Racism in The 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections

From the desk of Filip van Laenen on Wed, 2008-11-05 17:15

For months, the media has been been whining about the Bradley effect that could have spoiled Barack Obama's victory in yesterday's presidential elections. Basically, the Bradley effect says that when there are two candidates, one white and one black, a significant number of whites intends to vote for the black candidate and says so too when asked by a pollster, but nevertheless, once in the voting booth they vote for the white candidate. Racism! But where's the outcry about 95% of African-Americans voting for Barack Obama, clearly a racist vote?

Let's just do the numbers and make some estimates. Historically, African-Americans have always voted for the candidate of the Democratic Party. In 2000, Al Gore received 85% of the black vote, and in 2004, John Kerry received the all-time-high of 90% of the black vote, both of them receiving more than Bill Clinton did in 1992 or 1996. If we take John Kerry's score as the baseline, i.e. 90% of the black vote, we would expect to see 45 votes for the Democratic candidate fore every 5 votes for the Republican candidate. That leaves an estimate of about 50% of the black vote for Barack Obama as primarily based on race.

These calculations do not account for another effect that might have played a role: black voters who otherwise wouldn't have bothered registering to vote this year primarily because of Barack Obama's race. A jump in the participation by the African-Americans in these elections compared to previous elections would indicate this.

Did this make any difference for the final outcome of the presidential elections this year? In order to check that, we can assume that the 50% of the black vote due to Barack Obama's race otherwise would haven broken into another 5% of the black vote for John McCain, and the other 45% going to Barack Obama. Even though the African-Americans represent 13.4% of the United States' population, they account for only about 10% of the votes in presidential elections. Therefore, if John McCain should have received 5% more from the black vote, it means that in total, he should have received 0.5% more than he did. I don't think that would have made a difference large enough to change the final outcome of this week's elections.

Anyway, even if it didn't influence the outcome of the elections, it seems clear that a large part of the African-American votes were primarily based on one of the candidate's race. Even if it isn't 50%, but only 40% or even 30%, these numbers are still huge. Therefore, I expect to see a huge outcry over this in the media the coming days, with lots of analyses about how racist some parts of the United States' electorate have become, maybe even some demonstrations and many strong condemnations from all anti-racist organizations all over the world. Don't you?

This article, originally posted with the title «Did the Racist Vote Decide Yesterday's U.S. Presidential Elections?», has been rewritten since the first time it was posted. The original content follows below:

Let's just do the numbers. If we say that people not influenced by the candidate's race tend to vote 50/50 for Barack Obama and John McCain, then for every five African-American votes for Barack Obama, there should be five African-American votes for John McCain, and the rest is influenced by race. Thus 90% of all African-Americans casted a racist vote yesterday. Considering that the African-Americans represent about 13.4% of the United States' population, assume 10% of the votes are African-American, then 90% of those 10% make up 9% of the total number of votes. If these voters hadn't been influenced by race, they would break 4.5% to Barack Obama and 4.5% to John McCain. Correct the popular vote for these numbers, at the time of this writing 52% for Barack Obama and 46% for John McCain, and the popular vote becomes only 47.5% for Barack Obama and 50.5% for John McCain, clearly suggesting John McCain would have won the election in number of electoral voters too.

Of course, I expect to see a huge outcry over this in the media the coming days, with lots of analyses about how racist some parts of the United States' electorate have become, maybe even some demonstrations and many strong condemnations from all anti-racist organizations all over the world. Don't you?

Edited to add: Of course, African-Americans traditionally vote Democratic. In 2004, John Kerry received 85% of the black votes, but in 2000 Al Gore received 90%, who received more than Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992. If we take 90% as the baseline, 5 votes for John McCain imply 45 votes for Barack Obama, still leaving 50% of the African-American votes to be influenced by the candidate's race, or 5.0% of the total number of votes. Corrected for this number, and breaking this number into 90% and 10%, the popular vote becomes 51.5% for Barack Obama and 46.5% for John McCain.

These calculations do not account for another effect that might have played a role: black voters who otherwise wouldn't have bothered registering to vote this year primarily because of Barack Obama's race. A jump in the participation by the African-Americans in these elections compared to previous elections would indicate this.

Anyway, we would still be talking about 50% of the African-American votes voting for one candidate primarily based on the candidate's race.

Interestingly, not only is

Submitted by Wimbledon Womble on Thu, 2008-11-20 06:49.

Interestingly, not only is "white" America not given a big pat on the back by the multiculti left, but there are already stories circulating and the accompanying blog action about how there is an unprecedented rise in hate crimes and cross burnings and this or that since Obama was elected. It's mostly all unverifiable and fake, but it just goes to show that electing Obama will not put an end to the whole issue of race, because it's in the interests of multiculturalists and other interest groups to keep up the fiction.

