/dialogue:
http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=37818
BTW, Mark – Tell me race didn’t matter to the victims of the Witchia Massacre:
http://www.wichita-massacre.com/
Hint: It’s the inverse of the crime you cited, but worse…
Obama speeches:
” . . . struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
MacBeth V,v,17
Abortion; ESCR; gay marriage; human cloning; euthanasia; denies parental control over their children’s educations; class hatred; racial discrimination/affirmative action, etc.: a vote for Obama is a mortal sin. That goes for you to: Casey and Kmiec!
“According to the teaching of the Church, an anathema unjustly uttered falls on the head of the one who uttered it. Occultists speak of a backlash, an involution, following the unsuccessful casting of a spell. Thus, every word that cannot enter another’s soul, as it was meant to do, that has no room to be spoken out to the end, cuts back into the one who has uttered it or wished to utter it, and wounds him.”
(St) Pavel Florensky
Shakespeare 101, revisited…
” . . . struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Lest we forget, these are the tragic attempts at an existential musings about the general condition of humankind, done by a man (MacBeth) who has killed his conscience (Banquo).
Tempest 5.1-275-6
Prospero: …this thing of darkness I
acknowledge mine.
Or maybe a reminder of the words, sentiments and character of Iago in Othello would have been even more apropos….
T. Shaw– learn some Catholic teaching before saying something so stupid. And here’s a hint: it’s not Protestantizaed individualism or dualism.
“Despite the best efforts of Fox News to yet again distract from the issues, the Wright videos seem to have little impact on Obama’s support.”
You act as if Fox were the only ones who played these videos pf Wright. i saw them on all channels. I think that if you thought we were stupid enough you would claim Fox made up the videos in its evil subterranean editing room!
I wonder if McCain or Hillary went to some white “chirstian identity” church would you be glad the uproar has died out and had “little impact”? I doubt it and that makes you a hypocrite.
You act as if Fox were the only ones who played these videos of Wright.
Well, sort of. On Fox, they were intended not only as fodder for sensationalism (as they mostly were on MSNBC and CNN), but also to advance the Movement Conservative agenda, which is Fox News’ purpose as a network. Tear down Obama to make him more beatable in November.
Fox (and wider, movement conservatism generally) uses signifiers of the cultural conflicts of the 1960s in order to discredit the political left in general, and Democrats in particular.
Thus, the Wright controversy was used to subtly indicate that Obama is some sort of ’60s radical Black Separatist character. This is, of course, absurd; any cursory glance at Obama’s actions and rhetoric shows none of the animating principles or world view of 60′s style leftism. (If anyone doubts this, look up a fiery, ’60s-era speech by, say, Huey Newton or H. Rap Brown on youtube, and then pull up any speech ever made by Barack Obama. See the resemblance? Neither do I.)
It is, however, useful to outfits like Fox News, and other propaganda arms of movement conservatism, in that it inspires fear in working class whites (of the caricatured sissified coastal upper-class liberal, who want to give their job to a black man and then lecture them about racism), who have come to be the base of the Republican Party.
Movement Conservatism (Fox News, talk radio, etc.) thus uses a kind of cultural populism to motivate ground troops.
The Democrats’ greatest strategic error since 1972 has been to allow Republicans to get away with this, mostly by turning their back on their own traditional brand of populism, which was economic in character.
Truman used to talk openly and unabashedly about how the Democrats were “the party of the common man” while the Republicans were “the rich man’s party.” As a Democrat, I would love it if the Democrats would start talking like that again; Obama’s background as a community organizer gives me hope that he will be able to revive the economic populism that was a large part of Democratic Party electoral success after 1932.
“Thus, the Wright controversy was used to subtly indicate that Obama is some sort of ’60s radical Black Separatist character. ”
He isn’t?! Look i used to be a black nationalist marxist. I know one when i see one and you don’t need to be Huey Newton to be one. Obama is probably the most leftist and marxist influenced preisidential candidate the US has ever had.
You ,nor Obama himself, can seperate him from his church anymore than you can seperate me from being pro-life and attending Mass. One goes with the other. Unlike you and Obama, I didn’t try to make the Church conform to my politics nor did i discard those aspects of it that didn’t fit my politics. I conformed my world outlook to the teachings of Christ and His Church and his word on how i can be saved. Obama needs to do the same thing.
MM, MdF, HK:
I am gratified by the charitable comments. You are better informed than I. I’m troubled. It seems from reading all your stuff that the Cath. teachings correlate “love thy enemy” and “whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers” with hate the white man and steal from, I mean tax, the rich man.
Here is some advice to live by.
If you mix ice cream with feces, it still tastes like feces.
I know you geniuses don’t get it, so here goes: Ob is wrong on all three non-negotiables this POPE very recently iterated. He has some ‘ice cream’: like stealing from the rich to give to the poor (I believe you marxist modernists believe that is Cath teaching – me: I don’t care what some commie theologian opines), etc. but the evil far overshadows the ‘ice cream.’
I cannot believe such obduracy! Or, is it evil?
Must run now! The wife needs a dozen eggs. We’re feting the village McCain for Prez committee!
Now, you may return to your studies in asinine absurdity! And, pray for tenure. POG’s!
Walter, you seem to be arguing with the person you imagine me to be, rather than who I am.
He isn’t?! Look i used to be a black nationalist marxist. I know one when i see one and you don’t need to be Huey Newton to be one. Obama is probably the most leftist and marxist influenced presidential candidate the US has ever had.
“Leftist”? You know, the last time anyone actually advocated Marxism in America and had any attention paid to him was at least 40 years ago. For Pete’s sake – most of those self-styled, unbathed college “Marxist radicals” long ago sold out, cut their hair and took up careers like destroying the value of my retirement savings, and are now reaching their dotage – in 5 years they’ll be gumming their creamed spinach in rest homes and complaining about their grandchildren. Leave ‘em alone. They can’t hurt you any more; in fact, they never could.
Unless, by “leftist” you mean mainstream, sensible liberals like FDR:
‘Movement Conservatism (Fox News, talk radio, etc.) thus uses a kind of cultural populism to motivate ground troops. The Democrats’ greatest strategic error since 1972 has been to allow Republicans to get away with this, mostly by turning their back on their own traditional brand of populism, which was economic in character. ‘
True. It is also worth noting that many people are simultaneously ‘cultural’ and ‘economic’ populists. The Dems and GOP live in constant fear of the guy who would try to unite these two tendencies into one movement.
The Dems and GOP live in constant fear of the guy who would try to unite these two tendencies into one movement.
Indeed, SMB; and, to be fair, a cursory glance at history, especially from the first half of the twentieth century, would indicate that this can turn out rather badly.
America deserves its leaders and, for better or for worse: God bless(damn) America.
‘Indeed, SMB; and, to be fair, a cursory glance at history, especially from the first half of the twentieth century, would indicate that this can turn out rather badly.’
True! But if a ‘popular government’ is always a recipe for disaster, we need to revise our national civic mythology–a lot.
The key word there, SMB, was “can” – popular government is, in general, a great idea. A “populist” government, however, presents certain risks – but even there, not always. FDR was a revered figure, and did much good.
As an Asian-American, I resent that blacks may vote overwhelmingly for Obama without protest but that Asians (or Hispanics for that matter) can’t overwhelmingly vote for Hillary without charges of racism. Would it be acceptable if it was discovered that Hillary is 1/64 Asian?
For the record, I voted for Obama but completely understan Asians and Hispanics who voted for Hillary, at least in party, because she’s white.
That’s the problem, AsianP…they’re overwhelmingly voting for a non-Asian Hillary. Why? At least you have articulated a reason why Blacks are mostly going for Obama.
On another note, sooner rather than later there will be a credible Hispanic candidate and African-Americans will remember this particular election season.