So if Obama loses - its all because or racism....

[CaptainHaplo]

The excuses are already starting - and if Obama loses, its all because of race.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/comes-politics-more-racist-think-185600847.html

Of course - if racism was so rampant - he wouldn't have been elected in the first place, but that little fact escapes mention. No - if he loses it couldn't possibly be because of his record on the economy, or all the broken promises, or massive debt increases, or health care mandates, etc.

[Tribesman]

Of course - if racism was so rampant - he wouldn't have been elected in the first place, but that little fact escapes mention.
:roll:
Someone didn't read it:rotfl2:

[Catfish]

By the interest and knowledge the common voter shows, do you really think most people even know Obama is black ? :O:

[Skybird]

They are now considering a law ruling a compensation of 5% of the total electorate poolsize for all non-White political candidates, due to the politically incorrect problem of population-wide thought crimes. :yeah:They also plan an amendement saying that the right to vote becomes void if the right is abused for voting the wrong guy.

I already see the headline in the LA Times in 2022: "New POTUS Amada Mombeki elected with 105% of all votes!" :D

9 weeks ago - and today:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6915/2ca7pf6my.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/443/2ca7pf6my.jpg/)
from: "Der Tagesspiegel"

[Catfish]

^ A 'constitutional republic', with dwindling rights for democratic vote ;)

What is true is that Romney has now gathered more money from his supporters, than Obama ever wasted for his campaign.

Anyway the president of the United States cannot be elected directly, by the people, but only by electors - just as we had it in Germany a long time ago, with the 'Kurfuersten' who elected the king or Kaiser of the country.
:03:

[Ducimus]

If Obama loses, it won't all be because of race, but i think race is a large part of it. With all the bullcrap that has surrounded Obama's presidency like "Birthers" and a congressman yelling out to the President during an address, "You lie!" and all the other myriad things that are unique to Obama's term, i fail to see how race is NOT an issue. These negative things are all unique to Obama's term, and the only thing unique about obama is the color of his skin.

However I also think Race is also a part of why he got elected to begin with. Of course to prove or disprove that, all you need to do is look up percentage of white vs non white voter turn out during that election year. I'm pretty sure alot of blacks (if not most blacks?) voted for Obama because he was black and for no other reason.

Since this topic is not that important to me, ill let someone else do that research if its such a burning issue. Personally im convinced race is part of the issue. Racism exists, no matter how hard people try and pretend it doesn't.

EDIT:
It's also worth mentioning that the voter demographic is changing (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/politics/gop-census-latino/index.html). Insert my standard rant about illegal immigration here.

[JU_88]

It's irrelevant isn't it? Off course some will make judgments on superficial bs, it doesn't have to be about race either, i remember seeing some retarded NewYorker telling an RT reporter she wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he looks too old and weak.
Thats the same thing isn't it? Democracy means that even morons get to vote, so weather a presidential canditate is black, white, young old etc, some people will obviously vote based on some silly crap, rather than the actual policies. Such is life.
Pretty pointless artical IMO.

[Ducimus]

In the end, its mostly irrelevant who's president to begin with. The end result is the same. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZSCi2MSc4) The only thing we can do, is keep the most stupendously ignorant of us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFPiP1Nv8c) out of the white house.

[JU_88]

In the end, its mostly irrelevant who's president to begin with. The end result is the same. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZSCi2MSc4) The only thing we can do, is keep the most stupendously ignorant of us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFPiP1Nv8c) out of the white house.

Oh sure, I think eveyone knows that the likes of Goldman Sachs, Haliburton, the M.I.C and all the rest - get to pull plenty of strings, when it comes to the important stuff. Quite a number of congressmen are former employees of these guys anyway (surprise, surprise)
You are correct in that they cannot be ousted via the current democratic process, it would probably take an armed revolution to kick them out of office. :(
A military Coup is much better way to have a revolution, if a people can get the military on their side, governments are suddenly quite willing to hand over the keys, so to speak. :D
Not sure what will happen here in the UK, we in the process of systematically sacking our entire military, probably so we can save a few quid for the next round of bailouts :(
Maybe Dave will scare off any foreign threats with his pinched 'bacon like' complexion.

[Ducimus]

Oh sure, I think eveyone knows that the likes of Goldman Sachs, Haliburton, the M.I.C and all the rest - get to pull plenty of strings, when it comes to the important stuff. Quite a number of congressmen are former employees of these guys anyway (surprise, surprise)
You are correct in that they cannot be ousted via the current democratic process, it would probably take an armed revolution to kick them out of office. :(
A military Coup is much better way to have a revolution, if a people can get the military on their side, governments are suddenly quite willing to hand over the keys, so to speak.
.

You know that is one of the arguments for our 2nd amendment pro NRA supporters like to use. To enpower the people to be able to take back or overthrow the government should the need ever arise. It probably was the ultimate intention behind the 2nd amendment when you consider how our country became its own sovereign nation to begin with. (1776 and all that) However, in this day and age which is a far cry from musketry, i suspect any such armed revolt would be crushed quickly by the military. So your right, getting the miltary on your side is a much better way. Actually, it would be the only way.

But in case some government agent somewhere is monitoring this, this is all just hypothetical and academic. I'm much too worried about paying my bills, then lofty ideological and political stuff. In fact i am so uninvolved politically, that I also don't vote. I don't think there is much point in it anymore, no matter who's in office, it always ends up the same way anyway.

[AVGWarhawk]

Win or lose, the country will still be in a rut.

[CaptainMattJ.]

i wanted, 100%, for Hillary to win. Obama was, and still mostly is, a talker, and he cant get all that much done either. I think race was a factor in Obama's presidency. Hillary was the best candidate and then they took her out. I only voted for Obama so that Mccain didnt get in. Unfortunately i will still be voting for Obama this time too. he hasnt been a bad president, no. hes shown us some growth and progress. But he isnt someone id vote for given any other solid options.

So im left with choosing romney or Obama, and ill stick with Obama.

[AVGWarhawk]

i wanted, 100%, for Hillary to win. Obama was, and still mostly is, a talker, and he cant get all that much done either. I think race was a factor in Obama's presidency. Hillary was the best candidate and then they took her out. I only voted for Obama so that Mccain didnt get in. Unfortunately i will still be voting for Obama this time too. he hasnt been a bad president, no. hes shown us some growth and progress. But he isnt someone id vote for given any other solid options.

So im left with choosing romney or Obama, and ill stick with Obama.

What is wrong with Romney that leaves you the only alternative, Obama? Use a write in vote and vote for Bugs Bunny if both do not fit the bill.

[Ducimus]

i wanted, 100%, for Hillary to win. Obama was, and still mostly is, a talker, and he cant get all that much done either. I think race was a factor in Obama's presidency. Hillary was the best candidate and then they took her out.

The problem with Hillary, is i think a lot of people remember her when she was the first lady, and were left a distinct impression that she was power hungry.
Remember those bumper stickers that said, "Fire the President and her husband too!"?

[Catfish]

But in case some government agent somewhere is monitoring this, this is all just hypothetical and academic.
I'm much too worried about paying my bills, then lofty ideological and political stuff. In fact i am so uninvolved politically, that I also don't vote. I don't think there is much point in it anymore, no matter who's in office, it always ends up the same way anyway.

Yes, but it is the social contract that has been broken, and it has been broken numerous times in history. Debts are intended to rise in a way you will not be able to pay them - indeed no one can, not even banks or nations.
Normally the banks would have broken down, but by some divine inspiration our glorious governments decided to bail them all out - because otherwise it would have meant the end of the political class as well.

Short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy_NNxJ0Wec

Long:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEPfiaeRA0
debts: ~ from 0:38 minutes

You are right, as long as the government does not really change, the common man will get less and less influence, being held in an artificial state of slavery money-wise, trying to pay his bills and having no time to think about anything else.
Also if nothing changes, society will go down like all those isolated empires did - only that nowadays it is no isolated nation breaking apart, but the whole world uses this system, and is interconnected.

One of the problems is that politicians are not too bright mostly (indeed some (!) have been and are politicians, because they have been proven useless anywhere else), and while they are intelligent enough to keep themselves at power and keep up their network, they are lacking in having a greater view, and reall thinking ahead without party blinders.

[AVGWarhawk]

The problem with Hillary, is i think a lot of people remember her when she was the first lady, and were left a distinct impression that she was power hungry.
Remember those bumper stickers that said, "Fire the President and her husband too!"?


Hillary was squashed by her own party. She was thrown a bone with the appointment of Sec of State. Obama was being groomed for the Presidency.

[Takeda Shingen]

I fail to see how this is an 'excuse'. Stephens-Davidowitz wrote this as a thesis and does not indicate that he is in any political camp. Frankly, his methodology is excellent. He'd get my approval.

[Bubblehead1980]

Things would have been just as bad under Hillary, she is a far left radical herself.People hang out to her hoping she would emulate Bill, who is a guilty white man, bleeding heart liberal type BUT he was not so rigid he could appear to move to the center(appear to) enough to avoid being labeled a fellow traveler, ie he is more intelligent than his wife or certainly Barry.Clinton was an okay President, he definitely lucked out as the economy began to recover in the period between election 92 and his inauguration in 1993, this gave him a boost, after trying to run wild with his liberal crap, he took the message from the people and quit for the most part when they lost so big in the 94 mid terms.Hillary would not have and Barry certainly did not and things just keep getting worse.

There will always be racist people, from all cultures, black, white etc. Racism is not the wide spread problem people try to make it out to be now days, sorry it just is not.Obama loses this election, it will be because he has shown he is real piece of garbage and not what a lot of people fell for four years ago.The refusal to change course, the constant mismanagement of things etc.

Ducimus, obama's presidency is different not because of race but because of the man himself, his shady background, his shady associates, his constant lying and hyprocrisy.Now, have we had shady characters elected before? Sure, you have to have a shady to side to be in politics really.However, as shady as Richard Nixon was, his background was never even really questionable as far as his citizenship etc.I used to think the birthers were total morons and many are, but some interesting things are out there that show a real investigation needs to be conducted.

Off the top of my head, things such as his refusal to show his birth certitificate for a long time, then suddenly, a questionable copy is released.The whole debacle with his social security number, the money he has spent to keep certain records sealed etc Usually where there is smoke, there is fire, there is fire here. Add in his shady associations which show he subscribes to a very non American type of political belief systems, all just starts to add up.I believe eventually, the truth will come out, perhaps after he is out of office. I have said it a million times, if everyone would have read his book, he would never been elected.I was open to him until I read his book and if he showed things had changed for him, I would accept it as such, but he has behaved on numerous occasions to just the impression I got from his book.Really, if there is any major racist component in this election, it is Obama, he has admitted to some pretty racist thoughts and his behavior has shown nothing has changed.The cop incident ring a bell? New Black Panthers? Admitting they don't care if they get the white vote or not.Yep, real racism from the POTUS.Ah, November just can not come fast enough.

[mookiemookie]

I fail to see how this is an 'excuse'. Stephens-Davidowitz wrote this as a thesis and does not indicate that he is in any political camp. Frankly, his methodology is excellent. He'd get my approval.

Confirmation bias at work. People see what they want or expect to see.

[CaptainHaplo]

I fail to see how this is an 'excuse'. Stephens-Davidowitz wrote this as a thesis and does not indicate that he is in any political camp. Frankly, his methodology is excellent. He'd get my approval.

Two issues here Takeda.

First - the "his methodology is excellent" comment. C'mon now - your smarter than this!

1) He chooses as his search criteria the "N" word - which is "racially charged" and derogatory.

2) He then disregards the leading source of the word - rap lyrics. This alone should toss the study - because if the word is derogatory - who seems to be using it the most? He has to take it out - or else his "study" would show that the most racially biased group against African Americans is - African Americans! :doh: Since that can't be right, he just ignores it.
3) Next he takes the modified, aggregate data and determines that the rest of the searches lead to primarly derogatory material about African Americans.

