Finally a poll that looks at race. And it aint pretty!

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I also fail to see what this has to do with the fact that were Obama white, he would be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt. Are you trying to make some sort of statement about blacks only voting for Obama because he's black or something?

In the North Carolina primary Obama took 91% of the black vote verse Hillary's 7%.

In Alabama Obama won 84% of the black vote.

In Mississippi Obama won 92% of the black vote.

In Indiana Obama won 89% of the black vote.

Notice a pattern yet? Explain to me why Obama won the overwhelming majority of blacks in nearly every primary. If he were a white first term Senator would the results have been the same?

Leave it to you to see it one sided...

What about all of the white people that voted for Hillary because he is black?

You are tying to stir up mud and as usual, you fail. He won the promary in spite of being black, and is looking very good to win hte general elction is spite of being black... The notion that being black is actually helping him to become the president of the united states is rediculous. Trying to make it racial when it isnt is another republican ploy.

NEXT!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ss284
Assuming the other 28% are registered independent, and they share the same numbers as democrats as per the article, we have x(.33) + .34(.39) + .34(.28) = .40(1) , where the number in () represents the percentage affiliation and x represents the percentage of a negative view for republicans. x ends up being about 52%, not 81%.

Your assumption that independents have the same percentage negative view of blacks as dems is probably wrong. More reasonable would be to assume that independents are about halfway between dems and repubs. Then if x is the fraction of repubs that are negative on blacks, (.34 + (x - .34)/2) = .17 + x/2 is the fraction of independents that are negative. Thus:

.39*.34 + .33x + .28*(.17 + x/2) = .4, or x = about .47, and we get:

Dems = 34% negative
Independents = 40% negative.
Republicans = 47% negative.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: RacebaiterJohn
Clif, it is identity politics.

Obama wins 90% of black voters in the primary because he is black, there is no other explanation for it. And no one seems to have a problem with it.

But if the majority of whites vote for McCain because he is white then it is racism.

Why the double standard?

:roll:

 

[Butterbean]

Being bi-racial is what has protected BO. The media dropped all critical examination of him of him while promoting him as Martin Luther Kennedy - the golden child as promised from the 60's. Meanwhile the media was going after Romney for weeks about his Mormonism while ignoring Wrights' rantings easily available on DVD. If Obama was all white he would have been out a long time ago. Blacks cant complain because they have a very conservative social views on abortion, homosexual faux marriage (strongest against it) etc but they still vote Dem and now even more so now because they are voting based on color (I dont consider that racist per se ). If a poll should show a percentage of whites see blacks as violent then it would be time to look at the crap Rap culture and its thug focus and stop complaining about other people. Cosby and others have it right (and black writer Stanley Crouch said no other race would let itself be portrayed the way Rap portrays blacks). Ditto for things like illegitimacy.

 

[Thump553]

butterbean: There is no such thing as racial purity. We are all a mixture of all the races if you go back enough generations. I remember a Time or Newsweek cover story that geneticists had scientificially determined that the human races' "Eve" was a black woman from Africa (for some reason I forget, it is easier to trace female than male forbearers). Calling someone half-black is really a misnomer.

PJ. this time you actually do raise a serious issue. I would point out though that 38 years ago the exact same debate was going on regarding the first Catholic candidate-I remember relatives having strong arguments about it around the Sunday dinner table-whether a Catholic would have his primary allegiance to the US or to what the Pope instructed. That candidate was JFK, and in retrospect those very substantial fears seem pretty silly.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There's only one poll that matters and this isn't it.

Obama wins.

Obama wins.

Any questions?

Those two don't matter, either, BTW.

 

[OCGuy]

I wonder what a poll would say about black people's opinions of whites? Thier whole comedy world is "Black guys do this, white guys do this."

What a joke.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The racial bigots are the ones who keep bringing it up. Unless you haven't come out of your trip from the late 1960's, racism is all but dead. Small sectors of it exist (KKK and the like) but nothing on a scale that would change the election toward McCain. /thread

 

[ss284]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ss284
Assuming the other 28% are registered independent, and they share the same numbers as democrats as per the article, we have x(.33) + .34(.39) + .34(.28) = .40(1) , where the number in () represents the percentage affiliation and x represents the percentage of a negative view for republicans. x ends up being about 52%, not 81%.

Your assumption that independents have the same percentage negative view of blacks as dems is probably wrong. More reasonable would be to assume that independents are about halfway between dems and repubs. Then if x is the fraction of repubs that are negative on blacks, (.34 + (x - .34)/2) = .17 + x/2 is the fraction of independents that are negative. Thus:

.39*.34 + .33x + .28*(.17 + x/2) = .4, or x = about .47, and we get:

Dems = 34% negative
Independents = 40% negative.
Republicans = 47% negative.

The article states that "More than a third of all white Democrats and independents ? voters Obama can't win the White House without ? agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks..."

That's democrats and independents. I'm not sure of the exact spread between the groups, but on average they hit 33%, so my original assumption is correct.

 

[sandorski]

Negative attitudes towards Race does not = outright rejection of Obama.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ss284

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ss284
Assuming the other 28% are registered independent, and they share the same numbers as democrats as per the article, we have x(.33) + .34(.39) + .34(.28) = .40(1) , where the number in () represents the percentage affiliation and x represents the percentage of a negative view for republicans. x ends up being about 52%, not 81%.

Your assumption that independents have the same percentage negative view of blacks as dems is probably wrong. More reasonable would be to assume that independents are about halfway between dems and repubs. Then if x is the fraction of repubs that are negative on blacks, (.34 + (x - .34)/2) = .17 + x/2 is the fraction of independents that are negative. Thus:

.39*.34 + .33x + .28*(.17 + x/2) = .4, or x = about .47, and we get:

Dems = 34% negative
Independents = 40% negative.
Republicans = 47% negative.

The article states that "More than a third of all white Democrats and independents ? voters Obama can't win the White House without ? agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks..."

That's democrats and independents. I'm not sure of the exact spread between the groups, but on average they hit 33%, so my original assumption is correct.

That line doesn't mean the same percentage applies to each group.

Read the article more carefully: It also specifically says, "Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective." That sets the white-Democrat percentage at 33%.

Also, the article says of white-independents, "more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining." That's at least 34%. That sets a floor of 34% on the percentage of white-independents who cited at least one negative. Thus, the only way the percentage of white-independents could be as low as 34% would be if every single white independent who cited one of the other four negatives measured in the poll also cited "complaining." That's extremely unlikely to be true.

To see how unlikely a 34% figure for white-independents is, consider that the highest single negative category for white-Dems was "Complaining," where from the chart their percentage is 22%. Yet the aggregate negative percentage for white-Dems is 33%. And for white-Republicans, the highest single negative category was "Complaining" (= 35%), yet we're computing that the aggregate percentage is 47%.

So the aggregate percentage for white-independents is almost certainly above the 34% measured in a single category. I assumed a halfway figure between Dems and Repubs, which computed to be about 40%.

 

[chess9]

No one knows how big a factor race will be in this election, but we do know this:

1. Few blacks are Republicans;
2. Obama is only half black, but he gets almost all the black vote;
3. McCain is white, and almost all his supporters are, you guessed it, white;
4. People pick a candidate based upon a number of factors, but race IS one of them, which is one reason you see so few black candidates at the top of the Republican tickets in federal or state elections;
5. Racism is still strong in America and both blacks and whites can be racists.

Despite the handicap of being half-black, Obama is doing rather well. And if he wins, a lot of racists are going to be very upset. But, that's a different set of problems.

I'd suggest everyone vote for Obama. McCain is too old, Palin is unqualified to be President, and their ideas are 19th century ideas.

On the other hand, the problems facing America are nearly intractable, and we are showing signs of impending division and collapse from many quarters. Whoever is elected is going to have to shovel a lot of merde in the next four years. Why should the first half-black American President have to shoulder that burden, when many of these problems have been caused by the Republican crazies?

