What role will race play?
digster
Posts: 1,293
Okay, so I should preface this by saying that I'm very aware that not everyone against Barack Obama is racist. I'd go as far to say that most people in the country opposed to his candidacy, and certainly everyone I've spoken with here, have legitimate issues with his policy proposals, inexperience, etc.
Fine, but let's say what hasn't been said too often in the media or on here; how many people in this country, particularly in the swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. will not vote for Barack Obama due to him being an African-American? I started thinking about this after reading this article:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080907_The_American_Debate__It_s_little_discussed__but_Obama_s_race_may_be_decider.html
where Obama's race is discussed, and particularly how it will affect voters in these vital states. Even if Obama gets a record turnout of black voters, white numbers will still easily outnumber black voters. Additionally, look at these two statistics, from that same article:
"On the day of the Democratic presidential primary, 12 percent of the white Democratic voters told the exit pollsters that race mattered in their choice of candidate; of those whites, 76 percent chose Hillary Rodham Clinton over Obama. The same pattern surfaced in other states, including the key autumn state of Ohio."
This is a Democratic primary race, and 12 percent of white voters were willing to openly admit they were voting on the basis of race. If 12 percent were willing to admit they were voting on the basis of race, there's likely many, many more than that who were unwilling to publicly admit to their prejudices. Now,
"Last June, the Washington Post-ABC News poll devised a "racial sensitivity index," based on a series of nuanced questions that were designed to measure the varying levels of racial prejudice in the white electorate. The pollsters came up with three categories, ranging from most to least enlightened. The key finding: Whites in the least-enlightened category - roughly 30 percent of the white electorate - favored John McCain over Obama by a ratio of 2-1."
So, there is no doubt that McCain is going to receive some votes due to the fact that his opponent is black, and that there are people who will not vote in a black man as President. My question is, how rampant is this going to be? It may not be that many people in the country, but imagine if this is a close race like 2000 and 2004. Why wouldn't it be? The Republicans and Democrats are completely divided, and Independents seem pretty split also. This is going to be a close race; hundreds of thousands of votes in Ohio could make the difference, again. I'm not terrified that McCain will win on the issues; if that's what the people want than that's what they want. I'm terrified that racists could be the ones that determine the trajectory of the next four years of this country.
So, in short, how bad do you think it's going to be? And if Obama's got a solid lead in the polls right before Election Day, and suddenly loses handily to McCain, is it fair to say that people's racism was a deciding factor?
Fine, but let's say what hasn't been said too often in the media or on here; how many people in this country, particularly in the swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. will not vote for Barack Obama due to him being an African-American? I started thinking about this after reading this article:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080907_The_American_Debate__It_s_little_discussed__but_Obama_s_race_may_be_decider.html
where Obama's race is discussed, and particularly how it will affect voters in these vital states. Even if Obama gets a record turnout of black voters, white numbers will still easily outnumber black voters. Additionally, look at these two statistics, from that same article:
"On the day of the Democratic presidential primary, 12 percent of the white Democratic voters told the exit pollsters that race mattered in their choice of candidate; of those whites, 76 percent chose Hillary Rodham Clinton over Obama. The same pattern surfaced in other states, including the key autumn state of Ohio."
This is a Democratic primary race, and 12 percent of white voters were willing to openly admit they were voting on the basis of race. If 12 percent were willing to admit they were voting on the basis of race, there's likely many, many more than that who were unwilling to publicly admit to their prejudices. Now,
"Last June, the Washington Post-ABC News poll devised a "racial sensitivity index," based on a series of nuanced questions that were designed to measure the varying levels of racial prejudice in the white electorate. The pollsters came up with three categories, ranging from most to least enlightened. The key finding: Whites in the least-enlightened category - roughly 30 percent of the white electorate - favored John McCain over Obama by a ratio of 2-1."
So, there is no doubt that McCain is going to receive some votes due to the fact that his opponent is black, and that there are people who will not vote in a black man as President. My question is, how rampant is this going to be? It may not be that many people in the country, but imagine if this is a close race like 2000 and 2004. Why wouldn't it be? The Republicans and Democrats are completely divided, and Independents seem pretty split also. This is going to be a close race; hundreds of thousands of votes in Ohio could make the difference, again. I'm not terrified that McCain will win on the issues; if that's what the people want than that's what they want. I'm terrified that racists could be the ones that determine the trajectory of the next four years of this country.
So, in short, how bad do you think it's going to be? And if Obama's got a solid lead in the polls right before Election Day, and suddenly loses handily to McCain, is it fair to say that people's racism was a deciding factor?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
race will always, for some in society, play a role both for and against each candidate. Obama will get some votes b/c of his skin color and mccain will get some votes b/c of his skin color. I don't think that racism will make either one lose handily; i think that if there is a huge sway in the votes to one side, certain people will say it's race...but the reality is, you have 2 polar opposite people with polar opposite views running. I would guess the majority of people in this country fall b/t these 2 guys on the spectrum political spectrum, there are enough other differences (than race) to not vote or to choose to vote for someone. Anytime you can inject race in to something you create a story that will have legs; the news media needs stories like that. So if mccain wins they'll flash up some person who said they voted for mccain b/c obama is black and that'll cause a lot of discussion for weeks. If Obama wins, the losing side will flash up somone who says they voted for Obama b/c he is black and we'll get that discussion going. I don't think that race will truly be the issue that the press or some people want it to be... but oh, the story will sell
I'd like to think this is the case, but the polls I noted don't seem to support that argument. If 12 percent of white voters in a Democratic primary say that they voted against Barack Obama due to his race, what happens when you extend that to the whole country? What happens when you extend it not only to Democrats, but Republicans and Independents? And how else could a solid Obama lead (assuming for a moment there is one) before Election Day suddenly disappear? I'm hoping it won't be as big a problem as I'm fearing, but I don't think it's realistic to say it will be a non-factor. It's not that there would be millions upon millions of racist votes, but I'm worried there will be just enough voting due to such prejudice in the swing states of Ohio and Penn that the election would be decided under such emotions.
Prove it.
And even if you think something differently, try saying something productive or quit being a troll and stay out of the thread.
Why did John Edwards go nowhere with Barack's same policies, more experience, and equal speaking ability? Why did Barack go from nowhere to be the presidential candidate in just four years? Is it because of all of his contributions in the senate?
Prove that race didn't play a role in Barack's rise. Prove to me that the media did not fall in love with him versus Edwards becuase they loved the idea of a black candidate, and despised Hilary. Prove that to me.
You asked about race, and you got a clear answer. Truth makes you a troll here I guess. Race will play a factor because it already did in the primaries. I'll stay out of your awesome thread about race now. What are people supposed to say anyway? Race will play a factor. Thread over.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I completely agree with this. If race played no role, then Edwards, not Barak, would have been right up there. But Barak became the media darling, and Hillary was the evil witch. There was an analysis of positive/negative media coverage done during the primaries, and Barak owned positive media coverage. It switched toward the end of the Democrat race when the Wright thing came up, but by then Barak was the runaway nominee.
... pathetic...
I think it pretty much washes out with the number of people who won't vote for him because he's black.
So your opinion is the "truth" because you said so? And they you ask people who disagree to prove a negative? Good tactic there...
I really don't know how much of an issue Obama's race played... I think it was more charisma, and just being different. Part of that is being different is his race, but to just dismiss his popularity as the media loving the idea of a black candidate is idiotic.
He was selected to speak at the '04 convention because of his speaking ability, and because he gave a good voice for the anti-war crowd to rally around because of his opposition from the start.
And for Edwards, he was old news... he didn't create all that much excitement in 2004, and between then and the start of this campaign, he brought nothing new to the table. His "millworker" story and "two americas" speech were tired, and for all the of the time that he spent in Iowa, it couldn't catapult him to much success.
Hilary had way too many negatives going against her, and her baggage makes a comparison to any other candidate impossible to gauge.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
First of all, I don't need to prove a thing; I'm not the one who came into a thread and made a baseless, dumb statement and then refused to back it up with anything. I have opinions but I at least base them on what I've seen. I backed up everything I said in my first post. You haven't backed up a thing, and judging by your posts in this thread, it doesn't seem like you're planning on it.
Since you seem to think John Edwards and Barack Obama are interchangeable, let me ask you; why didn't Edwards win in 2004, then? Why didn't he win in 2008? Oh, the liberal media in the tank for Obama? Stop reciting talking points. As an earlier poster said, you're asking me to prove a negative? Why don't you back up what you say? That's how people discuss things, since we're on a discussion board and all.