4) He then proceeds to 2008 - and finds "Obama" was "one of" the most searched items that were "racially tinged". Notice the difference in wording here - racially charged is a negative - racially tinged is not necessarily the case. A person searching "Obama Indian" would have created a "racially tinged" search. Yet there is nothing inherently racially baised in such a search. It would be the same as searching "Obama Hawiian". His choice to make anything speaking to race equate to a form of racism is a severe technical flaw.

5)At no time does he have data demonstrating the race of the searcher. His conclusion of racism based purely upon the search term makes a clear assumption regarding the race of the searcher. For such racism to be inferred, he must also assume that the searchers are all non-african in descent.

To come to the conclusion that he did - the study implied that racism cost Obama 3.1 to 5.0 percentage points in the last election - is absolutely without basis. Why is issue 2.

1) There is no correlating data that demonstrates how many "racist" searchers cast a vote.

2) There is no supporting data that shows who such "racist" searchers voted for.

As he states - the mere "racially tinged" search "implies" racial hostility - a flawed implication to start. He then takes that and concludes that such racial hostility "implies" a significant cost to Obama in the previous general election.

A conclusion build on an implication of an implication that ignores some data and assumes other data not available - with "standards" like that, why isn't this guy researching global warming???? He could be getting major government grants with practices like that!

[Takeda Shingen]

Two issues here Takeda.

First - the "his methodology is excellent" comment. C'mon now - your smarter than this!

1) He chooses as his search criteria the "N" word - which is "racially charged" and derogatory.

2) He then disregards the leading source of the word - rap lyrics. This alone should toss the study - because if the word is derogatory - who seems to be using it the most? He has to take it out - or else his "study" would show that the most racially biased group against African Americans is - African Americans! :doh: Since that can't be right, he just ignores it.
3) Next he takes the modified, aggregate data and determines that the rest of the searches lead to primarly derogatory material about African Americans.

4) He then proceeds to 2008 - and finds "Obama" was "one of" the most searched items that were "racially tinged". Notice the difference in wording here - racially charged is a negative - racially tinged is not necessarily the case. A person searching "Obama Indian" would have created a "racially tinged" search. Yet there is nothing inherently racially baised in such a search. It would be the same as searching "Obama Hawiian". His choice to make anything speaking to race equate to a form of racism is a severe technical flaw.

5)At no time does he have data demonstrating the race of the searcher. His conclusion of racism based purely upon the search term makes a clear assumption regarding the race of the searcher. For such racism to be inferred, he must also assume that the searchers are all non-african in descent.

To come to the conclusion that he did - the study implied that racism cost Obama 3.1 to 5.0 percentage points in the last election - is absolutely without basis. Why is issue 2.

1) There is no correlating data that demonstrates how many "racist" searchers cast a vote.

2) There is no supporting data that shows who such "racist" searchers voted for.

As he states - the mere "racially tinged" search "implies" racial hostility - a flawed implication to start. He then takes that and concludes that such racial hostility "implies" a significant cost to Obama in the previous general election.

A conclusion build on an implication of an implication that ignores some data and assumes other data not available - with "standards" like that, why isn't this guy researching global warming???? He could be getting major government grants with practices like that!

A conclusion built on an implication of an implication is something that statisticians do every day when doing things like, oh say, creating the polls that you and others like to cite. I would reitterate that his methodology is quite good, especially in the light that this may be what he wants to do with his life. He isolated the data which would skew results and created clearer picture of the way things stand. It is good work.

Sometimes you just have to take the political hat off.

[Sailor Steve]

C'mon now - your smarter than this!
Insulting your opponent's intellect is not usually considered an honest debate tactic.

[Skybird]

Meanwhile a German survey shows that the love of Germans for Obama has cooled down tremendously. What I am surporised by is that there has been a trend chnage in the relation between age and sympathy/antipathy for America. In the past it were the elder who tend to be more poro US,m and the younger being contra. This has hcnaged by now. Today more elder are against America than younger Germans.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pew-survey-shows-germans-disillusioned-by-the-us-and-president-obama-a-838537.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pew-survey-shows-germans-disillusioned-by-the-us-and-president-obama-a-838537.html)


(...)
Obama's personal popularity has always exceeded German support for America. And today only half the Germans (52 percent) have a favorable view of the United States, down 10 percentage points since just last year and 12 points since Obama was elected. Among the eight European nations surveyed, only in Greece (35 percent) is pro-American sentiment weaker. And German views of the United States divide along generational lines. Germans 50 years of age and older are now far less pro-American (49 percent) than Germans ages 18 to 29 (61 percent). But overall German support for the United States is still far greater than in 2007, when only 30 percent of Germans had a positive view of the US.
(...)

[Sailor Steve]

I've never agreed with Obama or even liked him much. But then I never liked any of his predecessors very much either. That said, I see a big difference between disliking someone and actively hating him. I thought Bush taking us into Iraq was a mistake, but I never hated him for it. The ones who hated him did so before he was elected, and were looking for an excuse to legitimize their hate.

It's the same here. The people who hated Obama from the start were also looking for some reason that would justify their hate. It's not the fact that they question his birth; it's the vehemence with which they go about it, and every other move he's made. You can tell by the way they jump on every single mistake or decision. That's not legitimate questioning. That's hate.

[Tribesman]

Insulting your opponent's intellect is not usually considered an honest debate tactic.
Given that he was unable to counter the arguement and considering that with that part of the arguement and the implications from the original post in relation to the substance of the study(as in not even looking or thinking) is there any real scope for honest debate from that quarter?

Half black. Don't forget he is just as white as he is black, 50%.:O:
Only if you agree with the abandonment for example of old traditional marraige laws in certain quarters which specified which percentage of "black" blood made a white person definately black and not at all white:03:

I've never agreed with Obama or even liked him much.
Come on Steve even the biggest dickhead of a politician(apart from the far fringes) must come up with one policy you can agree with, Obama is no different in that respect is he.

[JU_88]

I've never agreed with Obama or even liked him much. But then I never liked any of his predecessors very much either. That said, I see a big difference between disliking someone and actively hating him. I thought Bush taking us into Iraq was a mistake, but I never hated him for it. The ones who hated him did so before he was elected, and were looking for an excuse to legitimize their hate.

It's the same here. The people who hated Obama from the start were also looking for some reason that would justify their hate. It's not the fact that they question his birth; it's the vehemence with which they go about it, and every other move he's made. You can tell by the way they jump on every single mistake or decision. That's not legitimate questioning. That's hate.

Yep good summary, I suppose love and hate is pretty much the name of the game when it comes to being partisan.
Nothing really changes from one administration to the next, only thing I dont understand why more people arent exasperated with the whole thing, its clearly not working out very well, no matter which side of the fence you are on. It seems that real change can only be delivered by force. Like the global economy for example, we will patching it up until we run out of glue.

[mookiemookie]

t's the same here. The people who hated Obama from the start were also looking for some reason that would justify their hate. It's not the fact that they question his birth; it's the vehemence with which they go about it, and every other move he's made. You can tell by the way they jump on every single mistake or decision. That's not legitimate questioning. That's hate.

It's a reflection of that primal tribal spirit...people naturally gravitate towards a tribe since that gives you the best chance to survive. When our tribe does well, our chances to survive go up. Belittling and fighting the other tribe is the surest way to ensure your survival. That's all modern day politics is - a pissing match between two tribes of cavemen. It's not based on reason and pragmatic rational thought. It's hitting the other guy with sticks and rocks because he's trying to take your tribe's food.

There's your amateur psychology moment for the day. :O:

[Rockin Robbins]

Racism, like "the game was rigged anyway" is too often a convenient excuse for failure. It is only normal that given the euphoria on his election of people projecting their dreams of an uberman combining the characteristics of John F Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Mahatma Ghandi, disappointment was bound to follow, even if he had some successes.

Unfortunately, he has had conspicuous failures and now his initial detractors see blood in the water while his supporters feel let down. Maybe that is for the best. His qualifications were not what got him elected. He was elected because he was an unusually articulate man who happened to be black in appearance but not sharing the urban black culture. Those are terrible reasons to elect a president and we are paying the piper for that choice. Unjustified uphoria and wishful thinking are precursors of terrible disappointment.

But the undeniable good he has done is that he has broken the ice as the first black president and has not been an unmitigated disaster. While we have learned that voting for him because he is black was wrong, we have also learned that we can vote with confidence for someone who does not look like we do.

In the end, I believe that history will treat Obama as a critically important president who didn't have the abilities to earn a second term. He ran for a job he wasn't ready for. Let's hope some ambitious but newbie legislators take the lesson seriously and don't similarly get themselves elected to positions where their lack of experience will bring them failure.

There are plenty of "stars" of all political persuasions who need to watch and learn.

[Hottentot]

There's your amateur psychology moment for the day. :O:

I like that, so I'm taking your moment and running with it...:D

No matter what I study, my major or one of the various minor subjects, sooner or later I always bump into some author saying (one way or another): "We define who we are by defining who we are not." This is funny seeing that no form of psychology is my minor, let alone major, but it always comes up in one form of another.

So I suppose the hate is not there to convince anyone: the "them" won't take it seriously and the "us" already share the opinion more or less strongly. It's more there to make someone a "me", which is also pretty fundamental part of the mankind.

[Bubblehead1980]

Racism, like "the game was rigged anyway" is too often a convenient excuse for failure. It is only normal that given the euphoria on his election of people projecting their dreams of an uberman combining the characteristics of John F Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Mahatma Ghandi, disappointment was bound to follow, even if he had some successes.

Unfortunately, he has had conspicuous failures and now his initial detractors see blood in the water while his supporters feel let down. Maybe that is for the best. His qualifications were not what got him elected. He was elected because he was an unusually articulate man who happened to be black in appearance but not sharing the urban black culture. Those are terrible reasons to elect a president and we are paying the piper for that choice. Unjustified uphoria and wishful thinking are precursors of terrible disappointment.

But the undeniable good he has done is that he has broken the ice as the first black president and has not been an unmitigated disaster. While we have learned that voting for him because he is black was wrong, we have also learned that we can vote with confidence for someone who does not look like we do.

In the end, I believe that history will treat Obama as a critically important president who didn't have the abilities to earn a second term. He ran for a job he wasn't ready for. Let's hope some ambitious but newbie legislators take the lesson seriously and don't similarly get themselves elected to positions where their lack of experience will bring them failure.

There are plenty of "stars" of all political persuasions who need to watch and learn.


Another lesson to be learned is a great opportunity was wasted on this guy.The first black president should have been someone with who was capable and had the right background.The Dems wanted to win though so they overlooked his obvious flaws and pushed him in.I will be honest, I enjoy ridiculing friends of mine who were all for him back in 08, because I told them he would be a disaster and he just was not a good person.All it took was to read his book and he lost my support before he was elected, then he has just proven he subscribes to the same failed and flawed he always has.America has learned, just a travesty that the first black Presidency was wasted on Barry.

[mookiemookie]

Unfortunately, he has had conspicuous failures and now his initial detractors see blood in the water while his supporters feel let down. Maybe that is for the best. His qualifications were not what got him elected. He was elected because he was an unusually articulate man who happened to be black in appearance but not sharing the urban black culture. Those are terrible reasons to elect a president and we are paying the piper for that choice. Unjustified uphoria and wishful thinking are precursors of terrible disappointment.


I love it when people trot out this horsecrap. The only reason Obama was elected because he was black. It had nothing to do with people thinking he'd do a better job than McCain. Nope. Pure white guilt. Purely for the novelty of having a black president. :roll:

[Skybird]

I think the dominat motive to vote for him was to vote for something/somebody that was as much different from Bush as possible in the field of candidates. People wanted the biggest possible contrast to Bush - and not just in skin colour.

I wonder if Obama would have gotten elected if the Republican candidate would have been for example Bill Clinton.

[CaptainHaplo]

Insulting your opponent's intellect is not usually considered an honest debate tactic.

It was not meant as an insult. I have great respect for the "smarts" TS has shown the times I have had discussions with him. If it came across wrong, then I regret it.

A conclusion built on an implication of an implication is something that statisticians do every day when doing things like, oh say, creating the polls that you and others like to cite. I would reitterate that his methodology is quite good, especially in the light that this may be what he wants to do with his life. He isolated the data which would skew results and created clearer picture of the way things stand. It is good work.

Sometimes you just have to take the political hat off.

I do not see the "methodology" as good. Removing data that would "skew" his results is one thing - and I don't think its entirely unreasonable (though it discount white rappers - wouldn't they be racist?). However, drawing a conclusion of racism - when the researcher does not have any data on the ethinicity of those searching - and considers any mention of race as a show of racism - sorry that doesn't fly.

Now - had the research been based on the number of searches relevant to the number of CLICKS for such racist websites - the case for an inferred racism in a portion of those searching would be significantly stronger. But to base it on the search itself - without context of the searcher or the intent or the resultant action - fails to pass even common sense review.

In polls - there is a significantly closer relationship with the results as compared to the questions answered. The two can be tied together much stronger. While such polls do take a sample and extrapolate it out to the general populace, they are much more direct in the questions asked regarding the results.

For example:
"Do you approve of the job the current president is doing?"
Usually you get 5 options - strongly approve, somewhat approve, a neutral answer, somewhat disapprove and strongly disapprove.
Those then correlate directly to how many approve and disapprove as a percentage of the population.

Big difference between that and "anyone who searches Obama and anything regarding race is a racist and must have voted against him just because he isn't white, so based on the number of searches compared to the number of people in an area - he should have won by 3.1 -to 5.0% more." That is an indefensible conclusion necause the assumptions are simply huge reaches - especially when using aggregated search data.

The question isn't whether the study itself is an excuse. I don't think it is - in and of itself. However - the last 3 line MAKE it into an excuse.
"Losing even two percentage points lowers the probability of a candidate's winning the popular vote by a third," Stephens-Davidowitz explains. "Prejudice could cost Mr. Obama crucial states like Ohio, Florida and even Pennsylvania."

If it were not for that - I would see it as merely a flawed study. However, the fact that a large internet media outlet ran this on their "front page" speaks volumes. It is published for the pure reason to raise the "red flag" of WHY he could lose - if he does.

[Onkel Neal]

That said, I see a big difference between disliking someone and actively hating him. I thought Bush taking us into Iraq was a mistake, but I never hated him for it. The ones who hated him did so before he was elected, and were looking for an excuse to legitimize their hate.

It's the same here. The people who hated Obama from the start were also looking for some reason that would justify their hate. It's not the fact that they question his birth; it's the vehemence with which they go about it, and every other move he's made. You can tell by the way they jump on every single mistake or decision. That's not legitimate questioning. That's hate.


Well said, I agree 100% Too many people are so polarized they cannot find anything to agree with on the other side. It's just as bad with the Obama-hating right wingers as the Bush-hating left wingers. Both are pretty sad people.

I give Obama full kudos for getting Osama ( being the leader who made the call, you know what I mean). I also applaud him for not shutting down the war in Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely like he campaigned and pledged he would (where are all the anti-war lefties now? I never see them protesting against their Messiah!). For those two reasons, I will consider him in the election. For crippling NASA, it's still not a certainty he gets my vote.


Only if you agree with the abandonment for example of old traditional marraige laws in certain quarters which specified which percentage of "black" blood made a white person definately black and not at all white:03:



I certainly do agree with the abandonment of that way of categorizing people. It's very racist, deciding that if someone has a portion of black in in their make-up, then they are black. The reason that concept existed was because white people rejected anyone who was not 100% white--whoo, hard to believe so many still cling to that concept, even black and mostly black people :03:

[Tribesman]

hard to believe so many still cling to that concept, even black and mostly black people :03:
Neal, don't forget the hispanics, even the white ones. :03:
Like you say, its hard to believe people still cling to those concepts, but they do.
Though I only went off on the intermarriage and breeding angle due to a measure which comes up in the study in question.


Now - had the research been based on the number of searches relevant to the number of CLICKS for such racist websites - the case for an inferred racism in a portion of those searching would be significantly stronger. But to base it on the search itself - without context of the searcher or the intent or the resultant action - fails to pass even common sense review.
So you still havn't read it:doh:
You should, I think you would be amused by the God bit, when he casts away the top result from his figures:yeah:

However - the last 3 line MAKE it into an excuse.

CAPS LOCK strikes.
They do no such thing.
Get over it, nothing from the opening post or topic title stands up.
You appear to have gone off on one without reading and without thinking....again

[Sailor Steve]

(where are all the anti-war lefties now? I never see them protesting against their Messiah!)
A not-so-shining example of that is the Clinton impeachment. On the one hand you have the right, who were so hot to "get" Clinton that they had to squirm and wriggle their way through some thoroughly silly charges (not much different than the left's earlier attemt to "get" Reagan). On the other there was the left, most notably the feminists, who absolutely hated cheating lying men, except when he's on their side of the political bandwagon.

Like they say, "Haters gonna hate". Or "politics as usual".

[Tchocky]

Another thing to remember is that Obama never said he wanted to end the war in Afghanistan. In fact he was in favour of reinforcing the US presence there. This is something that a lot of disappointed Obama voters forget. Neal's right: he was a stark contrast to Bush, so much so that many people projected their own disappointments from 2000-2008 onto a young and fairly unknown candidate. THere's a lot of false disappointment out there. Plenty valid, too.

Iraq is of course another story.

[Skybird]

I also applaud him for not shutting down the war in Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely like he campaigned and pledged he would (where are all the anti-war lefties now? I never see them protesting against their Messiah!).
Thinking about that from a different angle: it means you applaud a politician here who does different than he says.

I would say that is part of the reason why politicians mean so much trouble for mankind. ;)

If you say "it'S just campaigning, you must make big pormises to get elcted even when you know you cannot or will not keep them", I again would say that is a fundamental design flaw in how things work, and it costs us dearly.

It is this discrepance that today is one of the major reasons why I am not longer in principal support of democracy. I have no realistic idea of how to manage entities the size of nations today or even international organisations any better. But still, the thing we have today is leading us into our dawnfall and has given birth to oligarchies that behave and argue like aristocracies of eras long forgotten.

[AVGWarhawk]

Thinking about that from a different angle: it means you applaud a politician here who does different than he says.

I would say that is part of the reason why politicians mean so much trouble for mankind. ;)

If you say "it'S just campaigning, you must make big pormises to get elcted even when you know you cannot or will not keep them", I again would say that is a fundamental design flaw in how things work, and it costs us dearly.

It is this discrepance that today is one of the major reasons why I am not longer in principal support of democracy. I have no realistic idea of how to manage entities the size of nations today or even international organisations any better. But still, the thing we have today is leading us into our dawnfall and has given birth to oligarchies that behave and argue like aristocracies of eras long forgotten.


Good post Skybird. It is a taunting task to "run" a country and I do not believe (at this stage in my life) it can be done efficiently from a one body entity. Democratically or otherwise. In this case Washington DC. I do not know what the answer is but I'm inclined to believe that each state in the union should have more control of said state. Less dependence imposed, accepted or rejected from the Federal government. The relationship between the two has become a game of cash flow for support and legalized extortion. I guess the old mantra of "No big government" would apply.

[Sailor Steve]

I do not know what the answer is but I'm inclined to believe that each state in the union should have more control of said state. Less dependence imposed, accepted or rejected from the Federal government.
I completely agree. The original concept behind a central government in the first place was threefold: First to arbitrate when states could not agree, Second to handle projects that spanned multiple states, such as canal and later highway development, and Third to represent a united front to foreign powers, since having each individual state deal with foreign trade separately was impossible, mainly because the foreign powers refused that option.

[geetrue]

IfHowever I also think Race is also a part of why he got elected to begin with. Of course to prove or disprove that, all you need to do is look up percentage of white vs non white voter turn out during that election year. I'm pretty sure alot of blacks (if not most blacks?) voted for Obama because he was black and for no other reason.

Since this topic is not that important to me, ill let someone else do that research if its such a burning issue. EDIT:
It's also worth mentioning that the voter demographic is changing (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/politics/gop-census-latino/index.html). Insert my standard rant about illegal immigration here.

After the election it was announced that three million whites voted for President Obama in the general election and that the total tally for winning was three million votes also, a bit odd not to mention how they came to that conclusion.

My emails come from a varied sorces of military to seniors to the working class and most have been negative Obama comments and jokes with one or two for Romney.

As for the illegal people crossing our borders ... it ain't going to stop and you can't send them all back only leaves an option for wise men in charge.

as one poor Mexican on the show Border Patrol said, "Hey man were humans just iike you" trying to get a break for the border patrol.

I had to agree they're humans too and need a wise man to decide this border conflict ...

[CaptainHaplo]

And for those wondering if this had any political bent to it....

The "researcher" - who is supposed to be an economics PH. D. candidate - took the time to write this non-economic "study" for what reason? Curiosity? Then submitting it for publishing?

It couldn't be due to him having worked at the Brookings Institute (described as left leaning by the LA Times) as a research assistant for the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (the ever quoted, "non partisan" one that has had to "correct" its cost figures for Obamacare how many times?) - Peter Orszag - an Obama appointee - now could it?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

So yes - there can't be any political intent or skew - now can there? No way that Team Obama puts out the word they want a researcher - old friend Pete recommends his former research assistant back in the days of liberal think tanking - and ole Seth the researcher gets a call to produce this racism study. No matter that its outside his field. No matter that as a PH.D. candidate - he likely has a lot more things to be doing. That just couldn't happen. Not with squeaky clean, former "New Party" member - "I'm going to unify this nation and not play partisan politics" Barack! Say it ain't so!

Now - wait till the money aspect drops........ Cuz you know ole Seth the researcher didn't do this for free.....

[Sailor Steve]

That's the left shoe. And the right shoe? You wrote this because you're an unbaised observer of the system with no opinion either way? I see no purpose in this if it's not to play politics.

[Rockin Robbins]

I would argue that the states lost any real power when Woodrow Wilson, not understanding that the appointed Senators were appointed by the state legislatures as representatives of their state government decided to play the democracy card and go for popular election of senators.

Simply not understanding or not caring about their true function, Woodrow Wilson's initiative became a constitutional amendment that rendered state government impotent. Can you imagine the crippling burden of unfunded mandates if the states had any power within the federal legislature. Wouldn't have happened! But now, since the senators have no connection with their state governments at all, and in fact feel superior in every way, they have no hesitation to passing a requirement to that state without funding it, leaving that state to carry somebody else's burden.

We are not and should not be a democracy. A democracy is two cats and a mouse voting over what's for dinner. Democracy is the mob rule and murder of the French Revolution. That is why our founding fathers hated democracy. They wanted the best qualified people among the populace to be elected to govern for a definite length of time between new elections. The way the people would participate in government is to select those who operate that government.

So we want to paint the Oval Office. Now we need a national referendum at the cost of billions of dollars so everyone can vote on it? Don't make me laugh. Democracy is a cheap joke, not worthy of anything but contempt. What we have and need to fight to preserve is representative government with representatives subject to the people, enforced by the power of the vote. We are not, have never been and better not ever be a democracy. If we do become one our life expectancy is about ten years before tyranny.

So, since the institution of popular election of Senators totally removed any voice of the states in the legislature, how does anyone propose we can turn the clock back and give any power at all back to the states? I think the door opened, the cow left and we can close the door but the cow's gone.

[Takeda Shingen]

And for those wondering if this had any political bent to it....

The "researcher" - who is supposed to be an economics PH. D. candidate - took the time to write this non-economic "study" for what reason? Curiosity? Then submitting it for publishing?

It couldn't be due to him having worked at the Brookings Institute (described as left leaning by the LA Times) as a research assistant for the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former director of the Congressional Budget Office (the ever quoted, "non partisan" one that has had to "correct" its cost figures for Obamacare how many times?) - Peter Orszag - an Obama appointee - now could it?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

So yes - there can't be any political intent or skew - now can there? No way that Team Obama puts out the word they want a researcher - old friend Pete recommends his former research assistant back in the days of liberal think tanking - and ole Seth the researcher gets a call to produce this racism study. No matter that its outside his field. No matter that as a PH.D. candidate - he likely has a lot more things to be doing. That just couldn't happen. Not with squeaky clean, former "New Party" member - "I'm going to unify this nation and not play partisan politics" Barack! Say it ain't so!

Now - wait till the money aspect drops........ Cuz you know ole Seth the researcher didn't do this for free.....

In short, that's not at all how these type of degree programs work. If you do not like the conclusions, then that is fine but it does not mean that there is a political slant. I would go as far to say that it is individuals such as yourself that put the political slant on things. Frankly, you are going through a lot of mental gymnastics in a number of posts here to do so.

[CaptainHaplo]

That's the left shoe. And the right shoe? You wrote this because you're an unbaised observer of the system with no opinion either way? I see no purpose in this if it's not to play politics.

I don't believe I ever claimed I was "unbiased" or an observer of the system. I could never claim to be an uninterested or objective observer - because I participate in the system as a voter. The mere act of casting a vote negates any objectivity, for it requires a choice of one over another.

My political views are well historied here - I am not a fan of Obama or his extremely (for US politics) left wing policies and agenda. I prefer less government intervention and more personal responsibility. Call that what you will.

If I - or anyone else looks at government with a skeptical eye, that is a good thing. Given the history of this current administration and the constant attempts to demonize anyone who dares to differ with its policies or goals, such skepticism regarding a report on such a sensative and divisive issue as racism is hardly uncalled for.

So you look at the study, find its flawed on a number of levels - and the question becomes "Why is this even getting the front page attention it is?". Quoted by many left leaning pundits - one must wonder why now? The most apparent answer is the President crumbling poll numbers. Even so, that doesn't make the study itself political -unless you consider the flawed assumptions it makes. Why make such over-reaching generalizations when they are obviously problematic? Again, a very logical answer suddenly appears when the connection between the researcher and the administration appears.

To quote the "Professor" of C.S. Lewis - "Logic! I say, what do they teach in schools these days?"

If somehow following a logical, reasonable line of skepticism somehow makes me a "right shoe poltical hack" in your view, then ok. I can live with that.

[CaptainHaplo]

I would go as far to say that it is individuals such as yourself that put the political slant on things. Frankly, you are going through a lot of mental gymnastics in a number of posts here to do so.

Forgive me Takeda, but that is a bit of a double standard - don't you think?

You stated that a conclusion drawn from an inferrence drawn from another inferrence is somehow laudable - when the results state that "whites" - aka non-blacks - are racist.

Yet when I show a clear, logical line from the researcher to the administration and a proposed purpose behind the results presented - I somehow am doing " a lot of mental gymnastics"?

Fact: Obama's poll numbers are continuing to decline.
Fact: Many Democratic pundits are openly critical of his campaign and his chances of winning.
Fact: "Research" claiming that a significant portion of "white" America is racist is released by a left leaning researcher with a connection to Team Obama.
Fact: Such "research" is then publicly held up by multiple left leaning media outlets.

Conclusion????

Draw your own - I did and stand by mine. At the least, my conclusion is supported by a lot more fact and a lot less "mental gymnastics" than the conclusions presented in the research paper by Seth Stevens-Davidowitz.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't believe I ever claimed I was "unbiased" or an observer of the system...If somehow following a logical, reasonable line of skepticism somehow makes me a "right shoe poltical hack" in your view, then ok. I can live with that.
My main objection is that you, along with some others, seem ever to only take on one side of the spectrum. You may not think it's always the left's fault, but sometimes it seems that way.

Sometimes I'm afraid to even express an opinion on a subject, for fear that one side or the other will agree with me. It's not even the side, it's the individuals who blame everything on "them".

[0rpheus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy


Just to throw some... er... petrol on the fire! :har:

[Takeda Shingen]

Forgive me Takeda, but that is a bit of a double standard - don't you think?

You stated that a conclusion drawn from an inferrence drawn from another inferrence is somehow laudable - when the results state that "whites" - aka non-blacks - are racist.

Yet when I show a clear, logical line from the researcher to the administration and a proposed purpose behind the results presented - I somehow am doing " a lot of mental gymnastics"?

Fact: Obama's poll numbers are continuing to decline.
Fact: Many Democratic pundits are openly critical of his campaign and his chances of winning.
Fact: "Research" claiming that a significant portion of "white" America is racist is released by a left leaning researcher with a connection to Team Obama.
Fact: Such "research" is then publicly held up by multiple left leaning media outlets.

Conclusion????

Draw your own - I did and stand by mine. At the least, my conclusion is supported by a lot more fact and a lot less "mental gymnastics" than the conclusions presented in the research paper by Seth Stevens-Davidowitz.

It is not a double standard. You response is a typical one that polemics hold toward academics. Your line is only clear because you wish it to be. This student posted findings that you do not like. You, therefore, take it upon yourself to credit or discredit the argument as you see fit. Academics take this a par for the course. It is, to be honest, a typical anti-intellectual response that has become a mainstay of right-wing politics over the past 20 years or so. I like you, and I think you are a good guy, so I will beg your pardon if I do not take it seriously.

[Tribesman]

You stated that a conclusion drawn from an inferrence drawn from another inferrence is somehow laudable - when the results state that "whites" - aka non-blacks - are racist.

Yet it doesn't state that at all:doh:
Is there anything Haplo can come up with on this that will stand at all?

Oh - and as for the "methods" being very good - even the writer admits one of my points:
"Throughout this paper I refer to non-blacks, including Hispanics and Asians, rather imprecisely, as whites. *A footnote attached to the paper.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Precisely define whites
More importantly define it in a way that excludes both hispanics and asians.
Even better, define it in a way that also excludes africans.

Why does the objectation over a problem of identification seemingly by pigmentation make an unsavoury implication about the people making the issue?
Perhaps the next study could add those sort of people to the ones which object to "inter-racial marriage" to give a better regional breakdown for comparing the figures.

Fact: "Research" claiming that a significant portion of "white" America is racist is released by a left leaning researcher with a connection to Team Obama.

Good point, it wouldn't take "research" or even much research. It is an undeniable fact that a significant proportion of people are racists

[CaptainHaplo]

It is a double standard. You response is a typical one that academics hold toward polemics. Your line is only clear because you wish it to be. This student posted findings that you do like. You, therefore, take it upon yourself to credit or discredit the argument as you see fit. Regular folks take this a par for the course. It is, to be honest, a typical "intellectual, nuanced" response that has become a mainstay of left-wing politics over the past 20 years or so. I like you, and I think you are a good guy, so I will beg your pardon if I do not take it seriously. *Quote edited to prove a point*

Takeda - we could go back and forth on this all day playing the "well this side always sees the other side like X" game. It won't get us closer to agreement.

The thing is - I don't think its unreasonable to say that 3% of the population is racist enough to consider that as one reason not to vote for Obama. My issue is the basis for the claim is based of incomplete information and makes a number of generalizations that are totally unsupported by the data. To say that race could be a factor for 3-5% is fine - to say that it is THE factor IF Obama losses - by a 3-5% margin is totally off the wall, political and divisive. Given the link between the researcher and the established power on the left, is skepticism and critical thinking somehow uncalled for?

My point was the study appears - to the naked eye - highly political in its intent and usage. We can agree to disagree on it. I am fine with that. But its hardly consistent to call my point of view mental gymnastics when compared to this study.

[Sailor Steve]

It is an undeniable fact that a significant proportion of people are racists
I know I am. That's why I fight so hard against it.

[Rockin Robbins]

I'm VERY racist. I completely believe that the human race is superior to any other on the planet.

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda - we could go back and forth on this all day playing the "well this side always sees the other side like X" game. It won't get us closer to agreement.

The thing is - I don't think its unreasonable to say that 3% of the population is racist enough to consider that as one reason not to vote for Obama. My issue is the basis for the claim is based of incomplete information and makes a number of generalizations that are totally unsupported by the data. To say that race could be a factor for 3-5% is fine - to say that it is THE factor IF Obama losses - by a 3-5% margin is totally off the wall, political and divisive. Given the link between the researcher and the established power on the left, is skepticism and critical thinking somehow uncalled for?

My point was the study appears - to the naked eye - highly political in its intent and usage. We can agree to disagree on it. I am fine with that. But its hardly consistent to call my point of view mental gymnastics when compared to this study.

Then the established power of the left (a Limbaugh-esqe term if I have ever heard one) had begun this work two years ago when he forumulated this thesis and began his program of original research. Much of what you posted demonstrates a lack of understanding about how these sort of papers are written, as well as the time frame for such an undertaking.

It, again, really comes down to the Right's hatred for academia and intellectuals. This is usually because they are telling them things that conflict with their world view. It is one of the few traits that they do not seem to share with the Left, as the Left does seem to be less dogmatic in their world views; ie willing to accept the concept that America is imperfect, racism is a problem and that our efforts do not always work out for the better.

[Rockin Robbins]

Looks to me like any possible objection to Obama is then crammed into that triangular mold called racism. Fine. Call me racist, now that the term has been rendered without meaning by redefinition.

You know, the argument goes:
Obama is black (not true at all. He is half white and shares none of the "black urban culture.")
Most whites are racist. (define everyone not black as white. Make an unsupportable assumption and grin heartily)
Therefore all opinion not endorsing Obama is racist. (Since both premises are faulty the conclusion is rotten to the core)

Racist people elected Obama. They are free to elect somebody else. So racism cancels out of the equation anyway. Or is racism a new phenomenon of the past four years? If the statement is true that Obama can't win because of racism, how did he get elected four years ago?

You know, dumping leaders after important victories is a fine, established tradition of Western constitutional governments. It was good for Winston Churchill, tossed in the garbage after the complete victory of WWII. If it's good for Churchill, why should we be surprised at the same thing for Obama and why would we be willing to repudiate such a hard-won victory? Are we not willing to act in our own best interest? Is our hatred of ourselves sufficient to destroy our ability to accomplish anything good? Or are we going to recognize the racism argument as the garbage that it is.

He was elected because he represented a nebulous and earnestly wanted hope. It was a shapeless, undefined, shadowy, colorless, hope but that was enough for us, racist or not, we voted for him. Now there are shapes and definitions and the hope was not revealed as accplishment. Disappointment is inevitable and he will have a very tough time obtaining votes for the very reason that Jimmy Carter did. But there was no race card to play for Jimmy Carter. There is no real race card to play now. If this is the best that Democrats have, the election is over.

Obama said it best himself right after his election. Paraphrasing here, he said that now the work begins to fix the problems the country has, foreclosures, bankruptcies, joblessness, etc. He said that if he didn't have these problems solved in four years he'd be a one-term president and he was fine with that. His solutions would work. He didn't say that his plans would be thwarted by racists. He had just been elected in total triumph over the concept that the United States is a racist country. The fact of his election discredited that notion once and for all. Regardless of anything he could ever achieve in office, that is the crowning glory, the most important possible accomplishment for the presidency and for the American people. The door is open to the presidency regardless of your race. That is astoundingly triumphant and important to our nation.

However, now the strategy seems to be, if we are going to lose the election anyway, why not lose one of the greatest achievements in American history as well. We can bring racism back! What a great plan. It won't work. You cannot win an American election by telling the American people they are trash, by telling them their accomplishment was not real.

Do we have racists? Yes. Are they marginalized, defeated in a completely humiliating way and in full retreat, no longer a guiding force in our society? Absolutely, and that is as it should be. Let's complete the victory and dispose of this foolish demagoguery. People, regardless of race, have the right to be wrong. People, regardless of race can be disagreed with for reasons unrelated to race, and that is what is happening now. The right to disagree is part of what equality means. Deal with it or surrender our greatest achievement of the century.