Pollster.com analysis: "Why Obama Won"

[Axis Kast]

I've heard anecdotal evidence from Republican organizers that, right after McCain's initial announcement, the campaign got a strong boost from evangelicals who had previously gone quiet during this election cycle, thus increasing the campaign's GOTV drive.

It would appear, though, that Palin's successive scandals, combined with the damaging Couric interview, turned off a great many people. A lot of the moderate Republicans had their objections, for example, stemmed from perceived lack of competence. Interestingly, some of the issues around which people on this board rallied -- inclusive of the fiasco with Bristol, but especially the AIP link -- meant very little to the rank-and-file voter.

McCain was the hog in lipstick for the Religious Right. A candidate they didn't respect, couldn't trust, and didn't turn out for, in the end. For his part, the Senator then lost the small percentage of individuals who would have backed him in 2000, but could not longer be certain he would tack back to the center, if he won.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Oh wow, I really should try to write in English on this little sleep. Why does the edit button NOT appear sometimes?

You can only edit your posts in some of the forums; not this one though.

[Crown]

I'm not sure if this is 'the appropriate' thread to post this in, but it concerns the election Barack's victory and the question of race. Cutting a long story short in conversation with someone else about racism and the USA I said the following;

"The first Black President of the United States is a Harvard Law scholar, a Law Professor, a charismatic, well spoken, inspirational, intelligent, eloquent public speaker with unbelievable intellectual credibility. And he replaces Bush."

Don't kid yourselves guys, race played a part in this election, and Obama won because 'he wasn't black enough'.


My £0.02.

[ArcturusMengsk]

I have no problem calling Obama's victory a landslide, just as I'd call Clinton's two electoral victories and the first Bush's win landslides. There's no hard-and-fast definition, but generally anything over about 350+ electoral votes indicate that the opposing candidate could never have won, regardless of turnout figures. It is interesting to note that Obama's 6.5 is only about one percentage point less than Bush's victory over Dukakis, which nobody disputes to be a landslide. McCain won more than twice as many states as Dukakis, but interestingly enough his total rolling average across the states he won was less than that for Dukakis; equally important to note is that most of the states he won, like Montana, the Dakotas, Utah, etc., have tiny populations. This is in the same ballpark as 1988.

At any rate, all this talk is piffle. The crypto-fascist Reaganites proclaimed Bush II's two-point victory in '04 to be a mandate (the smallest win for an incumbent President in modern times), and Bush himself suggested that he had political capital to spend. Apparently his market went bust immediately afterwards.

Obama has a 'mandate', whatever that's supposed to mean.

[DaveJB]

I have no problem calling Obama's victory a landslide, just as I'd call Clinton's two electoral victories and the first Bush's win landslides. There's no hard-and-fast definition, but generally anything over about 350+ electoral votes indicate that the opposing candidate could never have won, regardless of turnout figures. It is interesting to note that Obama's 6.5 is only about one percentage point less than Bush's victory over Dukakis, which nobody disputes to be a landslide. McCain won more than twice as many states as Dukakis, but interestingly enough his total rolling average across the states he won was less than that for Dukakis; equally important to note is that most of the states he won, like Montana, the Dakotas, Utah, etc., have tiny populations. This is in the same ballpark as 1988.

This year's elections are about as much of a landslide as you're likely to get, as are Bush the 1st and the two Clinton elections. In most cases, the key Democrat and Republican territories are too much behind their respective parties to ever allow a complete whitewash of the loser in either the popular or electoral vote. Massive victories that we have witnessed (such as 1964, 1972 and 1984) have been due to combinations of a popular incumbent running against a horribly inept opposing ticket, which even the core territories have been unable to ignore.

[RedImperator]

The idea that Palin energized the base seems dubious in light of how few volunteers McCain had on the ground. FiveThirtyEight.com has a good series on the ground operations of both campaigns, and it's the same in every state: McCain had fewer offices, staffed with fewer people, doing less work, for shorter hours. In state after state, they'd find McCain offices with only a handful of volunteers, and among them, only one or two actually making phone calls. Even in Colorado Springs, the place where you're most likely to see a huge evangelical ground operation, the Obama campaign dwarfed McCain.

[ArcturusMengsk]

This year's elections are about as much of a landslide as you're likely to get, as are Bush the 1st and the two Clinton elections.

In the hyper-partisan climate of the past thirty years, at least, certainly. Ideally Obama will do a good enough job of turning the economy around and ending Bush's abuse of power to appeal to the libertarian bent of western Republicans. He only lost Montana by four points, and McCain took his home state of Arizona by fewer than nine; if Paul or another like him is on the ballot again in 2012, and Obama is a strong incumbent, we could be looking at a sweep of the Rocky Mountain states as well as the Pacific coast and Atlantic states.