High expectations

Submitted by pet85022 on Sat, 2008-11-08 05:59.

Obama has extremely high expectations to live up to, minority expectations and white expectations. Unfortunately Obama is not qualified (yes he is a great orator maybe even better than Ronnie) but he is no Colin Powell. Obama will have to be the black Washington or the black Lincoln, a task I fear he is not up to. More than likely he will be the black Jimmy Carter if so he will destroy the chances of a black man ever getting nominated let alone elected to the presidency in the US for the rest of the century.

patriotic caucus 4

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-11-07 19:03.

@ KO

You have clearly explained why 'Ernest' is dreaming. But I also think that you gave the 'racialists' too much slack.  I do not agree that both culture and race are important, not in a fundamental sense. Only culture matters.  Because it is culture that determines the 'quality' of life, the way people 'govern' themselves, and the values they broadly adhere too. 'Race' only matters in a temporary and superficial sense, to the extent that different cultural behavior patterns can be BROADLY associated with different racial groups.  Ultimately it is civic patriotism that must prevail, not any kind of racial 'solidarity'.  Any sensible 'white' resistance to much of nonwhite immigration must be based on the observable fact that many nonwhites are NOT capable of adhering to civic patriotism (neither are many whites, by the way), and not be based on any 'racial solidarity'.   The advocay of many US latinos for illegal immigration is a case in point.  It proves their 'racism' and their lack of civic nationalism or patriotism. 

I agree with you that "multiculturalism and racial socialism" must be destroyed, or more realistically, must be pushed back and resisted. But the ultimate goal must be to preserve civic nationalism or patriotism, respect for the  values embedded in the Constitution. That certainly means respect for democratic procedures (including and especially w.r.t. immigration law) and equality before the law, i.e. judging citizens as individual citizens, not as members of racial groups. 

There is no such thing as "white culture" or black culture or brown culture or gray culture.  There are only different cultural behavior patterns that can be observed to be broadly adhered to by certain racial and national immigrant groups, for reasons of history, geography etc...  Culture is not a matter of color, it is a matter of behavior.  Only physical matter can have a a color, behavior has no color.  Ultimately, individuals are determined by the choices they make.  Immigration policy should recognise that, and (try to) ensure that only individuals committed to civic patriotism are allowed to join the nation.

@lantyzizt: leftist pundits

Submitted by Sagunto on Thu, 2008-11-06 12:54.

your Q:

"..Yet, prior to the result, many leftist pundits were claiming a win for
McCain would prove that the American electorate is inherently racist.
So, what was that all about?.."

 

- About pretty much the same as progressives  (leftists, neo-Engelsists, etc.) arguing that the disproportionate number of blacks in prison is due to "waycist" law enforcement?

Must be the quintessential one-size fits-all "explanation" for any member of the leftist Church. From their sacred red catechism (soon available in purple) it reads:
Q: "Why are there still so many disadvantaged people of complexion populating our prisons?" 
A: "Because the system is waycist".

Their obvious solution: put more angry white bloggers in prison (who, by lucky coincidence, happen to be their political adversaries) to balance this grave injustice and insult to the final goal: "Gleichschaltung für alle!" (everyone equal through the State).

 

;-)

Sag.

I actually am glad to see

Submitted by Ernest on Thu, 2008-11-06 13:18.

I actually am glad to see the positions of many posters here. At least I know that we whites as a group will have almost universal support when we form the White Caucus and start voting for white preferences and policies!

A patriotic caucus

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-11-06 13:49.

How does a white caucus make a place for Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, and J.C. Watts, to start with prominent examples? America needs its patriotic, conservative black Americans to unite with its patriotic, conservative white Americans. We need to return to a limited immigration policy that fosters the continuity of our nation as a predominantly British- and northwest-European-descended, English-speaking republic of predominantly Christian culture and limited government, "with liberty and justice for all." Patriots of all hues will support that, or else they are not patriots of the country as it is and has been but only of the country as they want it to be.

A white caucus wouldn't have

Submitted by Ernest on Fri, 2008-11-07 03:43.

A white caucus wouldn't have anything to do with any of those individuals you list. Why would it? Or maybe they are white and I don't know it yet?

The fact that so called "black conservatives" are a minuscule amount of the total number of blacks seems to be lost and have no bearing on you who must have some sort of black benediction. Plus the fact that almost to a person with an extremely rare exception even these so called conservatives are black first and foremost before being "conservative". i.e. JC Watts and his black radio station.

Ex-Rep. J.C. Watts starting black news channel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24882276/

I am surprised you also didn't trot out Condi Rice? Another of the so called "black conservatives"? oops she plays the race card too. Just like Mr Powell.

While I have nothing against someone like Thomas Sowell and in fact think he is a brilliant writer he is as rare as tits on a hog and is just that, an exception. I would certainly welcome him but at the same time am not willing to sell my soul, culture, posterity, country, race and heritage out the window and become "multicultural" to do so. It is pathetic how ingrained that PC has become. Many in the GOP act like it can't exist without having a "minority" on the ticket for 2012. Just say no to the "evil" white man! You too can help destroy Western civilization.

A patriotic caucus 2

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-11-07 12:39.

Ernest: The ingrained PC is a real problem that must be overcome. You need to go to people where they are to win their support. There are potential, solid members of a Patriotic Caucus that would steer clear of a White Caucus. You don't want to permanently marginalize yourself like the BNP, which could have more support among patriotic Asians if they were allowed to join. Patriots need all the help they can get, and the non-whites are in our countries. We need to get as many on our side as we can. But PC is not the only objection. A sound politics must provide for all the people. The Patriotic Caucus provides equality of rights (not results) for all in a demographically and culturally Western republic. It does not subscribe to a racial spoils system. Your White Caucus, like Fjordman's argument for native Europeans to claim indigenous status, affirms a system that is contrary to the proper place of Western peoples in their own countries. Their will be no racial affirmative action in the governments led by the Patriotic Caucus, and their will be no disparate impact lawsuits for the application of neutral criteria. But there will still be penalties for racial discrimination in preventing people from voting and using public facilities.

This is the point where we have to figure out how much of social life is guided by traditionalism and how much by classical liberalism. Or, how much discrimination, if any, does Western society need to flourish, and how much can be left to private action based on the predominance of the majority culture? The initial assumption of the Patriotic Caucus is that a Western-oriented immigration system, and a Western and traditionalist educational system are sufficient and can permit Western societies to flourish, and that minorities who are loyal to Western culture will flourish at the level of their inherent abilities. It does not believe that positive discrimination and suppression are necessary to bring about this result, but that they instead will prevent it.

"potential" huh? Who are

Submitted by Ernest on Fri, 2008-11-07 13:25.

"potential" huh? Who are these magical people who wish to align themselves with the tenets of Jefferson, Henry and Adams? PC is so ingrained that the Liberty you speak of is nonsense. What you suggest in theory is ideal but the reality of is it doesn't exist. In fact it is very much what the multicultualist despise and wish to destroy because it came from white men. It is only whites who are expected to lay prostate and be "colorblind". We are expected to disdain our culture and who we are. Never mind that it doesn't work the other way around. It is also as mentioned before only a minuscule portion of "people of color" who espouse any sense of solidarity in thought yet you suggest we do exactly as the democrats and globalist by ignoring the extreme majority and open ourselves up to destruction for of an ideal that is only make believe. Not to mention all these people who you suggest we must go to are largely here as the result of the 1965 immigration act which set out to do the very thing it is doing in destroying our social fabric, country and race yet you wish to grab onto it with both hands. Who exactly marginalizes the BNP? The same forces that exalt Obama, the Black Caucus multiculturalism and all the other race groups and crap. Whites are under attack and the forces will never stop unless we stand up to them or we are destroyed. Race issue will be here with or without us no matter how much you wish upon a star. You can jump head first into it and take your family and friends with you but I will stand fast with my ancestors, culture and posterity. But what you will not do at least without resistance is take us with you. I will fight turning this country into South Africa or Zimbabwe with every ounce of my being.

A patriotic caucus 3

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2008-11-07 16:06.

Ernest: Who is dreaming, the advocate of a white movement or the advocate of a patriotic movement? The potential, not magical, supporters of a patriotic caucus are conservative Republicans; the nearly 1/2 of voters who did not fall for the candidate of white guilt; and all intelligent, sincere people who understand that liberty and personal responsibility, the political expression of our predominantly British culture, are nobler and more practical ideals than political redistribution of property and racial resentment. Culture and race are both important, and a successful America can include a mixture of peoples who are loyal to it. America is and should remain a predominantly white country with a predominantly British and northwest European-descended culture. But federation (along with faith and force) is a fundamental principle of nation-building, and those who commit themselves to America should be welcomed to participate fully. Blacks, for example, are in America to stay--they have been in America as long as the Anglo-Saxons, longer than the Irish. Indians are in America to stay. Hispanics (the legal ones) are in America to stay. But all should be governed by and adhere to the traditional American culture and the defining Amercan principles of liberty and personal responsibility.

Multiculturalism must be destroyed, along with racial socialism. The 1965 Immigration Act must be undone and repudiated. Whites must fight back and prevail. America must not become another Zimbabwe or South Africa, or Brazil or Cuba or India or Iraq. But I feel we will have more success in saving America by fighting under the banner of America--an America that is predominantly white and Western in race and culture, but that has a place for those of all colors who embrace it--, rather than under the banner of white America, which rejects the loyalty of those who love their country.

Multiculturalism must be

Submitted by Ernest on Mon, 2008-11-10 08:50.

But I feel we will have more success in saving America by fighting under the banner of America--an America that is predominantly white and Western in race and culture, but that has a place for those of all colors who embrace it--, rather than under the banner of white America, which rejects the loyalty of those who love their country.

In theory I agree with this statement but again show me these hordes of magical people who are willing to deny their race and who they are to become us? I don't know how you do that except by destroying ourselves and embracing the Unitarian Globalist Everyman that the Left and Marxist are trying to accomplish by force and genociding the white race. Race is a part of who people are. That is why we have these same issues that man has been dealing with for thousands of years still today. With very rare, RARE exception all "people of color" who the GOP likes to trot out as "just like us" are race first & "conservative" second. Except that whites and whites only are supposed to play the color blind game. Either we all play that game or none of us do. If you can get "people of color" to dismantle all these race based political, lobbying and advocacy groups we then will have common ground on which to work but until that time no genocide for me thank you. None for my country either. If you think that LaRaza,the Hispanic Caucus, LULAC, MEChA or The Black Caucus, NAACP any of the other multitude and it is a multitude of race based groups are going away you are not only dreaming but are delusional as are way too many whites.

Multiculturalism must be destroyed, along with racial socialism. The 1965 Immigration Act must be undone and repudiated. Whites must fight back and prevail.

I agree with this statement even more than the first. Tell you what. Throw this out to your "patriotic" and "conservative" people of color and tell me how many sign up?

In reply to KO

Submitted by Armor on Mon, 2008-11-10 03:32.

It should be clear by now that KO defends the policy of race replacement: replacing whites with non whites, but not in a consistent way. His principles are unclear, and he does not define a practical policy either (should white people be allowed to live separately or not?).

KO's pro-white statements:

- "America is and should remain a predominantly white country with a predominantly British and northwest European-descended culture".

How are you going to achieve that if you do not expel recent immigrants and do not entirely stop non-white immigration?

- "Multiculturalism must be destroyed"

I guess you will just enter black Americans and Mexican Americans into a specially built machine, and when they get out of it, they will behave just like white Americans. The will start preferring Beethoven to rap, and they will promise to stay out of jail. They will do better in school, take to reading poetry and science books.

- "The 1965 Immigration Act must be undone and repudiated. Whites must fight back and prevail."

In that case, why do you say that "We need to return to a limited immigration policy"? Why do you want any immigration at all?

KO's anti-white statements: (civic nation theory)

- "those who commit themselves to America should be welcomed to participate fully"

"Committing oneself to America" is a meaningless phrase. Americans are against immigration. How can you "commit yourself" to a people who wants you out? A woman owes nothing to a man who declares his eternal love to her. It is the same for a country. A good maxim found on the net: "it takes two to name it love".

But maybe your statement about welcoming commited people means something else. Maybe you mean that Blacks and Mexicans who want to live among Whites should be able to do so? Maybe you want mandatory racial mixing? Are you saying that the whites should not be allowed to live separately?

"Hispanics (the legal ones) are in America to stay."

Hispanics (the legal ones) should be sent back to Mexico. And if they are allowed to stay, Americans should be allowed to shun their company.

"But federation (along with faith and force) is a fundamental principle of nation-building"

The Americans do not need to build a nation, they should just be themselves. They don't need a constitution or a federation. They are exactly the same as Europeans or Africans or Chinese people. They don't want to be replaced by other races in order to build a "civic nation". White people think they should make an effort to get along with immigrants, but this is only because they want to be nice and decent to everyone, not because they believe in citizenism and race-replacement.

"But all should be governed by and adhere to the traditional American culture and the defining American principles of liberty and personal responsibility."

That is rubbish. In fact :

• a non-white can not become European or American.

• "Culture" can not be transferred from one race to another.

• You can not define American identity or European identity by abstract principles any more than you can define African or Chinese identity by abstract principles.

• You cannot become American by making a conscious decision any more than you can become Chinese of African by making a conscious decision.

In reply to KO - 2

Submitted by Armor on Mon, 2008-11-10 03:33.

KO: "But I feel we will have more success in saving America by fighting under the banner of America--an America that is predominantly white and Western in race and culture, but that has a place for those of all colors who embrace it--, rather than under the banner of white America, which rejects the loyalty of those who love their country."

As long as non-whites were only a small minority, it was possible for white Americans to cheat a little and say that every one should be part of the great American nation. But this is no longer possible since Americans are scheduled to become a minority. What is important is people, not territory. The territory doesn't matter, but a man can only be at home among his own people, and every people needs some territory where it can be at home. If Mexicans insist on colonizing the United States and if KO says they are in the USA to stay, I think it is all right to let them stay, on condition that Mexicans give Mexico in return. Because the whites need some place to go. My personal opinion is that the human cost of expelling Hispanics to Mexico is much less than the cost of destroying white American society. Their lives will not suddenly stop when they are back in Mexico. They will be in a different territory, but they will still be in their home community. I realize that many immigrants who live in a (formerly) white country enjoy being part of two different societies at the same time, and they find white society more comfortable than their own, but this is not a sustainable solution since it destroys the host society.

Once white society has become completely atomized, and white Americans no longer have any place for themselves, they will no longer care about the United States. The same thing happens when your town is invaded by immigrants. You just move out, even if your parents and your grand-parents were born there. And you try to forget the place. It is impossible to feel loyalty for an abstract multiracial "civic nation". People's loyalty can only go to their own people. So, the solution is that white Americans should try to live in separate communities, and eventually, in separate states. In any case, immigration must be stopped as soon as possible. And the propaganda for race mixing must stop too.

But all should be governed

Submitted by mast on Fri, 2008-11-07 19:04.

But all should be governed by and adhere to the traditional American culture and the defining Amercan principles of liberty and personal responsibility.

When you're claiming that America should consist of traditional American culture I can't wait to see an America that completely subjects itself the coastal attitudes of the east and west coast of the country. They are the only ones who properly represent traditional American values of state secularism, arms control, minority rights and the right to privacy. If you object, then you're wrong because multiculturalism is wrong.

racism #2

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-11-06 11:58.

"We can not derive the percentage of racists out of the voting results".

 

Yet, prior to the result, many leftist pundits were claiming a win for McCain would prove that the American electorate is inherently racist. So, what was that all about?

@MF: you've got my vote

Submitted by Sagunto on Thu, 2008-11-06 03:08.

@marcfrans,

 

Well said.

 

@mast,

Why persist in calling that wonderful contribution to sports&pop a sub-culture? Isn't that kinda derogatory now? Why not ditch the sub and while you're at it, replace it by "super"?

 

@OK,

My thoughts exactly, though when choosing a representative, I'd always try to pick the best man for the job. Affinities concerning race and culture do matter, but to what extent? When electing a president, I'd say that colourblindness and choosing the most qualified matter even more.

Sag. 

Most qualified

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-11-06 13:21.

Absolutely, Sagunto. The best man for the job every time. If he has strength of character and sound policies, a sense of personal affinity on the part of the voter is of little moment.

Blacks kept the excellent black Republican out of the governor's mansion of Maryland. They did not prize racial symbolism or affinity over political affiliation. The black congressional caucus has been no conspicuous defender of the outstanding black conservative Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. The Obama campaign successfully suggested that electing a black president would have great historical significance and exonerate Americans from the opprobrium of rejecting the black candidate. There was an element of blackmail, though for liberals and leftists whose world is structured by white guilt, it was not perceived as such. Rather, they joyfully embraced the opportunity to demonstrate their anti-racism by electing the most ideologically leftist president in American history, someone with no apparent qualifications for the office. (One might say that they proved their anti-racism more forcefully by electing him solely on the basis of race, deliberately sacrificing the welfare of the nation on the altar of white guilt/anti-racism. If he were well qualified, electing him would not have proved their non-racist goodness.) However, it cannot be known to what extent the intent to punish the Republican administration, to punish Sen. McCain's anti-conservatism, to elect a leftist, or to elect a black were the main causes of Sen. Obama's success. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama over Clinton in the primaries on the basis of racial symbolism. No doubt many whites also voted for him in both the primaries and the general on the basis of racial symbolism.

At this point it seems like a very poor choice we have made. The only remedy is for conservatives to re-organize and advance their positions as effectively as possible. Neopopulism.org presents a new departure for non-ideological political effectiveness. Check it out.

Reputation

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-11-06 02:23.

@ mast

It is very easy and certainly more justified "feeling sorry" for you than for Filip Van Laenen.

