Today, people tell pollsters outright that they won’t vote for a black candidate. In Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary, one voter in six said race influenced his vote. The blogs are awash in racist bile, not all of it anonymous. An Associated Press-Yahoo poll found that 40% of white Americans have some negative attitudes toward blacks. The AP story quoted John Clouse in an Ohio coffee shop with his friends, saying flat out, “We still don’t like black people….
I called up Charles Henry, who teaches African American studies at UC Berkeley. In 1983, he was the first to measure the Bradley effect. Yes, perceptions of race are changing, but still, for Obama now, as for Tom Bradley then, Henry calculates that it will take “a double-digit lead to feel confident come election day.”
It grieves me to say so, but he may be right. Good polls don’t change bad attitudes. If America 2008 hasn’t changed much from California 1982, by next year pundits will be calling it the “Obama effect.”
I’m far more worried about red than black.
No doubt if Obama loses this will be blamed. Experience, of course, could not possibly be a factor. It will have to be the race card because that will incite the media pundits.
I live in Missouri. There was that Dewey-Truman thingy around 1948. It ain’t over until the votes are counted. And with the current crises, I’d vote experience over “change” for change’s sake. I don’t think I’m alone in that regard.
Not that you’d know if from the MSM, but there’s some evidence of a “reverse-Bradley” effect, in which some people will vote for Obama simply because he’s black, and they think that will have a salutary effect on race relations in America. Whether the two will balance out is anybody’s guess, but a column that doesn’t mention this is a dishonest one.
I’d also appreciate it if Obama supporters like the columnist would acknowledge that there’s likely to be a significantly larger African-American turnout in this year’s election, solely because the Democratic candidate is also African-American. It may be marginally less objectionable for someone to vote for someone because of his race rather than against, but it’s still voting that is based on a superfluous, race-based characteristic.
Frankly, if Obama were white as a refrigerator and McCain were black as coal, it would change neither my perception of them nor my mind nor my vote for McCain. Someone whose stated first priority agenda item should he be elected is to abolish all state restrictions on abortion, including parental notification, transporting minors across state lines for abortions and partial birth abortions, who yet claims to be a Christian, is either a liar or a schizophrenic. Read Psalm 139 and tell me how one justifies ripping apart or burning to death with saline or stabbing in the back (of the skull) and vacuuming out the brains of one whose bones God knit together, whose unformed substance God’s eyes see, who God wove together in the depths of the earth (metaphor for the womb), and whose days were ordained and written in God’s book before one of them had been lived outside the womb. … Waiting…
We should fall on our faces in fear at the very thought, and also ponder long what sort of Supreme Court justices such a President might appoint.
This is an absurd set of charges. Is racism an element? Of course. This is to be expected. Is gender bias an element in the case of Clinton and Palin. Of course. Have biases been everywhere in past elections? There can only be one reasonable answer to that question. Are there black biases that FAVOR blackness? Of course. ARe there biases that favor women? Of course. To condemn biases becuase they are biases is to fail to grasp human nature with even two fingers. You and I are a mass of biases and prejuidices. We may try to offset some of them by ration judgment, but, if you are honest, you know that this attempt is of limited effect. For you have prejuidices against capitalism, CEOs, lawyers, politicians, smalll towns, and this list is enormous. Moreover, at last, we tend to vote our intuitions, our gut feelings. Pat Morrison is blind and deaf to reality. Larry
I don’t want people to vote against “a” black candidate (I voted for Alan Keyes in the 2000 Illinois Republican primary). But out of respect for human life, and in hopes of retaining some vestige of Constitutional government, I fervently hope that people will vote against “this” black candidate
Hopper, in this hour of crises I hope people will see beyond color to the needed experience factor. Just happens this leads the GOP ticket and does not the DEMs. Of course the parties will put teams into place to govern according to their lights should the lead dude become incapacitated. The question is decades versus years at the top spot.
But if Obama should win, will it be racist for people of colour to make that an issue of why? “Because all the ___?____ voted for him”? I think this a red herring altogether, in case that wasn’t clear earlier. We don’t get “news”, we get “infotainment” and “opinews”. I rue that either way.
Bradley was basically an honest low key straight shooter. While a cop ( in the LAPD ) he went to night law school. You kind of knew where he stood on things. Obama is, to me, Mr. Shuck and Jive – he was involved ( not noted in either autobio ) as CEO of the Annenburg deal – over $100,000,000.00 – with Weatherman Ayres. That’s a little different than what Bradley was about, Patt with the hat.
Theyve done some statistical regressions regarding the Bradley effect, and it may account for .3 % of the vote. Racism won’t be the main factor if Obama loses. If it were, he wouldn’t have won the primaries. Further, although he is black, he doesn’t seem to scare whites with stories of victimization, nor does he peddle guilt. And it helps that he is also half-white.
The Republican Party used the race card since Kennedy, scaring whites into voting for Republicans using various code words. The benefit for Democrats is that most racists who wouldn’t vote for Obama because of race, already vote Republican in national elections.
If Obama loses, it will be because people have believed the lies that he is a Muslim, a Marxist and a terrorist. No evidence for any of them, but if you say it enough, it becomes true.
Juandeveras little note about the Annenberg project is hyperbole and conspiracy stuff invented with a series of half and quarter truths. Its a good example of the falsehoods around the campaign.
Question: for those that are skeptical of the power and influence of race, ponder this? For over a century the South was solid democrat, and then during the mid 1960’s it embraced the dreaded party of Lincoln. Astounding if you think about it. What happen? Those that know history know exactly what happen.
I’m an Independent. I love history. And I am very skeptical of American ” National” politics.
John, #10, I disagree that there is no evidence of his being a Marxists. His tax plan is definitely Marxist. His appeal to economic class warfare is Marxist. His most influential teachers and his mentor in Chicago were Marxists. And the idea that one is not patriotic unless one wants to pay more and more taxes is straight out of Mao’s little red book, as well as his tax plan, I mentioned above. Now is he the only one around in government – no. The Federal government is becoming evermore Marxian everyday. It’s total disregard for contracts people have made with each other is the most evident sign of it. While the golden parachutes of the CEOs of many of the allegedly failing institutions seem obscene in light of the problems facing those institutions, they were still the contracts made by those institutions. Congress has just voided those contracts as if they didn’t exist. Congress has voided foreclosure clauses in mortgage contracts. Contracts are the basis of capitalism. If we can no longer trust that they are to be honored, and government decides which will or will not be honored, ex post facto (which is absolutely against the Constitution, by the way), then that is Marxian, plain and simple. Some folks don’t have health insurance. So Obama, using the police power of the government, is going to take from the “rich” and set up an insurance fund for them. That’s not just socialistic, it’s Marxian. Obama is not the only one (giving taxpayers’ money to those who never paid a dime of taxes, to stimulate the economy as Congress and Pres. Bush did last year is very Marxian), but Obama is the leading one, and the sheeple of our country are going along with him mindlessly, just like the Chinese did with Mao in the 40s. It is rather scary. But don’t take my word for it, just wait and see.
#12 – Juandeveras is not talking hyperbole, Wilkins, he is quoting from a very recent WSJ op-ed piece.
#13 – the WSJ op-ed is known for being hyperbolic. I love the WSJ’s reporting. The editorial page is generally a bunch of hacks, save Thomas Frank.
Billy, you are going to have to define “Marxist” for me. If taxes are marxist, by your definition, most American presidents have been Marxist, even during the Cold War. I hesitate to give you an economics lesson on a blog, but not all taxes are bad for the economy. Taxes pay for schools; they pay to help kids; they pay for democratic institutions. Otherwise, its monarchies, hoarding wealth, and feudalism. Taxes recycle wealth – they assist the commercial [you say “capitalist] society we value. Note that the fastest decadal growth happened in the 50’s and 60’s, when tax rates were much higher than what Obama is proposing.
As far as the bailout goes, um… who should pay for bailing out the rich? The middle class? I’m guessing you think the middle class should. Well, we’ll have to differ on that one. The only class warfare we’ve just witnessed is the rich against the rest of us. As Obama said, that kind of policy isn’t working. You call it war. I call it self-defense.
And… um… who were his mentors? Harold Washington? Cass Sunstein? If you’re talking about Ayers, well, that’s pretty thin. They were on a board together. They were neighbors. As someone who lived in his neighborhood, I can tell you that Hyde Park is a very diverse place, intellectually. He also hung with some conservatives as well.
Can you name his economic advisers? I don’t think you could, nor could you articulate their economic philosophy. I will say this: Obama does understand Marxist philosophy, which is why he rejects it. I’m sure he could go toe to toe with you describing the nature of the Jewish Question, his theories of alienation, his theory of the boom-bust cycle and the like, while rejecting the idea that the proletariat will eventually control the economy.
I sympathize with the problem of the contracts you mention. But the problem is that most of the businesses essentially invented products that shouldn’t have existed, using very flawed contracts that should have been regulated (say, NINA loans, for example). I think restricting salaries (and yes, reneging on the contracts was a remarkably populist thing to do – one supported by most Americans) was not the Congresses’ best moment, but in the end, it seems that capitalists weren’t very good at regulating themselves and this was one way to ensure the bailout passed.
The government had to step in. The capitalists asked them too. It seems to me that your problem isn’t with Obama, its with those free-marketeers who scammed the system and needed the government to step in.
I do agree that a universal health care will be “socialistic.” It will. It will also cost about 1/2 the price of all health care that we currently have. Until hospitals turn away patients, capitalism is clumsy at dealing with health care. Do you support this sort of culture? If you sick, you get care: but only if you can afford it.
A universal health care would help businesses. They wouldn’t have to pay for health care themselves. In fact, that is one reason car companies open up businesses in Canada.
Now is it “marxist?” Well, it is taxation. But if you want liberty, you have to pay for it. The dollar is only good as the government’s guarantee. And finally, perhaps freeing people from the anxiety of how they will pay for their health care would free up small businesses in a way we couldn’t have imagined. I know that, in my church, it would free up a lot of money for mission. Remember: it costs each American an average of $13,000 a year for health care. Create a single payer plan, and it drops to $6,000.
Which is better?
“The WSJ … is known for being hyperbolic….” yah dah yah dah “…. a bunch of hacks….” ” I hesitate to give you an economics lesson…” yah dah yah dah – Wilkins, you do not say much but take up a lot of space.
#15 – It seems like you are busy putting your fingers in your ears and saying “I can’t hear you.”
Did you comprehend what I said? I’m not sure.
[i] Comment deleted. Ad hominem. [/i]