-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
How did Obama get 80 percent of the black vote?
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Guys, studies have long shown that the vast majority of people do not in fact make their choice based on the issues. If they do make their choice based on issues, it's usually based on a single one. (ie. abortion)
Black people are not voting for Obama because they like his platform better then Hillary's (that would be very difficult as both of their platforms are nearly identical). They are voting for him because he looks like them and they think that he will look after them because they believe he thinks similarly to them. This is mostly based on total crap, but that's how most people make their decisions.
Call it racist if you want, but it's true. If anyone wants links to specific studies and articles about descriptive representation, information shortcuts, and/or opinion formation in mass publics I will see if I can find them on JSTOR and send them to you.
Black people are not voting for Obama because they like his platform better then Hillary's (that would be very difficult as both of their platforms are nearly identical). They are voting for him because he looks like them and they think that he will look after them because they believe he thinks similarly to them. This is mostly based on total crap, but that's how most people make their decisions.
Call it racist if you want, but it's true. If anyone wants links to specific studies and articles about descriptive representation, information shortcuts, and/or opinion formation in mass publics I will see if I can find them on JSTOR and send them to you.
Doubtful. They vote for him because of what he did in the black community, namely helping the poor and providing legal services for church-groups. If he was Clarence Thomas they would vote for Hillary by a landslide. During the debates in Atlanta, Georgia last year, he got tepid applause because of his honest statements that blacks should work hard to get ahead in life. Hillary pandered to the crowd by implying that blacks are being prejudiced against.
All in all, (I hope that blacks are) coming around to the hard truth that Obama is honest. He doesn't pander to the black community at all. He tells them the same things he tells everybody else.
Doubtful why? They would vote for Hillary over Clarence Thomas because party ID is also a powerful constraint. I specifically mentioned that we are talking about differences between two people in the same party. I'm sorry, but they are in fact voting for him because he's black and they think he has a chance. They aren't doing it consciously, but that's what they're doing.
If you have some sort of research that shows that black voters are somehow taking past policies and actions into account to a substantial degree I would very much like to see it. All research to date says explicitly that they do not... nor do other voters.
Blacks are not blind idiots. Up until a month or two ago they were overwhelmly for Clinton. Blacks didn't want to waste their vote just because he was black so they took a hard look at him. Like much of America, they came around to liking him more. Let's face it, he's an inspiring individual, but not just for African-Americans. He leads a positive campaign and people like that. Look, the guy's father left him and his mom when he was young. He's struggled to find himself. He was even homeless for a short time when he came to NYC to study. After lawschool, he went straight to the poor to help them out. When people read something like that, there's part of it that they can relate to but it's a really heartwarming story and exemplifies what's great about America: namely that our future is in our hand and we are a giving nation.
Saying that blacks vote for him simply because of his race is demeaning to African-Americans.
As I said before, tell me what other subgroup votes 90% for democrats in the general and i'll tell you which other subgroup voted 80% for any one candidate in the primary. You're operating under assumption that the Black subgroup normally votes just like any other subgroup, and it's been categorically proven that it does not whether a black candidate is involved or not.
Now we're playing numbers games. Instead of answering the question of what number between 65% and 80% something becomes universal, you only restated that you think there's a difference. You rephrase 65% as compared to 80% as 4 to 1/2 to 1, for the only reason that it sounds better than a 15% difference. Discount 90% as compared to 80% as unimportant even though it happens all the time with black voters. Discount 80% in a majority white state because it's a caucus. A caucus is an aggregate, just like your 80% number which you hold so dear. You already have your conclusion and simply throw out anything that disagrees with it as unimportant because it's different. Only thing is you're also the one that unilaterally declared that the difference is significant. I don't agree. All the other numbers are at least as relevant as yours.
I said every group of voters is of equal intelligence, not every voter. If you believe that's not so, put up or shut up. Pointing out that dumb people exist in SC, is not a counter-argument. I already specifically granted that there are people who will vote for a team, but you have not even tried to prove that that number is any higher among Blacks than any other group. Each individual voter has his/her own reasons, and you don't have any more insight into what the reason is than I do. Even I as a Black person do not claim to speak for them all.
As for your last paragraph, I am Black, and i'm not going to put a black man in office that isn't the person i think would best represent me and this country. It's unfortunate that you would, but none of my black friends would either. In the end of all this debate you haven't brought one thing other than the original raw number to prove your point, and then refused to acknowledge that the reason for the number can be anything other than what you guess it is. All you've done is project your beliefs onto others. Something you have a right to do, but not worthy of being fronted as a legitimate argument.
Nearly all voters are blind idiots, it's not just black people. This has been scientifically proven.
