Campaign 2008

[Jingus 0]

The odds are pretty low for something like that.

 

 

 

...although it has happened four times now in presidential elections. You'd really think they would've gotten around to fixing that by now.

[SuperJerk 0]

I recently read an article explaining why it was more likely for a Democrat to get screwed by the electoral college than a Republican. 3 of the 4 of the biggest states tend to go Democrat. A Democrat can get superfluous popular votes in NY, California, and Illinois (popular votes far beyond what's necessary to win the state but doing nothing to help with the electoral map) while Republicans are going to run away with the popular vote in Texas.

[NYU 0]

Hey Jerk, you failed to acknowledge the significance of Barack's team denying those two Muslim women the chance to sit behind him at his rally.

 

It's okay to mention that his hypocritical stance here may actually *gasp* make him just as much a politician as anybody else is. "Sure, I want change, and yes I want hope, and you better believe I want everybody to come together.....but if you're Muslim, support me from afar."

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Jingus, I'm not trying to be a dick, but have you ever taken a stats class?

 

I sort of a agree with you on the inclusion of Barr as the only 3rd party candidate choice, but he is a fairly popular former Georgian Congressman and my understanding is that the Atlanta area is something of a libertarian hotbed (if such a thing exists). Besides, how many Georgians do you think are gonna vote for Nader or vote Green or Socialist Workers' Party?

[Jingus 0]

Jingus, I'm not trying to be a dick, but have you ever taken a stats class?

No, not a class which was entirely devoted to statistics. Why? What did I get wrong?

 

Besides, how many Georgians do you think are gonna vote for Nader or vote Green or Socialist Workers' Party?

About as many would vote for any other 3rd party candidate: not enough to matter. Including Barr, and only Barr, in the poll along with McCain and Obama was just pointless.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No, not a class which was entirely devoted to statistics. Why? What did I get wrong?

 

Stuff about sample size & weighting. I'm not an expert by any means, I haven't been involved in social science research for a few years now.

 

There are probably some places online where you can read up on stats if you're interested.

 

About as many would vote for any other 3rd party candidate: not enough to matter. Including Barr, and only Barr, in the poll along with McCain and Obama was just pointless.

 

I guess we'll see in November. You may be right. This is the only GA poll Barr has been included in, so it's hard to tell if it's an outlier.

[NoCalMike 0]

The problem with Barr is that unless he has reversed his views on 90% of the social issues out there, then he is really a conservative masqurading as a libertarian.

 

The true libertarians are basically super liberal on social issues, and ultra conservative fiscally. From time to time you get a liberal or conservative pretending to be libertarian in order to get some extra attention they don't deserve.

 

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

Hey Jerk, you failed to acknowledge the significance of Barack's team denying those two Muslim women the chance to sit behind him at his rally.

 

It's okay to mention that his hypocritical stance here may actually *gasp* make him just as much a politician as anybody else is. "Sure, I want change, and yes I want hope, and you better believe I want everybody to come together.....but if you're Muslim, support me from afar."

Hey NYU, it looks like you failed to acknowledge the last page or two of the thread before you posted this.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The problem with Barr is that unless he has reversed his views on 90% of the social issues out there, then he is really a conservative masqurading as a libertarian.

 

I think Barr has reversed some of his social views (on drugs I heard, maybe).

 

edit: yep

 

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2...d_drug_war_oppo

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

No, not a class which was entirely devoted to statistics. Why? What did I get wrong?

 

Stuff about sample size & weighting. I'm not an expert by any means, I haven't been involved in social science research for a few years now.

 

There are probably some places online where you can read up on stats if you're interested.

Or just go to a very basic sample size calculator for some trial and error. Sample size is primarily driven by three criteria: desired margin of error, desired confidence level, and population. For "normal" polls, i.e. the Gallup/Zogby/whatever you see reported in new stories about polling, MOE of +/- 5% and confidence level of 95% are generally desired. When I plug in the Georgia numbers using your figure of 7 million, I get a recommended sample size of 385. 408 probably reflects a more nuanced understanding of response rate and the actual population of eligible voters.

 

So, if you take any heed in quantitative research at all (and if you don't, then that's an entirely different bizarro issue), then yes, 408 is a completely scientifically acceptable sample size for the state of Georgia. Something within the margin of error on a 2-option poll is generally a stalemate, though obviously more gifted quant researchers can explore the data more thoroughly and give you deeper conclusions based on trending, demographics, etc.

 

I have no academic stats background, but I work with survey numbers and polling proposals pretty regularly at my job.

[Jingus 0]

you magnet school kids and your wacky intellect

[SuperJerk 0]

Hey Jerk, you failed to acknowledge the significance of Barack's team denying those two Muslim women the chance to sit behind him at his rally.

 

That's like saying someone failed to identify the color of air.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

you magnet school kids and your wacky intellect

I picked this shit up on the rugged streets of Rosslyn, Virginia, loc.

[Jingus 0]

Or just go to a very basic sample size calculator for some trial and error. Sample size is primarily driven by three criteria: desired margin of error, desired confidence level, and population. For "normal" polls, i.e. the Gallup/Zogby/whatever you see reported in new stories about polling, MOE of +/- 5% and confidence level of 95% are generally desired. When I plug in the Georgia numbers using your figure of 7 million, I get a recommended sample size of 385.

Wait. I messed around a little bit, and found that calculator says any number for population above the magic figure of 1,008,502 automatically gives you a total of 385 for your sample size. Any number from 1008503 to filling the box with infinite nines, same answer. Obviously something ain't right here.

[SuperJerk 0]

Or just go to a very basic sample size calculator for some trial and error. Sample size is primarily driven by three criteria: desired margin of error, desired confidence level, and population. For "normal" polls, i.e. the Gallup/Zogby/whatever you see reported in new stories about polling, MOE of +/- 5% and confidence level of 95% are generally desired. When I plug in the Georgia numbers using your figure of 7 million, I get a recommended sample size of 385.

Wait. I messed around a little bit, and found that calculator says any number for population above the magic figure of 1,008,502 automatically gives you a total of 385 for your sample size. Any number from 1008503 to filling the box with infinite nines, same answer. Obviously something ain't right here.

 

[NYU 0]

Hey Jerk, you failed to acknowledge the significance of Barack's team denying those two Muslim women the chance to sit behind him at his rally.

 

It's okay to mention that his hypocritical stance here may actually *gasp* make him just as much a politician as anybody else is. "Sure, I want change, and yes I want hope, and you better believe I want everybody to come together.....but if you're Muslim, support me from afar."

Hey NYU, it looks like you failed to acknowledge the last page or two of the thread before you posted this.

 

Hey VX, Jerk never gave his thoughts. I asked him to give his opinion on the matter since he tends to brush away anti-Obama material as inconsequential to Barack's overall campaign -- i.e. the Wright matter. I'm asking for his take on this.

 

Believe me, I'm well aware the issue was already discussed. In fact, the only person who tried to defend Obama and didn't skirt the issue here was Jingus. It seems funny that for a page and a half, certain people just swept it under the rug by not referring to it. You, included.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

Two Muslim women attending Barack Obama's rally in Detroit on Monday said they were barred by campaign volunteers from sitting directly behind the presidential candidate because they wear head scarfs. Spectators seated in that section, above, were shown on TV.

 

Hey Jerk, you failed to acknowledge the significance of Barack's team denying those two Muslim women the chance to sit behind him at his rally. It's okay to mention that his hypocritical stance here may actually *gasp* make him just as much a politician as anybody else is.

They weren't denied by orders from Barack Obama's campaign team nor by Barack Obama. They were denied by two dumbass volunteers who made mistakes. The Obama campaign doesn't have any sort of anti-scarf or anti-Muslim-picture policy.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Hey Jerk, you failed to acknowledge the significance of Barack's team denying those two Muslim women the chance to sit behind him at his rally.

 

It's okay to mention that his hypocritical stance here may actually *gasp* make him just as much a politician as anybody else is. "Sure, I want change, and yes I want hope, and you better believe I want everybody to come together.....but if you're Muslim, support me from afar."

Hey NYU, it looks like you failed to acknowledge the last page or two of the thread before you posted this.

 

Hey VX, Jerk never gave his thoughts. I asked him to give his opinion on the matter since he tends to brush away anti-Obama material as inconsequential to Barack's overall campaign -- i.e. the Wright matter. I'm asking for his take on this.

 

Believe me, I'm well aware the issue was already discussed. In fact, the only person who tried to defend Obama and didn't skirt the issue here was Jingus. It seems funny that for a page and a half, certain people just swept it under the rug by not referring to it. You, included.

Funny because, you know, the issue has 1. already been discussed, and 2. has already been deemed inconsequential by the time you posted your comment.

 

It's irrelevant because, as Ortonsault mentioned, these were actions partaken by dumbass volunteers and not under any "orders from above" from Barack Obama nor his campaign team- and further more, Obama called the women personally to apologize and acknowledge that he did not condone those actions, and the women themselves released a statement recognizing this themselves.

 

Keep on grasping at those straws, NYU!

[SuperJerk 0]

I don't care because I'm guessing the people who think Obama's campaign committed a serious error by not letting these women sit behind him are not really concerned with the plight of Muslim-Americans. They have bigger concerns, like whether or not someone should wear a checkered scarf in a Dunkin Donuts ad.

[SuperJerk 0]

Some light reading from the fine folks at Newsweek...

 

The latest Newsweek poll shows Obama with a 15-point lead over McCain.

 

Someone is finally talking about the Dole/McCain similarities besides me.

 

John Kerry wants to be Secretary of State.

[NoCalMike 0]

On my way to work this morning I was listening to Monica Crowley sit in for Laura Ingrahm and it seems the latest, "throw shit against the wall and lets hope it sticks" piece of "journalism" is accusing Obama of really being more arab then black because their special geneologist did his "research" then the following five or so callers echoed the "why is he hiding this from us.....this is so scary, it's the end of america as we know it" crap.

[SuperJerk 0]

Jame Dobson is a huge hypocrite...

 

Dobson accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible

 

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

 

The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.

 

The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.

 

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.

 

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

 

"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.

 

Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

 

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.

 

"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

 

Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama's campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama's speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. "Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together," DuBois said.

 

Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.

 

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

 

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

 

The program was paid for by a Focus on the Family affiliate whose donations are taxed, Dobson said, so it's legal for that group to get more involved in politics.

 

Last week, DuBois, a former Assemblies of God associate minister, called Minnery for what Minnery described as a cordial discussion. He would not go into detail, but said Dubois offered to visit the ministry in August when the Democratic National Convention is in Denver.

 

A possible Obama visit was not discussed, but Focus is open to one, Minnery said.

 

McCain also has not met with Dobson. A McCain campaign staffer offered Dobson a meeting with McCain recently in Denver, Minnery said. Dobson declined because he prefers that candidates visit the Focus on the Family campus to learn more about the organization, Minnery said.

 

Dobson has not backed off his statement that he could not in good conscience vote for McCain because of concerns over the Arizona senator's conservative credentials. Dobson has said he will vote in November but has suggested he might not vote for president.

 

Obama recently met in Chicago with religious leaders, including conservative evangelicals. His campaign also plans thousands of "American Values House Parties," where participants discuss Obama and religion, as well as a presence on Christian radio and blogs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_...el_dobson_obama

[Guest]

How about posting something in here that actually matters?

 

WELL I'LL BE GODDAMNED SOMEONE FINALLY HAD TO DO IT

 

Now, here.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

 

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”

 

Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”

 

Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland.

 

Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.

 

Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s economic policy director, said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said.

 

Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, “He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.”

 

Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked “with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities,” including the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition.

 

Of Mr. Obama, Mr. Daschle said, “He has a terrific policy staff and relies primarily on those key people to advise him on key issues, whether energy or climate change or other things.”

 

Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

 

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

 

“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”

 

Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.

 

Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production.

 

“If you want to take some of the pressure off this market, the obvious thing to do is lower that tariff and let some Brazilian ethanol come in,” said C. Ford Runge, an economist specializing in commodities and trade policy at the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota. “But one of the fundamental reasons biofuels policy is so out of whack with markets and reality is that interest group politics have been so dominant in the construction of the subsidies that support it.”

 

Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source.

 

Mr. Furman said the campaign continued to examine the issue. “We want to evaluate all our energy subsidies to make sure that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth,” he said.

 

He added that Mr. Obama favored “a range of initiatives” that were aimed at “diversification across countries and sources of energy,” including cellulosic ethanol, and which, unlike Mr. McCain’s proposals, were specifically meant to “reduce overall demand through conservation, new technology and improved efficiency.”

 

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has not explained his opposition to imported sugar cane ethanol. But in remarks last year, made as President Bush was about to sign an ethanol cooperation agreement with his Brazilian counterpart, Mr. Obama argued that “our country’s drive toward energy independence” could suffer if Mr. Bush relaxed restrictions, as Mr. McCain now proposes.

 

“It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol,” he argued.

 

Mr. Obama does talk regularly about developing switchgrass, which flourishes in the Midwest and Great Plains, as a source for ethanol. While the energy ratio for switchgrass and other types of cellulosic ethanol is much greater than corn, economists say that time-consuming investments in infrastructure would be required to make it viable, and with corn nearing $8 a bushel, farmers have little incentive to shift.

 

Ethanol industry executives and advocates have not made large donations to either candidate for president, an examination of campaign contribution records shows. But they have noted the difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

 

Brian Jennings, a vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, said he hoped that Mr. McCain, as a presidential candidate, “would take a broader view of energy security and recognize the important role that ethanol plays.”

 

The candidates’ views were tested recently in the Farm Bill approved by Congress that extended the subsidies for corn ethanol, though reducing them slightly, and the tariffs on imported sugar cane ethanol. Because Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were campaigning, neither voted. But Mr. McCain said that as president he would veto the bill, while Mr. Obama praised it.

 

Definitely an area for McCain to hit Obama hard.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm not entirely sure it's such a strong point to take. Both politicians are going to have special interest groups backing them; they're in politics. Obama is praising the stance on growing corn for fuel, which is a stance favored by many other politicians who don't have the backing of Archer Daniels Midland.

 

“It does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol,” he argued.

This makes total, 100% sense, as well as

Mr. Obama does talk regularly about developing switchgrass, which flourishes in the Midwest and Great Plains, as a source for ethanol.

 

The thing I have with all this personally is that the massive surplus of corn regulated by government subsidies is being used to fuck up and synthesize our food, and the way it is delivered to us. I'm in favor of corn being used for fuel, as it is a renewable source of energy, but the subsidies farmers receive over corn, and especially with corn at $8 a bushel (according to the article up there) there's little incentive for people to buy non-corn related products. Yet, you still see HFCS and other crap which has been shown to contribute to variety of health problems for Americans and if corn wasn't in fucking EVERYTHING, it would be a lot better. The change has to start with the subsidies in the Farm Bill- and it's a shame neither candidate voted on the bill. There needs to be greater control over WHAT corn is being grown for.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I think its a shame we're willing to starve ourselves to be able to run our cars..but thats whats gonna happen. All the corn that was ruined in the midwest floods means that the rest of the corn grown this year will go almost entirely to ethanol since its a federal mandate the amount that goes to ethanol production. Corn prices for livestock feed and corn for human consumption will be in limited supply which means higher prices for everything since corn is in just about everything thanks to damned HFCS (although in the interim, beef prices will fall as farmers move more cattle to slaughter earlier instead of spending the money to feed them, increasing beef supply and dropping prices in the short term. But I hate to think how much a steak will cost next year..easily 2 or 3 times as much. Ironically organic beef might end up being cheaper since they almost never feed cattle corn).

 

If ethanol was only about getting off foreign oil, we could easily you know..drill for our own damned oil and still have the corn for food and livestock feed and not have to worry about droughts and floods ruining corn every year. But yeah, its really because farmers have lobbyists who want to keep the corn subsidies coming. Meanwhile were not growing enough wheat anymore because everyone switched to corn to get in on the action so now were importing wheat from other countries for the first time ever, which will no doubt drive bread prices skyhigh through the roof (as if they werent already almost there..$4 for a loaf of whole wheat bread..hell the shitty white stuff is almost 2 now).

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

How about posting something in here that actually matters?

 

WELL I'LL BE GODDAMNED SOMEONE FINALLY HAD TO DO IT

 

Now, here.

 

I guaran-damn-tee more people care about abortion than government ethanol subsidies.

 

 

I think its a shame we're willing to starve ourselves to be able to run our cars..but thats whats gonna happen.

 

I know its used in a lot of food products, but somehow I think we'll manage if for some reason there's a corn shortage.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

How about posting something in here that actually matters?

 

WELL I'LL BE GODDAMNED SOMEONE FINALLY HAD TO DO IT

 

Now, here.

 

I guaran-damn-tee more people care about abortion than government ethanol subsidies.

 

 

I think its a shame we're willing to starve ourselves to be able to run our cars..but thats whats gonna happen.

 

I know its used in a lot of food products, but somehow I think we'll manage if for some reason there's a corn shortage.

 

Maybe companies will stop using HFCS which would be one good thing out of this whole ordeal.

 

You really underestimate the amount of stuff that has even a small amount of HFCS in it. Combine that with rising prices of poultry, beef and pork, and other grains (due to growing corn instead of them) and you can see, we might manage, but we're gonna manage with a lighter wallet at the end of the day. And when your basic staple foods start to rise in cost (Bread, Milk, Cereal) for kids, something will be done..and it will only make the problem worse because we cant have our children starving without their sugary cereals for breakfast..

 

Seriously..a pound of normal ground beef which might run $4 now is going to run at least $8-10 next year. Steaks that on sale would be $8-10/lb ($12-15 not on sale) will be running $15 or so on sale. Id be stockpiling now and freezing (even if freezing that long kills the texture, you can still get 1 year out of beef which would get to summer grilling 09 without having to fork over an arm and a leg for it) Id do the same thing for Chicken and Pork. Farm raised fish might go up too since they get fed corn even though wild fish would never eat corn.

[SuperJerk 0]

And I really don't see the likelihood of ethanol causing a corn-shortage that will chain reacting into an across the board food shortage. Just a hunch.

 

Anyhow, it's time now to enjoy the most surprising poll ever conducted....

 

Racist White People Don't Like Obama

An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted June 12-15 indicates that roughly three in ten Americans express “less racially sensitive views,” such as having some feelings of prejudice or generally believing that African-Americans in their communities do not experience discrimination. Sen. John McCain holds a 26-point advantage over Obama with this group of voters.

 

Of the 32 percent of white voters who admit experiencing feelings of racial prejudice, 31 percent think Obama would “do too much” for African-Americans if he is elected president.

 

McCain is favored among all white Americans by 12 points (51 to 39 percent). According to CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider, McCain’s edge among white voters is consistent with how well Republicans have done in several of the most recent presidential elections.

 

...Schneider notes that, if Obama is going to win in November, he will most likely have to do as well as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did among white voters.

 

You fucking honkies can go back to talking about corn now.

[Jingus 0]

“less racially sensitive views,” such as having some feelings of prejudice or generally believing that African-Americans in their communities do not experience discrimination.

So, if you think your neighborhood isn't racist, it mean's you're racist?

 

. . .

[SuperJerk 0]

“less racially sensitive views,” such as having some feelings of prejudice or generally believing that African-Americans in their communities do not experience discrimination.

So, if you think your neighborhood isn't racist, it mean's you're racist?

 

. . .

 

I'd hope they'd mean "community" in a way that is a little broader than that.

 

Or maybe the "their" meant the African-Americans', not the horrible racist white devils.

 

Or maybe polls and their interpretation are usually dumb, and most journalists are just parrots with typewriters who only repeat what they've been told without any critical thought or desire to inform beyond the most sensationalist, attention-grabbing way of stating things.