Pollster.com analysis: "Why Obama Won"

[irishmick79]

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.

Obama does have a pretty thin foreign policy background, and I think that would have been an issue regardless of his race. And he would have been attacked for being a terrorist sympathizer largely due to his openness to meeting with leaders of countries who are inherently hostile to the US. Kerry got blasted for being 'soft on terrorism' after suggesting much less than Obama has. The real question is if those attacks against Obama would have reached the level of vitriol and hostility that they reached if he were white. That's much harder to assess.

[Darth Wong]

Obama does have a pretty thin foreign policy background, and I think that would have been an issue regardless of his race.

There's a difference between saying "someone doesn't have much foreign-policy experience" and saying "I fear that he is more sympathetic to our enemies than he is to America." The latter was heavily influenced by crypto-racism, as exemplified by those who were fond of emphasizing the "Hussein" in BHO whenever they mentioned him.

And he would have been attacked for being a terrorist sympathizer largely due to his openness to meeting with leaders of countries who are inherently hostile to the US. Kerry got blasted for being 'soft on terrorism' after suggesting much less than Obama has.

Kerry got blasted for being "soft on terrorism" in 2004, when most Americans still thought the Iraq Invasion was a pretty good idea. I don't think you can draw a straight-line comparison there: Obama would have lost handily in 2004 because too much of the country was still in the pocket of the right-wing extremists and neo-cons.

The real question is if those attacks against Obama would have reached the level of vitriol and hostility that they reached if he were white. That's much harder to assess.

And didn't have the middle name "Hussein". Emphasizing that is a form of racism too; the implication is that a good candidate should have a "white" name, like Smith or McCain.

[Axis Kast]

You are forgetting that many of the "issues" were subtly crypto-racist themselves.

Is this a repudiation of your earlier position that both racism and genuine issue opposition could coexist, each untainted by the other?

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.

Racism was alive and well during this election cycle, and criticisms of Obama, particularly from the McCain camp during the final months, were frequently harsh and unfounded. It appears to me that campaign officials took “the low road,” and permitted bigoted rumors and misperceptions to flourish among the voting public, where they were well-received by Republicans especially.

And while we can acknowledge this, I hope that you will not stand there with a straight face and imply that nearly every criticism of Obama was linked to crypto-racism. Had Obama been white, he would have taken more votes – but he would still have confronted passionate, and, more important, substantial opposition on the issues in play.

There's a difference between saying "someone doesn't have much foreign-policy experience" and saying "I fear that he is more sympathetic to our enemies than he is to America." The latter was heavily influenced by crypto-racism, as exemplified by those who were fond of emphasizing the "Hussein" in BHO whenever they mentioned him.

“I fear he is more sympathetic to our enemies than he is to America” is a common canard floated by Republicans to criticize Democrats who question bellicose posturing and black-and-white dichotomies. The Republicans were more than happy for crypto-racism to do its work, but it’s absolutely irresponsible to claim that he would not have faced substantial opposition to his foreign policy for much the same reasons, if white.

Kerry got blasted for being "soft on terrorism" in 2004, when most Americans still thought the Iraq Invasion was a pretty good idea. I don't think you can draw a straight-line comparison there: Obama would have lost handily in 2004 because too much of the country was still in the pocket of the right-wing extremists and neo-cons.

And not all of those voters changed their minds.

And didn't have the middle name "Hussein". Emphasizing that is a form of racism too; the implication is that a good candidate should have a "white" name, like Smith or McCain.

The presence of racism in the campaign is not a catch-all explanation that can be allowed to “spill over” into recognition that Obama was a Democrat. At least one-third of Americans are solid backers of the Republican Party. Not to mention the all-important truth that Obama, more than anyone before him, was susceptible to shouts of “Socialist!” It doesn't matter if these perceptions were true, or if they were correct. They were genuine.

[irishmick79]

Obama does have a pretty thin foreign policy background, and I think that would have been an issue regardless of his race.

There's a difference between saying "someone doesn't have much foreign-policy experience" and saying "I fear that he is more sympathetic to our enemies than he is to America." The latter was heavily influenced by crypto-racism, as exemplified by those who were fond of emphasizing the "Hussein" in BHO whenever they mentioned him.

That kind of ridiculous invective goes on in political campaigns all the time. I would argue that the racism was being directed more at America's perceived enemies rather than Obama himself. I think emphasizing "Hussein" is more akin to republicans trying to scare voters away from JFK by insinuating his Catholicism twisted his loyalties to the Pope. Ultimately it was a political tool designed to define Obama as being significantly 'other' to justify voting against him, and it didn't work.

Kerry got blasted for being "soft on terrorism" in 2004, when most Americans still thought the Iraq Invasion was a pretty good idea. I don't think you can draw a straight-line comparison there: Obama would have lost handily in 2004 because too much of the country was still in the pocket of the right-wing extremists and neo-cons.

