Obama says of McCain/Palin: 'You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It's Still a Pig'

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

The reality is that, given the demographics of this country, more people identify with a white mom from a small town than a biracial guy whose middle name is Hussein and went to Harvard, as some people steadily remind us. Now as to who is more intelligent and better suited to implement foreign and domestic policy.. different story.

Don't forget the most liberal ticket in the history of the country. I think that has a little something to do with it.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

The reality is that, given the demographics of this country, more people identify with a white mom from a small town than a biracial guy whose middle name is Hussein and went to Harvard, as some people steadily remind us. Now as to who is more intelligent and better suited to implement foreign and domestic policy.. different story.

This also is indicative of problems on the left. It's not about identity, it's the ideas those people are promoting and how well they are promoting them.

[mcsluggo]

oh really? its about ideas and not personalities?

exactly what new ideas did Sarah Palin bring into the rink these last two weeks to spur this new cyclone?

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by CanadianMavsFan

I'm surprised they don't have more. It's politics man, they have teams of these scumbags trying to dig up dirt on people. Sarah Palin has managed to win the bitter women vote, but in the grand scheme of things it still won't be enough. Even if McCain captures 2/3 of swing states the Republicans will still be dead in the water. Hell, we still have the debates to go, and by then Sarah Palin will be in the shadow and McCain vs. Obama will once again be at the forefront of this race.

I've never understood American politics at heart. I want someone in office who is smarter and more talented than I or anyone I know is, not some idiot I could meet in K-Mart. World leaders are meant to be the elite, that's why they represent the common people, they are meant to be more qualified and frankly superior to us. Sarah Palin is the common American small town woman. Alot of kids, lame sporty background, a blue collar husband, and of course a rinky dink journalism degree, and with some luck managed to have some success in politics.

The only person who is a bigger moron than Palin is Mike Huckabee, perhaps the biggest moron in politics. I don't know whats more appealing as a candidate, someone who eats squirel and speak about it freely and proudly, or someone who says the same about eating Moose Stew. Pretty sad state of affairs.

So you're basically saying you will have no idea if any candidate you vote for is actually good or not, since being their intellectual prowess is so superior to yours you will be unable know if you are being scammed.

We used to have an aristocratic class ruling us, but decided to get rid of them over a tea party we were having.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

So you're basically saying you will have no idea if any candidate you vote for is actually good or not, since being their intellectual prowess is so superior to yours you will be unable know if you are being scammed.

We used to have an aristocratic class ruling us, but decided to get rid of them over a tea party we were having.

And unfortunately some of us still like Tea..............LOL

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

oh really? its about ideas and not personalities?

exactly what new ideas did Sarah Palin bring into the rink these last two weeks to spur this new cyclone?

"white mom from small town" is not a personality. Neither is "biracial guy whose middle name is Hussein and went to Harvard." You talked demographic identity. And ideas that Palin brings to the ticket are not new. They are conservative.

Why do you think he chose Palin over any of the other potential women, like, say, Kay Bailey Hutchison, who would equal her in "Identity" and perhaps have an advantage over Palin on factors like experience and electoral support?

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Don't forget the most liberal ticket in the history of the country. I think that has a little something to do with it.

It wasn't an issue with white female voters prior to the Palin selection so while I think it may be a factor, let's not underestimate the identification factor overriding whatever policy convictions that may exist.

EDIT:

The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that much of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention is attributable to the shift in support among white women.

The race for the White House is now a virtual tie, with Obama at 47 percent support of registered voters and McCain at 46 percent, the poll found. Before the Democratic National Convention in late August, Obama held an 8 percentage point lead among white women voters, 50 percent to 42 percent, but after the Republican convention in early September, McCain was ahead by 12 points among white women, 53 percent to 41 percent, the poll found.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/200...le-voters.html

-- That's a 20 point swing (!!!) with a single demographic with the biggest (only significant?) news in that time period being Sarah Palin being selected as VP... let's be real here, demographic identity is a huge factor.

[rabbitproof]

I mean, why else do people refer to Obama by his middle name and not any other candidate? It's so damn blatant, it's offensive. But why? Because the % of registered voters who can relate to having or even knowing someone whose middle name is Hussein is probably in the thousands across the nation and they know demographic identification works.

It's a slimy game.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that much of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention is attributable to the shift in support among white women.

hat tip to this guy for the following comment on the day Palin was selected:

I think white women will play a more decisive factor in this thing than black men, and I think McCain's crew thinks so too, and that's why the ice fishing milfy governor of AK is on the ticket.

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I mean, why else do people refer to Obama by his middle name and not any other candidate? It's so damn blatant, it's offensive. But why? Because the % of registered voters who can relate to having or even knowing someone whose middle name is Hussein is probably in the thousands across the nation and they know demographic identification works.

It's a slimy game.

I like to call this slimy game "democracy." Sure it sucks and it's like a really ugly high school popularity contest where the high schoolers have gillions of dollars to spend and of course it's wrought with slimeball cons and it elicits en masse the worst prejudices of vast swaths of the population, but....

Well, I can't think of any but just now. I guess my point is one cannot analyze an election without pondering how each parties' tactics are playing on the prejudices of their voting demographics.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

That's a 20 point swing (!!!) with a single demographic with the biggest (only significant?) news in that time period being Sarah Palin being selected as VP... let's be real here, demographic identity is a huge factor.

You are assuming that white women only care about identity. Your conclusion is nothing but your assumption! It could be that white women really care about mooseburgers. And don't get me started on a argument about 2 game swings!

[rabbitproof]

All valid points.

No wonder people get disillusioned with politics. We got a dartboard full of issues and for that many people, it boils down to moose stew.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

So you're basically saying you will have no idea if any candidate you vote for is actually good or not, since being their intellectual prowess is so superior to yours you will be unable know if you are being scammed.

We used to have an aristocratic class ruling us, but decided to get rid of them over a tea party we were having.

hmmm. from my perspective one of the major problems with that old system was that there was very little chance that countries would be able to tap the most talented to lead/make decisions. it was a crap shoot roullette spin, if the crown prince determined by birth happened to be an exceptional individual: whooohooo! otherwise: ah well, perhaps his son will be better.

I had no idea that the purpose of democracy (as expoused by you) was to ensure that we didn't get anyone in power that was so smart that the general populace felt inadequate and inferior.

Power to the mediocre!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

hat tip to this guy for the following comment on the day Palin was selected:.

Kay Bailey would have sunk the McCain ticket. It's not just about white women-ness.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

We got a dartboard full of issues and for that many people, it boils down to moose stew.

well, we'd know if we asked them.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

well, we'd know if we asked them.

Man, you'd hope so but there aren't always honest answers to every question, especially these types.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Kay Bailey would have sunk the McCain ticket. It's not just about white women-ness.

I suppose Lindsey Lohan would have sunk the ticket too, as would Brittney Spears.

Likewise, a gun-toting creationist pro-lifer governor of timbucktoo would not have swung the white woman vote by 20% in mccain's favor if that particular governor had a penis.

So while it goes without saying that not every woman would swing white women in that manner, it is also true that no man would accomplish the same---hence it is very, very much about the white womanness.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I suppose Lindsey Lohan would have sunk the ticket too, as would Brittney Spears.

Likewise, a gun-toting creationist pro-lifer governor of timbucktoo would not have swung the white woman vote by 20% in mccain's favor if that particular governor had a penis.

So while it goes without saying that not every woman would swing white women in that manner, it is also true that no man would accomplish the same---hence it is very, very much about the white womanness.

right, so instead of "ice fishing, milfy governor," using the more accurate "gun-toting creationist pro-lifer female governor of timbucktoo" would work better. You would also include "plane selling and bridge killing," because those have been important to people. Of course if we had a male parallel, we'd know how important the "female" part of the moniker actually is. No one else (male or female) can claim something like killing the bridge to nowhere - that's the only pork project everyone has heard of. No one else is unknown enough, either to create the immediate demand for information. That demand has helped create the sensation.

