4 ms·

This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just

This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just so much wrong with that.

dumbfoundded 5y ago
Your response is disgustingly incorrect. President Obama's election as the first black president certainly included significant racial elements. When comparing it to Clinton vs Dole in 1996, Clinton lost the white vote 42% to 44% (1). Obama lost the white vote 43% to 55% (2). Both Clinton and Obama won by 8% differences. Yes, not voting for the black candidate over the white candidate doesn't make you racist. But to ignore race altogether as a factor is just as ignorant and even more damaging. The 2008 president election was one of the most racially divisive elections in US history (3). (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 (2) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (3) http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf
- generalizations 5y ago
  You left out something important. In 1996, Clinton won the African-American vote 84% to 12%. In 2008, Obama won the African-American vote 95% to 4%. That's a far larger difference. You're right: let's not ignore race. By your own logic, if you're saying the white polling numbers show white racism, then you have to admit that the African American polling numbers show far more extreme racism on the part of African Americans.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    I know you already know how silly this comparison is. Replace White with Han Chinese and Black with Uyghur if you need help. It's not exactly a surprise when the repressed and discriminated against minority sees race as a more important issue. Equating racism without considering the context of who holds what power is simply disingenuous.
    - generalizations 5y ago
      I used exactly the same argument you did, with equivalent data. You're now trying to wiggle out of admitting equivalent conclusions. That stinks of gross and explicit doublethink.
      - dumbfoundded 5y ago
        You're so goofy. I love it. We should hang out sometime. Edit: I apologize for doing this as an edit but HN won't let me reply so here it is. I've made my points and you've made your's. You haven't brought up any new points and you've been ignoring mine previous ones that already anticipate your response. So let's trivialize it because it's not going any further. Seriously though. I hope you have a wonderful day.
        generalizations 5y ago
        Aw, you can't come up with a rational response. I'll admit, trivializing is a decent follow-up when you've got no arguments left. EDIT: I'll answer with an edit also. For my part, it seems like my response went unanswered and you didn't really anticipate it, and I do think the argument has places to go. However, I do wish you the best, and I hope you have a wonderful day too.
- smaryjerry 5y ago
  Your are overlooking a few big factor. Those are two completely different people, from different states with different policies, against different candidates, and at different times. Yet you are claiming race was the biggest factor in their voting differences with zero evidence.
renewiltord 5y ago
It doesn't assume anything. It registers evidence for one hypothesis over another. If the evidence doesn't move your priors at all, then you're not thinking rationally. Of course there are other factors as well (which perhaps dominate), the strictness of the Dem/Rep split, etc. but this one piece of evidence should move you in the direction described.
- smaryjerry 5y ago
  That isn’t evidence for anyone voting based on race or that Oregon having more whites voting for a black person makes them less racist. Just being a different color has absolutely nothing to do with any of their qualifications, policies, personality, opponent, and more. Assuming race is the biggest factor based on the voters race and the candidates race is extremely racist in itself. An outcome alone based on race doesn’t determine the motive of voters. Even just candidates campaigning in a specific area would result in very different numbers.

This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just so much wrong with that.

dumbfoundded 5y ago

Your response is disgustingly incorrect. President Obama's election as the first black president certainly included significant racial elements. When comparing it to Clinton vs Dole in 1996, Clinton lost the white vote 42% to 44% (1). Obama lost the white vote 43% to 55% (2). Both Clinton and Obama won by 8% differences. Yes, not voting for the black candidate over the white candidate doesn't make you racist. But to ignore race altogether as a factor is just as ignorant and even more damaging. The 2008 president election was one of the most racially divisive elections in US history (3). (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 (2) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (3) http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf

generalizations 5y ago
You left out something important. In 1996, Clinton won the African-American vote 84% to 12%. In 2008, Obama won the African-American vote 95% to 4%. That's a far larger difference. You're right: let's not ignore race. By your own logic, if you're saying the white polling numbers show white racism, then you have to admit that the African American polling numbers show far more extreme racism on the part of African Americans.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  I know you already know how silly this comparison is. Replace White with Han Chinese and Black with Uyghur if you need help. It's not exactly a surprise when the repressed and discriminated against minority sees race as a more important issue. Equating racism without considering the context of who holds what power is simply disingenuous.
  - generalizations 5y ago
    I used exactly the same argument you did, with equivalent data. You're now trying to wiggle out of admitting equivalent conclusions. That stinks of gross and explicit doublethink.
    - dumbfoundded 5y ago
      You're so goofy. I love it. We should hang out sometime. Edit: I apologize for doing this as an edit but HN won't let me reply so here it is. I've made my points and you've made your's. You haven't brought up any new points and you've been ignoring mine previous ones that already anticipate your response. So let's trivialize it because it's not going any further. Seriously though. I hope you have a wonderful day.
      - generalizations 5y ago
        Aw, you can't come up with a rational response. I'll admit, trivializing is a decent follow-up when you've got no arguments left. EDIT: I'll answer with an edit also. For my part, it seems like my response went unanswered and you didn't really anticipate it, and I do think the argument has places to go. However, I do wish you the best, and I hope you have a wonderful day too.
smaryjerry 5y ago
Your are overlooking a few big factor. Those are two completely different people, from different states with different policies, against different candidates, and at different times. Yet you are claiming race was the biggest factor in their voting differences with zero evidence.

renewiltord 5y ago

It doesn't assume anything. It registers evidence for one hypothesis over another. If the evidence doesn't move your priors at all, then you're not thinking rationally. Of course there are other factors as well (which perhaps dominate), the strictness of the Dem/Rep split, etc. but this one piece of evidence should move you in the direction described.

smaryjerry 5y ago
That isn’t evidence for anyone voting based on race or that Oregon having more whites voting for a black person makes them less racist. Just being a different color has absolutely nothing to do with any of their qualifications, policies, personality, opponent, and more. Assuming race is the biggest factor based on the voters race and the candidates race is extremely racist in itself. An outcome alone based on race doesn’t determine the motive of voters. Even just candidates campaigning in a specific area would result in very different numbers.