Yeah - there's some deep-seeded shit going on there. Let's not overstate it - had the Asian vote been closer to the Latino vote (60/40) then I wouldn't throw out the racism card as easily but it's the proportions that really stun me. And seriously, it's not a big secret that Asian Americans - especially immigrants - hold negative views of African Americans even though very large numbers of them are insulated from ever living next to or work with Black people. Much of it is purely at the level of a cultural bias whereas, at least with Latinos, there is very real economic and social contact that puts them in competition. If there's a racial bias against a Black candidate, at least that would have some basis in social conflict.
That said, I haven't seen the breakdowns yet. After all, Obama carried SF and Alameda and those both have very large numbers of API voters. I'd be more curious to see an exit polls in places like the San Gabriel Valley...or San Mateo County and see how the swing went.
I should also add, the Asian American political machine (what exists of one) in CA was very much pro-Clinton and there's some speculation that they had more influence over immigrant voters. But again, unless there's an analysis of immigrant vs. American-born Asian votes, it's purely speculation.
Yeah - there's some deep-seeded shit going on there. Let's not overstate it - had the Asian vote been closer to the Latino vote (60/40) then I wouldn't throw out the racism card as easily but it's the proportions that really stun me. And seriously, it's not a big secret that Asian Americans - especially immigrants - hold negative views of African Americans even though very large numbers of them are insulated from ever living next to or work with Black people. Much of it is purely at the level of a cultural bias whereas, at least with Latinos, there is very real economic and social contact that puts them in competition. If there's a racial bias against a Black candidate, at least that would have some basis in social conflict.
That said, I haven't seen the breakdowns yet. After all, Obama carried SF and Alameda and those both have very large numbers of API voters. I'd be more curious to see an exit polls in places like the San Gabriel Valley...or San Mateo County and see how the swing went.
I should also add, the Asian American political machine (what exists of one) in CA was very much pro-Clinton and there's some speculation that they had more influence over immigrant voters. But again, unless there's an analysis of immigrant vs. American-born Asian votes, it's purely speculation.
also Hillary has had the NY Asian vote on lock for a while, remember when they found all those names of busboys and garment workers in China Town with $2000 donations to Hillary a few months back. Thats a machine in operation.
Yeah - there's some deep-seeded shit going on there. Let's not overstate it - had the Asian vote been closer to the Latino vote (60/40) then I wouldn't throw out the racism card as easily but it's the proportions that really stun me. And seriously, it's not a big secret that Asian Americans - especially immigrants - hold negative views of African Americans even though very large numbers of them are insulated from ever living next to or work with Black people. Much of it is purely at the level of a cultural bias whereas, at least with Latinos, there is very real economic and social contact that puts them in competition. If there's a racial bias against a Black candidate, at least that would have some basis in social conflict.
That said, I haven't seen the breakdowns yet. After all, Obama carried SF and Alameda and those both have very large numbers of API voters. I'd be more curious to see an exit polls in places like the San Gabriel Valley...or San Mateo County and see how the swing went.
I should also add, the Asian American political machine (what exists of one) in CA was very much pro-Clinton and there's some speculation that they had more influence over immigrant voters. But again, unless there's an analysis of immigrant vs. American-born Asian votes, it's purely speculation.
I think of my father-in-law as a pretty typical example here: Filipino, works for a big engineering firm, spends a lot of time in The PI and Saudi Arabia, settled in Henderson NV. Voted for Bush twice but regrets it. Read Obama's autobio and liked it - likes him - but feels that he is "too young, too inexperienced". Wanted to vote Biden. Now will vote McCain, but could go with Hillary as well. Thinks career accomplishment is next to godliness.
I think you're right to look at this culturally although it's not just a race thing - the concept of qualification and experience plays a huge role.
Part of me wants McCain to suffer the aftermath of the Bush terms, but I'm concerned about additional arch-conservative Supreme Court appointees.
Yeah, I think I could live with another Republican in the White House having to fix what they broke in the first place, if, say, they were even willing to admit it was broken and the current Supreme Court were all 40 years old and in spectacular health.
That said, I am pulling for Obama. Hillary will rally the Red Staters to vote for whomever is under a GOP banner, Obama confuses them to enough of a degree and brings out young voters in record numbers. I don't think the GOP machine has the steam to beat that. At least that's how it is in my private mind garden.
Read that yesterday, pure FUD. The NYT's op/ed sections are some of the best places to catch up on pro-Clinton propaganda. He fails to even mention the uber-controversial penalties that Clinton is "mulling" (read: done deal).
if you don't know what you are talking about, why do you feel compelled to contribute? i read the nyt every morning, please tell me the op-ed columnists, other than krugman, who are pro-hillary? take a look at today's op-ed from Maureen Dowd.
and invoking penalties for those who can AFFORD healthcare is wrong? how else do you ensure that there is universal coverage without a single payer plan? is it more progressive to let people choose whether they want healthcare and leave millions out, or to require that people get healthcare and tax those who refuse to do so, even though they have the money. keep in mind that BOTH candidates are proposing to expand medicaid.
Read that yesterday, pure FUD. The NYT's op/ed sections are some of the best places to catch up on pro-Clinton propaganda. He fails to even mention the uber-controversial penalties that Clinton is "mulling" (read: done deal).
if you don't know what you are talking about, why do you feel compelled to contribute? i read the nyt every morning, please tell me the op-ed columnists, other than krugman, who are pro-hillary? take a look at today's op-ed from Maureen Dowd.
and invoking penalties for those who can AFFORD healthcare is wrong? how else do you ensure that there is universal coverage without a single payer plan? is it more progressive to let people choose whether they want healthcare and leave millions out, or to require that people get healthcare and tax those who refuse to do so, even though they have the money. keep in mind that BOTH candidates are proposing to expand medicaid.
I never stated an opinion on penalties at all. Where did you read that? All I'm saying is that John Q middle-American is going to associate that kind of penalty with socialism, reinforcing the Clinton/Commie mind garden to many.
wow - obama came out on top in the delegate count???!!?!?. that is a major. clinton has not succeeded in blunting his obamomentum.
Where do you see that?
Yeah, CNN claims Hillary has 'a handful' more than Obama, and that was the same as what the TV news had this morning. Still mighty impressive for the Obama machine, if you ask me. This is nowhere near over.
Superdelegates are still said to be pro-Hillary, though. Imagine if Obama takes more overall votes, states, and regular delegates, but loses because of the superdelegates.
The Dems' National Convention is gonna be REALLY interesting this year.
Yeah I read that this morning, which is exactly my point - these strong mandates are not going to be intact come time for (President) Clinton to sign the bill. You can pretty much bet on that.
Yep. There will need to additional GOP Senate seats taken in '10. Just look how these motherfuckers delayed shit since 2006. But they did pass the S-Chip thing. So who knows? Anyways, IMO the priority needs to be leaving Iraq.
in my opinion, priority is making sure the world doesnt end in 10 years
Imagine if Obabma takes more overall votes, states, and regular delegates, but loses because of the superdelegates.
Awful scenario. The concept of Super-delegates is crazy. After McGovern the DNC power-brokers had to make sure they could still hold sway. Because I guess people voting is too, um--what's the word?--, oh yeah, democratic. Damn shit disgusts me.
Imagine if Obabma takes more overall votes, states, and regular delegates, but loses because of the superdelegates.
Awful scenario. The concept of Super-delegates is very Undemocratic IMO. Those fuckers! After McGovern the DNC power-brokers had to make sure they could still hold sway. Because I guess people voting is too, um--what's the word?--, oh yeah, democratic. Damn shit disgusts me.
I cannot imagine the Democratic Party allowing this to happen. You can bet that if Obama has a significant lead in votes or delegates the Party will put a lot of pressure on these "superdelegates" to fall in line.
Imagine if Obabma takes more overall votes, states, and regular delegates, but loses because of the superdelegates.
Awful scenario. The concept of Super-delegates is very Undemocratic IMO. Those fuckers! After McGovern the DNC power-brokers had to make sure they could still hold sway. Because I guess people voting is too, um--what's the word?--, oh yeah, democratic. Damn shit disgusts me.
I cannot imagine the Democratic Party allowing this to happen. You can bet that if Obama has a significant lead in votes or delegates the Party will put a lot of pressure on these "superdelegates" to fall in line.
You mentioned that yesterday and I hope you are right. Nonetheless, the super-delegate situation really should change. I hope as a result of the heightened attention to the primary processes, more people see the problems with some of these details.
Strange to see some of you beginning to rationalize another four years of Republicans in the White House but if Hillary gets the nomination I'm afraid that's what we're gonna get.
Strange to see some of you beginning to rationalize another four years of Republicans in the White House but if Hillary gets the nomination I'm afraid that's what we're gonna get.
The only way Hillary beats a McCain/Huckabee ticket is with Obama as VP.
yea, i was watching msnbc last night and some of these states had dem voter turnouts that barely clipped 4 digits. then matthews would jump on talking about " a huge win for ____"
i know we have some underpopulated states, but damn, are people that disinterested in politics?
and if they are really that underpopulated, then i think i just solved our immigration problems.
Strange to see some of you beginning to rationalize another four years of Republicans in the White House but if Hillary gets the nomination I'm afraid that's what we're gonna get.
The only way Hillary beats a McCain/Huckabee ticket is with Obama as VP.
I thought the C.W. on this was that such a ticket is unelectable in a general election?
Strange to see some of you beginning to rationalize another four years of Republicans in the White House but if Hillary gets the nomination I'm afraid that's what we're gonna get.
The only way Hillary beats a McCain/Huckabee ticket is with Obama as VP.
I thought the C.W. on this was that such a ticket is unelectable in a general election?
Can you elaborate?
Obama and Clinton don't really appeal to the same voters. The Democratic Party will lose a lot of votes to McCain in a general election if Clinton is the nominee.
Strange to see some of you beginning to rationalize another four years of Republicans in the White House but if Hillary gets the nomination I'm afraid that's what we're gonna get.
The only way Hillary beats a McCain/Huckabee ticket is with Obama as VP.
I thought the C.W. on this was that such a ticket is unelectable in a general election?
Can you elaborate?
Obama and Clinton don't really appeal to the same voters. The Democratic Party will lose a lot of votes to McCain in a general election if Clinton is the nominee.
The way it was explained to me is that Clinton and Obama would be suicide because you're pretty much risking losing voters who neither want to see a woman or a Black man in the White House.
Strange to see some of you beginning to rationalize another four years of Republicans in the White House but if Hillary gets the nomination I'm afraid that's what we're gonna get.
I got no problem with Republicans overall. My problem is with the Bush/Cheney/Delay/Rove brand of politics and "governing".
Obama and Clinton don't really appeal to the same voters. The Democratic Party will lose a lot of votes to McCain in a general election if Clinton is the nominee.
as of a week ago, meet the press showed that they were both polling within 3 points of each other against mccain...with obama ahead. no doubt he is bringing out young people that won't be as enthusiastic for hillary, but its not completely one-sided (go ask the retirees in florida).
to me, this is a non-issue. mccain has no shot, even with Gomer Pile's long lost brother as his VP.
Comments
^^^^SO DAMN SILLY
Yeah - there's some deep-seeded shit going on there. Let's not overstate it - had the Asian vote been closer to the Latino vote (60/40) then I wouldn't throw out the racism card as easily but it's the proportions that really stun me. And seriously, it's not a big secret that Asian Americans - especially immigrants - hold negative views of African Americans even though very large numbers of them are insulated from ever living next to or work with Black people. Much of it is purely at the level of a cultural bias whereas, at least with Latinos, there is very real economic and social contact that puts them in competition. If there's a racial bias against a Black candidate, at least that would have some basis in social conflict.
That said, I haven't seen the breakdowns yet. After all, Obama carried SF and Alameda and those both have very large numbers of API voters. I'd be more curious to see an exit polls in places like the San Gabriel Valley...or San Mateo County and see how the swing went.
I should also add, the Asian American political machine (what exists of one) in CA was very much pro-Clinton and there's some speculation that they had more influence over immigrant voters. But again, unless there's an analysis of immigrant vs. American-born Asian votes, it's purely speculation.
also Hillary has had the NY Asian vote on lock for a while, remember when they found all those names of busboys and garment workers in China Town with $2000 donations to Hillary a few months back. Thats a machine in operation.
I think of my father-in-law as a pretty typical example here: Filipino, works for a big engineering firm, spends a lot of time in The PI and Saudi Arabia, settled in Henderson NV. Voted for Bush twice but regrets it. Read Obama's autobio and liked it - likes him - but feels that he is "too young, too inexperienced". Wanted to vote Biden. Now will vote McCain, but could go with Hillary as well. Thinks career accomplishment is next to godliness.
I think you're right to look at this culturally although it's not just a race thing - the concept of qualification and experience plays a huge role.
Yeah, I think I could live with another Republican in the White House having to fix what they broke in the first place, if, say, they were even willing to admit it was broken and the current Supreme Court were all 40 years old and in spectacular health.
That said, I am pulling for Obama. Hillary will rally the Red Staters to vote for whomever is under a GOP banner, Obama confuses them to enough of a degree and brings out young voters in record numbers. I don't think the GOP machine has the steam to beat that. At least that's how it is in my private mind garden.
Indeed.
In fact, I think the Asian vote has been largely overlooked by the news media.
if you don't know what you are talking about, why do you feel compelled to contribute? i read the nyt every morning, please tell me the op-ed columnists, other than krugman, who are pro-hillary? take a look at today's op-ed from Maureen Dowd.
and invoking penalties for those who can AFFORD healthcare is wrong? how else do you ensure that there is universal coverage without a single payer plan? is it more progressive to let people choose whether they want healthcare and leave millions out, or to require that people get healthcare and tax those who refuse to do so, even though they have the money. keep in mind that BOTH candidates are proposing to expand medicaid.
this is exactly right in both business and politics..and seniority are huge cultural credentials for the asian demographic
Come again?
I never stated an opinion on penalties at all. Where did you read that? All I'm saying is that John Q middle-American is going to associate that kind of penalty with socialism, reinforcing the Clinton/Commie mind garden to many.
Can you not see that?
Don't blink now, but CNN is now reporting Obama with a slim delegate lead as of minutes ago.
Superdelegates are still said to be pro-Hillary, though. Imagine if Obama takes more overall votes, states, and regular delegates, but loses because of the superdelegates.
The Dems' National Convention is gonna be REALLY interesting this year.
Hawaii with the swing votes for Obama?
I'm tryin to stir shit up. I'll stop.
in my opinion, priority is making sure the world doesnt end in 10 years
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_re_af/60_acres_a_minute_i
Awful scenario. The concept of Super-delegates is crazy. After McGovern the DNC power-brokers had to make sure they could still hold sway. Because I guess people voting is too, um--what's the word?--, oh yeah, democratic. Damn shit disgusts me.
I cannot imagine the Democratic Party allowing this to happen. You can bet that if Obama has a significant lead in votes or delegates the Party will put a lot of pressure on these "superdelegates" to fall in line.
You mentioned that yesterday and I hope you are right. Nonetheless, the super-delegate situation really should change. I hope as a result of the heightened attention to the primary processes, more people see the problems with some of these details.
The only way Hillary beats a McCain/Huckabee ticket is with Obama as VP.
the 7 black people in idaho voted for obama...
yea, i was watching msnbc last night and some of these states had dem voter turnouts that barely clipped 4 digits. then matthews would jump on talking about " a huge win for ____"
i know we have some underpopulated states, but damn, are people that disinterested in politics?
and if they are really that underpopulated, then i think i just solved our immigration problems.
I thought the C.W. on this was that such a ticket is unelectable in a general election?
Can you elaborate?
Obama and Clinton don't really appeal to the same voters. The Democratic Party will lose a lot of votes to McCain in a general election if Clinton is the nominee.
The way it was explained to me is that Clinton and Obama would be suicide because you're pretty much risking losing voters who neither want to see a woman or a Black man in the White House.
I got no problem with Republicans overall. My problem is with the Bush/Cheney/Delay/Rove brand of politics and "governing".
as of a week ago, meet the press showed that they were both polling within 3 points of each other against mccain...with obama ahead. no doubt he is bringing out young people that won't be as enthusiastic for hillary, but its not completely one-sided (go ask the retirees in florida).
to me, this is a non-issue. mccain has no shot, even with Gomer Pile's long lost brother as his VP.