Race and the 2008 Election: What the Exit Polls Showed

This exit poll statistic is a candidate for most underreported fact of the 2008 election.

Those who said race was an important factor voted 55 percent to 44 percent in favor of Obama.

So, as Mike Turk had predicted last year, racism was a more common factor among Democrats than Republicans in the 2008 election.

This may explain why the 'racism factor' stories disappeared so quickly after the campaign, replaced (if it was discussed at all) by "race not a factor in election" stories.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

*shrug*

I don't think anyone is surprised that many, most likely minorities, thought race was an important factor. How was the question asked in the poll? Was it one of a number of different options? Or was it a standalone question, in which the person being polled might have answered that race was an important factor in this election/vote, but important along with other factors?

And were Allen's mother and

And were Allen's mother and sister asked about that word before or after it was obvious that their brother's presidential aspirations were in jeopardy?

Cosmetic dentists in Kent

not surpising

This post I think is trying to suggest that Republicans aren't as racist as Dems, or Dems aren't as smart as they think or the normal 'us vs. them' thing. It's a farce.

What's the dem percentage broken down by race. For blacks, heck yeah it was important! I'd be too if my race was oppressed for hundreds of years. They finally had a credible person of color. And for many people who cared about race relations as a social justice issue it was important. 

So yeah, it's issue based racism vs. genetic racism ("ain't voten' for no negro, no way, no how")

I wish the rep party would just say there's racism within the party by way of culture, and methodically trying to stamp it out rather then these lame deflections. It only drives minorities over to the Dems.

 

 

"I'm voting for the nigger"

... sure there are racists in the Democratic party. They still voted for the black man.

We can all thank Mccain's sense of honor that Obama was not painted as ... antichrist, race warrior, or an ally of murderers out to kill your relatives.

Oh, wait, all of those were things that Mccain's crew actually did.

Honor? refresh my memory as to what that is...

Rising Tide

always here with some color

;  )

Those were my thoughts too.

The link is to an article dated 11/4/08 on CNN.  A reputable and widely-available source, but is the point of the post that because this wasn't shouted from every rooftop of every MSM source for weeks on end, that somehow proves the librul media bias? 

All I can imagine is that this has been dredged up now to support flavor-of-the-day talking points claiming that Dems are racist, while the right showed no racism.  Riiight....

Instead of engaging in some honest self-examination of messages or positions that repel minority voters, this seems to actively push the meme that there is no racism on the right, so there! We told you so!  Fine and dandy, but don't expect that 'do the same things and expect different results' insanity to pay off much better next time around...

Actually...

I wish the rep party would just say there's racism within the party by way of culture, and methodically trying to stamp it out rather then these lame deflections.

I've written that quite often.  See my post arguing that McCain should have pledged to purge the GOP of people who committed actual, intentional acts of racism.  Or my post taking Republicans to task for not doing more to denounce racists.

There's no doubt there are racists within the Republican Party.  Or the Democratic Party.  Or virtually any other large organization of people.  That's unfortunate and should be fought, but it's also probably unavoidable to some extent: humans are biologically/psychologically disposed towards generalizations, especially about in-groups and out-groups.  All we can do is apply peer pressure against it.

However, Democrats have waged a concerted campaign to portray Republicans, generally, as fundamentally racist.  They have portrayed basic political philosophy as motivated by racism.

I think it is important to address the actual racism and fight against it.  But I also think it is important to fight the public perception that is driven more by the Democrat's narrative than by comparative characteristics.

This "concerted campaign"

This "concerted campaign" being waged by Democrats to portray Republicans is amazing. How on earth did they manage to coerce Pat Buchanan to say:

We're going to have 135 million Hispanics living in the United States by 2050, heavily concentrated in the Southwest. The question is whether we're going to survive as a country.

How did they convince Rush Limbaugh to play "Barack the Magic Negro"?

How did they infiltrate the Texas Republican convention to sell racist buttons?

How did they control the camera angles at the Republican National Convention so that all anyone ever saw was a sea of white faces - how did they keep the thousands and thousands of non-white delegates out of the shot?

How did they fake that video of George Allen insulting that Indian-American fellow?

Who was the evil genius who arranged for those Republican primary debates with the memorable images of 10 white guys?

 

ha ha ha ha

1. Here's someone who agrees with Buchanan: link. Also, 58% of Mexicans think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. And, it's difficult to find a Mex-Am politician who isn't to some degree an extremist (just one example: youtube.com/watch?v=FKeZfF3M93s).

2. (Why waste more of my time?)

People say things

Republicans say things like " it's difficult to find a Mex-Am politician who isn't to some degree an extremist" and then accuse the Democrats of creating the false impression that Republicans have a race problem.

Name some

1. Thankfully, I'm not a Republican.

2. Feel free to provide us with the names of five nationally-known MexAm politicians who aren't some variety of extremist or who don't have close links to extremists.

3. One of the problems with the GOP is that they agree with DemPlantNando and his buddies: some of them actually think it's a bad thing to point out that the guy on the video in my previous comment (youtube.com/watch?v=FKeZfF3M93s) frequently acted more like a Mexican politician than an American one.

Alberto Gonzales

  1. Alberto Gonzales
  2. Bill Richardson
  3. Hilda Solis
  4. Ken Salazar
  5. Trent Franks

 

You're funny

  1. Alberto Gonzales
  2. Bill Richardson
  3. Hilda Solis
  4. Ken Salazar
  5. Trent Franks

Because I'm nice, I'll give you #5, even though his background isn't known and he's a Republican when I meant Dems. So, now you only have to come up with four new names.

 

You asked, I answered

You asked for 5 nationally known Mexican Americans who aren't extremists, and I gave you a list of 5 nationally known Mexican Americans who aren't extremists.

If you thinking linking their names to your website where you call them names and make unsupported claims about them proves your point, you are wrong.

Dude, it's not working

At the links I don't call them names, I point out how they support illegal activity, ethnic nationalism, and so on. If there are any facts I've gotten wrong, I'll happily print a retraction. Good luck finding something I've gotten wrong; all my facts are sourced.

Regarding your facts, I should have pointed out before that two of the people you listed are only partly of Mexican origin, another's origins might be more accurately referred to as Spain, and, as I pointed out before, the heritage of another isn't clear.

The bottom line is that no one's buying your shtick; if you're being paid to post here whoever's signing the checks is wasting their money.

what do you consider extremist?

You originally said: 

"Also, 58% of Mexicans think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. And, it's difficult to find a Mex-Am politician who isn't to some degree an extremist"

 

How are you defining extremist? Are you suggesting that Mex-Am politicians believe that the US Southwest belongs to Mexico? If not, why would you juxtapose those claims?

 

the better question is what's so extremist about wanting

to keep families together?

my Mexican friends in Tucson headed back to Mexico. Said that they'd have better luck finding work there.

Yes, I'd agree with you if . ..

 . . .Reps (as a party) didn't make it so easy for that kind of campaign. This issue has come up here before, and personally, yes, that position doesn't represent you. And it doesn't represent many republicans (who knows -- hard to measure racism). But if you want to stop dems from picking some low hanging fruit, don't have low hanging fruit.

Unfortuntely, that is something that the Reps leadership needs to pound, over and over again. In some ways, be over sensitive . . . for a while. It takes a while to dispell tactics that have been used for a while.

And understand some of the issues in terms of race. For example, ACORN (and some degree the current housing debacle) started not a propoganda issue, but trying to fight lending and economic discrimination in the minority community. Now, it has obviously gone on from there, from understanding with respect to those origins. When most people write of ACORN you'd think it was a front group for the Red Scorge.

I would also suggest trying to get more African American guest bloggers . . . even if you (I'm speaking to possible replican groups, not necessarily to Mr. Henke) don't agree with them or they you, but to start that dialogue . . . a kind of understanding. I feel that's lacking in the republican community.

Same with gays and other groups by the way. The republican party is growing more white and straight as the country is less so.

hehe. we have a hard enough time over at DailyKos

keeping black bloggers around... soemthing about "always having to explain white privilege"

You actually expect TheNextRight to get black bloggers?

As much as I'd LOVE to see FieldNegro(http://field-negro.blogspot.com/) or SkepticalBrotha (http://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/) come over here to talk... I don't think Ruffini would like it much.

While I agree with the

While I agree with the statement that race might be very important to black voters in a different ways than other voters, I think you are missing a more fundamental point. Admitting that race factors into your decision does not make you a racist. Racism is opression of someone based on their race. Acknowledging the mere existence of race or believing that a vote for someone of a minority race could send a positive signal to the country and the world does not make one a racist. We need to be more precise with this sort of language.

Not sure.

The full quote.

Those who said race was an important factor voted 55 percent to 44 percent in favor of Obama. But Obama also was the winner by a similar margin among those who said race was not important, "which suggests that race was not a decisive factor in this election," Schneider said.

I suppose that might be a good reason it was replaced by "race not a factor in election" stories.

Passing that by, you're missing two points. The lesser is that the question by its nature can only catch those willing to admit that race is a factor (correctly excluding those to which it isn't, but incorrectly excluding those to who it is but aren't admitting it). It's a lot like the polls about teen sex or the degree to which you think alcohol impairs your ability to drive: the exact people you most want an answer from are incapable or uninterested in giving an accurate reply.

The more severe problem is that your thesis assumes all votes were down strict party lines -- all race-influenced votes for Obama were votes by card-carrying Democrats, and the implications of those votes can be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. (And the reverse, of course.) Are you sure that's fair? No race-influenced votes crossed party lines, and you're sure that there were few enough independent racist votes to discount?

5:4 isn't a big margin to begin with. Between it being a hard thing to poll and the lack of followups to narrow down the wiggle room, I'm not sure I can follow your logic.

Does "race was an important factor" imply racism?

I suspect there might be an important difference between voting *AGAINST* somebody because of his race, as opposed to reluctantly voting *FOR* a black liberal because you think it will be good for e.g. race relations or it will hasten the demise of affirmative action policies. Both kinds of voters undoubtedly exist, e.g. working class white Democrats living in Appalachia versus black GOP supporters. Admittedly there is a little bit of a majority/minority double standard going on in this regard.

Anyway, the bottom line is I don't think you can say racists broke 55%-44% for Obama, which does not seem to be Henke's argument anyway.

 

MARCU$

Where's Jon Henke?

Jon Henke, can you admit that jesdynf completely distroyed your argument? 

The only actual conclusions possible from the polls are (a) that Americans are less racist than they think they are (good news), or (b) they hate Republicans so much that they temporarily overcame their racism to vote Democratic. 

Wow, what a brilliant analysis!

 

Move over Nate Silver, Jon Henke's here! 

 

Question on the wording

Was the question phrased something like, "Do you feel that race is an important factor in this presidential election?" or "Is race an important factor to you in this presidential election."  The first asks peoples perceptions of other people's priorities.  The other question asks what there priorities are.  Additionally, I'm sure most black Democrats would have stated yes, but this would have hardly been their motivation for voting for Obama.  Steele didn't really do well with Maryland blacks, nor did Blackwell with Ohio blacks.  The fact that Obama was a Democrat was the overriding thing.  The fact that he was black and Democrat was just having your cake and eating it too.  The fact that he won decisively is also why Republicans will not have a % share of the black vote in America above 10% for the next 50 years - AT LEAST.

Possibly a better angle????

From Jon's comments above, I understand the reasoning for this post; however, I wonder if a better tact is to point out possible points of "reverse racism" for lack of a better term.

Recently I had a discussion with a pretty liberal group of people about the cartoon with the cops shooting the monkey. When I first saw the cartoon, I thought it was genuinly funny. I didn't make a connection with the monkey and Obama; however, my liberal counterparts did and took offense to it. However, I said that they were the racists, not me. They viewed the cartoon in terms of race, but I saw it as a juxtopostion of the news events.

My arguement to them though, and the Sharpton crowd, was that calling this cartoon out for race undermined thier position. If race isn't a big deal, then it's not a big deal. "gook, chink, deago", who uses these things anymore? And even if you did, who'd care? I keep going back to Howard Cosell's remark about Art Monk many years ago that got him fired. That was too bad, becuase Howard was clearly not racist (quite the opposite).

I think republicans do have a right to stand up over those kinds of things. It's hard to do though when racism is still so prevailant in party tactics ( though less subtle).

 

It was still a racist comment. No, it really doesn't matter

that Cosell said that about blacks and whites. What matters is that it hurt people, because blacks have been traditionally compared to monkeys and apes. My relatives who are black have a lot to say about the subject.

That said, man, he didn't deserve to get fired! people nowadays can call college attending girls "hos" on the air, and they're fine???

I'd have recommended sending the man to sensitivity training, and then let him run some "Years' best black atheletes" when he needs to fill time.

He clearly didn't mean to cause offense -- which is why he needed to be educated, not fired.

not racist

"Blacks have been traditionally comparted to monkeys and apes", since when?

I'm certainly not going to argue that thier aren't racist boneheads out there that don't do that kind of thing. What I'm saying is that there are boneheads out there who will do all kinds off things. And from the black perspective, yes, there is a sensitivity to it. Fully understandable.

But no always justified. Did Sharpton know for certain that the cartoonists meant harm? If the cartoonist didn't, he has nothing to apologise for. Or the kind of apology that's a 'sorry, but not soo sorry'. At some point, we have to recognize the past, but move on.

I clearly don't think the Republican party (as a group) has moved on nor recognized it complicity in racism. However, that doens't diminish my point that there is an over sensivity.

From where I'm sitting, blacks generally are suffering from the perceptions of racism than racism itself. However, there are places (not where I'm sitting) that there is indeed racism. I simply challenge the distinction.

 

"the perceptions of racism"

umm... sure. man. you're really asking for this here.

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/02/associate-black-people-wi...

http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/

http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2009/03/sorry-negro-you-look-like-just-a...

Dude, if I walked up to you, and called you a cheapskate nogoodnick liar, you'd be rightly pissed! Racism is racism, and what lives in the American (or global) subconscious still exists. We all have an obligation to be cognizant of it.

Do you apologize if you punch a pregnant woman in the belly? Sure as hell you do, no matter whehter or NOT you meant to do that. You HARMED HER. YOU ApOLOgize.

Racism is the same way. You can do something racist, and "not have meant it to be racist". That's fine. That saves you from being 'racist'. But it don't get you out of your apology.

Because you make apologies when you hurt someone. That's just good fucking manners. It keeps society functional, and makes sure that you don't get shot because someone got mad at "something you didn't mean".

Yes, people are too goddamn sensitive about their fucking feelings. You're a delicate flower, just like everyone else is a precious little goddamn snowflake.

Don't act like your feelings are better than other folks -- they ain't.

/endrant.

" "Blacks have been

" "Blacks have been traditionally comparted to monkeys and apes", since when? " wow.  And you're not even joking.

As a Black person, it always amazes me the degree to which some white people can live their entire lives without the slightest clue what goes on around them and yet speak with such authority about something which they know nothing about and at the same time make it seem like it is your fault their clueless.

I guess part of it is willfull ignorance. Part of it is just an inability to see the world from anything but your own perspective. So be it. But understand that that postion puts you at an extreme disadvantage when trying to discuss anything remotely touching on race.

