<p>simba, I also don’t know what your own point is in Post 118. “Go figure” what? </p>
<p>In some locales Obama enjoyed the lion’s share of the highly-educated voters.<br>
Go figure, indeed. And conversely, in those areas, HRC garnered almost exclusively the very uneducated group of voters.</p>
<p>mercymom, thanks for bringing the argument back to qualifications. I understand your point & you have some solid ones. If resume qualifications were enough to persuade my vote one way or another, I would have voted for HRC. (I can appreciate that many, many voters base their vote mostly or even exclusively on “resumes.”) However, qualified to mobilize counts for a great deal in my book, when it comes to national electability & persuasiveness on a national level (as well as a lack of negatives in those departments).<br>
…Just explaining some of my reasoning, that’s all. :)</p>
<p>Wow, Rasmussen mus be a prophet!<br>
And Rasmussen (“it says”) must know why “men just don’t like Hillary.” Hey, it “must be” sexism. What a scholar this person is.</p>
<p>"simba, I also don’t know what your own point is in Post 118. “Go figure” what?:</p>
<p>Here it goes. Obama won about 58% to Hillary’s 39% ( too lazy to check actuals and it will not change the final conclusion by much). so if 44% were black votes and 90% of them went to Obama he received .44<em>.9</em>100 = 39.6% of total votes from blacks and about 18% of votes from whites.</p>
<p>Why do you keep repeating the same non-illuminating statistics? You have not answered the question as to the supposed implications of the quality of that voting, the validity of those voters’ reasons/opinions, the worth of their votes, the decision-making process that went into those votes. Statistics in themselves mean nothing, but they’re sure fun to manipulate, aren’t they? (Particularly for purposes of unscientific insinuation.)</p>
<p>“If Obama was a white man would he be getting 90% of the black vote?”</p>
<p>Well, maybe, if they liked him a lot–and he might be getting more of the white vote. So what?
I think its just silly to make a big deal out of people supporting a person with whom they share characteristics. I remember back in 1976 that a lot of evangelical Christians supported Carter because he was the first candidate who self-identified that way Evangelicals were happy to see somebody who shared those beliefs and who at least seemed to understand them. To me, it’s just trivial that black folks would be pleased to see a black president–I don’t think they’d be pleased enough to vote for somebody like Clarence Thomas, though. Does anybody? For Ferraro to point this out was race-baiting at worst and churlish whining at best.
And I was thinking about the idea of what would happen if a black woman with the same level of charisma came along…it seems to me that she might host a top-rated talk show, produce movies, put out a magazine, etc. She might do OK in politics, too.</p>
<p>Okay, if Obama is lacking in Foreign affair experience, what IS his overall electability,
.He chastised Walmart for its maltreatment of low paid workers, yet is wife was on the board(since resigned) is it rhetoric?</p>
<p>I want substance not hyperbole, yet when I listen to Obama all I come away with is superfluous fancy motivational emptiness. </p>
<p>He promises changes.
If anyone knows how he proposes to change Washington, please let us know.Cause he isn’t telling us the undecided how he proposes that.</p>
<p>This will be how McCain gets in, nobody has a clue what Obama is about, he gives no facts.</p>
<p>“For Ferraro to point this out was race-baiting at worst and churlish whining at best.”</p>
<p>Yes. And I don’t know if anyone has pointed out what this says about Ferraro’s own previous VP candidacy (to which she alluded, i.e., in sum, ‘I was also not qualified.’) Hmm. That was really responsible of her to allow her name to be placed in nomination for the #2 spot, for which she deemed herself a mere token.
