Do you think most Blacks vote for Obama just because he black?

celticwar17 said:

My point is, you can't derive any viable information about this topic from the voting numbers except that race was at least a factor.

Click to expand...

and that point fails because theres no logical evidence to suggest race was any real factor when you look logical and honestly at the whole picture.

Rainman05 said:

I would like to point a few things out.

First off... black voter turnout increased when Obama ran for office. So the percentages remained in the same area of 90% pro democrat, but the number of people who voted pro-democrat increased when Obama ran for office. So.. yes... race has to play a factor. But in necessarily in how they vote, but rather, in how many vote.

In 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html?_r=0

Just thought I would add this new dimension to the topic.

Click to expand...

The point is that blacks are voting more based on whether or not a candidate is a Democrat and not whether or not a candidate is black.

If the election was a black Republican vs. a white Democrat, an overwhelming majority of blacks would vote for the white Democrat.

Objective-J said:

that changes nothing LOL

it shows now evidence to support that MOST blacks voted for obama only because he was black :shrug:

only shows that he rallied the base of his party and independents

did you know that 41 percent of white men voted for obama?

Before Obama, no Democrat since Jimmy Carter had earned more than 38 percent of the white male vote. whats that mean? logically nothing besides he rallied his base and independents and americans period.

Click to expand...

All I was doing was to show that there is another dimension to the issue not just who voted for whom... but the number of people who voted.

In this case, blacks came out in the largest numbers ever to vote for Obama. This was also done despite the fact that since the 80's, so almost 30 years, black voter turnout was less and less.

celticwar17 said:

You can't make that assumption... you don't know what their main reason was... even if they would of voted democrat anyway, you don't know if their main reason was because he was black or not.

Click to expand...

You can't know without a doubt what their main reasons were, but you can make some pretty solid inferences that race isn't the main factor from races where black Republicans ran against white Democrats. For instance Ben Cardin and Ted Strickland both won more than three quarters of the black vote against black republicans. This is solid evidence to support the idea that party, not race, is the main reason for their voting.

It makes a couple assumptions about the similarity between senate races and presidential ones, but I don't think its too unreasonable to believe.

zstep18 said:

The point is that blacks are voting more based on whether or not a candidate is a Democrat and not whether or not a candidate is black.

If the election was a black Republican vs. a white Democrat, an overwhelming majority of blacks would vote for the white Democrat.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

But the election wasn't between those people... it was between a charismatic black democrat and a not-so-charismatic white republican. And what I am bringing in perspective was that said combination reversed the trend in black voter turnout at the polls. A trend that specified that less and less blacks would go out and vote... and when Obama ran for office, the black voter turnout increased, pretty well, for the first time in a few decades. So much so, that %-wise, it even surpassed the white voter turnout.

Rainman05 said:

All I was doing was to show that there is another dimension to the issue not just who voted for whom... but the number of people who voted.

In this case, blacks came out in the largest numbers ever to vote for Obama. This was also done despite the fact that since the 80's, so almost 30 years, black voter turnout was less and less.

Click to expand...

which is meaningless to the discussion since his whole base and americans were more rallied then they have been in years

the % of PEOPLE that showed up to vote was the highest since 1968.

so the only way this would have some impact is if all other demographics stayed the same or went down, or thier voting stayed the same or went down or the black vote dramatically increased in one party. None of these happened.

women, younger demographics and first time voters were also up for obama

again, so far theres nothing logical out there that supports the nonsense that MOST blacks voted for obama ONLY because he was black

Rainman05 said:

Yes, I agree.

But the election wasn't between those people... it was between a charismatic black democrat and a not-so-charismatic white republican. And what I am bringing in perspective was that said combination reversed the trend in black voter turnout at the polls. A trend that specified that less and less blacks would go out and vote... and when Obama ran for office, the black voter turnout increased, pretty well, for the first time in a few decades. So much so, that %-wise, it even surpassed the white voter turnout.

Click to expand...

like I said in my post thogh overall voting was up period :shrug:
obama rallied everybody so its meaningless

Rainman05 said:

Yes, I agree.

But the election wasn't between those people... it was between a charismatic black democrat and a not-so-charismatic white republican. And what I am bringing in perspective was that said combination reversed the trend in black voter turnout at the polls. A trend that specified that less and less blacks would go out and vote... and when Obama ran for office, the black voter turnout increased, pretty well, for the first time in a few decades. So much so, that %-wise, it even surpassed the white voter turnout.

Click to expand...

Yes, there was definitely an increase in African-American voter turnout. But, even if you included the increase in voter turnout it still doesn't come close to the main reason why blacks vote. The number of blacks who vote solely on the whether or not a candidate is a Democrat far outweighs the increase in black voter turnout for Obama in 2008.

Objective-J;1060969388[COLOR="#FF0000" said:

]which is meaningless to the discussion since his whole base and americans were more rallied then they have been in years[/COLOR]

the % of PEOPLE that showed up to vote was the highest since 1968.

so the only way this would have some impact is if all other demographics stayed the same or went down, or thier voting stayed the same or went down or the black vote dramatically increased in one party. None of these happened.

women, younger demographics and first time voters were also up for obama

again, so far theres nothing logical out there that supports the nonsense that MOST blacks voted for obama ONLY because he was black

Click to expand...

I like how you conveniently ignore facts to better suit your argument. Anyway, I'm not one to complain.

This discussion was about blacks and how they vote. I see no argument, because there isn't one to be had, with whom do the black vote. It is clear they vote democrat. So the only other discussion to be had (from my perspective) is on the number of blacks who voted. White voter turnout has been consistent and has not been declining or increasing drastically over the years. The black voter turnout was a surprise because the trends showed a decline in the black voter turnout over the years... and when Obama came into the political arena, it jumped up. That is all.

Rainman05 said:

I like how you conveniently ignore facts to better suit your argument. Anyway, I'm not one to complain.

This discussion was about blacks and how they vote. I see no argument, because there isn't one to be had, with whom do the black vote. It is clear they vote democrat. So the only other discussion to be had (from my perspective) is on the number of blacks who voted. White voter turnout has been consistent and has not been declining or increasing drastically over the years. The black voter turnout was a surprise because the trends showed a decline in the black voter turnout over the years... and when Obama came into the political arena, it jumped up. That is all.

Click to expand...

didnt ignore anything I stated facts if you disagree and falsely think that I ignore MEANINGFUL facts please point them out LOL

anyway like I said that jump is pretty meaningless since % wise there was no large influx in what party they voted for and OTHER demographics were also up more than they have been in 50 years.

so again I reapeat its just basic facts unless there was ONLY an increase in the black demographic and they voted abnormally compared to history its a meaningless point.

what dont you get? lol

Objective-J said:

didnt ignore anything I stated facts if you disagree and falsely think that I ignore MEANINGFUL facts please point them out LOL

anyway like I said that jump is pretty meaningless since % wise there was no large influx in what party they voted for and OTHER demographics were also up more than they have been in 50 years.

so again I reapeat its just basic facts unless there was ONLY an increase in the black demographic and they voted abnormally compared to history its a meaningless point.

what dont you get? lol

Click to expand...

i hate these kind of discussions...

I do not contest the fact that there was a larger overall turnout. I was merely pointing out those 2 curiosities god dammit.
a) there was big increase of black show up at the polls despite the trend that the voter turnout for blacks decreased for decades in a row.
b) that the black vote surpassed the white vote %-wise. Not number-wise... just %-wise. Something that has never happened before in the history of the USA.

Nothing else. I am not trying to start a bloody debate on it. I agree with what you said, I don't ignore it, or counter it because there is no reason in doing any of them. What are you trying to do is to take the 2 things I pointed out and make them seem like they are no big deal... Well they are a big deal because they were part of the bloody electoral process that got Obama elected. I am pretty sure that Obama worried about how many blacks will vote for him this time around. So we should too.

Do they matter in the outcome? Maybe. He only won the popular vote by 10mil people. About 7% more votes than what Mccain got. Part of that 7% is found here, in the increase of blacks who came out to vote.

Can I ask where is it that you are trying to get at?

Rainman05 said:

i hate these kind of discussions...

I do not contest the fact that there was a larger overall turnout. I was merely pointing out those 2 curiosities god dammit.
a) there was big increase of black show up at the polls despite the trend that the voter turnout for blacks decreased for decades in a row.
b) that the black vote surpassed the white vote %-wise. Not number-wise... just %-wise. Something that has never happened before in the history of the USA.

Nothing else. I am not trying to start a bloody debate on it. I agree with what you said, I don't ignore it, or counter it because there is no reason in doing any of them. What are you trying to do is to take the 2 things I pointed out and make them seem like they are no big deal... Well they are a big deal because they were part of the bloody electoral process that got Obama elected. I am pretty sure that Obama worried about how many blacks will vote for him this time around. So we should too.

Do they matter in the outcome? Maybe. He only won the popular vote by 10mil people. About 7% more votes than what Mccain got. Part of that 7% is found here, in the increase of blacks who came out to vote.

Can I ask where is it that you are trying to get at?

Click to expand...

yes the answer to these are basically the same

per the OP, the discussion at hand and the facts surrounding last election they are in fact no big deal to the topic :shrug:

again I ask you what meaningful facts did I ignore or are you now taking that statement back?

Frankly, I don't see the significants of this poll. The originator seems to think that Barack H. Obama was the first, if not the only, Black Democratic presidential candidate. He is not, but he was the first Blacks (and many Whites) saw as credible, intelligent and electable since Shirley Chisholm (1972) and Jesse Jackson (1988 in particular). But this doesn't suggest that Blacks voted for these two individuals or even Pres. Obama just because they are Black. More Blacks may have turned out for them, but as other posters have made clear, Blacks have been voting overwhelming for Democratic presidential candidates not based on the racial makeup of the candidates themselves but because their positions on the issues were closely aligned with the candidate's.

I think folks should read this study from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, "Participation in Electorial Politics" to get a clearer picture of why Blacks tend to vote for liberal candidates moreso than hard-Right Conservative Republicans. Here's a clue: It's about inclusion, not exclusion.

Now, if Republicans want to change this voting dynamic the best thing they can do is stop stirring the racial pot, do more to help poor Blacks get ahead economically and above all STOP seeing minorities as a small segment of the electorate to manipulate. This poll is an example of such manipulation. Instead of asking what social, economic and/or political benefits Blacks beleive they may gain by voting to re-elect Pres. Obama, the poll is purposely designed to divide opinions squarely along racial (and/or political) lines.

Objective-J said:

yes the answer to these are basically the same

per the OP, the discussion at hand and the facts surrounding last election they are in fact no big deal to the topic :shrug:

again I ask you what meaningful facts did I ignore or are you now taking that statement back?

Click to expand...

First off, what does OP mean?

Second of all, and lets end it with this because its getting rather silly. It seems to me that you have absolutely no point you are trying to make... maybe based on the assumption that I had a point to make where as I only wanted to present some data... bring another dimension to the discussion. All I wanted to point out was a) and b) from the above post. Which was mentioned in the first post that started this discussion. That's it. Those are the facts which you considered to be insufficient by themselves and tried to gobble them up in something else. To prove some point of yours... or whatever. I really have no idea why the previous 8 comments had to exist in the first place and if you reply to this comment on the same line of questioning it will be 10 comments I will have no idea why they needed to exist what so ever.

You don't even have to answer what OP means... I will figure it out myself. Or someone will send me a PM.

It couldn't have been just because of his skin tone, as most black people won't tolerate one of their own who doesn't have a definite Marxist flavor about him.

Barack Hussein Obama fit the bill on both counts.

Rainman05 said:

First off, what does OP mean?

Second of all, and lets end it with this because its getting rather silly. It seems to me that you have absolutely no point you are trying to make... maybe based on the assumption that I had a point to make where as I only wanted to present some data... bring another dimension to the discussion. All I wanted to point out was a) and b) from the above post. Which was mentioned in the first post that started this discussion. That's it. Those are the facts which you considered to be insufficient by themselves and tried to gobble them up in something else. To prove some point of yours... or whatever. I really have no idea why the previous 8 comments had to exist in the first place and if you reply to this comment on the same line of questioning it will be 10 comments I will have no idea why they needed to exist what so ever.

