Conclusions were based on poll findings, facts and anecdotes

Dear Editor,

In his response ‘An Obama defeat cannot be ruled out but is highly unlikely’ (SN, Sep 2) to my letter (SN, Aug 31), Mr Wesley Kirton queried firstly, where did I get my information from, suggesting that an overwhelming majority of Guyanese and Caribbean people are Democrats and that not many watched the Republican convention; and secondly, on what basis I made the claim that Guyanese-Americans (and others) were disappointed with Obama’s education policies.

I direct the same queries to Mr Kirton on his statements that he knows for sure (paraphrasing him) that Guyanese Americans and other minorities did not watch the Republican Convention and that education is not an important issue for them.  On the basis of what evidence does he form his erroneous conclusions? If he examines the polling data (just google the sub topics), he would see my claims cannot be disputed.

I am surprised Mr Kirton quotes former Minister Rashleigh Jackson from an illegal government in attempting to discredit my analysis. Merely saying an analysis is flawed does not make it such. Mr Kirton has not shown how my analysis is flawed.  My information for the analysis is very accurate and reliable, with the analysis sound and the conclusion logically derived. So Mr Jackson is not applicable. Mr Kirton could not offer any evidence to dispute any of my statements.

One has to cite counter evidence to discredit the analysis, such as polling data, anecdotes, etc, that a majority of ethnic minorities are not Democrats and that they did not watch the convention. The New York Times earlier this year carried a front page article in which educators and young Black Americans expressed disappointment with Obama over his broken promises of funding for public education and loans for students who wish to pursue tertiary education.

President Obama himself admits he has not done enough for education, but promises to make up for it in his second term. Polls show people are almost evenly divided on Obama’s educational policy – a far cry from the two to one advanatge he enjoyed in 2008.

My statements, analysis, and conclusions are based on the findings of polls conducted by reputable groups and individuals, empirical facts and anecdotes. Admittedly, I did not conduct a scientific ‘poll’ on Guyanese or on other minorities about watching the convention, and I did not record all the concerns which will influence their vote as obtained from conversations. Surely Mr Kirton does not expect a 600 word essay to cover all relevant matters on the convention or on voting trends; such an expectation is as flawed as the quotation from the former Minister of the illegal government. A short commentary cannot list all the reasons why people vote for or against a candidate.

The Caribbean people I spoke with cited social security and immigration, among others, as principal issues. Those who said they will withdraw support from Obama cited educational policy, job losses and Obamacare, among others. Many Guyanese I spoke with don’t like Obamacare because they are concerned it would result in higher insurance premiums for them. And polls show over half Americans oppose the President’s signature legislation. Those who switched to Obama cited, among others, his deferred immigration policy allowing educated illegal young people to remain temporarily in the US.

The convention was a topic of conversation among every Guyanese gathering in NY. And my Caribbean friends also discussed the convention.  M Maxwell (SN, Sep 5) wrote that many Guyanese are following the race.  In addition, polls showed a majority of likely voters watched the convention.  It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that Guyanese Americans watched it. It is a widely established fact (as revealed in polls and ethno-studies) that most minorities (Caribbean immigrants, Asians, Indo and Afro-Guyanese, Latinos, etc) are Democrats.  Republican leaders accept this statement as a fact and have stated they need almost half minority voters to win the election.

Caribbean Life and Daylight newspapers (NY) as well as Indian American weeklies (India Abroad, News India, etc), Chinese weeklies, Filipino weeklies, Latino dailies and weeklies, etc – all of which I read religiously – carried surveys showing the overwhelming majority of these groups voted Democratic in the last presidential election.  An examination of the Democratic voter list shows over two-thirds of minorities are Democrats. Surveys showed that only a third of Latinos plan to vote Republican. Two-thirds of Indians, Asians and Arabs also plan to vote Democratic, as do 99% of African Americans.  So it is on the basis of these numbers that I form the conclusion that minorities are Democrats and this fact cannot be disputed.  Ditto that minorities watched the convention.

I penned “I don’t think an Obama victory can be ruled out” in response to an economic and social model that predicts Obama will go down to defeat by a landslide. Mr Kirton responded that he is almost certain Obama is heading for a victory.

Where is the evidence to support this conclusion? This conclusion is not empirical or evidential.  It is based on “I know,” instead of saying it is likely based on polls or a scientific model.

Contrary to Mr Kirton, I do believe a large number of Guyanese and Caribbean Americans will also watch the Democratic Convention and yes, I do believe more will watch the Democratic convention than did the Republican one. But we won’t know for sure until evidence is offered from the pollsters and TV ratings post convention.

Finally, I agree with GHK Lall (‘Obama will be a one-term president’  SN, Sep 2) that jobs, among other issues, will be a defining issue of the campaign.  Americans generally vote pocket-book issues and right now they are hurting. But unlike Mr Lall, I am not certain they have made up their minds as yet to fire the President. Two months is a long time in politics. Anything can happen before election day. Thus, an Obama victory cannot be ruled out.

Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram