I expect Hillary supporters to be stirring that pot over the next few days, trying to plant seeds of doubt. (If I may mix my metaphors.)
<breathlessly> “But will people really vote for a black candidate?”
:rolleyes:
Yes, they will.
Also, the stakes are a little different at the caucus. You’re not actually voting for the President, you’re expressing a preference for whom you would like to see advance to the convention and gain the party’s nomination.
If my math is correct, there have been nine previous Iowa caucuses (excepting yesterday). There were two cycles when the Dems had no caucus to speak of, 1980 and 1996, because the incumbent was running again.
So here are the winners:
1972: Uncommitted
1976: Jimmy Carter*
1984: Walter Mondale*
1988: Dick Gephardt
1992: Tom Harkin
2000: Al Gore*
2004: John Kerry*
Four of seven times the eventual nominee won.
More interestingly, in 1972, 1988, and 1992 the eventual nominee placed third or worse!
I’m not sure, given these results, why Iowa means so much…
Besides, for me (and probably for a lot of folks who were kids at the same time), it’s not so much that we saw Morgan Freeman as the president and thought “Wow! A black president!” but more that we saw Morgan Freeman as the president and thought “Wow! The president is Easy Reader!”
Wasn’t the President in the The Fifth Element also black? So America should be more than ready to elect someone like Obama.
Oh wait. That guy was pretty incompetent, wasn’t he? Damn, we’re doomed.
“24”, people, “24”. There were 2, count 'em TWO, Black presidents over the seasons.
I don’t think it’s much of a big deal that Obama is Black. For one, he doesn’t have an AAVE accent, and I think that’s important. He also seems to transcend race-- he doesn’t really even talk about it that much.
How about this: Would it help or hurt him if his wife was White? I’m honestly not sure…
We have never voted for a woman or black for president. Is there a problem.? I do not know but it would not surprise me if it were. It is not talked about very much but down the line it would have to be addressed. I would like to believe we are above that .Go to a bar in a red state and you would be shocked at what people will say about it.
And hardcore “racism is everywhere” proponents won’t be dissuaded by his election. The guy can get a majority vote in a lily-white state and by God, we’re still gonna insist that racism is everywhere and color is an issue. Any black man who makes it must be some sort of exception who somehow sneaked under the White Oppressor’s radar. It cannot possibly be that most of America doesn’t give a rat’s butt about someone’s color. And here’s some bozo Joe-Bob on the media microphone saying “I ain’t gonna vote for no nigger” to prove it.
Can we possibly, just for this one election at least, leave the race-baiting to Jesse and Al?
The vast majority of independent caucusers went Democrat and of those, they favored Obama.
I think a lot of people held back from caucusing for Obama not because they themselves have any concern about his race, but because they desperately want a Democrat in office and are concerned that others might not vote for him. That has definitely been true of most of the Democrats I know that chose to vote Edwards (I don’t actually know any Hillary supporters).
Does racism exist? Sure. But the absolute worst faces of racism are typically not coming from educated voters. Would someone whose concerns in life are uppity negroes vote for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards instead? I sincerely doubt it, my experience is that the most uneducated and ignorant tend not to vote at all, and if hardline racists did vote, they would almost certainly not vote for a Democrat in any case. I don’t think we should be all that concerned with what such people think.
Really? Which bar? I’ll go check it out and report back. :rolleyes:
I agree. I don’t think racism hurts Obama’s campaign at all. Most racists are like I am. I hold negative stereotypes about groups of people, but once I see someone as an individual I don’t consider their race, or even really think about it.
Even people that have negative views about blacks probably don’t have the same negative views about Obama.
But how many voters get to know the candidate as an individual? I suspect there are many who don’t bother, and would only know Obama as “the black guy.”
I certainly wouldn’t vote for them, just like I wouldn’t vote for one of the white men I see on the corner in rough neighborhoods.
Recognizing a thug isn’t racist just because the thug is black.
I think Obama’s biggest concern is the fact that he gets obviously tired. He looked exhausted after Iowa. He loses his poise when he gets tired. If he loses it will be because he just gets exhausted and can’t perform on the campaign trail, which of course leads to him getting the most stressful job on the planet.
A lot of people will of course claim he lost because he’s black though.
I could see “I’m not a racist or anything; hell, I voted for Obama, but those black kids…” replacing “I’m not racist; I’ve got several back friends, but…”
I think some people will vote for him just to prove, if only to themselves, how “not racist” they are. But mostly, I think other posters are right; even people who are sort of racist but not open about it can separate the man from the group of men. And the hardcore racists aren’t really the democrat core, anyway.
Also Idiocracy. I’d strongly consider President Camacho, though.
You seriously believe this?
Wow, do you think so? Do you think a progressive will vote for a republican over a black democrat? If so, it is extremely disheartening. I don’t think Obama’s racial background will influence educated or young voters. The older or less educated voter is more likely to have underlying racial fears but certainly not all. I believe it is far more likely that a black man will get elected president before a woman of any racial background.
I hope most people see senator Obama as the gifted man and politician that he is not his skin color. Iowa certainly did. I think it is Obma’s time. It is time for America.
I don’t think he has a snowball’s chance in hell.
I just don’t think enough people are ready to actually vote for a black guy for president. Spoken or not, a lot of decent, hardworking, non-Klan member white Americans are still not at all comfortable with the idea of their daughter dating a black guy nor are they gonna be comfortable with the idea of voting for a black guy (for president at least).
If he gets the nom I’d be surprised if he can pull more than 41-42% of the popular vote.
I believe that a tendency toward clannishness is part of our genes–part of our makeup as humans. It’s a natural tendency to form broad stereotypes and prejudices for or against dozens of groups. Those groupings might be based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, country of origin, family name, perceived race–whatever category of person is not in your clan. Anyone and everyone within those outsider groups passes or fails a conscious or subconscious litmus test when they come into personal contact with each of us.
That’s human nature. It both protects us (at least it protects us for the historic survival of our clan) and divides us in the modern world where clans have much less place.
The paradox is that that instinct is readily overcome by personal contact, and what I am really trying to say in the “rat’s butt” comment is that race, per se, is very low on the list of things the average American cares about in their personal relationships. Culture, personality, class, common interests, sex, financial status, education, stage in life, children, politics–all of these and many more rank much much higher than skin color in forming personal bonds. Thus do we see a person who has a general sterotype of non-clan groups completely ignore that litmus test when the other characteristics I’ve just listed are passed.
It’s very difficult for a successful white male like me to feel he has much liberty to speak to other groups–blacks in particular, perhaps–about prejudices they perceive. So I’ll just let my opinion stand as my opinion–most Americans don’t give a rat’s butt about your skin color, at least in comparison to dozens of other litmus tests for forming relationships or electing leaders. What I’m really reacting to in that post is the determination to believe that “Sure, American’s might be willing to elect a black leader, but in their hearts, they’re still a bunch of color-prejudiced bigots.” Electing Mr Obama is not a test of anything other than how many people want him for President, but it is a reasonable example that when other litmus tests of personal relationships are passed, color is irrelevant.
For Mr Obama, my WAG is that the number of votes he gets only because he’s black will more than offset the number he loses only because he’s black, and that both of those groups are relatively small percentages.
I don’t think it will be an issue, because I doubt if he will become POTUS.
Maybe we can conduct a test - if Obama can’t win the White House because of race prejudice in the general electorate, is it because of race prejudice if he doesn’t win the nomination?
Regards,
Shodan