US 2008 Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread - Part 9

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will boldly predict that McCain isn't going to win either of these states.



i think FL is going to be closer than anyone thinks. i don't think Palin will play well there. we're hearing about the 600,000 african-americans who didn't vote in 2004 who've now been registered. and the Obama campaign is going to spend $40m there alone.
 
i think FL is going to be closer than anyone thinks. i don't think Palin will play well there. we're hearing about the 600,000 african-americans who didn't vote in 2004 who've now been registered. and the Obama campaign is going to spend $40m there alone.

Actually those 600K were already registered in 2004. There have been tens of thousands registered SINCE on top of that number.

I agree that FL will be closer than people may assume given the two candidates (really let's be honest, McCain has almost every advantage down there).

Sarah Palin canceled her California appearances and it looks like she's either doing that or has already done that in Washington state as well, so I think it's reasonable to assume they are ready to concede those which is absolutely no surprise.
 
i think FL is going to be closer than anyone thinks. i don't think Palin will play well there. we're hearing about the 600,000 african-americans who didn't vote in 2004 who've now been registered. and the Obama campaign is going to spend $40m there alone.

don't worry,
they will run out of ballots

and the wait at the polls will be 10 hours


it can be punted to Scalia. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy
if it looks like it is not going the right way.
 
don't worry,
they will run out of ballots

and the wait at the polls will be 10 hours


it can be punted to Scalia. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy
if it looks like it is not going the right way.



at least John McCain

doesn't have a brother

who's the governor.
 
(a sister/ brother, perhaps? )

Gore told Bush that he was withdrawing his concession.
Bush asked why. Gore said his people told him that he had won Florida.
Bush said that his brother assured him that he would win the state.
Gore yelled "your brother doesn't decide this election" and then hung up.

sad to say,
Gore got that one wrong.
 
In Florida, Bush increased his vote total from 2,912,790 in 2000 to 3,964,522 in 2004 , a 36% increase. Democrats increased their vote total in Florida from 2,912,253 to 3,583,544, a 23% vote increase. Given the number of people voting, it would take a very large number of new registered voters for the Democrats to really change things down there. They would probably have a better chance if they could find a way to draw more Republicans and independents away from McCain.

McCain has a clear advantage with voters over the age of 60. Florida has a large popular over 60 and they vote in higher percentages than any other age group. Most people in Florida support offshore drilling like McCain. Florida also has a large number of veterans, another group that McCain has a strong lead with. Also, active military personal, especially officers, often choose Florida as their home state(even though they don't actually live there), another voting block where McCain has a clear lead.
 
CPS.NQL29.190908213846.photo00.photo.jpg

"It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win."
Woody Allen - elitist, celebrity
 
a forward i got today:

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…

White privilege is, in short, the problem.
 
Ugh... will it ever end? The list goes on. Add Rangel to the list of Carol "she hasn't had an abortion" Fowler, David "community organizer is code for black" Patterson, Steve "Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a governor" Cohen, Joe "a backwards step for women" Biden, and so on.

wcbstv.com - ASTONISHING: Rep. Rangel Calls Palin 'Disabled'


NEW YORK (CBS) ― Already under fire for his tax troubles, Manhattan Congressman Charles Rangel really put his foot in his mouth on Friday.

In a CBS 2 HD exclusive interview Rep. Rangel called Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin "disabled."

The question was simple. Why are the Democrats so afraid of Palin and her popularity.

The answer was astonishing.

"You got to be kind to the disabled," Rangel said.

That's right. The charman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee called Palin disabled -- even when CBS 2 HD called him on it.

CBS 2 HD: "You got to be kind to the disabled?

Rangel: "Yes."

CBS 2 HD: "She's disabled?"

Rangel: "There's no question about it politically. It's a nightmare to think that a person's foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live.

Republicans think Rangel's comments are insulting as well as shocking.

"Charlie Rangel's comments are clearly disgraceful," Rep. Peter King, R-Long Island, said. "This is just another liberal Democrat who can't accept an independent woman running for president."

King, who is co-chair of the McCain-Palin campaign in New York, watched Rangel's comments with CBS 2 HD. He was particularly upset because Palin's 4-month-old son, Trig, is disabled. He has Down's syndrome.

"We should be sensitive to her or any woman who has a child or family member who has any affliction at all," King said. "And so to use the word disabled in the context of a female candidate for vice president who has a child who is disabled really is wrong. Charlie owes her and the entire disabled community and apology."

Advocates for the disabled are also upset.

"It makes me feel as if he's trying to put her down, trying to say she's not good for the presidency or the vice presidency," said Michael Imperiale of Disabled In Action Of Metropolitan N.Y.

"A disabled president ran this country. He was disabled. His name was Roosevelt."

a spokesman for the McCain-Palin campaign also piled on, saying that this kind of rhetoric has no place in politics.


---

Keep it coming, libs. :up:
 
a forward i got today:
Strongly agree with his first three examples and to a somewhat lesser extent with the point about Wright; the rest sound more like standard partisan inconsistencies to me, though that doesn't mean there aren't those for whom racism makes rationalizing the inconsistencies even easier.

I saw Wise speak once, trying to remember where that was...he's from Memphis isn't he?
 
Ugh... will it ever end? The list goes on. Add Rangel to the list of Carol "she hasn't had an abortion" Fowler, David "community organizer is code for black" Patterson, Steve "Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a governor" Cohen, Joe "a backwards step for women" Biden, and so on.

wcbstv.com - ASTONISHING: Rep. Rangel Calls Palin 'Disabled'


NEW YORK (CBS) ― Already under fire for his tax troubles, Manhattan Congressman Charles Rangel really put his foot in his mouth on Friday.

In a CBS 2 HD exclusive interview Rep. Rangel called Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin "disabled."

The question was simple. Why are the Democrats so afraid of Palin and her popularity.

The answer was astonishing.

"You got to be kind to the disabled," Rangel said.

That's right. The charman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee called Palin disabled -- even when CBS 2 HD called him on it.

CBS 2 HD: "You got to be kind to the disabled?

Rangel: "Yes."

CBS 2 HD: "She's disabled?"

Rangel: "There's no question about it politically. It's a nightmare to think that a person's foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live.

Republicans think Rangel's comments are insulting as well as shocking.

"Charlie Rangel's comments are clearly disgraceful," Rep. Peter King, R-Long Island, said. "This is just another liberal Democrat who can't accept an independent woman running for president."

King, who is co-chair of the McCain-Palin campaign in New York, watched Rangel's comments with CBS 2 HD. He was particularly upset because Palin's 4-month-old son, Trig, is disabled. He has Down's syndrome.

"We should be sensitive to her or any woman who has a child or family member who has any affliction at all," King said. "And so to use the word disabled in the context of a female candidate for vice president who has a child who is disabled really is wrong. Charlie owes her and the entire disabled community and apology."

Advocates for the disabled are also upset.

"It makes me feel as if he's trying to put her down, trying to say she's not good for the presidency or the vice presidency," said Michael Imperiale of Disabled In Action Of Metropolitan N.Y.

"A disabled president ran this country. He was disabled. His name was Roosevelt."

a spokesman for the McCain-Palin campaign also piled on, saying that this kind of rhetoric has no place in politics.


---

Keep it coming, libs. :up:

Rangel's an idiot. Isn't he the one that brought up that there may be need for a draft???
 
A correspondent directs me to John McCain’s article, Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American, in the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries. You might want to be seated before reading this.

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

McCain on banking and health - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

And let's also privatize social security!

They should pound him on this again and again and again.
 
i think FL is going to be closer than anyone thinks. i don't think Palin will play well there. we're hearing about the 600,000 african-americans who didn't vote in 2004 who've now been registered. and the Obama campaign is going to spend $40m there alone.

McCain is going to win Florida, but I'll try my best to make sure he has a hard time doing so. My friends who don't vote have decided to vote this time around (and I didn't badger them too much ;) ) so we'll see how many of those stories can echo across the state. If I had to rate it, it would be a 78% chance that McCain wins. And that's a proven number.
 
I'm Catholic and I'm voting for Obama/Biden. They don't tell me how to think or how to vote. My mother is old school Catholic in many ways and will be voting the same way, even though she is most definitely pro life and most definitely believes that abortion is a sin. If people think that Catholics aren't independent thinkers, they better think again. She wouldn't vote for John McCain if you paid her.
 
September 20, 2008
McCain’s Camp Tests Fund-Raising Limits
By MICHAEL LUO

Senator John McCain toiled for years to push a campaign finance overhaul through Congress. After the measure finally passed, Trevor Potter, a lawyer and vigorous advocate for reforming the system, was instrumental in defending the law from challenges and pressing for strict enforcement.

Now, as Mr. McCain makes his final sprint for the White House, Mr. Potter is again helping Mr. McCain, but this time by maneuvering to wring the maximum out of campaign finance laws in ways that some contend are at odds with the spirit of the reforms they championed.

The tactics appear to be legally permissible. And some argue that the McCain campaign is simply doing what is necessary in the face of the record fund-raising by his Democratic rival for president, Senator Barack Obama, and Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing and its attendant spending limits.

But critics point out Mr. McCain is capitalizing on legal loopholes that a watchdog organization headed by Mr. Potter has fought against.

“There are very, very few lawyers in the country that are better at exploiting campaign finance loopholes than Trevor Potter,” said Bradley A. Smith, a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Of course, that’s one of the odd things about the McCain campaign: ‘Here’s the rules we want, but we’ll play by the rules that are here.’ ”

Mr. McCain was an author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold law, an ambitious measure that supporters hoped would help drive big money out of politics. He has also helped sponsor legislation to improve the public financing system for elections and attacked Mr. Obama for backing away from a pledge to participate in it for the general election if his opponent accepted public money as well.

But now, as Mr. McCain’s top legal adviser, Mr. Potter, a former F.E.C. chairman, and his team have been helping the campaign finesse the strict spending limits it faces under public financing. Although Mr. McCain is supposed to be out of the business of private fund-raising after he received his $84 million infusion from the Treasury this month, it is sometimes difficult to tell.

This month, the McCain campaign began running banner Web advertisements asking for donations to the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund, a fund-raising vehicle rooted in a 1980s F.E.C. ruling that candidates who accept public financing can still collect private donations for legal and accounting costs for complying with campaign finance laws.

Only a careful observer, however, would have noticed the advertisements’ fine print, which said donations to the fund would be used to pay for “a portion of the cost of broadcast advertising,” as well as other expenses.

That would seem to be a far cry from the legal and accounting exemption. But the F.E.C. issued an advisory opinion last year that said Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign could use its compliance fund to cover up to 5 percent of its advertising costs, because of the several seconds candidates must devote in their advertisements to a disclaimer.

The Campaign Legal Center, founded by Mr. Potter, joined with Democracy 21, a watchdog group, to file a strongly worded brief opposing the practice, warning that it would be exploited.

The McCain campaign declined to make Mr. Potter available for an interview. Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the campaign, said in a statement that the campaign had not yet paid for advertising with its compliance fund but “reserves the option to do so under this recent, clear F.E.C. precedent.”

The centerpiece of McCain-Feingold was its efforts to rein in “soft money,” or unregulated contributions, in national elections. But McCain fund-raisers continue to build much of their efforts around the solicitation of large contributions of up to about $70,000 for a special joint fund-raising account for the Republican National Committee and several state parties, which can spend money on behalf of the campaign, called McCain-Palin Victory 2008.

Campaigns have used the joint fund-raising committees in the past, but the McCain campaign took the practice to a new level by linking them with state party accounts, which can accept contributions of $10,000, on top of the $28,500 collected for the national party, $2,300 for the compliance fund and, until recently, $2,300 for the campaign’s primary coffers.

Critics have contended that the large donations to the joint fund-raising accounts amount to a form of soft money. The Obama campaign has been using its own joint fund-raising committee with the Democratic Party, but it only recently created a separate account for the state parties, so the checks are not nearly as big.

“The real irony here,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a watchdog group, “is we fought so hard to get B.C.R.A. through, McCain-Feingold through, with the whole intent of getting rid of those large donations, which everyone, including McCain, realized were potentially corrupting. And we’ve gone full circle with these large donations for the joint fund-raising committees.”

McCain fund-raisers certainly seem to pitch donations to the victory committee as supporting the ticket. The McCain campaign Web site attracts donors with a prominent “Contribute” button that sends them to a donation page for the committee, along with some lengthy disclaimers of the various entities that benefit from it.

By contrast, the Kerry campaign’s contribution button on its Web page in 2004 was more clearly labeled “Contribute to the Democratic Party.” The Obama campaign is not soliciting contributions for its joint fund-raising committee on its Web site.

Some lawyers said that some of the ways the McCain campaign is pushing its victory committee fit awkwardly with the broader mandate of public financing to halt private fund-raising, as well as rules that ban the designating of funds to party committees for specific candidates.

“I think it’s both an appearance and a legal question,” said Lawrence H. Norton, who left his post as general counsel to the F.E.C. last year.

But Mr. Rogers pointed to explanatory language used in literature by the joint fund-raising committees and said they undertook “substantial efforts to avoid any potential misunderstanding.”

Mr. Potter built his reputation as an activist while he was F.E.C. chairman in the 1990s and later founded his reform-minded legal center. He took a leave this year from his position as president to devote himself to being the McCain campaign’s general counsel while also still maintaining a private practice.

Guided by Mr. Potter, the McCain campaign is also adopting one of the most controversial innovations introduced by the Bush campaign in 2004: the use of so-called hybrid advertisements, which allowed it to split the cost of television commercials with the Republican Party. The practice was later copied by the Democrats.

The F.E.C. deadlocked on the legality of the advertisements last year, paving the way for the McCain campaign to rely heavily on them. But Mr. Potter’s Campaign Legal Center joined Democracy 21 last year in a vigorous objection to the practice, labeling it a “scheme to evade the spending limits.”

Some election law lawyers speculated that the McCain campaign might push the envelope further and try to split the costs of its hybrid advertisements with state parties as well, or produce some advertisements in which the party picks up more of the cost.

Mr. Rogers said the campaign had no plans to change the 50-50 ratio for dividing the advertising costs but declined to comment on the state parties question.

Mr. Rogers said Mr. McCain’s detractors often insinuated that because of his reformist reputation “almost anything he does to raise or spend money is a violation of his principles.”

But Mr. Rogers said the campaign was complying with all laws.

Indeed, some lawyers argued that Mr. Potter and Mr. McCain were simply dealing with the realities of a close race.

“They’re taking full advantage of opportunities the law provides for them,” said Robert D. Lenhard, a former Democratic F.E.C. chairman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/us/politics/20donate.html?hp
 
Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

Adjectives that describe blacks

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes — including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

ap_poll_race_obama.jpg
 
The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

ap_poll_race_obama.jpg

Heckuva job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom