US Elections 2008

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I'm sorry, but I'm having a little trouble comprehending what you or others have managed to refute in this thread. Obama's race is a very, very strong advantage in this primary. What do you have to say otherwise?

*sigh* The reason I'm not elaborating the faults in your claims that "Obama's race is a very very strong advantage" is because others have already been doing it for the past page or two. I hate repeating others' words like a parrot, but if that is what you require to somehow grasp my point...

Obama's blackness is a complex issue. I recognize that. Everyone who isn't showing his complete, utter, blatant bias will recognize that. And you guys proceed to ignore this complexity completely, holding on to one or two statistics among hundreds collect over time, as some sort of a clear, absolute evidence that Obama's race is a "very very strong advantage."

I'll not deny that his sharing the black ethnicity is advantageous among certain segments of the population -- but it's also disadvantageous among other segments of the population. Anyone who studies race relations in the USA somewhat deeply enough will recognize that racism isn't a black-and-white issue, even taken literally so. Racial tensions extend far beyond that; Ledgem mentioned the Hispanic-black racial divide, that plays a role in Texas, and in California; statistics, one of those many statistics that come out of this damn circus, show that Hispanics often overwhelmingly support Clinton. Why? Obama's race? Or because the Clinton campaign is somehow more attractive to Hispanics? I for one will not say for sure, because I don't know shit and I don't pretend to know shit; unlike what you guys are doing with Obama's black skin right now.

Statements like this simply don't help your cause at all:

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

The problem about your previous post is that the majority of the Blacks don't really think about the other issues.

I'd almost say it's racist were it not for me giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming he has other evidences to support this blanket claim somehow.

What about other evidences? Oh, how about the whole West Virginia scandal that's been going on lately. Of course, you guys proceed to blame *this* on an Obamedia or whatever, ignoring that the very same media is now inflating Clinton's potential in the General Election far beyond what their claims were months ago -- which was a clear direction towards "she'll never win the general election." The very assumption that one candidate in this money-saturated, vicious campaign is somehow controlling the mainstream media is reaching into tinfoil hat territory.

And finally, blaming Obama's victory in the Primary to this goddamn strawman (yes, I just used strawman) the "Political Correctness" argument is, I'm sorry, but I can't say it any other way: total bullshit.

This same "Political Correctness," if it exists in an arena as Machiavellian and vicious as the political arena, can play to anyone's hand, not Master Politician Barack Obama, who's somehow the only guy who's taking advantage of that.

Clear enough?

[Wervy]

Hasnt he been getting 95%-99% of the black vote in every state just because he is black Irenicus? How is that not an advantage?

[sikvod00]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

The problem about your previous post is that the majority of the Blacks don't really think about the other issues.

Blacks just have some monolithic tribe mentality that causes them to support anyone with the same skin color, regardless of their ideas and policies? What is this assertion based on?

[WanderingKnight]

Hasnt he been getting 95%-99% of the black vote in every state just because he is black Irenicus? How is that not an advantage?

Wow, that phrase says much about your reading comprehension.

He (and half of the posters a page ago) just said that as much as the black population might support him, a great part of the population won't simply because he's black. That is what makes it a complex issue.

[Wervy]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Wow, that phrase says much about your reading comprehension.

He (and half of the posters a page ago) just said that as much as the black population might support him, a great part of the population won't simply because he's black. That is what makes it a complex issue.

I dont see how the fact I dont feel like going through all the crap before this makes any difference.

It seems like its 92% which is pretty damn high. Considering how many support him I dont see how this is complex at all, it would of been the same with women and Hilary if she pandered to women like obama has to blacks.

If Hiliary or any white candidate was getting that kind of support from the white population it would be considered racist, but apperently with the double standard its fine for blacks to vote based on race.

I dont really care if it sounds racist, but if obama wasnt black he would of been out of the race long ago.

[WanderingKnight]

I dont see how the fact I dont feel like going through all the crap before this makes any difference.

So, let me get this straight, you didn't even read his post?

Nice.

If Hiliary or any white candidate was getting that kind of support from the white population it would be considered racist, but apperently with the double standard its fine for blacks to vote based on race.

What Irenicus is saying is that a lot of people are voting because of race, not just blacks.

