CNN Projection

[AdminAssistant]

Second question: Of course not. Actors have never been an oppressed minority.

Well, actually - yes, they have. Acting really wasn't seen as a legitimate way to make a living until the 18th-19th century (depending on the location). Actually, in the states I'd say early 20th century. Actors were seen as vagabonds, thieves, whores, you name it.

That said, I don't think a really bad film actor being the Governor of California or President is all that note-worthy.

[anriana]

Was it noteworthy that JFK was the first Roman Catholic elected?

It was when he was elected, yes.

ok so if he were a scientist that developed a cure for all forms of cancer rather than getting elected president(which 43 people have done before him) would the papers be proclaiming "Black scientist invents/discovers cure for cancer"? No they'd just say "scientist discovers cure for cancer"

There have been other black scientists.

heck England's had female leaders-I really don't remember as much of a deal made over that as we're making over Obama.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...er&btnG=Search

First link, second sentence.

Also, strangely, I don't remember much of what happened in English news 30 years ago either.

Sure, maybe Bush did enough to make sure the Republicans didn't have a chance (but who knows??), but certainly there is a massive percentage out there who voted for Obama because of his skin colour... and that makes people prejudiced! (becuase then they've just ignored McCain's and Obama's political stances and policies.. and that's just plain ignorant! I mean... what if a non-caucasian person was running for the Republicans instead? What if a Hilary Clinton was up there instead??)

A massive percentage? That sounds like quite a lot of hyperbole.

I wonder where you got that information from - I had a conversation with my father a few months ago where he was quite upset over how many AAs were voting for Obabma, completely ignoring that a massive percentage of people of color vote Democratic.

[Slytovhand]

A massive percentage? That sounds like quite a lot of hyperbole.

I wonder where you got that information from - I had a conversation with my father a few months ago where he was quite upset over how many AAs were voting for Obabma, completely ignoring that a massive percentage of people of color vote Democratic.

If it takes a mere 16% or so of a country's entire population to decide who is going to govern them for the next 4 years, even a small amount is significant. In numerical terms, that'd be about 44 million or so voting his way. Any guesses at just how many would have voted for Obama (or, for that matter, McCain based on colour alone?) How many turned out to vote on this election that previously wouldn't have? Statistically, it's the uneducated that don't bother to vote - and thus, this time did. And perhaps the statistics will point to that large voter increase as having come from certain sectors of society in particular. So, next question is - did they come out and vote because a) he's a Democrat, b) male, c) had good policies, d) skin colour (or e) cos Bush and the Republicans had to go?) How to determine this for sure? Easy - do a survey... ask the people questions about exactly what his policies were, or McCains... see if you get an extremely high percentage of intelligent and informed answers. Even do a multiple choice... "Which of the following about Obama is true:...". Sorry Anriana, but I will stand by what I said - there are still strong prejudices, and those helped get him in. (not that I'm saying he shouldn't be there, nor that I wouldn't have voted for him... depending on other candidates... certainly not McCain from what I've heard). But I think we all know people well enough to know it's true.

[AFPheonix]

I have a sneaking hunch that those who voted based only on skin color were pretty much matched by those voting on skin color the other way. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/week...obama-rama.php

Those Einsteins were joined by those voting based on the fact that they don't think he's truly a christian or that he's muslim. Yes, I've run into entirely too many people who think that way. Seriously scary. These are also the kind that typically you can't talk out of it, too. My kingdom for a depo-provera ninja.

We had record turnout because we had a president with historically low approval ratings, we're heading into a recession, we're spending way too much money on several unpopular wars, and people are losing jobs. I find it to be more of a referendum on the last 8 years than I do a referendum on Obama's abilities.

[Boozy]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't worry too much about why some people voted for a certain candidate, as long as there is no indication that those people's expectations will affect the candidate's actions while in office.

For example, it's possible that a few ignorant nuts voted either for or against Obama because they thought he'd make whites pay reparations for slavery. But there is not and never has been any indication that he would do such a thing, or even could if he wanted to. So why worry? People vote for idiotic reasons all the time - probably more often than we care to know.

My husband and I more often than not vote for the same party, and this was true two federal elections ago. But I actually thought his reason for voting that way was kind of silly, and I told him so. He refused to fight with me and said, "Why do you care? Another vote for your party." He had a point. An educated electorate is preferable to an ignorant one, but beggars can't be choosers.