It's not demeaning to black people, it's just a fact. White people also tend to vote overwhelmingly for white candidates. I'm sorry, but people simply don't delve into the issues before they vote. Most people aren't even aware of what Hillary and Obama stand for. Maybe you do, maybe some friends of yours do, but you are an extremely small subset of the population.
The entire narrative you just spelled out there sounds like campaign literature, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if they have something very similar to it on his website, in his ads, etc. The point of something like that is to tell voters "I'm like you". They will take that feeling and run with it, attributing positions they support to Obama even if Obama doesn't actually stand for those things.
This is a big reason why Bush got elected. Surveys done after the election showed that there were a large percentage of people that attributed positoins to Bush that he didn't hold, in fact he often held the exact opposite opinion. People thought that because they liked him and that they identified with him that he must hold their same opinions.
Again, people don't know shit. Everyone who has studied political science knows this. There are many famous studies showing that the average person can't even identify what liberal or conservative really means, and that their decisions on what it is are little better then coin flips.
Where's your evidence that the two bolded statements are connected? Your first paragraph could be completely true, but your conclusion still completely incorrect.
The most common reason that Black people could be voting for Obama is because they believe he represents Change, as opposed to Hillary who was in the white house for 8 years, and seems like more of the same.
What evidence do you have to support that your guess of the reason is better than mine?
Here is my evidence. It's what the people who actually cast the votes have to say. Why speak for them when they can speak for themselves?
Overall, the poll found, Clinton's supporters overwhelmingly favor experience over change, 78 percent to 21 percent. Obama's supporters reflect the flip side, favoring change over experience 72 percent to 28 percent.
Your assertion that there is no difference between the candidates is incorrect, in the eyes of the voters who are asked anyway. Interestingly enough, that number also approaches 80%. As theories go, mine is a lot more sound and supported than yours is.
Vic
Elite Member
People vote for identity, not issues. This is known. How else, in the 2004 election, could Kerry have come out against gay marriage, Bush in favor of it, and have their voters identify exactly the opposite? There's a lesson to be learned there, but as long as the far left continues to ignore that message and to insult, demean, and hurl accusations (like that of racism) against voters for the exact same political identification process that we all use and go through (I'm sorry, what do you call yourself again?), then they will continue to not want to identify with the same party that the far left does. And for obvious reasons there too.
You think yourselves so smart, but if it wasn't for this, this hateful arrogance of people the far left inflicts upon people for the crime of just being people, people would have never vote Republican. I keep saying this. Why do think Obama has managed to generate such broad appeal? Oh wait, that's racism, or kool-aid, or because he refuses to discuss the issues. Bullsh1t. It's because he gives people an identity that they want to identify with. Fancy fscking that. God forbid a Democrat ever do that!
One of the most famous studies in political science is by Phillip Converse called "The nature of belief systems in mass publics". I couldn't find a direct link on JSTOR but In effect it said that people don't know shit and depend on elites to tell them what to think. This has been tested over almost half a century now and has proven accurate. So the reason people aren't voting for Obama because they like his platform better is because most voters have no idea what either of their platforms are.
In fact, your link just provides more evidence for my point. People didn't mention 'change' as a big deal until the pundits and everyone started making it a big deal. They were told what they were supposed to think, and that's why they parrot it back. It's not because they actually know any difference between the candidates.
As for Vic, some of what you say is definitely right. The question though isn't why people like Obama (there are way too many reasons to mention in one post) it was why black people so disproportionately like Obama. A good chunk of the reason is descriptive representation. There's nothing wrong with this, it's a pretty valid information shortcut to be honest. I don't think it's racist, or if it is it's no more racist then what the rest of us are. It is true though.
jonks
Lifer
And here is the Obama narrative people run with without question. "He appeals to everyone! He's a uniter!" Let's see. Obama wins among young people, blacks, people with college/graduate degrees, and men.
Hillary wins among people over 65, women, hispanics and asians, blue collars. But Hillary is divisive and Obama has broad appeal. I guess all those groups don't count.
True, Republicans probably like Obama more than Hillary due to their irrational hatred of her, but 1) I don't let Republicans pick my candidate, 2) I have yet to see any evidence that republicans will vote for the democrat over their candidate in any real amount. Independents are supposedly huge Obama supporters, but that wasn't even enough for him to win NH, which has one of the largest Independent factions in the country.
The uniter image is bunk for everyone who runs on it. Bush was a uniter, and DC stayed the same. Actually, it became more polarized than it's ever been.
Vic
Elite Member
*ZING* right over your head.
First, Republicans don't hate Hillary. They hate that vocal crowd that identifies with Hillary.
Second, you're the one defending the OP's racism. Quit trying to imply otherwise.
Third, Bush was never a uniter. Just because he might have said so a couple of times doesn't mean he ever meant it, and of course, he certainly never had the political ability. To keep using that spiel against Obama, a person within your own party, just goes to show how loathsome you Hillarybots are, and likewise further evidence why the American people in general will never identify with you. The saddest thing is that (in a way) you know it, and you're just hoping they'll hate you less than the Bushies... and I'm not convinced.
Again all of that could be completely correct. It still doesn't answer my main question. If the people themselves don't even know why they like a candidate, how can you say that you know why they like him. Where is your evidence that the reason they like him is predominately because of race? Do you have anything to back up that race is the primary reason?
Vic
Elite Member
It's not racist at all. The OP was the one who pulled racism out of the dictionary (literally no less).
A black man is running for POTUS and has a legitimate chance of being elected. 400+ years of slavery, bigotry, persecution, and oppression and, today, a black man is running for POTUS and has a legitimate chance of being elected. If I was black, you better believe I would be voting for Obama for that reason alone, and there sure as hell would be nothing racist about it.
jonks
Lifer
/me blinks. R U serial?
I don't mean to play the "black friend" card, but if Eskimo is true to his avatar, then he agrees with me, making him a black democract who's racist against blacks. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth eskimo. You know you my, uh, bud 🙂
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro...c/20106/tsl-20106.html
He challenged the incumbent governor, Democrat Ann Richards, running on promises to improve public education and to reform the juvenile justice system, welfare, and the state's tort laws...During the 74th Legislature in 1995, he worked with the Democrats who controlled both houses of the Texas legislature and managed to get bills passed that dealt with the four issues he had emphasized in his campaign. Bush was seen as pro-business and a consensus-builder.
*************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
He was elected with 52 percent against incumbent Democrat Richards' 47 percent. In 1998, Bush won re-election in a landslide victory with nearly 69 percent of the vote.
*************
69%....must be some democrats voted for him.
Also a nice unrelated tidbit I'd never heard on his wiki page:
He proclaimed June 10 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a day where he "urge[d] all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need." Oy vey.
There are tons of cases in which people don't know why they like something but other people do. Marketing is a great example. Some people buy Macintosh computers because they like the operating system better, fewer viruses, whatever. A certainly nontrivial segment buys a mac because they think it makes them cool, hip, whatever. If you asked them why they bought it would they tell you this? Maybe some would, but plenty wouldn't. Maybe they don't even admit it to themselves.
Anyways, I guess I was confused a bit by what you were asking for because in political science the idea that race is cause for huge differences in support within a party is just a given. There are zillions of studies out there that show this, here's one if you have JSTOR access.
If that doesn't work for you I can see if I can find some other ones that don't require it. Simply put the studies usually can explain a variance of about 20-30% of a candidates support within the same party based on racial ID.
Vic
Elite Member
Wow... CLEARLY that's a political tactic that the Democrats should absolutely NEVER try to emulate.
Let's try your tactic instead. We'll be total assholes to everyone who doesn't "Hiel Hillary!", hurl insults and accusations at everyone who doesn't toe exactly to our line, label blacks as racists because 80% of them voted for the black Democratic candidate, and talk frequently about the all the kinds of revenge we're going to get against the 51% of America who voted GW Bush in 2004. We'll chant "We were right, you were wrong!" all the way to November.
That's gonna be a winner, let me tell ya! You're a political fscking genius! :roll:
edit: Oh wait, I forgot about the part where we're supposed to do all that while pretending to call ourselves liberals who care about people and free speech/thought/political expression/etc.
Unfortunately, I don't have JSOR access. It seems to me that there would be extreme room for error in any study like that, since you can't control for every aspect of a human being or any election. How did they quantify that 1 person is more "likeable"?. How did they get into a voter's head and decide out of all the information that they had heard over months/years of time, which crucial part was the decision maker? In the end, it seems like nothing more a best guess at how much race influenced any particular voter's decision, since as you said, even the person themselves barely knows.
For the most part i'm willing to stipulate that your claims on voter ignorance are true. What i'm looking for specifically is evidence that would back up the claim that Blacks are voting for Obama primarily because he's black, and not primarily for some other reason. A general study couldn't show exactly how much race is influencing this particular election.
However, say I was to buy into everything that you've stated 100%, which I definitely don't. Should I then conclude that Obama would still have beat Clinton with 50 to 60% if he was white? Alternatively I would also conclude that on Super Tuesday, that white men would have voted for Obama at a rate of 70 to 80% if he was white, instead of the 50% clip that they did? Since you said that race influences everybody, i'd have to conclude that Obama's numbers are just as deflated among whites as they are inflated among blacks.
Personally, I have to say that it's a load of BS. I believe that race is a minor factor both ways, and haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
