Dems Play the Race Card

[Pookster]

But Sebelius wasn't asked if she thought race would be a factor. She was asked to explain why the race was so close. And instead of giving a plausible answer, such as, the country is, and has been, sharply divided along ideological lines for many years and both parties are fighting over a relatively small center ground, she suggests it's due to racism.

She states race may be a factor. And it may. She certainly didn't say it is due to racism, nor did she suggest it ... only that it may be a factor.

So what Sebelius is suggesting is that six million people who are voting for McCain because they can't stand the idea of a black man in the White House.

Again, she didn't say that. She stated that race may be a factor. You're making this out to be that she meant it is the only factor. Read your own quote of her words.

Did that thread say what percentage of black Democrats thought race was important, and how they voted?

But a quote in the thread by Brainster indicated that they're supporting Obama in the same numbers as they did Kerry. Race may be important, but it's not changing the the numbers like it is with Whites.

Please show what I exaggerated.

See above.

An Iowa newspaper and CNN?

So, in this instance, it didn't come from a wingnut blog. I'm encouraged in that regard.

Don't move the goalposts. The question isn't whether racism is a factor - of course it is. The question is, is it a major factor? If you think so, please prove it.

Sebelius states it may be a factor. No goalposts moved there. As far as the CNN quote, race is the biggest issue in this race because of the very nature of it. It's a variable that's never been in play before like this year, and exit polls support it as being a variable.

 

[leftysergeant]

I get a kick out of this fact. To a lot of Dems, if you badmouth Obama you are a racist, but if you badmouth Sarah Palin you are just telling the truth. LIkewise it a common Republican position that badmouthing Obama is just telling the truth but badmouthing Sarah Palin means you are a sexist.

You have probably seen the picture of Obama in native Kenyan garb. Some of the un-affiliated Republicans have been circulatiing this picture with the warning "Can we take this chance?" Usually it is offered as evidence that he is actually a Muslim. This is clearly a racist tactic.

Do you still think that the peoiple who dislike Palin are the ones out of touch with reality and not thinking clearly?

 

[rjwould]

Race and sex are indeed facts, but so are phoney accusations of racism/sexism when someone has the temerity to disagree with you whether that disagreement had any motivation in race or sex or not. That, to me, is "playing the race/sex" card. And it is distressingly common in this campaign.

You're blowing it out of proportion and making it sound hysterical, which of course, it isn't.

You're playing the hysteria card, then?

 

[varwoche]

You have probably seen the picture of Obama in native Kenyan garb. Some of the un-affiliated Republicans have been circulatiing this picture with the warning "Can we take this chance?" Usually it is offered as evidence that he is actually a Muslim. This is clearly a racist tactic.

Do you still think that the peoiple who dislike Palin are the ones out of touch with reality and not thinking clearly?

Side note, it was the Clinton campaign that first leaked that photo to the press (surreptitiously) a day or two before Ohio/Texas primaries as I recall. This was the single slimiest act committed by any candidate this season, imo of course.

(If I'm wrong I hope someone tells me because I wouldn't want to think of Hillary as a vile succubus based on something that's not true.)

 

[RadioactiveMan]

I'm not sure I've seen where the Obama campaign has called criticism racism.

Maybe he hasn't explicitly, but there was a little audio clip where he talks about how he'll have a tougher time than he otherwise might because he doesn't "look like" the other presidents on our money, and then there's the other clip where he impersonates a Republican talking about reasons not to like Obama and he drops in at the end, "...and did I mention he's black?"

All the while Rahm Emmanuel, chairman of the Democratic Caucus, has the balls to claim McCain has done "a good job bringing up" Obama's race.

What a dick.

What a joke.

 

[Ziggurat]

Denial of racism is the worst kind of racism.

Really? That's funny, 'cause I always thought that lynchings and slavery were sort of worse kinds of racism than denying racism. But I guess I'm just not nuanced enough.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Picking or not picking Obama because he is black ≥ Picking or not picking Palin because she is a woman.

