Obama to put basketball court in White House

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

It'll be interesting.

In another era, I recall people attacking JFK as a candidate because he was Roman Catholic. The rhetoric was that the Vatican (Pope) would be running the country.

The American people got past that. Whether they can get past race (or gender someday), we'll simply have to see in November.

Agreed and Irish Catholics had that struggle to assimilate into "whiteness."

Unfortunately, if America gets past race for the November election, that doesn't mean the structural inequalities have been overcome. It means that Obama (if he wins) was considered "an exception." I hope people who want substantive and long lasting change do not become complacent and comfortable if Obama is elected.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

It'll be interesting.

In another era, I recall people attacking JFK as a candidate because he was Roman Catholic. The rhetoric was that the Vatican (Pope) would be running the country.

The American people got past that. Whether they can get past race (or gender someday), we'll simply have to see in November.

The Catholic thing actually makes a little bit of sense though.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

The American people got past that. Whether they can get past race (or gender someday), we'll simply have to see in November.

Won't that be tough to tell, though? I mean, I understand that there are people who will make their decision based on race, but there will also be people whose reasons have nothing to do with race, and won't vote for Obama because of disagreements with his platform and proposed stances on issues.

I think it will be difficult, when looking at the voting totals, to see just how much of a role racism will play in people's decision-making.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Won't that be tough to tell, though? I mean, I understand that there are people who will make their decision based on race, but there will also be people whose reasons have nothing to do with race, and won't vote for Obama because of disagreements with his platform and proposed stances on issues.

I think it will be difficult, when looking at the voting totals, to see just how much of a role racism will play in people's decision-making.

it won't be difficult at all, it's been done all along. Each primary they divvied up the totals by race and gender and that part has never ever played suck a front seat role until this election season.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

it won't be difficult at all, it's been done all along. Each primary they divvied up the totals by race and gender and that part has never ever played suck a front seat role until this election season.

That's a different question, though. It will be easy enough, for example, to break down how many whites voted for McCain/against Obama, but it won't be nearly as easy to break down how many of those whites voted against Obama because of his race vs how many voted against him because of his politics or because he's a Democrat and they always vote Republican, Libertarian, Green, or whatever.

The only way to ascertain how much his race played a part in their decision is by asking those white voters something along the lines of "why will you/did you vote against Obama" or "did Obama's race affect your decision not to vote for him." I'm guessing a significant lack of candor, and maybe even of self-awareness, could come into play in answering that question.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

it won't be difficult at all, it's been done all along. Each primary they divvied up the totals by race and gender and that part has never ever played suck a front seat role until this election season.

He's talking about getting beyond the descriptive statistics and identifying explanatory variables.

This is where researchers and research engines can collect qualitative data to supplement the quantitative data. We can never assume that racial bigotry is the key explanatory variable. We can hypothesize that it's probably the case, based on context clues and societal tendencies, but to be certain we would analyze it. And this has been done in the past and will most likely be done after this election. It would be too grand a project to pass up.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm guessing a significant lack of candor, and maybe even of self-awareness, could come into play in answering that question.

Co-sign. A good number of people will give the "right" answer to a pollster but vote a different way in the privacy and anonymity of a voting booth.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Co-sign. A good number of people will give the "right" answer to a pollster but vote a different way in the privacy and anonymity of a voting booth.

Researchers take into account the "need to feel like a good person"/"place yourself in a good light infront of others" when they do this type of research.

Taking that margin of error into consideration, the results will still be about 90% accurate. Plus, there is always more than one researcher or research engine conducting this type of research on a macro or micro level. So taken together we can have a pretty accurate picture of what's going on.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Researchers take into account the "need to feel like a good person"/"place yourself in a good light infront of others" when they do this type of research.

Taking that margin of error into consideration, the results will still be about 90% accurate. Plus, there is always more than one researcher or research engine conducting this type of research on a macro and micro level. So taken together we can have a pretty accurate picture of what's going on.

That will be interesting, then!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

He's talking about getting beyond the descriptive statistics and identifying explanatory variables.

This is where researchers and research engines can collect qualitative data to supplement the quantitative data. We can never assume that racial bigotry is the key explanatory variable. We can hypothesize that it's probably the case, based on context clues and societal tendencies, but to be certain we would analyze it. And this has been done in the past and will most likely be done after this election. It would be too grand a project to pass up.

Thank you for the insight; I knew they divided voting tendencies by race, gender, etc., but I could see the inaccuracy in it as well, in that there are people (like myself) who will be voting for another candidate on issues having nothing to do with Obama's race.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Thank you for the insight; I knew they divided voting tendencies by race, gender, etc., but I could see the inaccuracy in it as well, in that there are people (like myself) who will be voting for another candidate on issues having nothing to do with Obama's race.

Yes and there's a difference between voting based on race (or considering race) and voting based on racial bigotry.

And when we make hypotheses about voting patterns, we aren't attempting to apply it to 100% of the cases. So there's no need for people to say "race wasn't a factor in MY vote (and that means that no one does it--so that claim is bogus)." We are looking for general patterns that can be assumed to not apply in many cases and assumed to apply in many cases where people are in denial. So there's also no need for people to say "I know for a fact that my FRIENDS wouldn't do that because they are nice people." Only your friends know what they would and wouldn't do.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That's a different question, though. It will be easy enough, for example, to break down how many whites voted for McCain/against Obama, but it won't be nearly as easy to break down how many of those whites voted against Obama because of his race vs how many voted against him because of his politics or because he's a Democrat and they always vote Republican, Libertarian, Green, or whatever.

The only way to ascertain how much his race played a part in their decision is by asking those white voters something along the lines of "why will you/did you vote against Obama" or "did Obama's race affect your decision not to vote for him." I'm guessing a significant lack of candor, and maybe even of self-awareness, could come into play in answering that question.

I guess that just leaves West Virginia

[starang21]

i wonder how many black voters are voting for obama because he's black?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by starang21

i wonder how many black voters are voting for obama because he's black?

possibly the same amount of voters that are voting against him because he is black.


from an email...

This older white guy asked his older black friend, 'Are you voting for Barack Obama just because he's black'?

So the older black guy fires back and says, 'Are you not voting for him because he's black?
Why can't I vote for him just cause he's black?
Hell in this country men are pulled over everyday just cause they're black, passed over for promotions just cause they're black, considered to be criminals just cause they're black, but you don't seem to have a problem with that.

This country was built with the sweat and whip off the slave's back, and now a descendent of those same slaves has a chance to lead the same country where we weren't even considered to be people. Where we were n't allowed to be educated, drink from the same water fountains, eat in the same restaurants, or even vote, so you damn right I'm going to vote for him!
Not just because he's black....
But because he is hope, he is change, and he now allows me to understand when my grandson says he wants to be president when he grows up, it is not a fairy tale but a short term goal, Because he sees, understand, and knows, he can achieve, withstand, and do anything just because he's black!

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

possibly the same amount of voters that are voting against him because he is black.

and both are completely ok.