First, yes indeed blacks vote for whites all the time.  But whites do vote for blacks often too.  In fact Americans vote for a wide variety of 'ethnicities' all the time, because there is such a multitude of races/etnicities in the US and because there are so many different elected positions (from dog catchers, judges....to the federal Presidency).

The fact that blacks often vote for whites is irrelevant here.  What is relevant is how do they vote in an electoral contest, any electoral contest, when there are candidates of different etnicity in that particular race or contest. Or, if you will, how do they vote (in general) when the choice is between a black person and someone from another ethnic group.

Your first paragraph seems to suggest that it's Ok for people to vote for the US presidency on the basis of tastes in "music and sports".  How would you call then the near-half of the white electorate that did NOT vote for McCain on the basis of music and sports tastes?  Perverse self-haters? Race-traiters? Reverse-racists? What exactly?  And how would you call those few blacks that did NOT vote for Obama, because they are more serious and smarter than you.  Would you call them race-traiters too?  No, the truth appears to be that you are the real 'racist', in the sence of 'the bigotry of low expectations'.  You seem to think that blacks vote on the basis of sports and music preferences, whereas lefty whites vote on the basis of more serious considerations. The late 'Democratic' Senator Moynehan, a great sociologist and an expert on the deplorable state of a large part of 'black sub-culture' in the US, would have been horrified by your comment. As am I.

racism

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Thu, 2008-11-06 10:51.

Does proportionally more blacks voting for black candidates, and more whites voting for white candidates inherently mean more racism?
That’s the question I asked myself while driving to the football yesterday. The answer is no!
It all depends on your motives. In a proper working democracy without racist motives one votes for a candidate out of two concerns: What is best for my country, and what is best for me and my family. Certainly this last concern calls for a vote on a person that understands ones situation. This means that chances are high that you will vote for someone out of the same environment (The same county, cultural background, education, working experience..) As there is certainly a difference between the life-environment of blacks and whites, voting for somebody with the same skin color can occur out of genuine democratic concerns. Women voting for women don’t necessarily mean sexism either. If the underlying motive is hate for blacks or whites, or you believing them to be inferior, only then the vote is racist. No doubt such persons exist amongst whites and blacks alike. But we can not derive the percentage of racists out of the voting results.

results versus intentions

Submitted by Luc Van Braekel on Thu, 2008-11-06 12:04.

The logical error in this article is that the outcome and the intentions are mixed up. The numbers are correct, but that doesn't tell you anything about the intentions of the voters. The overwhelming black vote for Obama could well be explained by other motives. If poverty is more frequent among black voters than among white voters, then a slogan like "spreading the wealth" will be more likely to attract black voters. If that is the intention, then the vote is not "racist". To show that the vote was racist, one should have statistical data about the motives and intentions of the voters. Looking at the outcome of the vote in different ethnic groups is simply not enough. I don't say that the vote wasn't racist, or that it was, I simply say that results and intentions are different things, and that "racist" is a term which is related with intentions.

On the other hand I don't agree with Peter Vanderheyden either. You can have a racist vote even when the motive is not something negative like "hate". Even if the intention is positive, like "bring a black man in The White House at last" you could say that the motive is based on race and hence the vote was racist.

You can have a racist vote

Submitted by mast on Fri, 2008-11-07 18:47.

You can have a racist vote even when the motive is not something negative like "hate". Even if the intention is positive, like "bring a black man in The White House at last" you could say that the motive is based on race and hence the vote was racist.

It's not racism. Blacks voting for black candidates only because they're black and whites voting for white candidates only because they're white are not equal with one another.

When whites decide to only vote for whites - you can pretty much guess it is primarily because they look down upon blacks and other minorities. That's racism. They harbor bigotry and negative sentiment towards them and that is the main motivator why they do not even consider voting for someone other than white.

When blacks vote for blacks it is because live in a permanent minority situation in society, thus wish to see more equal representation in government. It is a completely fair argument that does not involve any form of racial bigotry.

You cannot equal them with one and another because their intentions are completely different.

So whites voting for whites in South-Africa is no racism

Submitted by Filip van Laenen on Sun, 2008-11-09 23:29.

@mast

So when blacks vote for blacks in the US, it is because they live in a permanent minority situation in society, not because of racism. I guess that means that whites voting for whites in South-Africa can't be racism either, whereas blacks voting for blacks in South-Africa is racism, right?

statistics # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-11-06 01:51.

@ Atlanticist

You picked a good one! And there are other 'gems' to be found in the election results across the fifty states.  There is little doubt that latinos and blacks, on the whole, are more in favor of the gay marriage ban than the more 'flexible' (confused) white naive-lefties who tend to live more exclusively - like dogs do - 'in the moment'.  But, since Kappert will not like this demonstrated fact about sub-cultural differences/attitudes among ethnic groups in California, there is no chance that he will have anything sensible to say about it.  

@ pvdh

Again, I tend to agree with you.  The mathematical statistics of Filip does not seem kosher, but I am too lazy to go and try to figure it out (or seek proper advice) myself.  But, his main point is surely valid, and does not require accurate statistical support.  If one ethnic group votes overwhelmingly (almost totally) for the candidate of their ethnicity, and the other group(s) distribute(s) its (their) votes almost evenly (say within the 60-40 range), then it should be very clear which group is more guided by race, and which is (are) by perceptions of either 'ideology' or of personal character of the candidates.

@ Natalie

I agree with you that it is a very sad day for the USA, but one that has been long in coming (given longterm developments in the education system and in the media). It certainly would have been much better for the country if its first 'black' (or any other minority) president would have been a more truly principled and patriotic person than Obama. It is a sad day for the world too, but surely most people in Europe and the Middle East don't realise that.

But, if history is any guide, the country will recover and make the necessary corrections. Preferably sooner than later.  In the meantime, Americans owe loyalty to their country and respect to the office of the Presidency. 

GWBush has already set the example and instructed the transition staff to cooperate in every possible way with the incoming Administration.  It's a far cry from the treatment he received in 2000 when the White House was left in a state of (physical) chaos and victimised by so-called 'pranks' perpetrated by a number of emotionally-immature and morally-deficient leftist degenerates from the previous Administration. 

@marcfrans

Submitted by Natalie on Thu, 2008-11-06 03:32.

I agree we owe loyalty to our country, but I can never respect the office of the Presidency as long as Obama holds it because I hold him in such loathing. I don't respect his politics, and I definitely do not respect him as a person. And I hope you're right about our country recovering.

Brussels Journal living up to its reputation once again

Submitted by mast on Thu, 2008-11-06 01:26.

Filip van Laenen is so wrong I feel sad for him. In the United States, it's more than just race. It's about culture. Obama connects with the African-American sub-culture. He's from it. He listen the same music and play the same sports. Race is much more than just skin color.

Election racism is about the deterrence of race, not the mere influence of it. Blacks didn't vote for Obama because McCain was white. Blacks vote for white candidates all the time. On the same ticket they voted for Barack they voted for another white candidate on state or local level. You just cannot put them on the equivalence as whites who didn't vote for Barack *just because* he was black. Simply put, blacks voting for Obama because of his skin color is not racism. White people not voting for Obama because of his skin color IS racism.

In many ways I can understand why Mr. Laenen has such a juvenile and misunderstood perception of what racism is. Homogenized Norway certainly isn't as complex as the United States when it comes to racial relations and history. So in many ways I forgive Laenen for that, because sometimes you just don't know what you just don't know.

@Mast

Submitted by Ronduck on Thu, 2008-11-06 04:19.

Blacks vote for white candidates all the time.

Blacks only vote for Whites when such candidates are Democrats. Blacks want two things handouts/welfare from Whitey and Power over Whitey. If given a choice between a pandering White democrat that promises welfare and a moderate conservative they choose the socialist. If given a choice between a Black conservative and a White Democrat they will accuse the Black of being a sellout and vote for handouts. If given Barack Obama who implicitly promises handouts, affirmative action and power over Whitey they will turn out in droves the same way their relatives in South Africa did in 1994 when they were given the chance to lord it over Whitey. Blacks always vote to screw Whitey.

I am only 25 and I have lived to see the end of my country, possibly my nation. For 232 years, from July 4, 1776 to November 4, 2008 it has been an amazing ride of adventure, prosperity and expansion. But the great Republic turned over to the losers of the 1960's has been ruined, all for free love and cheap labor.

Thanks for the inheritance Boomers.

Thank goodness we have

Submitted by Ernest on Thu, 2008-11-06 03:57.

Thank goodness we have someone like mast that can explain to us confused souls how blacks voting as a bloc almost 100% in unity for their racial interest is not racism. The machinations that black apologist will go to explain away black racism is legendary and at times comical except it is not a funny situation.

GWBush has already set the

Submitted by Ronduck on Thu, 2008-11-06 04:27.

GWBush has already set the example and instructed the transition staff to cooperate in every possible way with the incoming Administration.

This cooperation began long before the Obama victory. GWB didn't do any meaningful campaigning for McCain, he didn't prosecute ACORN for vote fraud the way he should have and he generally sat on his ass as America ceased to exist. Now that my country is dead can we please pass the nuclear weapons in the estate to better, whiter owners, like the Danes?

I just don't know what I just don't know

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2008-11-06 02:19.

Forgive me, Mast, but I don't know that there is a significant difference between a black voting for a black and not a white, because he feels a cultural/racial kinship with the black, and a white voting for a white and not a black, because he feels a cultural/racial kinship with the white. In each case the voter under consideration is voting for someone of the same race because of feelings of cultural/racial kinship, and voting against the person of a different race, because of a lack of cultural/racial kinship.

You're not saying the white is racist in this scenario, but the black is not, are you? Or are you drawing a distinction between a vote based on attraction vs. one based on a lesser attraction, or a rejection? Since the same vote involves both attraction and rejection, however weak they may be, you would be splitting an awfully fine hair. Maybe we should give the whole concept of racism a rest for a while, and recognize that for many purposes people prefer those with whom they feel a cultural and racial kinship.

Black racial preferences in the presidential contest became evident when blacks started voting for Sen. Obama over Hillary Clinton by huge proportions, although the differences between their respective political positions did not justify that kind of a discrepancy. As for the general election, black Americans have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for a long time, so the fact that they voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat against McCain does not prove even the slightest racial preference.

Obviously whites and blacks are not identically situated, and many blacks no doubt felt justified in voting on the basis of race (i.e., skin color + culture) just because they had never had the chance to vote for a black president before. However, that is a somewhat frivolous attitude, given the many more important considerations in choosing a president: strong character, wisdom, sound policy, experience, toughness, and the ability to lead.

statistics #2 (A 'dark' day for gays).

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-11-05 21:53.

BLACK VOTERS SAVE PROPOSITION 8

 

In California, it looks like Prop8 has a good chance of passing. With 92% of precincts reporting, the gay marriage ban is winning 52% to 48%. And if it does pass, it will be because of black and, to a lesser extent, Latino voters.

 

According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have black at 10% of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19% and whites at 63% (Asians, at 6%, opposed the proposition 53-47.)

 

Source: vdare

 

Perhaps kappert would like to pick the bones out of this one.

statistics

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-11-05 20:48.

Be sure, statistics will tell us, how many voted black or white. Anyway, to call it a racist vote is rather far fetched. To use your words: where is the outcry that non-whites had to vote up to now in white guys!

@filip

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Wed, 2008-11-05 19:41.

You've got your calculus all wrong. It is reasonable to assume that race influenced the vote. So if both candidates had been from the same race we would see a shift of x% of the white votes for McCain to Obama and y% of the black votes for Obama to Mc Cain. X would be a measure for "racism" amongst whites and Y a measure for "racism" amongst blacks. To find out what X and Y should be, we could perform this calculus:

 

Lets put it this way:

 

 B04= the % black votes for the dems in 2004

 

 B08= the % black votes for the dems in 2008

 

 W04= the % white votes for the dems in 2004

 

 W08= the % white votes for the dems in 2008

 

We have a “racist neutral factor” Z that reflects the shift due to political reasons.

 

We become these equations:

 

B08=B04*(1+Y)*(1+Z)

 

W08=W04*(1+X)*(1+Z)

 

(x will clearly be negative, y positive and z can be both.)

 

There are three unknown variables and only 2 equations.

 

That means we can’t measure the three exactly. But we can come up with a higherbound, by putting x equal to zero.

 

Y=(B08*W04)/(W08*B04)-1.

 

Ill you give me the exact figures I'll do the calculus for you.

Fight the power, Fight the power that be

Submitted by Mystery Meat on Wed, 2008-11-05 18:05.

I have heard many African-Americans say that black people cannot be racist because they "have no power." Can they say this now? The answer is YES.

Take the case of Charles Ogletree, a professor of law at Harvard University. He is well known as an advocate for reparations and affirmative action as payback for the enslavement of blacks.

Barack Obama? According to Ogletree, white people who vote for Obama will do so because he is half white, so white Obama supporters are still being racist. Ogletree says that Obama is NOT African American, inasmuch as he is not a descendent of slaves. So, in his eyes, Obama is a white man with a deep tan. It must be from lounging on the beach in Hawaii.

Ogletree is Obama's principle advisor on civil rights and is expected to serve in the Civil Rights division of the Obama administration.

@ Filip van Laenen

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-11-05 18:02.

Many thanks for this clever article which is short but to the point.

btw:Perhaps you might wish to ponder upon the following Kenyan (Obama related?) proverbs.

"All cassavas have the same skins but not all taste the same".

"We have not inherited this land from our ancestors; rather we have borrowed it from our children".

And perhaps my favourite:

"A donkey always says thank you with a kick".(Think about that one).