Racism, Numbers and Americans

[yeahwho]

Racism and the Race (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09blow.html?em) from the NYTimes ED/OP pages.

This is supposed to be the Democrats’ year of destiny. Bush is hobbling out of office, the economy is in the toilet, voters are sick of the war and the party’s wunderkind candidate is raking in money hand over fist.

So why is the presidential race a statistical dead heat? The pundits have offered a host of reasons, but one in particular deserves more exploration: racism.

Is he right? Am I delusional and the USA is still 19% racist? This is a tough pill to swallow and a topic I don't like to get into very much, but this piece of writing is very convincing and sobering.

My gut tells me it's overdone to help Obama and keep folks on focus, but my brain says he has pretty good statistical information.

[Documad]

I have one friend who is talking about not voting for Obama. Given everything I know about her and the politicians she has supported over the years, I'm suspicious that her reluctance is solely race-based. I'm going to address it with her head on at some point. I'm trying the indirect approach first.

[ms.peachy]

Mmm, I read that piece as well, it was interesting. Remains to be seen how accurate it is, I suppose.

[venusvenus123]

how many people in the US actually go out and vote? it's not very high here. (n)

[RobMoney$]

Really? Time to whip out the race card already because BHO isn't winning?(n)

What an irresponsible example of Journalism. The statistics they offered were blurred at best to draw the line to racism.

Let's look at how people are answering the polls, shall we?

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
McCain leads by nineteen points among White Men and by eight points among White Women.
Obama leads 94% to 5% among African-American voters,
and by twenty-one points among Hispanic voters.

Looking at those numbers, Blacks are voting for Obama 94 to 5. Think that has anything to do with race? Absolutely.
Think the liberal media will explore or write about that? Absolutely Not.
I'm willing to bet those numbers break along party lines pretty accurately too.


Perhaps the author should explore the real reason for BHO's recent lull, his overexposure and America's backlash to Obama-mania. I suspect he'll get a nice bump once VP choices are announced.
I'm really hoping the Clinton camp tells him to go get bent though.

The sad thing is that people will undoubtedly make it a racial issue if Obama loses without giving any consideration to the fact of merit and inexperience.

[yeahwho]

Really? Time to whip out the race card already because BHO isn't winning?(n)

What an irresponsible example of Journalism. The statistics they offered were blurred at best to draw the line to racism.

Let's look at how people are answering the polls, shall we?

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


Looking at those numbers, Blacks are voting for Obama 94 to 5. Think that has anything to do with race? Absolutely.
Think the liberal media will explore or write about that? Absolutely Not.
I'm willing to bet those numbers break along party lines pretty accurately too.


Perhaps the author should explore the real reason for BHO's recent lull, his overexposure and America's backlash to Obama-mania. I suspect he'll get a nice bump once VP choices are announced.
I'm really hoping the Clinton camp tells him to go get bent though.

The sad thing is that people will undoubtedly make it a racial issue if Obama loses without giving any consideration to the fact of merit and inexperience.

I guess that 94% to 5% black vote statistic is sort of like saying 89%, which is the exact number writer Charles Blow used in his NYTimes ED/OP piece. He is making a point that racism exists. He can do that and I can post his speculation and we can either talk about it or not. Sort of like living in a free land.

I don't like having race enter this election but it seems unavoidable because the major polls, Gallup, Rasmussen, Pollster, they use age, sex, race, marital status as indicators for the candidates to target you and I. Your attack that it's a race card would fit every presidential election since I've been alive, they always do the math on presidential elections, so much so the networks have had to reign in exit polls until the west coast stops voting. (which BTW leaked Kerry winning via internet sources, so you know maybe those dope smoking Kerry supporters would stay home and eat pickles)

Back to my original thoughts, which is this, sometimes manipulative journalism is put out to make various segments of society more aware of facts regarding their candidates, the numbers seem pretty darn accurate on the NYTimes article because none of those questions asked anything about policy or party affiliation. Just color. I'm not taking it to the bank nor am I worrying about Obama's chance at a political loss, I'm amazed that racism of such a degree still exists in the United States.

As far as polls I agree much more with this ED/OP piece by Carol Marin from the ChicagoSunTimes (http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/1099400,CST-EDT-carol10.article)

"The national numbers mean nothing," said John Kupper, the "K" in AKP&D, last week by phone. "These are not national elections but state by state elections. We have vote goals. We know prior performance models."

In other words, this is now and always has been the sum of political component parts for the Obama operation, not a national popular election but a sophisticated, incremental accumulation of delegates in the primary, and electoral votes come November.

