10 Responses to Is What Obama Said About Small Town People True?

  1. Christian Prophet says:

    It was true if you are a psychologizer, a generalizer and, dare I say, a racist. Obama spoke what he really believes about Americans instead of carefully planned campaign words, and it showed people the real Obama. See:
    http://christianprophecyisspam.blogspotspammer.com/

  2. Mike says:

    This is just another example of media scandal mongering. From yesterday to today, I’ve seen the corporate news outlets move from providing context to the remarks to simply paraphrasing them with an emphasis on the word “bitter”. I think it’s outrageous that television talking heads making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year fancy themselves as community scolds for politicians that speak the truth about the conditions of life in America. Fortunately, most of the callers on C-SPAN this morning agreed with me on this. So long as corporate media treats us like children we’ll continue getting stuck with criminals in the White House.

  3. As a person who has worked as a survey methodologist and as a statistician, I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up the Number One flaw inherent in all surveys, namely that people lie.

    A lot.

    Seriously. People answer in accordance with what they think the interviewer wants to hear, or with the attitude that they’d “like” to have but don’t. No one really knows why just yet — theories include a desire to please, or a desire to spread and encourage altruism (without actually being altruistic oneself), but the fact is I’ve seen studies where “demonstrated” preferences were nearly a polar opposite from “stated” preferences.

    That’s why the better surveys are so arduous and aggravating for the one taking them — they have to build in lots of redundant, reworded, converse and other questions to try to “trick” people into telling the truth. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is a perfect example.

  4. Thanks for the empirical data. Certainly I hate the generalization. And I am
    so disappointed that the media talking heads are pouncing on this goof. But
    one major issue is that Hillary is a Clinton. She is clinging to her husbands
    claim that the economy was good in the 90′, and that they love Pennsyvanians.
    Well how did they leave them behind and what will they do for them in the 90′?
    Hillary will ride this dead horse and hopefully Pennsylvanian will ask them
    selves if Hillary plans to use them to step up in Washington and then continue
    to look past them four 4 more years. Or worse still as hard as this issue is
    The Clintons’ and McCain will shoot Obama down and do absolutely nothing for
    them.

  5. Jim says:

    Alan, thanks for the comment. The tendency for individuals to dissemble makes a reliance on a univariate statistic problematic. That’s why I spoke regarding variation on a dependent variable according to one or more independent variables; it’s the variation in answers that matters here more than some fixed statistic. It’s also why, where possible, I’ve looked at multiple questions pointing at the same concept and looked for consistencies and discounted inconsistencies across them.

  6. Junga says:

    What Obama said was not about all small town people. It was about small town people in Pennsylvania who have had difficult economic times and have retreated into desperate ideological positions. He was talking about why those people, and only those people, have done so.

  7. Tom says:

    So here’s the media going on and on about some comment that one or the other of the candidates have said when they let slide all the outright lies that Bush and Cheney have told us and continue to tell us.

    We’re so completely screwed as a supposed “intelligent species” – we’re so effing smart that we’re killing ourselves, know it, and won’t do anything about it. THAT’s why we’re toast in the long run. We are surely going to learn the hard way why it’s unsustainable for the top 1% of the world’s population to own or control at least 50% of the wealth and resources, why fossil fuels aren’t going to make our lives any better if we continue to use them for energy, and why overpopulation of the world by humans (or any one species) causes their ecological demise.

    Sound bites. With all that’s going on in the world that needs our direct attention and action we parse people’s words. What a bad joke American democracy has become.

    Put any of the three top candidates in office, track their policy positions out to 4 or 8 years and you’ll see that NONE of them will be able to change things for the better in any meaningful way (enough to avoid the climate catastrophe unfolding before us). There’s simply too much inertia to overcome. We’ll still be relying on fossil fuels well into the middle of the century and the results won’t be advantageous for any of us, let alone future generations. Take the Iraq War for another example: McCain wants us to stay there for at least another 10 years, Obama and Clinton have both stated that even if they start pulling troops out immediately, that it’ll take at least 2 years to bring them all home (hopefully not in caskets). So our economy will continue to bleed money we can’t afford to lose any longer, and the consequences again won’t be any fun.

  8. Gloom'n'doom'n'lib says:

    tommy boy, you whining little progressive putz. Your favorite house nigger spouts his elitism for the world to hear and some how you turn it into a Bush bash.

    You clowns run a commnuist cunt and a racist nigger and wonder why you don’t win elections!!! Duhhhhh!! MUWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA :-)

  9. “Gloomy’s” comment (#9) indicates to me that Obama’s remarks were not so far out in left field as all that.

    Even if it was meant ‘ironically’, I’ve overheard plenty of talk, both on-line and off-, from white people who think and feel that way for real. There are *plenty* of white racists left in ‘Merka, and unfortunately, they vote too.

    How the hell ya think we wound up with Bush in the first place? Still think it was Nader’s fault? Pffft.

  10. Mother Davis says:

    The creation of this issue is a transparent attempt to appeal to some Americans’ racist anger at the people they resent as “uppity blacks”. That’s what Hillary Clinton’s “elitist” comment was aimed at. It is a shameful distraction from truly important issues.

    To the extent that Americans indulge in the hype over this non-issue, they are doing so because they’re looking for an excuse to hate Barack Obama, not for his policies, but for who he is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>