 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 743/886 |
Originally posted by ||bass I think that even here in the South voting will go more by party lines than by the race issue. Sure, the dems would lose some of the white vote that would normally vote democratic, but not too much, I think. The party issue has become such a divisive issue that I believe it'll largely overshadow racism. |
| emcee Posts: 833/867 |
I don't think an overwhelming percent of voters will go to the polls and specifically not vote for a candidate because of they're black or a woman (although a lot will), many more will rationalize (to themselves as well as other) a vote against a candidate with other reasons, when in reality they're just not comfortable with their race or gender.
And although there would probably be more prejudice against a woman (specifically in the position of Commander in Chief of the military), Hillary still has an advantage just in numbers. There's more women than black people. In fact, Hillary may have an advantage over any man, not just a black one. Millions of women who don't even normally vote will likely go to the polls just so there'll be a female president. |
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 741/886 |
I would never vote for a liberal candidate either way. I'd be happy to see a female president or a black president or a female black president or whatever. But not from the Democratic party =P |
| pix Posts: 3/8 |
Originally posted by ||bassOriginally posted by pixYou think Obama's being black will make it any easier? If Obama gets run, the Dems can kiss votes from the entire south and midwest goodbye. Lets just say that there are plenty of people in this country who firmly believe that it isn't called the WHITE House for nothing. it's not gonna make it EASIER, but i think its not gonna be as big a problem as being a woman. |
| ||bass Posts: 588/594 |
Originally posted by pixYou think Obama's being black will make it any easier? If Obama gets run, the Dems can kiss votes from the entire south and midwest goodbye. Lets just say that there are plenty of people in this country who firmly believe that it isn't called the WHITE House for nothing. |
| pix Posts: 2/8 |
It's a hard question, but I think Obama would have a higher chance of winning than Clinton. Not only is Clinton a woman, which makes it impossible for her to win, she is also a Clinton. Obama may be black but he is still a politician that is respected by many people. |
| ||bass Posts: 587/594 |
In all honesty, I don't think the general American public is ready to elect either of them. |
| Silvershield Posts: 581/587 |
Whatever the outcome of the Democratic primaries may be, I think it's fairly obvious that whichever candidate they elect will have at least a preliminary advantage in the presidential race. Unless something drastic happens in the next two years, or unless the Republicans pull a wonder-candidate out of thin air. That's all been said before, I know, but I think it bears mentioning when considering how electable the two currently leading Democrats are. |
| Ziff Posts: 1724/1800 |
I haven't made note of that at all. I just brough up the fact that there is a history of inciting fear in the electorate. Personally, I don't feel that enough people in the US hold such deeply misogynistic views to swing the vote that hard. In addition, even some conservative women who don't like Hillary may feel inclined to vote for her. The post-feminist women's movement (women for women's rights without holding to feminist norms) have an odd sort of solidarity. |
| Arwon Posts: 598/631 |
Wow, I'm in the odd position of being more optimistic than most of you about the people of the US. I can't see how the woman-ness or black-ness of one of the two candidates is going to have more than a quite-small negative impact on voting patterns. The overtly racist or misogynist vote in America IS NOT THAT BIG.
Especially since, let's be honest, the sort of person who wouldn't vote for someone because they're a woman, or because they're black, isn't likely to vote for the Democrats anyway. On the flipside, there's probably a sizable number of people who actually really WANT to vote for a black candidate, or a woman candidate, to the extent that it would HELP them get votes. Especially right now, after the last 6 years, people are probably going to want something as different from "politics as usual" as possible. 2008 might well be a Carter moment, in that regard. |
| Young Guru Posts: 269/279 |
Ok, first off, SS you're reading too much into this. This is only a dig at the right in that I would place myself so far left that 99% of the US is to the right of me. Secondly, voting for someone because they won your party's primary is not a good reason to vote for them. You vote for someone because they are better than the other candindate and I would vote for a republican if I thought they were the better candidate (I will admit that in most cases the views of the republican candidate will greatly clash with mine so I wouldn't vote for them).
Secondly, I think this is important because I believe a good portion of people who are democrats would still have concerns about voting for a black (I guess this is the term we're going to be using here) candidate or a female candidate. The reason I excluded the topic to just these two is because I didn't want someone to say, "Oh, neither, I'd vote for Edwards or Lieberman" |
| Ziff Posts: 1718/1800 |
Well, Obama is genuinely African American. He is a Kenyan-American  |
| Silvershield Posts: 580/587 |
Originally posted by emceeTo my eye, it's a hypothetical: Originally posted by Young GuruBut, let me repeat for the third time, I could be misreading it. I'm not here aiming to start problems, I just found myself a bit put-off by the way the situation was presented. |
| Xkeeper Posts: 5447/5653 |
Hilary Clinton would probably win:
- Clinton is still a known name - Better known (that I've seen) - Opposing canidate is black* Unfortunately, there's still the stigma of OMG A BLACK PRESIDENT??!?!? and/or OMG A FEMAL EPRESIDENT??!!!?..///, so... (Personally, I don't care who wins. Either one of them would probably make a good canidate regardless of gender or race.) * I say black because "african-american" is a stupid catch-all phrase that implies a) being African and b) being American, and not all blacks or so called "A-A"s fall into this category |
| emcee Posts: 832/867 |
I don't see how it could be a dig at the right wing. This is about the Democratic primaries. The right wing has nothing to do with it. |
| Silvershield Posts: 579/587 |
Beat it like a dead horse? I mentioned it once, and then other people responded to it and so I continued to address it. |
| Ziff Posts: 1717/1800 |
Look, SS, you brought up the left-right thing and then beat it like a dead horse. |
| Silvershield Posts: 578/587 |
Originally posted by ZiffI don't see why, if I write in a perfectly non-confrontational tone, you feel the need to make it into a confrontation... If it's really about the "Hillary or Obama will ruin America, and so that's why you should be afraid of them!" rhetoric that the right supposedly uses, rather than "Hillary and Obama are not WASPs, and that's why you should be afraid of them!" then couldn't the left be considered "afraid" of any of the right-wing candidates? Because you can bet that the left uses the same sort of "x Republican candidate will ruin America" propaganda that the right does, and it seems that those sort of statements can be equated to outright fear of a candidate himself rather that simple distaste for the candidate's politics. |
| Ziff Posts: 1715/1800 |
It isn't a dig at the right wing. It is talking about the usual bipartisan HE WILL RUIN AMERICA BECAUSE mongering that is used in every single election.
But I guess if the right want to feel victimized all the time... _¬ |
| Silvershield Posts: 577/587 |
Originally posted by Young GuruNo doubt that fear is used to great effect by many politicians of our day. I just don't think the term could be extended to describe the way that the American public views the two leading Democrat candidates. Like I said, I could be reading it wrong, but it truly does sound like a dig at the right wing. A left-winger certainly couldn't be called "afraid" of either candidate because he would be likely to vote for whichever one wins the primaries, while a right-winger would likely not vote for them and, instead of chalking that reluctance up to partisan politics, it's called "fear." |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
