Obama Fails to Assuage White Voters (Who Weren’t Paying Attention and Didn’t Need Assuaging)

James Joyner · Tuesday, April 1, 2008 · 6 comments

Bloomberg is running a bizarre story under the banner headline “Obama Speech Fails to Assuage White Indiana Voters. The crux of it is this:

Interviews with dozens of Democrats in this overwhelmingly white region — where voters will go to the polls in the May 6 primary — suggest residual concerns over the controversy involving Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

To be sure, this flies in the face of most polls taken after Obama’s widely praised March 18 speech on race and the Wright controversy.

The polls, which involved scientific random sampling, indicated that Obama’s lead over Hillary Clinton is widening, that a majority of voters were completely unaware of the Wright matter, and that most of those who were aware didn’t much care. No matter, though, because a statistically insignificant handful of people who were interviewed for the story expressed some concerns.

The plural of anecdotes = data. Q.E.D.

via Memeorandum

Comments

legion says:

Tuesday, 1 April 2008 at 12:04

And, oddly enough, shipments of bacon don’t tend to make devout Jews and Muslims feel less hungry, either…
Scott_T says:

Tuesday, 1 April 2008 at 12:59

What the *&!$ is “Assauge” and more importantly should I protect my white kids from a black man welding an Assauge?
Triumph says:

Tuesday, 1 April 2008 at 13:11

The polls, which involved scientific random sampling, indicated that Obama’s lead over Hillary Clinton is widening, that a majority of voters were completely unaware of the Wright matter, and that most of those who were aware didn’t much care. No matter, though, because a statistically insignificant handful of people who were interviewed for the story expressed some concerns.

The plural of anecdotes = data.

Ok, but didn’t you just say this during the controversy:

Whether this speech will dissuade these fears is beyond my ability to forecast, as I was in the minority that wasn’t all that troubled by the Wright association in the first place.

So, you were in the “minority” two weeks ago about the significance of Wright. And now you’re in the majority?

I’m not sure I understand.
James Joyner says:

Tuesday, 1 April 2008 at 13:17

So, you were in the “minorityâ€ two weeks ago about the significance of Wright. And now you’re in the majority?

I was in the minority among commenters and therefore presumed I was in the minority overall. As I noted the polls post linked above, my presumption was incorrect.
charles austin says:

Tuesday, 1 April 2008 at 14:10

… scientific random sampling…

Queer phrase, that. Or perhaps I’m just too persnickety about what “science” is.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

Tuesday, 1 April 2008 at 14:49

I was wondering just what is it Obama would have to have done to lose the support of some of those who think he is the embodiment of the second coming. He used hard drugs, he associates with far left radicals, criminals or those soon to be, he cups his crotch during the National Anthem and he associates and supports a church and preacher who’s sermons demonstrate hate for the nation they live in. Obama has taken undeserved credit for sponsored legislation in the Illinois senate and has spouted opinions on national policy without the benefit of any intelligence (seemingly both interior and exterior). He appears to value a father who abandoned him over those who fed, clothed and paid his way. He has no experience that would qualify him to run the most complicated organization in the world. His promise of change is meaningless unless defined and the only thing this voter can hope for is a McCain landslide.