chappy,

It's one thing to say that in places with a history of racism that there is racism. There is clearly racism in this country. And it will exhibit itself both ways in this election. There are counties out there who will never elect a black man, and there are counties out there that will never elect a white man.

But that is not the majority of America. Not even close. To paint the disapproval of Obama as a skin color issue is disgusting rhetoric. But if Obama loses watch for the media to play up that angle. :big thumbs down:

I think you are white-washing the problem, but it is unimportant because CNN just called the race for Thomas Dewey.

[COLOR="White"]White-washing...I kill me.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=chappy;317210]I think you are white-washing the problem...[/QUOTE]How so? Obama got elected last time, by a decent margin. The only way he won't be re-elected is that those who voted for him change their minds. It won't be because of racism.

It looks like I won't convince you, but let me try one last time. By saying that this election is merely about skin color, one is attempting to paint everyone (or at least a significant percentage of those) who vote against (and for) Obama as racists. It creates a divisive and race-baiting narrative. But the simple fact is, this election is not about race. It is about the economy, Libya, and a host of other bigger issues. Most people will simply vote party lines, but the election will be decided by those who are independents who previously voted for Obama.

To reiterate, I'm not saying there isn't racism in the US. But to race-bait and try to drive a wedge in this election when skin color is not the driving issue, is just another form of racism and should be opposed. (Especially when it is accompanied by religious bigotry.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;317257] By saying that this election is merely about skin color, [/QUOTE]

no one said that except you as a strawman argument.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;317257]one is attempting to paint everyone (or at least a significant percentage of those) who vote against (and for) Obama as racists[/QUOTE]

What is a "significant percentage" of an election that could be decided by a couple thousand votes out of 123 million?

The fact is that Missouri's electoral votes went to McCain despite the fact that Democrats did well in every statewide race except for the black guy. That pressure is enough that Missouri is no longer considered a swing state.

To reiterate, no one ever said that Race was the only (or even the preeminent) issue in this election. But to claim that because there are racists on both sides the issue balances itself out doesn't fit with the facts. And to claim that in this relatively tight election when the 2000 election was decided by .0006 % of the votes (less than 700/102m) that is doesn't matter is burying your head in the sand. (2004 was decided by a few hundred thousand Ohioans not being allowed to vote-inadequate numbers of voting booths in poorer urban areas 1 machine per 1000 voters vs. 1 machine per 184 voters in the suburbs)

Consider that all across the South Evangelicals are voting for the guy they think is a Cultist rather than the Black guy. And they justify it by actually believing that he is a Kenyon born Communist/Atheist/Muslim or whatever combination of the above that soothes their conflicted sensibilities. (I don't mean to single out the Southern Evangelicals--that is merely their stronghold where they actually determine the electoral vote. See Georgia for example.)

I submit that if Bronco Bama were a white dude named John Smith then we wouldn't even be bothering with an election because nobody likes Romney.

An Energon Cube in every pot!

Well said, Chappy. Hear Hear!

EDIT: .....to the second post above.
The sign is pretty funny, too. I wonder if someone had it printed, or if this is Photoshop work. I'll have to pass it along to a friend who delights in making such things.

[QUOTE=chappy;317261]I submit that if Bronco Bama were a white dude named John Smith then we wouldn't even be bothering with an election because nobody likes Romney.[/QUOTE]

If I understand your correctly, you believe that if Obama were white that he would easily win this election. I disagree with that. You assume that racism only works against Obama. Can you (or anyone else) provide statistics regarding the number or percentage of people who vote strictly on race, broken down by race?

IMO the economy is the biggest driver in this election. As much as a sleaze that Bill Clinton was (and probably still is), much of his victory in 1996 was due to the strong economy. The same could be said for George W. Bush in 2004, even though he was a puppet. There are people who will vote for Romney (whether they like him or not) because they believe that he has a better chance of solving the problems facing the US than Obama.

[QUOTE=chappy;317261]no one said that except you as a strawman argument.[/quote]They said, "But let's all be honest, shall we -- this is what this race (no joke intended) has come down to."

The election has not come down to this. Let me try one more time to explain why (as you seem to think I'm saying things I'm not).

[quote]What is a "significant percentage" of an election that could be decided by a couple thousand votes out of 123 million?[/quote]Again, you have to take the election out of its historical roots to try and make this about race.

If Americans show up with just the *same* percentages they did in 2008, and vote the same parties at the same levels, Obama wins. Same deal with independents. Or women, or blacks, or lots of other groups.

Yes, the election *may* come down to a couple thousand votes. Yes, a couple thousand votes (probably more) may be cast for racist reasons. However, here is the kicker, many millions more will be cast for non-racist reasons. To say that it was the few thousand racist votes which decided the election ignores (1) the few million non-racist votes which made it close in the first place, and (2) the other non-racist reasons which might have tipped the scales of those few thousand votes. For example, according to the polls, the hurricane Sandy is having more of an effect on polls in swing states than racism ever would.

Does racism have an effect? Yes. Is it the main one? No. Will it be the deciding issue? Not unless we ignore the other larger effects in play and focus on that one issue (among many others).

[quote]The fact is that Missouri's electoral votes went to McCain despite the fact that Democrats did well in every statewide race except for the black guy. That pressure is enough that Missouri is no longer considered a swing state.[/quote]This [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Missouri,_2008"]wiki[/URL] article doesn't seem to support some of your contentions.

It is often the case that presidential elections go differently than other statewide races.

I wouldn't view a 0.1% win as changing a state's swing state status.

[quote]To reiterate, no one ever said that Race was the only (or even the preeminent) issue in this election.[/quote]Yes, yes they did. They said this is what the race has "come down to". They said that we have a choice between the "black guy" and the "white guy" and that we don't want a Mormon as president.

[quote]But to claim that because there are racists on both sides the issue balances itself out doesn't fit with the facts. [/quote]You need to read my posts a little more thoroughly. I didn't say racism balances out. (In fact, I have no data, one way or the other, which racism will have more effect.)

[quote]And to claim that in this relatively tight election when the 2000 election was decided by .0006 % of the votes (less than 700/102m) that is doesn't matter is burying your head in the sand.[/quote]Of course it matters. But you have no idea which *way* it matters. And, it matters much much less than all of the other issues which have made this a tight election.

[quote] Consider that all across the South Evangelicals are voting for the guy they think is a Cultist rather than the Black guy. And they justify it by actually believing that he is a Kenyon born Communist/Atheist/Muslim or whatever combination of the above that soothes their conflicted sensibilities. (I don't mean to single out the Southern Evangelicals--that is merely their stronghold where they actually determine the electoral vote. See Georgia for example.)

I submit that if Bronco Bama were a white dude named John Smith then we wouldn't even be bothering with an election because nobody likes Romney.[/QUOTE]I submit you have no evidence of such a claim, it is partisan, and using it to race-bait is racism at its finest.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;317269]
This [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Missouri,_2008"]wiki[/URL] article doesn't seem to support some of your contentions.
[/QUOTE]

the wiki you point out exactly supports my contention perhaps you didn't bother to read it?

[QUOTE] Rural Northern Missouri, which Bill Clinton did win, voted against Obama by a three-to-two margin. Obama also lost much of rural Southeast Missouri. Unlike Northern and Southwest Missouri, Southeast Missouri, which strongly backed Bill Clinton both times, is more Democratic at the local and state levels. [/QUOTE]

or if we dig a[URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/missouri_politics_why_the_swing_state_is_now_a_red_state_.html"] little deeper[/URL]:

perhaps you feel that this is isolated only to Missouri. I haven't looked elsewhere because I live here. But that seems a bold claim that would require at least some evidence.

[QUOTE=chappy;317273]the wiki you point out exactly supports my contention perhaps you didn't bother to read it?[/QUOTE]

There are certainly indications that race could have been a factor in Missouri in 2008, but there is no proof of it. Here is one statement from the article:

[quote]Even Bill Clinton could not win Southwest Missouri in 1992 despite the fact that he won the state by double digits. Rural Northern Missouri, which Bill Clinton did win, voted against Obama by a three-to-two margin.[/quote]

but that doesn't prove racism.

[QUOTE=rogue;317275]There are certainly indications that race could have been a factor in Missouri in 2008, but there is no proof of it. Here is one statement from the article:



but that doesn't prove racism.[/QUOTE]

Southwest is not the same as Southeast. try again.

SW is heavily republican and has been for the last century. Southeast otoh, which votes (except for Cape Girardeau home of Rush Limbaugh) reliably Democratic went for a republican presidential candidate, while overwhelmingly for Democrats in all state offices. In fact 70% of the primary voters voted for Hillary Clinton in the bootheel, while less than 50% voted for Obama in the election.