Sure, the political climate has changed, but has it changed that much? A lot of American voters are still pretty responsive to jingoistic, sabre-rattling foreign policy rhetoric, and McCain continually scored strongly on foreign policy by making belicose and caustic remarks about Russia, Iran, and the rest. Obama's suggestion of meetings, even if diplomatically sound, sets him up for these kind of attacks. ANYBODY suggesting what Obama suggested would have gotten blasted hard by the GOP for it.

The real question is if those attacks against Obama would have reached the level of vitriol and hostility that they reached if he were white. That's much harder to assess.

And didn't have the middle name "Hussein". Emphasizing that is a form of racism too; the implication is that a good candidate should have a "white" name, like Smith or McCain.

Well, the GOP isn't exactly the model of diversity. When you consider that much of the GOP base is primarily rural, overwhelmingly white communities, is it really that much of a surprise that those voters tend to view national leadership through the lense they're familiar and comfortable with?

[Darth Wong]

You are forgetting that many of the "issues" were subtly crypto-racist themselves.

Is this a repudiation of your earlier position that both racism and genuine issue opposition could coexist, each untainted by the other?

The bolded part is your made-up addition to my argument.

Racism was alive and well during this election cycle, and criticisms of Obama, particularly from the McCain camp during the final months, were frequently harsh and unfounded. It appears to me that campaign officials took “the low road,” and permitted bigoted rumors and misperceptions to flourish among the voting public, where they were well-received by Republicans especially.

And while we can acknowledge this, I hope that you will not stand there with a straight face and imply that nearly every criticism of Obama was linked to crypto-racism.

I never said that. That's why I said it was "in part" due to crypto-racism, which you for some reason altered to "nearly every criticism". That's pretty creative interpretation on your part.

Had Obama been white, he would have taken more votes – but he would still have confronted passionate, and, more important, substantial opposition on the issues in play.

That's the point I'm making. All other things being equal, his race cost him votes relative to him being a white man. Ergo, he would have had a larger margin of victory if he had been a white man with all of the same positions, charisma, and abilities.

“I fear he is more sympathetic to our enemies than he is to America” is a common canard floated by Republicans to criticize Democrats who question bellicose posturing and black-and-white dichotomies. The Republicans were more than happy for crypto-racism to do its work, but it’s absolutely irresponsible to claim that he would not have faced substantial opposition to his foreign policy for much the same reasons, if white.

Since when did I or anyone else say that if he were white, no one would have criticized any of his positions? Seriously, where are you getting this from?

Kerry got blasted for being "soft on terrorism" in 2004, when most Americans still thought the Iraq Invasion was a pretty good idea. I don't think you can draw a straight-line comparison there: Obama would have lost handily in 2004 because too much of the country was still in the pocket of the right-wing extremists and neo-cons.

And not all of those voters changed their minds.

Of course not all of them changed their minds, but a lot of them did, as proven by Bush's plummeting approval ratings. Why do you keep trying to take an argument which is intrinsically about trends and proportions, and transform it into an all-or-nothing proposition?

The presence of racism in the campaign is not a catch-all explanation that can be allowed to “spill over” into recognition that Obama was a Democrat. At least one-third of Americans are solid backers of the Republican Party. Not to mention the all-important truth that Obama, more than anyone before him, was susceptible to shouts of “Socialist!” It doesn't matter if these perceptions were true, or if they were correct. They were genuine.

No one is saying that there was zero opposition to any of his policies. The question is why McCain took some 48% of the vote even though he did virtually everything wrong. Even Republicans admit that his campaign was marked by ineptitude on almost every level, from the ground up to the top. And even if only racism made only a 6% difference as some have suggested, that would change a 52/48 margin to a 58/42 margin, which looks considerably more decisive and would have made the electoral college vote more of a landslide than it already was.

[Darth Wong]

Obama does have a pretty thin foreign policy background, and I think that would have been an issue regardless of his race.

There's a difference between saying "someone doesn't have much foreign-policy experience" and saying "I fear that he is more sympathetic to our enemies than he is to America." The latter was heavily influenced by crypto-racism, as exemplified by those who were fond of emphasizing the "Hussein" in BHO whenever they mentioned him.

That kind of ridiculous invective goes on in political campaigns all the time. I would argue that the racism was being directed more at America's perceived enemies rather than Obama himself. I think emphasizing "Hussein" is more akin to republicans trying to scare voters away from JFK by insinuating his Catholicism twisted his loyalties to the Pope. Ultimately it was a political tool designed to define Obama as being significantly 'other' to justify voting against him, and it didn't work.

As long as you're mentioning the JFK campaign, would you argue that this particular attack on him was not religionist? Because it most certainly was; it just wasn't enough to turn the tide. Same here: this was clearly a racist attack; it just wasn't enough. That doesn't mean it had no effect at all.

