Mandela and the ANC righted a moral wrong- He stayed in prison so long because he would not renounced terrorism and armed struggle in his fight to correct the moral wrong. As he attained control of the population, he was very conciliatory to all parties involved. Everyone appropriately views that participation in legal/government systems cannot be race nor ethnicity based.
Is Mandela considered courageous in part because he would not renounce violence even though it would have got him out of prison? Bill Ayers never renounced violence for his fight against what he thought was a moral wrong? should he also a hero? Ayers is not because Americans generally empathize more with the American policeman killed by the Weather Underground (and empathize with the policeman’s family) more than they empathize with Bill Ayers. I think everyone should explore their rationalizations if they have completely different empathies for Mandela vs Ayers.
In Mandela’s own organization’s manifesto, it identifies “irredeemable Government stooges” as valid targets. http://law2.umkc.edu/…/f…/mandela/mandelaoperationm.html Many rent collectors who where Black qualified as “government stooges” and were tortured and killed. The manifesto did not call for rape, torture and killing of white women and children. With the exception of stooges, the target set was very similar to that of Weatherman Underground in the US. Why is it that so many think Mandela whose message directly led to the killing and torture of Black rent collectors is so much better of a person than Bill Ayers whose Weather Underground manifesto only resulted in a few policeman death by accident timing on explosions and shooting on getaways? Those that lionize Mandela need to explain why they are not also lionizing Bill Ayers. It’s especially disturbing to see Christians lionize someone whose writings rallied others to torturing and killing people: “stooges” that were not killing them. I’m not an expert on Mandela, please let me know what I have wrong.
Not everything in South Africa has turned out well. SA used to generally have life expectancy that was much higher that the rest of SubSahara Africa. Life expectancy for men went down from 59 yrs to 51 yrs post revolution -It was especially hit by HIV.AIDs with over 10% of the population infected with HIV. But most recently life expectancy is going back up due to better and more available drug regimens. Now life expectancy is 52.5.
OK, Governor Christie and supporting pundits,
I have always viewed Christie’s street cred as that he is a straight shooter- willing to say the hard things so people don’t get the wrong impression.
Christie and his surrogates are pointing to his success against Bouno as indicative of future success in 2016 for a Republican like him that offers the willingness to compromise with Democrats as someone actually capable of beating the future Democratic nominee for President.
Where Christie moves away from his straight-shooting is when he moves from official election results and into the musings of the 2013 NJ Exit Poll results in relation to Republican’s perspectives for 2016. Anyone wanting to use 2013 NJ Exit Polling answers to discuss potential for 2016, need to start with the only question on the exit poll that mentions 2016 and once they have exhausted that question, and only if there is any time left, there could be extra credit discussion about how a large national known current governor that got the support of his party and had just gotten billions of federal dollars in aid for his state was able to be considered preferable to most NJ voters as compared to a relatively unknown contender that did not get serious support from her party.
Some might argue that the Exit poll question about a 2016 matchup with Clinton was only hypothetical and thus the respondents answers to it were less serious and thoughtful than their answers about who they voted for. Because only 4% omitted an answer, it would seem that those that finished the survey were serious enough to give an honest answer. Therefore, the question is not disqualified.
Based on that question NOT being disqualified, then it needs to be the first question and set of responses for those wanting to discuss Christie’s potential performance for 2016. They can point to the top level number that indicates Christie get 44% vs Clinton’s 48% which is clearly better than Romeny’s 41% vs Obama’s 58%. But in comparison to the Romney performance, it must be noted that the NJ data for the 2013 governor election compared to the 2012 presidential- it had 40% fewer total voters, 4% fewer Democrats, voters <$30K per family dropped from 15% of voters to 9%. All of these factors could potentially point to the 2013 Christie/Clinton question actually overestimating a Republican’s performance because the electorate is more Republican and independent with significant fewer lower income voters than in a presidential year.
Where the pundit discussion of the Exit Poll results goes completely off the rails is in the discussion of gender and racial demographics. That is because the respondents to the Exit Poll were much more likely to indicate a preference for Clinton over Christie as compared to Bouno over Christie if they identified as Hispanic or Black. This information was NOT provided in the base poll information distributed to the media. It was only obtained by citizen curiosity and NOT by curiosity of political reporters and pundits that are supposed to be paid to be curious and to eek out the best information available instead of just droning out talking point factoids that are clearly less illustrative of the currently measurable NJ voter preference for 2016.
I was able to coax the NYT to give me the data on the racial crosstab for the Clinton question. I followed that up with a request for the gender crosstab but have not been given a response back from the NYT.
It seems the Romney team admits its polling assessment team was using skewed results and that contributed to them not knowing which states they were on track to win and lose. We don’t need to start the 2016 cycle with using skewed factoids about comparison to Bouno when factoids about comparison to Clinton exist and we do not want skewed factoid to set Republicans up for a repeat of polling failure.
Good GOTV is totally dependent on good polling. What we really might want is a Nate Silver clone that wants a Republican to win. Even if we don’t get the Nate Silver clone, we need to be candid and not rely on factoids that we know misrepresents the situation.
For 2012, I found that Purple Strategies was the closest thing to useful polling for Republicans. (and I don’t work for them nor any other polling firm nor any politician).
Dateline: Friday morning 11/8/2013 01:20am- Update 5pm
Since Tuesday’s election night this week, the entire MSM and many GOP pundits have been pointing to Chris Christie’s 2013 NJ Exit poll performance, especially his success with Hispanic/Latino voters (53%) and with Black voters (21%). While these are very impressive compared to his 2009 governor’s exit poll performance, they are not as indicative of future performance as other data that was available in the same 2013 NJ exit poll. That data remained dormant and untapped until I figured out how to get a hold of it Thursday afternoon.
That data is the crosstabs to the question: “If these were the candidates for president in 2016, for whom would you vote? Clinton/Christie/(would not vote)/(no answer).” I searched the entire internet- None of the National Election Pool Members nor the NYT nor anyone else had published the racial crosstab to the Christie/Clinton question. I was very annoyed and frustrated that so many would just run with the governor data and start hypothesizing about presidential racial demographic capability when better data was right there for the taking. I started emailing folks in media and I got very fine response from Majorie Connelly, the Survey Editor for the NYT. She promptly ran the crosstab and sent me the data.
The bottom line: For Hispanic/Latino demo, Christie gets 33*%, For Black demo, Christie gets 5*%.
The asterisk is that there are 4% indicating “would not vote” and another 4% that refused to answer to the total between the two main candidates only adds up to 91-92% instead of the typical 97-99% of the recent past actual presidential elections.
Christie’s showing against Clinton for Hispanic/Latino demo puts him right between McCain (21%) and Bush (an amazing 43%). The NJ exit polls were unwilling to show data for Romney/Obama crosstab. One can likely assume that Romney did worse than McCain with Hispanics/Latinos in NJ- but I have not been able to get a number.
Christie’s showing against Clinton for Black demo puts Christie(5%) right in the same ballpark as Romney (4%). Both McCain (8%) and Bush (an amazing 17%) did significantly better than Christie is currently projected to be.
I think the bottom line is when there are two old white guys as the choice of Republican and Democrat, Republicans have shown that they can hit somewhat significant Hispanic and Black demo percentages.
With Obama, and now the projection for Clinton in this NJ data, is not very encouraging, at least, not for Christie. That is my interpretation, anyway.
The other factor is that the NJ data for the 2013 gov election compared to the 2012 presidential- had 40% fewer total voters, 4% fewer Democrats, voters <$30K per family dropped from 15% of voters to 9%. All of these factors could potential point to the 2013 Christie/Clinton question actually overestimating a Republicans performance because the electorate is more Republican and independent with significant fewer lower income voters than in a presidential year.
See chart and data attachment. http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z349/nhthinker/non-white-vote_zps44e49974.jpg
Let me know what you think.
Twitter @NHThinker1 firstname.lastname@example.org