Posts with the tag demographics

There Is No Joe Six-Pack

Bodie P — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:12:10 EDT

I watched the vice-presidential debate on Thursday night, and found myself troubled by the characterization of middle-class America (also known as Main Street) as Joe Six-Pack. Joe Six-Pack sounded like a factory guy, who sits at his kitchen table in his t-shirt and work boots and slugs down a brewsky just before he teaches The Little Woman a few manners. It shocked me a little to realize Governor Palin, who first made the reference, meant me, and people like me.

I know I was supposed to feel comforted,

My endorsement

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:20:27 EDT

I'm from Nashville.

I'm an Evangelical Christian.

I'm white.

I'm a man.

I like women. (Although I am happily married and I think one wife is enough for a lifetime.)

I ought to be going GAGA over Sarah Palin and John McCain, right?

Except for one thing...

I believe in supporting politicians who tell the truth.

I believe in supporting politicians who care for the poor, the disenfranchised, and the oppressed.

I believe in supporting religious LIBERTY, not enforcing some Christian version of Sharia law.

I believe in God. I don't trust my government or my military to win victories in the "war on terror". I trust in God.

I believe in peace - a peace that can't be created by military might or threats of nuclear attack. Fighting wars for peace is like raping for virginity.

I believe in protecting God's creation - and I pay attention to science, not just biblical teaching.

I believe in promoting healthy families - not just with prohibitions of sex education and abortion and homosexual marriage. I believe in promoting healthy families with family-friendly policies that protect workers, provide an honest wage for an honest day's work, and support parents in raising their kids.

I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I actually think that we SHOULD protect the rights of habeus corpus for those who are imprisoned, because I know that governments lie, fail, and change.

I believe that we should pay our bills and balance our budget, instead of leaving trillions of dollars in debt for my children and grandchildren.

I am an Evangelical Christian. I love the Lord. I worship an awesome God.

I endorse Barack Obama for president.

Thoughts on a demographic

rob — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:44:23 EDT

As a graphic designer I love the identity work that has gone into Obama's campaign. Everything from logos to posters has been exquisitely designed and I would be proud to be a part of a movement with such beautiful imagery alone. But the fortunate truth is that Barack Obama has come forward as a candidate of substance and resolve that has electrified the electorate and has delivered a message of hope that has appeal to a broad range of demographics. But its those same demographics that sparked some thoughts for me so I've decided to put them down here to hear what other like minded individuals think. I'm not even sure this will come out coherently but I figure I should try.

Earlier today, while I was clicking around barackobama.com, I came across the People page and started browsing the logos associated with each of the groups listed (great logos by the way, I love each and every one of them). By the time I got to the bottom of the list it occurred to me that I have no place on the people page. I'm not young or old, black or asian, a woman, gay, religious, disabled, an environmentalist or a republican, part of a union or a student, Jewish, native American, rural, a veteran, Latino or otherwise. I'm an almost 30, middle class, white guy with a steady job in technology who likes cartoons and in most situations I fall into the "other" majority.

When politicians and speech makers list off the roll call of special interest groups and supporters I'm generally content to be part of the "everybody else" sentiment. I grew up the outsider most of the time as the poor, inner-city kid in a largely middle class suburban religious school and have worked to climb out of that poverty and do what I can to give back. I support micro-finance, donate as much as I can afford, and generally try to live a life that does something to improve myself and mankind. And as far as I can tell, I'm not alone in this demographic. There seems to be a good number of well intentioned middle class white guys who don't think its fair that women don't make as much as men, that do judge others by the content of their character, and try their best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

The tricky part is that when there is public discussion and debate about the afflictions and difficulties of all of the different groups that make up this country it seems like the blame is indirectly, and quite possibly unintentionally, directed to the group that doesn't seem to have these problems in the public discourse: my group. This might even be entirely self assigned guilt: it's only in extreme cases that someone comes right out and says that its middle class white men causing all the suffering for others and I tend not to give much credence to extremism of any sort. I'm sure we all as groups of individuals have a hand in some form of prejudice that affects the broader social strata.

However, when I examine a policy like affirmative action I see the playing field being levelled for various groups that are not mine. This leads me to believe that in individual cases amounting to a federally mandated whole that a certain documentable advantage is given to groups that are not middle class white men. Frankly I think the whole situation making these federal mandates is deplorable. The fact that discrimination based on anything but fitness for the job exists is insane. The problem is that it does exist, and equal pay is still a goal and not a reality so I can appreciate the program for its intention but that still makes me think twice whenever I'm chosen for a job or have an application accepted. I have to wonder if I'm enjoying a privelege at someone else's expense. Or if I have been denied an application is it because I have room to improve or was I qualified but did I not fit a federal mandate.