-Robert

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The racial bigots are the ones who keep bringing it up. Unless you haven't come out of your trip from the late 1960's, racism is all but dead. Small sectors of it exist (KKK and the like) but nothing on a scale that would change the election toward McCain. /thread

Unfortunately quite a few studies have found racism to be alive and well. It doesn't take the form of people burning crosses on a lawn, but it's very much there regardless.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The racial bigots are the ones who keep bringing it up. Unless you haven't come out of your trip from the late 1960's, racism is all but dead. Small sectors of it exist (KKK and the like) but nothing on a scale that would change the election toward McCain. /thread

Racism is alive and well in America.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Thump553Calling someone half-black is really a misnomer.

But the media calls Obama all black - as in first black candidate. Seems half black is closer to correct. Look at this pic of Obama and his grandparents and ponder the "first black candidate" thing...


http://www.tadias.com/wp-conte...rican-grandparents.jpg

 

[jonks]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...race-based-voting.html

Nate Silver of 538's take, as a statistician, on the survey in the OP article, and to quote the OP, it ain't pretty.

Saturday, September 20, 2008
On Race-Based Voting

The commentariat's topic du jour is this AP story which cites a study conducted in conjunction with Yahoo!, Knowledge Networks and Stanford University and which reports that "Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice." Here are some thoughts I have on the matter:

1. It is irresponsible to cite this study without fully disclosing its methods or making it subject to peer review, particularly as it appears to use a rather convoluted soup of statistical and inferential techniques.

2. The study appears to be one of all adults, rather than registered or likely voters. Expressions of racial prejudice have a strong inverse correlation with education levels, and so do turnout rates. Therefore, even if it is true that Barack Obama's race puts him at something like a 6-point disadvantage with the population as a whole, the margin is probably more like 4-5 points among likely voters.

3. A related and unresolved question is how many persons will vote for Barack Obama because he is black. Such behavior would probably be more implicit and harder to ascertain than voting against a candidate because of racial prejudice. For instance, Obama's biography is significantly more compelling because he is black (actually, bi-racial), and his change message is probably somewhat easier to sell because he looks different than other (e.g. white) politicians. If he were white, in other words, Barack Obama would not be Barack Obama. Moreover, there may be some people who explicitly vote for Obama because they think it will advance a goal of racial equality, present a different face to the world, and so forth. In the absence of sufficient detail on the study's methodology, it is impossible to know whether these things have been accounted for.

4. One should be very careful not to confuse a study like this with the Bradley Effect. Of course some people are racist, and will vote against Obama because he is black -- I have met some of them. But the Bradley Effect concerns something different -- whether such people are likely to lie about their behavior to pollsters. There is simply no empirical evidence that the Bradley Effect exists any longer. It did not exist in the primaries, and it did not exist in the 2006 Senate race in Tennessee, which was perhaps the most racially-tinged contest of the past decade (in fact, Harold Ford slightly outperformed the late polls).

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The racial bigots are the ones who keep bringing it up. Unless you haven't come out of your trip from the late 1960's, racism is all but dead. Small sectors of it exist (KKK and the like) but nothing on a scale that would change the election toward McCain. /thread

Unfortunately quite a few studies have found racism to be alive and well. It doesn't take the form of people burning crosses on a lawn, but it's very much there regardless.

Nobody keeps racism alive like libs. The whole Trojan horse charade of "diversity" is meant to focus on differences while psychotically pretending its about unity. Antonio Gramsci and the cultural Marxists cooked up the whole charade - including polymorphous perversity of Marcuse
and Frankfurt school. Lenin told his agitprop people to "accuse others" of what they themselves did to cause confusion. The Marxists on left (who own Dem party) keep accusing others of racism while they are biggest racists of all - and that goes for Kid Sunshine too.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Unfortunately quite a few studies have found racism to be alive and well. It doesn't take the form of people burning crosses on a lawn, but it's very much there regardless.

Nobody keeps racism alive like libs. The whole Trojan horse charade of "diversity" is meant to focus on differences while psychotically pretending its about unity. Antonio Gramsci and the cultural Marxists cooked up the whole charade - including polymorphous perversity of Marcuse
and Frankfurt school. Lenin told his agitprop people to "accuse others" of what they themselves did to cause confusion. The Marxists on left (who own Dem party) keep accusing others of racism while they are biggest racists of all - and that goes for Kid Sunshine too.

Thanks for the trip into crazy land. The idea that you think people coming out against racism are doing so as a form of Marxist subversion and takeover is... well... about as insane as everything else you write.

As always, I will encourage you to seek professional mental help. You seem dangerously unbalanced.

 

[ss284]

Originally posted by: shira
That line doesn't mean the same percentage applies to each group.

Read the article more carefully: It also specifically says, "Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective." That sets the white-Democrat percentage at 33%.

Also, the article says of white-independents, "more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining." That's at least 34%. That sets a floor of 34% on the percentage of white-independents who cited at least one negative. Thus, the only way the percentage of white-independents could be as low as 34% would be if every single white independent who cited one of the other four negatives measured in the poll also cited "complaining." That's extremely unlikely to be true.

To see how unlikely a 34% figure for white-independents is, consider that the highest single negative category for white-Dems was "Complaining," where from the chart their percentage is 22%. Yet the aggregate negative percentage for white-Dems is 33%. And for white-Republicans, the highest single negative category was "Complaining" (= 35%), yet we're computing that the aggregate percentage is 47%.

So the aggregate percentage for white-independents is almost certainly above the 34% measured in a single category. I assumed a halfway figure between Dems and Repubs, which computed to be about 40%.

That make sense, I can't really put it better than that .

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Unfortunately quite a few studies have found racism to be alive and well. It doesn't take the form of people burning crosses on a lawn, but it's very much there regardless.

Nobody keeps racism alive like libs. The whole Trojan horse charade of "diversity" is meant to focus on differences while psychotically pretending its about unity. Antonio Gramsci and the cultural Marxists cooked up the whole charade - including polymorphous perversity of Marcuse
and Frankfurt school. Lenin told his agitprop people to "accuse others" of what they themselves did to cause confusion. The Marxists on left (who own Dem party) keep accusing others of racism while they are biggest racists of all - and that goes for Kid Sunshine too.

Thanks for the trip into crazy land. The idea that you think people coming out against racism are doing so as a form of Marxist subversion and takeover is... well... about as insane as everything else you write.

As always, I will encourage you to seek professional mental help. You seem dangerously unbalanced.

Butterbean at Obama's inaguration

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Unfortunately quite a few studies have found racism to be alive and well. It doesn't take the form of people burning crosses on a lawn, but it's very much there regardless.

Nobody keeps racism alive like libs. The whole Trojan horse charade of "diversity" is meant to focus on differences while psychotically pretending its about unity. Antonio Gramsci and the cultural Marxists cooked up the whole charade - including polymorphous perversity of Marcuse
and Frankfurt school. Lenin told his agitprop people to "accuse others" of what they themselves did to cause confusion. The Marxists on left (who own Dem party) keep accusing others of racism while they are biggest racists of all - and that goes for Kid Sunshine too.

Thanks for the trip into crazy land. The idea that you think people coming out against racism are doing so as a form of Marxist subversion and takeover is... well... about as insane as everything else you write.

As always, I will encourage you to seek professional mental help. You seem dangerously unbalanced.

Butterbean at Obama's inaguration

rofl, how stupid does one have to be to think that T-Shirt is appropriate? You'd think that Armed revolution was a regular occurence instead of just the 1 time over 2 Centuries ago.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Butterbean at Obama's inaguration

rofl, how stupid does one have to be to think that T-Shirt is appropriate? You'd think that Armed revolution was a regular occurrence instead of just the 1 time over 2 Centuries ago.

Well in BB's case I don't think it's about being stupid, more like being delusional and paranoid.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're in rare form today, PJ. Things getting a little desperate out there among your usual sources?

Yeh, Race is still an issue in American politics, sadly enough, and that's reflected most strongly in the Repubs enduring success with their "Southern Strategy". I actually see this election as a referendum on Race, a reality check to see just how far we've come in 50 years. If Barack Obama looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be stomping McCain's tired old ass into the dirt, imho.

If Obama looked like Romney he would have never won the nomination.

It has been PROVEN that Obama won several states based solely on the 90% of blacks who voted for him.

Make Obama a white guy and split that vote 50/50 and Hillary is the nominee.

But for some reason you guys always ignore that part of the equation when you talk about how racism is going to cause Obama to lose.

How many Hillary voters voter for her because Obama is not white? How can they accurately say?

Why no response, PJ?