John Sununu says Powell endorsed Obama because he is black.

[Hayabusa Rider]

So Sununu suggests that Powell is endorsing Obama based upon Identity Politics, and the Dems who promote Identity Politics are outraged?

Fern

Sununu has no basis for making any statement that Powell considered race as a factor. If Powell had said "I think a black President would have a better understanding of minority concerns" then yes, he'd have a legitimate point. Sununu is a huge dick. Sorry, but I was in NH when he was and backhanded compliments were a constant attack mode. Considering that Sununu used the government as his personal helicopter charter service, I don't have any respect for him. He was the LBJ of NH, using the state for his personal benefit.

I disagree with Powell in his assessment of Obama's economic success. I have higher expectations of the majority party, but on the other hand the Reps don't show a good grasp of things.

On the other hand Powell was right in saying that he didn't know which Romney would be making foreign policy decisions. Is it the one who wanted to stay in Afghanistan or wanted out? Overall Obama's done a pretty good job with the use of military force. Mistakes? Yep, but overall he's been better than most of his recent predecessors. After all he didn't get us into a ground war. Does that mean "Identity Politics" are in action? Heck I guess I must be black then because as far as foreign policy goes I have the same concerns.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So Sununu suggests that Powell is endorsing Obama based upon Identity Politics, and the Dems who promote Identity Politics are outraged?

Is this really the best you can do? Do you really not see how easily it is countered by the reverse argument -- that the same Republicans who complain about identity politics are accusing someone of engaging in it with absolutely no evidence? And a prominent Republican to boot?

Truly embarrassing.

You need sources to make that assertion, that black Dem primary voters went for Obama 10:1.

Well, he won some of the primaries by close to that margin. In Mississippi for example.

This assessment comes in at more like 5:1 or so.

In order to claim Race as the primary factor, one would necessarily need to demonstrate that black Conservatives win minority-majority black districts over white Liberals, one of those flying pig contentions.

I think we're mixing up a couple of things here.

The comparison you are talking about would show if blacks would vote based on race even over and above other clear considerations. As you concede, it's pretty much impossible to assess things in such a contrast. And I agree that there's no evidence that blacks do this.

The Obama-Clinton comparison is between two candidates who were very similar in terms of policy and even style. But blacks voted for Obama in a hugely lop-sided manner. (Whites favored Clinton, of course, but not quite in such a dramatic fashion.) Given the similarity between the two, how can race not have been a major factor?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

think we're mixing up a couple of things here.

The comparison you are talking about would show if blacks would vote based on race even over and above other clear considerations. As you concede, it's pretty much impossible to assess things in such a contrast. And I agree that there's no evidence that blacks do this.

That's how I see it and perhaps as you noted elsewhere the source of the difference in my and his thinking. I wasn't the least interested in demonstrating that blacks voted exclusively or even mostly based on race. I maintained that this-

-says one thing and that is blacks voted Democratic. It doesn't force anything to be anything else, and I have no interest whatsoever in trying to provide a motive for any selection. Perhap he takes my finding fault with his methodology as stating that I mean blacks select overwhelmingly because of racial considerations. Not sure. For my part I'm completely agnostic on the subject. I have speculation, but I'm not engaging in probable causes and associations nor making any claim as to motive. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Obama-Clinton comparison is between two candidates who were very similar in terms of policy and even style. But blacks voted for Obama in a hugely lop-sided manner. (Whites favored Clinton, of course, but not quite in such a dramatic fashion.) Given the similarity between the two, how can race not have been a major factor?

I forgot to address this. We have something of a semantic issue here. What constitutes acceptable identification with one's own group, in this case race, and what is racist?

To my way of thinking one may feel that such identification between oneself and another may result in a more beneficial relationship or understanding, and that is race as a consideration, but if one doesn't pick a white if one is black because one doesn't like whites, that's racism. It's more of an antagonistic perspective, active distrust and dislike. Bring racist can be done in ignorance, but it involves a negative impression based on that difference all on it's own.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The distinction for me is similar. I think there's a difference between voting for something and voting against something. Especially when that something is rare or unusual.