Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Myth of Obama Winning Because of His Race

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:38:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

Though many people believe that our first African-American president won the election thanks in part to increased turnout by African-American voters, Stephens-Davidowitz's research shows that those votes only added about 1 percentage point to Obama's totals. "In the general election, this effect was comparatively minor," he concludes. But in areas with high racial search rates, the fact that Obama is African American worked against him, sometimes significantly.

"The results imply that, relative to the most racially tolerant areas in the United States, prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points of the national popular vote," Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his study. "This implies racial animus gave Obama's opponent roughly the equivalent of a home-state advantage country-wide."

"Any votes Obama gained due to his race in the general election were not nearly enough to outweigh the cost of racial animus, meaning race was a large net negative for Obama," he adds.

The state with the highest racially charged search rate was West Virginia, where 41 percent of voters chose Keith Judd, a white man who is also a convicted felon currently in prison in Texas, over Obama just this May. Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Alabama, and New Jersey rounded out the top 10 most-racist areas, according to the search queries used.

Even if states that are considered fairly liberal, racism is prevalent enough in certain areas to put the entire state high up on the list. "Other areas with high percentages included western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi," Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his New York Times article.

The 10 states with the fewest racially charged searches were Utah, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Washington DC, Minnesota, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming.

What does this mean for this year's contest? "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."


http://shine.yahoo.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:40:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wouldn't mind debating anyone who thinks Obama won mainly/largely/principally because of race. I have a whole argument I never got to really debate because the last person I used it on forfeited.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:42:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:38:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

Though many people believe that our first African-American president won the election thanks in part to increased turnout by African-American voters, Stephens-Davidowitz's research shows that those votes only added about 1 percentage point to Obama's totals. "In the general election, this effect was comparatively minor," he concludes. But in areas with high racial search rates, the fact that Obama is African American worked against him, sometimes significantly.

"The results imply that, relative to the most racially tolerant areas in the United States, prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points of the national popular vote," Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his study. "This implies racial animus gave Obama's opponent roughly the equivalent of a home-state advantage country-wide."

"Any votes Obama gained due to his race in the general election were not nearly enough to outweigh the cost of racial animus, meaning race was a large net negative for Obama," he adds.

The state with the highest racially charged search rate was West Virginia, where 41 percent of voters chose Keith Judd, a white man who is also a convicted felon currently in prison in Texas, over Obama just this May. Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Alabama, and New Jersey rounded out the top 10 most-racist areas, according to the search queries used.

Even if states that are considered fairly liberal, racism is prevalent enough in certain areas to put the entire state high up on the list. "Other areas with high percentages included western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi," Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his New York Times article.

The 10 states with the fewest racially charged searches were Utah, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Washington DC, Minnesota, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming.

What does this mean for this year's contest? "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."


http://shine.yahoo.com...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think surveys is the best way to measure racism.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:44:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:42:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:38:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

Though many people believe that our first African-American president won the election thanks in part to increased turnout by African-American voters, Stephens-Davidowitz's research shows that those votes only added about 1 percentage point to Obama's totals. "In the general election, this effect was comparatively minor," he concludes. But in areas with high racial search rates, the fact that Obama is African American worked against him, sometimes significantly.

"The results imply that, relative to the most racially tolerant areas in the United States, prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points of the national popular vote," Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his study. "This implies racial animus gave Obama's opponent roughly the equivalent of a home-state advantage country-wide."

"Any votes Obama gained due to his race in the general election were not nearly enough to outweigh the cost of racial animus, meaning race was a large net negative for Obama," he adds.

The state with the highest racially charged search rate was West Virginia, where 41 percent of voters chose Keith Judd, a white man who is also a convicted felon currently in prison in Texas, over Obama just this May. Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Alabama, and New Jersey rounded out the top 10 most-racist areas, according to the search queries used.

Even if states that are considered fairly liberal, racism is prevalent enough in certain areas to put the entire state high up on the list. "Other areas with high percentages included western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi," Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his New York Times article.

The 10 states with the fewest racially charged searches were Utah, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Washington DC, Minnesota, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming.

What does this mean for this year's contest? "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."


http://shine.yahoo.com...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think surveys is the best way to measure racism.

