That's meaningless stuff. For one thing, we have NO idea how many people they talked to. The fact that they can confuse a few people on the street doesn't prove anything.
The techniques that were being used by the interviewer were not random .. they're a fairly standard sort of verbal slight of hand. Sadly I'd be willing to bet that you could get similar responses from people favoring EITHER candidate in just about ANY race. In particular, you could have gotten the same sorts of responses from people on both sides of the 2004 election. In that election, it would have been absurd to conclude that the people held their position because of the race of their candidate. Why is it appropriate to make that conclusion THIS time based on the same evidence?
I'm not suggesting that there weren't people who voted for Obama because of his race. I'm suggesting that this clip doesn't imply it.
All Comments
That's meaningless stuff. For one thing, we have NO idea how many people they talked to. The fact that they can confuse a few people on the street doesn't prove anything.
The techniques that were being used by the interviewer were not random .. they're a fairly standard sort of verbal slight of hand. Sadly I'd be willing to bet that you could get similar responses from people favoring EITHER candidate in just about ANY race. In particular, you could have gotten the same sorts of responses from people on both sides of the 2004 election. In that election, it would have been absurd to conclude that the people held their position because of the race of their candidate. Why is it appropriate to make that conclusion THIS time based on the same evidence?
I'm not suggesting that there weren't people who voted for Obama because of his race. I'm suggesting that this clip doesn't imply it.
@ Carl -- I completely agree.