Should clarify I'm not saying either one is worse than the other I'm pointing out, in my humble opinion, that more people would be inclined to vote against Obama because he is black than voting against Palin because she's a woman, or they might not. Hence greater than or equal to. Racism and sexism often go hand in hand after all.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've seen where representatives of the McCain campaign have called criticism of Palin sexist. I'm not sure I've seen where the Obama campaign has called criticism racism.

I'm not sure if the campaign has made that charge against anything specific, but back in June, Obama basically said that the Republicans were going to use racist attacks against him.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2040982720080620

"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

Not exactly what you asked for, but I think it's relevant nonetheless.

 

[Drysdale]

I think Obama's ears may be a factor.

Not saying they are,just may be.

So that's what we've come to eh?

 

[SezMe]

Sebelius's questioner wanted to know how come Obama isn't blowing McCain away. A blowout election would have the winner winning by ten percent or more, say 55-45. What's five percent of 120 million? Six million.

So what Sebelius is suggesting is that six million people who are voting for McCain because they can't stand the idea of a black man in the White House. Even more if you offset that by the number of people voting for Obama because he's black.

That's ridiculous.

Is it? According to Varwoche's post just after yours, 14% ADMIT they won't vote for a black. That's 42 million people.

Yes, six million is ridiculous. Ridiculously LOW.

C'mon, Beeps, this campaign has really thrown your normally critical skills into the toilet.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is it? According to Varwoche's post just after yours, 14% ADMIT they won't vote for a black. That's 42 million people.

Uh, no, no it isn't. 14% of 300 million is 42 million, but the population of eligible voters is much smaller than that (and the population of actual voters is smaller still). Racist toddlers can't tip this election.

C'mon, Beeps, this campaign has really thrown your normally critical skills into the toilet.

And it's evidently thrown your math skills into the toilet too.

 

[BenBurch]

...

What a dick.

What a joke.

What a winning strategy.

Make sure you have a gallon of Maalox ready for election night. You're gonna need it to keep the bile down.

 

[DavidJames]

Uh, no, no it isn't. 14% of 300 million is 42 million, but the population of eligible voters is much smaller than that (and the population of actual voters is smaller still). Racist toddlers can't tip this election.



And it's evidently thrown your math skills into the toilet too.

14% admit and 13% aren't sure and your response is belittle the 300 million number.

As V pointed out that's more then 1/4 of the eligible voters. Well done Republican, well done. I will take the high road and assume you aren't part of those 27%, but I suspect they're happy they have you on the team.

 

[BenBurch]

Let me tell you what happened to a friend of mine in West Virginia.

He put an Obama sign on his lawn Monday.

By Tuesday morning, the children at school were calling his child "N----- Lover," A box of fencing staples had been spread all over his driveway, and sign had been defaced with a racial epithet.

So tell me again who is playing the race card, Repubs?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

And of course, no black person would vote for Obama only because of his race. Blacks aren't racists, like white Republicans.

How many black republicans are there?

 

[dirtywick]

Let me tell you what happened to a friend of mine in West Virginia.

He put an Obama sign on his lawn Monday.

By Tuesday morning, the children at school were calling his child "N----- Lover," A box of fencing staples had been spread all over his driveway, and sign had been defaced with a racial epithet.

So tell me again who is playing the race card, Repubs?

My neighbor put an Obama sticker on his car. Then he went to work. The he came home.

Then he died of AIDS.

 

[SezMe]

Uh, no, no it isn't. 14% of 300 million is 42 million, but the population of eligible voters is much smaller than that (and the population of actual voters is smaller still). Racist toddlers can't tip this election.

And it's evidently thrown your math skills into the toilet too.

There's nothing wrong with my math skills, Zig, but my assumptions on the numbers that went into my math stunk and you were right to call me on it. Shame on me.

But it's quite interesting that you didn't do the math with the right numbers and so reached the same wrong conclusion Beeps did. Shame on you.

About 126 million votes were cast in the 2004 presidential election. Since McCain has done such a fantastic job of bring out new voters let's assume that 130 million votes will be cast in this election. Now, based on Varwoche's numbers, let's very conservatively assume that 16% won't vote for a black man. That's over 20 million voters.

To continue, let's assume that half of those are Republicans and would not vote for Obama anyway. You agree that is being very generous, no?

Bottom line: 10 million votes will not be cast for Obama. Yet you conclude that, "Racist toddlers can't tip this election." Can you tell me what you base that conclusion on?

And, Beeps, you still want to stick with your "ridiculous" assertion?

 

[Ziggurat]

14% admit and 13% aren't sure and your response is belittle the 300 million number.

He got his math wrong. Badly wrong. That's not irrelevant to the argument he was trying to make, so calling him on his mistake is not my fault. You want to argue that there's still a different argument to be made about the significance of racism? Fine, go right ahead. But don't pretend that it's somehow wrong to point out a major factual error in his argument.

And as for the poll results, well, even the link suggests that the meaning behind those numbers is not clear. As it says, "All of these numbers are undoubtedly influenced by the fact that a particular woman and a particular African-American are in the midst of an historic campaign". If Jesse Jackson were the nominee, it's entirely possible that those numbers would be significantly higher. If Colin Powell were the nominee, they might be lower. Hell, even the exact phrasing of a question like this can make a big difference, and the link didn't indicate what exactly they were asked.

Does racism exist? Sure. Will some people vote based solely on race? Probably - and probably in both directions. Will it swing the election? Not much evidence of that, actually. Even given voters who would vote for or against Obama based on race, there's no evidence that a significant fraction would actually change their vote if he was white (an anti-black social conservative is unlikely to vote democrat, and a black power advocate is unlikely to vote republican), or that any changes of vote would produce a significant net change.

Well done Republican, well done.

You do not know my party registration. Do not presume to tell it to me.

 

[SezMe]

He got his math wrong. Badly wrong. That's not irrelevant to the argument he was trying to make, so calling him on his mistake is not my fault. You want to argue that there's still a different argument to be made about the significance of racism? Fine, go right ahead. But don't pretend that it's somehow wrong to point out a major factual error in his argument.

You're right, Zig. But how did you miss my post above which was posted 15 minutes before yours - in which I make the very argument you are asking for?

 

[Ziggurat]

There's nothing wrong with my math skills, Zig, but my assumptions on the numbers that went into my math stunk and you were right to call me on it. Shame on me.

But it's quite interesting that you didn't do the math with the right numbers and so reached the same wrong conclusion Beeps did. Shame on you.

About 126 million votes were cast in the 2004 presidential election. Since McCain has done such a fantastic job of bring out new voters let's assume that 130 million votes will be cast in this election. Now, based on Varwoche's numbers, let's very conservatively assume that 16% won't vote for a black man. That's over 20 million voters.

To continue, let's assume that half of those are Republicans and would not vote for Obama anyway. You agree that is being very generous, no?

No, actually, it's not being generous. Let's instead assume all of them are Republicans.

Bottom line: 10 million votes will not be cast for Obama.

But that's not the bottom line. How many of those would vote for Obama, but for his race? Probably not none of them. But if they're Republicans (and you suggested above that the majority probably are), it's probably a minority. The actual change in vote due to race could easily be much smaller.

Yet you conclude that, "Racist toddlers can't tip this election." Can you tell me what you base that conclusion on?

Well, I base that particular conclusion on the very simple fact that racist toddlers, no matter their number, cannot vote. Was that a flippant comment on my part? Yes, I plead guilty. Is it still true? Yes.

Another point about the shortcomings of this sort of poll: back before the 2004 election, lots of polls showed Bush losing badly to "a Democrat". But Bush didn't run against "a Democrat", he ran against Kerry. And won. The logical conclusion is that there were people who said they wouldn't vote for Bush, but did when they saw what the actual alternative was. You will never, ever see "a black man" on the ballot running against "a white man". You will see Obama running against McCain, or some other particular set of candidates. And the way people will vote when faced with a concrete choice need not resemble how they say they would vote with an abstract choice they will never actually face. I do not believe for a second that if Obama was running against Powell that 14% of the vote would decide to go to Nader because he's the only white guy in the race.