Mr.Nimh- The reason that I asked for your response, is that your response below shows you did not read my post well enough.
quote Mr. Nimh
This 'slippage' doesn't amount remotely to the sort of thing Bernard is claiming - that Americans simply don't dare to express disapproval of a black candidate, or preference for his opponent. That is nonsense, as a cursory glance at the significant enough disapproval rates of Rice's job performance, and the overwhelming disapproval rates of Al Sharpton, shows. I'm guessing the slippage would, instead, be a couple of percentage points.
It doesn't, therefore, change much about Obama's impressive job approval numbers. He's got 72% approval. Even if, "in reality" (something we can never check), it is "only" 68% or 69%, it still means he's got tremendous cross-over appeal, appeals to significant numbers of Bush and former Fitzgerald voters in his state, and ranks among the very best liked Senators in the country. His numbers also remain strikingly favourable in comparison with those of other black politicians, whose numbers would suffer from the same slippage.
End of Quote for Mr. Nimh
YOUR GUESSING THAT THE SLIPPAGE WOULD BE A COUPLE OF PERCENTAGE POINTS IS WRONG.
YOU DID NOT READ THE LINK ACCURATELY> NOTE FROM MY LINK
quote from my link
separate polls of likely voters taken in the final week of the 1989 campaign for governor in Virginia, for example, showed Democrat L. Douglas Wilder leading by 9 to 11 percentage points. Days later, Wilder won the election by less than 7,000 votes -- a margin of four-tenths of a percentage point.
end of quote from my link
That is NOT a slippage of a C O U P L E OF PERCENTAGE POINTS. THAT IS A SLIPPAGE OF 9 to 11 POINTS.
You did not read my link accurately, Mr. Nimh
quote from my link
Conclusion
The sharp differences between amenable and reluctant respondents on race-related questions may offer new insights into the difficulties involved in pre-election polling in biracial elections. In a number of competitive biracial contests in recent decades, surveys conducted even a few days before voters went to the polls have substantially underestimated support for the white candidate.
end of quote.
PLEASE NOTE, MR. NIMH
In a number of competitive biracial contests in recent decades, surveys conducted even a few days before have S U B S T A N T I A L L Y underestimated support for the white candidate.
SUBSTANTIALLY IS NOT AND CAN NOT BE EQUATED WITH YOUR CLAIM OF A COUPLE OF PERCENTAGE POINTS.
I am telling you that if Obama had not run against another African-American but had run against a non-retiring Senator Fitzgerald, he would not have been elected!!!!
soz said
Quote:The idea of her becoming president seems positively third-worldian -- two dynasties, two names, 24 years (if she served one term, 28 if she served two).
Here's another odd idea which suggests something quite inaccurate, I think. Certainly, one can look at the Bush family and ascribe to its social/political role as something pretty much like oligarchy or dynasty through generations and extended family connections in positions of power.
But Clinton's family?! Let's differentiate where we ought.
blatham wrote: But Clinton's family?! Let's differentiate where we ought.
I agree. The Democratic equivalent of the Bush family is the Kennedys, not the Clintons. And while I understand the anti-Ted-Kennedy resentments in America even less than the anti-Hillary resentments, I'd be much less comfortable with a president Kennedy II than with a president Clinton II.
Thomas wrote:
... I understand the anti-Ted-Kennedy resentments in America even less than the anti-Hillary resentments,
Perhaps you don't know that Kennedy was responsible for the death of a young woman, while Hillary , as far as we know, never
was the cause of such an act.
Your commentary forgot to bow.
Good Grief! President Kennedy didn't kill anyone. Teddy Kennedy went off a bridge drunk with a young woman and tried to cover it up...BIG MISTAKE!
I am trying to think of what this has to do with Obama....
Kinda wondering the same thing.
Obama is an interesting orator, for sure. Still, he's a democrat from the Nazi state of Illinois. So, I distrust him by default.
What's Nazi about Illinois?
snood wrote:What's Nazi about Illinois?
\Apparently it is full of negro liberal socialist/communist democrats.
and gun laws
there have to be nasty, stinky, dirty gun laws in Illinois
every freakin' left-wing commie knows that
(did you lose your manual, Snood?)
http://nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=IL
Chicago. Daley. Meigs (property seizure). Nazi gun laws. No castle doctrine. Government by the government, for the government.
What's Nazi about Chicago? You might look at history.
Hmmm....I love Chicago. Lived there from 91-97 when my husband was at the U. of Chicago. Great town...great people....great restaurants...great arts...great Senators and that includes Obama. It isn't Nazi, but it is a political town and though it doesn't have the BOSS it used to have, it is WHO you know. Obama is not from that ilk to my knowledge. He lives in Hyde Park/Kenwood where I lived and they really like him. That area is ideal... a real neighborhood around the university. You know your neighbors and you feel the community. Not something I feel here in Maryland. When my friends say Obama is for real, I believe them.
BernardR wrote:Mr.Nimh- The reason that I asked for your response, is that your response below shows you did not read my post well enough.
quote Mr. Nimh
[..] I'm guessing the slippage would, instead, be a couple of percentage points. [..]
End of Quote for Mr. Nimh
YOUR GUESSING THAT THE SLIPPAGE WOULD BE A COUPLE OF PERCENTAGE POINTS IS WRONG.
YOU DID NOT READ THE LINK ACCURATELY> [..] That is NOT a slippage of a C O U P L E OF PERCENTAGE POINTS. THAT IS A SLIPPAGE OF 9 to 11 POINTS.
Dear Bernard,
I am glad to see you finally got round to reading the
first of my two replies to your points about "racial slippage".
I hope you will now proceed to read my second reply to you on the matter - the one I wrote
after you posted that Pew piece.
The one I've linked in at least three times already now.
This one.
To give you a teaser of whats in there:
nimh wrote:Your article talks of "slippage" - I already wrote that, even without reading any article about it, I was already assuming that there would be - just on gut feeling.
Where we differ is how you apply this bit of information. [..] I admit that I was surprised that the slippage was up to 10% in Wilder's case, but that was Virginia, and almost twenty years ago. Again more on gut feeling than anything else, I'd say that 17 years on, nation-wide, the slippage would be distinctly smaller, though of course still there.
There's the difference. I would say that the "racial slippage" in polling numbers means that if, as I wrote, Obama would hypothetically run for Presidency as the Democratic nominee, and in "the final week of the campaign is ahead by one or two percentage points, I would be very worried indeed." But if, like now, he gets a chart-topping 72% job approval rate, no realistic amount of "racial slippage" would change much about the fact that he's apparently greatly popular, with a cross-over appeal to Republicans/Independents. I mean, take 5% off of that rate, and its still near the very top of Senator approval rates.
The "racial slippage" you cite doesnt suddenly make all polling worthless. It just means you have to factor in a difference. The difference however will never be enough to turn a 72% approval rating into something merely mediocre or negative.
blatham wrote:Certainly, one can look at the Bush family and ascribe to its social/political role as something pretty much like oligarchy or dynasty through generations and extended family connections in positions of power.
But Clinton's family?! Let's differentiate where we ought.
Thats splitting hairs though. Whether its from father to son or from husband to wife - one way or another youve got two families ruling the country for up to 28 years in a row on your hands.
That
is positively ... like Mozambique, or India or something.
Don't like it. Even if Jeb were Robert Kennedy incarnate, I'd fight that coronation. There's something very wrong with American Presidential dynasties.
Talking about Hillary...
triple ouch.
Quote:On Taegan Goddard's Political Wire today: [..]
In a hypothetical 2008 presidential matchup, a new Siena Research Institute poll found that Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would lose among New York voters to Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain.
Clinton Would Lose in New York to Giuliani and McCain
Giuliani would beat Clinton, 48% to 42%, while McCain would win, 46% to 42%.
link
nimh wrote:blatham wrote:Certainly, one can look at the Bush family and ascribe to its social/political role as something pretty much like oligarchy or dynasty through generations and extended family connections in positions of power.
But Clinton's family?! Let's differentiate where we ought.
Thats splitting hairs though. Whether its from father to son or from husband to wife - one way or another youve got two families ruling the country for up to 28 years in a row on your hands.
That
is positively ... like Mozambique, or India or something.
Perhaps it is my age with the inevitable losses up top but this is a hair worth attending to, at least one more brief time.
I understand your point, and it is odd and unusual to have a wife follow her husband in a leadership role. But "dynasty" just isn't the accurate concept here. Even when you use the term 'family' as you have (the suggestion of equivalence in the two cases) you are erasing the salient differences...two people as compared with dozens(?), one generation compared with three or four, or the differences in branching connections out from the family members out into other entities which have sat at the apex of power for generations. Now, if Chelsea goes on to a presidential run or if her children go on to head up the CIA or Exxon or CBS with cousins and friends spread through corporate boardrooms, I'll buy into the analogy.
That's true. The Bush family has had many people at the top politically and financially for generations.
Clinton was a poor Arkansas kid who made it to the top. Now, eight years later, his wife is making a run for the job. But that's it. No other relatives in the seats of power or influence.
Perhaps Chelsea might end up being important sometime in the future-she isn't now. But that's as far as it goes for now.
Vietnamnurse wrote: Obama is not from that ilk to my knowledge. He lives in Hyde Park/Kenwood where I lived and they really like him. That area is ideal... a real neighborhood around the university. You know your neighbors and you feel the community.
How could you possibly call HYDE_PARK/Kenwood a "real" neighborhood. What you have there is a predominately white area, surrounded by miles and miles of slums with poor, underpriveleged, gun toting violent gangs, waiting to take a shot at "whitie".
As far as obama is concerned, living in his Hyde Park home, for sure this guy realizes that Hyde Park is a dangerous area within which to live. His front door has either 3 or 4 locks on it. I've lost count of the exact number.
Something tells me that Hyde Park is not a nice neighborhood within which to live and rear a family. As far was I remember, Hyde Park hasn't been such a nice place for the past 40+ years. Have you ever checked out the sizes of the guns the University of Chicago cops carry or as importantly, check out the dental work on the guard dogs used by the security guards.
If you want to know Chicago, ask someone, who was born and reared in the City and who's not PC.
