1) For the sake of precision: McCain didn't "abolish" MLK Day. That was by a republican governor of AZ in 1987. McCain voted against the holiday and also backed said governor however.
2) So basically...~25% of Clinton supporters won't back Obama while ~20% of Obama supporters won't back Clinton. 5% doesn't seem awfully big to me in this case. Sounds like there's a lot of fucktards to go around.
3) Rock: Would you vote for someone who supported legal segregation? I'm saying - reasons to vote/not vote for someone on the basis of their legislative record seems pretty Frickin' valid to me - more so than, "I'd drink a beer with that guy."
3) Rock: Would you vote for someone who supported legal segregation? I'm saying - reasons to vote/not vote for someone on the basis of their legislative record seems pretty Frickin' valid to me - more so than, "I'd drink a beer with that guy."
Who would want to drink a beer with McCain?
He seems like somebody that would try to draw you into his drunken stories by pinching and grabbing you.
3) Rock: Would you vote for someone who supported legal segregation? I'm saying - reasons to vote/not vote for someone on the basis of their legislative record seems pretty Frickin' valid to me - more so than, "I'd drink a beer with that guy."
Who would want to drink a beer with McCain?
He seems like somebody that would try to draw you into his drunken stories by pinching and grabbing you.
You'd be paying for the beers, too. McCain would throw out $.50 thinking beers still cost two bits like back in his day. nyuk nyuk.
3) Rock: Would you vote for someone who supported legal segregation? I'm saying - reasons to vote/not vote for someone on the basis of their legislative record seems pretty Frickin' valid to me - more so than, "I'd drink a beer with that guy."
First of all....I'd drink a beer with just about anyone....especially if they were paying.
I'm also thrilled to know that Faux has spent even one second of his life imagining what a "Rockadelic party" might be like.
Different issues carry different weight.....MLK Holiday or Abortion wouldn't sway my vote....legalized slavery or segregation would.
1) For the sake of precision: McCain didn't "abolish" MLK Day. That was by a republican governor of AZ in 1987. McCain voted against the holiday and also backed said governor however.
2) So basically...~25% of Clinton supporters won't back Obama while ~20% of Obama supporters won't back Clinton. 5% doesn't seem awfully big to me in this case. Sounds like there's a lot of fucktards to go around.
3) Rock: Would you vote for someone who supported legal segregation? I'm saying - reasons to vote/not vote for someone on the basis of their legislative record seems pretty Frickin' valid to me - more so than, "I'd drink a beer with that guy."
1) true, my accuracy was askew
2) I NEVER said the Obama swayers weren't fucktards, just that there were more that supported Hillary
2) I NEVER said the Obama swayers weren't fucktards, just that there were more that supported Hillary
Yeah...5% more.
I mean, c'mon man. We're talking a statistically-significant-but-still-pretty-darn-small difference.
for the sake of precision (heh), it's more than 5%, 1 in 4 vs. less than 1 in 5, that's more like 7%. not a huge number but not a small one either when you consider that extra 7% is more than likely attributed to racism. and not merely the thought that Obama isn't qualified.
2) I NEVER said the Obama swayers weren't fucktards, just that there were more that supported Hillary
Yeah...5% more.
I mean, c'mon man. We're talking a statistically-significant-but-still-pretty-darn-small difference.
for the sake of precision (heh), it's more than 5%, 1 in 4 vs. less than 1 in 5, that's more like 7%. not a huge number but not a small one either when you consider that extra 7% is more than likely attributed to racism. and not merely the thought that Obama isn't qualified.
I don't think the two are really separable--reference to his "lack of experience" or "qualifications" tends to be a proxy for racism. He certainly has more of both than Hillary does. Or Bill did, who--let us not forget--had no experience in national politics and was governor of Arkansas.
I should have stated earlier: I'm surprised by this insofar as I've found far more virulent Clinton haters amongst Obama fans vs. the other way around BUT if it is racism keeping folks away from Obama, then that'd explain the discrepancy.
I should have stated earlier: I'm surprised by this insofar as I've found far more virulent Clinton haters amongst Obama fans vs. the other way around BUT if it is racism keeping folks away from Obama, then that'd explain the discrepancy.
I think the huge difference is that the Obama supporters that are virulent Hillary haters, hate her for the same reasons they would hate McCain, being shady and untrustworthy. I don't think the inverse is true though.
I should have stated earlier: I'm surprised by this insofar as I've found far more virulent Clinton haters amongst Obama fans vs. the other way around BUT if it is racism keeping folks away from Obama, then that'd explain the discrepancy.
dude how does this change your view that there are "far more virulent Clinton haters amongst Obama fans vs. the other way around"?
Your preception is not inconsistent with these poll figures: after all, like I said earlier the 81% of Obama supporters that don't back McCain in McCain v. Hillary are not necesarily voting Hillary.
I agree that there are far more virulent Clinton haters amongst Obama fans vs. the other way around, and this is precisely what informed my earlier assumption that a greater number of the Hillary 72% would vote Obama than would the Obama 81% vote Hillary.
I'm not--what you quoted was clearly a sidenote to my main point. Although it is clearly relevant to what we're discussing in this thread.
and what's that, "racism"? okay, I suppose we could throw in a lot of random facts related to that phenomenon.
had Bill faced a black candidate in the Dem primary with a real chance of success in a general than I can see your point.
otherwise it's just a "hey-look-at-an-unqualified-dude-that-benefited-from-his-whiteness" observation that is not particularly relevant to this conversation.
It may be true that the anti-Hillary-ness of Obama supporters is more virulent than its inverse in the Hillary camps, not least because it seems Obamaniacs are more energized about the campaign in general.
But her basic argument to the superdelegates and her premise for continuing her run IS that her people will not vote for Obama in the general. She is stoking that attitude because it is the principal tenet of her nomination logic. I think there's not a small amount of "nudge-wink" politics wrapped up in that. I find it alarming.
Damn, the statistic is stupid, and so is the question.
The truth is that the big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Ds will weigh their vote and could go with either candidate. Rs will always vote for the nominee. Even if it is McCain.
As for Ayers. He was charged with a crime. He turned himself in. The prosecutor blew the case. He is now a contributing member of society. Case closed.
I would rather be his friend than someone who drunkenly blew his friends face off then used his influence and corrupt Texas legal system to get off with out even an investigation.
I am glad I am not among the 27% of Americans who support a president who has directed our intelligence community and military to use torture.
Those are the things that should make someone unelectable, not serving on a charitable board with a person who has been cleared of a 40 year old crime.
Comments
2) So basically...~25% of Clinton supporters won't back Obama while ~20% of Obama supporters won't back Clinton. 5% doesn't seem awfully big to me in this case. Sounds like there's a lot of fucktards to go around.
3) Rock: Would you vote for someone who supported legal segregation? I'm saying - reasons to vote/not vote for someone on the basis of their legislative record seems pretty Frickin' valid to me - more so than, "I'd drink a beer with that guy."
Who would want to drink a beer with McCain?
He seems like somebody that would try to draw you into his drunken stories by pinching and grabbing you.
You'd be paying for the beers, too. McCain would throw out $.50 thinking beers still cost two bits like back in his day. nyuk nyuk.
After the pinching and grabbing, it's the after-party, and after the after-party, it's the abrupt snoring.
Sounds like a Rockadelic party.
First of all....I'd drink a beer with just about anyone....especially if they were paying.
I'm also thrilled to know that Faux has spent even one second of his life imagining what a "Rockadelic party" might be like.
Different issues carry different weight.....MLK Holiday or Abortion wouldn't sway my vote....legalized slavery or segregation would.
1) true, my accuracy was askew
2) I NEVER said the Obama swayers weren't fucktards, just that there were more that supported Hillary
Yeah...5% more.
I mean, c'mon man. We're talking a statistically-significant-but-still-pretty-darn-small difference.
for the sake of precision (heh), it's more than 5%, 1 in 4 vs. less than 1 in 5, that's more like 7%. not a huge number but not a small one either when you consider that extra 7% is more than likely attributed to racism. and not merely the thought that Obama isn't qualified.
I don't think the two are really separable--reference to his "lack of experience" or "qualifications" tends to be a proxy for racism. He certainly has more of both than Hillary does. Or Bill did, who--let us not forget--had no experience in national politics and was governor of Arkansas.
why are you changing the subject?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
I should have stated earlier: I'm surprised by this insofar as I've found far more virulent Clinton haters amongst Obama fans vs. the other way around BUT if it is racism keeping folks away from Obama, then that'd explain the discrepancy.
I'm not--what you quoted was clearly a sidenote to my main point. Although it is clearly relevant to what we're discussing in this thread.
I think the huge difference is that the Obama supporters that are virulent Hillary haters, hate her for the same reasons they would hate McCain, being shady and untrustworthy. I don't think the inverse is true though.
dude how does this change your view that there are "far more virulent Clinton haters amongst Obama fans vs. the other way around"?
Your preception is not inconsistent with these poll figures: after all, like I said earlier the 81% of Obama supporters that don't back McCain in McCain v. Hillary are not necesarily voting Hillary.
I agree that there are far more virulent Clinton haters amongst Obama fans vs. the other way around, and this is precisely what informed my earlier assumption that a greater number of the Hillary 72% would vote Obama than would the Obama 81% vote Hillary.
and what's that, "racism"? okay, I suppose we could throw in a lot of random facts related to that phenomenon.
had Bill faced a black candidate in the Dem primary with a real chance of success in a general than I can see your point.
otherwise it's just a "hey-look-at-an-unqualified-dude-that-benefited-from-his-whiteness" observation that is not particularly relevant to this conversation.
But her basic argument to the superdelegates and her premise for continuing her run IS that her people will not vote for Obama in the general. She is stoking that attitude because it is the principal tenet of her nomination logic. I think there's not a small amount of "nudge-wink" politics wrapped up in that. I find it alarming.
The truth is that the big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Ds will weigh their vote and could go with either candidate. Rs will always vote for the nominee. Even if it is McCain.
As for Ayers. He was charged with a crime. He turned himself in. The prosecutor blew the case. He is now a contributing member of society. Case closed.
I would rather be his friend than someone who drunkenly blew his friends face off then used his influence and corrupt Texas legal system to get off with out even an investigation.
I am glad I am not among the 27% of Americans who support a president who has directed our intelligence community and military to use torture.
Those are the things that should make someone unelectable, not serving on a charitable board with a person who has been cleared of a 40 year old crime.