What do these stats tell you

[lostfan]

I do not think you are coming off as an asshole.

 

So historically, the south has been in favor of those laws. And in this elected, support dropped from Kerry to Obama. The connotation, as I am understanding it, is white voters, in areas that historically have not been stellar examples of racial tolerance, voted along racial lines for McCain. Therefor drawing a subtle and not so subtle accusation of racism.

Yes, I am actually saying there are plenty of racist voters in certain parts of the South. Yes. Absolutely. Frankly I don't know why it's such a point of contention either since this is something I always thought was commonly accepted, in fact it's pretty in-your-face if you go to the wrong town. I didn't explicitly say it because I felt like I'd be saying the sky is blue.

 

Does this apply to ALL white voters in the South that didn't vote for Obama? No. Of course not, only a percentage. The numbers don't lie and it didn't happen anywhere else in the country.

[Texsox]

Tex - you don't see the difference? You just got through saying you feel you are a victim of painting with a broad brush. I was saying, one of those things is specific to persons, and the other was painting with a broad brush. The difference you say you don't see, is the difference you were trying to make yourself.

 

I am done chasing you in circles. I'm dizzy and tired now.

 

I guess I am not understanding your comment. How could someone bring racism into the process, then leave it out when they vote?

[kapkomet]

To add a log to the campfire, our VP of finance was in Switzerland the night of the election, and anecdotally, I think many people around the world think those who voted for McCain are super rich, or redneck (read: racist). That was basically the conversation around the table that night, from what one of my managers said she said.

[Texsox]

Yes, I am actually saying there are plenty of racist voters in certain parts of the South. Yes. Absolutely. Frankly I don't know why it's such a point of contention either since this is something I always thought was commonly accepted, in fact it's pretty in-your-face if you go to the wrong town. I didn't explicitly say it because I felt like I'd be saying the sky is blue.

 

Does this apply to ALL white voters in the South that didn't vote for Obama? No. Of course not, only a percentage. The numbers don't lie and it didn't happen anywhere else in the country.

 

And NSS, I'll use this one to show what I was saying.

 

What was the point of this entire thread? It pointed to four southern states and asked why voters switched from voting Dem to voting GOP. The implication and connotation was obvious to lostfan and myself, I'm at a loss that you do not see it.

[bmags]

Percentage wise, you're absolutely right, which is why I wanted to know the pure numbers as well.

 

black turnout in Chicago was down in some areas. lol. But, there should be an increased turnout amongst all groups considering the % increase raised in VT this year.

[whitesoxfan101]

This thread is an example of even very smart people reading too much into things. Look, there are a small number of white people who voted for McCain because he's white, there are also a small number of black people who voted for Obama because he's black. Now, my guess is those numbers percentagewise are quite similar overall, with perhaps a slight advantage going to Obama due to turnout. But overall, these factors both were obvious going into the election and not at all what determined who won.

 

The maps of the south/bible belt/whatever you want to call it are undeinable in showing that the majority of the "racist white" vote who jumped from Kerry to McCain due to race reasons only, reside in the south. That doesn't make Tex or any other person in the south that jumped in such a way racist, but it means that a relatively noticeable (but still small) number of those votes occured due to race. I think the south is continuing to make progress (SEE: Virginia and North Carolina vote this year), and the deep south is improving, but it still has some work to do. The whole country does, but obviously a little moreso the south.

 

Overall, if you went from a no show vote to Obama because he's black, you are a fool. If you went from Kerry to McCain because Obama is black, you are a fool. The numbers overall in those categories are small, none of the people on this board belong to either, and that's the end of the story. It's not really THAT complicated in my opinion.

Edited November 18, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[lostfan]

This thread is an example of even very smart people reading too much into things. Look, there are a small number of white people who voted for McCain due to race, there are also a small number of black people who voted for Obama because he's white. Now, my guess is those numbers percentagewise are quite similar overall, with perhaps a slight advantage going to Obama due to turnout. But overall, these factors both were obvious going into the election and not at all what determined who won.

 

The maps of the south/bible belt/whatever you want to call in are undeinable in showing that the majority of the "racist white" vote who jumped from Kerry to McCain due to race reasons only, reside in the south. That doesn't make Tex or any other person in the south that jumped in such a way racist, but it means that a relatively noticeable (but still small) number of those votes occured due to race. I think the south is continuing to make progress (SEE: Virginia and North Carolina vote this year), and the deep south is improving, but it still has some work to do. The whole country does, but obviously a little moreso the south.

 

Overall, if you went from a no show vote to Obama because he's black, you are a fool. If you went from Kerry to McCain because Obama is black, you are a fool. The numbers overall in those categories are small, none of the people on this board belong to either, and that's the end of the story. It's not really THAT complicated in my opinion.

When my first post in this thread was "f*** this thread" the post I wanted to make looked something like this, but I didn't/don't have enough patience with saying the same things again... and again... and again. I always end up getting irritated and that is doubly true today, which has been a pretty s***ty day from the start for me.

