That does not address the topic being discussed. Maybe you misread...
Why did the Democrats lose the election?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
LOL...
Trying to squirm out of sticky wicket are you? Well Russ, I suggest you go back and read my post #47, and pay particular attention to the references. Do you not know that Fivethirtyeight.com is Nate Silver's site where he publishes polling data? So instead of accusing others of whining and deflection, I suggest you study up.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-did-the-democrats-lose-the-election.158630/page-3#post-3430231
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight
And you think that is relevant...really? I suggest you go enroll your derriere in a critical thinking class as soon as possible.
It's your argument, Joe -- you want to have it one way but not the other. If under-educated whites vote Republican because they lack the critical thinking skills to make a "better" choice (vote Democrat), then it should be equally fair to say the inverse. And since I know you're a fair guy, I'm sure you also believe that under-educated blacks vote Democrat because they lack the critical thinking skills to make a better choice.
So you don't remember writing:
If you want to be considered as anything but just another right wing hack, then you need to begin by being honest.
As I previously wrote, I think the voting difference are attributable to cultural differences rather than racial or genetic differences. And I also wrote those cultural attributes make whites, especially lesser educated whites more vulnerable manipulation by right wing media sources e.g. right wing radio and Fox News. I even gave my aunt as an example. I suggest you go back and read, this time more slowly.
Nothing in that relates to the topic being discussed. But sure -- as off-topic, useless year-old predictions go, it's all fine. Did he have anything to say about the topic we're discussing?
Your claim regarding the topic being discussed, Joe, so yeah, it's relevant. Based on your dodge, I recognize you realize your claim was false and just don't want to explicitly admit it so you are dodging and insulting instead. I'm fine with that; Concession accepted, thanks.
Waaaa, Tiassa, Joe insulted me!!! WaaaAAAAAAA!!!!!!
[/ifiwhinedlikejoe]
So, let's recap:
White racism is heavily researched in polls and academic analysis of elections, but black racism is all-but ignored, despite the fact that blacks constitute the most uniform major voting bloc there is.
Clearly, Joe, iceaura agree with these clear-cut facts. Billvon says he disagrees, and I'm waiting for sources showing investigation of the impact of black racism on black voting patterns.
Last edited:
Seriously...? It wasn't a prediction. It was an analysis of the voter base.
Hmm....I see you are in la la land again.
Yeah, you keep telling yourself whatever you need to, and I'm sure you will.LOL....
So you think a self-improvement suggest is an insult...okay.
Black racism exists. There is no doubt about it. I've met a number of them in my job as an EMT , but there aren't many of them, and it isn't relevant. I don't see any black leaders endorsing black racists. This line of argument is a distraction. What is relevant and disturbing is the Republican Party. and in particular Trump, has attracted a number of white racists,and Trump has been very slow in denouncing them.
Well, I really don't care about what Iceaura and Billvon are saying. I'm not involved in that conversation. Iceaura tends to go overboard as people on the extremes of the partisan divide do, e.g. Brown shooting.
Uh, yes, it does. It makes a mockery of your claim that you couldn't find anything on Google, which was your idea of evidence in your argument. If you can't find 538.com, you aren't trying.russ said:
I don't.
I don't agree that blacks are the most uniform major voting block there is (you may be focusing on Party designation rather than issues, which is skewed by the reliance of the Republican Party on racist appeals to whites when marketing its candidates).
And I don't agree that black racism - despite its relatively minor influence in the white-dominated US - remains wholly unstudied even, let alone "ignored" (a week spent listening to the major talk radio or most significant TV/cable programming will dismiss that claim). For example: The black child's preference for white faces, the black culture's bias against "bad hair" or very dark skin, and the like, are almost as famous as (and rather better researched than) the anti-Semitism that plagues the black cultural leadership.
Thank you for being explicit. See, I knew we agreed even though you didn't want to!
Self-contradiction aside, the problem here is that the phenomenon is not being diligently studied, so there is no basis for the claim that "there aren't many of them." I submit that most of the "white racism" research uses bad/[mis]leading questions and if mirror image questions were asked, a whole lot of "black racists" would be recorded.
I made no such claim. But at least it is getting harder for you to ignore the topic after I bolded it:
Then post your data on one you think is more uniform (>90%).
Then post such a study/poll (regarding the election).
Here are three pieces on black racism (two papers and one documentary)-
http://faculty.ferris.edu/ISAR/academic-controversies/mehler.htm
"Before we begin our examination of racism in the African American academic community it must be stated clearly that the major victims of racism in America have been people of color, particularly people of African descent. . . . In America, racism in the African American community harms the civil rights movement.
. . .
But the dangers of [black] racism is much broader and less obvious than the above example would imply. The Black racist are embraced by the white racist. They feed off of each other and encourage each other. They also influence the most talented young Blacks in American colleges, encouraging their alienation. The message they sell is that there is no solution to racism."
http://www.apa.org/research/action/segregation.aspx
American Psychological Association June 2007
" . . . The Clarks found that Black children often preferred the white doll and drawing, and frequently colored the line drawing of the child a shade lighter than their own skin. Samples of the children's responses illustrated that they viewed white as good and pretty, but black as bad and ugly."
(synopsys)
When Davis repeated the experiment 15 out of 21 children also choose the white dolls over the black, giving similar reasons as the original subjects, associating white with being pretty or good and black with ugly or bad. The dolls used in the documentary were identical except for skin colour.
