<p>I didn’t read the poll personally. Based on what the OP said, my answer is: we don’t have enough info. I would question the pollster: Interviewees considered race important. Was race the only factor? Of the minority voters that voted for Obama, what was the % that considered race an important factor? Lower %? Higher %? Are they equally racist?
I know, somewhere, I’ve seen a clear distinction between racism and illegal descrimination. As best I remember it, that distinction is power. According to that distinction, [general terms here] a boss and a janitor at a factory can both be racist in the sense that they “side with” their own race for no logical reasons, just that it’s “their race” BUT, in this simple example only the boss can discriminate because only he has the power to hire, fire, promote, etc. The janitor with no power at the job cannot illegally discriminate. Both are allowed their prejudices legally, but the boss, in a position of power, cannot act on his beliefs legally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s pretty obvious from your cavalier expansion of the definition of racism, that neither you nor razorsharp has ever had to live under the pall of actual racism. otherwise, you would never deign to equate the virulent doctrines of white supremacy with the pride and excitement black people feel for the candidacy of a Barack Obama. There is no comparison.</p>
<p>Is the act itself discriminatory, nonetheless younghoss? Whether it is legal or not isn’t really the issue, since nobody is saying that Obama or Clinton have done something that is against the law. whether specific voting blocs are racist is the question.</p>
<p>
Poet, I used your selected definition of racism. </p>
<p>And once again you make false assumptions about me. </p>
<p>And once again you are arguing blacks are victims and thus special rules should apply to them. Sorry, but if you can’t practice what you preach (shun racism), you shouldn’t expect others to do so.</p>
<p>^^^No, the discrimination the definition refers to is discrimination to enforce a doctrine of racial superiority. </p>
<p>The fact the black voters voting for obama have voted for white candidates over black candidates before, while the reverse has not happened with the white voters in question supports that they are two different situations. </p>
<p>I know you so desparately want to deny one-sided racism in our society and you’re just grasping at things to somehow negate it, but i beg you to stop playing dumb to the naked truth of the situation. </p>
<p>And to some above, in the state of west virginia, it is only 4% black as opposed to 95% white. The statistical power that blacks as a bloc hold in the state is nearing insignificant.</p>
<p>
Wouldn’t you have to analyze first time black voters? If Obama brings black voters that normally wouldn’t have voted, would that make them racist?</p>
<p>no. </p>
<p>That just means for the first time they’re voting they’re voting for Obama. </p>
<p>I think you had a thought but didn’t say it right, please clarify what you mean?</p>
<p>reply to post 43</p>
<p>I agree no one here is claiming Hill or Obam broke any laws. I am trying for two primary things 1) That based on the poll as presented in OP, not enough questions were asked/answered to really determine white only racism in my opinion. And 2) to point out there is a difference between racism and illegal discrimination, although certainly one can lead to another.
I use the phrase illegal discrimination because not all discrimination is illegal. For example, I may choose only Dom Per. champagne, or Grey Poupon mustard on the belief that those 2 products are far superior to regular, less expensive brands. Some might say I have a discriminating taste, and that would be a compliment. (people might say other things too, but I won’t get into that!) I use this as a general example only to point out a difference. Racism isn’t illegal. Using one’s racism as a hiring/housing policy becomes illegal discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is about skin color, but only for whites. This is the state where former KKK Grand Dragon, David Duke, won the white vote. We forget that in 2003, Jindal lost Louisiana because not enough whites in the state would vote for him due to his race. Blacks rejected him due to his party.</p>
<p>*Why did Jindal lose after leading his Democratic opponent, Kathleen Blanco, in statewide polls in the weeks before the election? In a word, race. What occurred was the “Wilder effect,” named after the black Virginia governor elected in 1989. Wilder, a Democrat, polled well, then won narrowly. Many white voters, it turned out, said they intended to vote for a black candidate when they really didn’t. Questioned by pollsters, they were leery of being seen as racially prejudiced.</p>
<p>Jindal’s advisers worried that he might lose the “Bubba vote,” rural whites unwilling to vote for a black candidate or even a dark-skinned Indian-American. The Jindal camp’s fears were realized. A Republican normally needs two-thirds of the white vote to win in Louisiana to compensate for losing nearly all of the black vote. But Jindal got only 60 percent of whites, according to an analysis by GCR & Associates Inc., a political consulting firm. Its findings were reported in the New Orleans Times-Picayune. </p>
<p>Had Jindal fared better among blacks, he might have won despite losing white votes. But he got only 9 percent of blacks, this after mounting a highly-publicized effort to attract black voters. Jindal was endorsed by several black political organizations, a former associate of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who is black. Nonetheless, he did only slightly better among blacks than Republicans normally do.*
[SEE</a> The Wilder Effect](<a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/391lpcdh.asp]SEE”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/391lpcdh.asp)</p>
<p>But in 2007 things were different. Jindal enjoyed two things that helped him do better among blacks, and among the general electorate:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Blacks got a closer look at him due to his heavy campaigning among them, and many blacks liked what they saw. Jindals support for school choice, an issue that is very important to blacks, as well as several other policy stances resonated within the black community. Blacks were 30 percent of the Louisiana electorate, not exactly the lily-white state you claim it to be. If Jindal could get just 15% of blacks, it would have been enough to offset the racist whites who could never vote for a non-white. Leading up to the race, polls had Jindal pulling down up to 21 percent of the black vote.
[SEE</a> Black voters hold key to run-off - NOLA.com - Louisiana Elections & Politics](<a href=“http://www.nola.com/elections/index.ssf/2007/10/black_voters_hold_key_to_wheth.html]SEE”>Black voters hold key to run-off)</p></li>
<li><p>Katrina. No doubt about it. This disaster essentially wiped out a substantial portion of the Democratic support base. Large numbers were displaced so that by the time the election took place, many Dems either stayed home or were not around to vote. Many other Democrats were simply angry with the Democratic Party in the state, specifically governor Blanco, for not having responded in a timely manner to the disaster. It presented Jindal with an historic opportunity, one he enjoyed quite well.
[SEE</a> Bloomberg.com: Worldwide](<a href=“Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Blacks are hardly as concerned about race as whites. They werent in Louisiana, and they arent in presidential races. Blacks gave Gore, a white man, 90% of the vote at a time when Alan Keyes, a black man, was running for the GOP nomination. They gave Kerry 92% of the vote at a time when Al Sharpton, a black man, was running against Kerry for the Dem nomination (has anything like this happened with whites for blacks? It never has and never will.). So then why so much black support for Obama over Clinton? Blacks are going for Obama for the same essential reason they went for Gore ad Kerry. They think he best addresses their issues and concerns.</p>
<p>(See next post)</p>
<p>The black vote was once Clintons to lose, and she lost it. In 2007, poll-after-poll showed Clinton pulling down large majorities of the black vote over Obama. One poll showed Clinton getting seventy percent of black women, contrasted to 25% for Obama. Among blacks generally, Clinton had a sixty-six percent black advantage, compared to a mere 23 percent for Obama. The problem for Obama was so great, he began to court blacks directly and intensely, contrary to Clinton. Nevertheless, by the end of 2007 Obama had only split the black vote 50/50.
[SEE</a> Poll: Black support helps Clinton extend lead - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/poll.blacks.democrats/index.html]SEE”>Poll: Black support helps Clinton extend lead - CNN.com)
[Poll:</a> Blacks split between Clinton, Obama | Oakland Tribune | Find Articles at BNET.com](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20071004/ai_n21036341]Poll:”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20071004/ai_n21036341)
[SEE</a> Clinton runs even with Obama among blacks :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama](<a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/587662,CST-NWS-ob04.stng]SEE”>http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/587662,CST-NWS-ob04.stng)</p>
<p>The stalemate began to change after Iowa. Blacks hadnt really taken Obama seriously because they did not think whites would vote for him. [SEE</a> Obama needs early win to get black vote<em>-</em>-*Breaking News, Political News & National Security News - The Washington Times](<a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/NATION/108310088/1001]SEE”>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/NATION/108310088/1001). But a few things cause blacks to shift toward Obama in a way nothing else could:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Obama hit Iowa hard, unlike Clinton; and as polls showed him leading there, many blacks began to put together the fact that UNLIKE CLINTON, Obama actually went after the black vote with greater passion. UNLIKE CLINTON, he also went after white Iowa. UNLIKE CLINTON it appeared Obama would win both. So blacks began to dream the unthinkable. [SEE</a> More Blacks Lean Toward Obama - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119759876506928645-dSmOz6FXuP4vNl_0_wNkgx7ROc8_20080113.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top]SEE”>http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119759876506928645-dSmOz6FXuP4vNl_0_wNkgx7ROc8_20080113.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top).</p></li>
<li><p>When Clinton saw the polls coming in, she began to play dirty politics, citing Obamas former use of cocaine [SEE</a> As Iowa Nears, Clinton Allies Quietly Raise Obama’s Cocaine Use - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>As Iowa Nears, Clinton Allies Quietly Raise Obama's Cocaine Use | HuffPost Latest News). Blacks saw through this, and they did not like it. This continued especially after Iowa ([SEE</a> Political Radar: Obama: Clinton ‘Knives’ Came Out After Iowa](<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-clinton-k.html]SEE”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-clinton-k.html)) and it spelled a downturn for Clinton ever afterward. The dirtier Clinton became, the more blacks doubted her. By the time she uttered her comments re: King, it did not take much for many blacks to turn from her. The more her campaign played race, the more blacks rejected her. Clinton now gets only a handful of blacks where she once pulled down nearly seventy percent. She lost blacks by being a typical politician, instead of being earnest.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>After Iowa, and after Obamas intense campaigning aimed toward blacks, many blacks began to think an Obama win was quite possible, and they relished the thought.</p>
<p>*People across America, even in Iowa of all places, can look across the color line and see the person, said Mr. Brown, 35, who was working at the reception desk at DKs Hair Design near Ladera Heights, a wealthy Los Angeles suburb.</p>
<p>Describing himself as a huge, huge supporter, of Mr. Obama, Mr. Brown added: So many times, our young people only have sports stars or musicians to look up to. But now, when we tell them to go to school, to aim high in life, they have a face to put with the ambition.*
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05race.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05race.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>There is no racism here at all. There is not even anything close to racism. Indeed there is the opposite of racism here. You folks who whine about racism merely because Obama gets 90% of the black vote betray your extreme ignorance of black Americans. What is happening among us here is a certain pleasure in seeing evidence that race is not the deal breaker that many of us think it to be. There is a longing to see it proved that America can actually support a black guy (it cant, of course, but that is what is driving much of the glee in blacks regarding Obamas victory). Unlike with whites, there is a great question abou this, and Obamas suggests an answer that vast numbers of blacks wish to see. Obama demonstrates the sort of black model that apparently works in America and that can succeed where all the other models fail by being either reprehensible (Clarence Thomas) or/and ineffective (Al Sharpton). Until Obama, many blacks had never seen such a model, certainly not in fields other than in athletics.</p>
<p>(See next post)</p>
<p>There is also a desire among blacks to give others a chance to lead, since others have never had a chance and since the white guys in leadership do not seem to be doing a decent job of leading. Since America has never had a president who did not look like Dick Nixon, I suspect many blacks are excited to see a change, but not necessarily a black change-- ANY change. Again, the same sort of excitement now aimed by blacks toward Obama, was once largely aimed at potentially having Hillary in office. White guys have had a lock on power in America since there was an America. It is understandable that non-whites and non-guys might wish to see something else for a change. Hillary as well as Obama could easily have fit the bill for blacks here. But she began to lose touch and Obama filled the vacuum.</p>
<p>The same sort of dynamic was in play in Baltimore, but in reverse. That city had been run by a black leader for ages, but the problems that angered blacks had persisted. Finally, a white guy stood up and said I understand your issues and will do something about them.. OMalley ran against (count them) TWO black guys at the same time, and those black guys actually played the race card fairly openly, essentially claiming Hey were black and hes not nuff said. It didnt work. A city that is two-thirds black went with the white guy because the blacks there believed him best able and willing to deal with their concerns.</p>
<p>BALTIMORE – A white city councilman won the Democratic mayoral primary Tuesday, defeating two black candidates in this predominantly black city by promising to clean the streets of open-air drug markets and have zero tolerance for crime.
[SEE</a> O’Malley wins Baltimore Democratic mayoral primary - September 14, 1999](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/14/baltimore.mayor/]SEE”>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/14/baltimore.mayor/).</p>
<p>Blacks are acting in essentially the same way regarding Obama. Not only has he addressed black concerns, unlike Hillary, but he has campaigned more diligently and proven himself a valid contender. Iowa put him on the black map. The shift began there and it was not racial, certainly nothing like the racists in America who simply refuse to vote for Obama because hes black.
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07support.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07support.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a>
[SEE</a> More Blacks Lean Toward Obama - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119759876506928645-dSmOz6FXuP4vNl_0_wNkgx7ROc8_20080113.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top]SEE”>http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119759876506928645-dSmOz6FXuP4vNl_0_wNkgx7ROc8_20080113.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top)
[SEE</a> Blacks Shift To Obama, Poll Finds - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701030.html]SEE”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701030.html)</p>
<p>Closing Comments</p>
<p>I personally do not support Obama, and for a number of reasons, one of which is that I do not think he has what it takes to lead a country half of which essentially hates him because of his race. I think his race is why the false Muslim claim sticks, despite Obama’s life-long embrace of Christianity, and despite his flat denials of being Muslim, and despite that those who claim he is Muslim have heard his denials. These people simply do not wish to believe Obama, and I think they do not wish to believe him because he is black.</p>
<p>I also think race is why Wright’s buffoonery has hit Obama so hard despite that Obama himself never did these things, and despite Clinton himself brought Wright in as an “advisor”, and despite that Wright said nothing outlandish when taken in its proper context. Wright is just a political buffoon, and whites are using him to hang Obama. Obama takes the fall for what someone else did because millions of whites want him to take the fall for something, anything, just as long as the ■■■■■■ falls. I do not believe Obama can lead such a country. He is walking into an extreme disaster because, though America’s problems are caused by white guys, too many Americans would lie in wait to blame them all on the black guy. And unlike the large number of incompetent white guys America has had in leadership, whites only need one black guy who fails to be anything less than stellar, to claim the black guy can’t lead because of his race.</p>
<p>America does not deserve a great leader even if it existed in Obama, which it does not. The bar for Obama, unlike the bar for all white leaders, including that sublime model of American intellect, George Bush, is unreasonably high. America does not deserve a leader who can actually reach the bar. It deserves what it has always elected, men like John McCain, with his one hundred years of presence in Iraq.
(McCain 2008)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your point essentially makes no sense. I highly doubt 50% of the country would decline to vote for Obama based on race. If in Louisiana Jindal can win 60% of the white vote race is clearly not as big an issue as you think. That’s a differential of 7% from what a white republican normally needs. Hardly 50%. Try again.</p>
<p>That 7% is certainly a big enough difference to tip a close election.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jindal won 60% of whites in Louisiana, not in America. Not all of Louisiana is racist on principle. Just nearly half of it. There are plenty of whites who moved to the state who, while reticent to vote for a non-white candidate, would do so if the candidate shared their views. In Jindal’s case he garnered nearly ALL the anti-abortion, anti-evolution crowd, people who happen to cluster in places like Louisiana.</p>
<p>
You are assuming that every white that didn’t vote for him did so on account of his race. What if they were a white democrat? Such things exist in Louisiana still, right?</p>
<p>But in the same paragraph it said that a White Republican usually need 66% of the white vote to win the state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course that was the paradigm prior to Katrina. After Katrina Jindal had a unique opportunity because great swaths of people who otherwise would not have voted for him (poor blacks and whites), were either displaced or dead. That is in part why just four years earlier, Jindal lost, and why it was widely reported that he lost because of race.</p>
<p>Basically, Jindal found and exploited hyper-religious conservatism. This is quite obvious in how openly he addressed his constituents about his social views. These particular whites are not mainstream Americans, but they comprise a great portion of the electorate in Louisiana. They certainly do care about race, but if a guy throws them red meat, and lots of it, they will eat it no matter the color of the hand that feeds them. This is why other minorities, like Alan Keyes, have found political success. The religion is precisely the same, and so is the rhetoric. Basically, Jindal tells us that to meet with success, a non-white has to live in the intellectual hinterlands of hyper-rightwing religious conservatism in a nearly forgotten niche about which the rest of the country does not care. This is not a model that non-whites can apply generally.</p>
<p>
There are many different variables, of course, some which go for him and others against him.</p>
<p>
Then it’s a cultural issue perhaps? A candidate of a different race has to pass a litmus test perhaps? IE: Mayor of Baltimore, etc.</p>
<p>A black american, given two equal candidates will vote for the black candidate. A white american, given two equal candidates will vote for the white candidate. Is this some really amazingly hard to understand issue?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there is no such thing as “equal” candidates. In Jindal’s case he was quite arguably superior in 2003, but many whites voted against him, and not necessarily for the other guy, because of race. In Obama’s case we are seeing the same thing. The blacks first generally voted for Hillary regardless of race, because they thought she was better. Then they voted 50/50 for Hillary because they thought she was equal. Then they voted against her because they thought she was toxic. Whites are voting likewise, but unlike blacks there are significant numbers of whites who simply vote white no matter the black guy’s ability. There are a great many whites who take this racist posture against any non-white candidate, but especially against a black one.</p>
<p>
I believe Kathleen Blanco is a woman.</p>
<p>
I’d like a source showing that Blacks “generally voted” for Hillary at any point. The entrance/exit polls I’ve seen do not show that.</p>
<p>
No doubt, but it’s certainly not fifty percent of the population. For you to even think that is hilarious. The Jindal vote itself clearly shows otherwise.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I see this election more like affirmative action. Two fairly similar candidates - I can apply affirmative action and vote for the black candidate or the woman. For various reasons, this white woman chose to vote for the black candidate in this election. Here in this suburb of NY most of the women my age that I know seem to have done the same, while those 10 years older than me are voting for Hillary. I also believe that a pretty substantial portion of the country (at least 40%) will vote for any Democrat when push comes to shove.</p>