[Broomstick]

Well obviously, they all play a role simultaneously. But blacks only constitute something like 13% of the American population (they actually have an absurdly outsized share of politics and media compared to their demographics), whereas a third of white Democrats say they have a problem with black people, never mind Republicans. That's some scary numbers.

Obama probably lost a good deal of votes due to race. The poll you've cited even tells us that he "probably" didn't make up the difference in terms of black voters (the majority of whom were already Democrats). Yet it does assert that, "[M]any whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama."

I'm not sure if "eager" is the proper word to use here, but you shouldn't discount people choosing Obama as the lesser of two evils.

I've long observed that there are plenty of people who will dislike or hate a particular group but at the same time like individuals from that group, who are seen as exceptions. Well, Obama IS exceptional in many ways (most of which have nothing to do with his being black). It's not beyond my comprehension that there are white voters who normally would never vote for a black man who are making an exception for a highly educated, eloquent, and charismatic black man. The fact his mother was white also makes it a trifle easier for him to be see as an "exceptional" member of a minority group.

Bush & Co fucked up in a lot of ways. The electorate wanted those guys out. They wanted him out so much that it was an oportune moment for the democrats to nominate a candidate with an African father. That doesn't mean Obama couldn't have won in a more ordinary election cycle but hatred of Bush was yet another factor at work.

[Axis Kast]

That's been my point all along.

There are racists, and then there are issues voters. Sometimes, those issues voters and racists will be one and the same; sometimes, not.

It is my personal sense that Obama didn't have a greater margin of victory because of what he stood for, not due to the color of his skin.

[ArcturusMengsk]

It is my personal sense that Obama didn't have a greater margin of victory because of what he stood for, not due to the color of his skin.

Bullshit right-wing mythmaking alert. For twenty-eight years you troglodytes have attempted to persuade Americans that they're really 'center-right', when in fact they have very little aversion to governmental assistance when it directly benefits them. America is only 'center-right' as a collective whole insofar as a predominant majority of Americans prefer a center-right social policy. On economic matters - and these are the only matters which really matter at all to conservatives, as they use them to ensure their bank-account and billfolds are safe from the pawing hands of the proletariat - Americans are left-wing.

[Axis Kast]

Bullshit right-wing mythmaking alert. For twenty-eight years you troglodytes have attempted to persuade Americans that they're really 'center-right', when in fact they have very little aversion to governmental assistance when it directly benefits them. America is only 'center-right' as a collective whole insofar as a predominant majority of Americans prefer a center-right social policy. On economic matters - and these are the only matters which really matter at all to conservatives, as they use them to ensure their bank-account and billfolds are safe from the pawing hands of the proletariat - Americans are left-wing.

Yes, we troglodytes. Congratulations. You've won the Internet!

Who's been talking only about economics? Obama was vulnerable to conservative criticisms on a variety of issues ranging from inexperience to perceptions that he would be weak on security issues. His plan for "spreading the wealth around" won him plenty of jeers. (And, by the way, I dispute your implicit suggestion that there aren't a great many people who take umbrage with higher taxes and redistribution; we sometimes call them the "moderate, business-friendly wing of the Republican Party.") Whether or not you think any conservative or Republican arguments held water, they mattered very much to a great many people.

Mike's article alleged that racism cost Obama about six points on Election Day. It's hard to say what this means in relation to John McCain. We don't know if racism kept people home, or made them switch parties. We do know that Obama was "out in front" of other Democrats in recent times.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Yes, we troglodytes. Congratulations. You've won the Internet!

I have no interest in pussyfooting around with you. You are the enemy, and will be treated as such.

Who's been talking only about economics? Obama was vulnerable to conservative criticisms on a variety of issues ranging from inexperience to perceptions that he would be weak on security issues. His plan for "spreading the wealth around" won him plenty of jeers. (And, by the way, I dispute your implicit suggestion that there aren't a great many people who take umbrage with higher taxes and redistribution; we sometimes call them the "moderate, business-friendly wing of the Republican Party.") Whether or not you think any conservative or Republican arguments held water, they mattered very much to a great many people.

Yeah, they mattered alright - to fiscal-conservatives, who make up perhaps a tenth of the population and whose political impact would be wholly negligible had they not already bought your Party to serve as their mouthpiece. Ronald Reagan, whom sits upon your altar next to Jesus and Moses, didn't win election campaigning on 'fiscal discipline' and the horrors of state-intervention; those much-lauded 'Reagan Democrats' you rely upon to win elections - because your Party has no natural base of its own, save for theocrats, psychotic militarists and fascist demagogues - have no qualms whatsoever with New Deal-style interventionism, particularly in economic times such as these. They care less about 'pro-growth economic policies', and actually desire more pro-labor intervention. The only thing that split them off from the Democrats in the first was the rise of the New Left and the subsequent Nixonan strategy to push social wedge issues ahead of economics on the Party platform.

I tell you now, and polling affirms this: if we had ran a pro-life white Democrat on Obama's platform, we'd have garnered sixty percent or more of the vote. The lower classes have no interest at all in parasitical Republican corporatism, and the only ears your economic message reach are those who pay more in taxes than many individuals make in a year of work. Tax rates for the poor and middle-class have always been nearly completely negligible, and this argument has not once contributed to a Republican victory, despite your protestations to the contrary.

[Samuel]

Yes, we troglodytes.

Kamf, I remember looking up a thread in 2003 where you claimed that logic and consistancy were irrelevant. So that insult is sort of appropriate.

Obama was vulnerable to conservative criticisms on a variety of issues ranging from inexperience to perceptions that he would be weak on security issues.

How so? His opponent ran with Sarah Palin who is less experienced and he choose Biden specifically for his foreign policy experience. As for weak on security issues... the word perception comes to mind. Because it didn't actually exist in reality.

Now you could say "it is how they say it", but it sounds like flimsly self justifications to avoid voting for the black guy.

His plan for "spreading the wealth around" won him plenty of jeers. (And, by the way, I dispute your implicit suggestion that there aren't a great many people who take umbrage with higher taxes and redistribution; we sometimes call them the "moderate, business-friendly wing of the Republican Party.")

Except Huckalbee had a similar scheme and he didn't get such jeers.

We do know that Obama was "out in front" of other Democrats in recent times.

The Democrats could have run a corpse and it would be out in front.

[Axis Kast]

I have no interest in pussyfooting around with you. You are the enemy, and will be treated as such.

Very quaint.

Yeah, they mattered alright - to fiscal-conservatives, who make up perhaps a tenth of the population and whose political impact would be wholly negligible had they not already bought your Party to serve as their mouthpiece.

Ten percent of the population is not politically negligible. The African American minority is only thirteen percent.

Ronald Reagan, whom sits upon your altar next to Jesus and Moses, didn't win election campaigning on 'fiscal discipline' and the horrors of state-intervention; those much-lauded 'Reagan Democrats' you rely upon to win elections - because your Party has no natural base of its own, save for theocrats, psychotic militarists and fascist demagogues - have no qualms whatsoever with New Deal-style interventionism, particularly in economic times such as these.

It appears that you missed a few words in the midst of your spasm here, but Ronald Reagan is now infamous for his criticisms of the welfare system of the era, his promise to cut taxes (particularly on those in the top bracket), and his insistence on “small government.” Your argument wrongly conflates his actions with his campaign, which were very different.

I also welcome you, at any time, to prove your assertion that the Republican Party is comprised only of religious fundamentalists, “psychotic militarists” (I’d love some examples of those), and proto-fascists. Newsflash: the Reagan Democrats are long gone; they were gone even before Bush came to office.

I tell you now, and polling affirms this: if we had ran a pro-life white Democrat on Obama's platform, we'd have garnered sixty percent or more of the vote.

Opposition to abortion isn’t part of Obama’s platform. Your fantasy is just that.

And, before you get all worked up over how economics don’t matter, do try and read the entirety of my posts. Economics are a factor; even a major one. And yet my original point, lost in your misrepresentations, was that Obama had many features on which Republicans could latch in protest.

The lower classes have no interest at all in parasitical Republican corporatism, and the only ears your economic message reach are those who pay more in taxes than many individuals make in a year of work.

Tell your sob story to Joe the Plumber.

[Axis Kast]

Kamf, I remember looking up a thread in 2003 where you claimed that logic and consistancy were irrelevant. So that insult is sort of appropriate.

Oh no! He called me such mean names!

If I remember correctly, my positions about consistency had to do with whether or not we should refrain from particular hypocrisies in statements of national security policy when the material benefit outweighed the loss in credibility.

How so? His opponent ran with Sarah Palin who is less experienced and he choose Biden specifically for his foreign policy experience.

It is completely unimportant whether or not you think you were "fooled." Plenty of people accepted McCain's warnings that Obama was unprepared for the presidency. The issue was important enough that The Economist acknowledged it as his chief defect in their endorsement.

As for weak on security issues...

Democrats are traditionally perceived as less hawkish on security. Obama's call for negotiation without preconditions appealed to those who believed that Bush had passed up useful opportunities to try and forge some progress on issues of mutual concern; they alienated others who accepted Bush's argument that to talk is to legitimize and grant the spotlight.

Now you could say "it is how they say it", but it sounds like flimsly self justifications to avoid voting for the black guy.

To you. Not to everyone else.

Except Huckalbee had a similar scheme and he didn't get such jeers.

Huckabee lost the primaries to John McCain.

The Democrats could have run a corpse and it would be out in front.

Universal healthcare, or even guaranteed healthcare, is a fairly radical concept, whatever your attitude about its merits. Democrats rejoiced. Republicans often cringed.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Ten percent of the population is not politically negligible. The African American minority is only thirteen percent.

It most certainly is, when one considers that the ten percent or thereabouts of the population who identify explicitly as 'fiscally conservative' don't always vote for whatever reason. Jamex Cox managed to pull together a base of three and a half times in size and scope and still lost in a landslide. Furthermore, many of those who calls themselves 'fiscally conservative' mean by it something quite different from the typical Republican libertopian: she calls herself a 'conservative Democrat' and 'economically conservative', but what my grandmother means by those terms is that she is a social conservative and pro-New Deal.

It appears that you missed a few words in the midst of your spasm here, but Ronald Reagan is now infamous for his criticisms of the welfare system of the era, his promise to cut taxes (particularly on those in the top bracket), and his insistence on “small government.” Your argument wrongly conflates his actions with his campaign, which were very different.

Nonsense. Reagan's campaign was nearly single-minded in its choice of three buzzwords: "judicial activists", "state's rights" and the ever-infamous "welfare queens", which is the only of Reagan's 'planks' to be remotely related to economics and was always a codeword for "nigger" (again hearkening back to Reagan's social conservative campaign). Reagan's devotion to the supply-side was well known, but again, my grandmother voted for him not because of his fixation on tax cuts, but in spite of it: she bought, and still buys, the Reaganite notion that the Supreme Court is responsible for all the ills in the world. Naturally this particular talking point quickly fell by the wayside as the Republicans have appointed their own radical activists to the Court subsequent to his election.

I also welcome you, at any time, to prove your assertion that the Republican Party is comprised only of religious fundamentalists, “psychotic militarists” (I’d love some examples of those), and proto-fascists.

Show me a major Republican politician besides Olympia Snow, Arlen Spector and Susan Collins who has not either advocated the partial or total repeal of Roe v. Wafe, does not support the War in Iraq (or a War on Iran), the consolidation of Presidental power through FISA and other such mechanisms, or the turning over of the keys to the American economic kingdom to large and monopolistic corporations through such policies as the flat tax and the complete repeal of capital gains. You will not find one who does not support in some measure one or all of these programmes.

Newsflash: the Reagan Democrats are long gone; they were gone even before Bush came to office.

As a class? Not at all. They're the residents of West Virginia and the corridor area of Pennsylvania (mind you that West Virginia was one of only ten states to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988) who are socially conservative and economically populist. They relied upon the New Deal's programmes to pull themselves out of economic misery, and stayed with the Party until the ascent of Richard Nixon and the wedge issue in 1968. The only way that the Republican Party has ever been able to win an election in the post-Roosevelt era is to appeal to these people on the basis of their religious and social views; every unsuccessful Republican candidate to date (Dewey in '48, Nixon in '60, H.W. Bush in '92, Dole in '96) has failed to be elected because he didn't appeal enough to this group. They were in fact Bush II's strongest supporters, as evidenced by the fact that Kerry took Pennsylvania by only two points (Obama carried it by ten, owing to a much stronger showing in Philadelphia and a more activist approach on the part of the unions). These people are not by nature Republicans; they have no use for your economic message. And yet you are able to occasionally split their loyalties by appealing to their redneck impulses, because, again, you lack a viable economic base of your own and must steal from ours to be successful. Republicans, in politics as well as in trade, are always thieves.

Opposition to abortion isn’t part of Obama’s platform. Your fantasy is just that.

Nor did I say that it was, dipshit, though I understand that part of being a Republican means you aren't especially well-suited to reading comprehension. What I said was that, had we nominated a pro-life, white Republican running on Obama's economic platform, we'd have won in a landslide. We'd have won a (bigger) landslide than we did by nominating Clinton.

Economics are a factor; even a major one. And yet my original point, lost in your misrepresentations, was that Obama had many features on which Republicans could latch in protest.

Ad not a one that had the possibility of sticking, because a vast majority of voters in the United States prefer economic Keynesianism as against Reaganomics. The Republican Party has no economic base aside from wealthy capitalists, and hasn't since the Hoover Presidency.

Tell your sob story to Joe the Plumber.

You mean the canard manufactured by the Republican Party to create an atmosphere of faux-populism about McCain, in the explicit recognition of the fact that the Republican Party's economic message has no base whatsoever beyond the titans of industry and was a sure loser in today's economic situation? The same plumber with enough aplomb to contact a recording studio to secure a contract and a publisher to advance an autobiography? The same plumber who was never a licensed plumber and who drew on welfare, undermining the very economic message he was bought off to endorse?

[Axis Kast]

It most certainly is, when one considers that the ten percent or thereabouts of the population who identify explicitly as 'fiscally conservative' don't always vote for whatever reason.

