That would assume people are honest with themselves about their reasons. A pretty big assumtion IMHO
elaborate please
A couple of my Democrat friends have been undercover with their bigotry for a few years. I was hoping that maybe they had become a little more thoughtful. No such luck. The election seems to have made them feel more comfortable with their prejudices. Relationships have become strained in a couple of situations.
And it’s not the political issues that are causing the tension. It is the fear that a black person might be equal to them or better. Then what will they do?
Sadly, these people are well-educated. Bigotry isn’t limited to the ignorant.
Nashville will vote for Obama, but Tennessee will probably continue to vote Republican. But the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on racist attitudes.
Voting or not voting for someone because of their race is a racist action, no matter what their skin color is.
Actually, I think they do. But it won’t matter. Obama will have about an 8-10 point lead, which will more than compensate for the 2.5 percent.
According to dictionary.com, bigot means:
Most of the bigots I have met in life have been extremely liberal people who (I imagine) will probably vote for Obama. My experience is probably somewhat biased since I live in the Northeast and went to an elite college. I’m sure there are plenty of bigots who will be voting Republican.
My best guess is that the number of bigots voting for the Democrats will be roughly balanced out by the number of bigots voting for the Republicans.
Bad guess. Racism is alive and well. Obama has a tough sell because of his color. In the Detroit area many bigots are not shy. They point to Kwame Kilpatrick as an example of what blacks do with power. I point to Bush as what white people do with it. But many will not vote for Obama because he is black. It is not close to balancing out.
I didn’t mention racism at all in my post and I don’t deny that racism is rampant in the United States. But the OP asked about “bigots,” which doesn’t seem to mean quite the same thing.
To be fair, the OP probably was using the word “bigot” to mean “a white person who has anti-black sentiment” By that definition, I agree that there are lots of “bigots” in the country and that these “bigots” are likely to undermine Obama’s chances of winning the election.
As an historical side note, remove the parentheses from the quotation above and it becomes literally true - the Democrats were the ones keeping Jim Crowe alive. It was also the Democrats that foiled the introduction of federal anti-lynching laws by mounting filibusters as recently as the 1940s.
I think there’s a big difference between “I want all presidents to be white” and “I do not want all presidents to be white”.
One is exclusionary, one is inclusionary, which is what Diogenese was saying. And I think there is a moral difference between them, in as much as the former statement necessitates that one always chooses the white candidate, while the latter statement allows an array of candidates, including whites.
Well, I think we can agree that black people are responsible for things that happen in their lives. A guy robs a liquor store, he’s responsible and should go to jail. That is only reasonable. But can we say that that same black person was responsible for being poor? I don’t see how you can fault someone born into poverty, since these societal problems are caused ultimately by the slave trade. Since being poor and discriminated against are really the “troubles of blacks”, I would like to hear the reason why someone would think these are the fault of the blacks.
No, but they’re almost all tighty-righties. Not a single Democratic vote would have been lost by a Clinton candidacy, and very few independents.
Normally this would be true. But in such a tight race, even a small minority of bigots can seriously tip the scale, especially in the “battleground” states.
And yes, the bigots are out there; and yes, they will vote in record numbers; and yes, it could cost Obama the presidency.
How about:
-
Given a choice between a white and a non-white, I will always vote for the white.
-
Given a choice between a black and a non-black, I will always vote for the black.
From what I’ve seen, blacks can be just as racist and exclusionary, as whites or any other group. Given the opportunity, anyone can be a jerk.
I would like to see a similar poll that measures how having a black Democratic candidate impacts blacks who might have voted for John McCain. I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume some blacks that would otherwise vote Republican would vote for Obama for racial reasons. I will go so far as to predict the smallest percentage of the black vote for a Republican in modern election history.
So if I say I’m voting for McCain because I think there should be more old white men in Washington, that would be OK with you?
I’m voting for McCain because I think there should be more hot white women…period. (That’s a JOKE, people…)
Interesting article, and this one, not the first I’ve read on the topic. There’s a fear that there’s stealth gap in the polls, that people are not stating their real commitment over fears of being perceived as racist–read this the other day, can’t find the article.
Obama got heckled at a rally in Florida the other day by a group of african americans who claim he is selling out the black community. I don’t know how widespread is the sentiment, nor do I know exactly what is its basis, but there is also that kind of stuff going on…
Nope. Voting AGAINST somebody because of their race is racist. Voting against Obama because he is black is exclusionary and racist. Voting FOR him because he’s black is inclusionary, not exclusionary. It’s not a vote against whitey and it’s lame to pretend that it is.
Trying get somebody into the tent is not the same as trying to keep them out.