Actually, he didn't use surveys; he used a different metric (online traffic).
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:51:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:44:51 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:42:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:38:23 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

Though many people believe that our first African-American president won the election thanks in part to increased turnout by African-American voters, Stephens-Davidowitz's research shows that those votes only added about 1 percentage point to Obama's totals. "In the general election, this effect was comparatively minor," he concludes. But in areas with high racial search rates, the fact that Obama is African American worked against him, sometimes significantly.

"The results imply that, relative to the most racially tolerant areas in the United States, prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points of the national popular vote," Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his study. "This implies racial animus gave Obama's opponent roughly the equivalent of a home-state advantage country-wide."

"Any votes Obama gained due to his race in the general election were not nearly enough to outweigh the cost of racial animus, meaning race was a large net negative for Obama," he adds.

The state with the highest racially charged search rate was West Virginia, where 41 percent of voters chose Keith Judd, a white man who is also a convicted felon currently in prison in Texas, over Obama just this May. Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Alabama, and New Jersey rounded out the top 10 most-racist areas, according to the search queries used.

Even if states that are considered fairly liberal, racism is prevalent enough in certain areas to put the entire state high up on the list. "Other areas with high percentages included western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi," Stephens-Davidowitz points out in his New York Times article.

The 10 states with the fewest racially charged searches were Utah, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Washington DC, Minnesota, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming.

What does this mean for this year's contest? "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."


http://shine.yahoo.com...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think surveys is the best way to measure racism.

Actually, he didn't use surveys; he used a different metric (online traffic).

It says he used both surveys and online searches.... Online searches can also be misleading. I for example have typed into google "zionist bankers control wall st", in order to left wing politicians making such claims. I by no means agree with the statement, and I consider anti-Zionism to be a cover for antisemitism. I have also typed into Google "9/11 inside job", however this was only so I could find opposing arguments, in order to make a case against them. I have typed into Google, "evidence for man made global warming", yet I don't believe in man made global warming.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:57:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

It's the reason why a democrat ticket won over a republican ticket. The question though is why did the Democrat ticket choose Barack Obama. Why pick someone whose only been a US senator for 2 years once his campaign started? How many people actually heard of Barack Obama before the 2008 presidential election?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:01:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:57:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

It's the reason why a democrat ticket won over a republican ticket. The question though is why did the Democrat ticket choose Barack Obama. Why pick someone whose only been a US senator for 2 years once his campaign started? How many people actually heard of Barack Obama before the 2008 presidential election?

It could be his confidence, his youth, his message of change, and basically because he seemed like everything Bush was not (at least at a superficial level).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:03:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:57:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

It's the reason why a democrat ticket won over a republican ticket. The question though is why did the Democrat ticket choose Barack Obama. Why pick someone whose only been a US senator for 2 years once his campaign started? How many people actually heard of Barack Obama before the 2008 presidential election?

That's untrue. Obama spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention for the nomination, and lost...yet he garnered enough recognition and reputation for his astounding oration that he secured it 4 years later. And in any case, your question doesn't really make sense as a point of contention. How many unknown figures have risen to national popularity in 1 election throughout American history?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:06:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that

His race was a major factor. The idea of being part of a historical first is a very strong motivator. The fact all previous Presidents was white and he was running on "change" helped sell the concept he was going to be different. Many racists may have also voted for him so they could justify their own racism, with the legitimate claim that they voted for a black guy. On top of that, Gallup polls indicate that 89% African Americans approve of Obama, while other races such as Hispanics, and Whites are in the 40s; this indicates that about 40%, if not more, African Americans are voting based on race.
Gallup polls also indicate that 15% of African Americans are openly voting for Obama based on his race, and 6% of whites are openly voting for him based on race. 4% of African Americans, and 7% of whites are openly voting against him based on race.
I have seen Black comedians have endorsing Obama based on race; they openly stated it was because he was black. Black celebrities have also come out to endorse Obama, and the media emphasizes the historical significance of his race.

If you don't think his race played a big part in selling his message and his candidacy, you are a fool.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:08:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:06:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that

His race was a major factor. The idea of being part of a historical first is a very strong motivator. The fact all previous Presidents was white and he was running on "change" helped sell the concept he was going to be different. Many racists may have also voted for him so they could justify their own racism, with the legitimate claim that they voted for a black guy. On top of that, Gallup polls indicate that 89% African Americans approve of Obama, while other races such as Hispanics, and Whites are in the 40s; this indicates that about 40%, if not more, African Americans are voting based on race.
Gallup polls also indicate that 15% of African Americans are openly voting for Obama based on his race, and 6% of whites are openly voting for him based on race. 4% of African Americans, and 7% of whites are openly voting against him based on race.
I have seen Black comedians have endorsing Obama based on race; they openly stated it was because he was black. Black celebrities have also come out to endorse Obama, and the media emphasizes the historical significance of his race.


