Being in Colorado helped, but I attended at least two Obama rallies, one Biden rally, one McCain rally and one Palin rally.
Because it's the first black President? I dunno, usually the first is a big deal. Like your first blow job, first car, first STD, etc, etc.
Other than the Robert Taylor Homes--which was the worst housing project in America--we'll agree to disagree.
Try to keep up. It's two different concepts. One is how Obama himself rose to power. He was able to rise largely because of his color. If you've ever been to the South Side of Chicago, perhaps you'd understand. if you're white, you're nowhere politically. Would he have a keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Covention as an Illinois State Senator if he were white? Likely not. He garnered 92% of the black vote. He was able to label Bill Clinton--arguably the most pro-black president in our history--as "racist". He rose because of his color. On that we can agree. The other concept is why people feel that his color is important. One can acknowledge that he rose because of his color and yet wonder why his color matters to those that voted for him. Is he going to lead differently because he's black? Are his policies different because he's black? Are the lives of black people different today than they were yesterday because he was elected? Did white people take off the pillowcases with holes for the eyes and sheets we all reportedly wear? So, what makes his color important to people? I believe it's window-dressing and it doesn't matter a whit. Call me Bill O'Reilly all you wish. but it doesn't make it true. And I have still asked a question that has yet to be answered. In fact you haven't even tried.
Identity seems to matter to you. It doesn't matter a whit to me, and don't believe it should matter to anyone else.
Year - Democrat - Black support -- - Republican - Black support 1984 Walter Mondale - 90% ------ - Ronald Reagan --- 9% 1988 Michael Dukakis - 90% ------ - George H.W. Bush 10% 1992 Bill Clinton ------ 83% ------ - George H.W. Bush 10% 1996 Bill Clinton ------ 84% ------ - Bob Dole -------- 12% 2000 Al Gore --------- 90% ------ - George W. Bush - 9% http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-19-kerry-black-vote_x.htm
They voted AGAINST the Republican party, which they always have, because the Republican party is respecially against the average guy and those in need in it's views and it's platform. Their vote is based on what can you do for me and my family and the Dems listen to them. Your figures prove it has nothing to do with race, as they have always voted that way for white candidates also.
You also need to show the percent of eligible black voters that actually voted--if the percent of voters went up drastically this year, we could probably blame it on identity politics; if the percentage was roughly the same, then you are probably correct.
How do you explain 96% of Democratic black voters voting for Obama over Hillary? That was the number after Super Tuesday. Was there that much difference in their policies?
Thanks for the post, Diablo and Maris. I stand corrected. It still seems odd to me, but it's not a new precedent. I also see that the black vote accounted for 13% of the vote...if it's even 70/30, then McCain wins the popular vote. But it wasn't, and he didn't.
To me, that's the key. It shouldn't matter to people, but it has. The long history of racism, in this nation and in other nations, proves that identity and innate characteristics have mattered to people. The fact that a person of a colour that has held people back for more than two centuries in this nation was elected President (and in a landslide) is a sign than identity means less than it used to. It's not a great thing that we have a black President, in and of itself. It's a great thing that being black didn't prevent him from becoming President. 20 years ago, it would have. That we elected a black President, in my opinion, means that racial identity is becoming less important.
But people voted for him precisely because of his identity. I'm really struggling with why people find identity important. I'm out of the mainstream on most issues, and I guess my emphasis on a meritocracy is yet another example.
Sure. People who have been the victim of identity politics and identity reality wanted to see one of their group succeed. That's an emotional thing. And many people, I am certain, voted against him due to his identity. I didn't vote for him due to his skin colour, but I am glad that someone of his skin colour has reached the highest office, because it means that no door is necessarily shut due to skin colour. For many years, many doors were shut purely due to skin colour. This is a sign that that isn't true anymore. No, I'd say meritocracy is the mainstream desire. And I think the vast majority of Americans saw Obama as the best candidate in this cycle. That he was black isn't why he was elected, as far as I'm concerned. It's simply nice that his skin colour didn't prevent him, as the candidate most people judged the best, from being elected. And before we re-start the earlier argument, by "best," I mean superior to all the other candidates...which factors in many people currently thinking Republicans are incompetent.
or it could be that their policies were so similar, that obama's race became the deciding factor? or clintons had some racist tones in the campaign, which turned off the blacks? http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gpUc7hRZvE8yNvBgM9cwfE97CmNg I don't know really. I didn't follow the primaries too closely. the point was the general election though. the black vote has traditionally gone to democrats, so 92% is nothing special.
LOL, yeah Bill Clinton is a racist. He's a lot of things, but that man doesn't have a racist bone in his body.
I don't think Bill Clinton is remotely racist. I do think he (and Hillary) are absolute political animals, who will use any legal tool in the book to win an election. I don't think either of them feels blacks are inferior; I think both of them are capable of trying to use the tool of racial fear to aid them in winning an election. I'm not saying they did or didn't. I don't know. But I don't think it is related to whether they, themselves, are racist.
I didn't know saying "clintons used racist tones in their campaign" means bill is racist. I guess I know now. at least someone in the interweb thought there was something rotten with the clinton campaign: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=117&a=4012 http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/01/dogwhistle-racism-of-hillary-clinton.html http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/ferraro.comments/index.html http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/clinton-campaign-tries-to-recover-from-racism-allegations/
This is the key to me. Obama and Hillary were VERY similar in their policies. There is no way it was coincidence that Obama got 96% of the Democratic Black vote over Hillary. It is pretty ridiculous that people want to use Obama winning as some sort of beacon for this country against racism. Race had a huge role in this election, and the statistics show that there was a lot of racism coming from the black voters (at least in the primaries). I couldn't care less if Obama is black. But he definitely should not be elected president BECAUSE he is black.
if the policies are the same, what then should decide who one votes for? a coin toss? or maybe one votes for the candidate that shares some characteristics with the one voting?