But mostly, McCain's biggest problem hasn't been penis possession. It's been that he's perceived as too moderate by his base. Palin's politics getter closer to that than her sex does. I'm not saying her sex is unimportant, just that that slice of single-issue voters for whom sex is the single issue is relatively small, no matter how large the margin of victory might end up. A pro-choice female as VP choice would lose more republican voters than a pro-life male as VP choice.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

But mostly, McCain's biggest problem hasn't been penis possession. It's been that he's perceived as too moderate by his base. Palin's politics getter closer to that than her sex does. I'm not saying her sex is unimportant, just that that slice of single-issue voters for whom sex is the single issue is relatively small, no matter how large the margin of victory might end up. A pro-choice female as VP choice would lose more republican voters than a pro-life male as VP choice.

certainly playing to the base is playing a huge role in this...tho, the base so far as I know is 50/50 male and female, so we should see an increase in support in both genders if the Governor Goodbody's mammaries aren't a significant (most significant) part of the equation.

And I would never suggest that there are people (penisless people, especially) sitting out there thinking, 'gee, I really want to vote for a woman irregardless of how she stands (or sits, as the case may be*) on the issues.' I don't think that's how this works -- it's more like a person says, "here is someone I can really identify with, here is someone who's struggles in the world are like mine, she's one of mine."

I point out that over the last nearly 50 years, the Dems have had 4 presidents win elections:

1. Bubba, from Hope Arkansas;
2. Jimmy the peanut farmer from Georgia;
3. LBJ, a backwoods good ole boy from the Hill Country of Texas;
4. JFK, a liberal-elitist north easterner who won because he was able to carry Texas on the strength of his VP pick, a backwoods good ole boy from the Hill Country of Texas.

"Someone that I can identify with" has every bit as much to do with how many votes a fellow garners as where he stands (or sits) on public policy issue #994. That is....there is a huge Bubba factor in elections, and anti-elitist fly-over country bubba's are a huge and extraordinarly important voting bloc...bubba's of both sexes I should add.

So, in this regard Palin is very much "one of the gals." The married, mother of five, day job in a boys club, married to a working stiff husband, and a knocked up teenaged kid makes her someone about whom people, U]especially women[/U], all over the country can say, "wow, here's someone I can identify with."

This is how human beings functions -- it's in our dna, we trust people with whom we identify, and we identify with others instinctively and emotionally on race and gender.




(*in my estimation this is the funniest and most sexist thing i've ever written)

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

hmmm. from my perspective one of the major problems with that old system was that there was very little chance that countries would be able to tap the most talented to lead/make decisions. it was a crap shoot roullette spin, if the crown prince determined by birth happened to be an exceptional individual: whooohooo! otherwise: ah well, perhaps his son will be better.

I had no idea that the purpose of democracy (as expoused by you) was to ensure that we didn't get anyone in power that was so smart that the general populace felt inadequate and inferior.

Power to the mediocre!

Which is why we don't have a Democracy, it's a representative form of government. The authors of our founding documents had a real fear of mob rule, the tyranny of the majority as they put it. It's why we have the electoral college, 2 Senators per State and only the House of Representatives, charged with the lions share of budgets, reflecting population density. Amending the Constitution is a torturous and time consuming grind. On purpose.

Having a brilliant President may occasionally happen, but it's more important to find someone who can lead. Jimmy Carter was very smart intellectually, but a horrible leader and the worst President in my lifetime.

And I never said anything of the sort. I was commenting on the slippery ideal of smartest and most qualified people being candidates. Examining the Presidents that are thought of as the best, by a popular consensus, were not going to fit that category. Lincoln-nope his failures prior to the office are used as an inspirational pap rap of hope for failures. Truman? FDR? Our history is littered with American mutts that the events of the time turned into best of show. Anyone who is eager to jump up and proclaim they are the best person to run the country deserves some extra squinting, ala Groucho Marx's comment on not wanting to belong to any club that would have him as a member.

[12 Tone Melodies]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

...when has obama complained about "media coverage being used against him"?

Anytime the media is anything other than the fawning sychophants the Obamessiah has come to expect & demand

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

certainly playing to the base is playing a huge role in this...tho, the base so far as I know is 50/50 male and female, so we should see an increase in support in both genders if the Governor Goodbody's mammaries aren't a significant (most significant) part of the equation.

. . . if men and women have been, and/or are still evaluating the situation according to the same factors. If they are not, then your argument is faulty. That is, if women were voting according to gender, but now aren't, or women weren't paying attention to policy issues, but now are, or women weren't paying as much attention to abortion but now are paying more, or etc., etc. then that would explain a gender specific shift in polling.

This is how human beings functions -- it's in our dna, we trust people with whom we identify, and we identify with others instinctively and emotionally on race and gender.

and on religion, and on how we think religion and government should interact, and on thoughts on the beginning of life, and on tax policy, and on defense spending, and on whatever we happen to spend our time thinking about.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

. . .and on religion, and on how we think religion and government should interact, and on thoughts on the beginning of life, and on tax policy, and on defense spending, and on whatever we happen to spend our time thinking about.

I think the science and evidence is on my side here, UL... People see and react emotionally to race and gender long before they start analyzing the sticky details of tax policy and defense spending.

Tribalism has a very adaptive effect in human evolution. Humans are social animals, and ill-equipped to live on their own. Tribalism and ethnocentrism help to keep individuals committed to the group, even when personal relations may fray. This keeps individuals from wandering off.

Thus, ethnocentric individuals would have a higher survival rate -- or at least, with their higher commitment to the group, more opportunities to breed. A more significant vector may be that groups with a strong sense of unity and identity can benefit from kin selection behavior such as common property and shared resources. The tendency of members to unite against an outside tribe and the ability to act violently and prejudicially against that outside tribe likely boosted the chances of survival in genocidal conflicts. Logically, a distinct divide between one's own group and other groups fosters the ability of the individual to interact with members of those groups in a manner that is equally distinct: one being altruistic (in the case of a group of unrelated members) or kin-selective (in the case of a group of more or less related members), the other being violent.

link.

I think it's a reasonable argument to say that a million or so years of social conditioning & evolution have some impact.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I think the science and evidence is on my side here, UL... People see and react emotionally to race and gender long before they start analyzing the sticky details of tax policy and defense spending.

well, if voting were a reaction time study, then we'd have had the election already.

I think it's a reasonable argument to say that a million or so years of social conditioning & evolution have some impact.

arguments of evolution don't carry much weight with us creationists.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

arguments of evolution don't carry much weight with us creationists.

well, if the world was created six or so thousand years ago and humans were formed without regard to their environment then you probably have a strong point.

if voting were a reaction time study, then we'd have had the election already.

and....the significant think is that the emotional reaction happens early, and this sets the condition for acceptance. Any salesman worth his salt will tell you that a decision to buy something is first and foremost an emotional decision, and that *rational* factors tend to really be justifications for making a decision which has already been made....no different with politics.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

well, if the world was created six or so thousand years ago and humans were formed without regard to their environment then you probably have a strong point.

Since when is creation limited to 6000 years and an independence from the environment? Here, now, things like border security and the likelihood of an abortion in your family's future are important aspects of the environment. And people make choices based on that.

and....the significant think is that the emotional reaction happens early, and this sets the condition for acceptance. Any salesman worth his salt will tell you that a decision to buy something is first and foremost an emotional decision, and that *rational* factors tend to really be justifications for making a decision which has already been made....no different with politics.

I wouldn't disagree with this, except to say that I think we get emotional about lots of stuff, not just identity. it would be an interesting study (and probably has been done), but I bet most people would vote for someone not of their race for at least 1 important issue, and moreso for a conglomeration of issues. Tell me, are you all on about taxes all the time because that's what your racial demographic is all on about?