Either that statement of hers is quite disingenuous, or the fact that she allowed the party to run her as a supposedly underqualified, token candidate representing a ‘bloc’ of voters proves her judgment to be wanting, thus also to be wanting when it comes to evaluating the worth of Obama as a candidate, vs. a representative of a race.</p>
<p>“Statistics in themselves mean nothing, but they’re sure fun to manipulate, aren’t they? (Particularly for purposes of unscientific insinuation.)”</p>
<p>They are not unscientific. Raw numbers don’t lie. It seems that you seem to look for much deeper meaning without any data.</p>
<p>"I want substance not hyperbole, yet when I listen to Obama all I come away with is superfluous fancy motivational emptiness. "</p>
<p>That is my trouble with his candidacy. He does appeal to heart, but not my mind. Being an engineer for so long, I have come to rely more on mind than heart. I also have personal distate for people who can weave empty but fancy words in to a great speech. I also don’t like people who have perpetual smirk on their faces (Bush, Delay…).</p>
<p>Wife unit is other way around - she trusts heart more than mind.</p>
<p>Oh yes, they do. (“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”) In themselves, statistics mean nothing. They are quantitative data without context, and as such can be manipulated for any purpose under the sun. </p>
<p>Yes, I look for meaning. Funny how that works. You haven’t provided your supposed conclusions for the data. Asking people to comment or conclude based on uncontextualized data is a waste of time.</p>
<p>There is no conclusion to draw from mere reporting of “numbers.” And even fewer than no conclusions to draw from “likely” numbers from a self-appointed prophet of voting “results.” That is not “data.”</p>
<p>“He [Obama] does appeal to heart, but not my mind.”</p>
<p>But he appeals to the <em>minds</em> of many highly-educated people, who are tending to vote for him, in large numbers (e.g., white educated professionals). Many of these people are choosing from a rational basis.</p>
<p>Additionally, many women voting for HRC (women both educated & noneducated, both white & other races) have stated publicly that they are voting for HRC based on emotional allegiance to the ‘cause’ of putting a woman in the #1 decision-making spot. That choice is neither more nor less justifiable than a black voter doing the same for Obama.</p>
<p>Getting additional votes from the “Ignorant” voter because you are black, woman, POW/Military, etc… is fine; expected; and natural. That doesn’t take away from a candidate’s other attributes or makes them less qualified. That is the problem with many people’s opinion on this topic. You think that if someone says Obama being black is garnishing him votes that he normally wouldn’t have gotten had he not been black; somehow implies that he’s not qualified. That was not said, implied, or intended. Just like Ferraro stating that she wouldn’t have be in the position she was had she not been a woman, make her any less qualified. Too many boo hoo people here. Hillary would most definitely be getting more of the black vote had Obama been white. She’s always had the black vote until now. This does not take away from Obama’s qualifications in the least. As I mentioned earlier; should Colin Powell decide to run for the republican nominee, he would most definitely take away many of the military votes that NORMALLY would go to McCain. This wouldn’t make Powell any less qualified.</p>
<p>Qualifications is a totally different subject. Only those trying so hard to DEFEND Obama are trying to link the two to imply that those mentioning it are racist. As far as qualifications and attributes that breed confidence in a candidate’s ability to be an effective president, that should be the debate. I don’t think Obama comes close to Clinton or McCain when it comes to qualifications and achievements. No where close. But that too doesn’t matter. Many people treat elections as popularity contests. They don’t and won’t vote for the best candidate. They will vote for who “They Like”. The candidates understand that and will play for those votes. Just like a black, woman, war hero, etc… can attract a certain number of votes no matter if their qualifications are good or bad; the same can be said for personality and charisma. That will garnish a certain number of votes no matter the qualifications of the candidate. </p>
<p>It is my opinion that this is Obama’s greatest attribute. I don’t think he is the best qualified or even close. But he has the personality, charisma, and energy to excite voters. Those voters will no doubt rationalize their position of why they are supporting him. That is natural. If we could take the personality issue out of the equation, then a republican could vote for a democrat if they believed they were the best for the country. A democrat would vote for a republican if they believed they were the best for the country. Both sides could support and win with a 3rd party candidate if they were the best for the country. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, we don’t live in that make believe world. The world we live in is made up mainly of voters who have no idea of the issues. They don’t understand macro/micro economics. Nationally and globally. They don’t understand military presence and issues. They don’t understand the environment, energy, GDP of countries, etc… Most are ignorant of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is the truth. Even if every single person on this forum was totally knowledgeable of the issues and how the “Real World” works, this forum is such a very small representation of the voting population. The truth is; the vast majority of voter will vote for a candidate because they “LIKE THEM”; because they “ARE BLACK”; because they “AREN’T BLACK”; because they “ARE A WOMAN”; because they “ARE A DEMOCRAT”; because they “ARE A REPUBLICAN”; etc… If people really understood the issues; understood the planet; understood politics; and understood foreign affairs and relations; then probably none of the 3 would be the current choices for the position of President of the United States. Don’t worry, this is how it’s been for decades. It’s just that this election is one of the worst of all times. A large part of the supporters are voting because “They LIKE” someone. Another portion is voting “AGAINST” someone. It’s totally disgusting.</p>
<p>“But he has the personality, charisma, and energy to excite voters.”</p>
<p>I think you are right that many people are supporting Obama because of characteristics other than experience. However, you are leaving out what I think is the characteristic that appeals to many voters, especially those highly-educated ones: all available evidence suggests that Obama is really, really smart. While Hillary is smart, too, she is more a wonkish, grindy kind of smart, while Obama seems a more creative kind of smart. McCain may well be smart, but he is too close to the overwhelming penumbra of dumbness emanating from the Bush administration.</p>
<p>That’s right, Hunt. Smart AND curious and interested in keeping himself well-informed about the world. It’s so rare to find someone with sterling academic achievements and the charisma to communicate effectively with huge crowds and television audiences. The only equivalent person I’ve seen in my lifetime was Bill Clinton. He had the magic touch; Hillary does not.</p>
<p>Obama’s calm temperament is also a huge plus in my book. A president with a deliberate and patient personality would be just the kind of change I’m looking for.</p>