Are there even any purebred white people in Oklahoma? I mean, it was the Indian Territory once. I once met an Okie who told me practically everybody there has Indian blood.
Obama didn’t campaign in OK. There’s your explanation.
I have lived in Oklahoma all my long life, and it’s always laughable to hear people tell about the Indians. Sure there are Indians in Oklahoma, but they don’t live in teepees. You can’t tell their houses from the rest, except for maybe they are bigger. I don’t think we are all part Indian. My lineage is german. The Indians do own all the Casinos here. They do hold a powwow every year. Worth seeing if you have never seen one.
I’ve known many a Melungeon who was virulently racist without any sense of irony.
The conclusions of that article are very premature, and represent some dangerous thinking for Democrats.
Not every Democratic candidate is going to generate the kind of black voter turnout Obama did. Not every Democratic candidate is going to generate the kind of youth vote Obama did. And not every Republican candidate will be met with the same lack of enthusiasm as McCain.
If someone like Kerry had been the Democratic nominee this year, the South would have been as solidly Republican as ever.
So far, we’ve seen exactly two ways the Democrats can win the presidency in recent decades: put up a Southern candidate, or put up a candidate who can turn out black voters and also generate enthusiasm among youthful voters. And even in those two situations, it has only worked when the country is in an economic funk.
To conclude that any other type of Democratic candidate could achieve the same result as those two very specific types (and in the specific circumstance of a recession) is logic-defying leap.
Let’s not let post-election euphoria morph into hubris.
And more importantly, let’s not go back to the Kerry strategy of writing off the South and effectively turning the Democrats into a regional party. That’s the mirror image of the mistake Republicans have been making the past few years: playing defense. Dean and Obama have it right; the Democratic Party needs to continue asserting itself in the South to keep the Republicans in a defensive posture.
Of course it’s premature, they’re talking about the potential implications of this election. But I think some of those points are valid. I ended up making a separate thread to discuss that point and some other post-election conclusions.
Did Kerry?
If Oklahoma were the most racist state in the Union,the University of Texas football team would have been a lot better in the Seventies and Eighties.
Seriously. Darrell Royal and the Texas Longhorns had one of the last all-white teams in America. It was Royal’s refusal to recruit black players that allowed Oklahoma to come in and scoop up nearly every top black player in Texas for decades.
Oklahomans welcomed black players when most Southern schools couldn’t be bothered with them.
What about race being a factor in predominately black voting areas? Did Obama do better amongst blacks then say Kerry or Gore? If so, by how much?
He did do better in terms of both percentage and turnout. I think I already said so earlier in this thread, but whether or not that constitutes racism is debatable.
I read today (sorry, no cite) that Alabama “led” the way by having only 10% of its white population vote for Obama last week. Oklahoma, as I recall, was barely in the top ten.
It should go both ways though. If blacks voted in greater numbers and in greater percentages for Obama then it’s reasonable to ask if race was a factor. Just as if whites voted in greater numbers against him. Personally, I’m inclined to believe that race was a masssive consideration for many blacks voting for Obama.
Thus, could we not ask if (for example) Washington D.C. is the most racist city in America?
It’s not a given for me that this is “racism,” though.
There seem to be a lot of people who are sure that blacks supporting Obama are racist somehow. From my point of view, it’s a suspicion in search of the facts. Obama did get greater support than Kerry and Gore - I believe he got 95 percent of the black vote, while Kerry got 88 percent and Gore got 90 percent. That’s an increase, but not an enormous break with historical standards. And turnout was greater, as the campaign did make an effort to get stronger participation from black and other minority voters. I’m not convinced such support constitutes racism and I’ve yet to hear a convincing explanation for why it’s racist. These people would not have voted for Obama if they didn’t also agree with what he was saying, and it’s clear from historical trends that black people are overwhelmingly Democrat-leaning anyway.
That’s fine but that’s your interpretation. We should give the same benefit of the doubt to white voters who voted against Obama. Put another way, if you don’t see blacks voting for Obama because he is black as racism then I am not sure it’s intellectually tenable to consider it racism when whites do the same thing.
It’s a marked increase though and it’s more reasonable, given the percentage difference between the numbe of white voters who voted for Obama over Kerry and Gore, to analyze why they did that? A seven percent increase is a fairly big swing.
Again, it may go to your definition of racism.
I believe I’ve done that throughout this thread. It is not reasonable to conclude that any individual white person who voted against Obama did so because of race without further evidence, and it’s not reasonable to conclude any individual black person voted for Obama because of race without further evidence.
Assuming black people voted for Obama just because of race is more reasonable than assuming white people vote for McCain just because of race? How do you figure?
In overall percentage terms, Obama did 4.4 percent better than Kerry. He did a little better than Kerry did among many groups, including white voters (43 percent vs. 41, according to Nate Silver). We know about the seven-point swing among black voters, so here are other group where he beat Kerry by seven points or more: Latinos, people making less than $15K/year, people making more than $200K/year, voters who never went to high school, voters who identified their race as “other” (not white, black, Latino or Asian), parents, “no religion” voters, and he beat Kerry by exactly seven percent among Catholic voters even though Kerry is a Catholic and Obama isn’t.
Basically, assuming black voters supported Obama only because of race overlooks the fact that a lot of other voting blocks liked him better than Kerry, too, and race was probably not a factor in most of those decisions. There is a fundamental assumption by many people that everybody can see past race except black people. (Or except black people and minorities, to be a little more charitable. If that’s charitable.) It’s not a sound assumption. That same thinking emerged after Colin Powell’s endorsement, too; you saw it in debates here and of course jackoff pundits also said the same thing.
Yay! We’re number 49! We’re number 49! 