A lot of people have been talking about the presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that took place on April 16, 2008. But talk is cheap and volatile. People can change their words lickety-split. People can’t change the material world around them as quickly, which makes the commitment to some material object or change important to note. In the case of politics, I’m talking about that moment a person says, “Yep. It’s time for me to put a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker on my car,” or “I want an Obama 08 lawn sign in front of my home.” That’s a marker of commitment, backed by the outlay of cash, stronger and more lasting than the utterance of words.
In the 34 hours since the end of the Clinton-Obama debate, 96.4% of our sales of Election 2008 bumper stickers, buttons, yard signs and such have been items expressing support for Barack Obama. 3.6% of our election sales have been items expressing support for Hillary Clinton.
Huh? You use quotation marks: “bitch/liar/why can’t you ever find a sniper when you need one/blue dress/blue dress/blue dress”
When did Barack Obama ever say such a thing? He never did.
You are such a transparently fake “former Obama supporter”!
Silly to think that your bumper sticker sales have anything to do with the debate. I’m surprised at your lack of insight (or else your deliberate effort to make the debate look less bad for Barack than it was.)
Your website is of a “certain bent” (very liberal/young/activist/MoveOn types) that appeals to the same demographics, I wager, who fall for Obama and who loudly shout about and swoon over his self-proclaimed virtues. (It has been noted elsewhere that Obama gear was already outselling Clinton gear about 10-to-one on your site.)
Since the vast majority of your readers are heavily pro-Obama to start with (enough to decorate their cars with his name), they naturally reacted to his poor showing at the debate with an outpouring of outrage and renewed support. No surprise there.
The real question is, how did centrist Dems and fence-sitting Repubs feel about the debate? Were they wowed by Obama? Enough to choose him over McCain?
Since I doubt many centrist Dems or potential crossover Repubs frequent your site, I don’t think your bumper sticker sales mean a damn thing — except that Obama’s fans stay loyal to their savior… no matter what.
Jocely,
That’s an interesting theory on your part. But our sales in the fall of 2007 trended with large majorities for Hillary Clinton and very small minorities for Barack Obama, and our trends in sales have closely matched the trends in sales of all political items from all stores at CafePress on a week to week basis. We also have seen regular spikes in sales of election-related bumper stickers in the 24 hours following the 21 Democratic presidential debates of the past year, lending credence to the notion that yes, some people do make determinations of commitment in the period following a debate.
I understand from your writing that you are upset that Barack Obama will probably be the Democratic presidential nominee, but please don’t let your upset cloud your eyes. Please read our critiques of Barack Obama and our congratulations of Hillary Clinton, when they have been due.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Right. That’s why I don’t respond to you. How silly of me to forget.
Ever notice that Iroquois is constantly accusing others of bias but has never owned up to any of her own? I love how she tries to maintain the appearance of impartiality while her own personal gripes (especially with the male gender) ooze from her posts like pus from an open wound.
Oh, and Iroquois, I don’t regularly call women “babe”. I use it with you only because I like to imagine the steam venting from your ears when you read it Honey Bunch… mwwahhhh ha ha ha
Just stopping by to blow Iroquois some kisses before heading out to the polls here in PA to cast a vote for Obama. Smootches Lover XXOOXO!
Several points:
1. First of all, there’s no problem with bias: we’re all biased, unless we’ve had a lobotomy. The problem is when NEWS agencies don’t REVEAL their bias upfront. Since we commoners get all our info from the news (I haven’t sat down with any candidate lately to quiz him/her in person) we need either a fair-to-all report, or a disclaimer upfront (“Pro-Obama site; don’t look for fairness here”)
2. Second of all, as a science-minded person I simply have to laugh at the idea that the bumper sticker sales on a given website reflect a candidate’s performance in a debate. Here are some of the variables NOT revealed i the aritcle above:
a. What were the merchandise sales in the preceding week; how did they change after the debate?
b. What were the TOTAL sales (not percentages) for each candidate, compared to previous weeks?
c. What percentage of your readers are adamantly pro-Obama vs pro-Clinton to begin with?
d. How many pro-Clinton vs. pro-Obama readers are the type to put bumper stickers on cars? (personally, I’m in the hell-no category here).
e. How many pro-Clinton and pro-Obama readers have already put enough bumper stickers on their cars (it’s LATE APRIL folks!) and at this point are no longer shopping for political decor?
All of which is just dancing around the topic of importance: did the debate convince any undecideds, Clintonistas, or McCainers to pledge allegiance to Obama? Does this number exceed the number of people who, based on the debate, came away with a negative impression of him?
Let me give a comparable example to clarify things for the statistically challenged: One can go to Israel during Passover and count the percentage of matzohs vs Ritz crackers bought in a certain corner store. This is a slightly flawed way to find out what percentage of locals observe Passover customs, but an absolutely terrible way to estimate how many people worldwide are rallying to the Zionist cause. Any Zionist news agency that trumpets the statistic as “evidence” of the world’s support for Israel, is guilty of either idiocy or intentional manipulation of the facts.
Either of which is enough to make me look elsewhere for actual news.
Your former reader,
Jocely
Well, boo hoo. I’m so sorry Jocelyn, I was polite to you the first time around, but now you’ve made me so sad I’m just going to have to lash out in anguish. Sob, sob. Moan, moan. Rage, rage. Good bye, cruel world! Please, please, please don’t kill yourself in your distress! You’ve driven me to absinthe! Absinthe, I tell you! Little green worms are coming out of the wallpaper right now, and it’s all your fault! Fainting chair, where is my fainting chair?
Yes, this is just one observation and cannot possibly be global. But you’re also making a large number of incorrect assumptions in asking those questions. For instance, you assume that most people who buy the bumper stickers etc. sold by Irregular Times do so by coming through the Irregular Times website. This is not true. The large supermajority of people who buy them actually drift in through Google, where our “hillary clinton bumper sticker” ranking and our “barack obama bumper sticker” ranking are comparable. This is continuing your trend of making incorrect assumptions, one you started with the first time you posted here. I answered those assumptions the first time around, and now… hey, why should I answer your questions? I mean, it’s pretty odd you’re asking questions when you’re saying at the same time you’re never going to come back to hear the answers. That’s not very “scientific.” Your questions have answers. But why should I answer them for you if you’re never going to come back?
If anyone else actually wants to hear the answers to the questions Jocely would rather use to engineer a dramaqueen exit than stick around and hear the response to, then I’d be happy to answer them.
Otherwise, I’m just going to throw myself! Off a pier! In despair! Goodbye, Cruel Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…
Oh, please. We’re a bunch of people who write in our bathrobes, and we’re getting paid off? What an insulting suggestion.
The answer is No. And… what? If that were true, which it isn’t, would that have meant that Al Gore was paying us off in the spring and summer, and that Hillary Clinton was paying us off through the fall, and that Barack Obama gave those two contenders a time out and started paying us off in the spring? That makes it not only an insulting suggestion, but a ridiculous one as well.
And yet again, you fail to remember that we have told you exactly that before. No, no, no, no. Does it help if I say it six times? How about this: no, no, no, no, no, no.
I’ve already answered multiple of Jocelyn’s questions that rely on the assumption that traffic to our shops comes primarily through our website, when it actually comes through google, on which our Clinton gear and Obama gear are comparably ranked. The opportunity for people looking for pro-Clinton items and for pro-Obama items to find us are comparable, and we have hundreds and hundreds of items available for both candidates, and yet . That is real and that is interesting. The other question I see is how the absolute numbers changed. The answer is that after the debate, the absolute number of Clinton items sold dropped, making the percentage of sales during the period referenced in the main post.
Jocelyn has attitude, some incorrect assumptions, and a lack of the intellectual courage to actually stick around to read the answers to her questions. For her dramatics and rhetorical cheapness, I mock her. But her questions are really good ones, because they’re at least based on logic. Your questions, on the other hand, are cheap, nonsense, and so empirically off base as to be laughable. They’re also really mystifying. I mean, what? Did I run over your DOG without noticing thirteen years ago? Utterly mystifying.
Aw hell, Jim — I’m back; though not because of intellectual curiosity, more the plain old variety that got Pandora into so much trouble. I just was curious to know what your response, if any, would be.
No I didn’t know that people go through Google to get to your bumper sticker collection (huh?) Ya got me on that bit of arcane info.
I ignored your previous explans because I tended to follow Iroquois’ reasoning there. Back in fall, Obama was a blip on the radar and I was a frequent visitor to the Irreg Times. Times change. Obama is now big news and has the support of what, 45% of Democrats? He has a special corner on the activist, under 29, bumper-sticker loving types — “My other car is a broom”; “practice random acts of kindness”; Darwin Fish sort of people. (Which is fine. If I were going to put something on my car besides birdshit and dents, it’d be a Darwin Fish.)
To your previous statement that in past debates, you’ve seen spikes of bumper-sticker interest follow the apparent winner: I would answer that yesterday isn’t today. It’s hard to believe there are many undecideds left on the Dem side who waited this long on the fence, then heard the debate and were suddenly fired up with such passion that they simply had to have that bumper sticker RIGHT AWAY! I would say it makes much more sense that Obama supporters who lacked bumper stickers heard mean ol’ ABC ganging up on their man, got outraged and said, “Damn those freaks! I’m gonna show ‘em! I’m gonna buy a bumper sticker RIGHT AWAY!
Of course, all this talk is meaningless since you gave only percentages of who-bought-what, rather than actual numbers. If the bumper stickers break 97/3 for Obama, but actual NUMBER of items sold have declined from one million last week to just one hundred this week, my conclusion would be that nearly every Democrat-owned car in America is fully outfitted with bumper stickers already, or else that Dems are bored to death and no longer give a damn about Obama or Clinton. And have, intelligently, gone back to buying Darwin Fish (which, unlike rah-rah-candidate bumper stickers, will still look fashionable and smart for millenia to come).
God, this is dull.
Most of all, I was struck by the childishness of your second response. All I said was that I’ve lost interest in your little site and won’t be coming back (that is, after I stop being curious what you’re about to say to me personally
) You did a big “boohoo, drama queen” thing that seemed quite silly. Is that how you behave whenever you get criticized?
Ah! I get it — you’re just like Obama!
Cheers.
I think Joc. is a prime example of the Hillary Clinton supporter – unable to deal with facts that contradict the Baby Boomer Destiny To Power feeling they have running through their veins.
They attack younger people (which is pretty much everyone these days) like Barack Obama with astonishing ferocity because as younger people come up, the ability to deny that they are now elderly and not the Young Generation anymore.
Then they run away when the facts don’t match what they want to believe, or go get plastic surgery, or go shopping for clothes that are far too tight and young for them, or go get their hair dyed blonde one more time.
If Hillary Clinton loses, they will finally have to admit that the Age of the Boomer is over. That terrifies them, and that’s why Hillary Clinton and her followers are so desperately hanging on.
That’s what Clinton’s “experience” line really means, and that’s why Jocely can’t handle the heat in this kitchen.
I mocked you, Jocely. Yes, it was silly. Your asking of questions and then storming off in a huff declaring that you didn’t want to hear the answers was silly. That’s how I behave when people throw an act. Yours is known as the “GBCW” (for “Goodbye, Cruel World!” act) and is usually a ploy for attention. See, now I’m supposed to go, “Don’t, don’t leave! We love you so!” But yeah, I’m going to mock you for it instead. What do you think this is, the Bonwit Teller customer service desk?
Take a look around you and you’ll see that the bumper sticker saturation is nothing like what was seen in 2004. And Jocelyn, the number of our sticker sales hasn’t declined for Obama — just for Clinton.
I wonder when Iroquois first showed up around here. Wouldn’t it be a coincidence if she turned up when the Clinton campaign began? If anyone around here is a paid “shill” then it’s likely the person always accusing others of being paid – Iroquois. But then Hillary can’t be paying too much if Iroquois can’t afford to move out of that crappy apartment with all the dog poop and cigarette butts lying around. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Iroquois disappears from these forums after Clinton’s loss is final.
My questions were rhetorical — I just didn’t like the (perceived) dumbness of the above article. I give you points for being less dumb than I originally thought, due to the info that sales are not just to the Irreg fanboy base but to the public at large, by your claim.
Another question: Do you mock Fruktata (as you mock Iroquois) for lack of logic? Because if you read his/her post about me, you’ll see that it reeks of illogic, jumping to unfounded conclusions, as well as some sort of hackneyed old-farts-are-the-enemy, ‘don’t-trust-anyone-over-30′ rhetoric.
(Side Q: why do some people speak of us old farts as if we were a whole different species — and an evil one at that! Do they not realize that they themselves, like all people, are victims of time’s grip and will advance through the decades and towards the dirt embrace at the same rate as us doddering octogenarians?)
You are certainly welcome to mock me, if it amuses you for a while. That’s why I mock you, after all — for the entertainment! In fact, I think that’s why we’re all put on earth — to bring eachother joy and happiness for a spell, in whatever form it takes…
And kisses to you, fruktata. People like you make people like me laugh fondly at the young, limited-view creatures we ourselves used to be
.
Oh, kisses to you, Joccey.
I think it is so, so, so, funny that the Baby Boomer elderly generation now complains about young people.
;^) :/) :<
Dang, I want more interesting smileys! @)
Remind me: aside from mentioning in a post that Obama appeals to the under-29, activist, bumper-sticker set, what did I say that ‘complained about young people’?
Are ya feeling offended because you think “activist” is an insult, or “bumper-sticker set” is an insult, or “likes Obama” is an insult?
Please do explain! (And then call your mommy, ’cause if she’s reading this she’s going to want to know why you hate her so much…)
“People like you make people like me laugh fondly at the young, limited-view creatures we ourselves used to be…”
My, how the aged Baby Boomers’ minds have fallen limp. Explains how they can vote for Hillary Clinton.
Honey, you attacked my supposed baby-boomerism, even before I posted that line.
And if you read a little more carefully, you’ll see that I said I was laughing fondly at my own former self. In other words: I imagine I once was capable of the kind of speechifying you make now.
You seem very easily offended by mild words! May I quote you a bumper sticker I actually like?
“PEACE: Let it begin with me.”
It’s hard to see how insulting the (several billion) people who were born before you, is your way of bringing about the unity your favored candidate promises.
This is, in fact, the most glaring problem of your candidate. Obama talks fine, but he doesn’t have a magic wand to change the country. When I see that even his most ardent fans — like you — are just as eager as Rush Limbaugh to insult and attack a person who doesn’t fall into lockstep with your opinions, I’m not filled with optimism about Obama’s ability to deliver change and unity and hope!
If he does get into power, your guy’s only hope will be to call on fans like you to be leaders for his Unity Dream. And from what you (and many others) demonstrate daily, you may wear his bumper stickers, but he has not inspired you to rise to his challenge. (And as the fight has gone on, looks like he’s stopped rising to it himself.)
To paraphrase Obama’s plagiarized line, “We are the change we have been waiting for”:
You and your ilk, Fruktata, are the same-old-same-old I have been cynically anticipating.
But if you don’t like hearing that, call me demented and move on. Continue to attack all others who disagree with you. Speak kindly only to you those members of the brotherhood, who wear the black armband of conformity.
Heil!
Oh, yes, you caught us. We are secretly members of Hitler Youth. It must have been the little mustaches that gave it away.
I’m not even a Democrat.
Jim: are you Fruktata?
Or was that the Royal We?
Once again, it’s very amusing to see Baby Boomers get so outraged, outraged, outraged, that uppity youngsters are talking back to their elders.
“It’s hard to see how insulting the (several billion) people who were born before you, is your way of bringing about the unity your favored candidate promises,” you say.
What was the saying back in the 1960s? Don’t trust anyone over the age of 25?
Oh, the Baby Boomers never, never, never insulted the people who were born before them, did they?
8-T
No, I’m not Fruktata. I’m responding to your plural noun: “you and your ilk.”
You proudly call yourself an ilk at his/her side?
I was referring to Fruktie and other Obamanauts who claim to love the CHANGE and UNITY platform, while still shouting un-unifying and un-changey words of anti-oldness or anti-whiteness or ‘Clinton’s-a-bitch’ness or ‘McCain’s-a-warmonger’ness. Or whateverness. I actually didn’t know you were in that group (because you spoke well of logic, earlier, and seemed interested in defending it) — but if you self-identify that way, who am I to argue? Color me disappointed in you.
Actually, I thought if anything, you’d tear into Frukty’s silliness just as you tore into Iroq. Why do you hold back?
Frukty:
OK, let’s clear a few things up
First, I think I’m of the gen known as Gen X, not Baby Boom. At least that’s what someone called us in 1990 or so. I think my mom qualifies as a slightly early ‘Boomer (postwar child) as she was born in ’39.
2. Yes, every generation thumbs its nose at its parents (as well they should). But doing so in the name of a politician who claims a platform of UNITY, is silly.
3. I stand by my point — which no one has yet challenged: Obama claims he can change and unite America. His followers swoon and shout “Yes we can!” — but unlike those who turned their excitement into the civil rights movement and the women’s rights movement, who became Freedom Riders or joined the Peace Corps and changed the country, Obama fans act like… like McCain and Clinton fans. What does that say about the supposed “movement” Obama claims to lead?
Wanna hear a little story about some people I know, who DID change America.
My grandparents (maternal): changed America by coming here on boats from Eastern Europe a jump ahead of Hitler, who took their lives of the families they left behind. They brought a little chicken soup-and-menorah diversity into the Pittsburgh projects, raised five kids there on a shoestring, and taught them all to study hard and stay out of trouble.
My mother: changed America by clawing out of the projects with a full scholarship to college. She also got fired up by the civil rights movement, snuck out to date black guys, broke the sexual conventions of her day, and finally broke her mother’s heart by marrying a poor Italian just off the boat. She raised three kids to study hard, reject her mother’s racism and old-world prejudices, and think like liberals.
My father: changed America by coming here from Naples and going from busboy to Ph.D.
He broke his family’s heart by marrying a no-name Jew from the projects, and he raised those same three kids to study hard and view even their mother’s liberalism with a critical eye, and think for themselves.
My brother: a stay-at-home dad married to scientist and active against the Iraq War, is changing the face of America in his way.
And me: I am changing America by earning an advanced degree in a once-male field and earning an embarrassing income which lets me support my chosen good causes (fair trade, and economic opportunities for women in the third world). I carried on the family tradition by breaking my mother’s heart when I married a Muslim Arab right off the plane. I’m raising three children who will be America’s first Muslim-Jewish-Italian-Americans feminists, and who are raised to study hard — and to think for themselves.
This, IMHO, is how America is really made and changed and unified from generation to generation.
Not by speeches.
Not by politicians.
Not by your angry words, and not by anyone’s silly political bumper stickers.
By you, and by me; by our choices and our children, and how we raise them, and what good things they carry forward into the future.
Best wishes.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not responsible for Fruktata, although I know Fruktata. Fruktata is responsible for Fruktata. Clearly Fruktata is wrong about what generation you are in, just as you are wrong about what generation I am in. I am finishing up a post right now about the unfortunate nature of the injection of age along with other categories into political discussions as a proxy for something more meaningful, which clearly will involve disagreement with Fruktata. This does not mean that Fruktata will become my mortal enemy, just as I would hope you do not feel the need to become mine.
Messages do indeed matter, as do social movements of all sorts. Read a social psychology text. Look up especially the classic Asch and Milgram conformity studies to see why. There are broader scopes beyond our families that we can affect, and that people have affected, and that people will continue to affect so long as they keep trying, and that they will stop affecting when they stop trying.
Clinton never tried to do what Obama is trying to do, and for all you derogate it as some naive goal I think it is laudable for Obama to be trying to do what he’s doing. All the existence of angry Obama supporters indicates is that Obama has attracted some angry people; it doesn’t say very much at all about Obama himself, unless you are of the unfortunate school of thought that one’s most distant associates say something crucial about one, which is what most of the Clinton attacks have been about lately, which is highly unfortunate and which you, a Clinton supporter, have not addressed at all.
You’re not actually correct when you categorically state what “Obama fans” or “Obamanauts” are. There are a number of “Obama fans” who have been deeply involved in multiple social movements. Of course, there are some “Obama fans” who haven’t, but you can say the exact same thing about some “Clinton fans.” Why do you feel it necessary to be that categorical in your thinking? Why do you feel the need to be categorical about this issue? It has the sense of a red herring covering a gap in your argument, to be frank.
Good for you and what you do in your life. You see, life does not have to be dichotomous. For me to disagree with you on some points does not mandate that I must disagree with you on all points or hate you. For me to think that Barack Obama is a better candidate does not require that I assert Hillary Clinton is the devil. For you to disagree with Fruktata does not mean that Fruktata must be a Hitler-like beast. Fruktata should not have to dismiss Clinton supporters through some age-based generalization, since clearly not every Clinton supporter is of a certain age or certain disposition. I do not have to believe that John McCain rises every morning cackling and rubbing his hands thinking of ways to skewer children on sticks in order to be of the firm conviction that he would make an awful president. And you do not have to establish that Barack Obama is a horrid man or that people who vote for him are hideous people in order for you to justify your support of Hillary Clinton.
Point taken.
Basically, my sense is that a pol is a pol — few go into that field unless they possess a combo of ego and ambition, and none succeed without playing chameleon before the masses, and sucking up to rich benefactors in private. All must sell themselves like used-car salesmen, saying whatever they think will get them where they want to be. And the higher the rise, the more they are forced to sell their souls (sacrifice their integrity) for money and backscratching and the support of their party and electorate — even if they had good intentions in their reckless youth.
Thus, if a pol makes pretty speeches about how he’s Something New and is going to create something new, he’s going to have an uphill climb to prove he’s not just telling the thing that’s selling.
Which is not to say that his fans are any worse or better than anyone else’s fans – I’m sure they are a mixed bunch, just as I’m sure the man himself is a mixed bag of good and bad. It’s just that the whole Obama movement smacks of an invention of a slick campaigner. Until I see the evidence of a movement that is really doing something (other than putting its creator and leader into the fancy DC property he’s lusting after), I ain’t buying it as anything more than a pol’s slick strategy of self-promotion.
Pols rise and fall. Obama and Clinton and the rest will be dust soon enough. America, and the world, will go on without them.