Bad Racism, Good Racism
The BBC are worried about the Bradley effect.
The theory goes that some white voters tell opinion pollsters they will vote for a black candidate – but then, in the privacy of the polling booth, put their cross against a white candidate’s name.
And the fear among some supporters is that this could happen to Barack Obama on 4 November, when the country votes for its next president.
Now if it were true, it would indeed be sad. But what’s this ?
Other polls, meanwhile, suggest that white Americans have steadily become less reluctant to vote for a black person in the last few decades.
A recent Gallup poll suggested that 9% of Americans would be more likely to vote for Mr Obama because of his race, compared with only 6% who said they would be less likely to vote for him.
Brings a whole new meaning to ‘less reluctant’, doesn’t it ?
You could use the Gallup evidence to write a BBC piece suggesting that McCain is the victim of racism. I wouldn’t wait up for it though.
Can anyone explain this to me?
1. White voters who won’t vote for a black president = terrible racists.
2. Black voters rushing out to vote for the first time because there is a black candidate = not racists.
I mean, the black voters must previously have refused to vote for white candidates, right? Or am I missing something?
Not necessarily SaraB, it may be that they felt none of the previous candidates represented their views and needs, whereas Obama does – perhaps by virtue of his race, perhaps not. If you are in a minority, it is much easier to put your vote behind someone from your minority that someone who isn’t, whatever they represent, because it ‘breaks the ice’ for your minority and gives you the chance to have more influence over your own political situation in the future.
Black people who won’t vote for white candidates because they’re white probably are a little bit racist, but when in a minority, the cause is more likely to be a feeling that you won’t be represented by someone who isn’t from your minority.
Love how you explain away racism, ipreferred…
The BBC seems obsessed by race. Is it all like that in the USA ?
Well, being racist could be for several reasons. You could have logically drawn a conclusion about the superiority of different races, along the lines of Nazism. You might resent another race because they are in the majority, or because they are in a minority and disrupt your way of life. It may be that you’re not really racist, but you’ve leapt on some commonly held views without researching them further yourself.
I think that the black people who deliberately won’t vote for a white candidate, whether or not they would adequately represent them, who won’t change their mind when presented with evidence that they would be a good candidate for them, are racist. I think that black people who aren’t addressed by two white candidates directly, who don’t see either of them improving their situation, perhaps who live in circumstances where their minority is also the socio-economic loser, aren’t racist, but disillusioned. They are narrow-minded, sure, but rushing out to vote for a black guy is likely due to identifying with that candidate through race, then being willing to listen to their policies.
That’s great, ipreferred. I just don’t want people who vote for McCain to be accused of Voting While White. They might just, you know, prefer him as a better choice for President. So I’m still with SaraB on this one.
Yes, ipreferred, that would work but only if there was a cigarette paper’s width between the Obamamessiah and Hillary. As it is, black voters en masse switched over to Obama , but the BBC dare not explain just what it is that made them prefer one elite socialist over another.
Ditto, the BBC will never consider that bitter, clinging rednecks who refuse to vote for a snobby leftist whose entourage looks like a mass break out from the loony bin might also be similarly ‘disillusioned’.
“Tribal Politics” (by Patrick Buchanan):
[Extract]:
“But in the last analysis, one comes back to the forbidden issue of ethnicity. For example, would Powell have endorsed Hillary, had she won the nomination? After all, her views on Iraq—having supported the war and never apologized—are even closer to Powell’s than Obama’s.
The issue cannot be avoided.”
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=757#more-757
Nick, nobody is actually accusing McCain voters of that, unless they are crazy shoot-themselves-in-the-foot pundits. It’s a bit like accusing Obama of being a muslim – even McCain will defend him on that one.
DJ, are you honestly saying that if Clinton was in the race instead of Obama, she wouldn’t be winning the majority of black votes? There would be less of them, no doubt, because there are racist black people, but accusing all the black people voting for Obama of being racist is as bad as saying anyone who won’t for him of being racist – it’s a crass generalisation.
The polls discussed in the original post show that there are more people who think that because he’s black they should vote him than because he’s black they shouldn’t vote for him. That doesn’t mean that there are more pro-racists than anti-racists, as there are more factors (such as empathy, relating to the candidate easier) than just hatred involved. If you asked Americans whether they were more or less likely to vote for McCain because he was white, what do you think the numbers would show?
I don’t know how it is in Europe, but in the US, the “race card” is used as a bullying tactic, so much so that people are afraid of being labeled “racist”. Case in point: some are now arguing that the word “socialist” is a racial code word! Huh?
The “Bradley effect” is when whites tell pollsters that they are voting for the black candidate, even when they aren’t, out of FEAR of being labeled racist.
It’s not necessarily because they are racist. Real racists would be more likely announce their support of the white candidate.
It doesn’t surprise me that the BBC would slant it like this.
ipreferred
If blacks voting for Obama is not racist, then whites voting for McCain is not racist, unless you have an anti-white definition of racist.
