US Presidential Elections

[Walsingham]

i was quite proud of myself when I realised I'd been working with a client for two days before I noticed they were black. It literally didn't register, and I might have gone on even longer if they hadn't embarked on a racist tirade against Nigerians.

[~Di]

You'd have a point here if 70-80 percent of black voters didn't already strongly trend democratic in the first place. But they do trend that way, so you don't have a point here.

 

Er... these figures were the same in the primary between Hillary and Obama. Both democrats.

 

I see you've picked up the term "liberal" as a pejorative. You don't seem like the Fox News type, where did you cultivate that charm?

 

No, it wasn't used as a perjorative any more than my reference to Palin as an ultra-conservative was meant as a perjorative. It describes the perception of their political positions... one far left, the other far right. The Fox News snipe was totally uncalled for.

 

Regardless, even if there was some sort of "reverse racism" going on (what a silly term that is, as if favoring one's heritage were an abomination. I wonder why ~Di's ilk doesn't boycott St. Patty's day, or Black History Month), there's a reason black people are called "minority voters".

 

That is a personal attack, and I resent it. Nothing in my post deserved that kind of personal smear.

[random n00b]

as if favoring one's heritage were an abomination

Racism is racism, regardless of the rhetoric you wrap it in. If I was a white person openly claiming I'm voting for McCain solely on the basis that he's white, do you really believe I wouldn't be labeled a racist? And why should it be any different for blacks? The minority excuse is disingenuous and a flimsy cover for revanchist racism. Positive discrimination is bull****, and good only for causing social friction.

 

 

Now whether or not it's going to influence the election is the question. I just assume it will.

Yes, that's what I was interested in as it's what pertains to the thread. And it's not surprising you assume it will, given your opinions on the issue.

 

 

I did mention the push polling in North Carolina against McCain in '00, alleging that McCain had fathered a bastard black child. The day those calls went out he had a 5 point lead, and he lost the state soon after. As with ~Di's 70-80% figure up there, there might be a more plausible explanation, but negative campaigning really seems to work, and in that case it contained racist propaganda. The racist factor will be a marginal effect, hopefully, but the margins will really matter this November.

I don't like the light you are presenting the McCain thing under, but as I lack all the facts, all I'm going to do is venture a guess that allegations of illegitimate (lawl) children simply cast a shadow on any politician's honesty.

 

At any rate, it's a nice perspective that it's the racist cranks that'll ultimately decide who gets to be Prez. Reassuring, really.

[kirottu]

Regardless, even if there was some sort of "reverse racism" going on (what a silly term that is, as if favoring one's heritage were an abomination. I wonder why ~Di's ilk doesn't boycott St. Patty's day, or Black History Month), there's a reason black people are called "minority voters".

 

That is a personal attack, and I resent it. Nothing in my post deserved that kind of personal smear.

 

Don

[Killian Kalthorne]

Lets take a good look at John McCain's view on the our horrid economy right now...

 

 

At least Obama recognizes we do have a problem.

[Xard]

lol at hoover reference

 

and the epic music

 

edit:

 

"fish love to be around those rigs"

 

What was that sound? Oh, my Awesome-o-meter just exploded

Edited September 20, 2008 by Xard

[Humodour]

Are we talking about racism?

 

Of course it plays a part in this election, but compared to what it would have in the past, it's far less than you'd think (for whites).

 

We're not just talking whites less likely to vote for blacks, but also blacks and Hispanics more likely to vote for blacks.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108040/Candidat...pport-Race.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_op...008#Other_polls

 

Edit: In fact, people seem (slightly) more willing to vote for a black candidate than a female one.

 

Hilariously, only 5% of blacks, on average, are willing to vote for the Republicans this election. That level of homogeneity is something to be proud of (from a sociological point of view), but it's not hard to see why it is the case: you've got a personally significant historical precedent combined with a downright awesome Democrat candidate.

 

Lets take a good look at John McCain's view on the our horrid economy right now...

 

 

At least Obama recognizes we do have a problem.

 

According to Gallup, only 45% of Republicans recognise there's a problem with the American economy.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Krezack

[Guard Dog]

OK, since many of you here seem to think that anyone who would not vote for Obama is some kind of racist (instead of a red-blooded American who does not want to see their county plunged into abject socialisim, be saddled with a crippling tax burden, or see more of there State and local governemts power usurped by Washington DC) here is my proof that race is not an issue in this election:

 

This is the 2000 Electoral Map. The red states voted Repub, the blues voted Dem.

 

 

Here is 2004, same color scheme (sorry for the crappy pic, it was all I had)

 

 

Here is the Electoral Map with the polling data from 9/12/08

 

 

 

So, lets see. All that states that traditionally support the Dems are supporting Obama and the ones that traditionally vote Repub are supporting McCain and the 7-8 "battleground states" that have decided every election since 1992 could go either way and are leaning in a predicatble fashion. If racisim were the issue some of you seem to think, one or more "blue states" would be going against history. They are not. Ideology will decide this election. If you think otherwise you are either too cynical to be reasoned with or understand little about Americans.

[Humodour]

OK, since many of you here seem to think that anyone who would not vote for Obama is some kind of racist (instead of a red-blooded American who does not want to see their county plunged into abject socialisim, be saddled with a crippling tax burden, or see more of there State and local governemts power usurped by Washington DC) here is my proof that race is not an issue in this election:

 

This is the 2000 Electoral Map. The red states voted Repub, the blues voted Dem.

 

 

Here is 2004, same color scheme (sorry for the crappy pic, it was all I had)

 

 

Here is the Electoral Map with the polling data from 9/12/08

 

 

 

So, lets see. All that states that traditionally support the Dems are supporting Obama and the ones that traditionally vote Repub are supporting McCain and the 7-8 "battleground states" that have decided every election since 1992 could go either way and are leaning in a predicatble fashion. If racisim were the issue some of you seem to think, one or more "blue states" would be going against history. They are not. Ideology will decide this election. If you think otherwise you are either too cynical to be reasoned with or understand little about Americans.

 

I take it didn't occur to you that the voters who are racist predominantly preside in electorates typically held by Republicans? Hilarious.

 

I know you'll never support things like social welfare and healthcare, so I'll skip on your little paranoid gem of "the Democrats will plunge America into abject socialism".

[Xard]

in b4 taks and socialism paranoia reaches Stage 2 as GD and he combine

 

[Meshugger]

I just saw Nixon's 1972 re-election map, it looks damn redicilous

 

[Guard Dog]

I take it didn't occur to you that the voters who are racist predominantly preside in electorates typically held by Republicans? Hilarious.

 

I know you'll never support things like social welfare and healthcare, so I'll skip on your little paranoid gem of "the Democrats will plunge America into abject socialism".

 

That supposition is impossible to prove since all of those states DO support Repubs are supporting the Repub. If Obama were a Republican and they were not supporting him you would have a point. If John McCain were black and they were not supporting him you would have a point. As it is they are polling in a manner consistent with ideological preferences and to suggest now after twenty eight years of historical evidence that they are not supporting Obama simply because of his race is illogical and more than a little vitriolic.

 

As for socialisim my biggest problem with is is that there is no way to opt out of it. It reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator and suffers no competition. We have government run healthcare in this country already, the VA. Believe me, it stinks.

 

I believe it is everyones fundamental duty to take care of themselves and their families not ask me and everyone else to do it for them. The governments job is to provide a regulatory system that maintains a fair economic market that allows them to do so. We don't have that here in the US and rather than getting back to it too many people are asking for the government to take over the whole thing lock stock and barrel. That is like asking the cat that ate the baby canary to guard the rest of them. But too many people want it because they think it will be free. It won't be. It will be hideously expensive and we will all pay and pay and pay for it in cripplig taxes. And if you choose not to participate you still must pay the taxes. Where is the freedom in that?

 

And the democrats ARE socialists. Bill Clinton tried to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy in 1993. A hostile government take over of PRIVATE business. Obama wants the government to run the banking insutry (unfortunately so does McCain), Democratic Rep Maxine Waters flat out proposed that US oil companies be nationalized. Al Gore in his book came out against the private ownership of real estate. He said that land is a resource that belongs to all the people. Still think I'm being paranoid?

[Gorth]

A question for you GD (and taks too for that matter, you guys being the "arch-capitalists), whats your view on the current goverment takeover of the large financial institutions? Shouldn't they have been left in peace, to crash and burn as would have been naturally, perhaps paving the road for new and upstart banks, insurers what have you?

 

If say some South American government had "nationalised" companies in that way, there would have been no end to the outrage.

[random n00b]

Can I have "arch-capitalist" as my custom title?

 

Pretty please?

[Gorth]

Maybe Fionavar should set up a little e-shop... custom titles for sale... I think I should sell that idea

[Hurlshort]

A question for you GD (and taks too for that matter, you guys being the "arch-capitalists), whats your view on the current goverment takeover of the large financial institutions? Shouldn't they have been left in peace, to crash and burn as would have been naturally, perhaps paving the road for new and upstart banks, insurers what have you?

 

If say some South American government had "nationalised" companies in that way, there would have been no end to the outrage.

 

The Mexican government runs the power company and a few others, which are pretty big. I don't see where the outrage would be coming from. If it was a hostile takeover situation, sure, but these companies are begging for help from the government.

[Atreides]

I'd vote for Paulson-Bernanke '08.

[Guard Dog]

A question for you GD (and taks too for that matter, you guys being the "arch-capitalists), whats your view on the current goverment takeover of the large financial institutions? Shouldn't they have been left in peace, to crash and burn as would have been naturally, perhaps paving the road for new and upstart banks, insurers what have you?

 

If say some South American government had "nationalised" companies in that way, there would have been no end to the outrage.

 

 

This is an excellent question and my answer will suprise you all. But first let me provide a little background info. I'll keep this short and politcally neutral (actually there is plenty of blame to spread around between dems and repubs). This current banking crisis began (as most American problems do) in the halls of Congress. In 1933, learning the lessons from the stock market crash, Congress passed and Roosevelt signed the Glass-Stengel Act. It was a significant law that established the FDIC, obligated lenders to write loans at the same rate the US borrows at (the "prime" rate) and made many other changes in how banks do business. The important provision for what we are talking about here in the Glass Stengel Act is that it made it illegal for FDIC backed deposit banks (that manage checking and savings accounts for example) to own or be owned by non-FDIC backed investment banks (real estate, securities etc.) The idea being that another stock market crash will not wipe out the bank that has John Q Citizens life savings.

 

Fast forward now to 1977, Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act, a seemingly innocuous bill that requires banks to be evaulated by the federal government to ensure that they are serving the "entire community" and putting pressure on mortgage banks to lend to lower income home buyers. They still needed to meet credit requirements however. In 1995 the Clinton administration and Congress revised the CRA to require investment banks to increase the amount of loans written to lower income borrowers and to facilitate this they relaxed the credit requirements. So now loans were being written to borrowers that just the year before did not qualify due to income level, credit rating etc. There was supposed to be a seven year limit on this just to jump start a flagging economy. In 2003 that seven years was up and the terms of the CRA were modified again by the Bush administration. I'll get to that in a second.

 

Back up to 1980 now, Carter signs the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. It repealed the provision of the Glass-Stengel act that allowed the Fed to set the interest rates for savings and loans.

 

Moving on to 1999 Congress passes and Clinton signs the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repeals the provision of the Glass-Stengal Act that prohibits the combination of deposit banking and investment banking. Now banks everywhere begin merging and super banks like Wachovia, Bank Of America, and Citicorp begin to appear. These institutions are absolutely flush with cash. They begin writing mortgages left and right and with the credit rules relaxed by the CRA and the HUD guarenteeing high-risk loans to low income borrowers through Freddie and Fannie a large percentage of these are going to borrowers who simply did not qualify for the amounts they were borrowing. Since buying homes had never been easier the demands for homes began to skyrocket. The price followed of course and we have what everyone likes to call the "housing boom". Actually it was the rapid inflation of the housing bubble.

 

You guys see how this is all coming together? Good, stay with me, there is one last piece to this puzzle.

 

In the late 1990's and early 2000's companies like Bear Sterns, Countrywide, Wells Fargo, (many others) began writing loans for subprime interest. The CRA and DIDMCA allowed them to do this. Their target audience was real estate speculators who would buy a house with the intention of "flipping" it (selling it quickly once market forces caused it's value to appreciate). What these loans did was lent the full value (no down payment) at zero interest for a fixed period of time then was serviced buy an adjustable rate afterwards (usually the prime plus a certain percentage). These loans also came with an early termination fee but houses were appreciating so quickly that speculators still made money so they did not care. The problem was these loans became popular with low income borrowers who did not intend to flip their property (there is some blame for mortgage brokers here who did practice "predatory lending" that is aggesively selling subprime loans to people they knew did not understand what they were getting into. Even more blame goes IMO to the borrowers who sign things they don't bother to read or understand). The smaller banks would package hundreds of these mortgages together and sell them to larger banks or under terms of the CRA sell them to Freddie or Fannie that had to buy them.

