Voting for your team

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,257
Reaction score
2,693
Most people play politics along team lines - issues, not so much, but which team the candidate is on is all important. Democrats do this, Republicans do this, but that's not the only way you can split the teams.

A different split is causing Romney problems with Bachmann even though the labels applied are in error.

Mitt's Problem
 
Simultaneously sad and funny.
 
If the perceived problem here is that Jews vote for Jews, shouldn't we also post articles about blacks who voted for Obama? I know that Greeks voted for Dukakis. And the problem is????
 
faethor said:
@Fluffy,
... she was kicked out of her church and switched to a non-denominational religion.
Click to expand...

Non denominational religion? Is that like when someone claims to be spiritual?
 
Glaucus said:
If the perceived problem here is that Jews vote for Jews, shouldn't we also post articles about blacks who voted for Obama? I know that Greeks voted for Dukakis. And the problem is????
Click to expand...
The problem is team voting. The problem is voting based on brand rather than policy.
Of course, there may be policy considerations. Michelle is not Jewish but she has been working hard to "be a friend of Israel" though So has Mitt - and the people that run the campaigns know that US Jews are pretty much a single issue audience. So are the religious right. Actually, here the issue often overlaps because many on the religious right also strongly support Israel but only till Jesus gets back and burns them all up for not noticing that Jesus really is the Messiah.
Maybe the candidates could work for the Greek vote by promising lots of money to Greece - but who cares about Greeks, they got no money. That's why they're broke. :)
On the other hand, if Obama only had black votes he couldn't have won. If he only had black money he wouldn't even have got his face on TV. A lot of whites signed on the the "Hope" brand - and that is all it turned out to be. Brand.
The way it works out is you need poor people to go to the polls to vote so you need to sell them an image to vote for - but to do that you need to get at the rich people's money. So the rich people's agenda gets pushed and the poor get lied to - that's politics.
The block voters and single issue voters are more easily brand hookable but no-one is immune. Pepsi or Coke? If you have a strong reaction to the question it's not because of the taste - all your protestations aside. It's brand.
 
faethor said:
@Fluffy,
Not sure if the article is correct either. It claims Michelle Bachmann as a Lutheran. It appears she was kicked out of her church and switched to a non-denominational religion.
Click to expand...
There isn't just one Lutheran church and if she has spent a considerable amount of time in a Lutheran church it's not a stretch to refer to her as one. She didn't just become "non-denominational" to fit in at the new church. "Non-denominational" just means they accept everyone so you can still be Lutheran in a non-denominational church.
If she had joined a church of some definite denomination that was something other than Lutheran it might be a point.
 
Glaucus said:
If the perceived problem here is that Jews vote for Jews, shouldn't we also post articles about blacks who voted for Obama? I know that Greeks voted for Dukakis. And the problem is????
Click to expand...

Ehm, no.

"It's a real problem," one Romney fund-raiser said. "We're working very hard in the Jewish community because of Obama's Israel problem. This was surprising."
Click to expand...


There's your "perceived problem." It's a problem for Romney, not anyone on here (as far I can tell).

On the other hand, if people base their votes on something as shallow as that yet still balls it up, I find it amusing, in a simultaneously sad way.


 
I think it's obvious that Israel is an issue for Jews, so I see no surprise here. If Jews voted for Jews just for the sake of voting for Jews I could understand that, but there really is an issue here that is important to them. Just because we may not agree with them doesn't make it dumb.

What American Greeks saw in Dukakis was a possible solution to the Cyrpus and Turkey issues. Yes, they live in the US, but they have family back home so it's a real concern. Of course Dukakis lost, but he did far better then Lieberman.
 
Somewhat related is Obama's Wiener problem. In the most Jewish district in the US, the defeat of the Democratic replacement for Wiener is seen as a rebuke of Obama's stance on Israel. Weprin, the guy that lost to Turner had pretty much the same analysis. One of the things that is very potent about Jewish team voting is that they see Israel as part of their team. You see this in Canada too where evangelicals pander to Israel to get ahead in politics (perhaps cynically but, as I said, evangelicals have their own rationale for certain policies and anything that hurries the second coming along...).

Speaking of evangelicals, they are quite brand happy too with Bush being sent by God and Obama being the Antichrist - very strong playing on the symbolism associated with the brand. They didn't call him the Antichrist, of course, but "Chosen One" but the fundies all knew what was implied by that. Look at all the people who think Sarah Palin is great not because she has a sufficient number of brain cells to get through an interview or any such thing, but because she's all for Jesus.
 
Glaucus said:
If Jews voted for Jews just for the sake of voting for Jews I could understand that, but there really is an issue here that is important to them.
Click to expand...
Precisely. They are voting the interests of the other Jews on their team - and, unless they get information to the contrary, they assume that a Jew up for vote will have the same interests.
It's interesting what you said about the Greeks and Dukakis but equally annoying. If you're an expat then you should be willing to cut yourself off from the "old country". I am in Canada, I am Canadian and while my formative years were in the UK I should hope that I never vote based on what would be good for the UK over what would be good for Canada.
I don't really see this happening as much in the Indian or the Chinese communities out here in Vancouver (though having a candidate that looks the way does seem to be important - but then again it's also quite expected since the candidates are from the ridings and that's what they look like there. If anything the issues seem to be less about what would be good for India and China, but rather, what would be good for the families here - i.e. to get as many of their relatives and friends OUT of India and China and into Canada so they can live better here rather than trying to live better over there.
 
Well, people vote for what's best for them. If they're more concerned with their family back in their home country than they are for their neighbor down the street, that's their choice. Fact is, you (and I) spend so much effort talking US politics because US politics affects the rest of the planet. Foreign policy is a valid concern. Your hot topic issue is Israel & Palestine, mine is Greece and Turkey. What's the difference?
 
Glaucus said:
Your hot topic issue is Israel & Palestine, mine is Greece and Turkey. What's the difference?
Click to expand...
My hot issue is Canadian sovereignty, economically, socially and territorially. That's my number one - our ability to autonomously legislate for the benefit of Canadians without foreign interference. I don't think we should follow NATO around doing the drive-bys for the Boss and taking down anyone he says dissed him or owes him money. I don't think we should be forking over money and support to prop up justifiably unpopular bullys and in the process make ourselves look bad because of the company we keep.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
There isn't just one Lutheran church and if she has spent a considerable amount of time in a Lutheran church it's not a stretch to refer to her as one. She didn't just become "non-denominational" to fit in at the new church. "Non-denominational" just means they accept everyone so you can still be Lutheran in a non-denominational church.
If she had joined a church of some definite denomination that was something other than Lutheran it might be a point.
Click to expand...
And @ Robert,

Here in Minnesota, where Bachmann is from, a non-denominational church is one that is not affliated to a larger organization. Lutheran churches are part of the Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, or Evengelican Lutheran Churches of America. (There's likely others). The groups have their own established by-laws. The governing body also provides general topics for discussion, hymnals, and for other standards.

A non-denominational church is typically a lone church. The preacher, may but not always, have completed divinical school. They answer to themselves and have no established by-laws which to follow and are therefore autonomous. Often this is due to a religious, political, or economic disagreement with an established religious denominational.

And no not every 'non-denominational' will accept everyone. They can be closer to what relious people would consider a cult.

Is it fair to consider yourself part of a denomination when you've no longer taking part in that denomination and instead have switched to a different sect? I certainly don't consider myself Lutheran just because I spent the first half of my life in a Lutheran church. My answer on Bachmann I'd still consider her a Christian (and certainly not a Jew) but not a Lutheran as she appears to not be worshipping in a Lutheran church or beholding to their version of Christ as she's taken up a different style of Christian belief.
 
@Faethor:

I certainly don't consider myself Lutheran just because I spent the first half of my life in a Lutheran church.
Click to expand...

A peculiar thing about that is that a majority of my friends now consider themselves atheist or agnostic. Most were brought up as either Catholic or Protestant but most of the ones who were brought up Catholic still describe themselves as Catholic, even though they no longer believe a word of it.
The Protestant ones are more likely to describe themselves agnostic or atheist. I'm not really sure why.
 
Ya, I still consider myself Greek Orthodox. Reason is culture. Although I don't believe in Christ, I still take part in the family tradition of roasting a lamb on the spit at Easter time. Greek Pagans (which do exist) might not follow that tradition (although I suspect they give in as do most atheists). Interestingly, Greeks often refer to each other (colloquially) as Christians - but that probably stems from the days of the Ottoman empire. Probably the same reason African Americans call each other niggers; to remind them of what once united them. Back then, being openly Christian could cost you your life. So obviously Christianity became the rallying point for all those who wanted to fight oppression. As such, it's been burned deep into the culture whether you like it or not.
 
Yes, we are all cultural Christians. We all celebrate Christmas, get wired into turkey for dinner, etc. and we all buy the weans chocolate eggs at Easter. I suppose one sect just seems to hang onto the name a little longer.

-EDIT-

I should add that, whilst I am culturally Christian, I was never actually christened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top