First openly gay presidential Canidate!!!!!

[FArchivist]

This is like having a conversation about gravity and someone stepping in and saying, "I need a citation for this that there is a thing called gravity."

Yes, I'm regularly in conversations like that. Especially if on the internet.

A lot of people at my college voted for Obama because they wanted to be part of voting in the first black president. They couldn't tell you anything about how either candidate's opinions on various issues, but that's it.

Now, here's where it gets fun.
The correct response to that is "So you say." What you are presenting is anecdotal information, which can't be corroborated or verified in accordance with the scientific method. How many is a lot? 100? 1,000? 10,000? How do we know what their actual reasons for voting were, since a throw-away statement cannot be trusted? What is the bias in your area? Was the sample random enough? So on and so forth...

Then there were people, who came right out in public and said they weren't voting for some black guy to run our country. Videos of racist people clearly stating they wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black were all over the internet during the campaign period. This meant they were voting for McCain because he was white and not black. There were plenty of open groups during the time who admitted they were voting for their candidate because of the color of their skin.

So they say and so such videos were seen. But were they true? Were they falsely created information? What's the bias? Wherein are the actual facts of the matter?

That's why I do not trust anything that cannot be independently verified by something in any conversation on the internet, unless the subject is purely one of opinion.

Especially if you want a double-blind study. How do you even HAVE a double-blind opinion poll?.

You don't do an opinion poll. You draw a random sample of people, preferably 10,000, and have them do anonymous voting surveys with questions couched in as neutral language as possible. Then you can gauge accuracy at 95% +/- 5%. Standard opinion polls should never be trusted because they don't involve any sort of rigor or true random sampling.

I vote for people, not parties.

I vote for platforms, myself. I don't give a damn about the person; I want to know what their platform and voting record is.

[Ghel]

I vote for platforms, myself. I don't give a damn about the person; I want to know what their platform and voting record is.

I do the same. I just wish it was easier to find a compiled voting record for a candidate, particularly in local elections. I hate having to rely on campaign advertising.

[linguist]

And changing my ways and the way I vote just because I'm not rich or a man doesn't make much sense, either.

Sorry, that argument doesn't work.

But why do you vote the way you vote? Have you ever really examined that? I mean no disrespect by this; I'm genuinely curious. The way you phrased this smacks of stubbornness and Emerson's "foolish consistency"--that is, continuing to do things because you've always done so without really examining why.

I've fallen victim to stubbornness and foolish consistency myself. I grew up in a family of die-hard Republicans. In every election I voted in up to my early twenties I always voted Republican and defended the actions of the party until I was blue in the face. But then I took the time to closely and painfully examine my beliefs and came to realize that my personal beliefs in no way meshed with the policies of the Republican party. I'd simply been parrotting what I'd been taught by my family, and I voted the way I did simply because they did, and they taught me to follow without question. I switched party affiliation when I realized that the Democratic party more closely meshed with my personal beliefs. That's not to say that I won't or haven't voted for a Republican since then, but the fact that the Republican platform clashes with almost every one of my beliefs will lead me to scrutinize a Republican candidate much more closely before I cast my vote.

That's an easy one. There is more to who I am than my sexuality.

Well, you know this, and I know this, but the Republican Party (and I am speaking of the Party here--their leadership, policies, and platform--not individual Republicans) either doesn't know or doesn't care, and will use your sexuality (or level of wealth, gender, etc.) as a weapon against you, to keep you a marginalized second-class citizen. Count me in among those who can't fathom why someone from one of these marginalized groups would support a party with a stated policy of keeping them down.

[smileyeagle1021]

That's an easy one. There is more to who I am than my sexuality.

Not according to the Republican party...
There is still a large segment of the republican party who wants homosexuality defined as a personality disorder that needs to be treated.

eta- this does not mean that there aren't republicans that won't see you as a whole person and not judge you solely on your orientation, but those individuals do not change the party platform or the majority view of party members.

[Andara Bledin]

I do the same. I just wish it was easier to find a compiled voting record for a candidate, particularly in local elections. I hate having to rely on campaign advertising.

Same here.

Things are easy when it's someone you know you don't want in the position running. But when you have someone you kind of don't like and another person who's mostly a mystery, it's voting roulette.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Because the Senators, and even Representatives, of the US are not as bound to their parties as those in, say, Canada or Great Britain-McConnell.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Political parties are like sports teams in the US and its pretty obvious when the Talking Points(tm) for the day get distributed down the rank and file. Especially with Republicans. Plus your party can sink your arse among the Faithful(tm) whenever they want as it takes money and media clout to get very far in American politics. Both of which your party can pull out from under you or sink you with.

Its very hard to run as an independent in the US outside of one of the two major parties. It's also very hard to avoid towing the party line when called upon.

That's an easy one. There is more to who I am than my sexuality.

Yeaaah, about that. People who are actually bothered by other people's sexuality don't tend to give a shit about the rest of who you are. >.>

[KnitShoni]

You honestly believe no one voted for Obama because he's black?

For my part, I believe the numbers of people who voted for Obama because he is Black are much lower than people believe. If race were the major decision-maker in getting him elected, he could have run as a Republican.

[daleduke17]

For my part, I believe the numbers of people who voted for Obama because he is Black are much lower than people believe. If race were the major decision-maker in getting him elected, he could have run as a Republican.

Then why was there such a big deal out of him being black? Why did the media have to keep mentioning his color? Every article I listened to on the news was "The first black President, Barak Obama" (or some form of that sentence). If he was that great of a candidate and race wasn't a campaign point, have the media stop sticking it out there.

[Greenday]

Whether people reported on it or were polled about it, obviously there were going to be people who voted for him because they wanted to be a part of something different or because they wanted to vote in someone black like themselves. I'm not saying all the "trendy hipsters" did this nor that all black people did this. But certain groups stick together. This was one of them. It may not have been enough to win the election but the combination of the two definitely did.

And it's obvious that there are plenty of bigoted people in America who'd never vote for some gay guy, black guy, or woman. If you don't believe this, I'm not sure you've ever left your home.

[Hyena Dandy]

Its a sideshow issue.

The whole "First Black President" thing is like the whole "Hell" thing.

People talk about it a lot, but most Christians aren't only Christians to get out of hell. You ask a Christian "Why are you Christian" they'll probably tell you about love for god, acceptance in a community, how they were treated well by a group of Christians and joined them, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, they still TALK a lot about hell, but they're not really mainly focused on it.

Of course, there are some Christians whose only interest is not going to hell. But its not the majority of them.

Same with Obama voters. I don't think the majority of voters who voted Obama would have not voted for him if he'd not been black.

Barack Obama won popular by 8.5 million votes, which is 12 percent of his total vote count.

To say Obama was elected entirely on the basis of his race, then APPROXIMATELY 12 percent of Obama voters ONLY voted for him because he was black. This means they had no other reason to vote for him. And I'm also assuming in that calculation that NONE of McCain's voters voted McCain because he wasn't black.

I simply don't buy that 12 percent of his popular vote was from hipsters or blacks only voting to be part of electing a black man.

Keep in mind, both of those demographics tend to vote Democrat anyway.







Edit: Yes, I /KNOW/ the way the electoral system works. Just to be clear. I just don't feel like doing the numbers on each and every state Obama won.

[Greenday]

I simply don't buy that 12 percent of his popular vote was from hipsters or blacks only voting to be part of electing a black man.

Well, from the standpoint of who is going to support rights for black people and the issues they care about, who do you think they were going to pick, some old white guy or some young black guy? You don't even have to think about any specific issues to instantly think it's going to be the young black guy. There are also people who wanted to stick it to the man by voting for a black guy. Apparently, black people voted more than any other election in 2008. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf) It's not a shocker as to why this is. The census shows that the youngest age group for voting also drastically increased in voting. It's not because some old conservative white guy was running, that's for sure.

[lordlundar]

Where in that report does it say how they voted and why? Your assuming that all the new voters voted for Obama and only because he was black, when there is no physical evidence either way. Those votes for Obama could have come from 40-50 year old white suburbanites because they had family members serving in Iraq and they wanted them home, which Obama promised. They could have come from senior citizens because they needed support, which Obama had promised. The less well off for the public health care option as well.

As for why the influx in blacks voting, once again all you have is that there was an influx. There's no proof as to who they voted for and why. It could be as much to do for policy as it did for skin colour and they could have voted republican as well. We just plain don't know, and the assumptions you've made do not help your case unless you can prove that those black voters did vote for Obama and that they did so exclusively because he's black.

To summarize, correlation does not equal causation. Don't try to paint off your theory as fact without evidence to back it up.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, from the standpoint of who is going to support rights for black people and the issues they care about, who do you think they were going to pick, some old white guy or some young black guy?

When you get people thoughtful enough to consider which candidate is more likely to support things that benefit them, they would have voted for him due to being a Democrat well before they'd have voted for him for being black. At that point, it's entirely moot.

Where in that report does it say how they voted and why? Your assuming that all the new voters voted for Obama and only because he was black, when there is no physical evidence either way. Those votes for Obama could have come from 40-50 year old white suburbanites because they had family members serving in Iraq and they wanted them home, which Obama promised. They could have come from senior citizens because they needed support, which Obama had promised. The less well off for the public health care option as well.

In several polls, it seems they came from older white bigots who so hated McCain or Palin that they were willing to vote for "the negro" in the words of one individual over the people supposedly representing their own party. A lot of people actually were voting against McCain/Palin and Obama just happened to be the one to vote for in that instance.

As for why the influx in blacks voting, once again all you have is that there was an influx. There's no proof as to who they voted for and why. It could be as much to do for policy as it did for skin colour and they could have voted republican as well.

It could have also been due to the extensive use of social networking, outreach, and awareness programs put into play by Obama's campaign. This was the first major campaign to actually leverage the Internet and make a serious connection with a generation that has grown up not watching the news but getting digests in their morning email.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

To summarize, correlation does not equal causation. Don't try to paint off your theory as fact without evidence to back it up.

So...it's not a fact that in an election where we actually had someone who was young and black, something completely different from the past elections, there was a spike in black voters and young voters?

You're right, it doesn't say who they voted for. But the most logical reason was because of who they most likely were going to vote for (hint: not the old, white guy).

[BlaqueKatt]

Count me among those who doesn't understand why anyone would choose to support a group that actively works to keep them marginalized.

know how I know you didn't read the links provided?

“Being a gay Republicans is kind of an oxymoron,” but “I have been a fighter in my party, I have always been on the more moderate side but I’m also a protégé of Lee Atwater. We need to open up this party and that’s one of my reasons for running. The party should not be dominated by one faction or another. It should be open to all.”

“I want to be a different kind of Republican. The kind of Republican I grew up with. I consider myself to be Progressive. The last Progressive Republican president was over 100 years ago; Theodore Roosevelt,”

Sorry some of us remember what the Republican party used to be and are ACTIVELY WORKING to restore it, rather than just "jumping ship". Yes it's an uphill battle, but remember the "oh so liberal" Democratic party is the political party that OPPOSED civil rights in the 1960's.

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools.

My mother marched in Birmingham, with her African fiance, oh sorry mom I joined the party that assaulted you and Fausey for marching peacefully for equality. I know you fought hard against them but it was just too much work to try and change things, so I went with the path of least resistance, and threw the baby out with the bathwater-you understand, right mom, young people are lazy.