The same is true of any sample. If ten percent of a population evince a strong belief in a particular position, however, it’s going to show up in the polls, when the opportunity arises.

Furthermore, many of those who calls themselves 'fiscally conservative' mean by it something quite different from the typical Republican libertopian: she calls herself a 'conservative Democrat' and 'economically conservative', but what she means by it is that she is a social conservative and pro-New Deal.

Because ArcturusMengsk tells us so?

Nonsense. Reagan's campaign was nearly single-minded in its choice of three buzzwords: "judicial activists", "state's rights" and the ever-infamous "welfare queens", which is the only of Reagan's 'planks' to be remotely related to economics. Reagan's devotion to the supply-side was well known, but again, my grandmother voted for him not because of his fixation on tax cuts, but in spite of it: she bought, and still buys, the Reaganite notion that the Supreme Court is responsible for all the ills in the world. Naturally this particular talking point quickly fell by the wayside as the Republicans have appointed their own radical activists to the Court subsequent to his election.

It’s called “trickle-down economics.” And it’s something for which Reagan is quite famous (and frequently maligned).

The “welfare queen” and “states’ rights” arguments tapped into that portion of America doubtful that the federal government was an efficient supplier of services.

Your argument falters in that there isn’t a bridge that necessarily exists whereby, because it can be proven that somebody will readily accept social relief when they can get it, they must be conscious “economic Democrats.”

Show me a major Republican politician besides Olympia Snow, Arlen Spector and Susan Collins who has not either advocated the partial or total repeal of Roe v. Wafe, does not support the War in Iraq (or a War on Iran), the consolidation of Presidental power through FISA and other such mechanisms, or the turning over of the keys to the American economic kingdom to large and monopolistic corporations through such policies as the flat tax and the complete repeal of capital gains. You will not find one who does not support in some measure one or all of these programmes.

You have not proved that the War in Iraq is psychotic militarism. You have not proved that “corporate-friendly” policies are absolutely an evil. Those are personal (and questionable) opinions that you are masquerading.

As a class? Not at all. They're the residents of West Virginia and the corridor area of Pennsylvania (mind you that West Virginia was one of only ten states to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988) who are socially conservative and economically populist. They relied upon the New Deal's programmes to pull themselves out of economic misery, and stayed with the Party until the ascent of Richard Nixon and the wedge issue in 1968. The only way that the Republican Party has ever been able to win an election in the post-Roosevelt era is to appeal to these people on the basis of their religious and social views; every unsuccessful Republican candidate to date (Dewey in '48, Nixon in '60, H.W. Bush in '92, Dole in '96) has failed to be elected because he didn't appeal enough to this group. They were in fact Bush II's strongest supporters, as evidenced by the fact that Kerry took Pennsylvania by only two points (Obama carried it by ten, owing to a much stronger showing in Philadelphia and a more activist approach on the part of the unions). These people are not by nature Republicans; they have no use for your economic message. And yet you are able to occasionally split their loyalties by appealing to their redneck impulses, because, again, you lack a viable economic base of your own and must steal from ours to be successful. Republicans, in politics as well as in trade, are always thieves.

And I pointed out: Obama had a lot more to criticize, from a Republican point of view, than his economics (which just happens to be what you are fixated upon).

Ad not a one that had the possibility of sticking, because a vast majority of voters in the United States prefer economic Keynesianism as against Reaganomics. The Republican Party has no economic base aside from wealthy capitalists, and hasn't since the Hoover Presidency.

You yourself admitted: his pro-abortion stance hurt him. I’ve also listed a number of other perceived liabilities outside the economic sphere.

You mean the canard manufactured by the Republican Party to create an atmosphere of faux-populism about McCain, in the explicit recognition of the fact that the Republican Party's economic message has no base whatsoever beyond the titans of industry and was a sure loser in today's economic situation?

If the message about economic redistribution didn’t frighten a lot of people, they never would have aired it. Obviously, their economic message does have pull – just not as much as they’d hoped.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Because ArcturusMengsk tells us so?

Uh, yeah. She bitches about corporate monopolies like Microsoft's Windows XP and calls herself a "conservative" at the same time. She's clearly no free-marketeer.

The “welfare queen” and “states’ rights” arguments tapped into that portion of America doubtful that the federal government was an efficient supplier of services.

No, dumbass, they tapped into the racist portion of America, and you know it, and you're willfully 'misremembering' it because it is convenient for you to do so, you useless piece of shit. Ronald Reagan was a racist scumfuck who dog-whistled to other racists in the name of "state's rights", which was really "the rights of states to segregate minority populations from the Caucasian majority without interference from the federal government". That is all that "state's rights" has really meant in the entire history of American politics, and nobody associates the term with anything other than that. Ronald Reagan was a racist scumfuck who dog-whistled to other racists that the "welfare queens were sapping their hard-earned, white taxdollars, and oh, won't'j'ya just let us cut taxes for our corporate friends if we give you a tax-break, too, to keep you from from having to buy their Cadillacs for them"? It had everything to do with race, and you know it. That Republicans are so sensitive to the racial prejudice of Reagan probably belies their own racialist sympathies as well.

In fact, 'economic conservatism' in the modern sense has only ever been about racism. To quote Lee Atwater:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".

Nobody really cares about paying a little bit more in taxes. Under Eisenhower the top tax rate was 90% and we experienced the longest sustained period of growth in American history. What they really care about is subsidizing the lifestyles of those they perceive to be 'inferior'.

Your argument falters in that there isn’t a bridge that necessarily exists whereby, because it can be proven that somebody will readily accept social relief when they can get it, they must be conscious “economic Democrats.”

If they accept state intervention in the markets when it is to the benefit of themselves or of their class, then they accept Keynesian policies and explicitly disavow Friedmanite policies, which are the basis of the economic platforms of the Democratic and Republican Parties respectfully.

You have not proved that the War in Iraq is psychotic militarism.

Why are we there? And if you say "to establish a democracy," I'll reach through the screen and punch you in your useless goddamned face. What was the casus belli given to enter the country, again, and why are we there after it was proven to be fallacious?

You have not proved that “corporate-friendly” policies are absolutely an evil.

Look at the DOW. Corporatism is evil, through and through, starting (but not ending) with the insane legal policy that defines corporations as legal entities possessing of rights.

And I pointed out: Obama had a lot more to criticize, from a Republican point of view, than his economics

Except Republicans can't criticize his economics, because they are vastly more popular than those of the Republicans. According to the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, economic voters favor Obama by a margin of eight points. I have seen this number as high as thirty points elsewhere.

You yourself admitted: his pro-abortion stance hurt him.

You are such a worthless, duplicitous fuck that I'm ashamed to be part of the same species. Are Republicans "pro-death" because they support the death penalty, scumbag? Yet again you prove your Republican credentials by manipulating the English language to suit your propagandizing efforts.

I’ve also listed a number of other perceived liabilities outside the economic sphere.

And that's not the issue here, is it? When it comes to Republicans, the economy is always a liability, because Republican corporatism resonates only with those who directly benefit from it even in the worst of times. Even staunch conservatives like Mike Huckabee favor government intervention in the markets.

If the message about economic redistribution didn’t frighten a lot of people, they never would have aired it. Obviously, their economic message does have pull – just not as much as they’d hoped.

Except it clearly doesn't, because Obama won voters whose main concern was the economy by numbers larger than any other group save African-Americans. Their lies about 'socialism' serve only as a code-word to rednecks for 'nigger (or nigger-loving) hippie', and has no attachment to anything in reality resembling actual ownership of the means of production by laborers.

[HemlockGrey]

Why are we there? And if you say "to establish a democracy," I'll reach through the screen and punch you in your useless goddamned face. What was the casus belli given to enter the country, again, and why are we there after it was proven to be fallacious?

"Establishing a democracy" was the rationale for the invasion in the minds of every neoconservative Republican who ever advocated for the invasion of Iraq. The argument was advanced that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States in order to sell the war to the American public, but when you trace the invasion back to its original proponents virtually all of them, Wolfowitz, Perle, all the neocons, believed that it was justified in the name of bringing a democractic regime to Iraq. This was not a terribly intelligent idea, granted, but to describe it as "psychotic militarism" is to grossly mischaracterize the actual foreign policy ideas underlying the invasion.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Why are we there? And if you say "to establish a democracy," I'll reach through the screen and punch you in your useless goddamned face. What was the casus belli given to enter the country, again, and why are we there after it was proven to be fallacious?

"Establishing a democracy" was the rationale for the invasion in the minds of every neoconservative Republican who ever advocated for the invasion of Iraq. The argument was advanced that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States in order to sell the war to the American public, but when you trace the invasion back to its original proponents virtually all of them, Wolfowitz, Perle, all the neocons, believed that it was justified in the name of bringing a democractic regime to Iraq. This was not a terribly intelligent idea, granted, but to describe it as "psychotic militarism" is to grossly mischaracterize the actual foreign policy ideas underlying the invasion.

Sure, I don't deny that the ideological underpinnings of the war came from the neoconservative philosophy, but the notion that one can establish a democracy through brute force-of-arms in a region of the world notorious for its anti-democratic and anti-modernistic philosophy is patently absurd. It didn't work after the First World War against Wilhelmine Germany (where anti-democraticism was as much a part of the intellectual tradition of the nation as it was an element of popular prejudice), and the Allies had the benefit of a shared cultural tradition with the Germans. Moreover, neoconservatism basically calls for belligerence in any case of national interest, and (at least the purist neoconservatism first advocated by Leo Strauss) can be characterized as pschologic militarism, insofar as it regards military action as, and I quote, "(t)he first, last, and only answer to cultural conflict".

Would you say the same thing if I were to say that the Trotskyite theory of perpetual revolution was "psychotic militarism"? Because they're in essence the same thing; all of these neoconservative lumpenintellectuals began their careers as Trotskyites in opposition to the Soviet Union, before gradually joining their natural allies on the American Right and transmogrifying Trotsky's theory of continuous (and imposed) world Communist revolution into continuous (and imposed) democratic revolution. The very reason they came to oppose the Soviet Union was because of the Stalinist policy of "socialism in one nation", because Stalin and his successors wouldn't spread Communism by force-of-arms the way Americans seem inclined to do with democracy. They were warmongers then and remain warmongers today.

[Samuel]

If I remember correctly, my positions about consistency had to do with whether or not we should refrain from particular hypocrisies in statements of national security policy when the material benefit outweighed the loss in credibility.

... I thought that you would have changed your mind after 5 years. I was using it as an example of how people who were like you think. Er, not to be rude, but have you changed?

It is completely unimportant whether or not you think you were "fooled." Plenty of people accepted McCain's warnings that Obama was unprepared for the presidency. The issue was important enough that The Economist acknowledged it as his chief defect in their endorsement.

The Economist is right wing. They just didn't want Bush 2.

Democrats are traditionally perceived as less hawkish on security. Obama's call for negotiation without preconditions appealed to those who believed that Bush had passed up useful opportunities to try and forge some progress on issues of mutual concern; they alienated others who accepted Bush's argument that to talk is to legitimize and grant the spotlight.

Except that is a completely false perception. It is a flimsy justification to go tribal and follow the Republicans.

To you. Not to everyone else.

Entirely irrelevant. We are talking about how people aren't recognizing their own biases.

Huckabee lost the primaries to John McCain.

I was pointing out the lack of attacks due to his position. His lose doesn't affect that fact that people didn't go after him for that.

Universal healthcare, or even guaranteed healthcare, is a fairly radical concept, whatever your attitude about its merits. Democrats rejoiced. Republicans often cringed.

In America!

But not in the rest of the world. Or the US actually. Isn't that what Medicade basically is?

Sure, I don't deny that the ideological underpinnings of the war came from the neoconservative philosophy, but the notion that one can establish a democracy through brute force-of-arms in a region of the world notorious for its anti-democratic and anti-modernistic philosophy is patently absurd.

Iraq was actually an exceptionally pro-modern country. The Baath Party was secular, socialistic and dedicated to industrialization.

[Axis Kast]

Uh, yeah. She bitches about corporate monopolies like Microsoft's Windows XP and calls herself a "conservative" at the same time. She's clearly no free-marketeer.

An anecdote. Is that the sum total of evidence you plan to bring to the table? A story about “my friend?” That’s your big proof that people really don’t “buy” the “hands-off, trickle-down” theory?

No, dumbass, they tapped into the racist portion of America, and you know it, and you're willfully 'misremembering' it because it is convenient for you to do so, you useless piece of shit. Ronald Reagan was a racist scumfuck who dog-whistled to other racists in the name of "state's rights", which was really "the rights of states to segregate minority populations from the Caucasian majority without interference from the federal government". That is all that "state's rights" has really meant in the entire history of American politics, and nobody associates the term with anything other than that. Ronald Reagan was a racist scumfuck who dog-whistled to other racists that the "welfare queens were sapping their hard-earned, white taxdollars, and oh, won't'j'ya just let us cut taxes for our corporate friends if we give you a tax-break, too, to keep you from from having to buy their Cadillacs for them"? It had everything to do with race, and you know it. That Republicans are so sensitive to the racial prejudice of Reagan probably belies their own racialist sympathies as well.

Prove it. With more than just polemics.

Nobody really cares about paying a little bit more in taxes.

According to a New York Times article by Jeffrey Schmalz of 4 November 1992, twenty-five percent of voters responded “very important” when asked whether Bush’s introduction of new taxes was a consideration in their vote.

Under Eisenhower the top tax rate was 90% and we experienced the longest sustained period of growth in American history. What they really care about is subsidizing the lifestyles of those they perceive to be 'inferior'.

Europe and the rest of the world had also just been ravaged. You know, by a war. Which devastated economics, drained reserves, and eliminated industrial capacity.

If they accept state intervention in the markets when it is to the benefit of themselves or of their class, then they accept Keynesian policies and explicitly disavow Friedmanite policies, which are the basis of the economic platforms of the Democratic and Republican Parties respectfully.

Your problem is very simple: you persist in citing examples in which a specific class of people respond well to certain policies, then insist, without justification, that they are capable of recognizing the hypocrisy. They aren’t. You haven’t been able to prove that they are.

Why are we there? And if you say "to establish a democracy," I'll reach through the screen and punch you in your useless goddamned face. What was the casus belli given to enter the country, again, and why are we there after it was proven to be fallacious?

Are you kidding me? Take a chill pill, fellow.

The suspicion that Saddam Hussein had WMDs was perfectly reasonable. He had a long history of obfuscation and non-compliance. The suspicion that he might use them had plenty of precedent. Fears that, as an absolute dictator, he was deeply out-of-touch with reality, reducing his rational decision-making capacity? More fuel for the fire. The argument that IAEA inspections could not be credible until the regime was out of power was also credible; the IAEA has proved ineffective in Iran, for example.

Arguments broke down over whether or not Saddam was a clear and present danger. Some people argued that, after September 11th, it was necessary to concern ourselves with much smaller amplitudes of threat than was previously the case. Others, that it would be the United States to pay the price once the world totally relinquished interest in Containment and Saddam had the freedom to rebuild and rearm conventionally.

There is a lot to criticize, surely. There isn’t any basis to contend that anyone was being “psychotic” or even “bloodthirsty.”

Look at the DOW. Corporatism is evil, through and through, starting (but not ending) with the insane legal policy that defines corporations as legal entities possessing of rights.

It’s possible, you know, to support government assistance to big business without also endorsing ethical failure. Don’t let that stop you from spinning conspiracy theories, though.

Except Republicans can't criticize his economics, because they are vastly more popular than those of the Republicans. According to the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, economic voters favor Obama by a margin of eight points. I have seen this number as high as thirty points elsewhere.

This doesn’t help your point. Plenty of people in this country still had issue disputes, not racial problems, with an Obama candidacy. Some voters believed that Obama would raise their taxes, whether or not it was justified. Others, that it was morally unacceptable to vote for him.

This covers your next point, as well. My argument is not that McCain’s platform is our saving grace. It is that Obama was not the “dream candidate” whose only fault was being black. People didn’t always like what he stood for, quite independently of the color of his skin. It’s possible that he didn’t win by a much larger margin because he just didn’t appeal to enough Americans politically, not just because many people are racist. Feel free to misrepresent me, though. You’re doing a great job.

[Darth Wong]

ArcturusMengsk: it's silly to assume that anyone would vote based on some kind of economic philosophy such as Keynesian economics, trickle-down economics, etc. The vast majority of people don't know or care about any of that. Even if they use the terms, they don't actually know or care about it; they're just parroting what they heard on CNN or FOXNews. All they care about is their own tiny piece of the pie; it is narrow, uninformed, short-sighted self-interest which guides their decisions.

That is how America has gotten itself into this cycle of deficits and tax cuts: voters only care about their own personal short-term money in the bank, and this is a more important concern for them than any and all macroscopic economic concerns. It's one of the reasons why I have always favoured paternalistic government: as insulting and elitist as it sounds, the people really don't know what's good for them. People are stupid. They are short-sighted, irrational, and not really capable of weighing long-term harm vs short-term pleasure. If nothing else, this debt crisis should be proof of that.

As for the issue of race, Axis Kast earlier commented that he felt the limit on Obama was issues rather than race; is there any particular reason why we should accept the false dichotomy which says it couldn't have been both? How can anyone deny that race was an issue, when so many people polled saying that it was an issue?

[Axis Kast]

As for the issue of race, Axis Kast earlier commented that he felt the limit on Obama was issues rather than race; is there any particular reason why we should accept the false dichotomy which says it couldn't have been both? How can anyone deny that race was an issue, when so many people polled saying that it was an issue?

There's no arguing the conclusion of that piece you referred to earlier in which polling confirmed that race played a very significant role in limiting the number of traditional Democrats who voted for Obama by about six-percent.

My contention is that Obama's issue positions were also of great significance, and that accepting race, alone, as an explanation for his lack of a landslide outcome is inappropriate. The assumption that only race could have bound Obama is based on the false notion that he was otherwise the candidate with something for everyone, on both sides of the aisle. That's just not the case.

[Darth Wong]

You are forgetting that many of the "issues" were subtly crypto-racist themselves. For example, the widespread perception that he was "weak on foreign policy" was due in part to constant and widespread attempts to paint him as secretly sympathetic to Muslim extremists and all forces "hostile to America". I hope you're not going to stand there with a straight face and pretend that his racial background had nothing to do with those attacks.

Look at Hillary Clinton's primary campaign; the overarching message was "he's not like us real Americans": an issue that could be tied to his status as a constitutional law professor but which is also subtly racist. Sarah Palin did the same thing.