In the aftermath of the New Hampshire Primary is it possible that Racism is still alive and well in the U.S.A.???
The pollsters were right on ,regarding John McCain ,but were't even close regarding Obama.
After listening to the various talking heads trying to figure out why they were so wrong,some have come to the conclusion that those ,who were polled, simply LIED to the pollsters when asked if they would vote for a Black man.
In other words, rather than being labeled Racist,they went into the voting booth and voted against Obama,right after telling the pollsters that they had no voting prejudice.
The same thing could happen to Hillary somewhere down the line,when those who will not vote for any Woman,may do the same thing to the pollsters...tell them one thing and then do the opposite.
I hate to say it ,but I'm afraid that Racism and Gender Bias are still alive and well in the good old U.S.A.
I think that racism and gender bias is alive and well in the US, but I think neither played a significant role in New Hampshire. Asking the question "Would you vote for a black man" is not the same as asking "Are you going to (Or "Did you..") vote for a black man?"
Further, your statement
In other words, rather than being labeled Racist,they went into the voting booth and voted against Obama,right after telling the pollsters that they had no voting prejudice.
seems to imply that anyone who says that he or she would vote for a black man but doesn't is automatically a racist. You allow no room for the individuality of the candidate. I have no qualms about voting for a black man (I have, both for Senator and for President.), a female (I have, for Senator,), or even a black female (I have, for Senator), but that doesn't mean that I am bound by my willingness to vote for anyone of either sex or any ethnicity to always vote for a minority candidate. I may have the opportunity to vote for Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, and would do so gladly, but I wouldn't vote for Al Sharpton if he were running against Hitler's grandson.
I also do not feel any obligation to be truthful to anyone asking me who I voted for or intend to vote for, especially on my way to the polls.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 16480 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Like that's some kind of a surprise? Especially with this racist war America is currently engaged in, oppressing anyone in the world who resembles a middle-eastern?
Andrew Kohut a director of the Pew Research Center has suggested that a reason the polls were so far out is that poor, uneducated whites don't answer pollsters' questions but these people are also the most unfavorable to blacks. (In the NYT of today, 10 Jan 08)
I'm sure there is more than one reason the pollsters got it so wrong. For instance, Independents, having been convinced by the pollsters that Obama was a shoo-in, switched and voted instead for McCain. Or women, outraged by the media's repetitious playing of the Hillary weepy tapes, decided to rally to her defense en masse!. Anyway, can't racism and sexism, and or reverse-both work to anyone's favor. Racism is alive and well in America? Surprise, Surprise!!! Let the pundits just tell us the facts, let us do our own interpretations. We're not all as dumb as we look. thanks.
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Is there any reason to believe that there is a higher percentage of poor, uneducated whites in New Hampshire than in Iowa?
_______________________________________________
Hi dg:
In New Hampshire voters were allowed to go into a voting booth and vote by secret ballot.
Unless I'm terribly wrong there was no secret ballot in Iowa.
Caucus goers were herded into precinct rooms where Candidate workers were able to confront them ,and ask who they were intending to vote for,afterwhich Candidate workers knew exactly who was going to vote , as well as who they were going to vote for. There was no secrecy involved.
That's what the TV coverage showed on MSNBC and CNN.
It wasn't about poor ,uneducated voters...it was about a lack of secrecy in the balloting.
Hippo, Iowa holds caucuses. It does'nt hold a primary election. New Hampshire holds a primary election, an election process which resembles the actual election, except that primaries are how the parties in most states determine to whom its delegates will be pledged at the national convention. They are two different processes with a common goal. They are not intended to be the same. Secret ballot is a very old tradition, and, in the US, dates to the very beginning of our national government.
My question was a response to Fred's post regarding Andrew Kohut's comments.
So far, it seems that Frank's comment makes the most sense. Obama's win in Iowa may be similar to Jesse Ventura's winning Minnesota's 1998 gubernatorial race. Minnesota has same day registration, which means that non-registered citizens can register and vote the same day.
Posts: 16480 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by frankvan: I'm sure there is more than one reason the pollsters got it so wrong. For instance, Independents, having been convinced by the pollsters that Obama was a shoo-in, switched and voted instead for McCain.
I really think that nails it right on the head.
Posts: 3474 | Location: Colfax, WA--the home of the world's largest chain-saw sculpture!! | Registered: 06-03-02
