[Psudo]

Trenacker wrote:

Newt Gingrich's comments on the New York mosque certainly qualify.

I'm unfimiliar with this example. What did Newt say? Edit: Never mind. Found it.

Trenacker wrote:

According to an April 2006 article by Richard Morin in the Washington Post, "[W]hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black." White independents also tend not to vote for black Republicans in similar numbers. Ironically, "[W]hite Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black."

The article and the study. Those two stats from the Post, 25% vs. 38%, seem to suggest white Democrats are more interested in race than ideology relative to white Republicans. The abstract of the study itself also notes that election turnout increases when a black Democrat is on the ballot, but not when a black Republican is. A similar study of voting and demographics concluded that "Ageism in voting patterns was stronger overall than either sexism or racism." and "The hypothesis that similarity breeds attraction received strong support".

Trenacker wrote:

Do they support Obama by a significantly greater margin than they would support any Democrat?

Probably. Similarity breeds attraction.

Trenacker wrote:

why couldn't some blacks legitimately assume that Obama could have a unique perspective on their needs, and vote accordingly? I think we could fairly debate whether this is healthy.

It's reasonable for that to be an overall trend, but not to the extent of a 90:10 split. That strong a bias goes beyond influence on judgment and into the realm of behavioral compulsion. Utahns blindly voting Republican is a real problem (Bill Clinton came in 3rd in Utah in 1992), and it's still less than a 90:10 split. At the peak, George W. Bush got 71.5% of the Utah vote in 2004 compared to 26% for Kerry.

[ManifestDestiny]

andyt wrote:

Trenacker wrote:

This isn't to say that both parties don't include substantial numbers of people with bigoted views. According to an April 2006 article by Richard Morin in the Washington Post, "[W]hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black." White independents also tend not to vote for black Republicans in similar numbers. Ironically, "[W]hite Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black."


Furthermore, assuming that skin color can be a heuristic for shared experience, why couldn't some blacks legitimately assume that Obama could have a unique perspective on their needs, and vote accordingly?

Do I read this right that for whites voting for whites is bitotry, for blacks voting for blacks it's about shared experience?

Yes it seems our resident "white guilt" preacher feels this way. Yet he does not want to see reality.

If you look at the past 50 years all I see is Democrats taking advantage of a group of people (African Americans) who consistenly vote 90 to 95% in their favor. Even when they are extremely corrupt they vote them back in. This fact does not help them move ahead Democrats know this and could care less.

[JJ]

Trenacker wrote:

I didn't say that voting for a politician based on his racial background was healthy or desirable; I said that it may be a "normal" form of behavior, inasmuch as skin color is often used as a "soft" test of shared experience and outlook.

Exactly. And since most voters don't care about politics as much as we do, or analyze ideological positions in the same depth, at the end of the day a lot of folks just vote based on broad perceptions of which party is more "of" them. The GOP is positioning itself very well as the party "of" white America, while the Dems are very good at positioning themselves as the party "of" minority America.

Republican intellectuals seem to think that if they can somehow just construct a well-reasoned, logic-based appeal to say, Latinos, they can somehow break the Democratic coalition. But that's a very naive strategy based on the premise that all voters are inherently motivated by intellectual concerns, as opposed to emotional, or tribal ones.

[CommanderSock]

commanderkai wrote:

CommanderSock wrote:

Well, CK, that's exactly my point!

I'm wondering the same thing, why are the Republicans doing this? And it's evident. It's out in the open for everyone to see. Race, has been at the big elephant in the room. They're not talking about it, they're just making references to it while they water its body.

I'm at a loss. Unless they plan to curb voting rights of minorities, this is just a plain dumb move. Blacks and Latinos have too much political power to be belittled as a welfare sucking group of subhumans.

They should be trying and get more black voters, not scare them off. This race politics will lead to some scary balkanization in the future.

Except, once again, I don't see Republicans fostering the flames as much as you think. You even gave a perfect example. What mainstream Republican would EVER, EVER call Latinos or African American "welfare sucking group of subhumans". Where, pray tell, do you get this perception?

Quite often it has been implied. They won't spell it out. That's the magic of subtle messages. I don't think I need to post links on what has been said about welfare, and section 8, which is perceived as a black/latino thing, even though more whites generally benefit from it. Its the same case with affirmative action, more white women have benefited than any other group, nevertheless it's minorities who are being called out on it, as system cheaters, reverse racism etc.

