Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven - Michael Falcone - POLITICO.comRacism is not a factor driving conservative opposition to President Barack Obama...
Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven - Michael Falcone - POLITICO.com
Not that this will stop the card from being slithered out from the bottom of the deck at every turn.
.
This isn't really news. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that the racism is on the left and being played for political gain. These people are tearing this country apart and they should be punished for it.
This isn't really news. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that the racism is on the left and being played for political gain. These people are tearing this country apart and they should be punished for it.
Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven - Michael Falcone - POLITICO.com
Not that this will stop the card from being slithered out from the bottom of the deck at every turn.
.
Moderator's Warning: |
It's offensive that there even *is* a study on this crap as though it had any credence in the first place. :roll:
Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.
A study about what is important to swing voters and conservative base voters isn't offensive. This was not a study about the importance of race, but rather what is important to these two groups of voters. The race finding is only one of the findings of the study, and ironically, despite the study saying this issue isn't important and the press needs to get over it, this article only focuses on the race element.
From one of the pages of the study:
How does Garbage Wilson calling the president a liar make his concerns racist? You guys keep bringing race into this, when it really is no more of a factor than people not liking George Bush because of his accent. IOW, there are really reasons to oppose either man.
Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven - Michael Falcone - POLITICO.com
Not that this will stop the card from being slithered out from the bottom of the deck at every turn.
.
Whether racism is or isn't, in all reality, a factor, how accurate could such a study really be?
Most conscious racists won't admit they're racist in a survey.
And many people are driven by subconscious racism.
I thought that was really interesting too ! I didn't post it when I read it tho, b/c when I mentioned this study on Thursday night (I'd read a preview of it on Thurs night) some conservatives in a tea party thread told me it was a POS study b/c it was put out by a Dem pollster:bs
Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven - Michael Falcone - POLITICO.com
Not that this will stop the card from being slithered out from the bottom of the deck at every turn.
.
Well, since you think that conservatives are always wrong, then we can come to the conclusion that you think the pollster is right and therefore, prives in your mind, that racism is not part of the opposition. Am I correct? or do you hold that racism is part of the opposition camp?
I think obama's race has affected politics in a way that is not easily comprehended by anyone. I think theres an effect, except its nearly inexplicable.
Yes, there's an effect... no matter WHAT kind of opposition to Obama can be attributed to racism and summarily dismissed.
THAT is the ONLY way in which Obama's race has affected politics, reducing thought to 'support' for Obama and 'racist' thought.
My point about this being retarted stands.
Birthers
Osamacare?
Maybe there are actual racists out there just ruining your name and since you tend to be homogenized they just confuse you all?
This liberal study done in part by James Carville is just another example of the liberal bias so prevalent today. We should discount it immediately just as all liberal media claims are automatically wrong.
No, but its very reasonable to consider the source when looking at anything. A source with a known bias or agenda isn't automatically wrong or false, but they deserve more scrutiny, particularly when making claims that support their established bias.
To use an extreme example, you wouldn't consider a neo-nazi web site likely to be a accurate source on the history of the holocaust, would you? The fact is there are a lot of sources out there, on both sides, that are more interested in producing propaganda than in accurate studies and providing factual content. Not all of them, but a lot. A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, now more than ever, given that the internet has made it incredibly easy to spread both information and disinformation.
The only source I throw out immediately just because of the source is WorldNutDaily. Everything else, you should at least check what they are saying. Usually, any time I link to say, Factcheck or Politifact, or CNN, some one just says they are liberally biased without ever arguing against the information presented. That is what I was making fun of in my post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?