Two things, then - do you believe this is a statistically valid poll, and could you demonstrate where the “dangerous truth” mentioned was that Obama is a Muslim and his wife is Angela Davis?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
Four quick points, in order of importance:
- WorldNetDaily readers are drooling morons,
- They said it “isn’t far from the truth,” which is very, very different from saying it reinforces their beliefs or that they think the rumors are true because of the cover,
- The poll isn’t scientific and is meaningless as a representation of the opinions of anyone except for WND readers.
- See 1).
Ah…I see.
What do you suppose this proves exactly? I remember a poll done in Europe years ago showing that a majority of Europeans in some country (France? Germany) believed the US government was behind 9/11.
Show me a poll showing that some majority of American’s believe that Obama is a closet Muslim and that his wife is a radical black extremist and you may have a point. Showing me this and saying by extension it some how proves American’s are to ignorant to get the satire in the New Yorker covers is less than convincing. YMMV of course.
Ah…so, we can use anecdotal evidence, and this will be telling?
World Net Daily? And you think this is serious ‘proof’?
From your other cite:
12%? And you think that is meaningful how exactly? Though I’d like to see the full Newsweek poll to see how the numbers climb exactly, and what the questions that were asked are…and how the poll was done (internet poll? Random calling? What demographics exactly?) before drawing any conclusions. I don’t have time to look it up atm, but if anyone has a link I should have time tonight when I get back to my hotel.
-XT
No, I totally understand what you’re saying and you’re not wrong and I don’t much like the idea that conservatives will likely use this as part of their smear campaign against Obama. I just don’t think it’s The New Yorker’s responsibility.
And so what if the conservatives do use it. Why can’t that be a positive for the Obama campaign? Turn it back around on them. Painting Obama as a muslim is silly and most of America is smarter than to be taken in by it. For those that don’t understand that it’s satire? Maybe explain it and help them understand rather than telling them, “We know you’re all too dense to understand satire so we just won’t print it”.
I dunno, just my opinion. I’ve really never been much of a debater.
I’m with you on all of that and to Shodan I know it is not a scientifically valid poll but it does tell you the mindset of a certain group which was my point…that yes there are these people out there who will latch on to something like this.
They would think that cover or no cover though…correct?
-XT
Current polls have Obama ahead by 6% so I’d say that 12% could be meaningful.
I cannot find the Newsweek Poll in a fashion that spells out how it was conducted but the way they cite it I am assuming it is a valid poll (pretty sure a news source such as Newsweek would be upfront about that).
Nearest I could get:
I know 53 people have already said this, but they latched onto it a long time ago and no magazine cover is going to change it.
Put it this way: satire basically says “People who believe X are so stupid, they’d actually say Y!” And now people are suggesting this satire is dangerous because… people who say Obama is a radical Muslim would actually believe what’s on this magazine cover. Are people so afraid Obama could lose that they think satire is just too dangerous?
You are kidding, right? Do you really think that those 12% are undecided people? Do you expect that all or even most of them come from people who actually might vote for Obama but for this cover???
Even if it is a valid poll, it doesn’t really show anything surprising. Some minority of Americans (who will probably not ever even consider voting for Obama and who might not even vote for McCain but instead vote some wacked out 3rd party candidate) believe something like this. The thing is…they most likely believed something like this long before this cover ever came out. If it merely re-enforces their belief, well…what of it? They were never going to vote for Obama anyway.
I think all this industrial outrage is actually more harmful to Obama than the cover itself. The real effect of it has been to focus more on it than it really deserved. The only really GOOD thing is, unlike the Obama faithful, Obama himself seems bright enough to not be drawing attention to it and instead to have shrugged it off and moved on.
I swear…if Obama loses I am going to seriously feel sorry for the man. It’s his own supporters who seem bound and determined to snatch defeat from the certain jaws of victory for the man.
-XT
Nope. But then Gore got more of the popular vote than Bush and lost. And Gore lost in Florida by 0.0092% (and thus the whole election). Again in 2004 Bush won by 2.46% of the overall vote. Bush won Ohio (and thus the election) by a mere 2.11%. The point of those numbers is elections can be shockingly close and every vote counts.
Is it unreasonable to assume some of that 12% are not Obama haters but just misinformed people? People who might be swayed into not voting for him if they thought he was Muslim?
This is the SD…we debate stuff here. I am not ranting anywhere else about this or even chatting up my friends about this. If I caused you to change your vote from Obama to McCain over this then so be it.
It has also been noted before that there are literally hundreds of cartoons depicting Obama and most not in a favorable way. To my knowledge no one has said a peep about those.
But people latched on to this. Why? There must be something about the character of this that raises it to a distinct level worthy of debate. Heck, even the McCain campaign panned it and to my knowledge with no one from Obama’s demanding they do so. Why would they bother if it was much ado about nothing? Why isn’t political cartoonist Benson or Cagle and others going on the chat shows defending their work when they caricature Obama?
Daryl Cagle put it this way:
He makes a good point. Had the cartoon depicted the Obamas normally but shown another person -possibly stupid looking- with a thought balloon of them as terrorists that would have certainly made the point of the picture obvious and there wouldn’t be all this hubbub over it now.
I don’t think people are latching onto it at all. As I see it, the TV news and blogosphere are going nuts about it and in speculation that people will misunderstand it, thus prompting people to talk about it and perpetuating their own story.
Pre-emptive effort to cover their asses.
I don’t see how this relates. I seriously don’t think that the folks likely to be swayed by a cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker are going to make a significant (or even statistical) difference in favor of Obama…certainly not simply because of this. If anything, the New Yorker is doing Obama a favor by getting this out there so it can be talked about and debated…so that only the willfully ignorant will continue to hold this belief. Only someone living in a cave who also just happens to get a copy of the New Yorker is going to not know he isn’t really a Muslim after this.
No, I think instead of worrying about this cartoon shifting the willfully ignorant but undecided vote, Obama has more to fear from his own troops fervor over stuff like this putting off the intelligent but undecided voters…who make up quite a larger percentage of overall votes. Hopefully Obama will be able to get around this handicap and win in spite of the efforts of his faithful, ehe?
I think it is unreasonable to think so, yes. Oh, perhaps a few of them are both willfully ignorant AND undecided between Obama and McCain, and also wouldn’t vote for a Muslim…but I think the vast majority of those supposed 12+% aren’t going to vote for Obama no matter what…certainly, no matter what the New Yorker does or does not put on their cover.
You didn’t…my own thoughts on who to vote for or not are still evolving. I am currently at the 3rd Party or (maybe) Obama stage…so, if anything you and other Obama supporters are likely to merely push me into voting Libertarian again this year.
-XT
Sure, but there are people like that on all sides of the issue. Wright thought that the US government invented AIDS. Arab newspapers publish the blood libel against Jews. Some Dopers believe what they read in the The National Enquirer.
We can’t let the crackpots of the world stop the rest of us from legitimate political discourse. No matter what you say, some asshole will interpret it the way he is told to do so by the voices in his head.
Regards,
Shodan
Why would anything a supporter does or does not do push you into voting or not voting for Obama? Surely, you’ll choose the candidate you vote for based on that candidate’'s policies, (closest) alignment to your beliefs and priorities regarding the foremost issues facing the country/world and, admit it, personality ( 
).
Have you considered those of the electorate who have ignorantly bought into those beliefs through laziness but are still educable? Surely, they are no slight portion of those undecided, and a candidate would be wise to fight for every vote he can get – especially if a change can be brought about through education, honest self-portrayal and outreach.
I’ve said elsewhere I don’t think The New Yorker is under any obligation to cater to any prediction of possible backlash (though they might consider it) when it comes to any cover, cartoon, commentary or article. However, surely we here can discuss the ramifications posed by this cover and realize that there can be nuanced pre-reactions/post-reactions to something like this. Someone may have received and digested the untruthful soundbites and glurge email without thinking. This bit of unintended miseducation may add to that. Those still willing to be educated may react differently to the truth.
I’m still not seeing what the efforts Obama’s supporters would be engaging in that would make a voter who has taken the time to enlighten himself on the criteria listed above have to do with selecting a candidate.
I was wondering the same thing.
The annoyance factor of course. 
(Actually, nothing his supporters do or don’t do would ‘push’ me one way or the other…but I have to admit that some of the more fervent Obama faithful are getting annoying as hell).
I don’t believe at this point that many people who are going to buy the whole (to paraphrase) ‘Obama is a closet Muslim who burns the flag and has a black radical wife’ meme are exactly reachable as potential Obama voters. Certainly none of them who look at the New Yorker and feel that it has vindicated their position are going to be in that category since not only would they be uninformed but nearly to stupid to breathe. I think the New Yorker cover WAS an attempt to educate through satire and humor those who actually could be reached…those who either can’t or won’t be reached are, IMHO, not potential Obama voters regardless.
I agree that the New Yorker is under no such obligation…quite the opposite in fact. As for the rest I think this industrial outrage on Obama’s behest is counter productive to the point of stupidity. Especially those Obama faithful who assume that while THEY get it fine, the great unwashed masses of the US won’t get the joke and instead see it as some kind of proof that Obama is all the things in the cartoon. YMMV of course…but that level of arrogance (and watching the news about this story it’s not limited to just a few people on a message board) is highly offensive, even when it is coached in double talk and handwaving terms.
-XT
Well, seems to me your notions are not backed up by the evidence available.
Kerry ignored the Swiftboat allegations and look where that got him. And this despite the allegations being largely debunked. It is impossible to say for sure but many agree this was a significant aspect of Kerry’s loss to Bush.
I do not think it is arrogance to suggest many in the US simply do not bother to inform themselves on any number of issues. Nor can you say the misinformed are mostly restricted to those who oppose Obama anyway. But you want proof rather than gut instincts fine (highlighting mine):
So your notion that this has no effect on anyone who might vote for Obama is flatly wrong. Using Kerry’s strategy of ignoring slander is a pretty clear case that is a losing strategy as well.
If that offends you so be it. I’d rather see those percentages on misinformed people above reduced than worry about your one vote.
Obama has not ignored the Muslim rumors at all, which I think is a smart move on his part. But I agree with xtisme’s remarks about getting worked up over this cartoon.
I’d like to put this delicately but I’m not sure I can.
I think These people are going to cross over and vote for McCain anyway. I believe these Democrats are part of a group that includes the embarrassing primary voters in West Virginia who “have had enough of Hoo-sein” (and they weren’t just in West Virginia, of course), and perhaps some of the elderly Jews in Florida. The reason they are wrong and confused about Obama’s religion is partly his name, but mostly it’s his skin color. They don’t want to vote for a black guy, period, and in my opinion, these Muslim rumors were going to exist no matter what - the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama lends them a little credence, but if his name was Barry Williams, he’d still be a Chicago politician with some tangential links to Farrakhan, so you would hear talk that he was a member of the Nation of Islam - so these people aren’t misinformed, really. They’ve just found a hook on which to hang their mistrust. If this hook didn’t exist, they would have found another one as long as the candidate was black. That’s all there is to it. They’ve voted Democrat in the past and identify themselves as Democrats, but they were never voting for Obama. He’s not getting those votes, but he’ll make them up elsewhere.