You don’t need my ok. I don’t give a rat’s ass how or why you vote.
Since he’s got 95% of the black vote, I don’t think it’s very widespread.
You really don’t ubderstand this?
Do you not see a difference between trying to get a minority into an all white country club and trying to keep one out?
There are plenty of all-black “country clubs”, just not at the national level.
The White House is an all white country club.
Cite?
All the black country clubs I’m familiar with also have non black members.
This thread brings to mind this older one. Blacks have good nonracist reasons to prefer pols of their own race; whites don't - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board.
In that case any “white” person who would say that can be put in the corner for their distinct ignorance and idiocy.
If you or anyone uses just crime statistics as your reason for making that statement then you should be sent to the corner as well.:dubious:
Don’t know, don’t care, just so long as it’s enough to make the man President of the USA.
Still and all, it often (not always) seems to work out that way, as any American should know.
No Bradley Effect?
Nonsense. Voting for someone because they’re black is racism. You may indeed argue that you have noble motives for your racism (inclusion, getting people into tents, etc) but that doesn’t make it any the less racist.
No, voting to integrate and voting to segregate are motivational opposites. This dog is never going to hunt. White people are not being oppressed or excluded because black people are voting for Obama.
Blacks share more than color. They have been fighting for equality in laws and economic opportunity. They have fought exploitation by lenders. Voting for a black when you are one, is a political move more than one of racism.
Once again, you’re arguing justification for racism. Nonetheless the act itself is still racist.
It didn’t exist for him in the primaries.
You’re being slippery with your definitions here. You’re using “racist” to mean “race is a factor”, but then attaching the opprobrium of “discriminating against someone based on their race”.
I grew up in Philadelphia, born 47 short years ago, in an environment I have heard referred to as “Philadelphia rowhouse Catholicism.” It was a hard-working neighborhood–“salt of the earth” people, I thought of 'em. I still do.
I knew lots of people who had two pictures hanging in their living rooms: the Pope and JFK. They loved Kennedy. Loved him. He was handsome and smart and full of promise and vision. Oh, and he was Catholic. I strongly suspect that my neighborhood voted for Kennedy in the same proportions that I’m reading blacks now support Obama. Hell, maybe it was even higher. And they for sure believed he was a great man, and the best one for the job. But I’ll admit it, I’m not sure they would have supported him at quite the same percentage, with quite the same fervor, if he wasn’t Catholic. He was a New Englander, privileged, an American blueblood, all things we were not. But he felt like one of ours–he certainly made us feel that way–and the thrill that finally, finally, one of our guys could make it to the White House was heady stuff. My mother stood in the pouring rain with several of her girlfriends, hoping for a glimpse of Jack as his car drove by, and she still describes it with goosebumps.
I don’t think there was anything wrong with it, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with blacks supporting Obama, acknowledging that a significant aspect of that support is because he’s black. He’s a competent, articulate, charismatic candidate, and he’s one of them, just as Jack was simultaneously one of us and more than that. I bet it’s a thrill.
And that is not just the flip side of the coin whose opposite is the racist who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black, or the bigot who could never vote for a “papist” like Kennedy. Not for me, anyway. I’m with Diogenes on this one.
But voting for Obama simply because he’s black is discriminating against someone based on their race, that someone being McCain. And I don’t know where you get ‘the watered-down definition race is a factor’ from, certainly not from my posts. I’m arguing against voting for or against someone based *purely *on race.
It’s hard to imagine that there are those who only vote for black presidents, given that there hasn’t ever been a black candidate that got through the primaries. No one can yet tell the difference between “I want all presidents to be black” and “I want at least one president to be black”.