• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gaborn

Member
Mandark said:
Not to pick on Gaborn, but this is a great example of how people screw up when talking about race in the US.

It makes the underlying assumption that there are Racists and Not Racists, which simplifies and distorts the situation. Racial attitudes are a lot more subtle and complex than Stormfront vs. everyone else.

It also frames the discussion as what people are, rather than what they do. This makes white people very defensive (why the phrase "I'm not a racist, but..." is common), and that in turn means any black person who brings it up is liable to be accused of "playing the race card."

Plus it kills any shot at accurate social or political analysis. Gaborn's statement is just soooooooooo wrong wrong wrong.

Do you have actual data that supports that, or are you just asserting it's wrong because it goes against your belief system?

I agree it was simplistic, there are obviously many different types of racists, but historically racists do not vote in an election unless a particular candidate is espousing their ideology. There are always individual exceptions of course (I'm fairly comfortable saying that in every election there have been people that have been party line voters their entire life that found a particular candidate completely unacceptable), and I see no reason why racists would be different, some non-black racists will vote against Obama because he's black, and some non-white racists will vote against McCain because he's running against a minority (obviously I'd suspect the former group is going to be more numerous).

I do think though the underlying assumption some people make, that all racists will automatically vote, and vote against Obama and for McCain (rather than some other candidate) is inherently flawed because it assumes that racists all view as important an individual's skin color rather than the ideology that they perceive as harmful (white supremacists, in my understanding, seem to advocate a sense that whites are superior by birthright to non-whites).

Edit: Incidentally, more from the southern policy law center:

With the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate clinched, large sections of the white supremacist movement are adopting a surprising attitude: Electing America’s first black president would be a very good thing.

It’s not that the assortment of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, anti-Semites and others who make up this country’s radical right have suddenly discovered that a man should be judged based on the content of his character, not his skin. On the contrary. A growing number of white supremacists, and even some of those who pass for intellectual leaders of their movement, think that a black man in the Oval Office would shock white America, possibly drive millions to their cause, and perhaps even set off a race war that, they hope, would ultimately end in Aryan victory.

“He will make things so bad for white people that hopefully they will finally realize how stupid they were for admiring these jigaboos all these years,” “Darthvader” wrote on the neo-Nazi [1] Vanguard News Network web forum. “I believe in the motto ‘Worse is Better’ and Obama certainly fits that description.” Just last week, another poster on the same thread chimed in with this: “I hope Obama wins because in four years, white people just might be pissed off enough to actually do something. … White people aren’t going to do a thing until their toys are taken away from them. So things have to be worse for things to be better.”

“Oh man,” enthused “Centimanus” on the white nationalist [2] Stormfront website. “I am gleefully, sadistically looking forward to Obama as president. … It will be a beautiful day when the masses look at the paper and truly realize they have lost their own country. Added “Fulimnata”: “To the average white man and woman, they could look at Obama and see plain as day that whites are not in control.” Another message, from “TheLastOfMyKind,” agreed: “Could it be that the nomination of Obama finally sparks a sense of unity in white voters? I would propose that this threat of black, muslim [sic] rule may very well be the thing that finally scares some sense back into complacent whites throughout the nation.” “Actually,” said another poster, “if Obama were to win, it would be the best thing that ever happened to the Klan. They would have massive growth.” And “TeutonicLegion” said that “a whole bunch of people will join us and find these boards” if Obama becomes president.

David DukeEven [3] David Duke (right), the neo-Nazi and former Klan boss who is the closest thing the movement has to a real intellectual these days, sees clear advantages in an Obama victory in the fall. “Obama will be a signal, a clear signal for millions of our people,” Duke wrote in an essay entitled [4] “A Black Flag for White America” last week. “Obama is like that new big dark spot on your arm that finally sends you to the doctor for some real medicine. … Obama is the pain that let’s [sic] your body know that something is dreadfully wrong. Obama will let the American people know that there is a real cancer eating away at the heart of our country and Republican aspirin will not only not cure it, but only masks the pain and makes you think you don’t need radical surgery. … My bet is that whether Obama wins or loses in November, millions of European Americans will inevitably react with new awareness of their heritage and the need for them to defend and advance it.”

