Now all we need is a Chris Hitchens op-ed accusing melissa harris-lacewell of being white because she is biracial.
Yeah, yeah, it's a soft spot for me, whatever.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
How do you know she is biracial?
rikyrah
· 1 year ago
Because she commonly says, that she's a Black woman with a White mother....I've heard it several times in interviews with her.
And, that is her phrasing I used.
" Black woman with a White mother."
The Bag of Health and Politics
· 1 year ago
Though I am white, I generally agree with this article. I also believes that this extends beyond race and partisan affiliation to those of us that care about Civil Rights...
But I also think this is a really good thing in a way: blacks are the swing voters. For the first time in my life (I'm 28), blacks have electoral political power. That is a fascinating dynamic, and should be beneficial for the country.
Barack Obama
· 1 year ago
Buckle your chin straps boys and girls!
Luv
· 1 year ago
Look, I know we black folks try to find racism in EVERYTHING. It's our excuse to not try and if we try and fail, it's our excuse for that. But the polls for Obama WERE ACCURATE. What the polls got wrong were the last minute shift in support for Hillary.
Just as Hillary supporters try to cry "SEXISM!!" for every little negative thing that happens to the Clinton campaign, we can't scream "RACISM!" for every Obama setback.
Over 100,000 New Hampshirites(?) voted for Obama. How the HELL was race a factor?
NMP
· 1 year ago
And think just a few months agon Melissa was one of Senator Obama's biggest critics!
Rikyrah,
As I said yesterday, I'd grown dubious of the Bradley effect, but something the hell went on that hasn't come to the surface.
I'm normally one who rejects conspiratorial theories and quiet as kept, as we both know, Black folks are the most conspiracy theory minded folks on the face of the Earth, but in fairness for damn good reason.
That said, help me understand why the EXIT polls were so wrong and Only on the Democratic side? I can understand and agree that there was a surge for Senator Clinton on Monday as the national and local news continuously ran the video of her misting up, which generated a lot of sympathy among women. BTW, as Keith Olbermann has repeatedly pointed out, most outlets did NOT play the FULL clip, only the portion that put her in a sympathetic light. I can't help but think many voters would have had the same reaction of the women who asked the question at the café if they had watched the full clip, which in the remaining portion, largely on-aired, she was trashing Senator Obama suggesting that he would somehow take the nation backwards. The women voted for Senator Obama for that very reason. But back to my main point: why did the EXIT polls accurately predict the Republican race and so inaccurately predict the Democratic race?
If we are to believe the pundits that people don’t like to be asked how they voted, we would have to believe that this ONLY occurred in NH and ONLY on the Democratic side and ONLY in this election. Are we to believe that 100% of Republicans tell the truth to exit pollers and only 60% of Democrats--and ONLY in NH and ONLY this year Why?
As I said, I'm not a conspiratorial nut, but this just doesn't make any sense. Whether this was the Bradley effect, which I doubt in any measurable way, or something more nefarious, an investigation needs to be launched. If it turns out the the Bradley effect was in effect, Democrats should not get a free ride on this. The Republicans have image problems when it comes to race relations, for good reason, but it should not be lost on anyone that the Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow and if those vestiges still exist, they need to be called on the carpet for it. As you know better than anyone, the liberal leaning blogs have been tinged with nasty posts about Obama and why he shouldn't be the nominee because he's Black even going so far as to say that Latinos hate Blacks, so Obama would be a liability. This has fallen under the media radar, and I can't help but wonder why? If Senator Clinton can get free press saying that Senator Obama and John Edwards are getting a free ride, certainly there should be attention given to whether Senator Obama is facing an uphill battle within his own Party among Whites because of his race. Fair is fair!
justice58
· 1 year ago
"but something the hell went on that hasn't come to the surface". ----------------------------------- There you have it! Agreed, that an investigation need to be launched! Everyone knows that something is f%%%ed up here!
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
One of the reasons I have been critical of affirmative action is not because there is no racism and so there is no need for it, but rather that for any government program to be accepted, it needs to be available to the widest available group. When Social Security first came along, it was solely for widows and orphans. Then, politicians realized they can get more votes if they expanded eligibility to anyone over the age of 65 - regardless of income or health.
Same with affirmative action. First, it was designed to redress cumulative effects of past discrimination. But then, to make it more palatable to a larger group, the focus changed to diversity. And, in the interests of diversity, a white woman adds almost as much diversity as a black woman.
Of course, if that white woman grew up in privilege, how exactly is she in need of gov't assistance? But, since white women are a huge number of voters, any suggestion that they be excluded in affirmative action is shot down.
- KXB
Phoebe
· 1 year ago
Actually white women are the largest demographic in colleges these days, so adding them detracts from the diversity.
The Bag of Health and Politics
· 1 year ago
The Exit polls were more or less right; they showed it Obama +1 or Clinton +1, it ended up being Clinton +2. It was the pre-election polls that were wrong.
They were wrong because of this:
Over-sampled the young because of Iowa.
Didn't push people to make a "firm" commitment.
In the end what happened was that many women were thinking about ditching Hillary for Obama. Then she cried, and they decided to stick up for Hillary.
From what I've heard since then, the result had a galvanizing effect on other women, and not in a good way for Hillary. But I think it's best to leave that alone from now on, and focus on the positive.
If Obama can win SC, he has the momentum headed into Super Tuesday and NH is a distant memory. If he can win NV too--which I think is doubtful, but possible now that Edwards decided to not contest it--then I think the Clintons continue to unravel.
It's even. But now the terrain shifts to areas that are better for Obama. I believe Obama has a 60% chance at the nomination and Clinton a 40% chance at it. But I also know that it is a 0% chance unless we send $25 and volunteer for him and get voters to the polls.
All Comments
Yeah, yeah, it's a soft spot for me, whatever.
And, that is her phrasing I used.
" Black woman with a White mother."
But I also think this is a really good thing in a way: blacks are the swing voters. For the first time in my life (I'm 28), blacks have electoral political power. That is a fascinating dynamic, and should be beneficial for the country.
Just as Hillary supporters try to cry "SEXISM!!" for every little negative thing that happens to the Clinton campaign, we can't scream "RACISM!" for every Obama setback.
Over 100,000 New Hampshirites(?) voted for Obama. How the HELL was race a factor?
Rikyrah,
As I said yesterday, I'd grown dubious of the Bradley effect, but something the hell went on that hasn't come to the surface.
I'm normally one who rejects conspiratorial theories and quiet as kept, as we both know, Black folks are the most conspiracy theory minded folks on the face of the Earth, but in fairness for damn good reason.
That said, help me understand why the EXIT polls were so wrong and Only on the Democratic side? I can understand and agree that there was a surge for Senator Clinton on Monday as the national and local news continuously ran the video of her misting up, which generated a lot of sympathy among women. BTW, as Keith Olbermann has repeatedly pointed out, most outlets did NOT play the FULL clip, only the portion that put her in a sympathetic light. I can't help but think many voters would have had the same reaction of the women who asked the question at the café if they had watched the full clip, which in the remaining portion, largely on-aired, she was trashing Senator Obama suggesting that he would somehow take the nation backwards. The women voted for Senator Obama for that very reason. But back to my main point: why did the EXIT polls accurately predict the Republican race and so inaccurately predict the Democratic race?
If we are to believe the pundits that people don’t like to be asked how they voted, we would have to believe that this ONLY occurred in NH and ONLY on the Democratic side and ONLY in this election. Are we to believe that 100% of Republicans tell the truth to exit pollers and only 60% of Democrats--and ONLY in NH and ONLY this year Why?
As I said, I'm not a conspiratorial nut, but this just doesn't make any sense. Whether this was the Bradley effect, which I doubt in any measurable way, or something more nefarious, an investigation needs to be launched. If it turns out the the Bradley effect was in effect, Democrats should not get a free ride on this. The Republicans have image problems when it comes to race relations, for good reason, but it should not be lost on anyone that the Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow and if those vestiges still exist, they need to be called on the carpet for it. As you know better than anyone, the liberal leaning blogs have been tinged with nasty posts about Obama and why he shouldn't be the nominee because he's Black even going so far as to say that Latinos hate Blacks, so Obama would be a liability. This has fallen under the media radar, and I can't help but wonder why? If Senator Clinton can get free press saying that Senator Obama and John Edwards are getting a free ride, certainly there should be attention given to whether Senator Obama is facing an uphill battle within his own Party among Whites because of his race. Fair is fair!
-----------------------------------
There you have it! Agreed, that an investigation need to be launched! Everyone knows that something is f%%%ed up here!
Same with affirmative action. First, it was designed to redress cumulative effects of past discrimination. But then, to make it more palatable to a larger group, the focus changed to diversity. And, in the interests of diversity, a white woman adds almost as much diversity as a black woman.
Of course, if that white woman grew up in privilege, how exactly is she in need of gov't assistance? But, since white women are a huge number of voters, any suggestion that they be excluded in affirmative action is shot down.
- KXB
They were wrong because of this:
Over-sampled the young because of Iowa.
Didn't push people to make a "firm" commitment.
In the end what happened was that many women were thinking about ditching Hillary for Obama. Then she cried, and they decided to stick up for Hillary.
From what I've heard since then, the result had a galvanizing effect on other women, and not in a good way for Hillary. But I think it's best to leave that alone from now on, and focus on the positive.
If Obama can win SC, he has the momentum headed into Super Tuesday and NH is a distant memory. If he can win NV too--which I think is doubtful, but possible now that Edwards decided to not contest it--then I think the Clintons continue to unravel.
It's even. But now the terrain shifts to areas that are better for Obama. I believe Obama has a 60% chance at the nomination and Clinton a 40% chance at it. But I also know that it is a 0% chance unless we send $25 and volunteer for him and get voters to the polls.