http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/
An interesting bit of research using Google tools done by SETH STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ.
In some areas President Obama may be losing significant numbers of votes as compared to a white candidate.
That’s a pretty bad handicap to start an election with.
I don’t think anyone with much knowledge of humanity would deny that. In the same vein, nobody with much of a clue is going to deny that Obama gains significant numbers of votes as compared to a white candidate in other areas. In point of fact, the Obama campaign made increasing turnout among people with an increased willingness to vote for a historical candidate a major part of their strategy.
It’s interesting in an as-far-as-it-goes way, but it’s hardly some rock-solid proof of the conclusion the author is trying to advance.
I think he said that effect was small in comparison. Probably because any Democrat would receive most minority votes in any case.
But a white felon getting 40% of the primary vote in West Virginia is embarassing for that state and never would have happened in the case of a white president.
Yes, he said that. I don’t think it’s nearly an adequate approach to the issue.
For one, there was a not-insignificant number of people – minority and non-minority – who, had a black man not been running, would simply not have voted at all. Moreover, I personally know of multiple caucasian people who are political centrists (i.e. they vote for multiple parties), who voted for Obama, and who did so in part because of his race. I don’t know that people like that comprise a huge sector of the electorate, but it’s not nothing.
Simply saying “anyone voting for Obama would have voted for any Democrat” is not nearly adequate.
But this doesn’t exactly make sense even on its own face. This is the Democrat’s primary your talking about, and the same voters turned out for Obama in the last election.
Yes, the state went heavily Republican, but that wasn’t a surprise to anyone. Note that compared to 2004’s election, Obama lost a whopping… 0.7% of the total vote to McCain. African-Americans are also a tiny portrion of the total (less than 4) so this isn’t a case of a massive black turnout being overwhelmed by a bigger black-hating turnout.
Social Justice in the form of a parable
The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
[[[DELETED]]]
And this has what to do with, well, anything?
Cool story, bro.
Parables eh? Let’s see how Jesus compares to the font of wisdom, Incomprehension.
Sounds like a dirty friendly hippy to me.
By the way, your parable doesn’t even alight on the supremacy of property laws. Imagine if one of the many grasshoppers intruded on one of the few ant’s expansive gardens in order to toil for his meals? It wouldn’t be fair that an ant’s property which was earned by virtue of birth be intruded on by a grasshopper desiring to subsist, would it?
Jesus is criticizing greed, not capitalism. Remember that one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not steal”.
Perhaps this was Incomprehension’s personal attempt to answer the question asked in the thread title.
Quite possibly, a lot of those 40% were people who think Obama was too moderate and protest-voted as a result. After all the Peace and Freedom Party’s candidate in 2004 is a convicted cop-killer in prison.
Right. It follows directly that since he’s criticising people’s considering their clothes, food and shelter, that property is theft. Guess that settles it - he’s not only a dirty friendly hippy, he’s an anarchist.
And then there’s the bit about wealthy men, heaven, camels, and needles’ eyes. Also, his admonishment to his followers when they did not treat an old woman who had given her last two coins with utmost respect.
There’s a heavy implication in his actual teachings that any accumulation of wealth beyond what is necessary for maintaining life (not lifestyle) is a knock against you.
I guess that’s still greed vs capitalism, but, if so, Jesus’ definition of greed was a lot more strict than our modern one.
Yeah, and it’s possible that 9/11 was actually an inside job.
Just because it’s “possible” doesn’t make it likely or even reasonable.
I will note that the “Peace and Freedom Party” never got anything close to a 40% result in any election district.
re: the new guy’s parable post: It’s not even original, so he might have made a copyvio. I’m reporting it.
Bear in mind that in 2008, Obama got a higher percentage of white voters than John Kerry did in 2004 (43% vs. 41%). Polls show that his support among whites has dropped since then, but that’s matched by the Democratic Party as a whole, which drew 37% of white voters in 2010.
Incomprehension, I’ve deleted the story you posted. I am not sure if you’re the original author, and if you’re not, your choice to post it without attribution made it look like you wrote it. I’ve placed a link to what I think is the original source.
By the same token, Obama got a higher percentage of all voters than Kerry. That’s why the OP’s “study” compared geographic increases.