Opinion on the radical right is far from unanimous on the topic of a possible Obama victory. Many of those writing on the topic — perhaps half of those who have posted recently — think an Obama presidency would destroy the country and oppose it mightily. On the other hand, there is virtually no enthusiasm on the radical right for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, who is widely seen by white supremacists as a sellout, particularly on the issue of nonwhite immigration into the United States. But increasing numbers think that a bad situation with a black president will be good for their movement.

“Thomas Dixon Jr.,” a Stormfront poster using the name of the racist author who wrote the classic novel [5] The Clansman, put it like this: “As WLP [William Luther Pierce, the late leader of the neo-Nazi National Alliance] would say… ‘What is bad for the system is good for us.’” “Obama,” added “The Patriot” in the same thread, “would be better for our cause in the long run, no doubt about it.”

I think people have a cookie cutter image of racism and hate and forget that they're thinking individuals. Twisted in their thinking, not always logical, but within their ideological framework it's not necessarily in their interest to work against Obama if they believe he's inferior by genetics and doomed to failure because of some inferiority they perceive. They're making a political judgement rather than a personal one, it's really quite fascinating if you think about it.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Hitokage said:
Remember, the primary rule to modern republican analysis of the budget is to first insist on an absurdly long time lag in results so that the success or failure of the current administration are really the success or failure of the LAST administration, or, failing that, shift the focus to congress since it was obviously the democratic congress's fault or the republican congress's credit.

Of course, for the past decade we had a republican president with a republican congress so who's to blame now?

Bill Clinton, obviously!

He's also at fault for 9/11, didn't you know?
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Gaborn said:
Do you have actual data that supports that, or are you just asserting it's wrong because it goes against your belief system?

For the record "racists don't vote" isn't against my belief system, and I'm not sure what sort of belief system it could possibly contradict.

And yeah I have data. I also have a feeling you're going to make me waste 15 minutes rounding it up on Wikipedia and proving my point rather than taking my word for it.
 

Gaborn

Member
Mandark said:
For the record "racists don't vote" isn't against my belief system, and I'm not sure what sort of belief system it could possibly contradict.

And yeah I have data. I also have a feeling you're going to make me waste 15 minutes rounding it up on Wikipedia and proving my point rather than taking my word for it.

Yes, please show me your data.

Hitokage - Obviously true, but the earlier you go in American politics the more acceptable racism was in society to varying degrees.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Gaborn said:
Yes, please show me your data.

Hitokage - Obviously true, but the earlier you go in American politics the more acceptable racism was in society to varying degrees.

I'm not being facetious right now and trying to make fun of your libertarian views, and I'm asking you honestly:

Can you give us data that shows instances of a free market society and/or system working as intended?
 

Gaborn

Member
reilo said:
I'm not being facetious right now and trying to make fun of your libertarian views, and I'm asking you honestly:

Can you give us data that shows instances of a free market society and/or system working as intended?

At an individual level there are many examples of the free market working. At a societal level it's a little more difficult. I think that there are a lot more examples of free market success as well as government inefficiency and failure than there are of the reverse.

One example, prostitution in Nevada compared to other states. In Nevada it's legal, and the girls are there voluntarily, are unionized (of their own free will) and through their union achieved a series of legal reforms requiring regular health checks, guaranteed health care, vacation time, and a series of other benefits. Compare that to other states where it is illegal and there are no protections for prostitutes except their johns and pimps good will.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Gaborn said:
Yes, please show me your data.

Okay, but after this I expect you to be chastened and contrite rather than testy and defensive.

Something along the lines of "Boy, I was way off the mark there. Between this and being so off-base about WW2 deficit spending, it's clear I'll have to hit the books before spouting off about early/mid 20th century American history again. Thanks for setting me straight!"

After all, I'm putting in the time and effort to tutor you rather than breaking out the ellipses of mockery.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Another day, another general poll.

CBS News/NYT: Obama 45%, McCain 39%. 6% spread is the same as three weeks ago, the last poll.

And Obama is ahead 44%-32% among working class whites, a demographic that conventional wisdom had held he'd do badly with.
bubububub.....
 

Gaborn

Member
Mandark said:
Okay, but after this I expect you to be chastened and contrite rather than testy and defensive.

Something along the lines of "Boy, I was way off the mark there. Between this and being so off-base about WW2 deficit spending, it's clear I'll have to hit the books before spouting off about early/mid 20th century American history again. Thanks for setting me straight!"

After all, I'm putting in the time and effort to tutor you rather than breaking out the ellipses of mockery.

:lol :lol I'm never going to live down a conversation I had at 3 in the morning, am I?

Edit - Remember, I already conceeded 1948 and 1968
 
Gaborn said:
:lol :lol I'm never going to live down a conversation I had at 3 in the morning, am I?

Edit - Remember, I already conceeded 1948 and 1968
Didja also concede that Woodrow Wilson was definitely not the hardliner at Versailles? ;)
 
reilo said:
I'm not being facetious right now and trying to make fun of your libertarian views, and I'm asking you honestly:

Can you give us data that shows instances of a free market society and/or system working as intended?
If you're talking about a free market system in terms of a certain industry, history is filled with good examples of it working extremely well when it comes to economically efficient allocation of material benefit. Basically, it's really good at maximising society's benefit from production.

It's when you scale the thing up and base an entire society on the principle that the free market always works is where it goes wrong, since a society should also have other goals that may or may not be at odds with an economically efficient allocation, including equality and/or fairness. Basically, if you have two children and nine toys and you give one child one toy and the other eight, you have an economically efficient allocation, but you don't have a fair one. A fair one might be eight each and you keep one in reserve, but since that particular toy is 'wasted' (maybe can be thought of as deadweight loss), it isn't economically efficient.

Also, the free market works really well, but only if the market is truly free. That is to say it only works when a certain set of conditions is true, including everyone playing by the rules, every buyer having access to every seller (and vice versa), all externalities costed as well as absolute symmetry of information and you have perfect competition. Real life doesn't always work this way, however and that's where regulation come in.

A society based on the free market as libertarians describe does not exist nor has it ever existed. In fact, the United States is economically the closest thing to a libertarian society in the modern world.
 

Gaborn

Member
icarus-daedelus said:
Didja also concede that Woodrow Wilson was definitely not the hardliner at Versailles? ;)

Again, 3 AM. he was a war monger leading the US into a war that was none of our business but he was not a hardliner at versailles.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Gaborn said:
Again, 3 AM. he was a war monger leading the US into a war that was none of our business but he was not a hardliner at versailles.
What is with some libertarians and their inability to perceive distinctions between various groups that don't agree with them?
 

Gaborn

Member
Hitokage said:
What is with libertarians and their inability to perceive distinctions between various groups that don't agree with them?

What is it with liberals and their inability to articulate an idea fully?
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Oh, my rather concise posting style has nothing to do with my political views and everything to do with wanting to maximize the effort/enjoyment ratio of this forum. As for a direct counterexample to your point, though, you have Mandark. :p
 

Gaborn

Member
Hitokage said:
Oh, my rather concise posting style has nothing to do with my political views and everything with wanting to maximize the effort/enjoyment ratio of this forum.

I never said it did have anything to do with your posting style. However, I've often noticed that liberals (which I think I'm being fair in claiming is an accurate descriptor for you) use inference to make their arguments and want you to make assumptions in your arguments so they can pounce on you if you assume they're talking about one thing rather than another. I'm simply not in the mood to play games since it's getting late.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
At any rate, back to your issue of racism, you also need to take into account the large body of unwitting promoters of the continuation of a de-facto separate-but-equal who shout "reverse discrimination" whenever attempts are made to correct legacies of racial inequality, or unequivocally scoff at the notion that past policies have anything to do with the present day.

These people vote in great numbers.
 

thekad

Banned
Gaborn said:
I never said it did have anything to do with your posting style. However, I've often noticed that liberals (which I think I'm being fair in claiming is an accurate descriptor for you) use inference to make their arguments and want you to make assumptions in your arguments so they can pounce on you if you assume they're talking about one thing rather than another. I'm simply not in the mood to play games since it's getting late.
But APF isn't a liberal.
 

Gaborn

Member
Hitokage said:
At any rate, back to your issue of racism, you also need to take into account the large body of unwitting promoters of the continuation of a de-facto separate-but-equal who shout "reverse discrimination" whenever attempts are made to correct legacies of racial inequality, or unequivocally scoff at the notion that past policies have anything to do with the present day.

These people vote in great numbers.

Is it racism though to oppose policies which institutionalize status based discrimination such as affirmative action? Sorry, but I don't think perceiving black people as equally capable of competing with white applicants without requiring a special status qualifies as racism. Supporting infantilizing policies however may.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Gaborn said:
Is it racism though to oppose policies which institutionalize status based discrimination such as affirmative action? Sorry, but I don't think perceiving black people as equally capable of competing with white applicants without requiring a special status qualifies as racism. Supporting infantilizing policies however may.
Less affirmative action and more school busing.

Then again, put in a way using a horrible analogy, presume an MMO game has a bug which allows people who have created characters with hats to frequently earn far more money from pickups than characters created without hats, giving hat wearing characters a massive advantage in the game, in both purchasing new equipment and getting more income. Now, assume the bug is then fixed, is the situation suddenly egalitarian with hat and non-hat characters on equal footing with equal opportunity?
 

Gaborn

Member
Hitokage said:
Less affirmative action and more school busing.

Dammit, foiled by another unclear liberal :lol

Then again, put in a way using a horrible analogy, presume an MMO game has a bug which allows people who have created characters with hats to frequently earn far more money from pickups than characters created without hats, giving hat wearing characters a massive advantage in the game, in both purchasing new equipment and getting more income. Now, assume the bug is then fixed, is the situation suddenly egalitarian with hat and non-hat characters on equal footing with equal opportunity?

I'm not sure the goal of a society should be to correct imbalances in a society as it evolves, I certainly know for example that an immigrant who comes to the US in 1900 with nothing is not much worse off than a former slave's family 2-3 generations later (assuming they were freed in 1865 or so) who may have had difficulty getting a job. Compare that to an immigrant who came in 1900 not speaking a word of English (thinking of my great grandmother, RIP who actually came to... well, briefly Canada then the US in 1897)
 

Gaborn

Member
Hitokage said:
Sorry if implying a range of issues beyond affirmative action confuses you. :p

I'm just more the "say what you mean, mean what you say" type. If you want to talk about a subject, TALK about it, don't hint. But unfortunately I'll have to talk in the morning, I need some sleep.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Thing is, I did. I was speaking in general terms, but you made a response that focused it to a single issue. I brought it back out.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
...Or Why I Don't Want Gaborn Answering That Phone At 3 AM



Gaborn said:
:lol :lol I'm never going to live down a conversation I had at 3 in the morning, am I?

Edit - Remember, I already conceeded 1948 and 1968

You will find this to be central to my case!

Your premise is that Racists (capitalization used for sarcastic purposes) don't vote, but they did so in the years when there was a third party candidate campaigning on an explicitly pro-segregation platform.

If that were the case, we should expect to see turnout spikes in those two years, especially in the states where those candidates did well. Assuming that people who voted for Thurmond and Wallace were Racists, the size of their vote should be the difference.

Alabama:

1944: 244,743
1948: 214,980 (171,443 for Thurmond)
1952: 426,120

1964: 689,817
1968: 1,049,917 (691,425 for Wallace)
1972: 1,006,093

Mississippi:

1944: 180,080
1948: 192,190 (167,538 for Thurmond)
1952: 285,532

1964: 409,146
1968: 654,509 (415,349 for Wallace)
1972: 645,963


Louisiana:

1944: 349,383
1948: 416,336 (204,290 for Thurmond)
1952: 651,952

1964: 896,293
1968: 1,097,450 (530,300 for Wallace)
1972: 1,051,491


If the Wallace/Thurmond supporters stayed home when those candidates weren't running, turnout would have been way lower than what it was in the neighboring years. Alabama in '44 should have had only about 40k people voting, rather than 240k.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Stop using unclear entities such as numbers and facts when you are trying to articulate your damn opinion!
 

Macam

Banned
slidewinder said:
Can't Gaborn just have his own sticky?

Amen to that. Leave the kiddies in the shallow pool where they can debate topics absent historical, economic, and social realities.
 

Amir0x

Banned
The 3am thread post defense. Sounds like a Hillary Clinton ad.

"IT'S 3A.M. and your children are safe and asleep, but there's a thread on NeoGAF and it's calling. Something is happening in the interwebs. Your decision will decide who wins a PoliGAF debate. Whether it's someone who already knows about WW2 deficit spending or knows libertarians. Someone tested and ready to win in a dangerous cyberspace. It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want winning the PoliGAF debate?"
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
slidewinder said:
Can't Gaborn just have his own sticky?
i like this. Ask Gaborn! An ahistorical historical account of the world through a libertarian lens.

agh. Macam beat me. and Mandark, don't you realize that the years the racists voted (or rather, those that voted in affirmation of their race and thus not 'racist' at all), the non-racists simply stayed home in protest in an almost 1:1 rate?
 
reilo said:
Classic.

Hardball: "Why doesn't Obama have a bigger lead in the polls?"

Answers thus far:

- Media is underestimating McCain
- Media focusing too much on Obama, not creating clear distinctions between the two
- Obama didn't do anything positive by going overseas
- Voters don't know Obama well enough
- Race

le sigh.


Did you see Chuck Todd on Countdown? He said many people fail to realize that a 5-6 point lead would result in a landslide victory in the electoral vote.

My question is, why doesn't the media mention this more often? :lol
 

Azih

Member
Gaborn said:
What is it with liberals...
I would like to jump in here and mention how I had to correct your definition of the word 'liberal' multiple times. I'm always extremely leery when I hear you say the word now as I don't know whether you're referring to your earlier own unique take on the word or a defintition that actually agrees with what the word actually means.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Jason's Ultimatum said:
My question is, why doesn't the media mention this more often? :lol
because after 8 years of the Bush presidency the press buys into the narrative of a turgid GOP brand. they refuse to look at the one that assigns more than a minuscule percentage of (non-black) voters basing their decision primarily on race.
 
Question:

Did the speculation of offshore drilling help drive down the cost of oil? Someone on Hannity and Colmes last night, the former Ohio Congressman, said the market helped bring down the cost due to issue of offshore drilling over the past few weeks.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
probably not. i linked above earlier to a comment on that and thought it was absolutely ridiculous that Republicans are trying to spin the idea that talking about offshore drilling is somehow having a mystical affect on the markets.

a more likely scenario? future traders pushed up the price of crude well beyond demand, dropping consumption and, eventually, the price. then it became a cascading effect as the price drop signaled more traders to bail since they were seeing daily drops without an end in sight.
 

Cheebs

Member
Rasmussen has a really interesting poll out this morning:

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Fox News viewers say they are likely to vote for John McCain, while those who watch CNN and MSNBC plan to support Barack Obama in November by more than two to one.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of CNN voters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate versus 26% who intend to go for the Republican. Similarly, MSNBC watchers plan to vote for Obama over McCain 63% to 30%.

Seventy percent (70%) of those who watch CBS’ Katie Couric every day plan to vote for Obama, as do 71% of the daily viewers of ABC’s Charles Gibson and 67% of those watching NBC’s Brian Williams.

Voters who are informed massively prefer Obama by huge margins. Suprised Obama's support by CNN viewers is higher than MSNBC, MSNBC is more pro-Obama than CNN.
 

Azih

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Question:

Did the speculation of offshore drilling help drive down the cost of oil? Someone on Hannity and Colmes last night, the former Ohio Congressman,
I don't think so, from actual economic news reports (not some former Ohio Congressman) the suffering US economy is reducing demand and thus speculators are bidding the price of oil down.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Cheebs said:
Rasmussen has a really interesting poll out this morning:





Voters who are informed massively prefer Obama by huge margins. Suprised Obama's support by CNN viewers is higher than MSNBC, MSNBC is more pro-Obama than CNN.
I think you're confusing cause and effect here.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Question:

Did the speculation of offshore drilling help drive down the cost of oil? Someone on Hannity and Colmes last night, the former Ohio Congressman, said the market helped bring down the cost due to issue of offshore drilling over the past few weeks.

Read an article that said it was brought down by that tropical storm/hurricane passing safely and not effecting transportation of oil. The price is dictated by supply and demand. Think it was on CNN. A little one-dimensional if you ask me.
 

ralexand

100% logic failure rate
Cheebs said:
Rasmussen has a really interesting poll out this morning:





Voters who are informed massively prefer Obama by huge margins. Suprised Obama's support by CNN viewers is higher than MSNBC, MSNBC is more pro-Obama than CNN.
That is a really interesting polls. Can someone estimate from viewership numbers who will win in Nov. j/k
 

Tamanon

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/u...=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Mr. Abdullah said he cajoled a few relatives into giving the maximum donations to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani, the early front-runners last year.