So why am I writing this? Why even bring it up? Frankly its a tough situation to discuss without sounding elitist or racist. But I think I feel somewhat free to bring this up in this forum because we are all at some level like minded individuals. Part of the pride I feel for being part of this movement is that for the most part Mr. Obama and us his supporters seem to be a group of level headed people that are fed up with the current situation and can take a sober look at issues that may seem uncomfortable or unpopular and give them their intellectual due. Mr. Obama did just that with his historic speech on race and to me I feel this topic is part of that discussion. I say discussion because I don't have the answer to the problem, I wish I did. I'm writing this for two reasons:

1. To continue the dialog. I'm only one person and one point of view. I can only write honestly about the way I perceive the world around me and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Do you think its even something worthy of debate? Should middle class white men feel any sort of fault or blame for the plight of other groups? Are those feelings justified? Should the portion of us who feel a sense of responsibility to treat humans equally endure silently for the education of the ignorant and the betterment of society? Is there a better way to approach this situation? There's a littany of questions that come to mind, most of which I probably haven't even thought about. Basically I enjoy a lively debate, its a chance to learn.

2. The second reason is that I feel these sentiments might represent a certain portion of swing and moderate Republican voters. Those voters who don't agree with the policies of discrimination but don't necessarily feel directly responsible for it. I think if we can reach out to this class of voter we really can move beyond the devisiveness that has candidates pandering for fringe groups on wedge issues. I support Mr. Obama because if any candidate I've seen in my lifetime can and does show the ability to get beyond the politics of pandering, its him.

So that's my two cents, my two rambling, well meant two cents. Thanks for reading.

NATEPERKINS.TV: Black Evangelicals Grassroot Hit The Streets of Atlanta's For Barack Obama

NATEPERKINSTV — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:15:10 EDT

ATLANTA, GA. Black Evangelical politics in the United States "Christian theological movements" THE ROAD OF LIFE "BECAUSE JESUS SAID SO" Hip Hop / R&B / Producer: Jawuan Anthony Sheffield //Aug 30, 2008//CNN iReport Video: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-70870John Hagee on the Issues: Hagee on African-Americans
The San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported: Jawuan Anthony Sheffield a Black Evangelical's for Barack Obama. Grassroot's in Atlanta, GA., held the view that the modernist and liberal parties in the Protestant churches had surrendered their heritage as Evangelicals by accommodating the views and values of the world. At the same time, they criticized their fellow Fundamentalists for their separatism and their rejection of the Social gospel as it had been developed by Protestant activists of the previous century. They charged the modernists with having lost their identity as Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists with having lost the Christ-like heart of Evangelicalism. They argued that the Gospel needed to be reasserted to distinguish it from the innovations of the liberals and the fundamentalists.The Road of Life is a life changing, seminar for teenagers and young adults. A two hour presentation, this life changing session contains many doors, people sitting, standing, maneuvering in and out of doors,frontward backwards somewhat appearing to be lost. These configurations will be expressed in detail. The session is very intense and includes motivational speech in an interactive setting. This session will have a positive affect on its audience. The session incorporates music, interactive conversation, objective mastery review and small group activities. The presenter will serve as a travel guide as they take a journey on "The Road Of Life" View THE ROAD OF LIFE's Friends: All | Online | New http://www.myspace.com/theroadoflife Culture choc: Black evangelicals vs. White evangelicalsBlack evangelicals vs. White evangelicals. Interesting article on the Obama pastor brouhaha from Salon.com: The difference between Jeremiah Wright and ...
dantoujours.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-evangelicals-vs-white.html - 93k

Posted 'NATEPERKINS.TV: Black Evangelicals Grassroot Hit The Street of Atlanta's For Barac ...' to blip.tv: http://blip.tv/file/1217647 ireport: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-70870

Over 5000 Global Videos To Download FREE!

Nate PerkinsNate Perkins Live [TV] ChannelCEO
Nate Perkins Enterprises
285 Centennial Olympic Park Dr
Suite 2302
Atlanta, Georgia 30313
nateperkins@bellsouth.net Home : 1-770-331-4002
Work : 770-331-4002
Cell : 770-331-4002
Review me at iKarma Want to spread your own reputation?

NATEPERKINS.TV: Unite for Change Team TRAINING TAPE FOR OBAMA (ONLINE) GRASSROOT

NATEPERKINSTV — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:28:32 EDT

NATEPERKINS.TV: Unite for Change Team TRAINING TAPE FOR OBAMA (ONLINE) GRASSROOT goto: http://nateperkins.blip.tv for more infor on training... Unite for Change Team NATEPERKINS.TV: GEORGIA'S TRUE-LIVE TESTIMONIALS VOTERS FOR OBAMA (08 4 08)
Dear NATE --

I'm excited to announce that today, the Campaign for Change in Georgia is launching our Unite for Change Team program in every county and neighborhood of the Peach State.

Our Unite for Change Team program is a team-based organizing strategy that will help supporters like you get organized in your community -- to reach out to new and undecided voters near you and deliver Georgia for Barack and other Democrats in November.

If you are committed to change, we need you to get involved with or help lead a Unite for Change team in your area.

Learn more about joining a Unite for Change Team in your area.

These Teams will be an essential part of our grassroots movement in Georgia. And face-to-face contact with people in your community, is the most effective way to spread our message, and build our movement for change.

Taking action in your neighborhood through a Unite for Change Team is one of the most important ways you can help our Campaign for Change.

A statewide training for supporters who want to learn more and take part in a Unite for Change Team will take place August 15th - 16th.

No prior experience is necessary to attend and get involved -- just a commitment to our movement and a willingness to work for change in your area.

Get involved with a Unite for Change Team in your neighborhood today.

Thanks for everything you've done to build our movement in Georgia.

Alex

Alex Lofton
Georgia Field Director
Campaign for Change

Visit: GA.BarackObama.com | Email: Georgia@BarackObama.com
Barack Obama | Event | Barack Obama's Birthday Bash Official Website of Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign.
my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/44zjp - 35k -Over 5000 Global Videos To Download FREE!

Nate PerkinsNate Perkins Live [TV] ChannelCEO
Nate Perkins Enterprises
285 Centennial Olympic Park Dr
Suite 2302
Atlanta, Georgia 30313
nateperkins@bellsouth.netHome : 1-770-331-4002
Work : 770-331-4002
Cell : 770-331-4002
Review me at iKarma Want to spread your own reputation?

http://www.nateperkinslive.com

NATEPERKINS.TV: Georgia's Jennifer Brook and Friends Celebrated ...
By NATEPERKINS.TV (blog-tv)(NATEPERKINS.TV (blog-tv))
Video thumbnail. Click to play Click to Play. Dear NATE -- Join a Georgia Unite for Change Team I'm excited to announce that today, the Campaign for Change in Georgia is launching our Unite for Change Team program in every county and ...
Queen Of Late Night Talk Show... - http://bevsmithatlanta.blogspot.com/

NATEPERKINS.TV: Unite for Change Team TRAINING TAPE FOR OBAMA (ONLINE) GRASSROOT

NATEPERKINSTV — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:28:28 EDT

http://www.nateperkinslive.com

And If It Wasn’t For THEM You Wouldn’t Even HAVE BEEN

Tanya — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:47:20 EDT

I’m going to go ahead and spend some time writing my own blog tonight. I’m a little irritated. Well, a lot! I got a few bones to pick all with the same theme.

I’m going to go ahead and start with the ignorant bitchasses that keep saying…

“You’re just voting for Obama because he is black!”

I will try and respond to this without cursing or getting angry.
Since I’m a factual kinda gal, let’s look at the facts.

Rahm Emmanuel at the JCC

Claire Petersky — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:26:14 EDT

I got an email invitation to hear Rahm Emmanuel at the local JCC from the local Obama Jewish Community Leadership Committee. So I went. My older daughter thinks seeing prominent politicians is more exciting that seeing rock stars, so she was all over coming with me.

I was surprised, really, that the crowd was relatively small. A hundred or so? And the only press was the JT News.

I thought Emmanuel was intelligent and articulate. After hearing him speak, my daughters and I made the goal of converting at least one convertible Jewish person we know who is currently supporting McCain over to the side of Obama. Our easiest target’s first: David’s Aunt Debby, who after all is a Democrat at heart. All we need to do is convince her that Obama isn’t a secret enemy of Israel, and I think we’re on board.

One thing I thought was funny: Emmanuel said that the breakdown was on generational lines. When you’re looking at whites and Asians (of any ethnic or religious group, not just Jews), the young people are overwhelmingly on board with Obama; the 35 – 50 year olds are generally OK with him; but those between 50 and 70 really are suspicious. Then, and I think this is interesting – the 80 year olds are like the 18 year olds in terms of their support. What do you think that’s about?

Patchwork Nation

Chinni — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:09:42 EDT

Interesting project

Patchwork Nation

Nearly 305 million people live in the United States, according to the US Census Bureau. Yet in recent elections it’s all been about fitting into two categories: red states that vote Republican and blue states that vote Democratic. But this red/blue breakdown of political opinion doesn’t explain what underpins the voters’ decisions.

That's what this effort, funded by the Knight Foundation, a nonprofit philanthropic organization based in Miami, explores in real time during the 2008 presidential campaign.

We’ve identified 11 places across the US that represent distinct types of voter communities. They are Monied ’Burbs, Minority Central, Evangelical Epicenters, Tractor Country, Campus and Careers, Immigration Nation, Industrial Metropolis, Boom Towns, Service Worker Centers, Emptying Nests, and Military Bastions. For example, Sioux Center, Iowa, typifies Tractor Country.

As the 2008 campaign progresses, the Monitor will write about what issues matter in each of these communities, how the issues affect residents’ votes, and how the candidates tailor their messages to a particular audience.

First entry into the blogosphere

Karen from Oak Park, IL — Sat, 24 May 2008 13:55:38 EDT

It's my first entry into the blogosphere! As May winds down and June begins, it becomes even more important for people who are demographically "in the Hillary camp" to speak out. I'm 52, white, and from the Chicago area. I work full time. I have kids and elderly relatives who need help. Friends who have health conditiions they have to hide because they don't have insurance and they can't go "on the record" or they'll never qualify for insurance. Looking at me demographically, I should be a Hillary supporter. But I'm totally for Senator Obama. I'm old enough to have voted in many elections - heck, I voted for Bill. Barack Obama is the first candidate I can believe in. I believe in his honesty, I believe in his commitment, and I believe in his smarts. That's why he's the first candidate I actually gave money to! I hope this post reaches others who might be on the fence. This conversation is an important one. It's our first and maybe last chance to really make a change in America.

Words And Phrases That Drive Me CRAZY

Jiffytuvix — Sat, 17 May 2008 12:52:13 EDT

This is the third installment in an ongoing series that began on my myspace (www.myspace.com/jiffytuvix). You may notice a slight change in the title for this family-friendly site.

Why Clinton Will Win West Virginia Today

Cindy in Salt Lake — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:46:56 EDT

Here are the demographic highlights from an early West Virginia exit poll. I think this is why Clinton was talking up her winning coalition in that USA Today interview. The problem is that her winning coalition is in West Virginia where there are only 28 delegates to be had. See the full article here.

DEMOGRAPHIC HIGHLIGHTS
The West Virginia Democratic electorate notched several demographic extremes among the 31 states with exit polls in competitive Democratic primaries this year:
• Roughly 95 percent were white. Only the Democratic primaries in New Hampshire and Vermont and Democratic caucuses in Iowa had that high a proportion of white voters this year.
• Four in 10 were over age 60. The only other states with somewhat similar numbers were Arkansas, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma — and Hillary Clinton won all four states.
• It was the electorate with the highest proportion — just about seven in 10 — of people who lack a college degree. The same held true for whites without a college degree — again, historically a strong Clinton group.
• A little more than half of voters were from rural areas, second only to Vermont for rural voters in Democratic primaries this year.
• And the West Virginia electorate was among the bottom five Democratic primaries in terms of income, with more than half reporting 2007 family income of less than $50,000.

Party like it's 2008 (great header by Frank Rich)

jp — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:14:57 EDT

Why I look forward to Sundays: because Frank Rich "speaks"!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11rich.html?em&ex

May 11, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist Party Like It’s 2008 By FRANK RICH

ANOTHER weekly do-or-die primary battle, another round of wildly predicted “game
changers” that collapsed in the locker room.

Hillary Clinton’s attempt to impersonate a Nascar-lovin’, gun-totin’,
economist-bashin’ populist went bust: Asked which candidate most “shares your
values,” voters in both North Carolina and Indiana exit polls opted instead for
the elite and condescending arugula-eater. Bill Clinton’s small-town
barnstorming tour, hailed as a revival of old-time Bubba bonhomie, proved to be
yet another sabotage of his wife, whipping up false expectations for her
disastrous showing in North Carolina. Barack Obama’s final, undercaffeinated
debate performance, not to mention the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s attempted
character assassination, failed to slow his inexorable path to the Democratic
nomination.

“It’s still early,” Mrs. Clinton said on Wednesday. Though it’s way too late for
her, she’s half-right. We’re only at the end of the beginning of this
extraordinary election year. While we wait out her self-immolating exit, it’s a
good time to pause the 24/7 roller coaster for a second and get our bearings.
The reason that politicians and the press have gotten so much so wrong is that
we keep forgetting what year it is. Only if we reboot to 2008 will the long
march to November start making sense.

This is not 1968, when the country was so divided over race and war that cities
and campuses exploded in violence. If you have any doubts, just look (to take a
recent example) at the restrained response by New Yorkers, protestors included,
to the acquittal of three police officers in the 50-bullet shooting death of an
unarmed black man, Sean Bell.

This is not 1988, when a Democratic liberal from Massachusetts of modest
political skills could be easily clobbered by racist ads and an incumbent vice
president running for the Gipper’s third term. This is not the 1998 midterms,
when the Teflon Clintons triumphed over impeachment. This is not 2004, when
another Democrat from Massachusetts did for windsurfing what the previous model
did for tanks.

Almost every wrong prediction about this election cycle has come from those
trying to force the round peg of this year’s campaign into the square holes of
past political wars. That’s why race keeps being portrayed as dooming Mr. Obama
— surely Jeremiah Wright = Willie Horton! — no matter what the voters say to the
contrary. It’s why the Beltway took on faith the Clinton machine’s strategic,
organization and fund-raising invincibility. It’s why some prognosticators still
imagine that John McCain can spin the Iraq fiasco to his political advantage as
Richard Nixon miraculously did Vietnam.

The year 2008 is far more complex — and exhilarating — than the old templates
would have us believe. Of course we’re in pain. More voters think the country is
on the wrong track (81 percent) than at any time in the history of New York
Times/CBS News polling on that question. George W. Bush is the most unpopular
president that any living American has known.

And yet, paradoxically, there is a heartening undertow: we know the page will
turn. For all the anger and angst over the war and the economy, for all the
campaign’s acrimony, the anticipation of ending the Bush era is palpable,
countering the defeatist mood. The repressed sliver of joy beneath the national
gloom can be seen in the record registration numbers of new voters and the
over-the-top turnout in Democratic primaries.

Mr. Obama hardly created this moment, with its potent brew of Bush loathing and
sweeping generational change. He simply had the vision to tap into it. Running
in 2008 rather than waiting four more years was the single smartest political
decision he’s made (and, yes, he’s made dumb ones too). The second smartest was
to understand and emphasize that subterranean, nearly universal anticipation of
change rather than settle for the narrower band of partisan, dyspeptic
Bush-bashing. We don’t know yet if he’s the man who can make the moment — and
won’t know unless he gets to the White House — but there’s no question that the
moment has helped make the man.

For five years boomers have been asking, “Why are the kids not in the streets
screaming about the war the way we were?” The simple answer: no draft. But as
Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais show in “Millennial Makeover,” their book
about the post-1982 American generation, that energy has been plowed into
quieter social activism and grand-scale social networking, often linked on the
same Web page. The millennials’ bottom-up digital superstructure was there to be
mined, for an amalgam of political organizing, fund-raising and fun, and Mr.
Obama’s camp knew how to work it. The part of the press that can’t tell the
difference between Facebook and, say, AOL, was too busy salivating over the
Clintons’ vintage 1990s roster of fat-cat donors to hear the major earthquake
rumbling underground.

The demographic reshaping of the electoral map, though more widely noted, still
isn’t fully understood. From Rust Belt Ohio through Tuesday’s primaries, cable
bloviators have been fixated on the older, white, working-class vote. Their
unspoken (and truly condescending) assumption, lately embraced by Mrs. Clinton,
is that these voters are Reagan Democrats, cryogenically frozen since 1980, who
come in two flavors: rubes who will be duped by a politician backing a gas-tax
pander or racists who are out of Mr. Obama’s reach.

Guess what: there are racists in America and, yes, the occasional rubes (even
among Obama voters). Some of them may reside in Indiana, which hasn’t voted for
a national Democratic ticket since 1964. But there are many more white
working-class voters, both Clinton and Obama supporters, who prefer Democratic
policies after seven years of G.O.P. failure. And there is little evidence to
suggest that there are enough racists of any class in America, let alone in
swing states, to determine the results come fall.

As the Times columnist Charles Blow charted last weekend, Mr. Obama’s favorable
and unfavorable ratings from white Democrats are both up 5 points since last
summer in the Times/CBS poll — a wash despite all the hyperventilating about Mr.
Wright and Bittergate. (By contrast, Mrs. Clinton’s favorable rating among black
voters fell 36 points while her unfavorable rating rose 17.) Gallup last week
found that after the Wright circus Mr. Obama’s white support in a matchup
against Mr. McCain is still no worse than John Kerry’s against President Bush in
2004.

But this isn’t 2004, and the fixation on that one demographic in the
Clinton-Obama contest has obscured the big picture. The rise in black voters and
young voters of all races in Democratic primaries is re-weighting the
electorate. Look, for instance, at Ohio, the crucial swing state that Mr. Kerry
lost by 119,000 votes four years ago. This year black voters accounted for 18
percent of the state’s Democratic primary voters, up from 14 percent in 2004, an
increase of some 230,000 voters out of an overall turnout leap of roughly a
million. Voters under 30 (up by some 245,000 voters) accounted for 16 percent,
up from 9 in 2004. Those younger Ohio voters even showed up in larger numbers
than the perennially reliable over-65 crowd.

Good as this demographic shift is for a Democratic ticket led by Mr. Obama, it’s
even better news that so many pundits and Republicans bitterly cling to the
delusion that the Karl Rove playbook of Swift-boating and race-baiting can work
as it did four and eight years ago. You can’t surf to a right-wing blog or Fox
News without someone beating up on Mr. Wright or the other predictable
conservative piñata, Michelle Obama.

This may help rally the anti-Obama vote. But that contingent will be more than
offset in November by mobilized young voters, blacks and women, among them many
Clinton-supporting Democrats (and independents and Republicans) unlikely to
entertain a G.O.P. candidate with a perfect record of voting against abortion
rights. Even a safe Republican Congressional seat in Louisiana fell to a
Democrat last weekend, despite a campaign by his opponent that invoked Mr. Obama
as a bogeyman.

A few conservatives do realize the game has changed. George Will wrote last week
that Mr. Obama was Reaganesque in the stylistic sense that “his manner lulls his
adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness — the tempered steel
beneath the sleek suits.” John and Cindy McCain get it too, which is why both
last week made a point (he on “The Daily Show,” she on “Today”) of condemning
negative campaigning. But even if Mr. McCain keeps his word and stops trying to
portray Mr. Obama as the man from Hamas, he can’t disown the Limbaugh axis of
right-wing race-mongering. That’s what’s left of his party’s base.

Now that the Obama-Clinton race is over, the new Beltway narrative has it that
Mr. McCain, a likable “maverick” (who supported Mr. Bush in 95 percent of his
votes last year, according to Congressional Quarterly), might override the war,
the economy, Bush-loathing and the bankrupt Republican brand to be competitive
with Mr. Obama. Anything can happen in politics, including real potential game
changers, from Mr. McCain’s still-unreleased health records to new excavations
of Mr. Obama’s history in Chicago. But as long as the likely Democratic nominee
keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of
yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.

Change and Split

Carole@www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com — Sun, 11 May 2008 13:08:21 EDT

Change works for Barack Obama. Americans do want change; even John McCain embraces the concept.

Do you know anyone who wants things to stay just the way they are?

Did you ever eat or drink something, without knowing how it's made, and realize it took special treatment to make it taste that way? Sometimes when people talk about wine, they say the taste is "complex." Makers of snack crackers know that a combination of different flavors offering salt and sweet make people want their products. Formulations for best-selling products can get bewilderingly complex.

The "mix" in the United States is changing. Confounding tradition, the U.S. has been complicated from the beginning. Yet most Americans would probably say they have an understanding of certain things about the U.S. and the people living there.

Not so fast. Americans wanting change may not be aware of the ways the U.S. has already changed, which in turn transforms what it takes to get elected this year.

Carole

An endorsement from the prized demographic

Howard Hall — Fri, 09 May 2008 05:02:34 EDT

When Hillary Clinton touted the idea that she leads Barack Obama in support from "hard-working Americans, white Americans," I felt much the same as I've felt every other time some campaign hack tries to plant the notion that white, working class voters aren't amenable to a black presidential candidate. That is to say, "why do you insist that people like me are racist?"

I am a white man, raised in a conservative white evangelical church, born to a traditional family. A large portion of my heritage is sown from the sweat and dust of farmland in places like Kansas, upstate New York and southeastern Pennsylvania. I work hard too, like those people Senator Clinton claims to have in her hip pocket. I'm look just like one of those people Ed Rendell might have been referring to when he warned that some white people might not be willing to vote for a black candidate.

But that's not who I am. And that's not who many of the other people I know are. I feel cheated by the media and pollsters who insist that Barack Obama only appeals to minorities and highly educated or affluent whites. I am none of those, either. I, and many of my blue-collar friends, are just people for whom Washington doesn't work. And we'd like to see that change.

Four years ago, John Edwards spoke of two Americas. That refrain resonated with me, the idea that we shouldn't be divided. The idea that we should actually try to emulate that first part of our nation's title: "United."

Yet it seems as if the cynicism of old-style politics would have the proverbial two Americas splintered into twenty Americas. And when things aren't going well for anyone but the wealthiest among us, that splintering becomes even easier. People like me - who work hard, who worry about what might happen if we get sick or injured and are unable to work, who wonder how much harder it could possibly get to buy the things we need - we feel a strain. It's human nature to want to pin the blame for our problems on others, and when politicians, pundits and media figures tell us lies about who's to blame, it's just that much easier to believe them.

And that's why the only candidate in this year's presidential race for me was Barack Obama. I heard a voice in the barren wilderness of American politics telling anyone who would listen that we - the people, not the lobbyists, PACs and corporations - could not only see a change in the way things are done, but that we could actually be a meaningful part of it. In fact, the only way it would work was if we got off the sidelines and became part of it.

So I did. As did many other people. And I'd bet there's more than few others just like me, the kind of people Hillary Clinton and her surrogates in the campaign and the media have insisted Barack Obama can't reach. But his message reached me, and it reached 1.5 million other Americans (and counting).

In these cynical times, a message of hope and unity may seem risky. There are those who are afraid to risk a positive message, because they think it won't sell. Many others say it can't sell - but those voices are mostly led by the corrupt interests who have the most to lose when everyday Americans buy into a message of hope, unity and empowerment. And it's up to us to sell that message. Can we pull it off? Three words answer that question:

YES WE CAN

Facebook

EColter — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:41 EDT

I'm sick of the demographics!

Regardless of who we support, regardless of what we look like, I think we can all agree that the media's obsession with race and gender in this election has gotten out of control. So, if anyone reads this and has Facebook, I have created the group "I Vote Independent of My Race or Gender." My hope is that a significant number of people join this group, to show by numbers that this election is about much, much more than the overly simplistic demographic breakdowns the mainstream media has been focused on throughout this election.

So, join, invite your friends (Obama and Clinton supporters...), and make some noise to show that we're sick of this kind of political theater.

It's time to focus on the issues.

HRC: But Obama didn't win the big states

Greg from Visalia, CA — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:02:03 EST

The Clinton campaign has floated the argument that she should be given the nomination since she won the big, traditional Democratic states. Her logic is undeniable.

Organize for PA

Lloyd G. — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:43:08 EST

Pennsylvania is an important state. We need everyone (inside and outside of PA) to continue working hard to get the truth out about the Obama campaign.

Here are a few facts about PA's demographics and facts:

PA Racial Demographics

Whites - 84%
African Americans - 10%
Latinos - 3%

Source: National Journal

Pennsylvania Democrat Poll

Clinton 49% (NOW) 52% (Feb. 14)

Obama 43% (NOW) 36% (Feb. 14)

Source: Quinnipiac University

PA Election Facts:

PA Governor Ed Rendell endorses Clinton
PA Representative Chaka Fattah endorses Obama
Can only vote in PA primary if you're already a registered Democrat
- This can prevent Republicans from voting for Hillary in order to knock out Obama
- But this can reprevent Independents from voting for Obama
Voters have until March 24th to register as a democrat

Moving the goal posts

dd — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:35:01 EST

Sen. Clinton has successfully changed the rules of the game. After 11 straight losses, everyone was saying she had to win big in both Texas and Ohio to stay in. By the time voting started yesterday, everyone was saying if she won in Ohio by any margin, the race would continue. This despite the fact that she had lost 20+% leads in both Texas and Ohio, that Texas and Ohio demographics are highly favorable to Sen. Clinton, and that there was no way she can catch up in pledged delegates. Recall previous contests where the demographics favored Sen. Obama (South Carolina, Louisiana, Maryland). We were told "of course Sen. Obama won those, he was supposed to win". Even when Sen. Obama won in a state whose demographics favored Sen. Clinton, Wisconsin, we were told it was just due to momentum. But now that Sen. Clinton has won three contests she was supposed to win, we are told it is a miracle. And the press lap it up. What happened to the bias?

Demographics

Jeff F — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:40:53 EST

OK, hang with me on this one.

Last night our family was watching "Lost". During a commercial break, an Obama for President commercial (actually a very good one) came on. I made the comment that I thought it was interesting that they chose to air a commercial during "Lost" - that it must have something to do with the demographics they were targeting.

Carter, my 17 year old son, responded immediately "Yes, Obama's demographics - EVERYONE!"

How accurate - and wonderful!

Work hard this weekend - call - attend events - get ready to vote (if you have not done so already) and caucus on Tuesday.

My wife voted today - long lines in Collin County!

Change in demographics... winning new voters!

Kellie — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:16:34 EST

Here's an article and video clips about how Obama is winning voters that were statistically voting for Clinton in the earlier caucuses & primaries...

article http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/20/feb19.analysis/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCText

video http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/20/feb19.analysis/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCVideo (click on the videos named "How is Obama doing it?" and "Momentum carries Obama")

We want change! We want change! ...and we're getting it!! :)

Obama v. HRC : Whole Foods v. Wal-Mart ? ! ?

Erick — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:39:21 EST

Here is a NYT article that I feel is a must read. Sometimes the momentum can blind us, and we need to step back and think outside the box.

Variation in Demographics across SC Irrelevant, We won Everywhere!!

HHP — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:18:09 EST

As the Clintons and some media observers have been busy qualifying Barack Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina, I've been thinking about the demographics of SC. Yes, a third of the state's population, give or take, is African American. BUT that percentage is not distributed evenly across the state. Almost all of the voters in some counties, especially in the SE corner of the state, are African American, whereas other counties have much lower African American populations.

If the South Carolina vote was merely the result of race politics, Obama would have won where black people are concentrated and not in the whiter counties. HE WON 44 of 46 counties. Obama prevailed in ALL except two counties (John Edwards took Oconee, where he grew up, and Hillary Clinton took Horry, where Myrtle Beach is located). Obama did not prevail only in places like Orangeburg and Kingstree and Jasper County.

He took Greenville and Spartanburg. He took Lexington County, one of the whitest and most republican counties in the state. He took all but one of the counties in the upstate, which are demographially more similar to North Carolina that the lowcountry of South Carolina. The NY Times has a map showing the margin of victory and prevailiong candidate by county. In Nevada and NH, Obama took substantial geographical areas of the state. The maps for Iowa, NH, and NV show that Obama and Clinton both took a good number of counties. The map for SC, with its great expanse of green (Obama's color on the map) reveals what a landslide this was for Obama. (As a side note, the Republican map looks almost evenly divided between McCain and Huckabee - the democrats were more unified than the republicans were last Saturday.)

I wish the media would focus on the votes and not the exit polls. All of this talk about the black vote is based on polls. Remember the polls in NH? How about the exit polls in the 2000 presidential election? Why are the exit polls in SC going unscrutinized?

Further, I am sick and tired of Bill Clinton's attempts to make this election all about race. For him to compare Obama's win to Jesse Jackson's wins in the 80s is nonsense. For one, Jesse Jackson was a native son, like John Edwards. Jesse Jackson took only 10% of the white vote, whereas Obama took almost a quarter of the white vote. Funny that Bill didn't mention that he won the SC democratic primary. That seems like a better comparison to me.

Do you remember when all of the talk was about whether African Americans would even support Obama? It wasn't that long ago. Some people said it took Iowa to convince African American voters in SC that Obama could win white votes. The results show me that he can and did win those white votes. Instead of looking at SC as a whole, and dismissing the results, because other states don't share it's demographic profile, I think we should look at the counties. I think we would find that some of the counties, especially in the upstate, are reasonably similar to to the February 5 states.

The fact that Obama won SC overwhelmingly, in all areas of the state, tells me all I need to know about his success from here on out. Remember, also, that he won in IOWA, a place with very few minorities. There is room in this tent for everyone, regardless of race, who is more concerned about the issues than partisan politics.

NEW YORK TIMES: A 60,000-Vote Differential - (THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATION)

Dr. Susanne Hussein Freeborn — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:52:43 EST

January 9, 2008, 4:02 pm

By Ron Klain

Some observers, including David Brooks , have looked at the New Hampshire primary results and concluded that “roughly equal” numbers of votes were recorded in the Republican and Democratic primaries. But I see a huge difference in the numbers — differences of historical significance, in fact.

The four Democratic candidates last night drew about 270,000 votes among them, while the larger G.O.P. field drew about 210,000, or about 60,000 more votes for the Democrats than the Republicans. Maybe this sounds like a small difference to some, but given that fewer than 700,000 New Hampshirites voted in the last general election for president, a 60,000-vote differential in that small state is quite significant.

And even this relative measure fails to capture what a historic night it was for Democrats in New Hampshire.

In the three decades since 1980, there have been four primary years when both the G.O.P. and the Democratic nominations were contested – 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008. In all three of the previous elections, there were more votes cast in the Republican primaries than in the Democratic primaries. The G.O.P. margin was almost 40,000 votes in 1988 and almost 80,000 votes in 2000. So to see more votes cast in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary last night than in the state’s Republican one — not to mention 60,000 more votes — is almost as historic as seeing a one-two finish by a woman and an African-American.

Why does it matter? Who cares about the relative strength of the two parties in one of our nation’s smallest states?

Though historically New Hampshire had been a very Republican state (George Bush beat Mike Dukakis there in 1988 by almost 30 percent), in recent years, it has become something of a battleground. It’s one of only four states in the country (New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa are the others) where an outcome was determined by less than 2 percent of the vote in both 2000 and 2004. John Kerry won the state by just 9,000 votes in 2004; and President Bush won it by only 7,000 votes in 2000.

Given these sorts of numbers, having 60,000 more voters participate in the Democratic primaries than in the G.O.P. primaries is a very strong sign for the Democrats.

And history matters here in one other respect. Thinking back to the 2000 election, most folks remember the deadlock in Florida and Al Gore’s failure to carry Tennessee, when recalling how President Bush won the presidency. But most of us who worked on Mr. Gore’s campaign have been equally haunted by the narrow, narrow loss of New Hampshire in the general election; in retrospect, we wish we had sent Vice President Gore to New Hampshire in the final week of the campaign, given that we lost it by so few votes. Tiny New Hampshire’s electoral votes could have given Al Gore the presidency in 2000 even without Florida.

Of course, the 60,000-vote spread last night is no guarantee that the Democrats will carry New Hampshire in the fall. Primary vote totals are a shaky indicator of fall vote totals. And, as I pointed out in a previous post, the two primaries — even held in the same state, on the same day — are largely separate elections, and reading them in parallel is a dangerous endeavor. Perhaps most important, we can’t know what will happen in November if one or both parties does not nominate a candidate that swing voters prefer.

Still, as signs go, it is an encouraging one for Democrats. And if there was a surprise in last night’s totals, it wasn’t that the Republican and Democratic participation levels were similar, but that – for the first time ever in a simultaneously contested New Hampshire primary – the Democrats had so many more voters.

The Truth About the Polls: aren't they only accurately representing a limited demographic?

Lucy Hussein — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:59:13 EST

Every day we hear new numbers from pollsters about the presidential candidates racing toward the primaries. "Everyone" talks about them like they're as accurate as your bathroom scale is. But I'd love to see a meticulously researched article that breaks down the actual accuracy of those polls. It's something I often hear Normal People (i.e. not the media or pollsters) muse. Inquiring minds want to know...Considering the stock we put in them, I would think it would only make sense to try to grasp their true level of accuracy.

What I still don't understand is why is seems that no one is talking about the limited demographic pollsters actually reach. The majority of my friends and acquaintances under 35--both married and single--don't have landlines; just cellphones. I have a landline for my phone and DSL as a weird archaic non-cellphone/non-cable TV user, but I have caller ID, like most middle-class folks under 70 in 2008 (who own a phone less than 8 years old)--and I only answer the phone when I recognize the caller due to the number of telemarketers who call me every day. (If I don't, and the caller is someone I actually want to talk to, when they start leaving a message, I pick up. A pollster would not leave a message.) But I don't know many people who would answer a random call if they do have caller ID.

On top of that, pollsters call at a time when a certain demographic is more unlikely to be home. That's 3 strikes against many, many people. So would it not be more accurate to say that polls reflect a demographic that 1) owns a landline, 2) either do not have caller ID or, if they do, actually answer calls from unknown callers, or 3) are home at the time pollsters call?

Looking at recent demographic figures [http://www.pollster.com/blogs/polling_on_the_dark_side_of_th.php], this would make a lot of sense--someone who fits the bill with these three tenuous requirements would be my 94-year-old neighbor (who doesn't have a high school education, in reference to the mentioned article's categories). She's still undecided within her party, but according to these figures, it would seem that she, who is in the demographic that pollsters would actually reach, fits into the category most likely to vote for Hillary. Doesn't that tell us something?

All this to say, it seems that the polls can only be credited for accurately representing People Home in the Evening Who Have Landlines and Answer Calls from Unknown Callers.

Maybe I'm in the dark, here, but why don't we talk about this more?

A Centrist Nation?

Bryan K. Long — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:40:16 EST

We all know it is an oversimplification to speak of "red" states and "blue" states, when every state has a mixed population of voters. Here is a wonderful website that takes the familiar state by state and county by county Democrat/Republican maps, and distorts the map to take population density into account. My favorite is the second to the last set of "cartograms" which uses a red-purple-blue spectrum county by county, and then distorts the map to account for population density.

The lesson this wonderful graphic Link is that we are not a nation divided. We are largely a centrist nation, where ropy sinews of conservatism seem to provide structure for islands of liberalism. It's a very organic image.

Here's the link to the full page: Link />

I am inspired to create a new group, Centrists for Obama. I hope you will meet me there and help to define a "centrist agenda" that might influence the political debate.