• I am not sure I understand you.

  • I don't even know who you are. This is generally about the arguments presented to me, not the person.

  • Really? You can honestly discuss race in America? So pointing out that black voters voted for Obama because he was black is okay then? Or that women voters voted for Clinton based  on the fact she's the same gender? That's all good to discuss? Oh, wait, no because it's sexism and racism to say that people may have those motives. Really, what you mean is we can discuss it so long as its within your comfort zone rather than a frank discussion of how id politics affects our voting behavior. Since we are talking politics rather than critiquing comedy shows, I would think thats the form of discussion that we should be having, but we aren't.

  • Your post has little or nothing to do with mine. Why did you post where you did? I also don't understand why some of you don't get that not all of us are Clinton supporters. That's your world view. I see little if any difference between a Clinton Presidency and the one being promised by Obama. I care about the general election, not the primary. I do, however, if you bother to read my diaries on this subject- have a long running general interest in the affects of id politics without regard to your candidate or their candidate. My analysis reflects that. Your- again- I am not sure how its even relevant other than a "this is how I feel about Clinton." I mean sure you stuck in the ID politics, but that was mostly just to get out unconnected points. In other words, uou used the pretense of discussing id politics, but then substantively ignored what I said in favor of candidate specific clinton bad, obama good discussion. I am the wrong guy for that. Just no longer  interested.

  • comment on a post Geraldine Ferraro Is Not A Racist over 6 years ago

    by the way- the same issues I raise here about race can be raised about how gender has played out.

  • comment on a post Geraldine Ferraro Is Not A Racist over 6 years ago

    It's not racists, but amongst a Democratic primary, and amongst the psychology of id politics that pervades, honesty about race right now isn't allowed. It's really that simple. I've tried as an actual black guy to have these conversations to be told one of several things and sometimes all : a) I am a racist ; b) I am not black ; c) He can't discuss race because he's black, and apparently for him to talk about it is to let others know (a humorous paraphrase of one arguments I'v heard); d) white liberals aren't capable of being racist based on the fact they support him; e) why does this even matter? it sounds like an academic discussion (yes someone actually said talking about race is an academic discussion); f) and multiple others that I am not remembering. I read the comments by Ferraro- they were bothersome, but then I thought about my own views of how race has played out thus far. Right  now, I am really concern that race isn't being discussed here honestly. What you get when you bring it up is a lot of defensiveness. I would feel a lot better if it were discussed and addressed rather than defensive posturing over it. These are things that are going to be out there regardless and dealing with them is better. I also like the false assertion that if one brings up this issue, that means one thinks that this is an either one has a racial component or one like obama for othe reasons. of course, one can have race as a part of the mix, annd as you say be caught up in the historical value of such a candidacy.

    I made the mistake of asking a rather blunt question-- "if Obama were white, would he have the same support he has now?" I don't know, but the question certainly did piss a lot of people off.  Including again one person saying I am not black and am a liar for bringing up the question.

  • on a comment on The 50-State Strategy In Action over 6 years ago

    Exactly. One way thing is to not apply double standards whether they are for Clinton or Obama.

  •  that's not the argument being made in general. It began with Obama's coattails and now its Obama's message. Two very different concepts. One is about the person, and the later is about messaging. only a subset was making the messaging argument, and of that subset there is a tendency to blur the difference.

  •  that's not the argument being made in general. It began with Obama's coattails and now its Obama's message. Two very different concepts. One is about the person, and the later is about messaging. only a subset was making the messaging argument, and of that subset there is a tendency to blur the difference.

  • I am perfectly willing to accept that Obama has coattails nationally if it is shown. I am not willing to accept the poor arguments being made here that running with this  homestate race as a sign of that. That's about all I can add at this point.

  • What you are saying is that because people make assumptions based on elections that tells us their assumptions are what? RIght? Other than trying to get me to shut up, I am not exactly sure what your point is in saying people make assumptions. I mean- the DLC thought that triangulation was an effective strategy based on Bill Clinton's win.  If the assumptions are wrong, are you arguing no one should "beat the horse" of pointing out the assumptions are wrong? We shouldn't be skeptical or question assumptions?  We shouldn't try to figure out whether it was Obama or the messaging from Foster that won?  I guess someone better tell the blogs this. I am sure "Crashing the Gates" was all about just accepting assumptions that come about from CW.

  • Fascinating, so his winning on a Democratic message is the same as him wnning because he won on Obama's coattails? Because that's the only way my point is moot. By the way, the question is whether Obama has coattails in the national election, which is the slight of hand that's been going on since the win was announced last night.

  • comment on a post My attempt at the HRC math over 6 years ago

    The math depends on whether you count popular vote or pledged delegates, and if way,t he math sucks because it's not going to produce a decisive winner precisely there is more than one calculus going on here.

  • on a comment on My attempt at the HRC math over 6 years ago

    But that's only bad if it doesn't support your candidate (insert Clinton or Obama) and good if it does (Insert Clinton or Obama). I now call this part of the primary cycle the silly season because its almost like memory is running day to day, week to week. I heard some talking head say the same thing the other day. One commentator said- you know it seems very different from what they said last week- and the other guy responded, "yeah, but that's true of all of them."

  • That would be nice, but that's not what everyone is saying. In fact, as I and others continue to make the argument against the first thrust- namely Obama has coattails-- the arguments have started to shift quite a bit.  Growing up to me means by the way that I should question what I am being told until I am satisifed with the answer or I realize there isn't one. I am not sure what it means to you.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads