GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Don't Support Obama's Health Care Reform? You Might be a Racist (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=125466)

Kevin 03-20-2012 11:18 AM

Don't Support Obama's Health Care Reform? You Might be a Racist
 
Quote:

In an experiment, Tesler presents a health care overhaul policy to whites, telling some that the policy is advocated by Bill Clinton and telling others that it's advocated by Barack Obama; Tesler finds that whites with liberal racial attitudes become more supportive of the policy when they think Obama is its chief advocate, while whites with a conservative attitude become less supportive of the policy when they think of health care as an Obama policy.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...-care-overhaul

This doesn't really shock me. Folks say that their disdain for the President has nothing to do with race. Anecdotally, at least, coming from the buckle of the Bible Belt, I'd have to say that such claims are utter horseshit.

At least now we're starting to see the emergence of some research which might actually bear that out.

DeltaBetaBaby 03-20-2012 11:42 AM

Full study is here.

Munchkin03 03-20-2012 11:42 AM

I heard this on the radio this morning and I'm not surprised.

In my personal experience, though, I've seen a lot of people support Barama blindly just because he's Black. Of course, I'm thinking of a demographic (middle-aged Black women) who are pretty solidly Democratic so they'd be supportive of Bill Clinton as well.

Leslie Anne 03-20-2012 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2133297)
I heard this on the radio this morning and I'm not surprised.

In my personal experience, though, I've seen a lot of people support Barama blindly just because he's Black. Of course, I'm thinking of a demographic (middle-aged Black women) who are pretty solidly Democratic so they'd be supportive of Bill Clinton as well.

Can't be bothered to spell the president's name?

Munchkin03 03-20-2012 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne (Post 2133311)
Can't be bothered to spell the president's name?

Ech, sometimes I'll say Barama. My nephew invented it when he couldn't quite say Barack Obama.

DrPhil 03-20-2012 06:51 PM

Munchkin03, with all due respect, my nephews used to say "gotta go poop-poop...stink-stink..." but that doesn't mean a healthy-minded adult should say that when the adult needs to use the restroom. Adults who can type and say the President's name should type and say the President's name--there is no "(President) Barama."

Moreover, depending on who used "Barama," I would feel as though the President was being mocked in addition to mocking names of certain ethnic and cultural origins.

PiKA2001 03-21-2012 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2133288)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...-care-overhaul

This doesn't really shock me. Folks say that their disdain for the President has nothing to do with race. Anecdotally, at least, coming from the buckle of the Bible Belt, I'd have to say that such claims are utter horseshit.

At least now we're starting to see the emergence of some research which might actually bear that out.

I.ve heard that a lot of "studies" are funded by political groups or special interest groups that demand a set outcome before appoving funding. You can skewer data anyway you see fit but liberals favoring liberal lawmakers and conservatives disliking liberal lawmakers is nothing new to me (other than the racial spin).

And Dr. Phil, there's nothing wrong with a grown adult going poop poop..stink stink....

Kevin 03-21-2012 08:44 AM

I've read the study. It seems fair.

Anecdotally, as I said, there are a lot of angry racist white folks right now. It's hard to coexist with them and not be constantly picking fights. It's even worse when you get to rural Oklahoma. I can't imagine Texas is any better.

DubaiSis 03-21-2012 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2133478)
I.ve heard that a lot of "studies" are funded by political groups or special interest groups that demand a set outcome before appoving funding. You can skewer data anyway you see fit but liberals favoring liberal lawmakers and conservatives disliking liberal lawmakers is nothing new to me (other than the racial spin).

Push polling, as it's called is very easy to detect. You may have gotten survey calls asking you if you prefer killing babies or letting them live. The questions are generally about that subtle, if you listen to the actual question at all.

This one seems to have been very careful about setting flat baselines (making both sponsors strong liberals so conservatives would dislike it equally, for example). And I would be very leery of any question that said "some people..." but that also makes for an interesting alternative.

Changing subject slightly, have you read about No Labels? This seems like a great organization and I love their ideas, and perish the thought, it was started by a couple Republicans. www.nolabels.org/work ...

Kevin 03-21-2012 09:38 AM

The study, IIRC, takes more reputable polls and distills information from them.

PiKA2001 03-21-2012 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2133503)
The study, IIRC, takes more reputable polls and distills information from them.

I'll try to read the full study if I have the time later.
Quote:

Originally Posted by DubaiSis (Post 2133499)
Push polling, as it's called is very easy to detect. You may have gotten survey calls asking you if you prefer killing babies or letting them live. The questions are generally about that subtle, if you listen to the actual question at all.

This one seems to have been very careful about setting flat baselines (making both sponsors strong liberals so conservatives would dislike it equally, for example). And I would be very leery of any question that said "some people..." but that also makes for an interesting alternative.

Changing subject slightly, have you read about No Labels? This seems like a great organization and I love their ideas, and perish the thought, it was started by a couple Republicans. www.nolabels.org/work ...

No Labels is a good idea but I wouldn't hold your breath on it coming to fruition, it's just not in the best interests of either party to work together like that.

I would have liked to see them compare Obama to someone else, someone more current in politics. I've heard that past presidents are typically looked upon more favorably as time passes (barring scandal i.e. Nixon) plus Clinton is better liked than Obama IMHO. I think his time in office is looked at more favorably. Good economy, pre-9/11, no wars...the good ole days. I've even heard people say they wish that Hillary would have won so Bill Clinton could be in the WH again.

33girl 03-21-2012 11:23 AM

With all the crying that happened at Nixon's funeral, I would say he was probably redeemed a GREAT deal. You have to admit that he did things no one else was brave enough to do (i.e. reaching out to China) and let's face it...even if he would have done everything right the press would have hated him anyway.

American Experience just did a show on Clinton, and it really hits home what a perfect storm he got dropped into (i.e. with Newt G being Speaker) and what a polarizing figure he was...he just made it worse by not being able to keep his dick in his pants.

PiKA2001 03-21-2012 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2133522)
With all the crying that happened at Nixon's funeral, I would say he was probably redeemed a GREAT deal. You have to admit that he did things no one else was brave enough to do (i.e. reaching out to China) and let's face it...even if he would have done everything right the press would have hated him anyway.

American Experience just did a show on Clinton, and it really hits home what a perfect storm he got dropped into (i.e. with Newt G being Speaker) and what a polarizing figure he was...he just made it worse by not being able to keep his dick in his pants.

I wasn't born until Reagan's first term so I can't speak on experience but other than Watergate I've never heard anything derogatory about the man, same with Kennedy even though I've heard that Kennedy wasn't exactly the most popular president while he was in office.

And isn't every president doomed to be a polarizing figure? It seems that no matter what you do or say as long as you associate with a political party the other half of the country isn't going to agree with you or your policies.

33girl 03-22-2012 11:50 AM

They were just saying that it went beyond "I don't care for Jimmy Carter" to the point that people PASSIONATELY LOVED or PASSIONATELY HATED Clinton. I'm not sure that was him specifically though, rather the way the media/the country is going. There is no "middle" anymore.

And yes, when Kennedy was alive only something like 30% of people in a poll said they voted for him. After he was assassinated, it went up to 70%.

PiKA2001 03-22-2012 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2133770)
They were just saying that it went beyond "I don't care for Jimmy Carter" to the point that people PASSIONATELY LOVED or PASSIONATELY HATED Clinton. I'm not sure that was him specifically though, rather the way the media/the country is going. There is no "middle" anymore.

I totally agree and it's not just with Clinton. You can see the same parallels with GWB and Obama.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.