 

cr seems to just be honestly clueless.

so i gave him some links to learn himself up by his bootstraps ;-)

Wiki says that cosell used the term "monkey" on about every athelete that fit the black guy's general physical features (small and lithe, good at dodging out of trouble). I don't hold the word against him, but I do hold his ignorance against him.

A good rule

My rule of thumb on racism and other areas of offense: Don't take offense where no offense was intended.  If the person genuinely did not intend to offend - and if they apologize for their unintentional mistake - then we should focus on, as you say, educating them.  Punishment should be reserved for intentional offense. 

And when the person in question apologizes, we should err on the side of assuming good intentions.  That makes progress much more likely than if we just haul out the "fire them!" stick every time somebody errs.

A bad rule

When  Pat Buchanan says:

We're going to have 135 million Hispanics living in the United States by 2050, heavily concentrated in the Southwest. The question is whether we're going to survive as a country.

he does not intended to offend but, nonetheless, what he says is offensive becasue he is saying that being Hispanic is antithetical to being American.

I disagree with your rule entirely.

 

Um...

He didn't apologize, did he?  I specifically stipulated that part.

You stated your rule as

You stated your rule as:

Don't take offense where no offense was intended.

 

Like Macaca?

The democrats jumped on George Allen to gain political advantage, even though no on knew what the word meant:

Depending on how it is spelled, the word macaca could mean either a monkey that inhabits the Eastern Hemisphere or a town in South Africa. In some European cultures, macaca is also considered a racial slur against African immigrants, according to several Web sites that track ethnic slurs.

That kind of manufactured racism show that some democrats will hurt the cause of eradicating real racism in the U.S. for short term political gain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400589.html

 

The full Allen comment

The full Allen comment:

This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt. Macaca or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent, he's following us around everywhere. So welcome, let's give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America, and the real world of Virginia.

The "fellow", of course, was an Indian-American named S.R. Sidarth, a Webb campaign volunteer.

Because he was brown, Allen singled him out for abuse - hell, skip "Macaca" if you want, and note "Welcome to America" and "the real world of Virginia".

Sidarth was born and raised in Virginia.

Allen? Whittier, California.

 

 

Right

Racist to the core. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Manufactured racism hurting the real issue. You are part of the problem NRN. There is no way to deny it.

So what is real racism

So, if singling out a guy becasue of the color of his skin and insulting him and saying he is obviously not a real American is not racism....what is?

I missed the part where he

I missed the part where he singles macaca out based on the color of his skin.

Probably the same way

That you would single out a black word by saying the N word. It doesn't have many white connotations.

Allen/Webb

I was involved in that race, doing online work for the Allen campaign in the final couple months.

The "fellow", of course, was an Indian-American

Indeed.  And the term 'macaca' was supposed to be a racial epithet towards Africans.  (It's also worth mentioning that the obscure racial epithet in question is actually "macaque", not "macaca", a distinction quickly blurred in the framing; and that initial research indicated the term was Belgian).

Because he was brown, Allen singled him out for abuse - hell, skip "Macaca" if you want, and note "Welcome to America" and "the real world of Virginia".

No, that's almost exactly wrong.  The only thing correct about this is that Allen's comment was abusive.  He was wrong to single him out like that, and Allen gave him a personal apology for it.  However, Allen singled him out because Sidarth was, as you just noted, from the Webb campaign

What's more, the "welcome to American/real world of Virginia" was said in the context of Allen criticizing Jim Webb for spending his time in Hollywood and inside the beltway.  Now, that may or may not be a fair criticism, but let's not pretend that there's not a bipartisan consensus that Washington, DC can be a lot different than "the real world" in many respects.

It was an abusive comment, yes, but the rest of your assertions are baseless.

Spin away

Both you and Lonestar, spin away - no one is in doubt about the reality of the situation. And to think that Allen was supposed to be the GOP nominee in 2008.

Jon, were you the one who decided that despite the fact that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Allen's comments, he should nonetheless apologize - despite the fact that he was clearly talking about Jim Webb and "macaca" just means....well, nothing really.

