Post Caucus Analysis

Funny, everyone will say Romney is done for coming in second, but Hillary is fine with third? I'll make this short, because Iowa only proved one thing - the Republicans are in big trouble.

The energy and participation is off the charts on the Dem side. It went up on the Republican side due to the Evangelical vote. That's great, but it isn't enough to win a general election.

The fact is, as things stand, the Republicans don't have a candidate that can win nationally in 2008.

As for the Dems, Edwards is now the spoiler. Either he goes away, Obama takes him out - or he continues to split the anti-Clinton vote ultimately giving her the nod. And she's be beatable in the general. They all are.

McCain is being called the big winner on the Republican side. That's predictable, I even did predict it. But he still can't win nationally. The Republican race is wide open - it's anyone's to lose, or win.

Once again, Iowa has settled nothing. It's just given a lot of people something to talk about, and not much more.

Comments

[docweasel]

I have to disagree that McCain can't win nationally. After staring disaster in the face first with Romney, then with Huckaboom, McCain is looking more and more palatable to me. I think he'd be a very strong candidate, and pick up a lot of independent and even Democrat voters. Hillary, who I still think will get the nomination, won't do that.

Also, I think Guiliani can win. The religious right nutters can grumble all they like about his supposed social liberalism: its nothing to Hillary, Obama or Edward's. They have nowhere to go. They'll vote for Rudy, it doesn't matter if they like it or not.

I still think the Republicans are in good shape to win in '08, as long as Romney and Huckleberry end up out soon. I hope Romney gets whomped in NH, then that's it for him. I think Rudy still has a chance if he can win Florida.

[CK MacLeod]

After watching Obama's speech, I think you may be right that the Republicans are in a lot of trouble - especially when I compare Obama's clarity, positivity, and timeliness to the reflexive negativity and disunity on the conservative side. I say this as someone who disagrees strongly with Obama on the issues that matter most to me, and who also considers him unqualified.

Our most charismatic candidate probably just hit his high water mark, and is totally unacceptable to huge swaths of the party. Our unity candidates are weak campaigners, and that's not their only flaw. Our most dynamic candidates inspire something close to murderous hatred from opponents in their own party!

[Worst President Ever]

No, people are saying Hillary's in trouble, that the whole inevitable thing is dead, and she's going to have to change strategy if she's going to win. The election is about change, it's hard for Hillary to make the switch from being the Voice of Experience to the Agent of Change. Yeah, she could still win it, but she's no longer the odds on favorite.

Note that Huckabee is also riding the change message. Voters seemed pissed about something.

Edwards probably isn't going to have the money to continue - Obama's got the big mo now and is going to cash in big-time. Edwards lost the agent of change election to Obama. It's going to be tough to recover from that, particularly if Obama continues to suck in disaffected Republicans and Independents. That trend continues, it could get very scary for Republicans.

The turnout in a state that's pretty purple was 2 to 1 Democrat over Republican. That continues through the election and it will be a landslide.

The Republicans are in disarray. The Party Wheels can't stand Huckabee. If Mitt loses in NH, it gets very tough for him. Rudy doesn't have a prayer. xFred's probably done soon - I'm not sure he even wants to be in the campaign. Which leaves McCain, another guy conservatives are ambivalent about at best.

Iowa did a lot. It pushed Obama to the front of the pack, a first for a black candidate, and gave him a chance to give a great positive speech as the front-runner. It showed how much more motivated Democrats are than Republicans and that a charasmatic young black candidate can broaden the Dem base and draw in Republicans and Independents - that's a Republican nightmare. Hillary finished third, demoralizing when you've been preaching a message of "when I become president", not if. The Republican Machine favorites - Romney and Fred - got whacked. And the man Republican Power Brokers hate most - Huckabee - suddenly threatens to run away with their prize. I don't know what you were expecting, but those are some major wrenches thrown into the political machinery.

[Digger]

It's freakin' Iowa for Christ's sake, there's 11 months to go.

All of your comments "Worst President Ever" will be absolutely worthless in another week when totally different results come in in other states.

It's all fine to comment on it being interesting, but drawing total conclusions from a "caucus" and not even a primary vote is quite ridiculous.

[seekeronos]

What Digger said.

Fred's not done at least until after SC.

But it surely doesn't look good. The MSM (including and especailly Fox) seem to have decided that Fred is on their death list... and worthless hacks like Ben Smith and Jon Martin from that feces-covered rag "Politico" will be issuing the hit jobs like fouled water.

It is a given that he will lose big in NH; FDT has pretty much written NH's 12 delegate votes off (especially as NH is penalized for bumping thier primary date to keep the #2 slot).

I'll admit that IA doesn't necessarily dictate who the next POTUS is, although it is still a bellwether for the attitudes of most middle Americans.

However, there are certain things that sway IA (such as pandering to ethanol subsidies among other things). Nanny-Staters of both parties won big by promising the moon about Ethanol.

Huckabee remains a threat for the deep south, and nothing short of a crushing landslide in NH and SC will move to derail him.

That all said, I'll withdraw from the GOP and vote for an Indy spoiler (or not vote at all) before I vote for McCain, Rudy, or Huckabee.

Fred is the best hope for America's conservative, and Romney at a very distant second. Anyone else (RINO) will do nothing but put us on a crash course to socialism... so if that be the case, we might as buy all the heritage seeds, guns and ammo we can get while they are still available.

[BobInStamford]

Last night was a victory for Jesus and Vince Foster. Mission Accomplished!!!!

[seekeronos]

Bob...

nevermind. You are a waste of energy. Carry on.

[TheSpartan]

The question for Fred is where does he finish in NH...if he finishes behind Huckabee he's in real trouble because Huck can't count on the evangelical vote in NH as it doesn't really exist there. NH should be the perfect state for Fred...lots of old-school conservatives, straight talkers, shoot from the hips...all the old cliches. If he finishes 4th he's done.

[K T Cat]

Spartan, Fred is not even campaigning in NH. He'll finish last. What of it? I'm hoping he wins in South Carolina, picking up Mittens' disappointed supporters after McCain blows Mittens out of the water.

[TheSpartan]

I fully expect McCain to win big in NH, Thompson not running in NH is a big mistake. He keeps looking lazier and lazier, like he just doesn't want to be President. It's not enough as he says to be "qualified for the job" you've got to want it.

[Tom Grey]

I like Huck and mostly agree with W. P. E.
I don't think Romney or Rudy will win the nomination; and Rudy will NOT win the general, because the pro-life activists won't be supportive enough.

I also like Fred; and even McCain on Iraq and life. I don't like Romney but I like his current policies. I dislike Rudy. I hate Ron Paul on Iraq, but he's the best small gov't policies (but too flaky, sadly).

Obama ... like JFK ... might well win the general. He's likable. He'll probably win the nomination -- because of inspiration, which Hillary & Edwards almost totally lack. Most Dems want to believe in "the Dream", and in winning. I see Obama starting to roll...

I hope Huck starts running a bit against the negative Reps who don't like him -- lumping them in with the pork-guzzling Reps who had control of Congress '94-'06 but did so little domestically except increase earmarks for their rich donors.

[seekeronos]

Wyoming is a wild card as well, with 2 more delegates (at a total of 14) over NH.

NH, if I remember correctly, is a "winner-take-all" state, no? I'm pretty sure McCain has NH on lockdown.

What about WY though...? I think WY is proportional, and Fred might be able to squeak a few delegates out of there as well. There doesn't seem to be any reliable poll information from there that I've seen yet, although if it trends like the other Rocky Mtn./Western states they will dump Huckabee like a hot potato, especially because of his anti-Mormon talk.

Given the high concentration (62%) of Mormons out there, it is third behind Utah... and the non-Mormons there tend to be either agnostics or "cafeteria Christians".

WY also uses a county convention system where it will choose 12/14 (normally 12/28, but penalized b/c of the primary date jump) of its delegates. The state convention in May picks the remaining delegates, and I'm not sure if there is any horse-trading involved in the state convention based upon county convention results.

I'm not informed enough on WY conventions to make a firm guess, but I'd say WY goes to Mittens for the (R)s and probably a narrow margin win by Obama for the (D)s, given the possibly bandwagon effect from IA.

[Fred Beloit]

Worst Prognosticator Ever writes: "The turnout in a state that's pretty purple was 2 to 1 Democrat over Republican. That continues through the election and it will be a landslide.

The Republicans are in disarray."

This is your forecast, Worst? Based on caucuses in Iowa? Do re mi mi mi. "Iowa, Iowa, that's where the tall ethanol grows." Don't you think your forecast is really more of a personal wet dream? You WISH a pacifist, socialist, man whose main theme, as befits a dreamer, is HOPE. You're right Digger.

[David M]

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/04/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/01/web-reconnaissance-for-01042008.html

[What's Going On Here?]

I hate to be rude...but this is a pretty pathetic analysis. First off, you don't have all the info needed to make such a sweeping statement.

Word on the street is that many Republicans voted Obama to hurt the Clinton campaign. I live in Georgia, and that kind of behavior is common here in primaries. I have done it myself to oust Cynthia McKinney.

Secondly, Take a look at the media spin. The media is full of liars...not idiots. They know the big story is the Clinton loss...that's why they're talking about everything BUT that.

And speaking of choosing a President; since when is thoughtful reflection rather than knee-jerk emotionalism a BAD thing.

The news for Republicans is not bad...it's just not great.

[seekeronos]

"---
Word on the street is that many Republicans voted Obama to hurt the Clinton campaign. I live in Georgia, and that kind of behavior is common here in primaries. I have done it myself to oust Cynthia McKinney.
---"

I'm not so sure that this is a good idea, if it is true. Those are votes which could have done better to keep RINOs like Huckabee from getting traction.

Of course, the inverse of that could also have had a boosting effect on Huckabee... I really do not see Huck doing well against Obama who is considerably more to the left than Obama.

If Iowa (R)s attempted to sabotage Hillary at the expense of their own caucuses - then they have more likely done a better job of shooting themselves in the foot.

[docweasel]

Obama will NOT win the general. Count on it.

I'm still willing to bet the election will be Guiliani vs. Clinton, and Rudy will be our next president. For every sore-head doctrinaire extremist conservative that will "sit it out or vote indy" if McCain or Guiliani is nominated, several independents and even Dems will vote the Republican ticket. One of these 2 men will be president, unless the Republicans nominate Romney or Huckster, in which case Hillary will win.

Take it to the bank.

[Worst President Ever]

With 39,914 votes, Huckabee actually finished a distant fourth to Clinton's 73,666 votes. That's bad news for Republicans in a state that's basically 50/50. Democrats are motivated, Republicans aren't.

It's 11 months to the election, but the primaries are pretty much over after Super Tuesday - 2/5. Obama winning a majority white state like Iowa is huge. If he does it again in New Hampshire, he'll probably win South Carolina too. Which gives him a huge push into Super Tuesday with Hillary on the ropes. Yeah, she could still win. But she's going to need a new message and strategy.

The Republicans - well, the party's establishment is about to try to destroy Huckabee, who they hate. That could be interesting.

[JustADude]

Way to much tea reading by blogs left right and center going on.

I don't care how much the Dems are hopped up on speed, they can whip the other side 20 to 1 but the electoral vote from the state doesn't change.

A mix of oil and water on the left in part because of Hills major negatives. Some Dems hate her even more than we do, but for different reasons.

Lots of talking starting to happen on the right side blogs of Fred being the compromise candidate who may be able to work for compromise across the aisle without selling us down the river like McCain would. Also lots on both sides have been at this race for a couple of years or more and some think Fred should make all that up in a few short months. For those with all the long time investments already sunk into this race, just why didn't they run it up strong. And that goes for both sides.

[Techie]

I want a Re-do. The only person I like on the Republican side is Duncan Hunter and he's got no chance in hell.

[rwilymz]

"...a first for a black candidate..."

Which candidate is black?

Obama is a mutt, only called "black" or "african-american" because the superficial demographics we use here isn't honest enough to classify people according to what they *are*, but according to what serves our collective purposes.

Today's collective purpose is to inspire hair-shirted guilt and self-loathing. Hence "Barrama" is black when he's not.

Tiger Woods ditto.

[Worst President Ever]

EVERYBODY knows who the black canddidate is. Put 'em all in a room together, tell somebody to pick out the black guy and it's gonna be Obama 100% of the time.

No, today's purpose is to show Iowans can vote for a black man that doesn't look anything like most of them. I consider that the pretty damn inspiring. Kinda makes me proud to be an American.

[seekeronos]

"Of course, the inverse of that could also have had a boosting effect on Huckabee... I really do not see Huck doing well against Obama who is considerably more to the left than Obama."