[abcdefz]

I think support is drifting from Obama because he's heading for the middle and acting more and more like a "regular politician," so people
are getting suspicious.

[yeahwho]

I think support is drifting from Obama because he's heading for the middle and acting more and more like a "regular politician," so people
are getting suspicious.
I have a tendency to agree partially with you. I do not think race plays as much in this election as Charles Blow does, the article is an eye opener probably more for me because I'm admittedly pretty naive on race issues as far as statistically. I'm definitely not worried or panicked by any poll numbers or even Obama's ability to turn towards center, which is an attribute more than a albatross.

I'll support him 100% just because I know he'll do the right thing as far as Iraq and the environment. In a larger sense as far as scotus (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) appointments. And in an even larger sense of the election, World diplomacy and perhaps a different view than murder as a means of policy.

As stated by one of Obama's campaign operatives in the ChicagoSunTimes article linked above,

In some ways the tightening numbers work for Obama, not against him.

"No cause for panic," said Kupper. No, indeed, Obama is off to splash in the Pacific surf with his family.

It's the horse race play. Or, as the Axelrod game goes, you always play the come from behind, even when you're ahead.

[saz]

Looking at those numbers, Blacks are voting for Obama 94 to 5. Think that has anything to do with race? Absolutely.
Think the liberal media will explore or write about that? Absolutely Not.
I'm willing to bet those numbers break along party lines pretty accurately too.

Perhaps the author should explore the real reason for BHO's recent lull, his overexposure and America's backlash to Obama-mania. I suspect he'll get a nice bump once VP choices are announced.
I'm really hoping the Clinton camp tells him to go get bent though.

The sad thing is that people will undoubtedly make it a racial issue if Obama loses without giving any consideration to the fact of merit and inexperience.

no, actually blacks always vote overwhelmingly democratic. al gore in 2000 received approximately 90% of the black vote.

the "liberal" media? the same media that rolled over and played dead, and bought and sold all of the white house's lies and talking points for the iraq war. the same media that is owned by corporate conglomerates (http://api.ning.com/files/WyJiv2aA1yykgdTfL1ZKsCQ5nT1UeZXJe-gGa4O31B3sjcARZghoaAS25aCiOiwn86BgZfy5PC085v9RyP9a bCLNfftfYLXj/whoownsthemedia.jpg), whose prime objective is to turn a profit. if the media was liberal, they'd constantly be shoving ralph nader, bernie sanders and dennis kucinich down the country's throat. but they're not.

and correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it yourself who pointed out that a large minority of pennsylvanians wouldn't be voting for obama in that state's primary, because he's black?

[RobMoney$]

My point was that there is a portion of America who won't vote for Obama based solely on race. I never made any claim that it was right or that I in any way agreed with it. I was merely stating a fact. But race didn't seem to be a problem for him in securing the nomination in the primaries.

... and yes, the media are favoring liberal stories and Obama at this point because it's what's selling. You can't deny that BHO has gotten more media coverage than McCain or Hillary did.

...and as I said, I recognized the overwhelmingly majority of blacks that are supporting Obama are probably directly related to party lines.

[Documad]

... and yes, the media are favoring liberal stories and Obama at this point because it's what's selling. You can't deny that BHO has gotten more media coverage than McCain or Hillary did.

I disagree. Obama has had more coverage, but the coverage he gets is less favorable than the coverage McCain gets. Obama says something small at a campaign event or town hall meeting and the press picks up on it and repeats and repeats it -- like the tire pressure thing. Obama didn't even say anything wrong but it's portrayed in the media like it's a huge gaffe.

McCain makes giant mistakes and he is cut all kinds of slack. Whether that's because the reporters have known and liked him for decades or whether it's because he's old and they have low expectations, I don't know.

All coverage is not equal. I'd like the see the media challenge McCain when he lies about things. If Obama starts lying about things, then I hope they challenge him too.

I'd also like to say that polls mean nothing, and in fact they can be harmful. I don't believe that normal people will ever admit to being racist, even to a pollster. I wouldn't even tell the truth to a pollster who asked me about our school bond issue.

[Bob]

i once had a friend say completely honestly "i'm not a sexist, but i could never vote for a woman for president"

[DroppinScience]

I disagree. Obama has had more coverage, but the coverage he gets is less favorable than the coverage McCain gets. Obama says something small at a campaign event or town hall meeting and the press picks up on it and repeats and repeats it -- like the tire pressure thing. Obama didn't even say anything wrong but it's portrayed in the media like it's a huge gaffe.

I don't know about the tire pressure thing hurting Obama when you consider that just as quickly as McCain made fun of him, the whole thing flew right back in his face when the likes of AAA, Time's Joe Klein, and others revealed that tire pressure is actually a GOOD IDEA. Maybe some pundits joined McCain in the mockery, but in this case it was pretty short-lived.

One thing I notice about the right and the left being critical of the media... both sides like to paint themselves as the victims and that they're greatly marginalized. I myself do think there's a stronger case for the left's perspective that the media is unfair (when you consider Murdoch and many other corporations run the mainstream media outlets), but to the neutral party, they may get confused and ask: "Wait... both sides play victim, which one is true?" Just my observation.

[NoFenders]

It's amazing how race gets involved as last ditch reason. Pathetic.

I think the true racists are the ones coming up with this crap.

:cool:

[Bob]

i think the true racists are the people who wouldn't vote for a black president just because he's black but that's just my opinion

[NoFenders]

Indeed. But that's the tip of the iceberg. Next thing you'll know every Republican will be a racist because they didn't vote for Obama.

The race card is used when it's needed. Not when it's warranted.It's a convenient thing that's been in pocket the entire time. People who say otherwise, play the fool.

Do you think that if Obama doesn't win, people will say that's the proof that racism is still as strong as before??




:cool:

[yeahwho]

I do not think racism plays as large a role in this presidential race as the numbers quoted by the original ED/OP piece presented here. I do think race plays a role in every election whether it be Mayor, Local Representatives, Fire Chief, Land Commissioner... and especially into the national level.

Race is part of the landscape of the country, just as sex, marital status, age and sexual preference. This is what makes America great and this is why statisticians categorize segments of our populace into these segments. Then those who run for office have a better idea how to cater and represent each American to their best capabilities.

There is nothing last ditch or any sort of dirty trick being played here, unless you count every election in every municipality in the USA as racist. What's being done is an Editorial from the NYTimes is looking at the numbers and research and explaining that racism exists in the United States. So what, I'm not crying about it and it's old news. I knew that. These numbers have been generated time and time again ever since Andrew Jackson was shown to be leading John Quincy Adams in 1824. Which BTW was wrong, Adams won that year.

[NoFenders]

:cool:

[saz]

no, republicans won't be considered racist if they don't vote for obama. they won't be voting for obama because he's not a republican.

if obama loses (i don't think he will), it will be further confirmation of just how lame and pathetic the democrats are, that they select lame candidates (gore, kerry) who then can't landslide lame republican candidates.

[NoFenders]

You think that will be what the majority will think?? That their party is a bunch of idiots?? I think your way of thought is correct, but we all know that most will jump on any excuse so as not to be their own fault.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

You think that will be what the majority will think?? That their party is a bunch of idiots?? I think your way of thought is correct, but we all know that most will jump on any excuse so as not to be their own fault.

:cool:
pot kettle black

Calling the Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clinton_approval_rating.png) idiots as opposed to whom? The republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.svg)?

Whatever. That is your opinion, only your opinion and it does not reflect anything mainstream nor logical. I back Barack Obama 100% and am proud to be supporting him. I'm not looking for any excuses. I'm looking to change the way Government works for it's citizens.

[NoFenders]

Try and catch up before you post. Or maybe I should have quoted sazi and said lame and pathetic. I wasn't saying Democrats were a bunch of idiots, just as I'm sure sazi wasn't calling Democrats lame and pathetic. I was agreeing that it's nobody's fault but their own if they loose.

I was responding to sazi. But thanks for once again stating that you rub one out Obama every night. Way to go!

:cool:

[yeahwho]

Try and catch up before you post. Or maybe I should have quoted sazi and said lame and pathetic. I wasn't saying Democrats were a bunch of idiots, just as I'm sure sazi wasn't calling Democrats lame and pathetic. I was agreeing that it's nobody's fault but their own if they loose.

I was responding to sazi. But thanks for once again stating that you rub one out Obama every night. Way to go!

:cool:

You hate me don't you? Good that just makes it easier.

[NoFenders]

Naah, I hate tomatoes. You're nowhere near tomatoes.

Way to take the attention off your post though. I see seventh grade still survives in your head.


:cool:

[yeahwho]

Naah, I hate tomatoes. You're nowhere near tomatoes.

Way to take the attention off your post though. I see seventh grade still survives in your head.


:cool:

What is wrong with my post? I started this thread, I'll post anything I want to. Which one did I try to take the attention away from? Highlight it so I can be ashamed. Like the seventh grader I am.

[NoFenders]

No thanks bud, if ya can't figure it out, not my problem.

:cool: