At Least 15% of Whites Won't Vote Obama

[VegasGuy]

There's been no shortage of public handwringing about whether or not Barack Obama can attract support from white voters, particularly white men. Some of it has even been pushed by Hillary Clinton's campaign itself.

Most of the analysis has overlooked one important fact, however: Hillary Clinton has a bigger problem with white voters than Barack Obama.

New data from the Pew Research Center illustrates my point: although Hillary Clinton leads McCain among white women by three points, she trails among white men by twenty-three points. Meanwhile, Obama trails among white women by just one point, and trails among white men by fifteen. Obama's net margin relative to Clinton drops by four points among white women, but increases by eight points among white men.

Overall, that means Obama is doing slightly better with white voters than is Hillary Clinton.

And this is according to a poll conducted entirely after the Wright controversy played itself out.

Here's the data:

Update II: I neglected to make the point that that Obama's 43% support among white voters is actually strong -- especially in the wake of Wright. In 1992, Bill Clinton won 39% of white voters. In 1996, he won 43%. In 2000, Gore won 42%. In 2004, Kerry won 41%. So 43% is a pretty good starting point, especially with 7% undecided. (Obama currently trails McCain by 7%, while Gore lost by 12% and Kerry lost by 17%.)

Despite the clear evidence to the contrary, a myth seems to have taken root that Barack Obama has a problem with white voters.

Why have some people have come to hold this false belief? Here are some likely reasons:

* Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among white voters in the Democratic nomination process. This is true, but it is a function of Hillary Clinton's popularity among white females. Barack Obama actually leads Clinton among white men, even excluding caucus states. Mark Blumenthal wrote about this over a month ago.

* Many Hillary Clinton advocates (Ed Rendell and Taylor Marsh come to mind) have pushed this argument, fueled by material advanced by the Clinton campaign. Moreover, recently it's become obvious the only way Clinton can win is by exploiting race to turn whites against Obama. In desperation mode, it's likely a lot of Clinton supporters are now doing and saying things they will regret within a matter of weeks if not days.

* People are lazy and let false stereotypes cloud their perception of reality. They figure Obama's black, therefore he must have a problem with whites. Fears generated by the Wright story may also have exacerbated this tendency.

* The media has done a horrible job of covering this aspect of the campaign and in many ways have been the laziest of all.

Probably the most important of these reasons is the fact that Hillary Clinton has won more white votes during the Democratic nomination contest than Barack Obama. But that only tells part of the story.

The full story is that while white women have strongly preferred Hillary Clinton, white men have mildly preferred Barack Obama. The reason for Hillary Clinton's strength among white women is largely because she is a woman; it's the same reason that Barack Obama does so well among blacks.

There's nothing wrong with this. Each candidate has his or her own strengths, and these demographic trends reflect those strengths. It's not a huge sign of weakness for Hillary Clinton to win just 15% of black voters in primary contests as she would still win the support of 85% of blacks in the general.

Similarly, Hillary Clinton's lead among white women does not suggest that Barack Obama has some sort of a problem with white voters. If that were true, how could he possibly be leading her amongst white men?

In primary states with exits polls (and delegates at stake), by my calculation, Barack Obama has won 3.3 million votes from white men, and Hillary Clinton has won 3.2 million. Considering that at least 100,000 of Hillary Clinton's votes come from "Limbaugh Effect" cross-over voting, Obama's lead is probably slightly larger by 50,000 or more votes.

More importantly, these numbers do not reflect the millions who have voted in caucuses, many of which took place in states with very high white populations, like Idaho (need I say more).

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/barack-obamas-m.html

-VG

 

[geist]

Re: Barack Obama's mythical problem with whites

Man, this is why I don't pay attention to polls and statistics. They can be made to say anything and I believe the one's you posted are the most accurate. I remember a couple of years ago, people on this board were saying Obama shouldn't even run in 2008 because he wasn't a viable candidate. Look at him now. Anything can happen between now and the election, it's 100 years off in political terms.

The only thing we can do is us and go out and vote for that man in record numbers, he already has pretty much all the support he's gonna get from white folks.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>

A measure of racism: 15 percent?</font size></center>

An AP-Yahoo poll conducted April 2-14 found
that “about 8 percent of whites would be
uncomfortable voting for a black for president.”
Photo: AP

P-O-L-T-I-C-O
By ROGER SIMON | 4/21/08 7:25 PM EST

I was talking the other day to a prominent Republican who asked me what I thought John McCain’s strongest issues would be in the general election.

Lower taxes and the argument he will be better able to protect America from its enemies, I said.

Republicans have a pretty good track record with those two.

The Republican shook his head. “You’re missing the most important one,” he said. “Race. McCain runs against Barack Obama and the race vote is worth maybe 15 percent to McCain.”

The man I was talking to is not a racist; he was just stating what he believes to be a fact: There is a percentage of the American electorate who will simply not vote for a black person no matter what his qualities or qualifications.

How big is that percentage? An AP-Yahoo poll conducted April 2-14 found that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.”

I don’t know if 8 percent sounds high or low to you, but I was amazed that 8 percent of respondents were willing to admit this to a pollster. And I figure that the true figure is much higher.

The same poll, by the way, found that 15 percent of voters think Obama is a Muslim. He is, in fact, a Christian. But thinking a person is a Muslim probably does not encourage you to vote for him in America today.

<font size="4">Obama Signs Burned on St. Patrick's Day in Scranton, Pa</font size>

And consider this little nugget from Monday’s Washington Post, in a story by Kevin Merida and Jose Antonio Vargas datelined Scranton, Pa.:

“Barack Obama’s campaign opened a downtown office here on March 15, just in time for the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade. It was not a glorious day for Team Obama. Some of the green signs the campaign had trucked in by the thousands were burned during the parade, and campaign volunteers — white volunteers — were greeted with racial slurs.”​

Signs burned? Racial slurs shouted out loud? In this day and age? Maybe that 15 percent estimate is low.

I am not suggesting for a second that McCain would exploit race in a campaign against Obama. He would not. But the real question is whether the racial issue has to be “exploited” at all. It is pretty powerful just sitting there on its own.

Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign in 1980 by giving a speech at a county fair in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers — James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman — had been murdered in 1964.

Reagan made no mention of the murders or civil rights in that speech but did say, “I believe in states’ rights.” “States’ rights” was common code in those days for letting states discriminate against black people.

A few months ago, David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, defended Reagan, claiming it is a “distortion” to say Reagan opened his campaign “with an appeal to racism.”

But Brooks also wrote: “Reagan could have done something wonderful if he’d mentioned civil rights at the fair. He didn’t. And it’s obviously true that race played a role in the GOP’s ascent.”

In 2005, then-Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman gave a speech to a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention in Milwaukee denouncing the use of race as a wedge issue.
“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” Mehlman said. “I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

On Monday, McCain went to Selma, Ala., where on March 7, 1965, more than 500 civil rights marchers were beaten and clubbed by state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as the rest of America watched on television.

“They watched and were ashamed of their country,” McCain said. “And they knew that the people who had tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge weren’t a mob; they weren’t a threat; they weren’t revolutionaries. They were people who believed in America — in the promise of America. And they believed in a better America. They were patriots — the best kind of patriots.”

The Associated Press noted that McCain drew a crowd Monday of about 100 people that “was mostly white, although, as the campaign noted, Selma’s population is 70 percent black.”

“I am aware the African-American vote has been very small in favor of the Republican Party; I am aware of the challenges, and I am aware of the fact that there will be many people who will not vote for me,” McCain said. “But I’m going to be the president of all the people.”

Which was an intriguing point: Sure, there are voters who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, but McCain was saying there are also voters who will not vote for him under any circumstances.

But which group, if either one, will hold the balance of power in November?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9761.html

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Voting Patterns</font size><font size="6">
Race still matters</font size></center>

Sun, Apr. 27, 2008


Gov. Rendell may have been right all along when he said some white voters in Pennsylvania aren't ready to vote for a black presidential candidate.

In the Democratic primary, 19 percent of all voters said race was an important factor in their decision. And 4 percent of voters said it was the most important factor. Among this group that acknowledged taking race into consideration, Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama, 59 percent to 41 percent.

And the exit polls suggest a similar motivation among some black voters. Four percent of Pennsylvania voters were African Americans who said race was an important factor in their decision.

For decades, blacks have given strong support to white Democratic candidates. But on Tuesday, given a choice, 90 percent of African American voters chose Obama. It's not quite the same as Rendell's canon that some white voters cannot bring themselves to support a black candidate. But it shows that at least many black voters based their choice on race. Thirty-seven percent of white voters supported Obama.

Does all of this mean Pennsylvania is an intolerant cauldron of racial division? No. If anything, the results show that Pennsylvanians are very similar to voters in other states when taking race into account.

But the results here and nationally do show that there is more work to be done on accepting candidates on their positions on the issues, rather than on race.

Considering that Pennsylvania was the first primary held after the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory racial rhetoric, the exit polls indicate that voters here didn't allow it to influence them. The breakdown of voters along racial lines followed closely the results in earlier primaries, before Wright's comments became an issue.

In Texas, 19 percent of voters said race was an important factor (7 percent said it was the most important). Of this group, Clinton won 52 percent. In Ohio, 17 percent said race was important; Clinton won 60 percent of them. Obama won 88 percent of the black vote in Ohio.

New Jersey, which held its primary on Feb. 5, has a more diverse electorate than Pennsylvania. Just as in Pennsylvania, 19 percent of New Jersey voters said race was an important factor. But Obama won in that group with 49 percent, to Clinton's 47 percent. (John Edwards received 4 percent.)

When one-fifth of Democratic primary voters admit taking race into account in the ballot booth, it shows the nation still has social hurdles to overcome. If a candidate's race is as important to some voters as his or her views on the economy, or the cost of health care, then something is being lost in the debate over how to move the country forward.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080427_Editorial__Voting_Patterns.html

 

[sharkbait28]

In the first article the author states

Lower taxes and the argument he will be better able to protect America from its enemies, I said.

Republicans have a pretty good track record with those two.

How is it that the Republicans are still allowed to run on a fiscal responsibility and security platform?

Seriously....it baffles me. The last 7 1/2 years have been fraught with fiscal mismanagement and it's easily arguable that America's security has been further compromised by our bullshit foreign policy.

So why does the media take it as a given that Republicans are strong on the economy (face it lower taxes is code for intelligent economic policy these days) and security?

As far as race....there's no question that it will continue to play a role in peoples voting decisions well into the general elections...it's just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[oh snap]

So the white people who won't vote for Obama automatically means its because of racism? Whatever with that... thats like saying men who won't vote for Hillary its because of sexism. Thats too assumptous.

 

[Mentor B]

So the white people who won't vote for Obama automatically means its because of racism? Whatever with that... thats like saying men who won't vote for Hillary its because of sexism. Thats too assumptous.

Perhaps, this notion is geared towards white people who have a history of being democratic

 

[LennyNero1972]

So the white people who won't vote for Obama automatically means its because of racism? Whatever with that... thats like saying men who won't vote for Hillary its because of sexism. Thats too assumptous.

Yep.

 

[Garifuna]

Gov. Rendell may have been right all along when he said some white voters in Pennsylvania aren't ready to vote for a black presidential candidate

This is Pennsylvania, birthplace of diversity. Five percent of Pennsylvanians aren't ready for electricity.

One third of Pennsylvanians weren't ready for independence. These loyalists moved to Canada, the Bahamas, or back to England rather than stay here.

William Penn founded Pennsylvania as a "holy experiment", and he couldn't even convince his children to take part in it. The experiment died with William Penn, his kids decided profits were more important than principles when they claimed their inheritance.

Do you think all Pennsylvanians are pleased to have a Jewish Governor? He is not even the first in my lifetime, and some people still aren't ready.

Pennsylvania and the United States will never progress if it waits for everybody to "be ready". So what? Elect a Black President, and they will get over it eventually.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"> <center>

The Bradley Effect</font size><font size="4">
Named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who is black,
when he ran to become governor of California in 1982; he was the
frontrunner in all opinion polls until the very end of the campaign.
But he lost on election day. A more intense version of the Bradley
effect has taken shape within the Democratic Party in 2008. </font size></center>

Will Obama become a victim of the Bradley effect?
In recent days, the Democratic Party establishment
has been debating his electability.


Speigel Online
By Gabor Steingart in Washington
April 30, 2008


There is a phenomenon in opinion research called the Bradley effect, named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. When Bradley, who was black, ran to become governor of California in 1982, he was the frontrunner in all opinion polls until the very end of the campaign. But he lost on election day.

Since then, the term has been used to denote a serious shift in voter preferences caused by racial prejudice against a candidate -- prejudice that voters would never admit openly, but then express in all secrecy in the voting booth.

A more intense version of the Bradley effect has taken shape within the Democratic Party in 2008. "There is no white America," Barack Obama has said. "There is no black America. There is no Latino America. There is no Asian America. There is just the United States of America." Many prominent politicians of all skin colors, from New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy to Jesse Jackson, seem to agree with him. But the public euphoria is increasingly bumping up against the resistance of ordinary Democratic voters.

Within the Democratic Party, which likes to call itself the "party of the people," cheering on and voting for a candidate appear to be two very different things. Voters who say in public that they are inspired are sometimes quick to change their minds and settle scores in the election booth. In fact, perhaps the Bradley effect should be renamed the Obama effect.


Uniter who Divides the Party

A significant segment of ordinary, middle-class Democrats, especially blue-collar workers and retirees, vote along racial and ethnic lines. The questions that interest them are politically relevant, but not politically correct. Is Obama an American with black skin color or a black man with an American passport? Is he a stranger or does he just seem like one? Is he part of the whole or just part of a segment of society? Ironically, the one candidate who is campaigning as a uniter appears to be dividing the party -- so much so, in fact, that the party establishment has spent the last few days debating Obama's electability.

The superdelegates now
have no choice but to pick
Obama.


When there was still something playful about the Obama euphoria, significant numbers of whites were voting for the black candidate and blacks for the white candidate. Obama found strong support among white voters in the Democratic primaries in Iowa, Kansas, Idaho and Colorado. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, captured the votes of many African Americans. But this lightness has now vanished, and animosity and open hostility amongst the electorate have taken its place. The Democratic divide has become all the more apparent in states with large blue-collar populations, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, even to those who until then had believed that the entire country had succumbed to what had been described as Obama's "messiah factor." In Ohio, as in Pennsylvania, an overwhelming majority of white, blue-collar workers voted for Clinton. By the same token, a huge majority of African Americans voted for Obama.


Growing Disenchantment

It seems as if the majority of African Americans are now forming a barricade around Obama in the increasingly heated primary battle. The Clintons have ripped open the divide with their clearly ambiguous remarks, and the Obamas have only widened that divide. One of the reasons that the hate-filled sermons coming from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, with his suggestion that "God damn America," were so troubling was that Obama had called him his "spiritual mentor" in the past. And it didn't help when Obama's wife Michelle said that her husband's bid to become president had made her proud, for the first time in her adult life, to be an American. Though refreshingly open, the statement was also politically naïve.

Reverand Wright certainly complicated matters for Obama this week with his rehabilitation tour (more...). He has once again energized the black and white debate -- only this time to the detriment of the Illionois Senator. Wright, though isn't the main force driving white voters' away from the Obama camp. The trend coincides with white voters' growing disenchantment with the candidate. His message of hope and change is beginning to sound like a broken record. Phrases like "We are the ones we've been waiting for" sound lofty at first, but they eventually lose their appeal.

Nevertheless, the debate that has now begun comes too late for Hillary Clinton. The superdelegates, who can vote for the candidate of their choice without taking voter preferences into account, in fact have no other choice but to nominate Obama. They will have to suppress the growing fear that the Democrats cannot win the election against Republican candidate John McCain in November if Obama is their candidate. Still, as long as Obama can hold onto his slight lead in the number of pledged delegates, he will be the inevitable candidate. In fact, there is now almost a national political obligation to nominate Obama. A vote by superdelegates against Obama would set off shock waves within American society, with incalculable consequences. Young people would be outraged, intellectuals would be bitter and violence could erupt in predominantly black urban neighborhoods around the country.


America's not Burning, but it Is Smoldering

An apparent rejection of her black rival would also do more to harm Hillary Clinton than help her campaign. A candidacy against the background of angry youth or even burning barricades would be of little value. Thus, it is not Obama himself who now offers the strongest argument for his nomination, but the history of his ancestors. In fact, with his history standing at his side, Obama hardly needs to try any longer. This history peers into the present, sadly and silently, from a time we commonly call the past. And yet this is a past that America cannot seem to shake.

It was only 144 years ago that the American South fought a civil war to defend its right to slavery. Civil rights activist Martin Luther King was assassinated 40 years ago. Twenty years ago, black presidential candidate Jesse Jackson failed in the primaries because he was unable to gain the support of white Democrats. Racial barriers have been lowered since then, but they have not disappeared altogether.

It may not be burning, but it is smoldering in America. After seven years of George W. Bush, the Democratic Party has vowed to reconcile the country with itself. And now it will at least have to try, even if it means losing the presidency.

To reach the author and join the discussion, please visit GaborSteingart.com.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,550351,00.html

 

[ARDMORESTAR]

I Think Us As Black People Can Prevent The Bradley Affect From Happening, How You May Ask! Vote.

Look At Nc, 93% Of Registered Black Voters Came Out And Voted And Look At What Happened!

The Problem Is That There Are A Lot Of Black People That Dont Vote, Why You May Ask, Because They Think They Are To Gansta To Vote.

I Had A Convo With One Of My Homies From The Old Block, I Asked Him If We Was Ready To Vote In One Of The Primaries. His Response Was "man Fuck That Vote Shit".

 

[voodoo]

not this time whitey. white folks will vote for Obama. I was at a restaurant in Houston about two weeks ago and as I got up to leave I saw this big gooberish, conservative looking white guy with an Obama 08 shirt on. looked like a typical republican at a popular Houston steakhouse. he was unashamed in his support.

I also witnessed at the Texas caucus, in a middle class somewhat conservative white neighborhood, white people in droves supporting Obama. if you would have picked most of them out of a lineup you would not think these people would support Obama. to hell with polls. they make them say what they want.

This time the revolution will not be televised.

 

[bgbtylvr]

15% of nearly 250 million won't vote for him?
Hmmmmm?
That doesn't matter!!!

 

[alyric]

So the white people who won't vote for Obama automatically means its because of racism? Whatever with that... thats like saying men who won't vote for Hillary its because of sexism. Thats too assumptous.

----
it may be a bit presumptuous but if you are into polls, what the numbers indicate is an inclination towards decision-making based on external factors.

so there are voters who will not vote for Obama because he is a black man, ie. racism
and there are voters who will not vote for Clinton because she is a woman, ie sexism.

why is it so difficult to accept that both can be true without being "assumptous"

 

[vitrifier]

I think it also has to do with the fact that even those who people don't consider racist have at least a little bit of distrust. They may aggressively support Obama now, but when it comes down to crunch time, all it will take is a minor snafu, a misstep (like Rev. Wright) and that tiny bit of distrust will make them change their mind.

I know people in my family (yeah, I have white people in my family... black people too)who even I don't consider to be the least bit racist that have in the past turned on a black person that even stepped slightly out of line... or even if they perceived that he did.
These same people would be quick to forgive a white person in the same position.

I like Obama, and I am supporting him in this election, but I'm bracing myself for the big one. I thought Rev. Wright was going to be it. Actually, he might still be. Notice how people were so apt to question whether Imus was a racist, but based on Wright's sermons he DEFINITELY was a racist antipatriot.

The worst part is I think it's more like 30%...


Please Lord don't let it come out that he used to bang white girls... or is now. Or he got in a fight when he was in high school... He'd be painted as a thug for the rest of his life.

 

[J Storm]

That means 85% of Whites Would vote for Obama (The Cup is Half Full People )

 

[tre2k4]

crackers for obama
http://crackersforobama.com/

 

[QueEx]

<font size="6"><center>The White Stuff</font size><font size="4">
A new NEWSWEEK Poll underscores Obama's racial challenge.</font size></center>

By Jonathan Darman
Newsweek Web Exclusive
May 23, 2008

Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's challenger for the Democratic nomination, also trails McCain among white voters but by a smaller margin, 44 percent to 48 percent.

Among voters overall, however, Obama fares better, tying McCain 46 percent to 46 percent in a hypothetical match-up. (That's down slightly, within the margin of error, from the last NEWSWEEK Poll, conducted in late April, in which Obama led McCain 47 percent to 44 percent). In that contest, he is boosted by a strong showing among nonwhites, leading McCain 68 percent to 25 percent (Clinton leads McCain 65 percent to 25 percent among nonwhites).

But even this result shows some of the electoral challenges facing Obama in a year when Democrats generally appear to hold an electoral advantage--boasting a 15 point advantage in generic party identification over Republicans, 53 percent to 38 percent. Clinton fares slightly better against McCain: 48 percent to 44 percent (within the margin of error). She enjoys this slight edge even though Obama leads Clinton 50 percent to 42 percent as the choice of registered Democrats for the party's nomination. Clinton's white support is unusually high: at a comparable point in the 2004 election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received the support of 36 percent of white voters, compared to George W. Bush's 48 percent, and in June of 2000, Bush led Al Gore 48 percent to 39 percent.

Race Difficulty
Obama's race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, participants were asked to answer questions on a variety of race-related topics including racial preferences, interracial marriage, attitudes toward social welfare and general attitudes toward African-Americans. Respondents were grouped according to their answers on a "Racial Resentment Index." Among white Democrats with a low Racial Resentment Index rating, Obama beat McCain in a hypothetical match-up 78 percent to 17 percent. That is virtually identical to Clinton's margin in the category, 79 percent to 13 percent. But among white Democrats with high scores on the Racial Resentment Index, the picture was very different: Obama led McCain by only 18 points (51 to 33) while Clinton maintained a much larger 59-point lead (78 to 18).

Who exactly are these high Racial Resentment Index voters? A majority, 61 percent, have less than a four-year college education, many are older (44 percent were over the age of 60 compared to just 18 percent under the age of 40) and nearly half (46 percent) live in the South.

Religion and Name Hindrances
Confusion over Obama's religious background may also be hindering his ability to attract white support. Asked to name Obama's faith:

• 58 percent of participants said Christian (the correct answer),

• compared with 11 percent who answered Muslim,

• 22 percent who did not know; and

• 9 percent who said something else.

Obama's name could be contributing to the confusion;

• 18 percent of white Democratic voters say they judge the Illinois senator less favorably because of his name,

• compared to only 4 percent of white Democrats who say it makes them judge Obama more favorably.

Thought Progress ?
While the NEWSWEEK Poll clearly suggests a lurking racial bias in the American electorate, the role of race in presidential politics may be diminishing. In 2000, only 37 percent of voters thought the country was ready for a black president. Now, 70 percent of voters think a black candidate like Obama could win the White House.

Methodology Statement
The NEWSWEEK Poll was conducted May 21-22 by Princeton Survey Research Associates. It is based on telephone interviews with 1,205 registered voters nationwide and has an overall margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, the margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

© 2008

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138456?GT1=43002

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138462" WIDTH=790 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138462">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[Ruff Ryder]

Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080920/AP.Yahoo.Poll.Obama.Race/

 

[VegasGuy]

Re: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

This is news? Racial views steer some black people away as well. I guess those stories are not nearly as remarkable when it comes to white privilege...which trumps everything.

-VG

 

[Greed]

Re: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

This will always be news to black people because they stay in denial.

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=245809

 

[VegasGuy]

Re: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

This will always be news to black people because they stay in denial.

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=245809

Denial or belief system? Sure, black people are not afforded the privilege of that pursuit of happiness. No way can we believe or make decisions based on how we believe. For you we live in a constant state of denial to some view of the world you think you share with whites. Sorry Clarance Thomas, we got this far without you and we don't need you now

-VG

 

[Greed]

Re: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

The view of the world I share with whites is white people don't like you. Black people are in denial because they consistently think if a white person has a "D" behind their name, then that world view is null and void. Black people clearly keep voting away "the privilege of that pursuit of happiness" as a result.

 

[J-BOOGIE]

Re: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

I was just about to post this prior to seeing it already posted...

The problem is the "Invisible Man" issue. People instinctively want to be right and seem to know what they are talking about. MY OPINION ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE is that aforementioned "instinct" in them is out of control...

But anyway...

Only when the exception to these sorts of racial views becomes impossible to ignore do they acknowledge it. Even then they write it off as a fluke. They don't TRUTHFULLY acknowledge that exception as the indication of a fact that drills holes in their racial theories, IF you know what I mean...

Then...

There IS the part "we" play in our "own dilemma". We do not benefit from their not being a shortage of Negroes they can point the finger at as a quintessential case in point. So many Black Folks are pre-programmed to be quick to jump up and be seen in their worse.

Man, I could go on, because it is insane...

I have written it all off. Their is NO healing for the human race on this level. America and it's particular take on it is no exception. The Human Race will die off, become extinct with all of our "-isms" still intact: Racism, Patriotism, Ethnocentrism, and so on...

 

[VegasGuy]

Re: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

The view of the world I share with whites is white people don't like you. Black people are in denial because they consistently think if a white person has a "D" behind their name, then that world view is null and void. Black people clearly keep voting away "the privilege of that pursuit of happiness" as a result.

I could give a fuck. Those whites that don't, don't have to like us. But they will respect us or they don't win elections. Ask Hillary what happens when a democrat running for public office, outright dismisses the importance of our vote.

-VG

 

[QueEx]

Re: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

<font size="6"><center>
Race and the Union Vote</font size><font size="4">

"We in America like to think we don't have any hang-ups
or stereotypes. But because of our history and because
of a lot of industrial psychology controlling the masses,
people have innate prejudices."</font size></center>



Real Clear Politics
By Salena Zito
September 21, 2008


YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio--You just knew that when Joe O'Connell, former head of the local AFL-CIO, got on stage here with John McCain and Sarah Palin things were not going smoothly for the Obama campaign among union voters.

"I am a lifelong Democrat, an intelligent Democrat, who is supporting John McCain," O'Connell said last week as a crowd of 7,000 waved "Another Democrat for John McCain" signs and roared its approval.

O'Connell assured the energized crowd that "organized labor will have a seat at the table when John McCain becomes president."

It's the kind of statement that Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President Bill George does not want to hear.

"It's a problem," George admits, "but we are in an all-out effort to educate our members that the Democratic Party is the only one for working families."

He is not exaggerating when he says "all-out effort" - just try following him for a day and you're exhausted by the events, focus groups and sit-downs in which he participates.

Democrats count on unions for get-out-the-vote efforts and for the support of members and their families. Without them, states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio -- which each have about 740,000 workers who belong to unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- would move into the Republican column.

George narrows the problem down to race. "There is no question, earlier in the primary campaign the racial issue was there, just like the gender issue was with Hillary for some unions," he says.

"We in America like to think we don't have any hang-ups or stereotypes. But because of our history and because of a lot of industrial psychology controlling the masses, people have innate prejudices."

George says that the mind-set of some people in the labor movement regarding race is no different than it is in church groups, or in the Republican Party.

Joe Rugola is George's counterpart in Ohio and he, too, is seeing a problem with race and his members. Yet he also sees another dynamic going on -- a respect among union members for McCain.

"There is no question that John McCain historically has had a cultural connection with our members," Rugola says, "but the reality is that his policies are not good for working families."

Frank Stricker, a history professor at California State University and a union expert, says race is a key to what alienates segments of the labor movement, especially in Ohio and west of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.

Stricker says that other than people not voting for a black candidate, a couple of factors -- such as Obama's cultural style and pro-choice stand -- do not sit well with culturally conservative union members.

University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato is blunter: "There's no question that race is at the heart of Obama's problem with blue-collar white union members. You'd have to be pretty naive to think otherwise."

Sabato explains that, normally, today's severe economic dislocation would send union members flocking to the Democrats' nominee. "Well, they are not flocking. McCain is their kind of guy. His biography and maverick nature are appealing."

Yet for some labor members race does not factor at all in their voting decisions.

Joe Swistok, 62, of Southington, Ohio, is a lifelong union member who began working at Republic Steel in 1964; his father had worked there since 1936. He switched his party registration to Republican during the Reagan years.

"Reagan impressed me. That guy did a lot for this guy," Swistok says, referring to himself. "This area is devastated for one reason: You can't tax businesses and expect them to stay."

Stricker thinks Obama "must make a strong economic-populist appeal," one hinging on class warfare, in order to win Pennsylvania and Ohio.

To that end, both George and Rugola are engaged in huge voter-contact efforts -- door-knocking, phone calls, mailings, peer-to-peer efforts.

According to an AFL-CIO spokesman, 2.1 million registered voters live in union households in Ohio, 1.7 million in Pennsylvania. In a close election, every one of these votes matters for Democrats.

"Approximately a quarter of all American households say there is a union member in the home," Sabato explains. "They are much more Democratic than average, but in GOP landslide years like 1972 and 1984, a majority has voted Republican."

Sabato says that a third or more union members consistently vote Republican for president, despite their union leaders' recommendations.

Part of Obama's problem is the contrast he presents: On one day alone last week, he spoke passionately about the country's economic concerns, then zipped off to Los Angeles to raise $9 million from Hollywood's elites.

That's sort of like John Kerry windsurfing during the 2004 election: Union members in Youngstown or in "Little Washington," Pa., just can't relate.

Salena Zito is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page columnist. E-mail her at szito@tribweb.com
Copyright 2008, Real Clear Politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/race_and_the_union_vote.html

 

[AristotlesOwn]

Re: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

"One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't."

- Are they serious? What kind of coverup bullshit is that? Try harder?...most of us go 3 times harder than they do to end up in the same place. Give me a break.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Obama's race lurks just below radar</font size></center>

Sydney Morning News
Alex Spillius in Portsmouth, Ohio
October 13, 2008


TERESA BURT has voted Democrat all her life, but can't quite explain why she will not be voting for Barack Obama for president on November 4.

"I just don't trust him on certain things. He is just not who I want to run this
country," said the mother of two, who is a waitress at a diner in Portsmouth,
Ohio. "If I vote, it will be McCain. And I know a lot of Democrats who won't
vote for Obama too."​

Volunteers at the Obama headquarters two blocks away are convinced of the reason for her vague response: race. They hear it often.

"Some people are openly racist, they use the N-word, they are very clear
they don't want to see a black man in the White House," said Jeanette
Langford, taking a break from working through her call lists.

"Others aren't even aware that race is what's holding them back from
supporting Barack. But what else is it? They never mention issues, it's
always things like 'I can't trust him', or 'he is not the right leader for me'.
When they talk about not supporting McCain, it's always issues."​

Ted Strickland, the state's Democratic Governor, called the issue the "elephant in the room". "It's what everybody is thinking about but nobody is talking about," he said

Not long ago, it was considered political gospel: be wary of polls when an election involves black candidate, because many whites will voice support but then vote for the white opponent.

Now, with Senator Obama commanding an 11-point lead over his Republican rival, poll watchers are asking whether that could be skewing the numbers.

Most experts say they do not believe that the phenomenon, known as the "Bradley effect," is at work in this election. But some disagree. And if the effect has disappeared, it is not clear whether that is because polling techniques have improved or because the country has become more tolerant about race.

The phenomenon got its name a generation ago, after Tom Bradley, the black former mayor of Los Angeles, lost the 1982 gubernatorial race in California despite leading his white opponent in the polls by seven points on election eve.

Telegraph, London; The Washington Post

http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-elect...ust-below-radar/2008/10/12/1223749846324.html

 

[Zmaniac723]

That means 85% of Whites Would vote for Obama (The Cup is Half Full People )

thank you for pointing that out. I'm sick of all this race card bullshit

 

[QueEx]

Great, then you're sick of the reality we have; you're sick of life as it is.

QueEx