EDIT - this should have read:

"Of course, the inverse of that could also have had a boosting effect on Huckabee... I really do not see Huck doing well against Obama who is considerably more to the left than *Hillary*."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Obama:

He is a perfect fit into white lefty politics, because he is not truly of African-American *descent*. That is, his father's family was not descended from the former slave stock of which the overwhelming majority of America's blacks come from.

Culturally, he is something of an outcast by that same demographic, because he is not seen as having a right to claim and enforce white guilt - especially because his mother was a European white - of Anglo-Saxon ancestry!! Never mind that she was something of a radical leftist in her time.

But what he is as a partial pariah (and this may fall by the wayside, as blacks see that he has traction in the white majority) among those blacks whose cultural identity derives mostly as descendants of southern states slaves, he is an approachable "man of colour" among whites, one who does not wield the Morningstar Mace of Guilt™ with vitriolic fury to bash the average white over the head for his ancestors' sins over the past 400 years.

Rather, he seems ever so friendly and cultured, wooing us with his poise and grace - and without the pedantic dronings of an Alan Keyes or the slimy obfuscations of a Sharpton or a Jackson, and certainly not the thuggish sense of immediate danger from a Farrakhan.

Yet his skin colour and his marriage to Mrs. Michelle Obama, along with his packaging by Oprah are more than enough to compensate for his lack of ancestral suffering to market him to blacks, and to women in general, who in turn can influence their weak-minded husbands (if we are to accept the TV stereotype of fathers as being idiots bereft of any higher thought) to support him.

In short, Obama is everything that Hillary cannot hope to be, and especially since she must walk on eggshells to avoid touching that third rail of his "ethnicity", whether it be perceived or actual.

I like my naval metaphors, so here goes:

Hillary can still pull off a victory, but it is no longer the one-sided one-shot affair of the IJN Yamato vs. a destroyer escort group.

The USS Obama just might be showing up on the radar as a full-size fleet carrier group, with plenty of fighters and money-bombers to spare.

[seekeronos]

"--- Lots of talking starting to happen on the right side blogs of Fred being the compromise candidate who may be able to work for compromise across the aisle without selling us down the river like McCain would. ---"

I truly wish that were the case. I'd do cartwheels if McCain and a potentially defeated Mitt were to withdraw from the race and toss their support to Fred in order to bring down the RINO Huckabee...

...But I don't see any pigs a-flying, nor do I have much hope that these powerlusting men will give way to a conservative with substance, principles, and a conscience.

Moreover, those of us who blog tend not to be typical of the average Joe Six-Pack who couldn't care less who is the POTUS so long as he can pay his cable bill and tune into "American Idol" or the Nathan's Hotdog eating contest on ESPN-8.

Like sheep, they will vote for the "most handsome" or "most presidential" looking guy, or the idiot who plays a musical instrument and can talk so that you feel nice and moist inside.

[TheSpartan]

Why on earth would Romney and McCain bow out to support a candidate who lags behind both of them in every major poll? I mean the guy isn't even sure he wants the job.

[seekeronos]

That wasn't my point, genius.

My point was that American voters are, for the most part, extremely shallow when it comes to making their choices at the voting booth. Especially for Presidents.

That's why you see the Fred lagging in the polls, except for probably TN, and ditto for McCain, except for NH and possibly AZ - they care less about positions, and more about pretty hair or if he can sing and play the gee-tar at the same time like trained monkeys.

[chris]

Fred Thompson is a flatulent old geezer with yellow teeth. He couldn't become President of his block association.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"descendants of southern states slaves"

So Seeker, are you saying the descendants of Northern states slaves have no cache? What, was that generation or two of freedom enough to civilize them to "off-white" status or something?

[seekeronos]

Nothing of the sort. The Northern states slave descendants were far fewer in number, as many of those states had a head start on emancipation.

Even so, those blacks were very much second class citizens... and were in many cases subject to even greater levels of ignominy and disrespect, since there was plenty of immigrant labour that was just as cheap as they were, if not cheaper... and the immigrants had their skin colour as a slight advantage to boot.

Contrasting their lot to the southern black slaves, who were often afforded a reasonable, if not terribly comfortable living - generally on an equal or slightly better par to the non-slave owning poor whites. Productive plantations had a far better record of taking care of their slaves, since the welfare of their slave stock was directly related to their agricultural production.

The Northern free blacks were largely assimilated into the larger migrations of southern (post-War of Southron Independence-freed) blacks.

Post-war and during the reconstruction, some Southron antipathy began to emerge toward the newly emancipated slaves (especially by the poorer whites who had to compete against the emancipates) as some fled north, others were co-opted by carpetbaggers and scalawags, and still others turned to banditry to make a living in a then bankrupted economy, with no means for the plantation owners to remunerate the neo-emancipate workers, save for sharecropping and the most wealthy plantation owners.

And even these divested themselves of the sharecroppers as mechanization eventually filtered down south. The results of this were seen in the 1950s-1960s as large masses of blacks migrated to the industrial belt cities of the north, taking cultural elements from the South as well as the (formerly) slave-patois which to this day influences African-American English (a.k.a. "Ebonics").

However, the Reconstruction period is an interesting study in the systematic destruction and holding back of Southron economic autonomy, and is perhaps more correctly perceived as a punitive regime to prevent the southern states from ever gaining an advantage during the lifetimes of those who fought for Secession.

[seekeronos]

"--- Fred Thompson is a flatulent old geezer with yellow teeth. He couldn't become President of his block association. ---"

Maybe so, but he gets to make babies with a very hot wife, while you (at best) have to root for satisfaction online in your Mama's basement. And assuming you live to be his age, you'll not likely be able to do much better.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

Very good disertation for a Canadian there Seeker. You've done a bit of actual study on the subject as usual. Very good grasp on "reconstruction". I'm sure you also know that the President who initiated those punitive steps toward bringing the south back into Union and who actually freed the slaves was himself a Southron. But I am not surprised, you very seldom step off into the abyss without a parachute. Your final statement "correctly perceived as a punitive regime to prevent the southern states from ever gaining an advantage during the lifetimes of those who fought for Secession." Is quite accurate except that the situation continued into the next two-three generations and has only reversed itself in the last 40 years. Very good mon frair. I wish I had you with me the next time one of our "new neighbors" asks me the typical "why can't they just forget it?"

[BobInStamford]

"Maybe so, but he gets to make babies with a very hot wife, while you (at best) have to root for satisfaction online in your Mama's basement. And assuming you live to be his age, you'll not likely be able to do much better."

Jesus-freaks with mail-order brides shouldn't throw stones. I think that's in the 'Bible' somewhere.

[TheSpartan]

"--- Fred Thompson is a flatulent old geezer with yellow teeth. He couldn't become President of his block association. ---"

Maybe so, but he gets to make babies with a very hot wife, while you (at best) have to root for satisfaction online in your Mama's basement. And assuming you live to be his age, you'll not likely be able to do much better.

I'm betting he has a stand in for that task...Fred probably hasn't been able to sport wood without pharmacuetical assistance since the Reagan administration...of course thoughts of the Reagan administration probably gives many of the readers here wood.

[Fred Beloit]

Ah, that Spart. Always trying to "elevate" the discussion.

[rwilymz]

"EVERYBODY knows who the black canddidate is."

Hardly.

There are times that Hillary is "black", and even "black"-er than "Barama".

"Put 'em all in a room together, tell somebody to pick out the black guy and it's gonna be Obama 100% of the time."

All you're suggesting is that voters are superficial, and don't wish to have anything to do with reality when they go to the polls.

That's cynical, even for me.

And not the least of the superficial reality-dodgers would be, um, ... vous, mon frer.

The reality is: "Barama" ain't "black". He is, quite literally, a mutt.

And in some ways, having a mutt for prez would be an even bigger coup for those who consider themselves "enlightened", because it would be from a demographic group that we do not even acknowledge as real. "Barama", to a very real degree, does not exist.

[Worst President Ever]

Your attempt to strip away Obama's blackness in favor of defining him as a mutt - which most of us are - is certainly curious. But it fits with your condescending use of "enlightened" and simply reveals how superficial, possibly bigoted, are your views and arguments. Threatened a bit are ya?

Anyone that can look at the pictures linked below and argue that Hillary is black and Obama isn't lives in a different world than me:

http://www.barackobama.com/photosv2/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/multimedia/photos/

[rhodeymark]

"Fred probably hasn't been able to sport wood without pharmacuetical assistance since the Reagan administration"

"Ah, that Spart. Always trying to "elevate" the discussion."

Yeah right - he can't even elevate THAT w/o pharmacuetical (sic) assistance.

[rwilymz]

"Your attempt to strip away Obama's blackness in favor of defining him as a mutt - which most of us are - is certainly curious."

Mainly to you, who is as superficial a twit as they come.

I am a "mutt" kraut and limey. "Barama" is a mutt african and paddy. They're hardly comparable.

...except to those who insist on equivocating away substantive differences in order to make their original non-points seem valid in the face of a contrary reality.

"But it fits with your condescending use of "enlightened" ..."

Most people who believe themselves "enlightened" are not, and so condescencion is warranted, even if strictly undiplomatic.

"how superficial, possibly bigoted, are your views and arguments."

How are **my** views "superficial"? I'm not the one trying to judge the guy on looks, but am instead insisting on looking at all of him -- white American mother, black african father -- and making a claim based thereupon. My views are **anti**superficial, in fact.

My arguments are furthermore spotlessly accurate: modern American demographics do not concede that "mutt" exists, and instead allows those with "mixed ancestry" to claim the ancestry which is most convenient for their immediate purposes. In this case, the ancestry which is most convenient is also more than a little contrived [and therefore dishonest], but when has that ever NOT been the case?

Ron Paul is a libertarian in republican's clothing; McCain is a democrat in same; Hillary is a carpet-bagger; and "Barama" is an American with recent African ancestry, but is not an "african-american" in the popular sense ... which honesty compels us to recognize as a somewhat disingenuous term for "American slave descendant".

As for "possibly bigoted", I'm sorry that being correct about everything is so scary to you, but of the two of us, I feel pretty safe in saying that I'm the only one who's voted for him to this point.

"Threatened"? Transfer on your own time, twitly. I am merely annoyed at the institutional dishonesty the same now as I was in grad school when learning how to conduct dishonest demographics.

[Worst President Ever]

America looks at Barack - that's his name - and they see a black man.

He gets elected, the headlines are gong to read "First Black Man Elected President." And it's going to be seen as a huge milestone for our coutnry. No one cares about splitting him into genetic slices.

"In this case, the ancestry which is most convenient is also more than a little contrived [and therefore dishonest],"

Right, because posing as black man to run for national office has worked so BRILLIANTLY in the past.

When you start delving into the genetic makeup of all the white candidates - hey, maybe one of them is black and is masquerading as a white guy just to get elected - I'll believe you're serious. And try using his real name rather then try to denigrating him. From here, it looks like you're an unenlightened racist jerk.

"I am merely annoyed at the institutional dishonesty the same now as I was in grad school when learning how to conduct dishonest demographics."

Putting labels on candidates - Paul = libertarian, McCain = democrat, Clinton = carpet-bagger - rather than examining their full voting record - get, how hypocritical of you.

[rwilymz]

"America looks at Barack - that's his name - and they see a black man."

Ah; not content on being disproved on all else, you're going to whimper about "Barama" now.

My wife and I live in S. IL and our families are from MI. We travelled to MI for xmas and because we travelled during what was supposed to be a potential snowstorm and through upper IL and IN, we kept tuned to Chicago AM radio which had frequent weather and traffic. WGN and WMMB don't talk politics per se, but they do talk about political things in the course of everything else. And one of their holiday replacement hosts who, from all indications is a "Barama" guy, repeatedly referenced Barack Obama as "Barama". Three times, I counted, in roughly an hour and a half.

Don't know if this was his little pet name, a local Chicago-area tradition, plain old inarticulation, or what, but it was comical.

"Barama" it is. And it's no more intrinsically offensive than "Shrillary", "Shrub", "Billary", "Ronnie Ray-gun" or anything else.

Skin as thin as your should quite possibly be medicated with blood clotters just in case you cut yourself shaving.

As for you contention that "America ... sees a black man" that is exactly the issue I'm carping about. ...in case you didn't know [and obviously you STILL don't know it].

WHY do they see a black man? Why do they see Ron Paul as a libertarian in republican clothing, et al? Because most Americans are S_U_P_E_R_F_I_C_I_A_L.

That is exactly what I'm talking about.

They see what they want because they:
1] don't WANT to see anything else;
2] don't KNOW ENOUGH to LOOK for something else;
3] and both of the above **mainly** for reasons that they have been conditioned to see their world -- in this case the political landscape -- in those terms and ONLY those terms.

Check the comments here by dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. McCain cannot be one of them because ... and they'll go on to rationalize why not. "He's a democrat". Huckababy isn't a "real" one of them because ... and they'll rationalize again.

Because it's so much neater, and so much more comparmentalizable, if "republican" meant "X" and "democrat" meant "Y" ... and "black" was similarly and trivially pigeon-holed.

And, speaking as someone whose post-bachelor edumacation was in sociology and part of *that* is heavily invested in matters of social research and the demographics pertaining to same, I can tell you with ZERO chance of being contradicted that modern American demographics is inCREDibly superficial -- and hence largely meaningless. They do well, in general, on matters of age and sex, but they mince around race and religion [and sexUALITY] with the dexterity of a gazelle.

"posing as black man to run for national office has worked so BRILLIANTLY in the past."

Considering who those black men were, they did incredibly well. Frankly, positing Sharpton and Jackson as relevant and serious candidates is as ridiculous as putting up Robertson and Buchanan.

But you hint at another of the aspects of demographics that I criticized a few days ago: since "mutt" doesn't exist, then neither -- in a manner of speaking -- does "Barama". We do not have the cultural ability, in issues of race, to be honest with ourselves. It would gore too many oxes.

There's a portion of us who believes that if black-white "mutts" were acknowleged, that it would signal an end of the relevance that certain discrimination issues have continued to maintain over the past generation-plus; and there are others of us who are relying on it.

The reality is, though you would be hard-pressed to find "official" studies that show it due to their inherently corrupt demographies, "mutts" are the fastest-growing demographic in the US when excluding first-generation immigrants. Black-white, white-"asian" ["asian" means "oriental" but we are too "polite" to say so; Arabs are also "asian", as are Indo-Iranians and Turks, but are excluded from that designation], black-"asian", white-hispanic [even though "hispanic" is not a "race" as such but a ethnologic sub-cat of race], et cetera. In short, two generations from now, the concept of "racial discrimination" will be as irrelevant and uninstructive as the notion [today] of hanging a sign in the window saying "No Irish need apply". Find me a paddy who'd seriously consider that a relevant marker of prejudice and I'll find you a guy who just hopped off a time machine.

And, frankly, the sooner we quit pretending the better off we'll all be.

Which means that for all practical purposes, that which is holding back our societal maturity in issues involving race is our [more/less official] insistence on defining ourselves is trivially superficial and inaccurate ways. We are lying to ourselves ABOUT ourselves, pretending we are what we are not.

So why isn't "Barama" running as a mutt, but instead having the nation tout him as a black? because "mutt" has no political identity for him to parlay into social relevance ... which is to say: votes.

And don't think it hasn't been focus-grouped to death, either.

"Barama" the Black will get more votes than "Barama" the Mutt. ...among blacks [for being black], and whites [for being a bright, "articulate" black].

Who's the group that responds favorably to mutts?

[rwilymz]

Pardon; my fingers became dyslexic. It is WBBM am 780 from Chicago...

[TheSpartan]

You do realize, of course, that your "mutt" designation carries other implications with it and you're just using it to play games.

[rwilymz]

"You do realize, of course, that your "mutt" designation carries other implications"

No, actually, I do not realize that. I do not keep up with the ever-changing, ever-fascinating and tres chic vernacular.

I was talking several months ago about some baseball business and used the common dismissive term for the team from Minnesota -- Twinks. My comments were immediately considered scurilous, by those under 25, for being a slap across the face of a great many.

Naturally, I thought it was a drug reference, for that is my era. Incorrect; it is another term for 'gay male'.

How they arive at it, I do not know.

Nor do I care.

But regardless, in another two years it will be long forgotten and the semi-literate dolts who continue to use and misuse the language and "just using it to play games" with will have supplanted "twinks" with another or several terms.

Same with "mutt". I truly have no idea what else it could mean apart from how I'm using it: someone with mixed heritage, especially recent. Consider me tragically unhip if you like; it would be your prerogative, as I consider your suggestion that I'm using it merely as some kind of code word to be you playing conspiracy theories.

We're even.

[househouseba]

the boys my in the a job I remember community probably home