quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...you really are stuck with that two value thing aren't you?

Ok, let's imagine an election where there are more than two candidates. Let's say there are six candidates. All party based. You like the stance of party A, hate the stance of party B and have no particular opinion of parties C, D, E and F.
Now, usually we get to vote for just one candidate. So our imaginary voter votes for party A, which gives us a result of A- 1 vote, B,C,D,E,F- no votes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
Therefore, any reason to vote for a candidate must be a reason to vote against another candidate, and vice-versa.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Voting against someone based on race or gender is definitely bigoted. Voting for someone because of race or gender isn't quite the same thing. It has a lot to do with feelings of community that are not that different from the reasons we see major presidential candidates always carrying their home state. There is a perception that the candidate will deliver for that state or that race or that gender or at the very least that the candidate will be sympathetic to that state or group's concerns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
If there has never been anything other than a white president in 220 years, voting for a black candidate just to see if someone of a different race could do an equally good job, would not fit the factual racism definition -  i.e. voting based on race because one feels that a certain race and all its members is either inferior or superior.

quote:

Also an interesting splitting of hairs.  Are you making a distinction between "race-based" and "racist" thinking in this regard?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

General reply -
 
I think that there needs to be a recognition between being able to identify with a candidate and thus vote for that person or being against a candidate because of perceived group charcteristics (gender, race, etc).

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Going back to the original post the question was "Do any of the panelists think there were some white folks that wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he was black?" which implies the position of "I will not vote for any black candidate."

Then the second proposition is presented thus "Were there any blacks that were voting for Obama simply because he was black, and were there any women out there that voted for Hillary simply because she was a woman?" which implies "I'm voting for this candidate because he is black."

The first and second propositions are similiar but not identical and that is the crux of the issue.

Why does the second proposition not imply "I will vote for any black candidate"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

General reply -
 
I think that there needs to be a recognition between being able to identify with a candidate and thus vote for that person or being against a candidate because of perceived group charcteristics (gender, race, etc).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

FR:  What I don't understand is why so many of you assume that voting for someone who "looks like me"/"thinks like me"/"comes from my background"/"empathises with me" is a good thing.  To the extent I'm an elitist, fine...call me an elitist.  But look at the "average American."  Do you really want HIM or HER running your country?

A supporter famously called out to Adlai Stevenson "Mr. Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking person!"
Stevenson shot back "Its not enough!  I need a majority!"

Remember, he lost, too.

E. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

General reply -
 
I think that there needs to be a recognition between being able to identify with a candidate and thus vote for that person or being against a candidate because of perceived group charcteristics (gender, race, etc).

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

While I think the quote is hilarious, I have to ask what you mean by the "average American".  Does that mean those with wealth and power are more intelligent and better qualified?  I think the last 8 years have proven that to be a fallacy.