Chris Matthews: Obama’s Critics Are Driven By Racism

[Jaskalas]

Eskimospy has done a fine job explaining what, in my mind, would be the fact that the VAST majority of black Democrat voters still would have voted Democrat in 2008 if anyone else, say Hillary, had been their nominee.

 

[TerryMathews]

Eskimospy has done a fine job explaining what, in my mind, would be the fact that the VAST majority of black Democrat voters still would have voted Democrat in 2008 if anyone else, say Hillary, had been their nominee.

And you honestly believe it would've been the same 99% Obama got?

Because if your answer is no, you're actually proving my point for me.

 

[Jaskalas]

And you honestly believe it would've been the same 99% Obama got?

Because if your answer is no, you're actually proving my point for me.

Oh golly gee, they picked up 3%.

 

[TerryMathews]

Oh golly gee, they picked up 3%.

3% more doesn't make it harder to get elected, does it?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

3% more doesn't make it harder to get elected, does it?

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/?_r=0

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~sstephen/papers/RacialAnimusAndVotingSethStephensDavidowitz.pdf

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Yeah, let's ignore Syria and defend ourselves from baseless racism claims made by a paid shill for the party in power. Great idea.

Matthews certainly lost a ton of respect from me after this one.

 

[cubby1223]

3% more doesn't make it harder to get elected, does it?

3 percent more and Al Gore would have been President.

But you're making the wrong argument.

Go back on the election demographics, if we assume most Perot voters would have otherwise voted for the Republican candidate, then the voting demographic amongst white voters has remained relatively constant, '88, '92, '96, '00, '04, & '08, in their split between the Republican and Democrat candidates. Of the minority races Bush in '04 received ~30% of the vote, while McCain received ~20% of the vote.

So the question becomes, who would the Hispanics and Asians have voted for if it were McCain versus Clinton.

There too are your stats to debunk Eskimospy's theories.

One thing that is very interesting to figure out, the jump in votes amongst white people Romney gained over McCain, is nearly equal to the jump in votes amongst black people too that Romney gained over McCain!

White and blacks are pretty much set in who they vote for. The only real difference over the years has been who Hispanics and Asians vote for. It's why the progressive commentators build the image that Republicans are racist against minorities, they are the ones who can have their opinions swayed to decide elections.

 

[fskimospy]

3 percent more and Al Gore would have been President.

But you're making the wrong argument.

It is 3% of the black vote, which makes up 13% of the electorate. What's 3% of 13%? About 0.4% of the vote.

Go back on the election demographics, if we assume most Perot voters would have otherwise voted for the Republican candidate, then the voting demographic amongst white voters has remained relatively constant, '88, '92, '96, '00, '04, & '08, in their split between the Republican and Democrat candidates. Of the minority races Bush in '04 received ~30% of the vote, while McCain received ~20% of the vote.

So the question becomes, who would the Hispanics and Asians have voted for if it were McCain versus Clinton.

This is in fact incorrect, or at a minimum unsupported by the evidence. Exit polls were analyzed to see who else Perot voters were voting for. They split roughly evenly between Democrats and Republicans on House and Senate races and voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in gubernatorial races. Additionally, if you look at how the polling went during the Presidential race, Perot dropping out briefly helped Clinton, not Bush. Finally, the voters themselves said in exit polls that they would have split evenly between Bush and Clinton.

In short, we most certainly should not assume that Perot voters were Republican voters. If anything, the assumption should be tilted the other way.

For more information on this:
http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm

 

[davmat787]

3% more doesn't make it harder to get elected, does it?

Gore would have shit carbon credits for an additional 3% percent in 2000. But then the phrase "hanging chad" would never have entered our vocabulary so it's all good.

It is 3% of the black vote, which makes up 13% of the electorate. What's 3% of 13%? About 0.4% of the vote.

True, but 0.4% would have been enough, assuming they were cast in the right place.

 

[fskimospy]

True, but 0.4% would have been enough, assuming they were cast in the right place.

Again, that assumes that no white people don't vote for him because he is black either, which is a highly dubious assumption. Especially in say... Florida.

I've gone from baffled, to angry, to amused at this thread. It definitely explains a lot of other threads though.

 

[werepossum]

How does it not help him?

What were his qualifications to be elected? He was a junior senator from Illinois, and a college professor prior. His opponents, on both sides of the aisle, were more qualified. Some were vastly more qualified.

What % of black voters voted for Obama?

How does that compare, with say Clinton's demographics?

Not only that, but Obama's supposed big accomplishment in the state legislature was pushing through a Republican bill expanding a prior Republican program in a Republican senate. Had Obama been white, he would have been several points below Kucinich.

I don't even know what you're trying to prove.

Percentage of the black vote over the last 4 elections:

1996: 96%
2000: 95%
2004: 93%
2008: 99%

None of that takes into account the fact that Gore and Kerry lost, which likely means that they were modestly less appealing candidates so you could expect slightly lower percentages for them.

This basically means that Obama's 'black advantage' is somewhere around 3% in 13% of the electorate. That means that even if you're 100% right Obama's additional percentage from the shift was 0.4% of the vote. STOP THE PRESSES. AND AGAIN, that doesn't even take into account white voters being less likely to vote for him.

Seriously, just stop. Clearly being black is such a huge advantage for presidential candidates that we've had exactly one elected in 225 years.

Clearly that has historically been the case. Clearly that is no longer the case. The American people decided (correctly) that it was time we had a black President. Other than being black and having a moderate ability to read a TelePrompter, Obama has absolutely nothing going for him.

3 percent more and Al Gore would have been President.

But you're making the wrong argument.

Go back on the election demographics, if we assume most Perot voters would have otherwise voted for the Republican candidate, then the voting demographic amongst white voters has remained relatively constant, '88, '92, '96, '00, '04, & '08, in their split between the Republican and Democrat candidates. Of the minority races Bush in '04 received ~30% of the vote, while McCain received ~20% of the vote.

So the question becomes, who would the Hispanics and Asians have voted for if it were McCain versus Clinton.

There too are your stats to debunk Eskimospy's theories.

One thing that is very interesting to figure out, the jump in votes amongst white people Romney gained over McCain, is nearly equal to the jump in votes amongst black people too that Romney gained over McCain!

White and blacks are pretty much set in who they vote for. The only real difference over the years has been who Hispanics and Asians vote for. It's why the progressive commentators build the image that Republicans are racist against minorities, they are the ones who can have their opinions swayed to decide elections.

Well, thanks for THOSE nightmares!

 

[OGOC]

This racist angle is just a subset of the progressive mindset.

1. They love Obama because it's so historic to have our first black president and it's so cool to have voted for him, blah, blah, blah.
2. They consider themselves to be highly intelligent with superior thought processes.
3. Therefore, logic dictates that everyone must love Obama too.

If others don't love Obama, there must be an explanation for that. What could that be? The convenient answer is that it's because of the color of his skin. They can't be wrong because they are highly intelligent. This tidies things up very neatly in their minds. Simple and concise.

I blame this type of thinking on our schools. They're churning them out by the millions.

There are other reasons. There is also the ego factor of knowing you've been duped but not wanting to admit it. Obama has continued or increased many Bush policies that those people hated, but when Obama does it, they come to his defense.

Credit to some of them though who are finally starting to make a peep after four years.

Let's look at how the Congressional Black Caucus admits Obama can do a bad job but still get a pass:

Emanuel Cleaver: CBC Would Probably Be Marching on the White House if Obama Wasn’t President
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/18/cleaver-cbc-white-house/

Forget about the implied “we’re not going to march on the White House because of the color of the president” part and try to focus on what is tantamount to an admission that the policies embraced by this administration have been disastrous.

It’s a continual source of bemusement when Democrats in Congress whose votes have allowed Obama to follow this very path complain about where that path has taken the country — and then somehow blame the Tea Party.