[Anh_Minh]

OK, Wervy, I'll try to use simple words.

If a guy votes for Obama because he's black, and another guy votes for Clinton because she's not, the net gain from Obama's skin color is zero. Still with me?

Now, here is where it becomes complex:
- It's difficult to estimate how many people, black or otherwise, vote for Obama because of his skin color. Others vote because they believe in him more than they believe in Clinton, who did a few mistakes early on. And then made more mistakes.
- It's difficult to estimate how many people vote for Clinton because of Obama's skin color. It's not like he hasn't made mistakes, too.

I'd like to note: one demographic in support of Obama doesn't mean he's somehow got an unfair advantage. For one thing, his hold on the black vote hasn't always been so overwhelming. For another, Clinton's got other demographics in the pocket.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Wervy

I dont see how the fact I dont feel like going through all the crap before this makes any difference.

We have already covered this topic in detail multiple times in this thread. Now...

It seems like its 92% which is pretty damn high. Considering how many support him I dont see how this is complex at all, it would of been the same with women and Hilary if she pandered to women like obama has to blacks.

Please identify examples of Obama pandering to blacks. (I am not claiming they don't exist here. I am claiming you will be hard pressed to find them.)

And here are examples of Hillary pandering to women:
Getting caught crying multiple times on camera.
The cellphone setup.
In her speeches, she has referenced gender and identity politics issues many times. Examples of this include:
Repeatedly saying "I know what it's like to be a woman who has struggled".
Constantly pointing out she is a woman and not just another presidential candidate.
Complaining about a lack of reporting of sexism.

And that's just off the top of my head in a minute or two.

If Hiliary or any white candidate was getting that kind of support from the white population it would be considered racist, but apperently with the double standard its fine for blacks to vote based on race.

I dont really care if it sounds racist, but if obama wasnt black he would of been out of the race long ago.

If the candidate was Cynthia McKinney, 90% of whites would likely vote against her and nobody would be using the racism card. The reason is because of McKinney's stance on the issues. Obama had very little support when this primary began and nobody claimed it was racism. (Note: If you look at what little exit poll data is available at the beginning of the primary, you will see that it was not a 9:1 split. The real problem is Bill Clinton's comments were so early in the primary that there was barely any data available before the push began.)

[sikvod00]

Originally Posted by Wervy

If Hiliary or any white candidate was getting that kind of support from the white population it would be considered racist, but apperently with the double standard its fine for blacks to vote based on race.

You're comparing apples to oranges. What generally motivates blacks to vote with race as factor is completely different from whites who do it. As I said before, blacks would really like to see a black president for the first time in U.S. history. That is perfectly understandable coming from a group that has been underrepresented in the political realm. How you can call that racist is beyond me. On the other hand, there is no equivalent desire with whites, unless they simply want to maintain the status quo or they believe blacks would be unfit to lead the country.

Now, we all agree that voting solely on race is dumb and counter-intuitive, and I am sure a segment of the black population are doing that, just like I'm certain there are whites who will never vote for a non-white candidate. Whenever you are dealing with large voting blocks, it's reasonable to make assumptions on how an unknown portion will vote.

However, you are taking Obama's high support among blacks as evidence that it's just because he's black. That's a non-sequitor. Others here are stating that it's more nuanced. Race is a factor, not the be all end all. In other words, blacks have a strong desire to see a black president, but not at the expense of their own political views. I would assume that blacks are also concerned with issues like the Iraq war, healthcare, high gas prices, and an economy heading into a recession. You seem to be saying that these things are irrelevant, so long as the person is the same skin color as them.

On the issues, there are far more similarities between Hillary and Barack then there are differences. I believe this is where race becomes the tie-breaker for deciding who to support. You also have to remember that blacks typically vote Democratic, which actually cuts into your argument that they are only concerned with race.

[Alleluia_Cone]

I don't think Barrack Obama panders to African-Americans, but then again, he doesn't need to. As for the arguments regarding whether he gets the African-American vote because he is African-American himself, I can't believe that people are still arguing against this. Look, all you have to do is look at the polling data:

He gets over 90% of the vote, regardless of the socioeconomic status, gender status, religious status, or age status of African-Americans.

Now compare that to the white vote, where he tends to get the young vote and the affluent vote, but loses badly among Jews, older voters, working class voters, and so on.

What does that tell you?

See, in regard to the black vote, it doesn't matter whether the person is young or old, rich or poor, religious or non-religious, male or female, he gets the vote no matter what.

Why does he get that vote? BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.

Deal with it.

[sikvod00]

^ Did you read anything I said? My issue is not that race is a factor for blacks, but that you're claiming that most are supporting voting for him without considering the issues. Polling data does not suggest that conclusion, no matter how hard you want it to. For instance, were Obama a Republican would he still be getting 90+% of the vote? What if he supported the war or rejected any type of national healthcare system?

[cyth]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

What Irenicus is saying is that a lot of people are voting because of race, not just blacks.

Yes, it's just that race is not the only issue here. But hey, if the guy looks good and has neat ideas, and on top of all that he's black, then what reason do I have as an African-American to vote for someone else with similar ideas? (I'm not black, btw.)

It's the same for a good percentage of Hillary's supporters. I don't see how race is the biggest issue when picking a candidate, when all candidates have other strengths and weaknesses that determine their winning chances. For some, race is a big issue, but for the majority of others not as much of an issue.

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

^ Did you read anything I said?

It should probably be put into context. It isn't just race. You're right.

However, you have to eliminate Alan Keyes as a comparable example, since blacks have not voted for a Republican in any great number since before FDR. In any case, this is not even relevant to the issue at hand. What I'm arguing is specific to this election.

Political positions also cannot be used as a factor since numerous polls of African-Americans voters have determined that they cannot distinguish the policy differences between the two candidates.

So what does that leave?

Are African-American voters simply voting for Barrack Obama against Hillary Clinton in this election because he has the same color skin as them?

Answer: YES

Is there anything wrong with this?

Answer: No, it is their right.

Is there anything wrong with people trying to pretend that this is not the case?

Answer: You bet there is!

[sikvod00]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

However, you have to eliminate Alan Keyes as a comparable example, since blacks have not voted for a Republican in any great number since before FDR. In any case, this is not even relevant to the issue at hand. What I'm arguing is specific to this election.

Political positions also cannot be used as a factor since numerous polls of African-Americans voters have determined that they cannot distinguish the policy differences between the two candidates.

The fact that blacks will not vote in large numbers for a black Republican candidate proves that race is not the sole determining factor. Party loyalty, even if it is blind partisanship, implies that ideas are being considered. They are not going to vote for a black person at the expense of their own views.

As for Hillary and Obama, I agree that race becomes the tie-breaker factor because the policy differences between them are minuscule compared to the broad Democratic platform they share.

My issue has been with the implication that blacks are compelled to support a black candidate no matter their politics. But we're on the same page now, so no worries.

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

The fact that blacks will not vote in large numbers for a black Republican candidate proves that race is not the sole determining factor. Party loyalty, even if it is blind partisanship, implies that ideas are being considered. They are not going to vote for a black person at the expense of their own views.

As for Hillary and Obama, I agree that race becomes the tie-breaker factor since the policy differences between them are minuscule compared to the similarities in the Democratic platform.

The thing is, I did not make some sweeping statement saying that blacks only vote based on race. I did make a sweeping statement saying that they are voting for Obama against Clinton simply because of race; and I stand by that statement.

And really, what I'm offended about, is that I've now had to read some 10 pages of thread posts trying to argue against this point, which is so clear. I think among Barrack Obama supporters that are not black, the fact that African-Americans have voted blindly in this election cycle is a turn of events that they are trying to run from and not deal with. But reality is, what reality is, and no matter how much we can pretend it isn't true, the facts are always in other corner of the ring.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

Are African-American voters simply voting for Barrack Obama against Hillary Clinton in this election because he has the same color skin as them?

Answer: YES

No.

I'm going to be a bit of an ass now, so excuse me for that, but here ya go:

This implication that blacks can only think about the skin color is a racist statement. It implies that blacks just aren't smart enough to recognize that candidates are a lot more than their skin color, that they cannot see the real issues as good as other ethnicity can. These black people must've been really stupid with their one-track mind and all.

Have fun.

Oh, and your "facts" just happen to include both normative and positive statements; i.e. you have the facts, then you state your opinions about it. Then when others state their opinions about the same facts, you are arguing that they are refusing to acknowledge the facts.

*cough * a classic logical fallacy it is *cough*

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

The fact that blacks will not vote in large numbers for a black Republican candidate proves that race is not the sole determining factor. Party loyalty, even if it is blind partisanship, implies that ideas are being considered. They are not going to vote for a black person at the expense of their own views.

It is not that simple.

Many black people grow up hearing that certain political stances are the "black" political stances (or party, really). For most people, what's drilled into them as a child will have a strong lasting effect. If you take certain stances, ESPECIALLY as a politician, certain people, especially certain prominent figures, will accuse you of "not really being black" (or perhaps "not being black enough"), of being "an Uncle Tom", or "betraying your race". Black republicans have an uphill battle because of this.

Based on this, I feel it's safe to say that the fact that the majority of black people will not vote for a black republican is really not relevant in determining how much of a factor race plays in the decision between two democrats.

However, this is true:

Originally Posted by Irenicus

This implication that blacks can only think about the skin color is a racist statement. It implies that blacks just aren't smart enough to recognize that candidates are a lot more than their skin color, that they cannot see the real issues as good as other ethnicity can. These black people must've been really stupid with their one-track mind and all.

We have to be careful that making observations about group tendencies does not turn into making conclusions or sweeping generalizations. At that point, it becomes racism.

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

No.

I'm going to be a bit of an ass now, so excuse me for that, but here ya go:

This implication that blacks can only think about the skin color is a racist statement. It implies that blacks just aren't smart enough to recognize that candidates are a lot more than their skin color, that they cannot see the real issues as good as other ethnicity can. These black people must've been really stupid with their one-track mind and all.

Have fun.

Oh, and your "facts" just happen to include both normative and positive statements; i.e. you have the facts, then you state your opinions about it. Then when others state their opinions about the same facts, you are arguing that they are refusing to acknowledge the facts.

*cough * a classic logical fallacy it is *cough*

No, this is definitely not limited to African-Americans. I'm Mexican-American, as are many in Los Angeles, and our mayor is Mexican-American, as is our city attorney. That is not a coincidence.

Identity politics affect many different sectors of the electorate. No doubt many women, of all races, are voting for Hillary Clinton because she is one of them (although, curiously, not African-American women).

And as for my facts, they have been cross referenced against all possible variables (i.e. socioeconomic status, marriage status, sex status, religious status, etc.) Unlike every other group in the Democratic electorate, none of these things have any effect on the African-American voting block and their preference for the Democratic nominee: Barack Obama.

How would you explain that fact? Will you not at least admit it is a little curious? How come every other voting group in the primaries can be subdivided based on these quantifiers but African-Americans in mass vote for one candidate? Is this pure coincidence?

[james0246]

I do not see what the problems is here. Blacks voting for blacks; whites voting for whites; women for women; men for men; etc et al. None of this matters, nor is it particularly important. What is important is when a black person votes for a black person specifically because the other candidate is white, or when a latino/hispanic votes for a white person specifically because the other candidate is black. There is no real problem when you mindlessly vote for your "group" (there are of course a variety of reasons why someone would vote for their "group" above others, but that is a discussion for another time), rather the problem arises when you vote for Cadidate A simply because you have a negative opinion of Candidate B due to their colour or creed. Then it is a racist candidacy.

So far, blacks are just voting for Obama because he is black, not because Clinton is white. Whereas some whites are voting for Clinton specifically because the other candidate is black, or because they fear he is Muslim. This is not the foundation that a Nominee for the Presidency of the United States can build upon.

[Alleluia_Cone]

Originally Posted by james3wk

So far, blacks are just voting for Obama because he is black, not because Clinton is white. Whereas some whites are voting for Clinton specifically because the other candidate is black, or because they fear he is Muslim. This is not the foundation that a Nominee for the Presidency of the United States can build upon.

I agree with you completely. I think overwhelmingly African-Americans are voting for Barrack Obama because he is black, not because Hillary Clinton is white. And if there is any overt racism going on in the race, it is probably coming from some Hillary Clinton supporters who refuse to vote for an African-American (and I say that as a Hillary Clinton voter).

The only thing I stated, which for some reason is very controversial and at the same time is undoubtedly true, is that African-American voters are voting for Barrack Obama primarily because he is black.