logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> The vote in 08, race and motivation-right or wrong?
Royucker
post Nov 6 2008, 02:58 PM
Post #1


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Indications are that we have seen a very large increase in voter registration and turnout in general and in particular among blacks and younger voters. Conventional wisdom is that at least part of the reason for this increase was because Obama was the first black candidate of a major party and/or that had a real shot at becoming president.
If the conclusion that race was indeed the catalyst for this “excitement” among the electorate is correct I think it raises some very interesting questions.

I am not interested, here at least, in debating the numbers or motivations of any of these “groups”, nor do I care to raise the hackles of anyone by making statements based on my interpretations so if I may, I would like to pose the following question, based on a hypothetical.

Premise:
1) Larger participation by blacks who were more interested or excited in this election because there was a black man running.
2) Anecdotal evidence that at least some whites ( my neighbor in particular) who believed that “it was time we have a black man in the high office”
3) The supposition by the media that in the primaries in PA for example that Obama was having trouble getting the “uneducated, working class, white, male vote” (inferred meaning, stupid white racist)


Question for debate:
If certain people voted for Obama because he was a black man and if others voted against Obama because he was a black man.

Was either wrong?

Who was wrong?

Does it really matter why they voted the way they did?

Would your answers to the first three questions be any different if I removed "black" and inserted "woman"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Amlord
post Nov 6 2008, 03:25 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Voters tend to cast ballots for the person that is most like them. In many elections, that means that they think like they do on issues. For some people, most like them means that they have the same party affiliation. For some, it is race or gender or ethnic background.

It does not good to overanalyze why people voted for one person over another unless that choice is clearly not in their own best interest. If Candidate A runs on a platform of nationalizing the oil industry and oil executives still vote for him, then there is a disconnect.

In this election, both candidates promised tax cuts. Both candidates said they would fix the economy. Issues, however, were secondary to the perception that Bush has royally screwed things up. Obama successfully portrayed McCain as Bush the Third and thus he won. He also had an excellent ground game for getting young people to vote which was greatly assisted by all of the states that opened up for early voting this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Nov 6 2008, 03:30 PM
Post #3


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



If certain people voted for Obama because he was a black man and if others voted against Obama because he was a black man.

Was either wrong?

Who was wrong?

Does it really matter why they voted the way they did?

The person who voted against someone because of their race is wrong if it was based on concerns about the limitations of someone who is partly of African descent.

I voted for Obama excited about his lineage because of the symbolic power of his candiacy and his presidency. I would not have voted if he did not also meet my qualifcations for the office of the presidency. But his election helps prove to our country and the world that there is such a thing as the American dream. This is a message that represents the best that the United States stands for. Political figures are part symbolism.

This is a unifying not a dividing, bigotted, ignorant, or partisan value.

Show me a similar value for voting against someone in part because of their race and I will stand corrected.

As for how people voted, it sure does matter how people voted. In the last two states I have lived in the Nobama vote was in part a vote against his racial makeup for reasons that are not unifying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 6 2008, 03:36 PM
Post #4


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Royucker @ Nov 6 2008, 09:58 AM) *
Indications are that we have seen a very large increase in voter registration and turnout in general and in particular among blacks and younger voters. Conventional wisdom is that at least part of the reason for this increase was because Obama was the first black candidate of a major party and/or that had a real shot at becoming president.
If the conclusion that race was indeed the catalyst for this “excitement” among the electorate is correct I think it raises some very interesting questions.

I am not interested, here at least, in debating the numbers or motivations of any of these “groups”, nor do I care to raise the hackles of anyone by making statements based on my interpretations so if I may, I would like to pose the following question, based on a hypothetical.

Premise:
1) Larger participation by blacks who were more interested or excited in this election because there was a black man running.
2) Anecdotal evidence that at least some whites ( my neighbor in particular) who believed that “it was time we have a black man in the high office”
3) The supposition by the media that in the primaries in PA for example that Obama was having trouble getting the “uneducated, working class, white, male vote” (inferred meaning, stupid white racist)


Question for debate:
If certain people voted for Obama because he was a black man and if others voted against Obama because he was a black man.

Was either wrong?

Who was wrong?

Does it really matter why they voted the way they did?

Would your answers to the first three questions be any different if I removed "black" and inserted "woman"?

The Dems successfully drew the election as a referendum on Bush and the economy – blamed on Bush. People voted for who they felt would do the best job for them – in which case race meant nothing except to a small number of voters.

I read that white upper middle class voters with family incomes over 200K went for Obama. Clearly they and the majority believe his message was what we need.

Only time will tell if they are right.

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 6 2008, 03:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 6 2008, 03:41 PM
Post #5


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Are we really trying to draw an equivalency between supporting Obama because he would be the first black president and opposing him because he's black?

We've been through this moral bait and switch before.

Those who opposed Obama based on race where wrong.

Those who supported based on his race, were mostly right so long as this did not entail any racist suppositions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Royucker
post Nov 6 2008, 09:13 PM
Post #6


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 9,724
Joined: October-21-08

From: Virginia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 6 2008, 10:41 AM) *
Are we really trying to draw an equivalency between supporting Obama because he would be the first black president and opposing him because he's black?

We've been through this moral bait and switch before.

Those who opposed Obama based on race where wrong.

Those who supported based on his race, were mostly right so long as this did not entail any racist suppositions.

Well, yes actually I was drawing an equivalency becasue I see it, or the lack thereof as an interesting topic. How can one separate the two unless we pretend that race had nothing to do with this election?

Not sure what you mean about a bait and switch. It is a fair subject in my opinion

Those who opposed Obama based on race where wrong.
Ok, fair enough

Those who supported based on his race, were mostly right
really, why?

so long as this did not entail any racist suppositions.

...so it is ok to judge or prefer based on race, as long as it is for the right reason?


Interesting, very interesting. Actually, my interest in this was developed after seeing the pure joy on the faces and in the actions of folks, mostly black on television last night. Please don’t get me wrong, I certainly understand the joy and pride. It actually made me kinda feel good as well to see people that happy about the election results even as I worried about the general direction we will go under Obama and Pelosi( Pelosi worries me more than any of them)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Nov 6 2008, 10:58 PM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,830
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Question for debate:
If certain people voted for Obama because he was a black man and if others voted against Obama because he was a black man.

Was either wrong?
Yes, and no. Yes, in that basing one's vote on race is wrong, no, in that everybody's vote is of equal value, regardless of it's motive.

Who was wrong?
Both, neither.

Does it really matter why they voted the way they did?
As a practical matter, yes. People vote the way they do because of perceptions and expectations. Expectations can be political gunpowder.

Would your answers to the first three questions be any different if I removed "black" and inserted "woman"?
Not one bit.

QUOTE(Turnea)
We've been through this moral bait and switch before.

Those who opposed Obama based on race where wrong.

Those who supported based on his race, were mostly right so long as this did not entail any racist suppositions.
Translation: Its okay in Turnea's world to be racially motivated, if its the right race.

Those who opposed McCain based on race where wrong.

Those who supported (McCain) based on his race, were mostly right as long as this did not entail any racist suppositions


Explain how opposing or supporting someone based on race cannot entail any racist suppositions. dry.gif

This post has been edited by Bikerdad: Nov 7 2008, 05:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kalabus
post Nov 6 2008, 11:24 PM
Post #8


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 279
Member No.: 2,117
Joined: January-3-04

From: Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



These questions are not very tight in my head and I don't agree with what you think was meant by noting rural working class whites without college degrees and their potential feelings towards the exotic.

I do know that the people choosing McCain because "race matters" are entirely different than the people choosing Obama because "race matters".

The people voting for McCain on race are racist, because they are voting against a black man specifically because he is a black man.

The people voting for Obama are not voting against anything. Blacks have voted for white democrats for decades. The black voters and other voters voting for history, for historical pride are in no way repudiating anything or deeming the alternative as inferior.

They are not comparable.

Those 15% of West Virginians and Kentuckians who admitted they voted against Obama because he was black in the Democratic primary are not the same as the black and white people who voted for Obama because it carries a deep sense of cultural pride and hope to believe, as a historically dejected and discriminated against segment of society, that a black person could become president. It was never "oooh, McCain is white....can't vote for him".

Now...is racism wrong? Yeah, I think it is.

Were the people voting for Obama because he was black in some way being prejudiced against McCain because he was white? Obviously and absolutely not.

Not to mention that the numbers in this election are not very different than previous elections. The black vote did not win this election for Obama. If blacks voted precisely like whites in this country in 2008....Obama would have still won the electoral college.

Blacks voting 95% for Obama, instead of the expected 88-90% for any democrat is a small drop in the bucket of an electoral and popular vote win of solid proportion.

Whites were also within historical realm of voting per GOP and Democrats.

Obama's race had little to no impact on the race, were not really different than past elections between white candidates of both parties.

For those people who racially voted for McCain or racially voted for Obama? Prejudiced and superficial votes have never been uncommon in this nation.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gordo
post Nov 7 2008, 12:24 AM
Post #9


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 864
Member No.: 6,220
Joined: June-28-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



I look at racism with contempt and caution when it comes to its influence or possible influence on this presidents administration.

I hope that Obama is allowed to be an individual, as in race is not something that is goading him into any particular actions. I hope anything that a person could denote in there minds as racial in some way could first be viewed as individual much like bush and his ranch, we got to know something about the individual himself there.

I think if race, being it is a hot topic to say the least, is to poisonous overall. I would hate to see dialog in writing or talk constantly having to occur with racial context when speaking about the president. I actually would feel that to be so lame really and probably would just opt to blame everyone for such.

Basically it would just suck to see race in some form or another giving so much precedence or influence by virtue of people constantly having to bring up the issue. It would be better in my opinion if the Obama presidency could be viewed as that really, his term in office and whatever that holds in store.

Just to add, my vote for him had nothing at all to do with any form of race.

This post has been edited by gordo: Nov 7 2008, 12:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Nov 7 2008, 05:52 AM
Post #10


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Question for debate:
If certain people voted for Obama because he was a black man and if others voted against Obama because he was a black man.


Was either wrong?

I don't know that you could call either vote "wrong." Misguided, yes. A person's choice is too subjective to be called "wrong." If so, everyone who voted for Bush would be "wrong," because he was a disaster. But if a voter thinks a candidate will be a lousy president because he is black, voting against that candidate is not the "wrong" thing to do, even if that decision is based on prejudice or stereotypes that turn out to be incorrect. It's just bad judgment.

If you think that Obama was clearly the best choice and McCain would be a lousy president, yet you voted against Obama because he is black, is it any more damaging than voting against the better candidate solely because he is a Democrat? Maybe it's worse to be a racist than blindly partisan, but the effect is the same. Can one be more "wrong" than the other when voting?

If you voted for Obama solely because you wanted a black man to finally win the presidency, that is a legitimate reason. It confers a benefit. A few black presidents down the road, it won't be such a great reason.

Who was wrong?

Nobody. You make your decisions based on your own reasons.

Does it really matter why they voted the way they did?

In principle, maybe. In effect, no.

Would your answers to the first three questions be any different if I removed "black" and inserted "woman"?

No.


I actually voted for Obama in part because he is black (multiracial, whatever), because there are possibly some great benefits to finally electing a black man. Same goes for Clinton - having a woman president would possibly bring some good side benefits. But those considerations were not scale-tippers, just added reasons to vote for the best candidate. It opens up the field for future presidential hopefuls, changes the race dialogue somewhat, changes our image in the eyes of much of the world, etc. I consider those to be perfectly legitimate reasons to consider race when voting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Nov 8 2008, 01:56 PM
Post #11


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(kalabus @ Nov 7 2008, 01:24 AM) *
I do know that the people choosing McCain because "race matters" are entirely different than the people choosing Obama because "race matters".

The people voting for McCain on race are racist, because they are voting against a black man specifically because he is a black man.


The people voting for Obama are not voting against anything. Blacks have voted for white democrats for decades. The black voters and other voters voting for history, for historical pride are in no way repudiating anything or deeming the alternative as inferior.

They are not comparable.

Those 15% of West Virginians and Kentuckians who admitted they voted against Obama because he was black in the Democratic primary are not the same as the black and white people who voted for Obama because it carries a deep sense of cultural pride and hope to believe, as a historically dejected and discriminated against segment of society, that a black person could become president. It was never "oooh, McCain is white....can't vote for him".

Now...is racism wrong? Yeah, I think it is.

Were the people voting for Obama because he was black in some way being prejudiced against McCain because he was white? Obviously and absolutely not.

For those people who racially voted for McCain or racially voted for Obama? Prejudiced and superficial votes have never been uncommon in this nation.



Good post.
"The people voting for McCain on race are racist, because they are voting against a black man specifically because he is a black man."
That's it.

I'd like to add:
The rather insidious implication of the OP is that people who voted FOR Obama because he's black, actually were voting AGAINST mccain because mccain is white.
Now, you just can not make that case. For one thing, the vast majority of Obama voters are white and to assume in this group a massive white self-hatred or a deep believe that blacks are superior to whites ... well, that's why we call the KKK and the Palinistas crazy.
For another thing, thinking like that is applying their own twisted logic unto the other half.

"Do you vote for Obama because he's black?" According to Gallup 7% of blacks somewhat agree with this, and 12% agrees strongly, so 1 in 5 of blacks looks to his skin.
For arguments sake, let's assume that blacks who say they voted for Obama because he is black, also meant that they voted against mccain coz he's a white republican and they hated white republicans.

Well, it's not like blacks have no reason to resent white republicans. Blacks have far more objective reasons to resent and dislike white republicans, than vice versa. Blacks as a group are still treated unfairly by white republicansas a group, when it comes jobs, education and things like racial profiling. Just look at the recent Ohio controversies, where white republicans were trying to make predominantly black voters ineligible to vote.

If you can say anything at all about white obama voters who voted solely on race (if such a group exists), it's that they wanted to vote for a black man, because they wanted to prove to the world, their friends and families, but most of all to themselves that Americans aren't a such stupid bigots as everyone had assumed they were.

What would have been interesting if Powell had run against Obama, or at all. I guess he was one generation too soon, his wife stopped him for fear of him getting shot. The fear that Obama would get shot was almost universal amongst older blacks, around the world. This fear is rooted in personal experiences. Young blacks were more optimistic.

Dyson said it perfectly:
"Obama getting killed? Let God and the Secret Service worry about that" Guess they both did ...

The numbers:
Obama won by 6 percent, much more than Bush in 2004. His black bonus was 7% of 13% blacks, which is 0.91 of 1 percent of total. Even if we're generous and assign him a black bonus of 15 percent as Gallup seems to do, it would still be only 1.95 percent of total. Not enough to put him over any top.

Obama won more whites than Gore or Kerry. What's more, he won a massive 77% of Jews, reaffirming the natural coalition of blacks and jews. The Jewish pro-Obama vote is the largest of any ethnic minority group (Hisp 66, Asia 68), except for the black vote. Attribute loads of that to Sarah Pallin'-Around. I suppose Jews feel uncomfortable, if not disgusted, with extreme rightwingers and supporters of 'jews for jesus' like her, supporting Israel.

For all this hoohaw about increased blacks and youth, it was whites who put Obama over the top.

This post has been edited by EuroBlack: Nov 8 2008, 03:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 8 2008, 02:59 PM
Post #12


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland)
I don't know that you could call either vote "wrong." Misguided, yes.

You can't consider voting against Barack Obama out of racism wrong?

I think what gets me here is the equivocating.

Voting for Barack Obama because you see merit in the idea of the first black president is not racism.

Voting against Barack Obama because he is black is racism.

Racism is wrong.

Not being able to make that distinction is simply a case of willful ignorance.

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 8 2008, 03:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Nov 8 2008, 03:40 PM
Post #13


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 8 2008, 04:59 PM) *
I think what gets me here is the equivocating.


yep, me too. And the willful ignorance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Nov 8 2008, 06:41 PM
Post #14


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(EuroBlack @ Nov 8 2008, 11:40 AM) *
yep, me too. And the willful ignorance.


Please do not post one-liners. They are not constructive.

If certain people voted for Obama because he was a black man and if others voted against Obama because he was a black man.

Was either wrong?

Who was wrong?

Does it really matter why they voted the way they did?

Would your answers to the first three questions be any different if I removed "black" and inserted "woman"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2008, 11:25 PM
Post #15


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I didn't vote for Obama because he is black. I didn't vote against McCain because he is white, although the Presidential pigmentation has been the same from George Washington until now.

I voted on the basis of each candidate's stand on the issues. In this case, I was tired of the same old Republican patter and policies that have proven to be harmful to our country.

It seems to me that if race is the overriding concern when selecting the candidate who gets your vote it is racially motivated and therefore racism to some degree.

If it involved a woman, if someone voted for or against someone because gender was the overriding concern, then it would be sexism to some degree. Which reproductive organs a person was born with should be a minor consideration if considered at all.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2008, 11:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 9 2008, 12:52 AM
Post #16


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 6 2008, 11:41 AM) *
Are we really trying to draw an equivalency between supporting Obama because he would be the first black president and opposing him because he's black?

We've been through this moral bait and switch before.

Those who opposed Obama based on race where wrong.

Those who supported based on his race, were mostly right so long as this did not entail any racist suppositions.



So those who oppose him because he was black, "many of whom would be white men" are wrong.

Yet those who supported him because he was black, "many of whom would be black" are mostly right?

That's interesting.

95% of the black vote went to Obama which is about what I expected, its consistent with the primaries and many other elections with a black candidate, yet so long as they do not entail any racist suppositions, they are mostly right? No doubt some of them do entail these racist suppositions you speak of, but lets just go with what you said and ask some questions....

Lets say someone doesn't know a thing about Obama's politics, yet votes for him based on him being black, is that mostly right?

Lets say someone knows about him but actually disagrees with him on more issues they agree with Obama on yet they vote for him because he's black anyway, is that mostly right?

What if the most important factor that determines someones vote for Obama hands down is his skin color, is that mostly right in any case?

Ad Hominem aside, lets forget the fact that you've applied similar double standards regarding race countless times in the past and focus specifically on what you said above, to prevent another game of martyr. Why is what you've written above, regarding this topic, not yet another double standard?

I believe that racism finds it's roots from those who judge a person based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. Thats obviously not my line either, but I agree with it, and that standard should be applied to blacks the same way it's applied to whites.

The truth is that a black man becoming president does indeed break a racial barrier. However that is not a reason to vote for someone who will have responsibilities above and beyond any other man in America. To say that those who opposed Obama based on race were wrong, while those who supported him based on his race, were mostly right, applies one standard to one group of people, and a completely different standard to another group. I say skin color is not a reason to vote for someone for president, period. If its wrong for one group, it's wrong for another.

I believe signs of racism can be found far beyond those who consistently target another race with ugly comments or violent acts, because another sign of racism can be found from those who consistently give special treatment to a particular race group. Some examples could be a white judge that gives a white man only 10 years in prison for murdering 3 black men. That type of thing wasn't uncommon during the civil right movement and prior. Another example could be a black man who will vote for black politicians whenever possible despite the candidates record or political beliefs. Im not directing that at anyone in specific regarding the Obama campaign although im sure there are people that fit this description in this race.

In the New Orleans area most of the local politicians have been black men in recent decades, some did better than others, but the local politics in Southern LA. are some the most corrupt in America, and the crime rate before Katrina hit was higher in New Orleans than it was in Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York city. I've never made the case that it was because the local politicians were black, but the ones that did fail us, and the ones that were involved in scandles, kept getting relected because N.O. was one of the cites with the highest percentage of African Americans, who for the most part were unwilling to vote for white candidates.

I talked about this in the following forum of mine in great detail...... http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=16785

As you may remember the forum talked about African American voting trends not only in this election but in prior elections in cites with a high black population.
When people start letting skin color determine their vote, sometimes it means that this persons politics and record become less important. I know for a fact that this kind of voting can be counterproductive, whether it be white or black people doing it.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 9 2008, 04:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 9 2008, 01:06 AM
Post #17


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007)
So those who oppose him because he was black, "many of whom would be white men" are wrong.

Yet those who supported him because he was black, "many of whom would be black" are mostly right?

That particular fallacy is called a straw man.

The race of the voter is irrelevant to my logic.

QUOTE(net2007)
95% of the black vote went to Obama which is about what I expected, its consistent with the primaries and many other elections with a black candidate,

Most Democratic presidential candidates in fact.

QUOTE(net2007)
ts say someone doesn't know a thing about Obama's politics, yet votes for him based on him being black, is that mostly right?

No.

Their ignorance about who they are voting for is wrong.

However their voting for him based on his race may be right, so long as it is not based on any racist supposition.

QUOTE(net2007)
Lets say someone knows about him but actually disagrees with him on more issues they agree with Obama on yet they vote for him because he's black anyway, is that mostly right?

Same dynamic.

The degree of priority of his race is not the question.

It's the underlying reason his race is important.

Hopeful for change = good

racism= bad

QUOTE(net2007)
Ad Hominem aside, lets forget the fact that you've applied similar double standards regarding race countless times in the past and focus specifically on what you said above, to prevent another game of martyr. Why is what you've written above, regarding this topic, not yet another double standard?

We may also need to clarify the meaning of the word "aside."

QUOTE(net2007)
I believe that racism finds it's roots from those who judge a person based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. Thats obviously not my line either, but I agree with it

That's no one's line in fact.

That statement by MLK was never an attempt to define racism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 9 2008, 03:37 AM
Post #18


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 8 2008, 09:06 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007)
So those who oppose him because he was black, "many of whom would be white men" are wrong.

Yet those who supported him because he was black, "many of whom would be black" are mostly right?

That particular fallacy is called a straw man.

The race of the voter is irrelevant to my logic.


A straw man argument? Well who brought that up Turnea? You did, in post number 5. You're the one who said that voting for Obama based on race is mostly right, while voting against him based on race is wrong. You go from telling me I focus on ad hominem to telling me I'm making a straw man argument by repeating the same line you did, and asking you questions? That doesn't make any sense. Is this topic not about race motivation in relation to this election? That wasn't a straw man argument when you brought it up, and it wasn't when I replied to it either. Instead of complaining about straw man arguments, and ad hominem when I disagree with what you say in debate, just try debating what you believe, and if there is ever something I say that you disagree with, bring it up and disagree with it, I don't care. This game of martyr has about run its course.

QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007)
95% of the black vote went to Obama which is about what I expected, its consistent with the primaries and many other elections with a black candidate,

Most Democratic presidential candidates in fact.


Well 8 democratic candidates ran in this elections primaries, and one of them was half African American. Out of those 8 democratic candidates who was the one that got well over 80% of the black vote? It wasn't Hillary who was a Democrat, it wasn't John Edwards, or Joe Biden who were also a Democrats, it was Barack Obama. In fact I think the black vote went to Obama in every single state in this elections primaries, and in some states he earned over 90% of the black vote. Yes the African American vote is heavily Democratic, but race trumped party affiliation in this election and thats one reason why Obama got the black vote over more qualified Democratic candidates.

QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007)
ts say someone doesn't know a thing about Obama's politics, yet votes for him based on him being black, is that mostly right?

No.

Their ignorance about who they are voting for is wrong.

However their voting for him based on his race may be right, so long as it is not based on any racist supposition.


Ok then let me ask you something, lets say a white man voted for McCain primarily because he relates to white people the most, but this individual is not a racist. In other words he doesn't despise or dislike black men, or Obama, but relates to whites more so voted for McCain. Would this person be mostly right in his voting decision as well?

That seems to be the case your making for African Americans. That its ok for a black person, who isn't a quote "racist", to vote for Obama because they believe a black man as president is a good thing for America. So what about a white man who votes for McCain simply because he believes having a white president is a good thing?

I'll maintain my stance that race should not be a determining factor when voting for president, because a person isn't going to perform better or worse as president because they are black or white. Many people, including myself, think that a minority or woman as president will be symbolic, and it will be yet another sign of how liberated America has become regarding race and gender relations. However that breakthrough should come because the person is qualified to be president, and has solid policies that will work. In other words it shouldn't be something that is forced just because a black president is symbolic to racial progress in America.

I'll admit, many people do believe Obama is qualified to be president, and many people agree with his policies, while I and many others don't. The point is that in the primaries when over 80% of the black vote goes to the only black Democratic candidate in this race, and over 90% of the black vote goes to Obama in the general election, there is no doubt some of these individuals are concerned as much or more about Obama's skin color, than his politics and experience.
This type of race based voting I believe can be counterproductive, and its been shown to be counterproductive in cites like New Orleans where the majority of the population was black and in some cases corrupt and ineffective black politicans got reelected over and over again despite this.

Considering the topic of this forum, the politics and situation in New Orleans in prior decades should be a good example of how this type of voting can be counterproductive and even dangerous. When large numbers of people make race based votes it has the potential to create a local or national government monopoly based on race. 30 years ago there were enough white people unwilling to vote for an African American to prevent any black man from becoming president. On the other hand, the population in and near New Orleans when I lived near that city, had the highest percentage of African Americans of any city. A white mayor hasn't been elected in New Orleans since 1970, and the majority of the local politicians have been black. Whether or not the politicians in that city performed poorly or did well, and whether or not they were effective in their positions, as long as the person was black they've had a great chance of getting elected or reelected in that city.

Lastly, you even said in this election more white people voted for Obama, than they did for Al Gore in 2000. In a way I'm proud that this was the case, despite the fact that politically Obama is my polar opposite. Its a clear indicator of how racism amongst whites has been on a decline for decades on end. I believe most people that voted for Obama in general did so because they agree with his polices. I wont go as far as saying Obama getting elected means that racism is at an end, that's silly and that wont ever happen. To some extent we will always have whites who look at blacks and view them in a negative way, and we will always have black men who are stuck in the past and view whites as untrustworthy, or racist. In any case the progress this country has made regarding race is extremely encouraging, however whatever a persons race may be, skin color is not a good reason to vote for or against anyone, that shouldn't determine peoples votes, and I'll apply that standard to whites and blacks.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 9 2008, 03:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 9 2008, 03:55 AM
Post #19


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007)
A straw man argument? Well who brought that up Turnea? You did, in post number 5. You're the one who said that voting for Obama based on race is mostly right, while voting against him based on race is wrong. You go from telling me I focus on ad hominem to telling me I'm making a straw man argument by repeating the same line you did, and asking you questions?


That fallacy is known as a lie, it is perhaps the oldest of logical failings.

QUOTE(net2007)
Well 8 democratic candidates ran in this elections primaries, and one of them was half African American. Out of those 8 democratic candidates who was the one that got well over 80% of the black vote?

Indeed. I agree that a major part of Obama's black support in the primaries and the general election was his status as the first viable African-American candidate for president.

..but that wasn't the reason for the 95% percent figure in the general as it is close to what white Democrats received.

Is it the reason for the higher turnout? Probably.

QUOTE(net2007)
Yes the African American vote is heavily democratic, but race trumped party affiliation in this election and thats one reason why Obama got the black vote over more qualified Democratic candidates.

What's the reason Clinton got the white vote over more qualified Democratic candidates?

Joseph Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson.

...all were "more qualified."

Clinton started the race with a large portion of the black vote. When Barack Obama won Iowa and showed he could beat her, that changed.

Race was a factor, but not alone.

QUOTE(net2007)
Ok then let me ask you something, lets say a white man voted for McCain primarily because he relates to white people the most, but this individual is not a racist. In other words he doesn't despise or dislike black men, or Obama, but relates to whites more so voted for McCain. Would this person be mostly right in his voting decision as well?

Considering that white people are historically an advantaged class in the US I would question the idea of a candidate that "relates to white people the most"

That said such a thing is not impossible and not necessarily racist.

It is mostly right, but also exceedingly unlikely and it certainly has little to do with this election.

QUOTE(net2007)
Many people do believe Obama is qualified to be president, and many people agree with his policies, while I and many others don't. The point is that in the primaries when over 80% of the black vote goes to the only black Democratic candidate in this race, and over 90% of the black vote goes to Obama in the general election, there is no doubt some of these individuals are concerned as much or more about Obama's skin color, than his politics and experience.

If that were true Al Sharpton and Carol Mosley-Braun would have gotten the black vote too.

QUOTE(net2007)
Whether or not the politicians in that city performed poorly or did well, and whether or not they were effective in their positions, as long as the person was black they've had a great chance of getting elected or reelected in that city.

You understand that reasoning is flawed don't you?

Is there some sort of rule that says there can be only one black candidate in a NOLA election?

Blaming race for corruption is illogical.

QUOTE(net2007)
Its a clear indicator of how racism amongst whites has been on a decline for decades on end.

Well no one's denying that, but the levels from which this decline started were monumental.

If you mean that racism has reached negligible levels, you'd be wrong.

This post has been edited by turnea: Nov 9 2008, 04:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 9 2008, 04:41 AM
Post #20


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



turnea
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007)
A straw man argument? Well who brought that up Turnea? You did, in post number 5. You're the one who said that voting for Obama based on race is mostly right, while voting against him based on race is wrong. You go from telling me I focus on ad hominem to telling me I'm making a straw man argument by repeating the same line you did, and asking you questions?


That fallacy is known as a lie, it is perhaps the oldest of logical failings.


I quoted everything you said specifically, before I even launched my response, but whatever you say Turnea. First your complaining about ad hominems, then its a straw man argument, then its a lie. I'm just disagreeing with the point you brought up, and I quoted it before I did so.


QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007)
Yes the African American vote is heavily democratic, but race trumped party affiliation in this election and thats one reason why Obama got the black vote over more qualified Democratic candidates.

What's the reason Clinton got the white vote over more qualified Democratic candidates.

Joesph Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson.

...all were "more qualified."

Clinton started the race with a large portion of the black vote. When Barack Obama won Iowa and showed he could beat her, that changed.

Race was a factor, but not alone.


Yea Hillary had some support from blacks, but I don't think it can be shown that Hillary ever had more support than Obama at any time in this election. I agree with you that race wasnt the only factor helping Obama with African Americans, but it certainly helped him as much as anything else.

QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007)
Ok then let me ask you something, lets say a white man voted for McCain primarily because he relates to white people the most, but this individual is not a racist. In other words he doesn't despise or dislike black men, or Obama, but relates to whites more so voted for McCain. Would this person be mostly right in his voting decision as well?


Considering that white people are historically an advantaged class in the US I would question the idea of a candidate that "relates to white people the most"

That said such a thing is not impossible and not necessarily racist.

It is mostly right, but also exceedingly unlikely and it certainly has little to do with this election.


Keyword being historicaly. In any case I don't believe race should be a determining factor to vote whether a person be white or black, because a persons race will not determine how effective they will be as president.

QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007)
Whether or not the politicians in that city performed poorly or did well, and whether or not they were effective in their positions, as long as the person was black they've had a great chance of getting elected or reelected in that city.

You understand that reasoning is flawed don't you?

Is there some sort of rule that says there can be only one black candidate in a NOLA election?

Blaming race for corruption is illogical.


I didn't blame race for corruption, I said that whether or not a candidate did well, and was viable, they got elected based on race in N.O. There is no doubt that there have been black politicians that have performed poorly in the New Orleans area. I explained this before in the forum I gave you the link for. Does it mean they performed poorly because they are black? No, it just means many of them performed poorly. Those who were corrupt helped contribute to many problems in the city, and New Orleans has no shortage of problems.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 9 2008, 04:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 20th, 2018 - 11:22 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.