Sure, the political climate has changed, but has it changed that much? A lot of American voters are still pretty responsive to jingoistic, sabre-rattling foreign policy rhetoric, and McCain continually scored strongly on foreign policy by making belicose and caustic remarks about Russia, Iran, and the rest. Obama's suggestion of meetings, even if diplomatically sound, sets him up for these kind of attacks. ANYBODY suggesting what Obama suggested would have gotten blasted hard by the GOP for it.

But it would not have been as effective. You must admit that the kind of person who falls for this (many of whom were Democrats too) is more likely to be racist.

And didn't have the middle name "Hussein". Emphasizing that is a form of racism too; the implication is that a good candidate should have a "white" name, like Smith or McCain.

Well, the GOP isn't exactly the model of diversity. When you consider that much of the GOP base is primarily rural, overwhelmingly white communities, is it really that much of a surprise that those voters tend to view national leadership through the lense they're familiar and comfortable with?

Of course it's not a surprise. That doesn't mean it's not racist.

[irishmick79]

There's a difference between saying "someone doesn't have much foreign-policy experience" and saying "I fear that he is more sympathetic to our enemies than he is to America." The latter was heavily influenced by crypto-racism, as exemplified by those who were fond of emphasizing the "Hussein" in BHO whenever they mentioned him.

That kind of ridiculous invective goes on in political campaigns all the time. I would argue that the racism was being directed more at America's perceived enemies rather than Obama himself. I think emphasizing "Hussein" is more akin to republicans trying to scare voters away from JFK by insinuating his Catholicism twisted his loyalties to the Pope. Ultimately it was a political tool designed to define Obama as being significantly 'other' to justify voting against him, and it didn't work.

As long as you're mentioning the JFK campaign, would you argue that this particular attack on him was not religionist? Because it most certainly was; it just wasn't enough to turn the tide. Same here: this was clearly a racist attack; it just wasn't enough. That doesn't mean it had no effect at all.

Sure, the political climate has changed, but has it changed that much? A lot of American voters are still pretty responsive to jingoistic, sabre-rattling foreign policy rhetoric, and McCain continually scored strongly on foreign policy by making belicose and caustic remarks about Russia, Iran, and the rest. Obama's suggestion of meetings, even if diplomatically sound, sets him up for these kind of attacks. ANYBODY suggesting what Obama suggested would have gotten blasted hard by the GOP for it.

But it would not have been as effective. You must admit that the kind of person who falls for this (many of whom were Democrats too) is more likely to be racist.

And didn't have the middle name "Hussein". Emphasizing that is a form of racism too; the implication is that a good candidate should have a "white" name, like Smith or McCain.

Well, the GOP isn't exactly the model of diversity. When you consider that much of the GOP base is primarily rural, overwhelmingly white communities, is it really that much of a surprise that those voters tend to view national leadership through the lense they're familiar and comfortable with?

Of course it's not a surprise. That doesn't mean it's not racist.

Presidential campaigns are ultimately about winning the Presidency. Every major campaign in US history has sought in some way to find the most controversial or negative aspect about an opponents' character and identity, attack it, and exploit it for all its political worth over the course of a campaign. This happens regardless of an opponents' race, creed, or religion. JFK's most controversial character aspect during the 1960 campaign happened to be his religion, and Obama's most controversial aspect happened to be his race.

Ultimately, the attacks on JFK were religionist and the attacks against Obama were racist. My question is, given the above paradigm in political campaigns, how relevant are those labels? What do they actually impact? If McCain had won, do you think his campaign would be remembered for closet racism, or for merely being 'dirty'? It strikes me that those perjorative labels usually don't get attached to successful campaigns.

[Axis Kast]

No one is saying that there was zero opposition to any of his policies. The question is why McCain took some 48% of the vote even though he did virtually everything wrong. Even Republicans admit that his campaign was marked by ineptitude on almost every level, from the ground up to the top. And even if only racism made only a 6% difference as some have suggested, that would change a 52/48 margin to a 58/42 margin, which looks considerably more decisive and would have made the electoral college vote more of a landslide than it already was.

It's a question of whether the lack of a "landslide" can correctly be attributed to racism, not issues.

Your math is wrong. The article contended that Obama lost about six points; it did not, however, prove that all of those voters who should have been part of that contingent punched their ticket for McCain instead. The final outcome probably would not have been as stark as 58/42, even if Obama had been white.

My surprise arises in that Obama was a terrifically liberal candidate, even for Democrats -- something bound to strike a negative chord with many people who then denied him their vote, without the taint of racism having anything to do with it.

[Duckie]

Explain a single 'terrifically liberal' position Obama holds that isn't held by the majority of the US or the majority of Democrats. I think you're confusing Obama for Feinstein.

[Axis Kast]

Explain a single 'terrifically liberal' position Obama holds that isn't held by the majority of the US or the majority of Democrats. I think you're confusing Obama for Feinstein.

Explaining either of those things would be irrelevant to proving my point. Obama won the election. Obviously, a majority of Americans approve of his platform. A minority, however, does not. I have contended that it was a substantial minority.