If you don't think his race played a big part in selling his message and his candidacy, you are a fool.

want to debate that?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:08:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:08:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:06:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that

His race was a major factor. The idea of being part of a historical first is a very strong motivator. The fact all previous Presidents was white and he was running on "change" helped sell the concept he was going to be different. Many racists may have also voted for him so they could justify their own racism, with the legitimate claim that they voted for a black guy. On top of that, Gallup polls indicate that 89% African Americans approve of Obama, while other races such as Hispanics, and Whites are in the 40s; this indicates that about 40%, if not more, African Americans are voting based on race.
Gallup polls also indicate that 15% of African Americans are openly voting for Obama based on his race, and 6% of whites are openly voting for him based on race. 4% of African Americans, and 7% of whites are openly voting against him based on race.
I have seen Black comedians have endorsing Obama based on race; they openly stated it was because he was black. Black celebrities have also come out to endorse Obama, and the media emphasizes the historical significance of his race.


If you don't think his race played a big part in selling his message and his candidacy, you are a fool.

want to debate that?

Why would you? After all--the result is already predetermined, after all.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:09:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:01:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:57:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

It's the reason why a democrat ticket won over a republican ticket. The question though is why did the Democrat ticket choose Barack Obama. Why pick someone whose only been a US senator for 2 years once his campaign started? How many people actually heard of Barack Obama before the 2008 presidential election?

It could be his confidence, his youth, his message of change, and basically because he seemed like everything Bush was not (at least at a superficial level).

Another big thing which influenced the elections was his age. If I had a nickle for every time someone told me Obama could better identify with me because of his age, I would be rich.

Another thing that helped him, was the fact he took advantage of the internet.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:10:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:08:58 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:08:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:06:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that

His race was a major factor. The idea of being part of a historical first is a very strong motivator. The fact all previous Presidents was white and he was running on "change" helped sell the concept he was going to be different. Many racists may have also voted for him so they could justify their own racism, with the legitimate claim that they voted for a black guy. On top of that, Gallup polls indicate that 89% African Americans approve of Obama, while other races such as Hispanics, and Whites are in the 40s; this indicates that about 40%, if not more, African Americans are voting based on race.
Gallup polls also indicate that 15% of African Americans are openly voting for Obama based on his race, and 6% of whites are openly voting for him based on race. 4% of African Americans, and 7% of whites are openly voting against him based on race.
I have seen Black comedians have endorsing Obama based on race; they openly stated it was because he was black. Black celebrities have also come out to endorse Obama, and the media emphasizes the historical significance of his race.


If you don't think his race played a big part in selling his message and his candidacy, you are a fool.

want to debate that?

Why would you? After all--the result is already predetermined, after all.

lulz
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:10:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:08:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:06:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that

His race was a major factor. The idea of being part of a historical first is a very strong motivator. The fact all previous Presidents was white and he was running on "change" helped sell the concept he was going to be different. Many racists may have also voted for him so they could justify their own racism, with the legitimate claim that they voted for a black guy. On top of that, Gallup polls indicate that 89% African Americans approve of Obama, while other races such as Hispanics, and Whites are in the 40s; this indicates that about 40%, if not more, African Americans are voting based on race.
Gallup polls also indicate that 15% of African Americans are openly voting for Obama based on his race, and 6% of whites are openly voting for him based on race. 4% of African Americans, and 7% of whites are openly voting against him based on race.
I have seen Black comedians have endorsing Obama based on race; they openly stated it was because he was black. Black celebrities have also come out to endorse Obama, and the media emphasizes the historical significance of his race.


If you don't think his race played a big part in selling his message and his candidacy, you are a fool.

want to debate that?

I don't debate topics when I know voters will be heavily biased.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:11:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:57:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

It's the reason why a democrat ticket won over a republican ticket. The question though is why did the Democrat ticket choose Barack Obama. Why pick someone whose only been a US senator for 2 years once his campaign started? How many people actually heard of Barack Obama before the 2008 presidential election?

Obama energized a lot of people at the 2004 DNC.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:11:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think race DID have a factor in him winning, but not in the way you're all thinking. Clinton was pretty obviously a better candidate than Obama, but she lost anyway, and it's probable that Obama's race played a great part in that. Of course, there are lots of southern democrats who would never ever vote for a negro, so perhaps not.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:12:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll be willing to debate this:

"Resolved: Barack Obama's race positively influenced his chances of becoming president of the United States."
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:14:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:08:58 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:08:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:06:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that

His race was a major factor. The idea of being part of a historical first is a very strong motivator. The fact all previous Presidents was white and he was running on "change" helped sell the concept he was going to be different. Many racists may have also voted for him so they could justify their own racism, with the legitimate claim that they voted for a black guy. On top of that, Gallup polls indicate that 89% African Americans approve of Obama, while other races such as Hispanics, and Whites are in the 40s; this indicates that about 40%, if not more, African Americans are voting based on race.
Gallup polls also indicate that 15% of African Americans are openly voting for Obama based on his race, and 6% of whites are openly voting for him based on race. 4% of African Americans, and 7% of whites are openly voting against him based on race.
I have seen Black comedians have endorsing Obama based on race; they openly stated it was because he was black. Black celebrities have also come out to endorse Obama, and the media emphasizes the historical significance of his race.


If you don't think his race played a big part in selling his message and his candidacy, you are a fool.

want to debate that?

Why would you? After all--the result is already predetermined, after all.

You really like trolling don't you? I've seen you advocate far more pointless things before, but somehow this is problem.

How is it that philosophy is so important, but determinism isn't?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:15:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think race DID have a factor in him winning, but not in the way you're all thinking. Clinton was pretty obviously a better candidate than Obama, but she lost anyway, and it's probable that Obama's race played a great part in that. Of course, there are lots of southern democrats who would never ever vote for a negro, so perhaps not.

The KKK are more likely to vote black than vote for a women. My mom moved around the country as a kid, and at one point lived in Alabama. She said "good ol' boys are more likely to vote for a black than a women, especially a black who is half white".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:17:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think race DID have a factor in him winning, but not in the way you're all thinking. Clinton was pretty obviously a better candidate than Obama, but she lost anyway, and it's probable that Obama's race played a great part in that. Of course, there are lots of southern democrats who would never ever vote for a negro, so perhaps not.

In the general election, race probably hurt him. There were several deep southern states that were competitive with a popular, white democratic nominee (Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, and Missouri all backed Clinton), but Obama won none of these (although he damn near won Missouri). Of course things have changed much since the Clinton era, but most of the demographic shifts in the South would seem to favor the democrats over the GOP...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:20:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:15:04 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:11:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think race DID have a factor in him winning, but not in the way you're all thinking. Clinton was pretty obviously a better candidate than Obama, but she lost anyway, and it's probable that Obama's race played a great part in that. Of course, there are lots of southern democrats who would never ever vote for a negro, so perhaps not.

The KKK are more likely to vote black than vote for a women. My mom moved around the country as a kid, and at one point lived in Alabama. She said "good ol' boys are more likely to vote for a black than a women, especially a black who is half white".

I dont doubt it, but the KKK is a pretty small bunch compared with all of the racists in the South. It was still absolutely rampant until the 1980s, and even now you can see a lot of racism particularly once you leave the cities
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:24:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:14:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:08:58 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:08:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:06:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that

His race was a major factor. The idea of being part of a historical first is a very strong motivator. The fact all previous Presidents was white and he was running on "change" helped sell the concept he was going to be different. Many racists may have also voted for him so they could justify their own racism, with the legitimate claim that they voted for a black guy. On top of that, Gallup polls indicate that 89% African Americans approve of Obama, while other races such as Hispanics, and Whites are in the 40s; this indicates that about 40%, if not more, African Americans are voting based on race.
Gallup polls also indicate that 15% of African Americans are openly voting for Obama based on his race, and 6% of whites are openly voting for him based on race. 4% of African Americans, and 7% of whites are openly voting against him based on race.
I have seen Black comedians have endorsing Obama based on race; they openly stated it was because he was black. Black celebrities have also come out to endorse Obama, and the media emphasizes the historical significance of his race.


If you don't think his race played a big part in selling his message and his candidacy, you are a fool.

want to debate that?

Why would you? After all--the result is already predetermined, after all.

You really like trolling don't you? I've seen you advocate far more pointless things before, but somehow this is problem.

How is it that philosophy is so important, but determinism isn't?

Because sure--everything is objectively meaningless! But why does that somehow prevent us from assigning very valid meanings to our world? They clearly mean something to us! Why does it matter any more beyond that?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:26:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:06:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:44:53 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:40:57 PM, bluesteel wrote:
I don't think anyone thinks Obama won because of his race. I think most people believe he won because the country was so dissatisfied with Bush that Democrats finally had decently high turnout.

^that

His race was a major factor. The idea of being part of a historical first is a very strong motivator. The fact all previous Presidents was white and he was running on "change" helped sell the concept he was going to be different. Many racists may have also voted for him so they could justify their own racism, with the legitimate claim that they voted for a black guy. On top of that, Gallup polls indicate that 89% African Americans approve of Obama, while other races such as Hispanics, and Whites are in the 40s; this indicates that about 40%, if not more, African Americans are voting based on race.
Gallup polls also indicate that 15% of African Americans are openly voting for Obama based on his race, and 6% of whites are openly voting for him based on race. 4% of African Americans, and 7% of whites are openly voting against him based on race.
I have seen Black comedians have endorsing Obama based on race; they openly stated it was because he was black. Black celebrities have also come out to endorse Obama, and the media emphasizes the historical significance of his race.


If you don't think his race played a big part in selling his message and his candidacy, you are a fool.

What you are saying may have influenced some people. You are not taking into account that the way Obama ran his campaign was vastly superior to the way McCain ran his and the general environment in which he ran.

1) Obama came at a time where the economy was down the drain and most Americans disapproved of George Bush. He promised different policies than Bush and said he would push towards ending the war which was very expensive to the US.

2) Obama secured a lot more funding than McCain did. He advertised his campaign better, he used the internet (you seem to agree) and was generally in tune with modern means of information dispersion.

3) Many of McCain's policies seemed similar to Bush especially with regards to taxes.

4) McCain had poor conduct during the elections and accused Obama of being a socialist, and misrepresented many of Obama's policies as well as calling him a re-distributionist-in-chief.

5) McCain committed many embarrasssing blunders during the campaign not the least of which was the Joe the Plumber debacle.

6) He chose an incompetent VP whereas Obama's VP supplemented his weaknesses (foreign policy).

The list could go on.

In short, for most people, Obama was the only viable choice. Do you really think if Obama was white and McCain black, McCain would have won? It is not the race, it is the person, the campaign, and the message.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:28:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:24:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Because sure--everything is objectively meaningless! But why does that somehow prevent us from assigning very valid meanings to our world? They clearly mean something to us! Why does it matter any more beyond that?

Yes, and finding out whether or not we are automated machines with inevitable thoughts and inevitable actions would bring us closer to understand ourselves and the universe. It would also hurt, again, religion and morality, and perhaps bring some degree of agreement in the intellectual community....all these things have valid meaning to people.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you object just for the sake of it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:35:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:28:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:24:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Because sure--everything is objectively meaningless! But why does that somehow prevent us from assigning very valid meanings to our world? They clearly mean something to us! Why does it matter any more beyond that?

Yes, and finding out whether or not we are automated machines with inevitable thoughts and inevitable actions would bring us closer to understand ourselves and the universe. It would also hurt, again, religion and morality, and perhaps bring some degree of agreement in the intellectual community....all these things have valid meaning to people.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you object just for the sake of it.
Lol, isn't that the point of DEBATE.org? Nah bro...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:38:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:28:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/27/2012 1:24:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Because sure--everything is objectively meaningless! But why does that somehow prevent us from assigning very valid meanings to our world? They clearly mean something to us! Why does it matter any more beyond that?

Yes, and finding out whether or not we are automated machines with inevitable thoughts and inevitable actions would bring us closer to understand ourselves and the universe. It would also hurt, again, religion and morality, and perhaps bring some degree of agreement in the intellectual community....all these things have valid meaning to people.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you object just for the sake of it.

It sounds like you're so hellbent on knowledge that you'd see the world burn before humankind's happiness.

Myself, I'm perfectly content to just sit back and laugh at the absurdity of it all, while still retaining some kind of personal meaning, for myself and the human world I live in.

But I guess you don't care about that.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I also get the feeling that you're just bitter about the world's meaninglessness, and can't have anyone else not be just as bitter.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:43:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But I like you anyway, Ikey. You're not that bad. Just need to be a little more happy. :D
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus