Barack Obama's Race Problem Part II: Poll Information (I know its a lot...)

When i blogged about the attention of the issue of race being brought back up I was frustrated and actually kind of pissed off. However I decided to do some research on current polls surrounding race as well as region to see if race and region had any sort of relevance or significant relationship. Obviously not all Republicans are racist and not all Democrats are not blind when it comes to their decision of who to support and race. However, I think it is an interesting point to bring up and it should be investigated, because I sadly do believe that race does play a role more so in some regions of the country than others...


The latest gallup poll by race shows that ...

non-hispanic white voters support John McCain to Barack Obama 51%- 42%
Non-hispanic black voters support Barack Obama to John McCain 93%-3%
Hispanic voters support Barack Obama to John McCain 53%-38%

The latest gallup poll by region shows that...

The East Coast supports Barack Obama to John McCain 55%-36%
The Midwest supports Barack Obama to John McCain 50%-42%
The South supports John McCain to Barack Obama 42%-51%
and the West Coast supports Barack Obama to John McCain 50%-45%


So taking that into consideration, here are the results from the Associated Press-Yahoo News Poll on "Barack Obama's Race Problem"

The question in the poll asks, "Does the fact that, if elected, Barack Obama would be the first black president of the United States make you more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or does it not affect your vote either way?

More Likely To Vote For Him: 8%
Less Likely To Vote For Him: 9%
Does Not Affect Vote Either Way: 83%

So delving a little deeper, the poll report goes on to say that While Barack Obama leads GOP rival John McCain 43%-39% overall, white Democrats are standing by their candidate much less than their Republican counterparts:

71% of white Democrats who say they support Obama while 85% of white Republicans say they support McCain


The poll goes on to ask those being polled, "how the following adjectives 'describe most blacks' showing those who responded 'extremely well' or 'very well' " by all the respondents, all whites, and white democrats.

The adjectives include: friendly, determined to succeed, law abiding, hard-working, intelligent at school, good neighbors, dependable, violent, boastful, complaining, lazy, and irresponsible.

The poll goes on to see how the respondents felt about other races as well as if they felt that blacks have gotten less than they deserved over the past few years.

Though the poll does not talk about specific geographical information in regards to race, it is interesting to see the series of questions asked as well as how those polled responded in terms of race or political party.


I know that this is a lot of information, but I would recommend that you take the time to look through the AP-Yahoo News poll/ study because it really is interesting and provides a lot of information.

Do you think that the poll shows the reality of the race issue? Do you think that this will affect the result of the 2008 presidential election? DISCUSS!!!

is bipartisanship flawed?

I started writing this entry when the news broke of John McCain suspending his campaign and put it into my drafts instead of publishing it, so I guess its a little dated, but I still think its an event worth mentioning and discussing, especially in terms of social psychology.

So what was John McCain thinking? In a surprising turn of events

in a surprising and shocking turn of events, john mccain announced in a press conference that he would be suspending his campaign and return to washington to help with the current economic crisis. However what the media and the public didnt initially realize was that it was democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama who initiated the sequence of events that would turn into a failed bait-and -switch attempt by John McCain. It looked like an attempt for bipartisanship between the candidates to help with the catastrophe that is the American financial system. Barack Obama called Senator McCain at 8:30 am on wednesday to propose that the two candidates attempt to make a joint public statement about the issue since no resolution was coming out of Washington. Obama specifically proposed a joint statement of "shared principles and conditions" for the bailout. However, McCain went out of his way to call for his own press conference and show "his dedication to the American people" by suspending his campaign and postponing the debate until the financial crisis was fully resolved. However, instead of looking like a leader, McCain came off as a bit self centered and presumptious to think that the Republicans and those in Washington "needed" his presence and his vote to figure out this extremely complicated situation that he had NO direct tie or responsibility too. It would have been campaign suicide if he had not gotten out of there and gone to the debate. Thank god that he did.

Stepping back and thinking about this from a different perspective, why would John McCain make such a move? I think that unfortunately (and im sure people will think im just another cynical person and critique in saying this) it was just another political stunt by another politician who was desperate to give his stalling campaign a bit of a push. Since the Sarah Palin honeymoon is dying down and her interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric were claimed to be privately seen as disasters to those involved in the McCain campaign, McCain had to do something. This however, was not a good move. Was McCain trying to show that he was doing what was best for the American people, or did it show that he is not able to hand more than one important situation at one time? I think that with only weeks left of this campaign, not showing up at the debate would have been extremely irresponsible. Whether or not the country is in a financial debacle, McCain also has a responsibility as the possible next president of the United States to talk to the American people in an arena that is a deciding factor for so many of them: the debate. The televised American Presidential and Vice Presidential debates are crucial to those "independent" and "swing" voters as well as important to reinforce the beliefs of those who do have a candidate in mind. I think that McCain assuming that Obama and him should return to Washington was a bad move.

McCain and Obama were going to be an example of successful bipartisanship, however this catastrophe just showed that the ideal of bipartisanship is most definitely flawed, even in this relatively painless and attack-free 2008 campaign. I think that it may raise questions of McCain's ability to make decisions with his erratic behavior as well as his ability to reach "across the aisle" and to gain support from others and work with others.

This turn of events was so dramatic to me and I am glad that it ended in a successful debate, but it also lead to the creation of more negative attack ads and press from both campaigns.

THIS article from TheNation.com questioned McCain's little move on wednesday.... What do you think about this mess?

Here we go again... "Race could play big role in election, poll suggests"

The primary season of the 2008 Presidential Election proved a sad reality about the American public: Race DOES matter.  Coming from a more liberal area/ state, race has never played a huge role in my life or in my decision making.  However, other regions and populations across the United States do still regard race as an important factor.  I remember being shocked when hearing people from Tennessee being interviewed on the news saying things like, "Its not the black house, its the White House," and other vile racist comments.  Do I believe that all people against Barack Obama are racist? Not at all.  

However, the issue of race has been way below my radar lately because of other media distractions.  Today while looking at the latest political news on CNN.com I came across an article titled, "Race could play big role in election, poll suggests".  Immediately I thought, are we really still thinking about this issue, and why the hell is it still an issue?  However, when talking in class about the influence of the media, is this an example of the media influencing our opinions?  The article states that racial prejudices could cost Barack Obama 6% points according to an Associated Press/ Yahoo news poll.  It is usually hard to poll on issues of race because people are not willing to openly talk about the fact that they are in fact prejudice or even worse, racist.  By conducting the poll online, pollsters hope that the anonymity factor would lead to more honest results from those polled.  

Jeff Johnson, the host of BET's "The Truth With Jeff Johnson", said that one misconception is that racial prejudices are unique to conservatives or people in "Middle America" but that, "there are liberals also in many cases that are racist.  I don't think we know yet how it's going to play out".  

Its a scary thought that the evidence from current polls could be completely wiped away on election day when the results are in.  I think that the polls are an underestimate of the possible factor of race and its roll in the current election.  What makes us voters skeptical of someone in terms of their race? What social or psychological roles are in play?  I think that race will unfortunately be an issue in this election season because of the fact that the race is in fact so close.  I wish that we could truly say that race doesn't matter in America, but the evidence says that race is a factor whether or not one is ready to admit it.

Is Unbiased Media Possible?

Today in class we raised the question, is unbiased media possible?  In this day and age I think it is impossible to find a truly unbiased media source, especially in the mass media.  In class some people gave examples such as NPR as being unbiased, but as an NPR listener and fan myself I had to disagree.  Every source of news media that "filters" through our heads has some sort of bias to it.  

I do not think the individual journalists (most of the time) consciously set out to trick us and manipulate us into thinking about something in a certain, set way.  Most of the time they do not have control over what is going to be said and discussed on the air.  The mainstream news media are controlled by a small group of    When we discussed "agenda setters" I think it is important to know who those individuals are.  However the general public is never really aware who those agenda setters are, and that they are even setting their agendas.  I think that especially in recent years, News Television is trying their hardest to attract larger audiences, therefore raising ratings.  The news media today reminds me of the horrible shock-factor, reality tv phenomena.  Each of the major networks include shows that have individuals who relay the news in a shocking way that draws audiences with their viewpoints and bold statements.  This shows the entertainment factor of news media as well.

Do you think that the news media can be unbiased? Or is the news media morphing more and more into a source of entertainment?

Does Saturday Night Live set the tone of Politics?

This past saturday I stayed in at watched the season premiere of Saturday Night Live and was pleasantly surprised to see the return of SNL alum, Tina Fey, impersonating the Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin.  The comedy sketch included Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton speaking together about the sexism in the campaign and the role of women in politics.  

In the sketch Tina Fey as Sarah Palin says,"We are here to address the very ugly role that sexism is playing in the campaign." Hilary Clinton responds, "An issue that I am frankly surprised to see that people suddenly care about."  

Though it is only a comedy sketch, it is important to note the amount of media coverage that this five and a half minute clip received in the following days.  From Fox News to MSNBC, every talk show and news center had something to say about it.  Does this mean that SNL is relevant in shaping public opinion in the campaign season?  I think it is important to note the role that Saturday Night Live plays in the public.  The sketch addresses the many criticisms that Sarah Palin has received in the news media about her inexperience, not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is, and other issues highlighted on a day to day basis.  The sketch also brings up the news medias perception of her and whether or not the fact that she is a woman means that she is being treated differently or unfairly; if the media is involving sexism and empty attacks on the VP candidate.  Is the media's focus on the comedy sketch just another distraction to focusing on the real issues?  

What do you think the role of Saturday Night Live is during campaign season, or do you think that it should have nothing to do with it?  I think it will be interesting in the next couple of weeks to see the developments between these comedy sketches and reactions from the campaigns, and most importantly, the news media.  

Click HERE to see the full length clip of the SNL sketch in case you missed it!

Left, Right... Ron Paul?

It is quite obvious that in the American political arena there are two major parties: The Democrats and the Republicans.  So what is one to do when neither of these parties suffice?  Well Ron Paul (the former Republican candidate) would like to offer a solution to take action: Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty.    What is that you ask?  Well Ron Paul is one American who is sick of the two party system and is asking the American people to help him in his revolution to:

"Promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity."  

Mr. Paul believes that the two parties are destructive and do not promote things for the good of the American people.  In class we talked about sincerity, so is this "revolution" of Ron Paul's sincere or just another form of "propaganda" to distract the American people.  

Ron Paul continues by saying, "Many Americans today are frustrated.  The Political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all.  For all their talk of 'change', neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way.  Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt.  Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy.  Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world... and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table."  

I agree with Mr. Paul that Americans are frustrated.  However when saying that the political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all, do you think that the two parties are more similar than different?  Is Ron Paul speaking how many Americans truly feel?  Or is he creating another faction of what he defiantly disagrees with?

Is there any such thing as an independent, or do the psychological implications of politics naturally drag us to one party or the other?  Is Ron Paul a radically thinking politician or does he make a legitimate point?  

I would love to hear what you all think!

A Network of Associations: What are they really trying to say?

So today in class we discussed how Barack Obama and John McCain created Narratives and how they framed these narratives in two separate speeches that they gave.

One of the terms and tactics that we discussed in class was Association or The Network of Associations. I think this tactic in political speeches is one that even those who are able to easily pick up what the candidate is trying to do or how the candidate is trying to sway a person would have something to disagree about or who would even miss this point.

The first speech we viewed from Barack Obama was from the primary season and at a rally in New Hampshire with his supporters and those who were out campaigning for him in that state. In class we talked about how although Obama's speech sounded great and wonderful, why the heck was it so vague? I completely agree that listening to this speech did make me wonder the variety of messages he was trying to get across to the many different kinds of people who supported him. By being broad and vague, was Senator Obama trying to play with the crowd's emotions? The simple answer is yes... "Yes he can". Sorry that was a bad joke. haha

But, Barack Obama was trying to make the crowd feel good, feel hopeful, and was framing his speech in a way that catered to those who are not skeptical or cynical of him, or who have yet to decide if they will or will not support him in his candidacy.

In his speech he says, "This is a cause greater than ourselves". So what network of associations contribute to these 7 words? This statement first and foremost can be tied back to Barack's mantra of change. "This cause" is the election, and the election of Barack Obama for the presidency. Therefore, Barack Obama for president, is about change. Barack Obama for president is a "cause" that is greater than ourselves. What exactly does he mean by "greater than ourselves"? I think that he is making the association that this election is extremely important for the future and for the change that 85% of the country think that we need. Barack Obama's cause, he is saying, is not one solely about electing him to be the next president of the United States, but that the values, the change (again), the possibilities, etc. that he represents are vital to the future of the country and the American people.

"This cause is greater than ourselves" then really does create a powerful network of associations. The statement suggests that this election isn't just about politics but that with Obama it is an authentic attempt in the name of all that is good for the American people.

All this sounds wonderful, but lets be honest, this IS all about politics, persuasion, and agenda. Whether or not one believes that Obama is being authentic, or that he even really wants all this good for the American people, it doesn't really matter. All that matters is the associations that the audience makes with the candidate, and that those associations are positive.

I think this idea of a network of associations can become really complicated and one can go really far with it, but I think that it is something to definitely think about when viewing speeches or listening to debates, and ESPECIALLY when viewing political advertisements.

I hope that in my next post I will be able to post a video of a political advertisement (from both campaigns) and analyze the network of associations found in both of them. So look for that!

I hope to hear what other people think about this idea about a network of associations, whether or not you think that it is silly, or really is an important political tactic.

"Palintology" : The Sarah Palin Effect

So after watching the Republican's VP Nominee, Governor Sarah Palin's speech a lot of interesting emotions stirred up inside of me.  I use the word interesting because I not only felt my usual sensation of cynicism towards a republican candidate, but I also found myself in a state of shock and utter disbelief.  The part of her speech that has been highlighted in many news sources across the country is this quote that struck me the most as well:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

This is an obvious attack on Barack Obama and his experience as a community organizer when he was 24 years old.  Directing an attack at that aspect of Barack Obama seems as though there are either very weak and vacuous attacks to make on Obama, or rather her campaign struggles to attack Obama with a legitimate concern.  

When stepping back and thinking about this in a tactical perspective, I am a bit confused as how that type of attack can be effective? Are the republicans trying to say that Obama really doesn't do anything and is all words and no action, or are they trying to draw the legitimacy and honor from the work that Barack was once committed to?  

In class we discussed some of Sarah Palin's tactics in convincing her audience (the American people) that she and John McCain are the ticket, and the answer for Washington, come January 2009.  But instead of elaborating on these tactics, I would like to go a different route:

 I would like to raise the McCain campaign's decision in choosing Sarah Palin as the VP candidate.  Why was a unknown politician from Alaska chosen over assumed, experienced, well-known candidates such as Mitt Romney or Joe Lieberman?  I think it is fair to say that the news media and the rest of the country (myself definitely included) were in shock when the McCain campaign announced her as his running mate.  Was this a last minute, careless decision? Or was it purely tactical? ...

While watching different news media channels tonight, I began to wonder about "The Sarah Palin Effect".  Her presence in the Republican campaign, whether you like it or not, has proven to be the "shake-up" and revival that the McCain campaign desperately needed.  However, the decision of Palin seems like a contradiction to what the campaign previously attacked the Obama campaign of.  The celebrity and passionate crowds that drove thousands of people to attend many of Obama's rallies and speeches were touted as unprofessional like, and only strong words.  Obama's passionate supporters were painted as crazed fans that could be compared to screaming teenage girls at a Jonas Brothers concert.  

There is also the fact that McCain chose a woman as his running mate.  After the Democrats dealt with the drama of Hilary and Bill Clinton and their supporters, the Republican party and the McCain campaign jumped on this opportunity to lure those who had lasting anger about the Democratic party's choice of Obama as the candidate.  With the surprise of Palin as the VP nominee, it was as though the Republicans sat back and smiled and waited for a rally of former Hiliaryites to come running towards the McCain campaign.

Is Sarah Palin really a legitimate person to serve as the Vice President of the United States of America? Or, was the choice to place her on the ticket tactical?  Is the hype and popularity surrounding the religious-like movement of Sarah Palin a legitimate force in choosing the next president of the United States?  

I would love to know what you think of this new found movement: Palintology

Click here for the article accompanying the Newsweek cover pictured above.  

An attempt at stepping back

I know that I tend to be pretty opinionated when it comes to politics, but with this blog I hope to not only rant and give my own opinion but try and step back and understand why I feel the way I do and why I think "the other party" is in the wrong.  I tend to get pretty passionate about the statements and the stereotypes and the misinformation represented in american politics, but hopefully my "observing ego" will be switched on some of the time.  

First of all, I am going to put it out there that I am a democrat and I that I support Barack Obama, so I know that I will be definitely "liberally leaning" when it comes to my opinion rants.  When I applied to college I wrote my application essay on  Barack Obama's 2004 DNC speech because of its message of promoting, "not a red America, or a blue America, but a United States of America".  Not only have I found this inspiring, but it is evident that many others have as well since Obama is now the nominee for the Democratic party.  

Watching the DNC this year, I am hopeful that this country has the answer that it needs; a candidate that will fight for what America needs and not only what his personal or religious convictions conduct him to do.  Barack Obama is not a "celebrity" but a political force that is making the country excited that for the first time in many years that there may not be four more years... but rather, four more months left of the current state of our country.

In my next post I hope to discuss the RNC speeches of VP nominee Sarah Palin and the Republican nominee John McCain.  Not only will I discuss what I agree or disagree with in regards of their statements, but why I feel this way, which should be interesting.   (to me at least) 

Thanks for reading my blog!