Understandable. Since most racism in America has been towards blacks, that's mostly what is studied. You'd have the same problem if you tried to research the problems billionaires have getting access to low-cost health care.
1. Hillary Clinton: she was unelectable, and her effect down ticket meant the democrats did not win back the senate.
2. Regressive Left: Their behavior rallied the right and scared off moderates and independent voters
3. Bernie Sander Supporters: not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton or down ticket democrats doomed the party.
2. Regressive Left: Their behavior rallied the right and scared off moderates and independent voters
3. Bernie Sander Supporters: not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton or down ticket democrats doomed the party.
White racism research does not rely on "questions", most of it would apply to black people without any "mirror" necessary, and of course it would - and does - discover racism among American black people. So?
Black people are not anywhere near 90% uniform in their voting on political issues. What are you talking about?
Make up your mind what you are talking about (this particular election or black racism in general) and get back to us.russ said:
In an election dominated by an overt white racist appealing to bigoted white voters, there isn't much point in trying to tease out the racist black voter from the ordinary reactionary black voter - but surely you have seen several references and polls surrounding the missing black voter, and they would be relevant. If you cared about the matter.
You would have to differentiate the racist from the suppressed and defrauded, of course.
Neither of those existed as significant factors in reality.
Actual "moderates" and "independents" don't get their news and information from wingnut talk radio and Fox and Breitbart and 4chan, which was where the "regressive left" bs was coming from.
Most Sanders voters in the primaries voted for Clinton in the general. The demographic groups and geographic regions that voted heavily for Sanders in the primaries (high Dem turnout, likely Dem States, etc), such as in California, mostly did the same for Clinton in general.
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
No. We're discussing the Presidential election here and I asked for studies/polls on black racism with regard to Presidential election voting patterns.
So again; we're agreed that black racism is substantially less studied than white racism! It's just that unlike you, I want to quantify the issue before claiming that it has no/insignificant impact. I also would like to examine it in terms of logic and consistency of attitude toward it, but that is a nuance we probably can't handle here...
In either case, this election wasn't swung by blacks, unless by inaction (staying home or being less uniform than the last couple of elections). But the last couple could be said to have been swung by blacks and their motivations for voting more democratic than usual are something I think should be examined. Ie; did more blacks vote for Obama because Obama identified as black? That would be a whole lot more direct of an impact than saying whites voted more for a white man than a white woman because of racism.
Last edited:
Uh, yeah, that's exactly how it works. They ask questions that they judge to have "non-racist" and "racist" answers.
Not when the question references "black people", it can't!
You can't be that ignorant, can you? Black people have averaged roughly 90% Democrat in presidential elections since 1980:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
Obama saw the peak of 93% four years ago, when more black people voted for him, you know, because he was black. But Clinton "only" got 88%:
Well, a white Republican won, so "The Black Vote" didn't swing this election for any reason (except perhaps by inaction, as said above); but that doesn't mean it couldn't have swung other recent elections due to racism. In particular, when a black candidate gets a higher percentage of black votes than other similar candidates, it is difficult to see any other reason but racism for the change. Similarly, a woman getting a higher fraction of female votes (though those waters are muddied by the other angle). These are topics I think should be studied.
Last edited:
You yourself cited rationalwiki on where the "regressive left" comes from, remember? Maajid Nawaz is not fox, breitbart or 4chan.
I was a Bernie voter I don't take it personally that some other Bernie voters refused to vote for Clinton. Considering how close Clinton was even a small minority of Bernie voters in key states could have switched it, certainly in white blue collar states which is where the "blue wall" fell.
The self-superior fallback of all failed manipulations only reminds of failure.
The answer to your question, though, is four to negotiate with and validate one another while a MacLeanian changes the fucking bulb.
Furthermore, you still have yet to answer for deliberately misrepresenting↑ your own post↑.
Pretty desperate, Sculptor.
Then again, I'm not surprised.
You'd have to find a Presidential election in which neither campaign was appealing strongly to white racism.
It's substantially less significant, and obviously less mysterious.
At least a third of the white population is significantly racist for various reasons - racist enough that the error screws up otherwise obvious economic and political decisions, so that they are willing to injure themselves and their families in accordance with racist delusions. And white people own or control almost the entire country and its resources.
If the entire black population matched that level of racist dysfunction - and the evidence is they do not - they would still be less than half the white's significance, and one would still have to discount their influence based on their control of public resources. The result is a quite small number. A more realistic estimate of black racism - such as that obtained from the studies billvon linked - reduces the impact of black racism on national economic and political matters to near zero.
Last edited:
The term, not your bs. You had its origin wrong - which is not a surprise, because you got none of your familiarity with it from its original inventor.
The "regressive left" bs you relied on for your claims came from Fox, 4chan, Breitbart, talk radio, etc. None of the American "moderates and independents" you are talking about were frightened away from Clinton by the speeches and essays of a midlevel British politician, and that's not where you got your muddled notion of it from either.
Shark; jumped. Concession accepted.
Like I said, you appear to be naively relying on Party designation for your notion of "uniformity".
That doesn't work, because the Republicans have biased the measurement by overtly appealing to white racists and white racism against blacks in every election since 1968. And the Democrats are the only other Party. You are measuring Republican Party uniformity, not black people's (on the issues, black Americans tend to be conservative).
? You continue to post fairly obvious digressions into nonsense, for a purpose you have never been able to articulate. Why are you trying to talk about black racism at all, in an analysis of an election won by a white racist appealing to white racism?
Last edited: