![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
The Democratic race throws into stark relief the converging forces of racism, sexism, and class-warfare in a method that, for a sociologist could only be some kind of fantasy. We get agism too!
Consider the "coffee divide" wherein Starbucks drinkers (Latte Liberals) prefer Obama while Hillary voters are good old "Dunkin' Donuts Democrats!" Class.
The survey is even of the Democrats--presumably the more progressive political organ of our nation: if the Democrats are either sexist or racist--classist or agist--then we assume that for the Republicans it must simply be a matter of which candidate is more unpalatable.
But even they can't decide! I have heard (on XM's "election channel") that Republicans are often voting for Obama because while they don't like him, it's anyone but Hillary! On the other side is Limbaugh's exercise in trying to game-theory democracy with Operation Chaos where Reps are supposed to vote for Hillary!
If you are under 30 you're likely an Obama voter--over 60? Heavily favoring Hillary. It may not be unusual that people would prefer a candidate closer to their own age--and Obama certainly has some young, hip, pizazz going for him--but really? Is it about "experience" (in which case McCain should be a preferred candidate) or is it about self-identification?
Looking at the breakdown of hardcore differences in Democratic demographics, I think the "dream-team" or "unity" ticket looks a lot more viable than it did two months ago. I say this not because of a 10-point win in PA--or the downward spiral of increasing nastiness in the election--but rather because of the money.
Obama out-spent Hillary 3:1 (or more) and was unable to capture her core voters. While it's true that choosing between he and McCain on the issues would make him a viable candidate, I fear that far too many people this election--amongst the Democrats are going to use their ballot to express deeply held prejudices, hatreds, or fears. I think this is inevitable--and for both side (Hillary's negatives are massive, after all).
While combining these might give us the "best of both worlds" if Obama is at the top of the ticket it doesn't make any demographic a loser (Hillary doesn't argue she is ahead in votes--at least not yet--counting Michigan votes is still her plan)--she argues he is unelectable. Well, even if he is, that's not a reason for her not to try to shore him up as VP.
Of course then he has the nightmare of the Clinton tag-team breathing down his neck :)
-Marco
April 25 2008, 12:28:21 UTC 4 years ago
April 25 2008, 13:13:19 UTC 4 years ago
April 25 2008, 15:15:57 UTC 4 years ago
Which is an incredibly (and doubly) sad statement.
1) The fact that you can get away with calling the entire Republican party prejudiced (even to small degrees) speaks to how low the party and its supporters have sunk. There's apparently no alternative for what I call "rational conservatism": the GOP has discovered what works, and what works is us-versus-them-ism.
2) Since it looks like about half of the Democratic supporters look like Republicans when the chips are down (see the chart in your last post), you have to assume that a significant portion of them (all it takes is a few percent when the country is so close to a 50/50 split) will flip over to McCain if Obama gets the nomination -- which means his overall chances are very low. That in turn means that any hope of a re-centering and reformation of US politics is almost out the window.
(sigh)
April 25 2008, 15:25:07 UTC 4 years ago
Certainly there are utter-assholes out there in the Republican party. And there are racists in the democrats--but for us even to be here is amazing. And all those <30 voters will be >60 some day!
Secondly, the Republicans have found the "exploit" in modern politics of shamelessness. So far, yes, it works--but I expect it may work less well as it goes on. Racism is a powerful force--but being described as a racist is suicide for politicians. McCain going negative on Obama may, nationally, prove worse than Hillary.
We'll see.
-Marco
April 25 2008, 15:41:49 UTC 4 years ago
I definitely do not claim that all Republicans are utter-assholes, or even "irrational" (at least as I define it). But the fact that you can make an exaggerated statement for effect and not be strung up for gross inaccuracy shows how bad things have gotten. The percentage of people for whom that exaggeration is actually true has increased to the point where you might as well just round up.
I sure hope so.
Absolutely true (see: "Macaca" Allen). However, these days you don't have to claim/be called a racist outright to get the support of the racist voters. If you're clever enough, you can stealth your way into that spot yet avoid crucifixion.
(Aside: I'm not sure that "these days" weren't "those days" as well; maybe this is nothing new).
I think this reinforces my point about the Republican party now being the party of the prejudiced: you'd be hard pressed to point to any particular Republican as having prejudiced policies, but the conventional wisdom across the nation (for both opponents and supporters) is that the party as a whole leans that way.
April 26 2008, 10:25:02 UTC 4 years ago
Which shows how much he knows about Hamas. Hamas wants further conflict, because if they accept peace now, what do they get? Gaza. Pfft. If you look at their constitution, they're a bit more ambitious than that,
" Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it [...] [Hamas] strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine [...] Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
Obama supports making peace in the Middle East. McCain supports expanding the war in Iraq to Iran - patron of Hamas. Which candidate, then, will Hamas be more in favour of?
April 26 2008, 15:36:30 UTC 4 years ago
April 26 2008, 23:10:27 UTC 4 years ago
That's not really consistent with, you know, cruisin' around with MLK and stuff.
April 25 2008, 16:08:53 UTC 4 years ago
As long as I've known you you've called yourself a Republican... but how often have you actually been *voting* for them, especially lately?
If I'm right about your Rep/Senate voting, then I'd say that you'd be hard pressed to legitimately call yourself a "Republican", even if that's what it says in the books. That doesn't mean you don't espouse conservative principles -- it just means that the Republicans don't (any longer?) match up to your principles (enough?).
I guess part of this comes from my Canadian perspective. There's no such thing as "political identity" here, unless you are indeed a member of the party (in which case you pay dues, do fundraising, have a chance to run in a district, etc). Your average voter though is a voter, not a Conservative, Liberal, NDP, etc -- even if they've voted the same way for decades. There's still little presumption of future voting performance though; longtime party supporters can and will (as has been demonstrated in recent times) switch their vote.
April 25 2008, 16:26:08 UTC 4 years ago
I was gonna vote for Bush Senior but, as a college student, I didn't.
So how the hell can I call myself 'Republican'?
1. I am pro-gun. I believe that we should have the right to own weapons and that things like the assault rifle ban and the Washington D.C. gun-ban are unconstitutional.
I'm okay with registration--especially for assault weapons and the like--and okay with restrictions on criminal / mentally unstable purchase--but I, for example, do not hold with the bill floated to allow the government to take guns from people in New Orleans after Katrina. Hillary did support that.
2. I am a flag-waving USA! USA! USA! chanting patriot. To say that the Democrats aren't patriotic is false. To say that they're cool with Charlie Daniels / Lee Greenwood patriotism is spin.
3. I'm a hawk (in general). I believe in the capability of America and American ideas to improve the world (Germany, Japan, South Korea). I believe that we could in fact help democratize the middle east. I don't find "all cultures equal" and while ours certainly isn't perfect, there are things I think we do well.
4. I believe in the value of faith. I am a Christian. Obama is, I think, right that "the left" has a critical view of faith as a whole.
Do the Republicans match my principles? No, not really. The reason I'm still a Republican is that, until Bush Jr., I was actually less offended by what I saw as main-stream Republicans vs. main-stream Democrats (Dennis Kucinich, etc. I held Michael Moore as a reasonable commentator for ... longer than I should've).
So I'm unhappy with both parties. Presently, due to the torture thing, I cannot morally vote McCain since he, although I like him, would validate the Bush policies in a way I can't countenance.
-Marco
April 25 2008, 16:49:45 UTC 4 years ago
Your personal list is interesting and a good example. You happen to list pro-gun as #1, but you go on to list torture as a big enough issue that it outbalances everything else. (Note: I do realize that pro-gun is only #1 on your list of "why be a Republican", not overall).
Political parties espouse ideals / positions / priorities only as long as it wins them votes. These positions are not fixed over time either. Have you ever looked at the histories of the two current mainstream parties? The Democrats were, at one point, hawkish and pro-slavary; the Republicans of the same era favored what would today be called "socialist" policies.
Many (most?) people do not always consider current policies when placing their votes -- they just see the party name, think "they've felt the way I do in the past; they probably still do", and mark their ballot. The parties can exploit this by shifting their actual behavior one way or another to acquire additional voters / influence while still (undeservedly) retaining their core.
This is why I like the recent Internet websites that attempt to show you who you should vote for based on a blind-taste-test of policies and statements: you get a feeling for who lines up with you the most without undue prejudices.
April 25 2008, 17:11:38 UTC 4 years ago
-Marco
April 25 2008, 19:46:22 UTC 4 years ago
April 26 2008, 17:54:56 UTC 4 years ago