Simple, those who oppose Republicans and want to foster said racial divisions in favor for the Democrats. It's not like Republicans are against welfare for minorities, and yet gladly accept it for whites. They oppose cradle-to-grave welfare benefits for all, in favor of fostering businesses (small and big) and entrepreneurs (of all races) to establish productive businesses, which will hopefully grow to hire employees and create wealth in the economy.

Both parties foster racial divisions. However the republicans have been more vitriolic against minorities. Nevertheless, both parties do constantly race bait.


Once again, the Democrats have just as much to lose as the Republicans if the Democrats lose their strangehold on the black community, or if Latinos move towards the GOP over social issues. Saying that it's only the Republicans fostering this divide is silly.

The Latino vote generally depends how well Latinos integrate. They're not one monolithic block. The Dominicans and Puerto Ricans tend to vote democrats. They are also mostly mulatto, black, or Mediterranean type whites, they seem to be wooed by the democrats.

A white Cuban, or Argentine have nothing in common with a black Dominican or Puerto Rican.

Mexicans are mixed between Mestizos, who have a very low voter turnout, and whites, who vote 50-50%.

White Latinos could possibly just add to the block of white voters by the next generation. The rest will vote depending on how their collective experience in America pans out in the next generation.

In my own opinion white Latinos are like the white Irish from the 1800s, they were not even considered white, but within a generation, we won't recognize them as different than the WASPs or Germans.

The other half, none white Latinos will probably share the American 'minoritiy' experience.

[commanderkai]

CommanderSock wrote:

Quite often it has been implied. They won't spell it out. That's the magic of subtle messages. I don't think I need to post links on what has been said about welfare, and section 8, which is perceived as a black/latino thing, even though more whites generally benefit from it. Its the same case with affirmative action, more white women have benefited than any other group, nevertheless it's minorities who are being called out on it, as system cheaters, reverse racism etc.

Ahh right. It's "implied". Does that mean there is scant evidence of what you claim, but that's what you believe anyway? Don't you see that these "implied" statements might be coming from the political opponents of Republicans?

Republicans oppose welfare and affirmative action. They don't just oppose it to racial minorities. You making Republicans out as people who view African Americans as "welfare sucking group of subhumans" shows that you're feeding the continued and faulty prejudices against the GOP with scant evidence outside of what messages you read in their political platform.

Also, with your breakdown of the Latino communities. No, they aren't one monolithic bloc, nor are blacks or whites or Asian. And yes, Cubans (not just the "white" Cubans) favor the Republicans over the DNC, because many, many Cubans oppose the Communist regime of Castro on Cuba. Analyzing the Latino community through the lenses of race, and not due to the various social and economic issues that generally face said community just breeds this racial division.

[CommanderSock]

commanderkai wrote:

CommanderSock wrote:

Quite often it has been implied. They won't spell it out. That's the magic of subtle messages. I don't think I need to post links on what has been said about welfare, and section 8, which is perceived as a black/latino thing, even though more whites generally benefit from it. Its the same case with affirmative action, more white women have benefited than any other group, nevertheless it's minorities who are being called out on it, as system cheaters, reverse racism etc.

Ahh right. It's "implied". Does that mean there is scant evidence of what you claim, but that's what you believe anyway? Don't you see that these "implied" statements might be coming from the political opponents of Republicans?

Republicans oppose welfare and affirmative action. They don't just oppose it to racial minorities. You making Republicans out as people who view African Americans as "welfare sucking group of subhumans" shows that you're feeding the continued and faulty prejudices against the GOP with scant evidence outside of what messages you read in their political platform.

Also, with your breakdown of the Latino communities. No, they aren't one monolithic bloc, nor are blacks or whites or Asian. And yes, Cubans (not just the "white" Cubans) favor the Republicans over the DNC, because many, many Cubans oppose the Communist regime of Castro on Cuba. Analyzing the Latino community through the lenses of race, and not due to the various social and economic issues that generally face said community just breeds this racial division.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 21,00.html

The Republicans use plenty of coded messages to attract disenfranchised white voters. They've done it for 40 years. That's what the southern strategy is all about.

You could try and prove otherwise.

The Time article I posted is from 2002, that's when Obama was still political sperm. GOP hasn't changed as much as people seem to think.

[commanderkai]

CommanderSock wrote:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

The Republicans use plenty of coded messages to attract disenfranchised white voters. They've done it for 40 years. That's what the southern strategy is all about.

You could try and prove otherwise.

The Time article I posted is from 2002, that's when Obama was still political sperm. GOP hasn't changed as much as people seem to think.

This article is already making me laugh when they call Richard Nixon a "Republican hero".

So basically the article goes to say that they should go beyond kicking out Trent Lott, and just condemn everybody in their ranks. And then uses examples that mostly involve Trent Lott. Really? So Lott is a closet racist. He was kicked out. But it's all your fault Republicans, cause you all think alike.

Sorry, that article was terrible, and ignores how Democrats use these piss poor examples to keep a strangehold upon 90% of the black community. Once again, scant evidence, from 20 years ago, to condemn an entire political party.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

It's reasonable for that to be an overall trend, but not to the extent of a 90:10 split.

I honestly couldn't begin to speculate on what might be an "appropriate" number of black votes for a Republican candidate in any given time or place.

Quote:

Republican intellectuals seem to think that if they can somehow just construct a well-reasoned, logic-based appeal to say, Latinos, they can somehow break the Democratic coalition. But that's a very naive strategy based on the premise that all voters are inherently motivated by intellectual concerns, as opposed to emotional, or tribal ones.

You assume that the Republican Party is going to pitch their appeal as a complex, perhaps even long-winded message related to issues in which Hispanic voters may have an objective stake, but no real objective investment. That's unlikely to be the case. The outcome of the Prop 8 vote in California is a strong indicator that minority groups hold social values compatible with those near and dear to the Republican Party. Some of those issues in fact boil down to emotion even when one tries to begin intellectualizing.

Quote:

Republicans oppose welfare and affirmative action. They don't just oppose it to racial minorities. You making Republicans out as people who view African Americans as "welfare sucking group of subhumans" shows that you're feeding the continued and faulty prejudices against the GOP with scant evidence outside of what messages you read in their political platform.

This is a good example of an intellectual rationale versus an emotional rationale. Subjectively, opposition to certain approaches to the administration of social welfare may make economic sense. Objectively, it is often interpreted by liberals as a knock against the interests of the people seen to need it most: minority groups.
It doesn't help the GOP that their partisans often craft their arguments against welfare and affirmative action without also acknowledging the fact that blacks don't participate in our political, economic, and social institutions -- and particularly in the Republican Party -- in rates suitable or expected given their overall size as a group.

Quote:

Sorry, that article was terrible, and ignores how Democrats use these piss poor examples to keep a strangehold upon 90% of the black community. Once again, scant evidence, from 20 years ago, to condemn an entire political party.

Please provide some examples of this behavior.

[commanderkai]

Trenacker wrote:

Quote:

Republicans oppose welfare and affirmative action. They don't just oppose it to racial minorities. You making Republicans out as people who view African Americans as "welfare sucking group of subhumans" shows that you're feeding the continued and faulty prejudices against the GOP with scant evidence outside of what messages you read in their political platform.

This is a good example of an intellectual rationale versus an emotional rationale. Subjectively, opposition to certain approaches to the administration of social welfare may make economic sense. Objectively, it is often interpreted by liberals as a knock against the interests of the people seen to need it most: minority groups.

Edit: Nevermind, I see what you're saying. But in the end, whose fault is it that Republican views of African Americans as "welfare sucking group of subhumans"? The Republicans themselves, or the DNC/leftists who create said perception to tarnish the reputation of Republicans?

Quote:

It doesn't help the GOP that their partisans often craft their arguments against welfare and affirmative action without also acknowledging the fact that blacks don't participate in our political, economic, and social institutions -- and particularly in the Republican Party -- in rates suitable or expected given their overall size as a group.

You want the GOP acknowledging that they have little input from black conservatives/GOP members, over something that isn't their fault? Certainly the Republican Party would love more minorities in their ranks, due to the added votes they would create, but, in the end, the Republican Party can't force minorities into their party.

Quote:

Please provide some examples of this behavior.

You mean how a Time Magazine article, and various members of this site, can portray the Republican Party as a political party that continually race baits since the days of Nixon (who is supposedly a Republican hero, which is beyond laughable), while totally ignoring that the DNC somehow has a hold of 85-90% of the black population of the United States?

[Trenacker]

Quote:

Edit: Nevermind, I see what you're saying. But in the end, whose fault is it that Republican views of African Americans as "welfare sucking group of subhumans"? The Republicans themselves, or the DNC/leftists who create said perception to tarnish the reputation of Republicans?

I'd say that, working together, they've successfully made the charge stick. It's fair to say that Republicans aren't always portrayed kindly or correctly by the opposition; but it's also important to recognize that Republicans can have an impact on how they are perceived by others as well. I don't think Republicans work hard enough to defend their sour reputation among minorities -- politicians because it isn't politically expedient, and the rank-and-file because they are rarely aware of the problem. Even the Tea Partiers with whom I recently spoke were shocked that they were perceived "back East" as closet racists.

