<p>I’ll be willing to trade all of the black votes in one racial bloc vote for Obama if McCain can have all the white votes. Then, of course the whites would be racist if 90% of them voted for the white candidate but it will be ok when 90% of the black vote for Obama.</p>
<p>^It already is, of course! </p>
<p>Wait a minute, the 90% for Obama is justified – they’re not voting based on race at all, like those racist whites who aren’t voting for Obama because he’s black (not all, of course, but some!). No, no…after Obama has spent his entire elected time championing the black cause, the ninety percent support is justified. Because, no other demographic could reach those numbers without their candidate spending ALL their time focusing on their special interests…No, race isn’t an issue at all.</p>
<p>Whose even talking about voters, guys? The candidates’ records speak for themselves.</p>
<p>^True true. Of course, that doesn’t really mean anything.</p>
<p>On the contrary, voting records tell a lot about a would-be President. A lot more so than voting factions. McCain votes like Bush does. If voters paid attention to this then McCain would be even further behind in the polls because Bush’s approval rating is at historic lows. But low-information voters tend to get caught up in the rhetoric (like this one “Then, of course the whites would be racist if 90% of them voted for the white candidate but it will be ok when 90% of the black vote for Obama.”) and they get confused by campaign strategies.</p>
<p>89% of African Americans voted for John Kerry in 2004. So the 90% support enjoyed by Obama represents +1% – hardly a race-based decision. I’d note that despite speculation that Obama had some sort of problem with hispanic voters, they poll at about 67% in favor of Obama. So I think that the historic voting record on civil rights issues probably has a whole lot more to do with voting patterns than the candidate’s own ethnicity.</p>
<p>^It’s more like 94% for Obama, but you are correct (the numbers I found said 88% for Kerry, but that is trivial). I would be interested to see, however, what the numbers actually were for black voters and 2004 and expected voters in 2008.</p>
<p>And momof2inca, I meant that the voting records clearly speak for themselves. That’s not saying anything. And it’s not obvious that Obama’s record is so much better than McCain (not just on civil rights). And it’s not true that if people were less focused on rhetoric, Obama would be way ahead. I understand that you hate Bush, but please stop saying “McCain=Bush.” He doesn’t. And even if they vote similarly, it’s still not a valid argument in the realm of this debate unless it’s proven.</p>
<p>How do you want me to prove this: “And even if they vote similarly, it’s still not a valid argument in the realm of this debate unless it’s proven.”</p>
<p>?</p>
<p>The record is the record. Do you need a link?</p>
<p>Yes. It’s a valid statement in that it’s somewhat true, but it’s a huge assertion to make without any evidence. The only problem I have is the lack of evidence.</p>
<p>Please, a link.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t subscribe to Congressional Quarterly (whose link requires password/username) but here’s a link for you:</p>
<p>[FactCheck.org:</a> Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html)</p>
<p>But no actual data? I’m really having a hard time with the source…It’s just so biased and completely incredible. And the Congressional Quarterly is not accessible to me.</p>
<p>Well, if you do some simple googling, you can see multiple references to the Congressional Quarterly data. I doubt they’re all biased and completely incredible. You’re just being silly now.</p>
<p>In alignment 95% of the time for 2007. They also state that he doesn’t always support Bush or the Republican party. It would be nice to know how many votes and what they were on before making a damning statement. My understanding is that McCain didn’t vote all that much so 19 out of 20 votes isn’t as good of a sample size as 95 out of 100. How did those votes go in general also. Too many variables without the data. There is nothing silly in wanting to see the data… Not calling you a liar…I like to have the facts.</p>
<p>I googled “bush mccain record.”</p>
<p>First hit:</p>
<p>[McCain</a> rips Bush record on warming – chicagotribune.com](<a href=“http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-mccain13may13,0,2369843.story]McCain”>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-mccain13may13,0,2369843.story)
[McCain’s</a> Voting Record: Bush Comparison Accurate? : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91544414]McCain’s”>McCain's Voting Record: Bush Comparison Accurate? : NPR)</p>
<p>I think it’s clear the McCain was far more independent than he is now. His views have evolved in time, and especially in the last year and a half or so. But to claim that he is Bush is a far different statement. The Congressional Report exposes his voting record, and finds it in line with Bush in the last year. His votes are 88% party-line, and Obama’s are 96% party-line.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean that McCain is a third term of Bush. He differs on issues that are likely to come up later in the term once the economy and Iraq War (oh – his view on this has also evolved (or changed, depending on how you see it) to be more moderate recently) get sorted out (or not). The fact that he supports legislation that Bush does doesn’t mean that those will be important issues at all during his term.</p>
<p>That being said, his voting record is similar to Bush. I agreed with you from the beginning. I even said so. My problem wasn’t with the claim but with the absolute lack of evidence for a claim that was repeated so many times. I still don’t have all the information, but, alas, the Congressional Quarterly data is behind virtual sealed doors.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that much of McCain’s motivation behind his votes has more to do w/ whether the issue involves an increase in the size or scope of government than it does w/ promoting racial or social issues. He doesn’t like to increase government intervention in our lives. He doesn’t like to see our tax dollars spent outrageously. He’s not for making more laws or constitutional amendments unless absolutely necessary.</p>
<p>And if you want to point a finger at someone for not supporting the rights of a group of people, take a look at Obama’s efforts to prevent the passage of BAIPA - Born Alive Infant Protection Act.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, this makes me wonder what he will actually do if he wins office? Will he be a Bush neocon or an independent? When will his evolution stop and what will he look like at that point?</p>
<p>The expedient flip flops of running for office are precisely why you can only evaluate a politician based on a long, substantial record in office.</p>
<p>“Well, this makes me wonder what he will actually do if he wins office? Will he be a Bush neocon or an independent? When will his evolution stop and what will he look like at that point?”</p>
<p>Bush =/= neocon. McCain is a Republican. He is conservative on some issues and not so much on others. As I said, within the last ten years, he’s been pretty consistent. Tax cuts were the big exception, in addition to the torture bill that he pushed and then didn’t vote on.</p>
<p>But flip-flopping is all the rage in D.C. The same questions can be raised about any other candidate for president. Again, I am well aware of McCain’s shortcomings, but I am also aware of Obama’s. It’s all relative. No drilling! Drilling! etc.</p>
<p>I don’t know, I liked the McCain of 2000 better than the McCain of today.</p>
<p>Then you shouldn’t vote for him.</p>