So Obama picks a black person and the cowards go crazy

[Fern]

-snip-
You guys never say a word when white person after white person is nominated, despite that being far less likely to be random, statistically speaking. I wonder why that is.

It's not "random".

We didn't have our first black federal judge until 1961. For much of the period you keep mentioning there simply wasn't a black candidate. So, statistically speaking we should expect 100% white nominations until sometime well after 1961.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Or maybe there's some selective awareness of probabilities when it comes to race.

You guys never say a word when white person after white person is nominated, despite that being far less likely to be random, statistically speaking. I wonder why that is.

Jhhnn wants his reading comprehension back. I'm not arguing that Obama's nomination was racially motivated. In fact, I've offered some reasons why it is not necessarily racially motivated, and I have no problem with Ms. Lynch from what little I know of her now. I'm just not pretending that her race is a random event.

If something happens to derail her nomination and Obama then nominates another black person, I have no problem with that either - unless he makes a claim that was a random event. Just as with Clinton nominating females until he found one too ugly to breed (and therefore without an illegal nanny problem), I have no problem with the event, I just find it amusing and somewhat patronizing when they pretend it's a coincidence.

It's not "random".

We didn't have our first black federal judge until 1961. For much of the period you keep mentioning there simply wasn't a black candidate. So, statistically speaking we should expect 100% white nominations until sometime well after 1961.

Fern

We COULD have had black AGs though. The Attorney General is at least as much advocation and prosecutorial as it is judicial in nature. There certainly weren't a lot of qualified candidates, but there were certainly some. I'm not saying it was a string of conscious decisions to nominate only white people, but it was certainly a string of conscious decisions to not nominate a black person for the sake of nominating a black person. Not that this would necessarily be a good thing, but when we're telling people that they are all equal and yet the first 81 confirmed in a prestigious position look like they could be a family reunion . . .

I'm not a big fan of diversity for the sake of diversity, but at some point we have to acknowledge that the lack of diversity is a conscious decision.

 

[Blanky]

I like how eskimposy is the only one in this thread that is actually applying statistics appropriately.

No one else actually seems to understand how statistics work. :hmm:

On the contrary, he's making the same point I am, that the office of the attorney general is filled with race as a consideration. He seems to think that race has suddenly no longer become a factor in selecting the attorney general OR that it's okay it is a factor because it's making up for lost time.

If somebody had made a thread questioning why 81 of the first 81 attorney generals were white it would have been a fool's errand to argue that it was a meritocracy.

Given that blacks make up 14% of the US population, if we assume they are in all ways equally qualified as all races for AG the chance of one being in office is 14% if race is not an influencing factor. The chance of two in a row is 2%, hence my exceedingly unlikely statement above.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not "random".

We didn't have our first black federal judge until 1961. For much of the period you keep mentioning there simply wasn't a black candidate. So, statistically speaking we should expect 100% white nominations until sometime well after 1961.

Fern

Since 1961 it is still less likely statistically, so the question stands.

 

[fskimospy]

On the contrary, he's making the same point I am, that the office of the attorney general is filled with race as a consideration. He seems to think that race has suddenly no longer become a factor in selecting the attorney general OR that it's okay it is a factor because it's making up for lost time.

If somebody had made a thread questioning why 81 of the first 81 attorney generals were white it would have been a fool's errand to argue that it was a meritocracy.

Given that blacks make up 14% of the US population, if we assume they are in all ways equally qualified as all races for AG the chance of one being in office is 14% if race is not an influencing factor. The chance of two in a row is 2%, hence my exceedingly unlikely statement above.

I'm saying that you can't draw causal inferences from a sample of two. If you ARE trying to do that, however, you should realize other less probable events have happened for white AGs

 

[werepossum]

On the contrary, he's making the same point I am, that the office of the attorney general is filled with race as a consideration. He seems to think that race has suddenly no longer become a factor in selecting the attorney general OR that it's okay it is a factor because it's making up for lost time.

If somebody had made a thread questioning why 81 of the first 81 attorney generals were white it would have been a fool's errand to argue that it was a meritocracy.

Given that blacks make up 14% of the US population, if we assume they are in all ways equally qualified as all races for AG the chance of one being in office is 14% if race is not an influencing factor. The chance of two in a row is 2%, hence my exceedingly unlikely statement above.

THIS is the correct use of statistics. Clustering is always possible, but with one known event result, the second event reverts to its core percentage. The odds of getting heads four times in a row with a fair coin are 1 in 16, but if you've already gotten heads three times in a row that fourth toss is 1 in 2.

That said, it's certainly not a meritocracy (or at least not purely a meritocracy) and selecting a black person by preference is by far one of the least damaging criteria.

 

[Fern]

Since 1961 it is still less likely statistically, so the question stands.

"Since 1961 it is still less likely statistically". Ok, so it is less (likely) than 100% that nominees are white.

How much less likely?

And what question?

Fern

 

[sportage]

Whats this with the right wing confusing her, Obama's Loretta Lynch, with the Clinton lawyer Loretta Lynch?

One is black, the other white.
Surely the right wing loonies can tell the difference between black and white?
Isn't that listed paragraph number one under their political platform?

 

[LegendKiller]

edit

 

[Jhhnn]

Basis in post #72. I didn't say race is definitely a factor here, but statistics tell me it most likely is is, hence the wording "exceedingly unlikely" that it isn't.

I do wonder why so many are suspending disbelief here. The fact it was 100% whites for 81 in a row tells you that the office is quite racially biased. The idea that suddenly after a couple of hundred years it's now not biased is incredible.

So, 81 clearly biased appointments by white presidents means that Obama's appointment of 2 black AG's in a row must also be biased?

And if it is, why would it rate any greater concern than the previous 81 where Righties failed to comment on the bias?

I already stated them, and clearly. You keep trying to distill this down to left vs right. Do you always do this? It's not a healthy way to look at things. You're bound to miss truths.

The only reasons I've found is a determination to infer racism on the part of Obama from the racism of his predecessors.

I see we're nearly on the same page, as might as you may not realized you've done it; we both believe that appointments of attorney general are racially motivated. 81 non-blacks in a row is certainly influenced by racial bias.

True, which applies to Obama in what way? He's just as bad?

 

[fskimospy]

"Since 1961 it is still less likely statistically". Ok, so it is less (likely) than 100% that nominees are white.

How much less likely?

And what question?

Fern

No, it is less likely that all the nominees would be white since 1961 than two black nominees would happen in a row, based on relative representation in the overall population.

I never saw you question why they were all white, yet you immediately question why two in a row are black. Why?

 

[fskimospy]

THIS is the correct use of statistics. Clustering is always possible, but with one known event result, the second event reverts to its core percentage. The odds of getting heads four times in a row with a fair coin are 1 in 16, but if you've already gotten heads three times in a row that fourth toss is 1 in 2.

That said, it's certainly not a meritocracy (or at least not purely a meritocracy) and selecting a black person by preference is by far one of the least damaging criteria.

This is not the correct use of statistics or anything even close to it.

The question is not "what are the odds that the next AG will be white", they are "what are the odds that so many AGs in a row would be white".

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ivwshane]

What I find funny about this nomination is that she was confirmed twice by the senate. In 1999 she was confirmed by the republican led senate for the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

When bush came in he put his guy in and in 2010 Obama once again nominated her for the same position where she was confirmed via a voice vote ( meaning repubs didn't even bother filibustering her).

A career prosecutor who’s been confirmed twice by the Senate to one of the most prominent U.S. attorney positions, Lynch has experience with many of the major issues that a new attorney general would confront — including terrorism and financial crimes. She does not have a deep personal relationships with Obama or his close aides, or a resonance with the Democratic base eager to see the president pick fights more post-midterms.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...nomination-november-112686.html#ixzz3IjwBmaMO

So not only is she not an unknown to obama, she's not even an unknown to republican senators, who apparently have never had a problem with her.

Any blocking of her nomination will be purely political.

 

[himkhan]

^^^ Is why the race issue is BS. If anything it's Obama giving the GOP enough rope to hang themselves with. They approved her before the didn't approve her. They should step very carefully out in the yard because there is a lot of shit to step in if they aren't careful.

 

[Exterous]

So not only is she not an unknown to obama, she's not even an unknown to republican senators, who apparently have never had a problem with her.

I think its a bit of a stretch to assume they didn't have a problem with her. IMO it is entirely possible they either didn't care enough about their issues with her given her lower position (The AG is a much more public figure than just covering Eastern NY) or used the confirmations as part of a negotiating tactic\agreement.

 

[ivwshane]

I think its a bit of a stretch to assume they didn't have a problem with her. IMO it is entirely possible they either didn't care enough about their issues with her given her lower position (The AG is a much more public figure than just covering Eastern NY) or used the confirmations as part of a negotiating tactic\agreement.

That should be easy to prove. Show me how many attorney generals obama nominated and how many of them were blocked.

 

[thraashman]

Of course it does, unless you're one of those who believes only whites can be racist.

Here's the common sense observation:



Exactly.

-------------------

But from what news I've seen, no one's "gone crazy". All I heard is that she's likely to be confirmed easily. I may have even heard that on Fox News when her likely nomination was made public. The report I heard about her was pretty positive.

There are a lot of claims about conservatives going crazy, but unless I've missed it no one's linked to any example. And no, I don't accept anonymous remarks at the bottom of linked articles as evidence of anything other than examples of 'internet crazy'.

Fern

You can't tell me this doesn't sound massively idiotic to you.
So 2 black AGs in a row, racist. But 80 white AGs in a row, not racist? Or would you agree that every single last President in the history of the US is racist?

 

[cubby1223]

You can't tell me this doesn't sound massively idiotic to you.
So 2 black AGs in a row, racist. But 80 white AGs in a row, not racist? Or would you agree that every single last President in the history of the US is racist?

His post sounds a helluva lot better than yours.

Demographics have blacks at ~12% of the population. To choose two from that subset in a row is a 1.4% chance of occurring naturally.

Demographics have white population at ~70% of the population. To choose two in a row is a 50% chance of occurring naturally (an average example for a singled-out individual President).

Your choice of conclusions that if Obama is racist, then every single last President (including dubya who chose a hispanic attorney general) must all be racist too, is woefully dumb on your part.

And then top on the fact that it hasn't been until recent years when the black population has been able to achieve the education and experience necessary to be qualified as the attorney general, you cannot make such sweeping generalities on individuals who did not have the opportunity to select a qualified person for the position from that demographic. Yes the country's history has a lot of racism. But your perspective is flat out wrong.

 

[Exterous]

That should be easy to prove. Show me how many attorney generals obama nominated and how many of them were blocked.

That, in no way what so ever, proves the republicans did or did not have any problems with her

 

[fskimospy]

His post sounds a helluva lot better than yours.

Demographics have blacks at ~12% of the population. To choose two from that subset in a row is a 1.4% chance of occurring naturally.

Demographics have white population at ~70% of the population. To choose two in a row is a 50% chance of occurring naturally (an average example for a singled-out individual President).

Your choice of conclusions that if Obama is racist, then every single last President (including dubya who chose a hispanic attorney general) must all be racist too, is woefully dumb on your part.

And then top on the fact that it hasn't been until recent years when the black population has been able to achieve the education and experience necessary to be qualified as the attorney general, you cannot make such sweeping generalities on individuals who did not have the opportunity to select a qualified person for the position from that demographic. Yes the country's history has a lot of racism. But your perspective is flat out wrong.

Except it wasn't two whites in a row. It was 80.

Even if you choose only post 1960 it's still less likely for that many consecutive whites to be chosen.

It's a political position. There are many considerations. I just find it quite curious that conservatives are so eager to call out two consecutive black attorney generals considering I don't think I've ever heard them make a peep about the endless stream of white ones before them.

Don't you find that curious?

 

[werepossum]

What I find funny about this nomination is that she was confirmed twice by the senate. In 1999 she was confirmed by the republican led senate for the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

When bush came in he put his guy in and in 2010 Obama once again nominated her for the same position where she was confirmed via a voice vote ( meaning repubs didn't even bother filibustering her).

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...nomination-november-112686.html#ixzz3IjwBmaMO

So not only is she not an unknown to obama, she's not even an unknown to republican senators, who apparently have never had a problem with her.

Any blocking of her nomination will be purely political.

There I agree, but that's almost always the case. There are honest exceptions - Republicans opposing Harriet Myers for SCOTUS is one, where the nominee's qualifications are too poor for even the President's party to overlook - but overall, such opposition is usually political. The blocking of Murthy for instance is based not on his qualifications, but on his political activism on a separate issue.

I think its a bit of a stretch to assume they didn't have a problem with her. IMO it is entirely possible they either didn't care enough about their issues with her given her lower position (The AG is a much more public figure than just covering Eastern NY) or used the confirmations as part of a negotiating tactic\agreement.

That's a valid point. Certainly she'll have much more power as AG. Still, I predict she'll sail through without too much opposition.

 

[ivwshane]

That, in no way what so ever, proves the republicans did or did not have any problems with her

So they had problems with her but it wasn't worth their time to do their job? Or are you saying that they didn't even bother doing their job and just let her nomination go through?

And you still haven't provided me with any info on how many, if any, AG's were blocked.

 

[Fern]

No, it is less likely that all the nominees would be white since 1961 than two black nominees would happen in a row, based on relative representation in the overall population.

I never saw you question why they were all white, yet you immediately question why two in a row are black. Why?

First, they weren't all white. Gonzales is Hispanic.

Secondly, I don't see why anyone should. Only boobs think, e.g., if 12% of the population is Green people then we need to see 12% of (insert occupation) must be Green.

And you're back to your tiresome habit of wandering off the main topic with some tedious diversion. Your argument about 80 AG's being white and statistics has been shown to be silly. Look, if you want to pretend that the second AG just happening to black also doesn't indicate race was a major factor, carry on. Your denial is your business.

Fern

 

[Fern]

What I find funny about this nomination is that she was confirmed twice by the senate. In 1999 she was confirmed by the republican led senate for the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

When bush came in he put his guy in and in 2010 Obama once again nominated her for the same position where she was confirmed via a voice vote ( meaning repubs didn't even bother filibustering her).



http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...nomination-november-112686.html#ixzz3IjwBmaMO

So not only is she not an unknown to obama, she's not even an unknown to republican senators, who apparently have never had a problem with her.

Any blocking of her nomination will be purely political.

The thrust of this thread is that conservative are freaking out about a black nominee.

I challenged that in a post above. I haven't seen any sort of reaction. Last night I turned to Fox News during time-outs etc during the football game to see if there was any such reaction. I saw none. If fact, the ones I saw (Judge Napolitano and Megyn Kelly) spoke pretty highly of her.

It's looking like liberal BS at this point.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

The thrust of this thread is that conservative are freaking out about a black nominee.

I challenged that in a post above. I haven't seen any sort of reaction. Last night I turned to Fox News during time-outs etc during the football game to see if there was any such reaction. I saw none. If fact, the ones I saw (Judge Napolitano and Megyn Kelly) spoke pretty highly of her.

It's looking like liberal BS at this point.

Fern

I guess I missed where the OP stated the conservatives were freaking out. I did see him mention the commenters on the yahoo news article he read. Certainly some of the right wing blogs had a lot to say about it (too bad they were talking about a different lorretta lynch).