Obama '08?

Lash wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
I was going to edit the post to add:

"How many black senators and governors have we elected in our entire history?

We're talking about the country's readiness now.

Jeez, I always thought US history encompassed everything that has occurred and has been recorded up until this moment. Unlike your blatant Red Herring, it is a very relevant question.

0 Replies

He looks like a young Doug Wilder, former governor of Virginia....?

0 Replies

It's not relevent at all, actually.

No one is suggesting that blacks could have been elected during slavery....Jim Crow....the 60's....

Only now.

You are completely off topic.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

nimh wrote:
The lack of blacks who've made it so far into prominent elected office. And more in particular, the lack of blacks who've been elected into office so far in districts that were not majority black.

I asked this before.

How many blacks run for office?

[..]

Snood's, or nimh's, assertion is that

1) We can tell the country is not ready for blacks in high office because

2) There are so few in office.

I assert that #2 is not proof of #1.

Well, what is the/your alternative explanation of why there are so few blacks in prominent elected office - and that much fewer still are elected in districts that arent majority black?

Yes, I would say that the lack of them is an indication of the unfeasibility of their winning.

The alternative is ... what? That blacks somehow have a disproportional collective unwillingness or inability to run and be elected to office?

0 Replies

I don't have to have an alternative.

You just haven't proven your assertion.

0 Replies

nimh:

Quote:

The alternative is ... what? That blacks somehow have a disproportional collective unwillingness or inability to run and be elected to office?

Real subtle how that implication remains unspoken, huh?

0 Replies

Today's cloudy and cold, and I'm feeling less optimistic. (Will **** spring get here and STAY here already?!! Grrr...)

Anyway, one thing I've said before that I'm revisiting now is that I think it's more likely that the black and/ or woman president threshold will be crossed by a Republican than a Democrat. :-? Not because Republicans are more enlightened, as a group -- kind of the opposite, in fact.* Goes something like:

Republican: Well, he/she's (black and/or female) but has good, solid, Republican principles so I'd be willing to vote for him/ her anyway.

Democrat: Well, he/she's got Republican princples but it would be so cool would to finally have a (black and/or female) president so I'd be willing to vote for him/ her anyway.

*Note, some Republicans are in fact enlightened, and some Democrats are in fact racist idiots -- talking generally about the two groups.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I don't have to have an alternative.

You just haven't proven your assertion.

I submit that the absence of a credible alternative explanation suffices as "proof" for the purpose of this discussion.

If you disagree that there is no credible alternative explanation (for the lack of blacks in elected office), then please explicitize what alternative explanation exactly you have in mind.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Today's cloudy and cold, and I'm feeling less optimistic. (Will **** spring get here and STAY here already?!! Grrr...)

Anyway, one thing I've said before that I'm revisiting now is that I think it's more likely that the black and/ or woman president threshold will be crossed by a Republican than a Democrat. :-? Not because Republicans are more enlightened, as a group -- kind of the opposite, in fact.* Goes something like:

Republican: Well, he/she's (black and/or female) but has good, solid, Republican principles so I'd be willing to vote for him/ her anyway.

Democrat: Well, he/she's got Republican princples but it would be so cool would to finally have a (black and/or female) president so I'd be willing to vote for him/ her anyway.

*Note, some Republicans are in fact enlightened, and some Democrats are in fact racist idiots -- talking generally about the two groups.

Yup - pity, ain't it? We could get some spineless clone who would tow the party line and satisfy everyone's need for PC window dressing...
This is a scenario I hadn't given serious thought, sozobe. I guess its more possible to get a black president (just for this reason) than I have previously conceded.

Just for the record - Obama's being black is just frosting on the cake for me - what I like about him is much deeper and larger than that.

0 Replies

I think that both Habibi and Snood are far too willing to imagine a degree of racism based upon the number of blacks holding high office than is actually warranted by the reality of electoral politics in the United States. The bottom line is that running for office, and especially for national office, costs enormous sums of money. John Kennedy will likely prove to have been the last wealthy man prepared to run on his own money (or, actually, old Joe Kennedy's money), and you can bet that he took every contribution he could get.

Campaigning is just too damned expensive for an individual or a small collective to manage the funding. At the lowest local levels, black and female candidates suffer little to no disadvantage in a run for office. But at state and national levels, and in municipal races for huge municipalities (NY, LA, Chicago, etc.), the sums of money required are prohibitive. Whether or not the electorate is as racist as Snood would seem to want to imply (something which i doubt), the germane question is whether or not those with deep enough pockets to make substantial campaign contributions (usually corporate entities, or corporate cartel front organizations) consider this or that condidate viable. For Obama to have successfully run for the Senate from Illinois, he had to have had a good deal of financial backing, and then very quickly have proven himself to be a contender. Had he faltered, or failed to show promise from the outset, it is just unlikely that he would have gotten the Democratic Party support necessary to get the campaign contributions he needed.

In the final analysis, it is entirely possible that blacks and women stand a far better chance with the electorate than they do with the party organizations and the campaign contributors without whom a viable campaign is just not possible.

0 Replies

Yeah. What I love is how he's INSPIRING. Positive, uplifting, proactive, breath of fresh air. He says that things can be better and lays out how and ya know it makes SENSE. You believe him.

What I've wanted since Bill Clinton is a Democrat who was just plain likeable -- who had the ideas and the charisma too.

Obama really seems to have that.

We'll see.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

It's not relevent [sic]at all, actually.

No one is suggesting that blacks could have been elected during slavery....Jim Crow....the 60's....

Only now.

You are completely off topic.

While You are completely off kilter. No black Governor has been elected in our recent history. Nada. Zip. Zilch. It is your burden to prove why prejudice against black candidates has somehow magically disappeared.

I guess maybe black candidates just lack the necessities?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The bottom line is that running for office, and especially for national office, costs enormous sums of money. [..] At the lowest local levels, black and female candidates suffer little to no disadvantage in a run for office. But at state and national levels, and in municipal races for huge municipalities (NY, LA, Chicago, etc.), the sums of money required are prohibitive. Whether or not the electorate is [..] racist [..], the germane question is whether or not those with deep enough pockets to make substantial campaign contributions (usually corporate entities, or corporate cartel front organizations) consider this or that condidate viable.

Well, quite.

I dont think that you so much refute our stance (if I can assume to talk for Snood as well for a sec), as rather complete it by filling in details.

Part of the obstacle for blacks to be elected to prominent office, I truly believe, is residual reluctance among the white electorate. I'd bet that a comparison between the chance of a black candidate being elected in a majority-black constituency versus the chance of him/her being elected in a mixed constituency would show a disproportion significantly greater than that of the population percentages. (No, its not just a personal belief, Ive read about it too, but have no links at hand.)

But yes, of course, the system is slanted against minorities in many other ways that block or narrow access to prominent elected office as well. I think thats actually a point of prime importance.

For example, it is part of the answer to Lash's question about what might stop blacks from even running a campaign in the first place.

But elected officials are elected in the US the way they are, including the money question. So it doesn't really matter where in the system which blockades are how high - if overall the blockades are high enough to block proportional numbers of blacks from being elected, then the end conclusion is the same regarding "the country's readiness --or lack of--to elect someone other than a white male."

The electorate isn't "over the colour issue"; the parties are still hesitant to put black candidates up for mixed electorates; the financers wouldnt even go there, for fear of a black candidate not being "viable"; etc. Those are all elements that play into the same pessimistic assessment: that the country isn't probably ready to elect a black into an office like the Presidency.

Not to say I wouldnt like to see 'em try, mind you -- and, to remain the dark cynic here for one moment longer, and at the same time play into Soz's conclusion earlier: ideally, it would be the other party to try.

I mean, think about it. In the (IMHO improbable) case that Republicans would make the bold jump of electing Rice as its nominee, then, well: either she wins, proving Snood and me wrong about a black woman being unelectable - and you have your first black President - good. Or we are right and therefore she'd lose even just because of colour - but at least you'd have a Democratic President again - also good. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

While You are completely off kilter. No black Governor has been elected in our recent history. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Douglas Wilder, Virginia, 1990-1994.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
I don't have to have an alternative.

You just haven't proven your assertion.

I submit that the absence of a credible alternative explanation suffices as "proof" for the purpose of this discussion.

If you disagree that there is no credible alternative explanation (for the lack of blacks in elected office), then please explicitize what alternative explanation exactly you have in mind.

I submit your pants are down, and another step will put your face on the floor. Laughing

I do have a credible alternate explanation, which you will get when you prove your assertion.

Otherwise, I'd stand very still if I were you :wink:

0 Replies

Habibi, i'm just pointing out that women and blacks have a higher hurdle to clear to get the start up financing they need. I'm not saying that people are or are not racist and sexist in the voting booth. What i am saying is that given the cost of campaigning, the number of blacks or women holding high office is evidence of the attitude of party organizers and campaign contributors, and not necessarily the voters, who may or may not react from racist or sexist attitudes.

Thus, Obama had to clear a higher hurdle, had to go farther to prove to party organizers, that he had the necessary appeal. Once the hurdle is cleared, though, it think that race no loger matters, just because the hurdle has been cleared. Mosley-Braun obviously was able to pull some financing (nothing to match Kerry or Dean, certainly, but still substantial) in the 2004 primary run--so to some contributors, at least, she had demonstrated sufficient appeal--and i suspect having been elected to the Senate was the largest single determining factor.

Once again, the electorate may or may not be sexist or racist--but the prevelance of women or blacks in high office does not necessarily demonstrate whether or not that is the case.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I think that both Habibi and Snood are far too willing to imagine a degree of racism based upon the number of blacks holding high office than is actually warranted by the reality of electoral politics in the United States. The bottom line is that running for office, and especially for national office, costs enormous sums of money. John Kennedy will likely prove to have been the last wealthy man prepared to run on his own money (or, actually, old Joe Kennedy's money), and you can bet that he took every contribution he could get.

Campaigning is just too damned expensive for an individual or a small collective to manage the funding. At the lowest local levels, black and female candidates suffer little to no disadvantage in a run for office. But at state and national levels, and in municipal races for huge municipalities (NY, LA, Chicago, etc.), the sums of money required are prohibitive. Whether or not the electorate is as racist as Snood would seem to want to imply (something which i doubt), the germane question is whether or not those with deep enough pockets to make substantial campaign contributions (usually corporate entities, or corporate cartel front organizations) consider this or that condidate viable. For Obama to have successfully run for the Senate from Illinois, he had to have had a good deal of financial backing, and then very quickly have proven himself to be a contender. Had he faltered, or failed to show promise from the outset, it is just unlikely that he would have gotten the Democratic Party support necessary to get the campaign contributions he needed.

In the final analysis, it is entirely possible that blacks and women stand a far better chance with the electorate than they do with the party organizations and the campaign contributors without whom a viable campaign is just not possible.

This is the reason.

Earning power in the black community hasn't made the same strides as the public's acceptance of black candidates.

Which is not what you said, nimh. There are many factors required to get elected. This is the main one that has stunted blacks' fair representation in elected office. Money.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Lash wrote:
It's not relevent [sic]at all, actually.

No one is suggesting that blacks could have been elected during slavery....Jim Crow....the 60's....

Only now.

You are completely off topic.

While You are completely off kilter. No black Governor has been elected in our recent history. Nada. Zip. Zilch. It is your burden to prove why prejudice against black candidates has somehow magically disappeared.

I guess maybe black candidates just lack the necessities?

You just lack facts. Laughing

It is your burden to earn some credibility.

0 Replies

I wrote:

What I've wanted since Bill Clinton is a Democrat who was just plain likeable -- who had the ideas and the charisma too.

I mean, look at this picture:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/02/09/PH2006020900520.jpg

They have this big, public fight, the young Democrat and the established, experienced Republican, and who's in charge, in that photo? Obama's totally physically in charge, grasping one hand, the other encircling McCain; McCain is blushing a bit, disarmed, laughing at something Obama's said (and still saying) while Obama is all poise and control. And the description of the incident shows that Obama was the one who started it all, who came in with the playful fist-brandishing and then went to where McCain was sitting, who made it happen.

Those kinds of political skills are huge, not just in getting elected but in making things happen while elected.

Anyway, just musing.