Quote:

You want the GOP acknowledging that they have little input from black conservatives/GOP members, over something that isn't their fault? Certainly the Republican Party would love more minorities in their ranks, due to the added votes they would create, but, in the end, the Republican Party can't force minorities into their party.

I want the GOP to acknowledge that their platform is not well-articulated to minorities and that they are aware that minorities are under-represented in American life. Too often, they criticize programs and policies that are popular among minorities without taking care to emphasize that they are nonetheless well aware of the need for those minorities to have all the opportunities that others do. The frequent talk of how affirmative action hurts whites doesn't do anything positive for Republicans among minorities. It also doesn't hold water unless one adds the word "poor" before white. And then, that proves not that affirmative action is wrong, but that it can't be limited to racial minorities only; it also needs to consider wealth. To many minorities, white people enjoy affirmative action from the moment they are born. Society as it is now constructed is essentially turned to their advantage. Personally, I find that hard to dispute.

Quote:

You mean how a Time Magazine article, and various members of this site, can portray the Republican Party as a political party that continually race baits since the days of Nixon (who is supposedly a Republican hero, which is beyond laughable), while totally ignoring that the DNC somehow has a hold of 85-90% of the black population of the United States?

The Republican Party does have skeletons in its closet. Reagan was sometimes appallingly ignorant. So, too, Richard Nixon, who was both a racist and an anti-Semite. Democrats aren't completely free of ignorant or insensitive views on race. Joe Biden has reminded us of that. Still, Republicans have the more egregious track record in recent memory. It is also the Republican Party that attends to attract the most ignorant types when it comes to race, as some of the baiting of Obama proves. The Democrats attract their own kind of hate-mongers, but these are usually persons who take opposition to conservatism too far, not race issues.

Also, Nixon is most popular among the last Republicans in the northeast. Many of his policies are actually similar to those Obama is trying to implement today. Reagan also was different than many Republicans remember him.

[Psudo]

Trenacker wrote:

Quote:

It's reasonable for that to be an overall trend, but not to the extent of a 90:10 split.

I honestly couldn't begin to speculate on what might be an "appropriate" number of black votes for a Republican candidate in any given time or place.

My point is a general one; 90:10 splits don't happen in a situation where people are given a real choice. 90:10 splits are the results from dictators' elections, leading poll questions, and foregone conclusions. I'm not telling blacks how to vote, I'm just saying there is not a choice occurring here. There is a stigma being played out, a social expectation being fulfilled, perhaps an expression of solidarity, not the result of men making free choices.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

My point is a general one; 90:10 splits don't happen in a situation where people are given a real choice. 90:10 splits are the results from dictators' elections, leading poll questions, and foregone conclusions. I'm not telling blacks how to vote, I'm just saying there is not a choice occurring here. There is a stigma being played out, a social expectation being fulfilled, perhaps an expression of solidarity, not the result of men making free choices.

You're suggesting either that African Americans are being coerced to vote for Democrats, or that they are being brainwashed. Can you prove these theories of yours?

Quite possibly, African Americans simply all believe that the Republican Party generally doesn't look out for their best interests. I'm not exactly sure that I can blame them. I don't know what makes a man tick. Do you? I'm not sure how to objectively determine what is best for a black man, as opposed to a white man. I can suggest that minorities are more likely to have need of social services of the kind Republicans oppose.

[andyt]

Trenacker wrote:

Quite possibly, African Americans simply all believe that the Republican Party generally doesn't look out for their best interests.

They are then smarter than white working class folks - the Republicons aren't looking out for their interests either.

[Psudo]

Trenacker wrote:

You're suggesting either that African Americans are being coerced to vote for Democrats, or that they are being brainwashed.

I'm asserting that blacks think that blacks vote Democrat regardless of all else, and that it's a betrayal of their race to vote Republican. It's not hard to find proof. That article says "Just because it’s foul to label anyone an 'Uncle Tom' doesn’t mean that black Republicans can’t be held accountable for the anti-black aspects of Republican politics." He's making the case that African-Americans should oppose black Republicans on political principles alone because currently many are not. It's written by an African-American with no Republican sympathies for an African-American audience in a prominent African-American publication; what more valid source on African-American culture could there be?

Trenacker wrote:

Quite possibly, African Americans simply all believe that the Republican Party generally doesn't look out for their best interests.

Individually, I'm sure that's true for millions. But that doesn't explain a 90:10 split. Utahns widely believe that the Democratic Party generally doesn't look out for Utah's best interests (moreso than is actually true), and despite that cultural bias our split is more like 70:30. There has to be some additional bias to explain the rest of the gap.