In Terms of Geography, Obama Appeals to Academics and Clinton Appeals to Jacksonians

Good information

Information of this blog is very useful and importnat.

Regard

http://www.academicsltd.co.uk

Still Makes Sense

As someone who is a warrior type (including military service), prior academic and retired public servant, I have to say this still makes perfect sense, even long after its publication. There has always been a terrible conflict between my different roles in this sense--and I gotta say, the warrior/Jacksonian wins. In the ultimate outcome, "no man can serve two masters".

During Obama's long campaign, his message has been consistently hijacked by non-whites who seem to think it is OK to be racially prejudiced in favor of your own race as long as it is not the Caucasian race. The other group of hijackers are the academics, as biased in their own way as any white supremicist--but biased on the basis of the political correctness points gained by supporting the black man. It is condescension masquerading as support--but it is tokenism.

I venture to think that Mr. Obama might have hoped as I had hoped--that somehow he would rise above the stereotypes to embody all of the people through his mixed heritage. He is just as much Scots Irish as most. However, those who think only of their own agendas have labeled him the "black man" who is the "messiah" for them all, as Farrakhan has said. .

I hope that now that he has the votes, that he has the warrior spirit to speak up and announce himself to be no man's token, that he is not out to to "save" any one group but to represent all Americans. That, in Scots Irish fashion, he has the courage to fight and be the burr under any man's saddle that seeks to tell him what to do.

But, sadly, I don't think he will. He is as much the victim of prejudice (reverse in this case) as anyone else. And like my black colleagues in the 80's, he will probably never get the chance to feel that he was valued for himself rather than as a token of political correctness.

Now, THAT , is a sad life to live, thinking that in the final analysis, it really WAS all about the way you looked and not who you were....

The Issues Of Geography

There are a whole lot of variables to consider--such as race, economic status,

etc. There are also issues like the war and the economy--both of which are

intertwined--that cause people to vote outside what would be considered

their likely voting patterns.

I, for one, am a black woman who resides in Washington, D.C. While most

of us voted for Barack Obama, a sizeable number voted for Hillary Clinton

since they thought she had a better chance of winning, and because they

remember the Clinton administration fondly.

OBAMA AS A WIMP

One of the silliest and most juvenile things anyone can do is judge only

by surface appearances. This is in reference to folks who think of Obama as

a wimp and a pushover. He has just won the nomination, and one reason

was that the Clintons consistently underestimated him--something I am

sure they regret. We are in the current Iraq quagmire thanks to an idiot

that a lot of people thought of as a man's man that they could have a beer

with.

It's worth noting that George Bush's policies have helpd to ensure that a lot

of the people who viewed him that way can't even buy the beer they would

like to share with him.

Jacksonians?

Should this country in all it's greatness succumb to the will of the poor, uneducated Appalachian population as the deciding will of "We the People"?

Dumbest thing I've ever read

There isn't even enough substance here to really attack. You haven't even begun to prove that geography, with all its attendant correlations (race, economics, etc) leads one to conclude what you have to the exclusion of those other correlation. You should have known to suspect your own reasoning when it led you to the hilarious assertion that people with a sense of liberty with honor will support Hillary. I put it to you that anybody with a sense of either is probably going to vote for McCain, or maybe even Obama, but off all the things that Hillary represents, I don't think anybody who reads a newspaper would mention "honor" or "liberty" in the same sentence as Clinton.

Obama is getting exposed as a leftist

"These "jacksonian" voters will not, They will continue to lose their healthcare, continue to lose their jobs to other countries, continue to get lower wages due to illegal immigration and non-fair work standards."

Really now, and Obama, who voted against the border fence in 2006, voted for not only amnesty but also an amendment to add floods of more 3rd world 'chain migration' immigrants and wants drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile Obama wants job-killing tax hikes, job-killing regulations-run-amok, and is all for the worst forms of affirmative action quotas. He will be too busy with his panders to homosexual activists, leftwing community activists, muslim and palestinian agitators, and other boutique leftie interest groups to worry much about blue-collar whites.

"Obama likeable and like his ability to compromise with the Republicans - something we have not seen for a long while."

And something we have not seen and will not see in an Obama administration.

Obama is a left-liberal extremist, rated the most liberal with no real record of accomplishments. He has zero accomplishments on national security, and zero accomplishments on bipartisanship. He's selling voters a bill of goods.

If Obama makes Webb his veep...

... McCain should counter with Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania. In fact, he should probably take Ridge, regardless.

37th Congressional District

You analysis of the California election is a bit off.

I have lived in the 33rd, 35th, and 37th districts you say are predominantly black, but the 37th districtrepresnts is only 25% black, 50% are hispanic and 25% are white, asian adn native american. The 33rd district si also highly diverse, the 35th is 34% black and 47% hispanic, white and asian comprise abotu 15%, and the 33rd is 35% hispanic, 30% black and 32% white and asian.

These are multi-racial districts voting for a multi-racial candidate.

As a Jacksonian (I volunteered after September 11th and am an Iraq war veteran) with Academic sensibilities, I see what you're getting at. (For the people who haven't figured it out yet, Barone's not talking about literal "Jacksonians" and literal "Academics", he's talking about two disparate philosophies.) And, for what it's worth, I think that you're dead on.

Mark my words: If the Dems pick Obama, then he will look like a child next to McCain, and McCain will win in a landslide. If the Dems pick Clinton, the contest will be more sporting and the Dems have a chance of seizing the White House again. (However, to be fair, Clinton's negatives among Independents and Republicans are very high, from what I understand.)