 

[bmags]

One of the big themes of this election was people wondering, "what effect will race have", now that it's over we are looking at map of a historically racist area (appalachia's through tenn-ark-okl) and see that formerly democrat voters went for republicans. What are some causes?

• name rec for mccain, hard to believe after an election this covered.

• media ran Obama as incumbent in press

• military experience for McCain

• generally lesser educated area, more susceptible to negative campaigning.

• race

 

But all in all, I think the last factor is the biggest.

[whitesoxfan101]

One of the big themes of this election was people wondering, "what effect will race have", now that it's over we are looking at map of a historically racist area (appalachia's through tenn-ark-okl) and see that formerly democrat voters went for republicans. What are some causes?

• name rec for mccain, hard to believe after an election this covered.

• media ran Obama as incumbent in press

• military experience for McCain

• generally lesser educated area, more susceptible to negative campaigning.• race

 

But all in all, I think the last factor is the biggest.

 

The highlighted could be accurate to a degree, and I see what you are saying with the other reasons, but I don't buy any of the first three reasons overall. Especially reason number 2, because if the obscenely biased media coverage had been even a small factor anywhere in this race, McCain would be president.

Edited November 18, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[Texsox]

The maps of the south/bible belt/whatever you want to call it are undeinable in showing that the majority of the "racist white" vote who jumped from Kerry to McCain due to race reasons only, reside in the south. That doesn't make Tex or any other person in the south that jumped in such a way racist, but it means that a relatively noticeable (but still small) number of those votes occured due to race. I think the south is continuing to make progress (SEE: Virginia and North Carolina vote this year), and the deep south is improving, but it still has some work to do. The whole country does, but obviously a little moreso the south.

 

Again, NSS, these are the posts I'm talking about. And they have been going on for a year.

 

It's undeniable that the racist white voters are the south because they switched for race reasons only. How we somehow know their reasons I do not know. But no one switched in the north and if we did, we know it wasn't because of race.

[kapkomet]

The highlighted could be accurate to a degree, and I see what you are saying with the other reasons, but I don't buy any of the first three reasons overall. Especially reason number 2, because if the obscenely biased media coverage had been even a small factor anywhere in this race, McCain would be president.

Huh?

 

[whitesoxfan101]

Again, NSS, these are the posts I'm talking about. And they have been going on for a year.

 

It's undeniable that the racist white voters are the south because they switched for race reasons only. How we somehow know their reasons I do not know. But no one switched in the north and if we did, we know it wasn't because of race.

 

So, you don't think there is a higher number of racist white folks percentagewise in the south than the rest of the country? Becuase if you do, I don't see as how you can deny the point I made there. And if you actually don't think that there is a higher number of racist white folks percentagewise in the south, than we will have to just disagree.

[whitesoxfan101]

Huh?

 

He said that the media covering Obama as if he were the incumbent could have been a factor in the south. My response was simply that had the media coverage being prObama ad nauseum been a factor anywhere at all in McCain's favor, he'd be president because the media coverage was ridiculously one sided.

[Texsox]

One of the big themes of this election was people wondering, "what effect will race have", now that it's over we are looking at map of a historically racist area (appalachia's through tenn-ark-okl) and see that formerly democrat voters went for republicans. What are some causes?

• name rec for mccain, hard to believe after an election this covered.

• media ran Obama as incumbent in press

• military experience for McCain

• generally lesser educated area, more susceptible to negative campaigning.

• race

But all in all, I think the last factor is the biggest.

 

And NSS, I offer you another example. Have you really been missing these for the past year?

It could not possibly be that Bush was an idiot and even GOP voters bailed on Bush and voted for anyone else but him, then returned to the GOP? Nope, not one person thought to mention that scenario.

 

It couldn't be that that region, faces economic hardships and a loss of low skilled industry unlike any other area, combined with lots of competition from illegals and McCain had a stricter plan than Obama?

 

Could it be that that region has strong ties to the mining and coal industries and Obama was much more critical?

 

Naw, must be race.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

The highlighted could be accurate to a degree, and I see what you are saying with the other reasons, but I don't buy any of the first three reasons overall. Especially reason number 2, because if the obscenely biased media coverage had been even a small factor anywhere in this race, McCain would be president.

 

 

 

 

[bmags]

The highlighted could be accurate to a degree, and I see what you are saying with the other reasons, but I don't buy any of the first three reasons overall. Especially reason number 2, because if the obscenely biased media coverage had been even a small factor anywhere in this race, McCain would be president.

 

Think less in terms of aims of coverage and think of total coverage. Market was saturated with obama. In congressional races, the incumbent with huge money made typically dominates coverage. That's why in congressional races, if the incumbent is below 50, they say they are in trouble, because undecideds tend to flock to the challenger. With the media saturation of Obama, he, more than the ® was the virtual incumbent in terms of coverage. And I think, looking at the gallup poll, how they had Obama at 52%-41%, with 5% undecideds, and end voting was 52-46%, I think that could be a factor. Had many chances to view Obama and chose to go with challenger.

[lostfan]

He said that the media covering Obama as if he were the incumbent could have been a factor in the south. My response was simply that had the media coverage being prObama ad nauseum been a factor anywhere at all in McCain's favor, he'd be president because the media coverage was ridiculously one sided.

Some of that, McCain did to himself. Towards the end, he was being covered the same way announcers do in a game where one team is getting its ass kicked.

[NorthSideSox72]

Again, NSS, these are the posts I'm talking about. And they have been going on for a year.

 

It's undeniable that the racist white voters are the south because they switched for race reasons only. How we somehow know their reasons I do not know. But no one switched in the north and if we did, we know it wasn't because of race.

You keep not reading the posts you respond to. Posts say that as a percentage, there are more racists in those areas, and you keep interpereting that as 'ALL of them are racist'. You are the one painting with a broad brush here, not the people you are responding to. No one is saying what you think they are saying.

 

[bmags]

And NSS, I offer you another example. Have you really been missing these for the past year?

It could not possibly be that Bush was an idiot and even GOP voters bailed on Bush and voted for anyone else but him, then returned to the GOP? Nope, not one person thought to mention that scenario.

 

It couldn't be that that region, faces economic hardships and a loss of low skilled industry unlike any other area, combined with lots of competition from illegals and McCain had a stricter plan than Obama?

 

Could it be that that industry has strong ties to the mining and coal industries and Obama was much more critical?

 

Naw, must be race.

 

Well, I find the incredible strides you make to say that race still isn't a factor is more laughable.

[whitesoxfan101]

And NSS, I offer you another example. Have you really been missing these for the past year?

It could not possibly be that Bush was an idiot and even GOP voters bailed on Bush and voted for anyone else but him, then returned to the GOP? Nope, not one person thought to mention that scenario.

 

It couldn't be that that region, faces economic hardships and a loss of low skilled industry unlike any other area, combined with lots of competition from illegals and McCain had a stricter plan than Obama?

 

Could it be that that region has strong ties to the mining and coal industries and Obama was much more critical?

 

Naw, must be race.

 

You really aren't reading these posts, are you? I said it's a very small number of people, but a larger number reside in the south. The numbers do not lie. I would say maybe 2 percent of people who switched from Obama to McCain did it due to race, and about 5 percent in the south. It's a VERY small number, even in the south I would say 95 percent of voters who made the switch did it due to the reasons you said. You can continue to ignore my points though if you'd like, but you are better than this Texsox.

Edited November 18, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[Texsox]

Well, I find the incredible strides you make to say that race still isn't a factor is more laughable.

 

Coming from all the racist people up north that want to build a wall to keep out Mexicans*, I take that as a compliment. Because of course the only reason that some people up north support a fence being build 2,000 miles form them is because of race.

[Texsox]

You really aren't reading these posts, are you? I said it's a very small number of people, but a larger number reside in the south. The numbers do not lie. I would say maybe 2 percent of people who switched from Obama to McCain did it due to race, and about 5 percent in the south. It's a VERY small number, even in the south I would say 95 percent of voters who made the switch did it due to the reasons you said. You can continue to ignore my points though if you'd like, but you are better than this Texsox.

 

The numbers don't lie. How can you say that those people switched because of race? Give me a link that proves it was race that caused them to switch?

[whitesoxfan101]

Coming from all the racist people up north that want to build a wall to keep out Mexicans*, I take that as a compliment. Because of course the only reason that some people up north support a fence being build 2,000 miles form them is because of race.

 

That's a much, much more broad brush to paint with than any of us have even come close to using. Especially since we have far more numerical data to back the concept we are bringing up than this silliness does.

[Texsox]

That's a much, much more broad brush to paint with than any of us have even come close to using. Especially since we have far more numerical data to back the concept we are bringing up than this silliness does.

 

but I said some.

 

Show me a link that proves why someone switched. You are making assumptions about a region and why they switched, Back it up with some data. I keep hearing this is proven.

 

Why do we know so much about these voters and their racist voting patterns?

[NorthSideSox72]

but I said some.

 

Show me a link that proves why someone switched. You are making assumptions about a region and why they switched, Back it up with some data. I keep hearing this is proven.

 

Why do we know so much about these voters and their racist voting patterns?

Its called correlation. The heat map that someone posted here a couple weeks ago was a good example. In the great majority of the country, Obama did better than Kerry, which makes correlated sense with the fact that Obama was better than Kerry nationally as well. But that geographical area we are referencing, the opposite happened. And those areas have a history of being culturally less open-minded - though again, this is a net tendency, not an absolute.

 

Of course, correlation is not necessarily causation. There could be other causes.

 

Do you have another theory?