Unless you mum happens to be francophone.

Like George Allen's.

God Damn

Look, I'm perfectly happy to respond and discuss this stuff, but you have to attempt basic reading comprehension and intellectual honesty.

Jon, were you the one who decided that despite the fact that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Allen's comments, he should nonetheless apologize - despite the fact that he was clearly talking about Jim Webb and "macaca" just means....well, nothing really.

I specifically wrote that "Allen's comment was abusive" and "He was wrong to single him out like that" and "It was an abusive comment..."

You can't even grok clear, written words.  Maybe you should consider that you don't have a good sense of what happened in the Allen/Webb race, either.

Something else you probably don't know: Allen's mother and sister we both asked if they'd ever heard of the word 'macaca' before this. Neither of them had heard of the word until this.

If, as you say

If, as you say

He was wrong to single him out like that, and Allen gave him a personal apology for it.  However, Allen singled him out because Sidarth was, as you just noted, from the Webb campaign.

Then why, oh why, did Allen go before a forum of Indian-Americans to say

"It was a mistake, it was wrong, and it was hurtful to people."

If your spin is apt, then he should have gone to a forum of Webb campaign workers to make his apology.

And were Allen's mother and sister asked about that word before or after it was obvious that their brother's presidential aspirations were in jeopardy?

 

Then why, oh why, did Allen

Then why, oh why, did Allen go before a forum of Indian-Americans to say

Because he was invited. And it was a mistake/wrong/hurtful. Whether he intended any racial implication or not, apologizing for being hurtful was the right thing to do.  This is a pretty simple concept.

And were Allen's mother and sister asked about that word before or after it was obvious that their brother's presidential aspirations were in jeopardy?

They were asked within just a few days of the incident.  I would note that the Left was happy to cite Allen's sister as a credible source about Allen's childhood.  Right up until she said she had never heard 'macaca'.  At which point the Left seemed to decide she was a pro-Allen shill, I guess.

In an interview Tuesday, George Allen's youngest sister, Jennifer Richard, told Salon that both her mother and grandparents spoke multiple languages around the house when they were kids. "My mom speaks French to me. She spoke Arabic," Richard said. But she said she knew nothing about the word "macaca." Later in the day, she asked her mother, who she said also did not recognize the word.

 

Jon, there is no sense

Jon, there is no sense arguing with NRN. She is a vacuous Obama drone and will defend and spin along the party line all day. Since we already know the party line, attempt at debate is pointless.

My daughter worked on the Allen campaign as a volunteer. Her experience with the whole "macaca" mess opened her eyes to the dirty side of politics, and how race is used by the democrats as a weapon.

 

Let's recap

Let's recap. Jon's spin is that:

  1. "macaca" means nothing.
  2. Allen singled Sidarth out because only becasue he was from the Webb campaign.
  3. the crucial context is that Allen was criticizing Jim Webb for spending his time in Hollywood and inside the beltway.
  4. the fact that Sidarth is visibly not of Western European descent had nothing to do with anything.

And then Allen went in front of a group of Indian-American voters and apologized. "Because he was invited." The fact that Sidarth is Indian-American is, again, just a coincidence.

And then on top of this we have the Lonestar Bill thesis that all of this was "manufactured" by the Democrats. Presumably:

  1. Democrats tricked Allen into speaking his now famous words directly into a video camera;
  2. Democrats somehow forced hundreds of thousands of Virginia voters to view the video clip;
  3. Democrats exercised powerful mind control techniques to get those Virginia voters to accept the evidence of their own eyes and ears instead of the improbable spin put forward by people like Jon.

 

 

Great. So by your own

Great. So by your own admission, George Allen is colorblind.

He called someone of Indian decent a name that is considered derogatory to black people in some parts of the world, but not in the U.S.

Your logic is crystal clear and infallable.

No, that is Jon's spin.

My position is that George Allen is a racist asshole who got what he deserved. And that you and Jon trying to spin it otherwise is absurd.