http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=194983
Like Obama/McCain/whoever, but this is insane. Sorry if this was posted before.
So, for those of us who are at work or don’t have computers with speakers can we get a little synopsis to go with the OP?
including what topic is to be debated
Let me guess. Man on the street votes for Obama believing he holds positions that he does not really hold.
What do I win?
You can summarize the entire clip with the introduction sentence. “There is speculation that people are voting for Obama simply because he’s black, and not because of his policies. So we took McCain’s policies and credited them to Obama, and asked people if they supported them. This is what they had to say…”
You win the Obama kewpie doll! Stern asks if people support Obama’s pro-life policy, keeping troops in Iraq, etc.
People still listen to Howard Stern? I stopped paying attention to him when hit my mid 20s. Oh well.
You win the thread.
They went to Black people and asked them who they supported. If the person said Obama they then asked them about Obama’s policies but actually substituted McCains policies.
e.g OK, so you support Obama?
-Yep
-So you like his Pro-Life stance?
-Yep
They also asked if Obama wins would the person be happy with Palin as VP and the people said yes.
The point as far as I can see id that the three/four people they interviewed where idiots. Like all the people Leno interviews.
I would be interested to know what percentage of people got fooled.
I’d like to thank the academy.
Or how the opposite might work (quizzing McCain supporters using Obama policies). Probably says more about how much the average voter knows about their chosen candidate’s policies, in general.
I’d like to know how many they interviewed before they got those few.
seriously, if the stuck a mic in my face and started asking me questions like that I would point blank ask if the guy was smoking crack.
Sorry for not posting a description in the original post. Others have done a good job of explaining the link.
The audio is really eye opening though, regardless of what side you are on. I would assume that there would be rednecks who would vote for McCain just because he is NOT black. But I do think it is very odd that they are very quick to agree with the policies and say that those are things they stand for, when they so obviously have no opinion on them.
As for listening to Howard Stern… I have never listened to his show as I have never lived in a city where it is aired. And, for the record, I just hit my mid 20s.
There’s nothing insane about it. There’s a whole lot of people, (white people too) who are honest enough with themselves to admit they haven’t got a clue to the merits of the different positions of the candidates or that they ever could grasp the issues enough to make it worthy to take a position. So they pay no attention to issues But if the candidate makes you feel positive about him because he’s black and obviously turns a page on the role of blacks in American history, represents change, speaks eloquently and fluently and you can’t go wrong because everyone else around you agrees, then the choice becomes obvious.
This sounds like the kind of crap that rick Mercer of the CBC has been pulling in Canada for years. His shtick is to interview “random” Americans on the street and ask them questions about Canada. He would refer to the PM as Jean Poutine and ask what Americans thought about Canada finally allowing VCRs in the country and the like. Personally, I always assumed that out of 100 people he would edit out 99. When you consider that TV shows are heavily edited, stuff like this, and Survivor quickly lose appeal.
AWVNS[sup]*[/sup], but it also sounds like one of those routines where they ask “random” people about different quotes from the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, etc. and there is great rejoicing over their reactions.
There’s also such an enormous amount of support based on assumption and basic familiarity (how many random people have actually read most of both candidate’s Web sites?) with the candidate that it’s easy to agree with generic sounding questions. I know a casual listen will discern/distinguish the difference, say, between pro-choice and pro-life, but it’s another thing to do so in an interview. If you know the topic and know your general outlook on the candidate, glossing over specific words isn’t a big deal in a gotach ya situation.
[sup]*At Work, Video Not Seen[/sup]
I think this says far more about the syndrome by which people will agree with anything the man with the microphone (or camera) says than it does about people’s actual reasons for voting for Obama. People kowtow to authority, and want to seem nice, agreeable and knowledgeable for the news. If you say something with certainty, people will agree, whether they actually believe what you do or not.
See: Derren Brown, mentalism and cold reading for more examples.