How else are people supposed to “back up” an assertion about a psychological state except with psychological terminology?
Use all the psychological terminology you want, but back it up with polls, studies, interviews, something that indicates that it plays more than a minor role. Note: stating over and over that it plays a huge role does not count as evidence.
It’s pretty clear that “white guilt” plays the same role in Obama’s campaign as the fact that Bush’s dad was President played in his, in that it allows people to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I disagree. Likability and perceived authenticity play a much greater role in terms of whether politicians are given the benefit of the doubt. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Mike Huckabee all had or have a high degree of likability and perceived authenticity when they were running, and Obama does as well. Likable candidates get thrown softballs by the media and voters. Less likable candidates, most recently HRC and Romney, don’t as much, which I’m sure drives them nuts.
And didn’t something like 11% of Republicans think they were voting for George H W Bush in 2000? Anyway if white guilt were such a huge factor, wouldn’t the Dems have nominated a black candidate before now?
AJ: I consider myself a moderate, but I’ve talked to a fair number of whacko far-left types, and none of them believe that goofy stuff your friend is spouting. Come back to earth, brother. It’s a nice place. Count to ten or something. Honestly I think that Republicans, with their high level of gun ownership, would probably survive much better in the post-apocalyptic world.
