So, are black people really more racist than whites?

[Elind]

Just curious, since when does ~80% of black registered voters who bothered to vote in the primary mean ~80% of black Americans?

A valid point, but on the other hand since those who don't vote in elections are irrelevant to the process, does it matter?

 

[Elind]

We have entered the age of tribal voting, or perhaps we have re-entered it.

Dangerous territory.

How is this a surprise? You can be racialist with the positive aspect, being for "your people," without necessarily blatantly anti any other group of people.

Did I express surprise? The problem is, IMHO, that any bias based primarily on something that cannot be defined beyond "looks like me" is 100% certain to become abused.

It is my hope that Obama mobilizes the black vote in America, and gets people off their duffs and taking a shot at speaking out via the ballot box.

I wasn't aware that that had been a major problem in the past.

Elind, would you consider me racist if I voted for Clinton over Obama? She's white, ya know.

That's a cheap shot.

Oh, wait, would you then call me a feminist? She's a woman, you know.

and that too.

Oh, wait, she's a college grad with a post graduate degree.

Me too.

You could call me an elitist if I voted for her.

dito ditto ditto. want to try again?

Your premise has a few holes.

DR

Question or premise? You started off OK, then went downhill from there.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I declare this thread a failure because the terms of the argument haven't even been defined. Or to put in simple terms:

Logic 101 Phail!

 

[dudalb]

Let's face it: Let's face it, some Obama supporters (not all) are playing the Race card, and some Hilary supporters (The National Organization of Women come to mind) are playing the Feminist card.
Just as over in the GOP Huckabee is playing the Jesus card.
And Ron Paul is playing the Nut Card.....
Maybe MaCain should join the club and play the Scottish Card.....

It all makes me sick,frankly.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is actually a clever point you make (I haven't been able to say that in living memory); that certain statistical biases can reinforce each other in the same apparent direction.

However I don't think your arithmetic is valid and you are not comparing comparable totals. You cannot take a percentage of one large group and simply add it to a percentage of a smaller group and say the result is meaningful.

Okay, let's run through this figure again. You observe that Obama gets 80% of the black vote and 50% of the white vote. Now you assumed that what he deserves is reflected by the white vote, and that the discrepancy is to be accounted for by black racism. However, suppose that what he deserves, on his showing as a candidate, without reference to race, is 65% of everyone's vote. Then both blacks and whites are being equally racist (according to your concept of racism, which I don't really agree with, but let that pass) because 15% of each are voting on racial grounds.

If, in round numbers, the voting population of black Americans is about 10%, and at the moment we assign the candidates 50% each of the total Democratic voters (close enough), and assume an 80% bias on the part of black Americans, then Obama's 50% total can only be due to at most 8% of his total from blacks (assuming the 80% bias), and Hillary's at 2% from blacks.

Lets also say, for simplicity that there are just 100 total voters. 90 white and 10 black. If evenly split that would give them each 45 white and 5 black voters. That would mean Hillary has 47 white voters (let's ignore other groups for this argument, although they perhaps can contribute to the apparent effect) and Obama has 42.

That means that 30% of black voters "seem" to vote on race (3 out of the total of 10), while only 2 whites do (47 minus the theoretically equal 45). If there is a white bias (as there no doubt always is to some degree) it therefore can't be more than 2%.

You are once again taking the 50:50 split of the white vote as being what the candidates should get and calculating racism as a deviation from that.

To be more precise, you are taking the 50:50 split among all Democrat voters as being the reasonable, unbiased vote --- but as you yourself point out, 90% of the electorate is white, so this weighs such a concept of what is reasonable and unbiased heavily towards the white vote.

To put it another way, if the proportions of the vote cast by the different ethnic groups were exactly the same, but America was 90% black, then we could use exactly the same form of reasoning as you have just used to "prove" that white people were "more racist" than black people. The apparent success of your reasoning is an artifact of the fact that black people are a minority.

It doesn't matter how we express the statistics, the point I made stands. The facts are these: black people like Obama better than white people; and this can be attributed 100% to black people voting for him more than he deserves, or 100% to white people voting for him less than he deserves, or anything at all in between.

If we take your 15% of white voters being biased then that would mean that Hillary has less than 35% of the unbiased white vote which is not something small enough to be missed by the pollsters and means that a large percentage of whites are blatantly lying when they claim to be unbiased by color (in the upper 90% if my memory serves me right in a recent poll, which fits with the above 2% estimate worked backwards).

As to your final point regarding motivation and racism there are degrees and categories of racism, some malicious and deliberate, some unconscious or cultural ...

Well, read that through again. You say that white voters would have to be "blatantly lying when they claim to be unbiased by color", and also that racism can be "unconscious". If it's unconscious, they don't have to be blatantly lying, do they?

By the way, you may be mistaking me for someone else, or possibly you have misread me. My "final point" wasn't at all about "motivation and racism", it was just another attempt to point out what was wrong with your interpretation of the statistics. I quote:

To put it another way, you have concluded that blacks are more racist based on the unproven premise that all of the racial bias apparent in this election can be ascribed to blacks.

I'm not talking about motivation, or whether it's conscious or unconscious, I'm just once again pointing out that your error involves taking whites as the baseline for non-racism.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay, let's run through this figure again. You observe that Obama gets 80% of the black vote and 50% of the white vote. Now you assumed that what he deserves is reflected by the white vote, and that the discrepancy is to be accounted for by black racism. However, suppose that what he deserves, on his showing as a candidate, without reference to race, is 65% of everyone's vote. Then both blacks and whites are being equally racist (according to your concept of racism, which I don't really agree with, but let that pass) because 15% of each are voting on racial grounds.

That's a good point. I've seen people have this attitude with Hillary's female vote as well. The male vote is "normal" but the female vote is the one that is biased.

 

[Elind]

I declare this thread a failure because the terms of the argument haven't even been defined. Or to put in simple terms:

Logic 101 Phail!

Oh come on! That's a wimp attitude; not like you at all. The terms of the argument are the voting pattern as it appears and what it means, or doesn't mean.

For any others who pretend to speed read but can't, the point is that people vote according to principles that are dear to them, or that they are comfortable with, but the color of a persons skin is something we are supposedly striving to eliminate as being one of those factors.

 

[Elind]

Okay, let's run through this figure again. You observe that Obama gets 80% of the black vote and 50% of the white vote.

No. I said, for argument that they both get approximately 50% of the TOTAL vote, which seems close to the present situation. Not what you say above.

Now you assumed that what he deserves is reflected by the white vote, and that the discrepancy is to be accounted for by black racism. However, suppose that what he deserves, on his showing as a candidate, without reference to race, is 65% of everyone's vote. Then both blacks and whites are being equally racist (according to your concept of racism, which I don't really agree with, but let that pass) because 15% of each are voting on racial grounds.

This is sidetracking. If you wish to present evidence that 15% of whites and blacks are voting on racial grounds, please do so. As far as I am aware the only "evidence" we have is that blacks are voting very predominantly for Obama. Has he promised them some special concessions that would gain their votes, or could it be just because he has some physical similarities?

In the latter case, that is what we would normally call racially based, but I personally I am inclined to not call it racist in the way that word is normally used. However I don't rule on word usages, and what I think is important in this, to the extent that it is true, is that there are different standards of judgment on what is racist and what is not depending on who one applies it to.

You are once again taking the 50:50 split of the white vote as being what the candidates should get and calculating racism as a deviation from that.

No, I was illustrating that the deviation from the mean was skewed racially.

To be more precise, you are taking the 50:50 split among all Democrat voters as being the reasonable, unbiased vote --- but as you yourself point out, 90% of the electorate is white, so this weighs such a concept of what is reasonable and unbiased heavily towards the white vote.

Of course it is in absolute numbers. Doesn't change that it seems 8 out of 10 blacks vote black, but close to 50% of whites vote black, or white, and the evidence is strong that they don't do so on the basis of color.

To put it another way, if the proportions of the vote cast by the different ethnic groups were exactly the same, but America was 90% black, then we could use exactly the same form of reasoning as you have just used to "prove" that white people were "more racist" than black people. The apparent success of your reasoning is an artifact of the fact that black people are a minority.

Uh. that sounds like you just agreed with me, but are saying that you will only admit it if we switch the ratios, or are you suggesting that the laws of the universe are such that only majorities can ever be racist inclined?

It doesn't matter how we express the statistics, the point I made stands. The facts are these: black people like Obama better than white people; and this can be attributed 100% to black people voting for him more than he deserves, or 100% to white people voting for him less than he deserves, or anything at all in between.

It could be, if there were not evidence without which this thread would not exist, to the contrary.

Well, read that through again. You say that white voters would have to be "blatantly lying when they claim to be unbiased by color", and also that racism can be "unconscious". If it's unconscious, they don't have to be blatantly lying, do they?

Good point. However translating it into proving what percentage of whites are not voting for Obama based on race is not possible without more data, or data that contradicts the apparent stance that they are not considering that a factor. At this stage we have data that suggests that blacks vote that way, and on whites we have evidence that they don't. We don't have evidence for your supposition that many more whites than it appears, are closet racists.

