Comments on: Fiery Ferraro Fiasco http://erikras.com/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/ Thoughts and photos from an American living in Spain. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jane http://erikras.com/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2065 jane Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:09:18 +0000 http://www.erik-rasmussen.com/blog/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2065 Also, I love the title of this post. Also, I love the title of this post.

]]> By: jane http://erikras.com/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2064 jane Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:16:12 +0000 http://www.erik-rasmussen.com/blog/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2064 Erik: I agree. Erik: I agree.

]]> By: Lance http://erikras.com/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2063 Lance Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:56:52 +0000 http://www.erik-rasmussen.com/blog/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2063 As a male Caucasian, I can't tell you how happy I am that someone finally had the courage to stand up and say publicly what everyone knows: that it is virtually impossible to be elected to public office in the United States if you happen to be a white man! Ok but seriously: HRC's campaign has been on a tear bringing up race in ways that may plausibly be denied to be racist. It's unbecoming, and the only reason to do it is to inflame racist sentiment against Obama. sgazzetti's point (about which way racism may cut) is a good one. Check out the Ohio exit poll linked at the end of my comment (and specifically the question "In deciding your vote for president today, was the race of the candidate important/not important?") Hillary got 59% of the racist vote, as compared to 53% of the rest of Ohioans. Scan up two questions to the same question about gender, and Hillary got 60% of the sexist vote. (And as goes Ohio, etc.) This at least strongly suggests that it's to the HRC campaign's advantage to turn the topic of discussion to race and gender. In that context, it's not necessary for Hillary and surrogates to say things that are racist, but merely things about race. It's the strategy itself that is racist. At least in the sense that actively trying to manipulate America's well known problems with race to personal advantage is racist. We could use a different term, but I think we can agree that it sucks. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226001" rel="nofollow">This is the Ohio exit poll I mentioned.</a> As a male Caucasian, I can’t tell you how happy I am that someone finally had the courage to stand up and say publicly what everyone knows: that it is virtually impossible to be elected to public office in the United States if you happen to be a white man!

Ok but seriously: HRC’s campaign has been on a tear bringing up race in ways that may plausibly be denied to be racist. It’s unbecoming, and the only reason to do it is to inflame racist sentiment against Obama.

sgazzetti’s point (about which way racism may cut) is a good one. Check out the Ohio exit poll linked at the end of my comment (and specifically the question “In deciding your vote for president today, was the race of the candidate important/not important?”) Hillary got 59% of the racist vote, as compared to 53% of the rest of Ohioans. Scan up two questions to the same question about gender, and Hillary got 60% of the sexist vote. (And as goes Ohio, etc.) This at least strongly suggests that it’s to the HRC campaign’s advantage to turn the topic of discussion to race and gender.

In that context, it’s not necessary for Hillary and surrogates to say things that are racist, but merely things about race. It’s the strategy itself that is racist. At least in the sense that actively trying to manipulate America’s well known problems with race to personal advantage is racist. We could use a different term, but I think we can agree that it sucks.

This is the Ohio exit poll I mentioned.

]]> By: Erik R. http://erikras.com/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2062 Erik R. Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:08:57 +0000 http://www.erik-rasmussen.com/blog/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2062 I guess we'd all be a lot better off if we stopped accusing each other of voting for less than ideal motives. I guess we’d all be a lot better off if we stopped accusing each other of voting for less than ideal motives.

]]> By: jane http://erikras.com/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2061 jane Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:38:35 +0000 http://www.erik-rasmussen.com/blog/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2061 I have been biting my tongue on this whole thing. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen someone stand accused of racism if they are less than THRILLED with Obama. Really? Is that what it is? But wait. Aren't I already a racist simply because I am white (and from the south no less), because I have heard that statement more than once during this campaign as well. As for the reverse racism, I have to wonder if it has crossed someone's mind somewhere in the Clinton/Obama camps that getting votes because of minority status is also an insult. Eh, a win is a win I guess. I went on a rant (shocking, I know) the other day about polls and rattled off the same basic questions you listed above because meaningful polling has to be more efficient that asking vaguely if race/gender played a part in one's decision. Pollsters are not avoiding the race question; they are simply not addressing it with anything approaching respectable rigor. If you want me to take your polls seriously, why don't you make them relevant, efficient, and meaningful? God forbid we should focus on or learn anything useful or actually related to the election at hand about these candidates. /rant I have been biting my tongue on this whole thing. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen someone stand accused of racism if they are less than THRILLED with Obama. Really? Is that what it is? But wait. Aren’t I already a racist simply because I am white (and from the south no less), because I have heard that statement more than once during this campaign as well. As for the reverse racism, I have to wonder if it has crossed someone’s mind somewhere in the Clinton/Obama camps that getting votes because of minority status is also an insult. Eh, a win is a win I guess.

I went on a rant (shocking, I know) the other day about polls and rattled off the same basic questions you listed above because meaningful polling has to be more efficient that asking vaguely if race/gender played a part in one’s decision. Pollsters are not avoiding the race question; they are simply not addressing it with anything approaching respectable rigor. If you want me to take your polls seriously, why don’t you make them relevant, efficient, and meaningful?

God forbid we should focus on or learn anything useful or actually related to the election at hand about these candidates.

/rant

]]> By: sgazzetti http://erikras.com/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2060 sgazzetti Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:47:03 +0000 http://www.erik-rasmussen.com/blog/2008/03/14/fiery-ferraro-fiasco/#comment-2060 One thing your (admittedly non-professional) survey questions don't take into account is the phenomenon of reverse racism (which, admittedly, is still racism). What if I say, for example, that Obama's race is "very important" (assuming that'll be one of your response options) to me, but it's "very important" because I actively want a black president? That is, how racist would I be if I said I wanted Obama to win in part (but only in small part) because I like the idea of a non-white person finally running the country? How sexist would I be if I said I wanted HRC to win in part (but only in small part) because I like the idea of a non-male person finally holding that office? What if I told you that I hope HRC doesn't win only because I can't ABIDE the sound of her bandsaw accent? Would that make me a terrible voicist? One thing your (admittedly non-professional) survey questions don’t take into account is the phenomenon of reverse racism (which, admittedly, is still racism). What if I say, for example, that Obama’s race is “very important” (assuming that’ll be one of your response options) to me, but it’s “very important” because I actively want a black president? That is, how racist would I be if I said I wanted Obama to win in part (but only in small part) because I like the idea of a non-white person finally running the country?

How sexist would I be if I said I wanted HRC to win in part (but only in small part) because I like the idea of a non-male person finally holding that office?

What if I told you that I hope HRC doesn’t win only because I can’t ABIDE the sound of her bandsaw accent? Would that make me a terrible voicist?

]]>