 

Now, remember the CRA that was up for reevaluation in 2003? Bush tired to combine Freddie and Fannie into a single institution managed directly by a new sub department of the Treasury. The effect would have been to nullify the CRA requirements on Freddie and Fannie (no longer obligating the thrifts to purchase loans made to low income borrowers) while keeping the federal guarantee of loans it already owned. The Dems called it an econmomic shell game that aimed to weaken the bargaining power of the poor, economic conservatives called it a power grab by the federal government. Both were right, both were wrong. In 2005 the CRA was reevaluated one more time reducing the lending requirements placed on smaller banks with assets under $250 million or so. The idea was to save the smaller institutions. It was already far too late.

 

The bubble burst in 2006. The low to middle income buyers who took the subprime loans were getting a real nasty shock. Their zero interest periods were expiring and their monthly mortgate payments were literally doubling and tripiling. Most could not even refinance because they could not pay the early termination penalties in these loans. Inevitabley scores of homes were foreclosed on and sold for under market value which began to drive down the prices. This caused the speculators to panic and begin selling. Anyone who has an elementary understanding of economics knows what happens when everyone begins selling at once, the prices drop. Now the banks are holding all of these properties that are worth far less that they paid for them, no one is buying and most leners could not afford to lend more money anyway. Now the low to middle income loans were government guaranteed by the CRA through Freddie and Fannie (who own tons or worthless mortgages themselves) so the big banks (who if you will remember an now a combination of investment and deposit banks) are going to the government to cover their losses. And the government must cover or the big banks ( who if you will remember are now a combination of investment and deposit banks thank you Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton) will fail and it will be 1928 all over again.

 

So there we have it in a somewhat big nutshell. Yes, the government must bail out the banks. The government must either regulate banking, or don't. What it did was deregulate but compelled the banks to continue to behave as though they were regulated by providing federal guarantees of a bailout if things went bust. And how could they not. If you insist on the banks taking the financial risks then you must allow them to set the financial terms. That is not what happened here. If you (the government) sets the terms then you (the government) assumes the risks. From 1933 to 1980 they were regulated and we had no problems. From 1776 to 1927 they were unregulated and for the most part there were no problems. From 1980 to 2008 we had a weird hybrid of regulation and now we have problems. Either regulate or don't.

[Guard Dog]

I am not one to blow my own horn but here are a few respected journalists who agree with my take on things:

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNkO...Tk5ZjZmZDkxY2U=

 

"It also seems at first blush that the government ought to not bail out banks that made terrible investments they now regret. But remember, many of these bad investments were the result of government meddling. Would we be experiencing a sharp housing downturn, and a wave of mortgage defaults, if the Federal Reserve had not created a housing bubble and a mortgage bubble in the first place by artificially lowering interest rates to 1 percent in 2003 and 2004? And how much was the housing bubble inflated by the highly leveraged mortgage buying spree of government-sponsored and government-influenced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Shouldn

[Guard Dog]

Liberals' Warnings About Obama Loss May Prove Self-FulfillingBy Dennis Prager

 

If Barack Obama loses the 2008 election, liberal hell will break loose.

 

Seven weeks before the 2008 presidential election, liberals are warning America that if Barack Obama loses, it is because Americans are racist. Of course, that this means that Democrats (and independents) are racist, since Republicans will vote Republican regardless of the race of the Democrat, is an irony apparently lost on the Democrats making these charges.

 

That an Obama loss will be due to racism is becoming as normative a liberal belief as "Bush Lied, People Died," a belief that has generated intense rage among many liberals. But "Obama lost because of white racism" will be even more enraging. Rage over the Iraq War has largely focused on President George W. Bush and Vice President **** Cheney. But if Obama loses, liberal rage will focus on millions of fellow Americans and on American society.

 

And it could become a rage the likes of which America has not seen in a long time, if ever. It will first and foremost come from within black America. The deep emotional connection that nearly every black American has to an Obama victory is difficult for even empathetic non-blacks to measure. A major evangelical pastor told me that even evangelical black pastors who share every conservative value with white evangelical pastors, including pro-life views on abortion, will vote for Obama. They feel their very dignity is on the line.

 

That is why the growing chorus -- already nearing unanimity -- of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism is so dangerous.

 

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic: "White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win."

 

Jack Cafferty of CNN: "The polls remain close. Doesn't make sense ... unless it's race."

 

Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: "The reason Obama isn't ahead right now is ... the color of his skin. ... If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth."

 

Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: "Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice."

 

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: "Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children's futures because he's black?"

 

Similar comments have been made by Kansas's Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and by writers in Time magazine. And according to The Associated Press: "A poll conducted by The Associated Press and Yahoo News, in conjunction with Stanford University, revealed that a fairly significant percentage of Democrats and independents may not vote for Sen. Barack Obama because of his race." If you read the poll, it does not in fact suggest this conclusion. The pollsters assert that any person with any negative view of black life means that the person is racist and means that he would not vote for Obama. Both conclusions are unwarranted. But "Obama will lose because of racism" is how the poll takers and the media spin it.

 

Why do liberals believe that if Obama loses it will be due to white racism?

 

One reason is the liberal elite's contempt for white Americans with less education -- even if they are Democrats.

 

A second reason is that it is inconceivable to most liberals that an Obama loss -- especially a narrow one -- will be due to Obama's liberal views or inexperience or to admiration for John McCain.

 

The third reason is that the further left you go, the more insular you get. Americans on the left tend to talk only to one another; study only under left-wing teachers; and read only fellow leftists. That is why it is a shock to so many liberals when a Republican wins a national election -- where do all these Republican voters come from? And that in turn explains why liberals ascribe Republican presidential victories to unfair election tactics ("Swift-boating" is the liberals' reason for the 2004 Republican victory). In any fair election, Americans will see the left's light.

 

If Obama loses, it will not be deemed plausible that Americans have again rejected a liberal candidate, indeed the one with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Liberals will explain an Obama defeat as another nefarious Republican victory. Combining contempt for many rural and middle-class white Americans with a longstanding belief in the inevitability of a Democratic victory in 2008 (after all, everyone they talk to despises the Republicans and believes Republicans have led the country to ruin), there will be only one reason Obama did not win -- white racism.

 

One executive at a black radio station told me when I interviewed him on my radio show at the Democratic National Convention that he could easily see riots if Obama loses a closely contested election. Interestingly, he said he thought blacks would be far more accepting of a big McCain victory.

 

I pray he is wrong on the first point. But it does seem that liberals are continuing to do whatever they can to increase anger at America, or at least at "white America." For 40 years, liberals have described the most open and tolerant society on earth as racist and xenophobic. If Barack Obama loses, the results of this liberal depiction of America may become frighteningly apparent.

 

Link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/liberals_warnings_about_obama.html

 

Exactly what we were discussing earlier Krezack. Required reading Pop. The Democrats are the ONLY ones making race an issue. But then again they use identity politics like a crutch that they don't realize they don't need.

[Humodour]

The Democrats are the ONLY ones making race an issue. But then again they use identity politics like a crutch that they don't realize they don't need.

 

I call bull****.

 

Nice attempt at misinformation, though. I commend you.

[Gorth]

<...history...>

Thanks

 

Nice to put a bit of background in a lay man undertandable way to some of the names and preceeding events.

[Guard Dog]

The Democrats are the ONLY ones making race an issue. But then again they use identity politics like a crutch that they don't realize they don't need.

 

I call bull****.

 

Nice attempt at misinformation, though. I commend you.

 

So far I've provided you with strong empirical evidence and sound logical reasoning. All you have offered in return is to call it BS and misinformation. C'mon Krezack, you are a smart guy. You can do better than that.

[Hildegard]

Spies Warn That Al Qaeda Aims for October Surprise

 

 

In other words, spies, or should I say McCain PR people, again use terrorism and Al Qaida as a tool for achieving pro right agenda in the elections. Like there is a threat coming, non Republican president in office is a victory for the terrorist, whom ever they may be. Fear does do wonders. My my Al Qaida is obviously more useful to American right wing then they were during the Afghan conflict with the Soviets, sweet.

[Guard Dog]

<...History...>

Thanks

 

Nice to put a bit of background in a lay man undertandable way to some of the names and preceeding events.

 

My pleasue. I kind of enjoyed writing that up. My job gets dreadfully dull sometimes.