"[Hillary] noticeably won the votes of those on lower incomes and without college degrees. In the words of that Clinton adviser: 'If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool.'"
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
39 comments:
Or, if you don't want to use tortured logic because you can't see anything but race: the more informed you are, the more you support Obama.
Froma Harrop (?) and Daniel Larison on Obama:
http://larison.org/2008/01/10/laughable/
"No female — young, old, black or white — could ever play the knight-on-charger with meager experience. If she presented herself as the human embodiment of national unity and world peace, everyone would have fallen down laughing." ~Froma Harrop
This is quite right. The question that keeps puzzling me is why there aren’t more people laughing at Obama. His is an absurd and pretentious pose. It seems unlikely that people will continue to indulge this fantasy for another ten months.
(...)
Anyone remember "where's the beef"? Probably a bad phrase to use when referring to a black guy.
There was an interesting article on rhetorical styles that described Obama as a priest (stressing idealism and higher principles, white collar appeal) and Hillary as a warrior (tough, veteran, persistent, blue collar appeal).
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brownstein25mar25,1,5029431.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions&ctrack=1&cset=true
You could even extend this to make Edwards a rogue (charming, sneaky).
OK, you see where this is going. Dennis Kucinich, with his mysticism, is obviously a magic-user. ;)
"Your imaginary hip black friend..."
Yes, exactly, at least for the younger set more concerned with hipness. For the older ones, it's more of what Steve has already talked about: the urge for whites to prove to black America that America isn't racist (or at least it's not racism that's keepin' them down), and thereby hopefully convince them to stop being so dysfunctional. People would rather not actually make explicit statements to this effect; it's considered uncouth and puts the speaker at risk of being called a racist.
Where am I getting this, JA? Is it because I've been brainwashed by ISteve propaganda? Not exactly. I hear it on conservative talk radio. People have called up and said things to the effect of, even though they are strongly opposed to every concrete, substantive prescription Obama has mentioned, they like the idea of a black president because of what it "proves" or the "message it sends".
yeah, because voters 18-24 (who supported Obama over Clinton 60-22) are so much better informed and less of status whores than their elders
That's the only thing the Guardian has ever published that I agree with.
Hilary for your social needs, Slick Willy for your sexual. What an offer.
Jewish atheist:WRONG! You missed the whole point! Obama speaks in vague generalities,you kind of make up your own vision of who he is; Steves assessment of Barry's suport among younger people because they see themselves as hip and cool sounds good to me. "The more informed..." Informed about what,exactly? Obama says he's gonna achieve "racial reconciliation"...in the words of jerry Seinfeld:that doesnt sound good!!! I wonder why no one has brought up the fact that the massive violence in Kenya--the church burnings,(REAL church burnings,not the fake ones like we have here),limbs hacked off,mass rape, is being carried out by Obama's tribe,the Inky-Blacks. (aka the Luo) Shouldnt somebody call on him to "denounce" the violence or something??? -Josh
that's a great quote... i am an ultra conservative by temperament, but i want hillary so i can get free health insurance. obama won't get anything done, but he'll look pretty cool as president
JA: that would be a simpler and more reasonable explanation if it were the case that there is something about Obama that would make him a better president and which better-informed people are aware of -- if there were some there there. Opinions will vary, naturally, but for my money: nuh-uh. Therefore, some other explanation is required.
Now Steve, have you become an advisor to the Clinton campaign again.
Yes, the more informed you are the more likely you are to support the youngest, least experienced, most callow candidate with the most feel-good stands on serious policy issues.
Makes perfect sense. If you are a guilt-ridden white liberal hoping to score status points among your peers.
"Or, if you don't want to use tortured logic because you can't see anything but race: the more informed you are, the more you support Obama."
My speculation is that Obama polls strongest among college students and white women who watch "Oprah". That is not a demographic I would call "informed".
"Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).
Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him."
From the L.A. Times article, by David Ehrenstein, "Obama the 'Magic Negro'
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Penned in March of 2007, it was probably asking less, "Why Obama over Hillary?", but more, "What is he doing running for President with THAT resume and how on earth did he then make it into the top tier?"
By the way, I presume that Hillary's advisor uses "have a social need" as a euphemism for "want more money from the taxpayers."
Muswell Hillbilly:
Where am I getting this, JA? Is it because I've been brainwashed by ISteve propaganda? Not exactly. I hear it on conservative talk radio. People have called up and said things to the effect of, even though they are strongly opposed to every concrete, substantive prescription Obama has mentioned, they like the idea of a black president because of what it "proves" or the "message it sends".
You really shouldn't be getting your understanding about liberals from people who call into conservative talk radio! They pre-screen their callers, don't they? I wouldn't at all put it past them to put through callers that would reinforce exactly that perception.
Anonymous/Josh:
Jewish atheist:WRONG! You missed the whole point! Obama speaks in vague generalities,you kind of make up your own vision of who he is; Steves assessment of Barry's suport among younger people because they see themselves as hip and cool sounds good to me.
He does speak in generalities (because that's what's effective in politics -- if you want details, go to his website) and it's true that people will project their wishes on such a candidate, but I've never heard of people supporting a candidate because he's hip.
I've supported Obama for a long time now, and I've never bragged about it to show how non-racist I am or how hip I am -- he was the only major candidate right about the Iraq war from the beginning, and he's the first Democrat since Bill Clinton to have the charisma to win decisively. It's not like I'm going into bars and trying to pick up chicks by telling them that I support the big O.
I wonder why no one has brought up the fact that the massive violence in Kenya... Shouldnt somebody call on him to "denounce" the violence or something??? -Josh
Um, he has denounced it and is working against it. He's spoken to Kenya's opposition leader and collaborated with the U.S. government, especially Condi Rice, who asked him to record a message for Voice of America in Kenya, which he did.
Everybody:
Obama's the real deal, folks -- a Democratic Ronald Reagan who can appeal to both parties. Just because he's black, "hip," and charismatic doesn't mean that he doesn't have substance, intelligence, and the ability to lead. Do some research -- his detailed positions are up on his website. His history speaks for itself, if you use sources other than Sailer to learn about him.
Are some people supporting him just because he's black? No doubt. Just as some Hillary supporters support her because she's a woman or some people oppose Romney because he's a Mormon. People can be right for the wrong reasons, folks.
Anyone remember "Serial" , the Martin Mull film? Mull's wife is interviewing maids and hires a black housecleaner. At the end of the formalities she asks "Could you not wear a uniform?" -- this being the days when there were black maids who wore uniforms. The woman responds
"Oh, you want me to pretend I am your black friend that just happens to stop by every week and clean your house."
Without a pause comes the dead pan answer , "Could ya?"
A movie well ahead of its time, Serial.
If you're looking at the possibility of winning electoral coalitions, Obama is a loser.
His coalition (young people, approx. 14% of the population, and status-obsessed yuppies) is simply not big enough.
Hillary's coalition is of course bigger, since there are more lower-income people who put economic needs over status needs. "Approval" or social status or "desire to end racism" or whatever the heck Obama's status as a Black man running for President appeals to are all "nice to haves."
On the list of priorities, those appeals to social approval and status will only work if you are economically secure, meaning HIGH INCOME and assuredness of income. Any perceived threat to continued high income puts pocketbook issues of income stability first.
Obama might or might not win based on ethnic pandering (his appearance in Vegas had the largely Mexican crowd chanting 'Si se puede') along with status-obsessed young people and yuppies. The Democratic Party has been becoming that electoral coalition since 1968.
But nearly all Republican candidates can better that with outright economic populism. [Except perhaps McAmnesty.] Even Huckabee whom I loathe can play that card better than Obama (the weakest Dem candidate) and possibly even Hillary.
What we are seeing with Obama vs. Hillary is perhaps the end of the traditional Dem FDR-style politics. Sure to be picked up by the GOP.
Yeah Steve, DUH working class people want subsidies from taxpayers. Archer-Daniels Midland get them, why not them? [Obama has been called the Senator from ADM.] To the extent that working class people see no wage growth and income growth coming down the pipeline they exchange higher taxes for tax payer subsidies. This has been the case in Europe.
Politics is all about reconciling the polity with policy. In the case of Obama, the Democrat polity is more interested in personality rather than policy.
It follows that Democrat political preferences for Obama will only be "skin deep" ie will not withstand the inevitable ups and downs of political conflict. The cool black friendship will tend to be fairweather.
One would therefore be inclined to bet on Clinton over Obama in the long term.
But Edwards is better than both of them. He is from the South, a successful businessman and more experienced in government. That has got to put him in better shape to take votes of the Republicans, which is what it takes to become President. (Not just win beauty contests or interest group panders amongst the Democrat base.)
Plus, he has also admitted he was wrong on the War, a good sign.
the urge for whites to prove to black America that America isn't racist (or at least it's not racism that's keepin' them down), and thereby hopefully convince them to stop being so dysfunctional. People would rather not actually make explicit statements to this effect; it's considered uncouth
I heard this from my perfectly couth friend today and a few weeks back.
He said, in an infinitely exhausted tone of voice -- :
"If Obama is elected, at least the racial stuff will go away."
I reminded him today that concessions don't pacify; they encourage further aggressiveness. If Obama is elected, every black in the country will say or feel, "Whitey is through." Far from tempering black racism, Obama's election would inflame it. Not long after the Civil Rights Act was passed, cities were burned to the ground and the black-on-white crime rate skyrocketed.
If Obama is elected, prepare to see a repeat of the terrible moment when OJ was acquited - times 100.
the more informed you are, the more you support Obama.
WTF? Informed about WHAT?
"Informed" in this usage doesn't denote "possessing more knowledge." It is merely connotes. It's only meant to conjure up feelings. You're supposed to feel: "cooler, trendier, hipper - with it."
Meaning jewish atheist has the same criterion for choosing presidential candidates (and words) as that of girls in high school and Oprah-watchers.
Hillary-supporters are not less knowledgeable than Obama-supporters. Nor are blue-collar working people necessarily less knowledgeable than college kids: many of the latter are woefully ignorant as compared to the former; but they are incomparably arrogant. Almost as arrogant as Jewish atheists... :-)
Hey JA, got your Obama tramp stamp yet? All the cool people have one. Better hurry out and get one.
he was the only major candidate right about the Iraq war from the beginning,
What's Ron Paul, chopped liver? Didn't Obama come in after the vote? Isn't that a poor substitute for an actual anti-war stance (something Obama manifestly does not have - see antiwar.com)?
Obama wouldn't stop the war. Paul would.
What are the odds of a Jewish Atheist crossing party lines and voting for a Republican?
Democrats and their bullshit, what a booooore. I mean, Republicans are insufferable, but Dems are off-the-scale full of shit. Hence, the total lack of an anti-war Dem candidate, and their distinctions without difference vis-a-vis Iraq.
There was an interesting article on rhetorical styles that described Obama as a priest (stressing idealism and higher principles, white collar appeal) and Hillary as a warrior (tough, veteran, persistent, blue collar appeal).
-sfg
Hmm, Hillary as an orc warrior...
OK, you see where this is going. Dennis Kucinich, with his mysticism, is obviously a magic-user. ;)
Well, he's clearly a gnome, so I guess it figures.
jewish atheist,
I appreciate your take on Obama and it is perfectly understandable. I strongly believe that voters look at a group of candidates, assume and trust that they met some minimum threshold to be where they are and then vote for the one with innate leadership qualities, looks like a leader (tall, handsome). and who they can relate to. The problem many of us see with the Dems is that while their constituency is enthusiastic, the candidates are weak. It appears that minority candidates were raised up and encouraged rather than the most qualified candidates. This will be problematic in the general as the weakest Republican has far more experience than the Dem's strongest (Thompson versus Edwards is the only pairing that might have some parity).
The strongest Dem vis a vis qualifications and experience was Richardson (even had executive experience as a governor!). Too bad he looked like the Pillsbury Dough Boy and wasn't a great orator... looking like the dough boy was the worse sin.
"...the more informed you are, the more you support Obama."
"Obama's the real deal, folks -- a Democratic Ronald Reagan who can appeal to both parties."
My sides are still aching after the guffaws that erupted after reading these two statements. We all know Obama's platform:
1) Tax the rich white folks into oblivion
2) Capitulate to the UN on all foreign affairs matters
A latter day Reagan...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, tears, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, more tears, hiccups...
JA said:
You really shouldn't be getting your understanding about liberals from people who call into conservative talk radio! They pre-screen their callers, don't they? I wouldn't at all put it past them to put through callers that would reinforce exactly that perception.
Uh... huh. Are you pretending to be that stupid for humorous effect or do you actually just happen to be that stupid?
Liberals are much more prone to be concerned with that kind of emotional hand-holding of blacks than conservative are. DUH. And if you deny that, well, there we are, back to the whole question of whether you're really that dumb or just putting us all on.
I heard this from my perfectly couth friend today and a few weeks back.
I should have been more clear... they do not want to say it to, or in the presence of, blacks (or publicly, which is the same thing). They would much rather make symbolic gestures in the grand tradition of how whites have dealt with uncomfortable racial issues for the last couple decades... circuitous avoidance of any kind of confrontation.
CNN's piece on O's Granny was telling. She's lives in a mud hut and eats grubs...ok a slight exaggeration, however, this lady is dirt poor. If like O, you had bread and status, wouldn't you give the old lady a little bit of help???
FYI: Jewish Atheist supports the status quo on immigration, so a dream candidate for him is probably a non-starter for the rest of us here and most Republicans (provided that the latter are smart enough to see through all the uplifting platitudes, which may be to much to ask).
Speaking of immigration, I wonder if JA considers himself (or herself?) "more informed" about the matter than the likes of Steve, Borjas, and Krikorian.
Obama's granny isn't really his granny. His paternal grandmother was his polygamous grandfather's second wife, but she ran off with another man. Her two kids (including the Senator's father) ran away from home to be with her, but after two weeks in the open country, they were brought back to their father. They were then raised by his third wife, their mother's ex-co-wife, who is the one he calls "Granny." We don't have a word for the relationship between Obama and the lady he calls "Granny" in American English.
Anyway, Obama's family would be an interesting topic for anthropology students to write terms papers on. It would be very educational for Americans in general to learn about Obama's family, since we 21st Century Americans tend to assume that polygamy is confined to Utah.
The white democrats are playing the part of Desdemona to a T. They will defend Obama/Othello even after he strangles their party. He may end up as president. I don't know exactly what to think of that, but the "sole superpower" status of America is already over, and our potential dalliances in the heart of darkness could hammer the final nail in the American Imperium's coffin. Not to say Hillary would be much better.
What gets me is that people don't have a clue how far we can fall. I can only hope they decommission our nukes before the wrong people get ahold of them, but it may be too late for that already...
You know what Jewish Atheist is going to say before he says it. Would that all culture destroyers label themselves in this manner.
Anyone who thinks black rule will be good for America has never lived under black rule. Ask a south african expat some time, or just look at Detroit.
Funny piece of Obama's (and others) vacuousness:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2240115,00.html
rosamund: I'm not sure Obama's resume is especially bad among Democratic frontrunners. He has more experience in office (state and federal) than either Clinton or Edwards, unless you count Clinton's being married to the governor/president as political experience. (I guess it is, sort-of, but it's not quite the same as actually holding office.) Both Clinton and Edwards have more experience at the federal level, but not all that much more--Edwards spent six years in the senate, Clinton has spent eight or so years there, Obama's spent two or so years in the Senate.
Indeed, I think most of the same complaints about Obama apply to Edwards--he's a successful, articulate, smart and good looking lawyer with very little relevant experience, running for president basically on the fact that the insiders have so royally screwed up that being an inexperienced outsider looks like a plus. Obama's running a bit to the right of Edwards, probably because he can't afford to come off as divisive or too leftist, for fear of frightening white voters away.
Obama's the real deal, folks -- a Democratic Ronald Reagan who can appeal to both parties.
Governor Reagan spent years traveling the country talking about conservatism before he became president. By the time he was elected, people knew what he stood for. Obama? Not really.
The real reason Obama doesn't have to talk about his platform is because everyone knows exactly what that platform is - the same far left platform pushed by radicals since the days of Emma Goldman.
As for Obama's higher income, better educated supporters being immune from economic self-interest, I wonder how many of them are earning 6 figure salaries at government-funded universities (public or private), are government bureaucrats, or are working in law firms milking the current incarnation of tort law. A lot of the Obama supporters I personally know are just such people.
"Or, if you don't want to use tortured logic because you can't see anything but race: the more informed you are, the more you support Obama."
"Or, if you don't want to use tortured logic because you can't see anything but race: if you've read Obama's book about "race & inheritance", if you are skeptical of Afro-centric pseudo-Christianity, you'll vote for someone else."
Really, Jewish Atheist, you essentially said that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist.
@David
"If Obama is elected, prepare to see a repeat of the terrible moment when OJ was acquited - times 100."
I thought along these lines after seeing a clip show that had some "Championship Defeat/Victory Riot" footage. I would argue a high probability for violence if Obama is the democratic candidate. Win or lose. To those such as JA who may claim that it's just mean to point this out, a little free advice:
Enjoy wrapping yourself in moral superiority and talking down to we hoi polloi,but stay out of the hood on election day.
I live in New Hampshire and voted in the primary. Perhaps some reality-checking needs to be done.
As a matter of my privacy and to prevent the waste of my time, I refused to comment to the dozens of phone calls from pollsters before the campaign and refused to do an exit interview. From what I know of my neighbors, these actions aren't unusual. Most of us don't give out polling information (though I have one friend who deliberately gives out bad information!).
So I don't believe the polls tell you much more than that the people who respond to polls claim to have these opinions. The people who answer the polls probably aren't a random selection from the primary voters, and to assume that the poll results correctly predict what the non-responders believe is probably incorrect.
-John
NH-ite:
Pollsters certainly know about this effect, as well as the impact of more and more people having no landline. It should only matter to the extent that refusal to talk to pollsters correlates with your likely vote, right? That seems less likely than the idea that having only a cellphone correlates with your vote, since that also correlates with age.
Post a Comment