I'm not talking about motivation, or whether it's conscious or unconscious, I'm just once again pointing out that your error involves taking whites as the baseline for non-racism.

I'm discussing the evidence at hand. You are free to contradict, but doing so by simple speculation of what "might" prove a different picture doesn't add anything, particularly since it requires a very significant rejection of the evidence at hand. In effect you are saying (although I hold the math is flawed) that it is possible that something like 15% of Hillary's voters are closet racists. That means less than 30-35% of her voters do so on the actual issues (since many think she has votes just because she is a woman). I don't think any attitude surveys suggest that, and it would be a sad thing to discover.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oh come on! That's a wimp attitude; not like you at all. The terms of the argument are the voting pattern as it appears and what it means, or doesn't mean.

For any others who pretend to speed read but can't, the point is that people vote according to principles that are dear to them, or that they are comfortable with, but the color of a persons skin is something we are supposedly striving to eliminate as being one of those factors.

I'm sorry, I forgot to insult you in my post. I'll just go back and edit it.

 

[Elind]

I'm sorry, I forgot to insult you in my post. I'll just go back and edit it.

Insult? No, I didn't see an insult, just a silly comment that addressed nothing.
Participate or move on.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No. I said, for argument that they both get approximately 50% of the TOTAL vote, which seems close to the present situation. Not what you say above.

You did not notice my caveat?

This is sidetracking. If you wish to present evidence that 15% of whites and blacks are voting on racial grounds, please do so.

I did not claim that that was the case. I presented that example entirely to explain to you where you screwed up in trying to analyse the statistics. It is an example explaining the problem with your statistical analysis. I do not claim that it is true. It is almost certainly not true. It is an example showing you how you should not misinterpret statistics. It is an example. I do not claim that it was true. I thought that it was the simplest example by which I could explain your mathematical error.

Have I explained that often enough, or do I have to do it again?

As far as I am aware the only "evidence" we have is that blacks are voting very predominantly for Obama. Has he promised them some special concessions that would gain their votes, or could it be just because he has some physical similarities?

Again, the petitio principii.

Yes, blacks are voting very predominantly for Obama.

Whereas whites are not.

Therefore, either blacks are feeling an irrational racist urge to vote for Obama, or whites are feeling an irrational racist urge not to vote for Obama. Or any combination of the two.

I explained this, and I thought you understood it the first time around, but you're still struggling.

Of course it is in absolute numbers. Doesn't change that it seems 8 out of 10 blacks vote black, but close to 50% of whites vote black, or white, and the evidence is strong that they don't do so on the basis of color.

* sighs *

Yes, 8/10 black democrats vote for Obama, and 5/10 white democrats --- and again, after all I've explained to you, you still analyse these figures as though white people were neutral.

Look, here's something that may make it easier for you. Suppose that what Barack Obama deserves, on his merits, is 80% of the Democrat vote. Then black people are being totally reasonable by giving him that proportion of the vote, whereas white people are being (unconsciously, if you will) racist by denying him his warranted proportion of the vote.

Uh. that sounds like you just agreed with me, but are saying that you will only admit it if we switch the ratios, or are you suggesting that the laws of the universe are such that only majorities can ever be racist inclined?

Hey, you remember that I am very very clever?

So maybe I meant neither of the things that you just made up in your head, but instead meant what I actually said.

Now I'm on the verge of getting testy. Read what I said again.

What I mean is: you came up with what you thought was a method of detecting racism. Unfortunately, your method doesn't work, because if you follow it through, you find that if two races have different political preferences, assorted by color, your method of identifying racism will always identify as "more racist" whichever race is in the minority. You screwed the math.

It could be, if there were not evidence without which this thread would not exist, to the contrary.

That is not a reply to what I posted.

Good point. However translating it into proving what percentage of whites are not voting for Obama based on race is not possible without more data ...

YES!!! TRUE!!!

I'm discussing the evidence at hand.

No.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Insult? No, I didn't see an insult, just a silly comment that addressed nothing.
Participate or move on.

I said I agreed with Dr. Adequate.

I'd rather let him debate it because:

1. He is more eloquent than me.
2. You seem to have an irrational hate of me where you feel compelled to address me rather than the issue.
3. Can't think of a third reason, but I wanted to type "3. " to round things out.

 

[Hokulele]

A valid point, but on the other hand since those who don't vote in elections are irrelevant to the process, does it matter?

Since the title of the thread is "So, are black people really more racist than whites?", it very much matters.

 

[Lurker]

Does anyone know if JEsse Jackson got anywhere near 80% of the black vote when he ran?

Or how about Keyes? Did Alan Keyes get 80% of the black vote?

My guess is neither got 80%.

 

[BPSCG]

If Obama's campaign were directed primarily at black voters, and his big issues were issues primarily of concern to black voters, I could see him getting 80% of the black vote.

But it appears to me he's gone to considerable pains not to campaign in that way (to his credit), unlike, say, Jesse Jackson in past campaigns. And his stands on the issues in general are really not that much different from Clinton's. One would think they would divide the black vote up fairly equally.

Yet he gets 80% of the black vote? If black racism isn't the explanation, then what is?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yet he gets 80% of the black vote? If black racism isn't the explanation, then what is?

See this thread, passim.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wasn't aware that that had been a major problem in the past.

("That" was getting out the black vote in America.)

I'll get back to you with a few figures, but first

Question or premise? You started off OK, then went downhill from there.

So, are black people really more racist than whites

You have a premise embedded in your question.


ETA:

This table shows stats based from US census data. Take it for what you think it is worth. 1964-2004.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/tabA-1.xls

Blacks tend to lag behind whites in voting betwwn 5% and 10%, over that 40 year period, although they tend to lead Asian and Hispanic voters. It varies a bit by age grouping. The breakdown by age group is more interesting to me, in a general sense.

(Of course, I may have completely misread the table and cross referenced voted and registered in coming up with a general answer.)

DR

 

[Hokulele]

If Obama's campaign were directed primarily at black voters, and his big issues were issues primarily of concern to black voters, I could see him getting 80% of the black vote.

But it appears to me he's gone to considerable pains not to campaign in that way (to his credit), unlike, say, Jesse Jackson in past campaigns. And his stands on the issues in general are really not that much different from Clinton's. One would think they would divide the black vote up fairly equally.

Yet he gets 80% of the black vote? If black racism isn't the explanation, then what is?

I would also like to point out that the ~80% refers to South Carolina only. In most other primaries, the percentage of the black vote for Obama has been much less.

 

[Elind]

Have I explained that often enough, or do I have to do it again?

:sigh: reverting to form again, and I thought we were doing so well....

Yes, blacks are voting very predominantly for Obama.

Whereas whites are not.

Actually in the latter case it seems they might be, as of today.

Therefore, either blacks are feeling an irrational racist urge to vote for Obama, or whites are feeling an irrational racist urge not to vote for Obama. Or any combination of the two.

You are struggling.

I explained this, and I thought you understood it the first time around, but you're still struggling.

You are struggling.

* sighs *

You are reverting to form again.

Yes, 8/10 black democrats vote for Obama, and 5/10 white democrats --- and again, after all I've explained to you, you still analyse these figures as though white people were neutral.

I said white people were color neutral, as can best be determined, but blacks are not, as you agree. Why do you always have to be so mean?

Look, here's something that may make it easier for you. Suppose that what Barack Obama deserves, on his merits, is 80% of the Democrat vote. Then black people are being totally reasonable by giving him that proportion of the vote, whereas white people are being (unconsciously, if you will) racist by denying him his warranted proportion of the vote.

Rubbish argument and irrelevant. What can I say

Hey, you remember that I am very very clever?

I'll be kind and say the jury is still out, after all these years.

So maybe I meant neither of the things that you just made up in your head, but instead meant what I actually said.

...or what you thought you said, or what you wished you said. Anything except what you failed to say (intelligently).

Now I'm on the verge of getting testy. Read what I said again.

I'm too old to be getting testy at. You should know that by now.

What I mean is: you came up with what you thought was a method of detecting racism. Unfortunately, your method doesn't work, because if you follow it through, you find that if two races have different political preferences, assorted by color, your method of identifying racism will always identify as "more racist" whichever race is in the minority. You screwed the math.

You screwed the logic and mangled the argument. Whites are not voting by skin color, but (a large percentage of) blacks are. The question is simply, should it still be called racist preference, or does that only apply if whites play that game?

 

[BPSCG]

I would also like to point out that the ~80% refers to South Carolina only. In most other primaries, the percentage of the black vote for Obama has been much less.

Today's primaries in DC, MD, and VA should be interesting to this discussion, particularly the first two.

There is only one issue in DC of purely local interest that both candidates have addressed - the question of congressional representation for DC residents. Both Clinton and Obama strongly favor giving DC a congressional seat and two senators (and why not? that's three more guaranteed Democrats in Congress), and I believe there's little or no difference between them on the issue of how to do it.

So the purely local issue should be a wash between the two candidates.

But DC is a majority black city - about 60%. It should be interesting to see how it votes compared to neighboring Maryland, which is only about 27% black. Baltimore is majority black also, comparable to DC at about 63%.

I live in Virginia, so I'm going to vote for McCain because he's white (*ducks, runs...*)