George R: There is a ‘pro’ racism and an ‘anti’ racism. If you are X and vote for X because of their race then you are favouring your race, it is ‘pro’. If you are X and won’t vote for Y because of their race then you are against that race, it is ‘anti’. Both can distort the outcome of a vote.
‘Pro’ racism is not as bad as ‘anti’ racism – I believe. It is an inclination towards the familiar. ‘Anti’ racism is hatred, a fear or dislike for the unfamiliar. There are groups from both camps who are voting Obama, and groups from both camps who are voting McCain – however as the black population of the US is ~12.3%, the total number of ‘anti’ racists voting for McCain is higher than the total number of ‘anti’ racists voting for Obama. The total number of ‘pro’ racists voting for Obama appears much larger than ‘pro’ racists voting for McCain too, as his politics closely align to black-dominated the socio-economic groups.
Racists vote Republican in the US and Conservative in the UK. Accept that and the BBC coverage will make a lot more sense.
ipreferred
In your apparent quest to prove the ‘racism’ of American whites, you invent the notions of ‘pro’ racist and ‘anti’ racist and you have no stastistics to support your aim of proving whites are more racist than blacks in America.
ipreferred | 24.10.08 – 2:28 pm |
nobody is actually accusing McCain voters of that, unless they are crazy shoot-themselves-in-the-foot pundits. It’s a bit like accusing Obama of being a muslim – even McCain will defend him on that one.
Haven’t you been paying attention? Half a dozen Beeboids have been saying exactly that for months. I myself witnessed no less than three reports just last night on BBC World Propaganda America saying exactly that.
are you honestly saying that if Clinton was in the race instead of Obama, she wouldn’t be winning the majority of black votes? There would be less of them, no doubt, because there are racist black people, but accusing all the black people voting for Obama of being racist is as bad as saying anyone who won’t for him of being racist – it’s a crass generalisation.
Again, you haven’t been paying attention. Hillary didn’t get a sliver of the black vote during the primaries. The same racialist garbage being hurled around now was used against her and her husband at the time.
I don’t blame most black people for wanting to vote for The Obamessiah simply due to race. Most of them in the US have been taught for generations (including the present one) that the white man has deliberately kept them down, and continues to do so today. This is the first time in anyone’s lifetime that they see white people admitting that it’s okay for a black man to be President. That goes against everything black leaders have been saying, well, ever since there have been any.
This is perfectly understandable behavior for a group which has been living with a slave/victim mentality for generations. There is a huge industry in the US which has taken advantage of the resentment and anger in the African-American community. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition has made millions for him and his family with this. There are legions of people who make their living fanning the flames of this anger, encouraging it, nourishing it.
I’ve witnessed these people personally, witnessed their conferences, their speeches, and their publications. The saddest part of all of this is that the way the media tells it (this includes the BBC), the only possible reason to vote against The Obamessiah is viewed through this same prism of anger and resentment.
Every time a mainstream media reporter talks about possible concerns about The Obamessiah’s politics, those concerns are dismissed out of hand. The perfect examples of this are the media’s treatment of ACORN and Bill Ayers. Both of these have been declared non-issues at the highest level. The end result is that the majority of the public – black or white – are led to understand that the only reason someone might not vote for The Obamessiah is racism.
It works both ways. Blame the media for creating this atmosphere of racial resentment, not us.
Notasheep
Are you referring to the voting inclinations of blacks or whites?
Tony | 24.10.08 – 2:55 pm |
Absolutely correct. It’s a guilt trip, and an excuse to hide The Obamessiah’s true political nature.
According to the Narrative, he can’t lose because the majority of United Statesians don’t approve of his politics. The only possible reason is that we’re racist.
And we Americans need to decide if we want 4-8 years of a president where every criticism will be dismissed out-of-hand as veiled racism.
Actually the latest thinking seems to be that the so called Bradley effect had nothing to do with race – another state wide race showed a similar error in the exit polls. Apparently the absentee ballots were crucial and other polls were telling a different story. I can’t find what I originally read but these are along the same lines.
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmM1NjZjODU4M2JkYzI1YmIwMzlhY2RiMmMwN2Q3ZjE=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmI0ZmQyYTUyNzhjZTJmZTE2Y2MzN2YwYzM1YzcxNTM=
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html
a,
That’s not surprising. I seem to recall the shock at the inaccuracy of exit polls in 2000. It was less in 2004 because the media remembered that, and was slightly suspicious of them by then.
Of course now that will be forgotten because of race-baiting.
The Narrative has been set in stone, unfortunately.
The race factor is not what will keep people from voting for a candidate. It is the plans on the economy and for the war that will decide who one votes for. There have been plenty of liberal illuminati politicians that white people did not vote for, and they were not black. Was race an issue then.
I think this vote is totally about RACE for a lot of people….and black people who are just voting for Obama because he is black and they want to see a “black man in the White House”, and they haven’t taken the time to see if they even believe and agree with Obama’s illuminati ideologies and promises, are going to be severely diappointed!