25% of WV Voters said Race was factor

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

I believe Kathleen Blanco is a woman.

Doesn’t matter. She did not have the “deficiency” of dark skin, which fact significantly influenced whites into not supporting Jindal in 2003 and even in 2007.</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.

By the time voting took place, Hillary had already applied enough dirt and taken blacks for granted to have soundly lost the black vote. I meant by the term “voting” to point out that prior to her repeated missteps, it was a forgone conclusion that blacks would get behind her by stunning majorities, just as they have gotten behind democratic candidates regardless of race. That cannot be said of whites for blacks, regardless of viewpoint. Indeed, one poll reported in the Washington Post showed sizeable numbers of whites even cross party lines to vote for whites over blacks, simply because the candidate was black. Not just Republicans, but Dems also.</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.

That is Hilarious, since the Jindal vote took place in only one state with an electorate that due to Katrina and other factors hardly reflects even the Eastern Seaboard, let alone the Midwest and Western Coast. I think the number is fifty percent for several reasons, falling off to about 25 to 33 percent of the hardcore racists of the sort we have seen in West Virginia.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

By the time voting took place, Hillary had already applied enough dirt and taken blacks for granted to have soundly lost the black vote. I meant by the term “voting” to point out that prior to her repeated missteps, it was a forgone conclusion that blacks would get behind her by stunning majorities, just as they have gotten behind democratic candidates regardless of race. That cannot be said of whites for blacks, regardless of viewpoint. Indeed, one poll reported in the Washington Post showed sizeable numbers of whites even cross party lines to vote for whites over blacks, simply because the candidate was black. Not just Republicans, but Dems also.

By voting you meaning how they polled. Let me get this right. When whites poll favorably for a black candidate but then vote white that’s considered being racist. But when blacks poll favorably for a white candidate (Clinton) but then vote black it’s considered…what exactly?</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

That is Hilarious, since the Jindal vote took place in only one state with an electorate that due to Katrina and other factors hardly reflects even the Eastern Seaboard, let alone the Midwest and Western Coast. I think the number is fifty percent for several reasons, falling off to about 25 to 33 percent of the hardcore racists of the sort we have seen in West Virginia.

This is quite interesting. Lets just reiterate your point. You think that 50% of whites will not vote for a black candidate due to hate. Pure lunacy.</p>

<p>15-20%, I’d buy it. The data is simply not there for your assertion.</p>

[simba]

<p>ABC news poll found that about 17% of whites would be uncomfortable voting for black. This is consistent with other similar polls.</p>

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

By voting you meaning how they polled. Let me get this right. When whites poll favorably for a black candidate but then vote white that’s considered being racist. But when blacks poll favorably for a white candidate (Clinton) but then vote black it’s considered…what exactly?

</p>

<p>That is not what happened in the case of blacks and Hillary. You ought not misrepresent the facts here. Blacks at one time openly supported Hillary and openly rejected Obama. There was no stealth voting where blacks were concerned. They were right on the level about their doubts concerning whether Obama considered himself black. It was so entrenched that Hillary took it for granted. Obama pressed blacks hard, and convinced many that he understood them. Even then blacks backed Hillary by large majorities. It was when Hillary failed to campaign in Iowa because she did not think it possible that whites would vote for a black, and then began throwing trash when she recognized her mistake, that she began to lose blacks. Nothing like this happened with whites. Many whites, on the other hand, polled in favor of a black candidate, but were simply not on the level. They were, in short, lying outright. When the they got behind the curtain, they broke hard for the white guy. Two extremely different circumstances.</p>

<p>

This is quite interesting. Lets just reiterate your point. You think that 50% of whites will not vote for a black candidate due to hate. Pure lunacy. 15-20%, I’d buy it. The data is simply not there for your assertion.

</p>

<p>That is not my assertion and never has been. I think half of whites hate blacks to such an extent that they cannot help but discriminate against them regardless of what blacks do. But some of those whites, perhaps 30%± of them will vote for a black guy, provided he jump through the same sort of ridiculous hoops that Jindal jumps through. Jindal exploited the religious nut hoop, and those sorts of whites went for him. That is a specific niche that would not work generally. It would not work in places like Georgia and Alabama. The people in those states are not significantly Roman Catholic nuts. They are Baptist/Evangelical nuts, an entirely different sort of hypocrisy is at work in them. Keyes tried to find a niche with them, but with only measured success. In places like Illinois, guys like Keyes don’t even rate and can never rate. Still, if a general model can be found (and perhaps Obama has found it), I think only 30% of voting whites will generally vote for a black.</p>

<p>The problem is that of those 30%, precious few are willing to be fair-minded about the black guy’s challenges. The black guy will have to be an uncommonly gifted leader to keep their support. Too many of them would look for and take the opportunity to slam him, even racially, should he make the slightest mistake. They would turn on a dime against the black, doing essentially the same thing to his administration that they do in polls, namely, saying one thing publicly, but condemning him racially wherever it really counts. They are willing to vote for him, but not to stand by him as they stood by Reagan through all his total nonsense. They will not stand by the black guy even as they do for Bush during all his extreme nonsense. No one is hitting Bush racially for his failures. They would hit Obama, racially, and for the least misstep. This means they would hit every black guy to come afterward. As they have already proven Obama doesn’t even need to make a mistake before large numbers of whites turn and condemn him. Of that 30% of white supporters (not who necessarily voted for Obama), I suspect only 10%-15% would be fair. I suspect that of this 10%-15% about 5% would support Obama no matter what he does because they just want to see him succeed. These whites will defend him to the end. The remaining 5-10% of pro-black voting whites would be strictly fair. If Obama inherits a mess from Bush, these whites are philosophical enough to keep it in mind, and they will always be fair in their judgment of the man’s actions, not his race. If Obama is clearly at fault, these white folks are gonna call him on it with no compunction at all. My point is that of the 30% of Obama’s general supporters, too few are truly capable of supporting him so that the bar he has to reach in order to keep their support will be far higher than it is for anyone else.</p>

<p>That now leaves the remaining 20-25% of white voters. These people are hardcore racists and would never vote for Obama under any circumstances. Many of these people are the sort who claim “I once considered Obama, but that Wright thing ended that!” These folks are lying. They never considered Obama at all. Anyone can see this. If they really considered him, nothing like Wright could have caused them to summarily dismiss the man, especially when the situation with Wright is so much more complex than they make it out to be. These are folks who claim “I would have voted for him, but he called me bitter!!! No way now!” These folks never would have supported Obama in a million years. I think of this 25% of hardcore racists, 15% are philosophical racists who not only will never vote for a black guy, but think any white who would is a race traitor. Many of them are not afraid to say it. This represents a huge raw number of Americans.</p>

<p>That is my view.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>Your view is wrong.</p>

[Drosselmeier]

<p>Well, this is basically what I am getting at, but not as well as is mentioned here [Whites</a> Take Flight on Election Day](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301776.html]Whites”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301776.html)</p>

<p>Plenty of whites, especially poor ones, reject polsters outright, which is why I think your 10-20% is an understatement, to say the least about it. For very large numbers of whites, a candidate’s view means very little. The only thing that matters is his race. I do not think that is anywhere NEAR the case with blacks, who have voted in large numbers for blacks for ages.</p>

<p>To the point: what we see here with black support for Obama is nothing like whites who are just racist. The comparison that so many here try to make simply is false.</p>

[rorosen]

<p>““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.””</p>

<p>Dross, I think and hope that you are underestimating the great numbers of whites who also rejoice to see in Obama simply an intelligent and decent candidate,…a shocker coming from any race. Yes, the human heart is a complex twisted sewer of competing fluids but you have to believe we will rise up and wallow towards the light if it seems there are enough good extended hands there to outweigh the bad down kicking feet.</p>

<p>It’s worth the risk of foolishness for me to admit my audacity of hope even if the consequences lead to further damnation,…to choose otherwise is empty.</p>

[poetsheart]

<p>Virtually everything spoken by Drosselmeirer in his past number of posts is so clearly and startlingly the truth, that I suspect even the feeble naysayers grudgingly know it to be so. </p>

<p>

@Mr Payne

There are many different variables, of course, some which go for him and others against him.

</p>

<p>Notice how he suddenly now struggles to be so fair minded, so circumspect when attempting to argue the “different variables” that account for white voting practices. How curious it is, that he showed no such inclination when making his emphatic assertion that 90% black support of Obama can only be “racism” on the part of blacks----racism that is in fact, as raw, as virulent, as “unjust” as that of whites who disqualify a candidate on the basis of black skin alone. Notice how conveniently he ignored all the compelling “variables” Drosselmeirer put forth as examples of black voting practices—even, for instance, in predominantly black cities, when two black candidates ran against a single white one—and the black electorate voted the white guy into office! . </p>

<p>…It is so often the case, that the man who has a jagged board protruding from his own eye, is desperately keen to point (with righteous indignation) at the man whose eye contains only a tiny splinter.:rolleyes:</p>

[Hanna]

<p>“Jindal won 60% of whites in Louisiana, not in America.”</p>

<p>True, and besides, he’s dark-skinned, not African-American. We don’t know whether an African-American candidate could have done what he did. Bobby Jindal would probably have had to sit in the back of the bus under Jim Crow, but Jim Crow was not designed for him. The baggage is not identical for every nonwhite person.</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>I think Mr. Payne is confused by the broad definition he uses for ‘racism’. </p>

<p>Racism ultimately arises out of the belief that one race is better or inferior to another race. </p>

<p>The white people in question are voting against Obama because they do not believe that black people are good enough to run this country. Now I’ll work with you for a second and pretend that and equal proportion of black people are supporting Obama because they’d prefer a black candidate.</p>

<p>Even so those black people would not be racist because they do not think the black race is any better than the white race, as is supported by their support for white candidates. </p>

<p>Do you understand the difference?</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

Racism ultimately arises out of the belief that one race is better or inferior to another race.

</p>

<p>There are many white liberals who are voting for Obama because they feel sorry for black people and want to change the perception of blacks. By choosing Obama because of Obama’s race, these white voters are discriminating based on race and, thus, are racists. </p>

<p>Voting for a candidate becuase of his race is discriminating against another candidate because of that candidate’s race and it is racism plain and simple.</p>

<p>You defenders of this double standard (black pride is not racism. but white preference is racism) remind me of the arguments made by those trying to defend segregation. Those arguemnts were that blacks were being treated equally because just as white’s had schools, blacks had schools. Separate but equal is inherently unequal just as voting for a candidate based on racial preference is the same as voting against another candidate based on racial dislike.</p>

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

Dross, I think and hope that you are underestimating the great numbers of whites who also rejoice to see in Obama simply an intelligent and decent candidate,…a shocker coming from any race.

</p>

<p>I have little doubt that very many whites are at least open to an Obama administration and that many of these are even eager to see it. But what I am trying to say is that I think there are degrees of preference within whites that when combined into a single constituency spells certain disaster for any black president.</p>

<p>Based on all I have seen and read, I think the real proportion of whites who can be as open and fair to Obama as they can be to the Bushes and Clintons is quite small, only about 10-20%. I think the rest of whites comprise a complex variety of views that range from fickle racism to hard-core white supremacy.</p>

<p>There is a large group of whites, perhaps the largest of all groups (30%-40%?) that would vote for a guy like Obama. But to appeal to them the black guy must do little that will cause anyone to note that he is in fact black, certainly not black in the sense of understanding black issues. This group will turn hostile, even racially hostile, on a dime. This is why the Wright situation was brought out against Obama but not against Bill Clinton (who also had ties to Wright). Wright’s comments were truly not as outlandish as whites make them out to be, though Wright is a shrieking buffoon (quite like many black preachers are). Still, the comments make clear that Wright is angry and skeptical, like many of ‘those people’ are. Since Obama is one of ‘those people’, his opponents exploited Wright to pry that 30-40% of whites from Obama. [In</a> South Carolina Bill Clinton also unleashed the Clinton’s “black candidate strategy”]( <a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Obama's Victory & The Clintons' "Black Candidate" Strategy | HuffPost Latest News) against Obama because he knew the racism inherent in this 30-40% of whites. Merely by reminding whites of Obama’s race one poll showed that support among [SC</a> whites “fell in one week from 20 percent to a mere 10 percent]( <a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/348890_obama26.html]SC”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/348890_obama26.html) after race became more of an issue in the campaign.” The GOP now tries to abuse Obama’s wife by claiming she is not patriotic (but just another angry anti-American black) because they know what Bill Clinton knows about this large group of whites. That GOP spot was very well done, exploiting Hispanics, and several others, against Obama’s race. The GOP knows Obama’s race is a problem with whites and they are hitting hit hard. This is also why the Clintons have underscored how ‘hard working people’ will not vote for Obama (but the ‘lazy people’ will). It is why Bill Clinton repeats to whites how “people like you” vote for Hillary. This group of white Americans is among the most fickle Americans, prone to both racism and sound-bites. An effective sound-bite given to remind them of Obama’s blackness is enough to cause them to act out the racism that already exists in them. All they need is some pretense behind which to hide as they vent their racism.</p>

<p>I think there is another, smaller group of whites (20-30% or so?) who are disinterested in voting for a black guy, but would do so with vigor if the white guy running against him appeared to present a danger to their interests. If the black guy appeals so vigorously to their particular, typically fruity niche that he ostracizes himself from the mainstream. He has to be more Catholic than the Pope, whiter than rice, more outspoken about certain issues than the greatest advocate. Alan Keyes, Walter Williams, fall into this category. He has to be willing to be raceless in order to overcome what in the minds of this group is the “deficiency” of being black. These whites will even applaud him publicly, even should he marry a white wife - as long as the wife is someone else’s daughter. This is the group that put Clarence Thomas and Louisiana’s Jindal in office. They do not mind having a non-white poster-boy, but they will always think of him as a boy.</p>

<p>There is another significant but even smaller group of whites (20-25%?) who are fundamental racists, and half of these are such overt racists they will state their racism publicly. They will never vote for a black man regardless of his views.</p>

<p>There are no fixed line between the groups. People are flowing in and out of them all the time. The problem I mean to point out here is my belief that of all whites in America about half are significant racists (the 20-30% who comprise the “niche whites”, mentioned above, combined with the 20-25% of fundamental racists). So there is not much support here for a guy like Obama. These people already lie in wait to denounce him based on race for the least difficulty Obama will encounter. But of the fickle whites who are actually willing to vote for Obama, many of these are so programmed racially that it will take hardly anything at all for them to switch their vote based on race. Some whites in this group will switch right in the voting booth because of race. They lie to polsters because they are uncomfortable with their racism, but they are still very much prone to manipulations based on race. Should Obama get into office, these people will support him when things go well, and then denounce him racially (thereby appearing to flow into the lower two groups), when things do not. I think we are basically talking about 80-90% of whites who are unable to get behind their black president to any sort of significant degree. Obama would have to be one of the greatest leaders in world history to have a successful administration in this climate. I do not think he has the goods here. I think he is walking into a disaster.</p>

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

There are many white liberals who are voting for Obama because they feel sorry for black people and want to change the perception of blacks. By choosing Obama because of Obama’s race, these white voters are discriminating based on race and, thus, are racists.

</p>

<p>Pure hogheaded stupidity. It is to claim that doctors who choose certain medical tests more rigorously for blacks because they know blacks suffer from some diseases far more than other groups do, are racists because they use race to confer help to blacks in view of the pressures that blacks experience unlike other groups.</p>

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

Now I’ll work with you for a second and pretend that and equal proportion of black people are supporting Obama because they’d prefer a black candidate.

</p>

<p>You know (I know you’re working with this guy, but I had to say this), I don’t think blacks prefer a black candidate. Blacks really do not want Jesse Jackson in office, and neither do they want Al Sharpton. They want a broadly accepted American in office who can lead everyone out of the eighteen hundreds and into the twenty-first century. If that guy/gal is black, then it has special significance to blacks, since blacks of all people suffered most under American policies of the eighteen hundreds (and the seventeen hundreds, and the sixteen hundreds…). Even I feel it, and I am certainly no great fan of a lot of the nonsense that goes for “black” these days.</p>

<p>Here is what I’m talking about. Review this clip
[ABC</a> News: Obama Warns GOP ‘Lay Off My Wife’](<a href=“Obama Warns GOP "Lay Off My Wife" - ABC News”>Obama Warns GOP "Lay Off My Wife" - ABC News)</p>

<p>Did you see it?</p>

<p>What did you see?</p>

<p>You saw the Obamas. And that’s fine.</p>

<p>You saw a black woman interviewing a black couple about the American presidential race.</p>

<p>You saw the Obama family, and Obama talking tough to the GOP, etc., etc.</p>

<p>It was pretty standard political fare. People who like Obama are gonna love it, those who don’t like him aren’t gonna be impressed by it. No problem.</p>

<p>And yet nothing like this has ever happened before. There has never been this sort of mundane, basically non-black interview on presidential politics involving black people in the entire history of America. I’m not sure about this, but I think blacks are, possibly, seeing a new model of how we might get on in America and still be black.</p>

[Drosselmeier]

<p>

True, and besides, he’s dark-skinned, not African-American. We don’t know whether an African-American candidate could have done what he did. Bobby Jindal would probably have had to sit in the back of the bus under Jim Crow, but Jim Crow was not designed for him. The baggage is not identical for every nonwhite person.

</p>

<p>Quite right, Hanna. Quite right indeed. I had actually intended to make this point, but somehow forgot to do so.</p>

[ilsa_belter]

<p>I think you are correct as far as Obama goes, Drosselmeier. Oddly enough, I think a black Republican would have a better chance of being elected President (think a Colin Powell for example) of this country.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

Notice how he suddenly now struggles to be so fair minded, so circumspect when attempting to argue the “different variables” that account for white voting practices.

Please.</p>

<p>

How curious it is, that he showed no such inclination when making his emphatic assertion that 90% black support of Obama can only be “racism” on the part of blacks----racism that is in fact, as raw, as virulent, as “unjust” as that of whites who disqualify a candidate on the basis of black skin alone.

Please quote where I said that. I was just noting the hypocrisy between saying that white voters for Hillary are hardcore racists and no introspection was occuring on the other side of the isle. To say that race is somehow not a factor for the 90/10 split of the black vote seems purely laughable. Oh, that’s right, it’s hope.</p>

<p>

Notice how conveniently he ignored all the compelling “variables” Drosselmeirer put forth as examples of black voting practices—even, for instance, in predominantly black cities, when two black candidates ran against a single white one—and the black electorate voted the white guy into office! .

What, a single data point? I just base my theories on my observable environment. Whites are more comfortable around whites. Blacks are more comfortable around blacks. Socially, politically, etc. This isn’t rocket science.</p>

<p>

…It is so often the case, that the man who has a jagged board protruding from his own eye, is desperately keen to point (with righteous indignation) at the man whose eye contains only a tiny splinter.

Ok. 50% of whites are hardcore racists & are always attempting to keep the black man down. All failings in black society are due to whites. Ok, cool, we got that out of the way. In fact, one might say that whites are the root of all evil.</p>

[rorosen]

<p>well, I don’t see how anyone could read Obama’s two
non-ghostwritten books and not believe the country would be lucky to have such a decent and humane thinker as president. As for repercussions, the nation is self-destructing and most presidents are loathed by the time they leave office anyway. So what’s to lose? </p>

<p>Really, enough with the percentages. Those numbers will drive you nuts.</p>

[Mr_Payne]

<p>

True, and besides, he’s dark-skinned, not African-American. We don’t know whether an African-American candidate could have done what he did. Bobby Jindal would probably have had to sit in the back of the bus under Jim Crow, but Jim Crow was not designed for him. The baggage is not identical for every nonwhite person.

Plainly obvious. I was wondering when some astute person would make this point.</p>