Oh, come on Axxon, be fair. There are African-Americans that will vote for McCain, but 90% would have voted for any Democrat and it's quite possible we'll see 94% or more vote Obama (with most likely record turn-out as well). Anytime your talk elections, you talk in blocks, and any block that a canidate has a sure 50%+ in, we say "we know this group will go for x." It is not sterotyping. It is demographics. I definitely vote against my demographic, but I'm not offended if someone groups me in with a voting block.

I think this is a pretty dimwitted view. People like people that they feel understand their experience and make them feel like they're not invisible.

Right, same for Catholics, Jews, 'white working class voters', etc.

It's just the way things are these days.

The quote I replied to specifically said that the latinos "generally aren't fans of other minority groups "getting ahead". Now, I'm no racial crusader but that quote is seriously fucked up.

It's one thing to talk about voting blocks; it's another thing all together to say racist things about them.

This is a pretty dimwitted statement.

It really isn't practical to analyze voting trends by considering each individual voter in the United States. Race, Gender, and Class are meaningful groupings that do tell us things.

Maybe it could have been put more diplomatically, but Hispanics may or may not for blacks on the whole, I really don't know the numbers. We don't seem to have a problem saying that poor southern whites won't vote for blacks.

Well, if you want to get technical latino is far too diverse a term to have meaning anyway. I'm Cuban and Cubans tend to vote republican, mainly because republicans make sure that when we can't possibly enter the country illegally like other latinos; a disparity that I'm all for changing BTW but I'll leave the hows as an exercise for the reader.

Dola, to add to my previous post saying poor southern whites is way different than saying whites won't vote for blacks the latter of which is equivalent to saying latinos won't vote for blacks.

Right. Hispanics/Latinos is an illegitimate moniker compared to the other groups, because California Latinos vote differently than ones in Texas than ones on the east coast.

Because we're talking about nationalities lumped into one overarching group that doesn't really account for anything other than the same language that they speak and even then...

Fair enough, I agree.

I think your response is far more productive than the "you're a racist!" stuff, which conditions people to hide from race as a factor in elections or everyday life.

Hey, every body has different issues and people tend to vote their issues.

As for the language, tell me about it. :lol:

Fair enough but I do consider the statement that latinos generally don't want to see other minorities get ahead incorrect, stupid and inflammatory.

Hey, we became the fastest growing minority through copious breeding and open borders, not by keeping other minorities down. ;)

It looks like Obama got roughly a 5-point bounce after Clinton's concession.

Edit: And there's a whole crapload of new polling data from NBC/WSJ (including breakdowns) here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/

Post-concession, Obama's Latino support is strong, according to both Gallup & NBC/WSJ.

I'm looking forward to this, wish Obama was going to be there:

Obama wants a slightly different format, but in principle has agreed to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. There's no way the negotiations for the debates could be ready by now and even if Obama had agreed I'm sure the caveats from the McCain camp would have stalled the effort. There's also the whole problem with single network coverage that Obama and McCain both borught up with ABCs debate proposal. Debates take quite a while to put together when both sides want to gain maximum advantage.

I find this somewhat interesting. Guess it could be interpreted different ways.

There's also this info from the 2004 election. The WSJ poll never showed a Kerry lead among registered voters.

March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%

I was reading Obama's speech today and he mentioned his two daughters. I actually did not know he had two daughters. They must have done a great job of keeping them out of the limelight.

They are really young, not even teenagers yet. They've been on stage at big election day events a few times, but they seem clearly opposed to carting them around for political gain and the girls don't seem to be really inclined to enjoy it at all. Not that I blame them...

Obama's campaign today hired Patty Solis Doyle, the former campaign manager for Clinton who got fired earlier in the year....they hired her to be the chief of staff for the VP nominee they pick.

One Clinton confidante said that the hire was a "big fuck you" to Hillary. So unless they want to fire her twice, Hillary isn't gonna be the VP for sure now.

Al Gore is endorsing Obama now, mostly to steal some cable news cycle time.

This is huge.

I can't understand why MSNBC was the only network to carry Gore's endorsement of the Democratic party nominee after he had already clinched the nomination.

Just about every cable news station I checked was carrying Gore's speech.

I actually think getting endorsements from more established politicians like Gore are fairly important for Obama, as there are a lot of people that are still unfamiliar and/or up-in-the-air with him.

Having "trusted" democrats like both Clintons (although I haven't seen a formal announcement from Bill yet, but I think it will come and be helpful), Gore, Carter, Kennedy and, to a lesser extent, Kerry and Edwards, will be important and give him a little more credibility.

McCain needs that less because he has been accounted for as a senator for 20+ years and well known as a national figure since he ran against Bush in 2000. Probably a good thing, as the Republicans don't really have much star power, at the national level, right now. I guess George H.W. Bush and maybe Schwartznegger (sp?) and Condi Rice would give McCain a little push.

Colin Powell would be huge, but from his latest quotes, he sounds like he may lean towards Obama as much as McCain.

CNN carried it, too.

Ok, but aside from almost every cable news station and CNN, I can't understand why MSNBC was the only network to carry Gore's endorsement of the Democratic party nominee after he had already clinched the nomination.

I saw CNN and Fox, and they had a split screen with Gore (no audio) while their talk show hosts continued to talk. MSNBC was the only network I saw that actually broadcast Gore's speech live.

Each side wants a debate format to maximize their advantages and their opponents weaknesses. McCain would seem to do better in the Town Hall format, while Obama would seem to do better in the Lincoln-Douglas style. Also, even though both politicians seem at least open to the idea of bringing Democracy to the people, the campaigns are run by "take no chances" career political operatives. So I imagine that for all of the talk of dozens of town halls and Lincoln-Douglas style debates, we will end up with the typical 3 debates moderated by the news media. Maybe they will add a little twist such as having some questions come from YouTube or something. But any hope that we had of an actual break from the sound-bite mode of debates seems dead in the water.

Not really news but Jay Paterno is a huge Obama supporter, which is kind of funny because his father is such a big time republican supporter.

Jay is even blogging for Obama. He should spend more time breaking down film than doing this stuff.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...log/jaypaterno

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187

The latest Quinnipac poll shows Obama up in the 3 big swing states. Obama is +12 in PA, +6 in Ohio, and +4 in Florida.

President Bush's approval ratings in these states are worse than the national average of 30%.

In the two biggest issues, the war and the economy, Obama has huge leads.

The Economy
Florida: Obama 55-36
Ohio: Obama 55-37
Pennsylvania: Obama 56-37

The War in Iraq
Florida: Obama 61-32
Ohio: Obama 48-40
Pennsylvania: Obama 59-30

Is Pennsylvania much of a swing state anymore or is it probably going blue? Is there anything McCain can do to sway the public in his favor on those two biggest issues?

Pennsylvania is pretty much a blue state at this point. If Hilary was the candidate, then McCain probably wouldn't ever go there. With Obama, I think the GOP is keeping an eye on it, but will probably abandon it to try and take FL and OH.

As an Obama supporter, I am cautiously optimistic, but there are also 4+ months to go.

Me too. I'm really wondering though when McCain is going to really kick up his campaign. Surely he hasn't really started yet because if he has, that doesn't bode well for him. It's like he's stuck in neutral like he was at the beginning of the primaries.

Are you kidding? McCain's campaign has to be delighted to only be down by 4 points right now, considering his party has an incumbent president with an approval rating of 20. Obama should be up by 15 or 20 points right now, and if he doesn't have at least a double digit lead at the Democratic convention, he's going to be in big trouble in the general election.

No, I'm not kidding. If he's planning to wait for the convention, the way the polls are trending, he's going to be down by double digits. That's what I'm saying. He's letting people move to Obama and I just don't see how he's planning to get them back once he's lost them. He needs to start staunching the bleeding.

I also disagree about Obama needing double digits at that point. It's the exact same arguments the losing side always uses in cases like these. Exact same argument at the midterms. How did that one turn out?

I don't quite follow you. The head to head polling between Obama and McCain has been remarkably flat for over a year now. Obama's biggest lead was in June 2007, when he was up by 7 points. He should have gotten a 6 or 7 point bump when Clinton withdrew from the race and endorsed him, but the bump was almost non-existant.

Obama vs. McCain Poll Trend

It is w-a-y too early to count anyone in or out based on current polls. That said, I'd rather be Obama than McCain at this immediate point in time.

Be aware, though, that the GOP's 527 organizations -- political advocacy organizations that essentially can accept unlimited donations from individuals without disclosure -- have not yet kicked in. John Kerry was brutalized by some of those (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for one).

And based on some of the overtly racist ads that were sponsored by the TN Republican Party in the 06 Senate race (Corker v Ford), I suspect that you will see some incredibly offensive stuff out there before this election is done. That will be tough for Obama to get through

Certainly, the Dems have 527s and will aggressively go after McCain's record, participation in the Keating scandal, and I suspect that former staffers/Administration officials that he has thrown books at (literally) may bring up his crazy temper. But I think Obama will have a lot tougher time of it.

The racist buttons have already started this season.





hxxp://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/stick-a-pin-in-it.html

I read that the Obama team has hired Stephanie whatshername to be the Chief of Staff for Michelle. If you recalled the post-election writeup from Kerry's embeded reporter, Stephanie was widely criticized as the assistant Communications Director, esp. after the Grand Canyon debacle. One would hope that she has grown up since then in order to serve Michelle.

Is anybody else anxious to see the fireworks that will result from Michelle? She seems rather less polished than her husband and more willing to be racially controversial.

The weird thing about politics is that the same behind the scenes people keep working for the candidates, win or lose. It seems that once you get connected enough to rise to that level, you end up getting to do it every four years until you get tired of it, notwithstanding your results.

She really seems competitive. I get the impression from her that she's very strong-willed and could say something to ruin her husband's chances. They need to keep the focus on him.

Food for thought:

After Attacks, Michelle Obama Looks for a New Introduction

I think she'll be attacked just as much as Theresa Heinz Kerry was attacked in 2004. However, this time I think Cindy McCain will get plenty of attacks on her as well, after all she has plenty of skeletons in her closet.

I don't know if this is snark, but this has been debunked.

Some weak journalism in there...........


It's fine if they want to include that in the article, but cite the actual person making the comment and the context of the comment in the article/report. Fox News and National Review didn't make those statements, but rather someone on their staff made an editorial comment using those terms. It doesn't make the comments right or wrong, but incompletely quoting the comments is nearly as bad and gives further fuel to the NY Times political leanings.

Fantastic.

dola

When it comes out that Michelle stole drugs from her medical charity things will really hit the fan.

This thread is unplayable.

So I assume you believe them to be unbias in their reporting overall?

Look again. The secret is in the post.