You don't even have to answer what OP means... I will figure it out myself. Or someone will send me a PM.

Click to expand...

translation: you cant not point out any meaningful facts I ignored and my point still stands per the discussion you A and B are meaningless :shrug: thats what I thought

my point was very clear you simply seem not able to grasp the truth of it.

and please dont try to lie, I never in anyway considered them sufficient by themselves, I was just stating the fact the are meaningless to the debate which they are.

so bottom line, I didnt ignore any meaningful facts that was an untrue post by you and your two points dont impact the OP in anyway.

Navy Pride said:

Not sure but I saw about a half dozen be interviewed.

Click to expand...

Because that's what got published? Is it shown anywhere how many were interviewed and not published?

More importantly....do you honestly believe we're all that stupid?

Dooble said:

It couldn't have been just because of his skin tone, as most black people won't tolerate one of their own who doesn't have a definite Marxist flavor about him.

Barack Hussein Obama fit the bill on both counts.

Click to expand...

Oh, what a crock! Blacks are no more Marxist, Communist or Socialist than anyone else. Personally, I dont' know nor have I ever known of a single Black person who subscribes to these political views as a whole. That doesn't mean that political activist - Blacks or Whites - haven't utilized some of the methods commonly associated with these political ideologies, but you'd best be careful with how you frame this particular argument or who you attempt to pin it on. Ignorance is bliss!

Though your political lean is listed as Independent, folks who consider themselves Republican or Conservative would probably be shocked to learn that the Architect, Karl Rove - a man who is highly regarded in modern Republican political circles and the brains behind both of GW Bush's presidential campaigns - admitted to reading literature by Karl Marx and using his techniques in his book, "Courage and Consequence". Does that mean White people who voted for GW Bush put their support behind a man with "a definite Marxist flavor about him"?

Navy Pride said:

I watched a show the other day where where the Moderator went on the street and told Obama voters that Obama is Pro Life, against all abortions, and against equal rights for gays.........90% of them said they knew that already and were still going to vote for him so the question begs to be asked..........

Click to expand...

mac said:

Do you know how many he interviewed?

Click to expand...

Navy Pride said:

Not sure but I saw about a half dozen be interviewed.

Click to expand...

So, you got 90% from a pool of only 6 Black people!?! :doh

Rainman05 said:

First off, what does OP mean?

Click to expand...

Original Post, or Original Poster. It's the post that lays out the purpose of a thread.

Objective Voice said:

So, you got 90% from a pool of only 6 Black people!?! :doh

Click to expand...

That is what I actually saw......How many were actually interviewed I do not know but 6 for 6 is 100% by my math.

mac said:

Because that's what got published? Is it shown anywhere how many were interviewed and not published?

More importantly....do you honestly believe we're all that stupid?

Click to expand...

Hold your water my left wing friend....I called no one stupid.....My point is the blacks voted for him even though they agreed on zero issues..........I wonder why that was?

Navy Pride said:

Hold your water my left wing friend....I called no one stupid.....My point is the blacks voted for him even though they agreed on zero issues..........I wonder why that was?

Click to expand...

A very small number of them that were interviewed voted for him even though they didn't agree with them on the issues. Do you think you can extrapolate that to most black voters?

Anagram said:

A very small number of them that were interviewed voted for him even though they didn't agree with them on the issues. Do you think you can extrapolate that to most black voters?

Click to expand...

Its like a poll my left wing friend............You sample a cross section to get a figure.....To me it would seem that a few knew where he stood on policies....I guess that is just unbelieveable to you.........

I must agree with Navy to a certain extent. Although I would not include only Black voters in this. Sadly, I believe that MOST (yep, that's right ...... at least 50% + 1) voters today do not truly know the real issues at stake in an election. Most could not pass a detailed exam on their candidate's complete platform. It's unfortunate that most never take the time to do any real research and rely soley on thirty-second sound bytes put out by the drive-by media which are normally taken completely out of context. :shrug: