You’ve yet to demonstrate that significant numbers of blacks are voting for Obama purely because of his race–meaning, if Obama were white, they’d vote for McCain instead as their preferred candidate.
Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic to start with–it shouldn’t be surprising that, for some blacks, the fact that Obama is black is a sufficient additional factor to cause them to switch their votes, yielding perhaps a somewhat higher number of black voters favoring Obama than they would a generic Democrat.
You’ve created a black strawman here: the black voter for whom Obama’s race is the entirety of his reason for voting for him. Demonstrate that, if Obama weren’t black (or a white Democrat had won the nomination), the black vote would go overwhelmingly for McCain, and you might have a point of racism in voting patterns.
Here’s a question: imagine a black voter who’s a Democrat, for whom Clinton and Obama are about equally preferable based on the issues and their apparent likelihood of winning the general. If that black voter casts his vote for Obama because of a secondary preference to see the first black president, is that racist?
I think there is a short-cut in the reasoning here.
If someone says “___________ are more intelligent//trustworthy/harder-working than _______________ to be president, so I am voting for __________________”, that’s racist, because it’s assuming that race is an indicator of intelligence or trustworthiness or work ethic.
However, if someone says “I don’t think ______________ is more qualified to be president, but I think the symbolic importance of having a (black/woman/poor person/whatever) is more important than their actual qualifications”, that’s kinda stupid, but it’s not racist or bigoted, because it’s not assuming anything about the person based on their race/gender/class. You are voting for them because of their race/gender/class, not because of your assumptions of what that race/gender/class means.
Again, I think this would be a stupid reason for a single-issue voter, but if you had two very similar candidates (which we don’t), I can see letting the symbolism be the tie-breaker, and I don’t think that would be bigoted per se. Race issues, especially, are taking a tremendous toll on this country, and if someone thinks the symbolism of a minority president would resolve those issues, I can see that as something someone could legitimately vote for.
I think what bothers me the most about this poll is that there is no attempt to poll blacks about their attitudes. For instance, how many blacks have negative attitudes about whites? Or about blacks?
How about this quote: "Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they ‘try harder.’ " What percentage of blacks agree? While we’re at it, could you name any group that would not be better off if they try harder?
But if you had questions like that you could at least make some meaningful statements about differences between the groups. But as I learned in statistics, if you don’t have a control group, don’t waste the paper and other people’s time with your nonsense.
The authors started out with an agenda, which they at least admitted, and proceeded from there. It’s just bullshit, and a cheap attempt to get more whites to vote for Obama because they don’t want to be called racists.
So…if someone votes for Obama because he’s black then that’s cool. but if someone votes against Obama because he’s black then this is racism? I suppose then if someone votes for McCain because he’s white that this is then cool by this logic.
Personally I think the small percentage of people who vote against Obama solely because of race will be balanced by people who are voting for him because of his race and the ‘historic’ nature of the election. Guess we’ll see, but I bet there are historic levels of voting this time…and I bet a higher percentage of blacks (and other minorities) vote in this election than ever before.
this focus on the racist angle is, IMHO, looking to pre-empt excuses on the off chance Obama loses.
I didn’t say it was cool, I said it was stupid. I just don’t think it’s bigoted if “blackness” (or whiteness) is, in itself, the reason–bigotry is about what you think race means. I’d say the same thing if someone voted for McCain because they thought foreign leaders wouldn’t take a black man seriously, and so he couldn’t be an effective president. As long as they don’t think that race is actually an indicator of ability, I don’t think it’s bigoted. Though it may well be dumb.
Fascinating stuff. As a grad student (in computer science), I was incidentally involved in some research like this; specifically, concerning copyright and file-sharing. It turns out that people are much more likely to admit to file-sharing (and cheating also, as uncovered by a related study) when taking an automated questionnaire as opposed to a human questioner.
My apologies…I was actually responding more to DtC’s comments earlier in this thread (and in a few others where he made similar claims).
Personally I think you are wrong however…if someone votes solely because of ‘blackness’ or ‘whiteness’ then they ARE being both bigoted and racist. I do agree with you that it’s dumb as well.
I asked you to elaborate because I didn’t understand your soundbite, which I note that you didn’t bother to do, but I think others did.
So, you’re saying that if some blacks main reason to vote for Obama is to break the glass ceiling for black polititians then that’s different than voting agaist him because he’s black? Is that it?
That would be true if there’s infinite room within the tent. So if you want to do outreach so that more blacks play bridge or listen to Frank Sinatra, that’s cool with me. But if there’s one seat in the tent, and you say let’s vote for the black guy, well that’s just plain denial to stop thinking about the consequences of your actions at that point.
I fear, Diogenes, that you’re the one with the elastic definition of racism. You clearly feel, with Humpty Dumpty, that words mean what I wnat them to mean.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Diogenes is either a) Falsely forcing #3 as the only definition, or b) Omitting “usually” from the first definition. Both are ignorant.
Positive racism is still racism. So is positive racist action.
EDIT: His didactic “LALALALA I can’t hear you no it’s not!” is bigotry, btw, a refusal to acknowledge, etc.
Of course not, but that’s not what you said, you said ‘there’s a difference between trying to get somebody into a tent and trying to keep them out.’ I’m sure your meaning was clear to you but it wasn’t to me.