Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

It was Al Gore's campaign that used it in the primary. It was old news by the time of the general election although it kept coming up. Mr. Atwater and Mr. Bush did nothing to quell the conversation. (g)

[sailaway21]

Well it turns out that we don't have to worry too much about what Barry Obama's preacher says. Apparently, as expressed by Obama in SF, religion and things like gun ownership and anti-immigration sentiment coupled with economic frustration cause Americans to act irrationally. Obama may attend church but he seems to feel, along with Marx, that it is the opiate of the masses. Anotherwords, he's just another latte-liberal genuflecting to the masses. And he apparently got too comfortable in San Francisco and maybe let slide his real feelings. This is not going to play well in Pottstown, PA where people tend to believe that God is the Creator and a vital part of their lives. They also like to hunt deer and possess firearms for that purpose versus contemplating going postal. The details below.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9561.html

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by Obama

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Obama is really bending over backwards to piss away his chances. We all know he thinks like this, and so do most Democrats in the city, but does he actually have to say it ?

I don't usually go around quoting myself, but ....

Originally Posted by wind_magic

The maps of election results in the United States clearly shows that Republican vs. Democrat is actually a rural vs. city battle, it really has little to do with class warfare, rich vs. poor, black vs. white, or any of that non-sense. In election after election the cities are little blue dots in the middle of vast areas of red. The Democratic party is a party of city people. Democratic ideals are city ideals. A city person's desire for open natural spaces and their feeling that the world is being paved over is expressed in their concerns for the environment. A city person's fear that some kid on the corner is going to shoot them drives their desire for gun control. A city person's dependence on large companies, large governments, large department stores, and all the associated feelings of being at the mercy of the world that towers around them feeds their bitterness towards the very organizations they must work for in order to survive. The Democratic party is like a support group for an urban people filled with angst about everything that goes on around them.



[EDIT: This isn't the map from the original post I made, that map link is no longer active so I had to use the one above from another website]

There are Democrats in rural areas, of course, but I really do feel there is a fundamental disconnect between the Democratic party and rural voters. As an example I am posting this chart (below) from the Florida Democratic primaries. It shows the percentage of black voters in a county and what percentage of those voters cast their vote for Obama. Two things are immediately obvious from looking at this chart - (1) The more black folks there are, the more votes Obama gets, and (2) rural African Americans do NOT vote for Obama nearly as much as urban people do. The graph shows a big cloud of red with a big cloud of blue above it - urban voters are much more excited about Obama than rural voters are by nearly a 2 to 1 margin. Yes, there is a racial component, but that isn't why Democrats have so much trouble winning when they need votes outside the cities.



Democrats often say that they don't understand people in the country, that folks in rural areas should welcome Democrats because Democrats are the only party that is trying to help them. I have heard Democrats express confusion about this on many occasions, that they don't understand why poor people in rural areas keep voting for the Republican party when the party "obviously" doesn't care about them, and doesn't do anything to "help" them. Democrats express frustration that they can't seem to get their message out to these poor folks that need help. The thing is that it's not a case of rural people not hearing the Democratic party's message, but rather that they are hearing it loud and clear ... the problem isn't that rural people don't hear the message, it's that rural people don't LIKE the message.

Republicans don't do much better. The reason Republicans do well in the country is because they at least pay lip service to Libertarian and independent ideals - individual responsibility, doing things yourself, excelling on individual merit, fiscal responsibility, etc. But Republicans don't have that great of a track record either, and many rural people's relationship with the Republican party is tenuous at best. The lesser evil.

[sailaway21]

Kinda makes you wonder who the party of the little guy is after all, doesn't it? Fat cat Republicans are in favor of school choice and parental notification of their daughter's abortion, and even lower taxes. Democratic leadership is seemingly comprised of a bunch of scolds. And you know, I don't really see or know a lot of bitter Americans. Most of the one's clinging to their religion and guns are doing so in hopes that God sends a big ol' twelve point buck into their sights, their only bitterness being a misfire. (g)

[artbyjody]

Obama is merely getting caught up in himself. He is a trained speaker to a degree, but one can not allow ego to supercede ones professed goal as they are counter productive. But honestly, does he have not one iota of leadership proof - I have yet to see one actual "He did it" law or bill that was passed (or heck even failed because he has not authored anything that saw the light of a senate or congressional floor). He did write an entertaining book - but everyone writes those now a days.

Hilary may not be much better to some extent - but she has actually tried and failed in pushing changes. Additionally one can not downplay what role a 1st Lady actually plays in politics and that makes her somewhat more polished and more realistic to a degree. If was not GWB's other half - he would look like a raving lunatic instead of just being perceived as one.

Then again it all can be a conspiracy to allow Hillary to be nominated because some group of super delegates and had a talk with Obama that started with, "Son we are proud of you BUT.."

Whatever it is - over time the true nature of anyone does come out...and stress plays a large role in that true identity...

[sck5]

Sway, you live in Michigan. Surely you know some people who are pissed off (even bitter) that their jobs were shipped overseas? And dont people you know reach for their religion when times are bad?

And as for elitism, (which some are accusing Obama of) it is hard to swallow when it is coming from people (both Hillary and McCain) who have more than $100 million in the bank. And in Hillary's case, she went to Yale, so it is tough to start making accusations about Harvard.

But bottom line, are we REALLY going to elect a president based on a single sound bite somebody managed to record? I regard this tendency to make a huge media circus out of one comment to be a real problem in our system (and it happens on both sides). It is way more important what McCain and Obama think we should do in Iraq or what they would do about the economy than some sentence either of them said at some point in the campaign. I will refrain from repeating any of McCain's but he had some good ones and focusing on them is equally stupid.

There ARE some real differences between what the candidates would do about the major issues in front of us. THAT is what we should base our votes on, not the latest media frenzy over some ill advised remark.

[PBzeer]

Why are you suprised? It's been that way since the Nixon-Kennedy debate on TV back in 1960. As gifted a speaker as Obama is, without TV, he wouldn't even be in the race, offering us Change.

The majority of voters do not make an intellectual choice when voting.

[sailaway21]

sck5 is being a little too cute by half.

The implication of Obama's statement is that a certain portion of the unwashed masses finds solace in their simple notions of religious faith (obviously irrational) and their sense of security within these United States is predicated on their ownership of firearms. And it's demographic sophistry to try to claim that the electorate of Pennsylvania or any other midwestern state is obsessed with the events of twentyfive years ago. Which events, by the way, were not the exportation of jobs overseas but the arrival of high quality fuel efficient Japanese cars. And the auto industry's current malaise has nothing to do with jobs being shipped overseas. The current concern of the supposedly bitter midwesterner is not over his job being exported it is over the fact that no one is buying his employer's product. Not the same issue at all. And free trade is always one of the horsemen of the apocalypse of populists everywhere in every era.

The charge of elitism has resonance precisely because of the comments and rightfully goes to the nature of Mr. Obama's political philosophy of statism. the implication is that these poor simple people need the overarching care of the state lest they turn to less civilized actions. To which those poor simple people merely reply that their religion gives dignity, meaning, and worth to their lives and they greatly enjoy hunting and wish you'd buy a Ford.

When you couple this Obama statement with the pronouncements of Mrs Obama in Zanesville, Ohio it's difficult for the casual observor to not draw the conclusion that they are condescending elitists in the traditional Democratic mode. John Francois Kerry comes to mind all decked out in his hunting gear. Mrs Obama, while in Zanesville, remarked on how difficult it was for them to make ends meet with an annual burden in excess of $10,000 for their children's dance lessons, soccer expenses, and the like. This is coming from a woman who makes in excessof $400,000 per year in her own right, not counting Mr. Obama's contributions to the family income. The median income of those ladies she was addressing in Zanesville is $37,000. I'm sure they were grateful for the noblese oblige exhibited by Mrs Obama's visit. Martha Stewart get's pilloried for less egregious behavior.

And yes, sck5, we will judge the canidates on such sound-bites as we find relevant. All the soaring rhetoric in the world on faith and God can do nothing if there is the supposition that the speaker does not really mean what he is saying. Quite similar to the Obama flunky caught out telling the Canadians not to worry about all that Obama hyperbole on NAFTA with the assurance that it signified not a desire to revoke or amend NAFTA, but was merely red meat for the populist masses to earn their vote.

What most people resent the hell out of is hypocritical politicians. From either party. People are perpetually tired of being lied to or perceiving that they are being lied to. So it is only natural that they really want to know the true nature of the individual they are about to nominate for election to the highest office in the land. And that nature is quite likely to be revealed more in a casual off-the-cuff remark than in a prepared speech. How many people would vote for Clinton again had they taken the womanizing allegations seriously prior to his initial election? Color it any way you want but the American people know that Clinton is a congenital liar and they don't want another one just yet. Given their experience with Mr. Clinton it is quite rational, at this point, to be asking if Mr. Obama is out of the same mold.

And sck5's concern for a debate on those real issues that confront us has seemingly not reached the Obama campaign headquarters. There are no specifics emanating from the Obama camp on any pressing issue of the day; only soaring unspecific rhetoric on "change". For all us poor simpletons know that might mean a national policy on underwear. Fred, you change with George. George will change with Bill, etc.....

[sck5]

sway

sounds like you dont like the democrats! I would never have guessed! But as for hypocrisy you are going to have a bit of a problem voting for Mr. McCain who has been on both sides of quite a few issues since he realized he had to pander to the right wing to get the nomination. You seem to be criticizing Obama for NOT being a hypocrite - i.e. he says what he actually thinks and you dont like it. Fair enough. Also fair enough to say that Obama lacks specifics (though its not as bad as you make it out) but I suspect that is more because there isnt that much difference with Hillary - You will see a lot more difference when it comes to running against John "100 more years of war" McCain.

[sailaway21]

Now look there, Sport, you'll simply have to try better to get some facts around before you start typing. Mr. McCain did not express the thought that we'd be at war for another hundred years, but that we might have a presence in Iraq for that long. Similar to the US military presence in Europe which has now passed the half century mark with little fanfare.

And Mr. McCain has done precious little pandering to the right from where I am sitting. Had he done so, I might have even considered voting for him. As it were, he is and was pretty far down on my list of canidates for the nomination. Most of the right share, and shared, my opinion of him in regards to issues of interest to conservatives. It's rather disingenuous on your part to ascribe Mr. McCain's canidacy to me, and my efforts, when you are fully aware of my opinion of him from my previous posts.

Making sense of the rest of your post in regards to Mr. Obama is quite the task. Mr. Obama's attempts to turn comments clearly deprecatory towards a large percentage of Americans into a simple concern for their financial welfare isn't going to fly. I find little enough to like about most Democrats but that, like Mr. Obama's condescension and elitism, is not as much a concern to me as it should be to Democrats comtemplating his nomination to the presidency. Both he and Sir Hillary are the Democratic, and presumably your, canidates for the nomination. Until one of them is standing on the capitol steps with raised hand next January the twentieth it's all a matter of humourous hypocrisy leavened with the outright lie, to me.

You've had better posts. (g)