But when Mr. McCain claimed the mantle of presumed Republican nominee in March, Mr. Abdullah decided to support him.

“This is the horse I’m betting on for the future,” Mr. Abdullah said.

He told his friends and relatives that the contributions were tax-deductible, something he later seemed surprised to learn from a reporter was not true. Many in his circle appear to have little affection for Mr. McCain but said they gave mostly as a favor to Mr. Abdullah.

Abdullah Makhlouf, the owner of a discount stereo store who is one of Mr. Abdullah’s closest friends, and his wife contributed $9,200.

“He’s like a worse copy than Bush,” Mr. Makhlouf said of Mr. McCain.

When a reporter initially contacted Mr. Makhlouf, he denied giving to the McCain campaign.

After eventually admitting to the donation, Mr. Makhlouf added, “I’m still not going to vote for him.”

Michael Luo was in Riverside and added later reporting from New York. Carolyn Wilder contributed research from New York.

Wat?
 

Gaborn

Member
Mandark said:
...Or Why I Don't Want Gaborn Answering That Phone At 3 AM





You will find this to be central to my case!

Your premise is that Racists (capitalization used for sarcastic purposes) don't vote, but they did so in the years when there was a third party candidate campaigning on an explicitly pro-segregation platform.

If that were the case, we should expect to see turnout spikes in those two years, especially in the states where those candidates did well. Assuming that people who voted for Thurmond and Wallace were Racists, the size of their vote should be the difference.

Alabama:

1944: 244,743
1948: 214,980 (171,443 for Thurmond)
1952: 426,120

1964: 689,817
1968: 1,049,917 (691,425 for Wallace)
1972: 1,006,093

Mississippi:

1944: 180,080
1948: 192,190 (167,538 for Thurmond)
1952: 285,532

1964: 409,146
1968: 654,509 (415,349 for Wallace)
1972: 645,963


Louisiana:

1944: 349,383
1948: 416,336 (204,290 for Thurmond)
1952: 651,952

1964: 896,293
1968: 1,097,450 (530,300 for Wallace)
1972: 1,051,491


If the Wallace/Thurmond supporters stayed home when those candidates weren't running, turnout would have been way lower than what it was in the neighboring years. Alabama in '44 should have had only about 40k people voting, rather than 240k.

That assumes that all of the other candidates (and world events) are equal, take 1972 for example, Nixon (a controversial figure even at the time) vs. McGovern, who not long prior had lost his VP to a major scandal about his undisclosed past psychiatric treatment. McGovern's judgment was in question, and Nixon was still a cold hearted bastard, there's nothing that excites people particularly in either case.

Then let's look at 1968, Nixon, again, cold hearted bastard, not exactly exciting, vs Hubert "I will raise your taxes" Humphrey vs George Wallace. You are assuming that the essentially same people are voting in 1968 and 1972, I believe the racists sat out 1972 and were energized during 1968 when neither of the other parties were particularly. In 1972 of course though Nixon was at LEAST the incumbent so he probably had some people come out to support the probable winner.

I'm a little less sure about the 40s elections to be honest, but then the population was a little more racist. It's also difficult because the only data you're bringing forward is aggregate and it's difficult to discern the motives of the mass electorate. I think Eisenhower was helped by his perception as a war hero in 52, I kind of wonder how much excitement FDR generated in 44 (I also tend to suspect he was considered the inevitable winner at that point so the Republicans weren't motivated to turn out), in '48 though, actually turn out barely shifted from '44 to 48, but to me that actually signals a slight depression in turnout, since soldiers had mostly returned home from WW2 at that point.

Still though, none of that suggests racists don't turn out only for specific candidates, it DOES suggest that the American Public isn't necessarily energized by candidates that run against racists, whether that's because bad candidates create an environment where racists can be more likely to get more votes or because the presence of racists in the election turns off the public in general or some other unknown reason.

Edit: and as to the "can't Gaborn get his own sticky" comments, this is POLIGAF, and the issue of what practical effect racism will play should Obama lose is entirely topical.
 

Azih

Member
Gaborn said:
That assumes that all of the other candidates (and world events) are equal
No assumptions at all. The data shows that there is no meaningful spike in voter turnout when obviously racist candiates run or do not run. That does not support and indeed throws into heavy doubt your hypothesis that racists only vote for obviously racist candidates. Where is your data that supports your hypothesis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom