Is America ready for a woman (Hilary) or black (Obama) presidential candidate?

Max, I clicked on the thread, saw the map post, and found it was interesting to ponder. If you want to link that to the subject of the thread, which, in my case, I wasn't thinking about at all, in my opinion, the South has become far more complex than represented in the maps. I think the right kind of Black male presidential candidate could win some of those red states. I think a woman could win as a VP, but I think the red areas tend to be more sexist that strongly conservative!




Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Maybe you missed it, but I didn't post the picture. Knee-jerk reactions are funny tho, keep it up.

And if you think that there isn't lingering intolerance, racial and otherwise, in socially conservative areas, you're mistaken. My grandmother, god bless her, used racial slurs all the time. Have we really come that far? My family is from small-town east texas. You think people in those type of communities would elect a black president? The same socially conservative South was segregated as recently as the 1960s, with Jim Crow laws designed to prevent blacks from voting. Now, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act (opposed famously by Barry Goldwater) was passed, you think they'd vote for anything other than a socially conservative Anglo man? Please.

 

Oh geez, sorry. I always type without thinking. Thanks, man!

Uh, yep. You said 'all he did was post the pictures, he didn't make a point with them.' Now you say he obviously was making a point. Nice.

Wow. Look at encyclopedia brown over here. That's all fine and dandy but Max makes the point that this is put in the context of 'can we elect a black leader.' The picture says 'no' the same states that were slave states voted for bush. You seem to be making, strangely enough, the same point, which is that because southern states couldn't get over black people being free, and because they hate the party of lincoln (ie the party that freed the blacks in the Civil War) - they will be more conservative and less likely to vote for a black.

And Clinton took Lousiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, KY, TN, FL, NM, AZ, and NV among other states - and his platform was neither conservative nor republican - so what can be taken from this comparison is minimal.

 

Just look at Ann Richards.

 

Maybe you missed it, but I didn't say you did...

Seems pretty fitting for what this thread has been turned into.

 

So did one of my grandmothers. She's the one who experienced the hurricane of 1900 as a child, and remembered it. I can honestly say that I never heard her use a curse word, or speak badly of anyone (except some wrestlers... she was a huge wrestling fan back in the Paul Boesch days, and hated Wild Bull Curry), and yet she would use the "n" word without thinking. Much of my family is from rural, small town East Texas as well. I understand these people. But Texas, and much of the "red" areas are urban, and the heritage you speak of is shrinking.




Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Clayton Williams would have beaten her easily if it wasn't for the whole "Sit back and enjoy it" gaffe. He was an idiot. I guess I should rephrase, the South will lean towards the white, male, conservative candidate just like the Northeast will lean towards the liberal candidates, unless there's a huge discrepancy in candidates (Clinton beat Dole all over the map, Reagan beat Mondale similarly).

 

Deck -- you didn't post the picture here. your view on it is irrelevant to my post which you responded to. the point is...the map was posted in the context of this thread for a reason.

 

yeah...how about as a response to demagoguery?? cause that's all i've seen since the election results came in.

well, the people are just stupid, then.

well, the people are just homophobes, then.

well, the people are just racist descendants of slaveowners, then.


or...the people just disagree with you because you don't have a monopoly on what is right, good or wise.

 

as an alternative to someone like John Kerry??? you bet your ass i do!!!

throw up J.C. Watts against John Kerry, and the red states stay red.

 

I don't see the big deal.

The red/tan states were socially conservative in the 1860's and remain so today.

I don't care how "complex" you think the South has become. If you're implying that there is no more racism in this country, or you go further to state that you are not more likely to run into remnants of racist ideals in the South, you are lying to yourself and all of us.

Besides, the Civil War wasn't even about slavery. It was about states' rights. The North didn't feel slaves should be allowed, and the South felt that individual states should be able to make that decision themselves.

We tend to look at it as an issue of slavery because it makes us feel so good to think that we went to war and killed our brothers to liberate the poor, oppressed black man. Sorry, but our founding fathers kept their slaves, for the most part. They really didn't care about your black ancestors or the plight of minorities. It was a conflict within the government, and had very little to do with the welfare of the people.

So the Civil War didn't end racism, it just paved the way for the civil rights movement, which finally came 100 years later. In case you've forgotten, that was only 40 years ago. Think about that. We want to say "Oh the South has changed so much! They love black people now and would have no problem electing a black man or woman as President!"

Oh really? Well 40 years ago, that same South didn't think that blacks were good enough to drink out of the same water fountains as whites, let alone be President.

Accept that there is racism in the South, and quit pretending to be offended.

 

Ender120

Good post.

 

I agree with this 100%. I would add though that Racism is by no means confined to the south, nor would I say that the south is more racist than the north. I lived in New York for 10 years, and believe that people there are every bit as racist as people in the South. They are smarter about it, in that they don't think race should affect their vote as much as people in the south might, but the racism is still there and it is rampant. There is so much segregation in housing and what kind of apartments minorities can rent, or buy, and in what neighborhoods, etc. People still make all the same ignorant generalizations and stereo-types in NYC that they do in the South.

In some ways the South is better because forced de-segregation played a huge role in helping to lessen racism. I can look at my white friends, and compare that with the parents, and grandparents of those friends, or even my own grandparents, and see that racism is less now than it was in the past.

In places like New York they've believed that because they didn't have the institutionalized side of racism that there wasn't a real problem there. They are ignorant of their racism, and therefore have done very little to combat it. It may have changed slightly but not the dramatic changes in the south. Historically the most lynchings during the civil war happened in New York City, not in the south. The Gangs of New York movie touched only slightly on the problem, but it has existed in the North and in the South.

There is a difference the South is more aware, and sadly perhaps accepting of their racism, and will vote it. In the North, that isn't the case. They don't believe themselves racist, and don't have as much of a problem voting for minorities, but the racism is still their, and people's ignorance of their own racism makes it harder to combat in the North.

 

Here's a county by county exam of the 2004 presidential election.

 

maybe this analogy isn't as far off as some of you would like to pretend..

Alabama voters nearly even on Amendment Two

By PHILLIP RAWLS
The Associated Press
11/3/2004, 1:05 a.m. CT

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- Fifty years after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an end to segregated schools, Alabamians were divided Tuesday over a constitutional amendment to erase unenforceable requirements for segregated schools and poll taxes.

With 98 percent of the precincts reporting in the unofficial tally, Amendment Two was opposed by 679,551 voters, or 50 percent, and supported by 675,791 votes, or 50 percent. It will take a count of the last precincts on Wednesday to determine the outcome.

Amendment Two was opposed by former Chief Justice Roy Moore (of the Ten Commandments in courthouse fame), Alabama Christian Coalition President John Giles...

------

Amendment Two recount likely for Nov. 29

With an amendment to delete segregation-era language from Alabama's Constitution headed toward defeat by a narrow margin, state officials say an automatic recount would likely be set for November 29th.

http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?s=2553451&ClientType=Printable

 

i thought you guys weren't making the analogy, and we were all jumping to hasty conclusions by assuming you did?

 

As I've said many times, this speculation comes primarily from Republicans, generally in a paranoid fashion; not just rabid, anti clinton wack jobs, but William Safire, etc (his column on Wesley Clark as a "stalking horse" for Hilary is pricelessly stupid in hindsight, and in foresight). Slate did an intersting series of articles on this phenomenon ("republicans for Hilary!") last year; look them up if you're interested. Anyway a lot of this is picked up on by facesless wire service writers, etc.

By the way, it's not like it matters, but in reality, Clintons senatorial term has been very moderate, both politically and in terms of her relationship w/her colleagues. Many of her Republican colleagues, who like many on the right, tend to believe the myth that she is the devil incarnate, have been shocked at how well they have worked with her

Finally, in terms of her constituency; she has expended a great deal of time and effort in represtentig/lobbying for the interests of non-NYC newyorkers in Central, Western, and upstate NY, who are decidely not elites

But, as we learned earlier this month, perception trumps reality in the voting booth 10x out of 10. I don't really like Hilary all that much but it doesn't really matter, she's not going to be nominated for anything.

 

My understanding is that opposition to the amendment has more to do with taxes and the cost of education than it does with racism.

 

Black: yes

Woman: yes, but depends on if we still have problems with the middle east. Those terrorist etc. would never have respect for a woman president.

 

It's a very relevant point, as I pointed out a few posts up.

It wasn't my analogy to begin with, but I certainly do think it's a valid one and needs to be addressed.