Slog - Comments on The Reverse Bradley Effect

Comment by Ginger

Ginger — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:15:19 -0800

Josh, I did not know you were black. Of course you must be to have some sort of inside track on how we vote, no?

Comment by Josh Feit

Josh Feit — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:18:28 -0800

Ginger @1,
Yeah, me and Lou Reed. Like, totally black.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:24:03 -0800

At least you said "blacks".

Comment by SeMe

SeMe — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:24:48 -0800

Josh is right on this. The NYT piece is just about where the "leaders" are on this, and they ( the leaders) never really have delivered any votes. This piece is just typical journalists looking for a "story". The black public will go with senator Obama. Where Obama is going to have trouble is with the Latino vote which tends to be older, centrist Latinos, if he does win the nominationhe can fix this if he chooses Richardson as his running mate in the general election.

my understanding is that he won a big chunk of the Latino vote from Chicago. He should get a lot of those progressive Latinos from Illi to go out for him.

Comment by Lynneland

Lynneland — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:28:09 -0800

There is no auto black for black vote. Please....just as there is no auto woman for woman vote. Who can be a woman's greatest critic? The same is true of blacks. I think the split in this case is valid. I do believe that evangelical will almost always vote like kind. Peace.

Comment by Duh

Duh — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:29:50 -0800

Meanwhile, white men like Josh Feit will vote for Mitt Romney.

Comment by unPC

unPC — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:31:23 -0800

@1:

1. Male writers talk about female voters.
2. Female writers talk about male voters.
3. Southern writers talk about Northern voters.
4. PNW writers talk about SC voters.
5. Black writers talk about white voters.
6. White writers talk about black voters.
7. Pro tax cut writers talk about anti tax cut voters.
8. Anti tax cut writers talk about pro tax cut voters.

So....is just #5 an issue -- whites can't talk about blacks ?
Or is the rule that no one can talk about anyone else who is of a different race or gender or belief (##1-8)?

Comment by heywhatsit

heywhatsit — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:31:47 -0800

Sounds more like Josh is trying to cover his pro-HRC ass in case the state goes for Obama. Remember what happened in New Hampshire? The polls looked like an Obama slam dunk but it didn't go that way. One popular explanation was the way NH voters responded to pollsters versus they way they actually voted. He's just getting ahead of the curve here.

Comment by SeMe

SeMe — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:32:48 -0800

@5
I dont think is automatic either. What people fail to point out is that Obama EARNED IT, despite what the black "leadership" says.

For the record, Im still for that soon to be declared loser Edwards.

Comment by thequestion

thequestion — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:43:26 -0800

The real question is whether Obama will be able to get new voters to the polls. If he can bring in a significant number of historical non-voters the Democrats might be able to take back some southern states.

Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty

Fifty-Two-Eighty — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:19 -0800

You know, the odd thing about the press is that any asshole with an opinion can spout off any inane bullshit they want to (like this post), and we're supposed to genuflect before their great wisdom. Josh doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, and neither do the "experts."

Comment by Tlazolteotl

Tlazolteotl — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:41:06 -0800

Josh, you're being an asshat again!

Comment by tomcat98109

tomcat98109 — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:04:39 -0800

"Josh doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, and neither do the "experts." "

Yeah, but at least the NYT is talking to black leaders. The only black person Josh talks to is Mudede.

Comment by Reverse Polarity

Reverse Polarity — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:33:51 -0800

Josh, normally I got your back. Even if I disagree with you, at least you usually have some valid backing or research for your assertions.

But this statement is pure unadulterated speculation. On what basis do you make this assertion, this "Fact", that blacks will overwhelmingly vote for Obama?

You may be right. You may be wrong. But if you're going to pretend to be a reporter, I'd like to see some data that at least vaguely supports this assertion. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.

Comment by unPC

unPC — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:37:08 -0800

fascinating.

Josh says: Blacks will vote for Obama.

No one actually disagrees with that observation -- But what a shitstorm for his temerity in saying it!

Q.E.D.!

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:53:47 -0800

@15... you are completely wrong.

out of 15, only 2 or 3 even didn't agree with his temerity in saying it.

every other comment either agrees with josh, or disagrees with his logic, not with him making what you consider a bold statement.

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:06:29 -0800

Is it National Brotherhood Week already?

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:27:34 -0800

Ssshhh. Don't wake the MSM. They have to pretend Sen Clinton is black.

Comment by neo-realist

neo-realist — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:19:06 -0800

black people may vote in overwhelming numbers for Obama, but will those votes count? I read the other day that South Carolina has ok'd the use of touch screen voting machines-the sure fire method of electing republican, or democrats that stand the best chance of losing to republicans.