|
|
On November 08 2012 09:58 FeUerFlieGe wrote:I always thought it was nothing new that large amounts of african americans voted democrat. Why are people so surprised?
A great Starcraft player might achieve a 75% win rate. They will never achieve 85% over a large number of games. Why?
|
On November 08 2012 10:01 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 09:58 FeUerFlieGe wrote:I always thought it was nothing new that large amounts of african americans voted democrat. Why are people so surprised? A great Starcraft player might achieve a 75% win rate. They will never achieve 85% over a large number of games. Why?
They might if the players went to "separate but equal" starcraft schools.
|
On November 08 2012 09:48 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 09:45 hzflank wrote:On November 08 2012 09:30 Rassy wrote:On November 08 2012 09:24 soon.Cloak wrote:![[image loading]](http://s5.postimage.org/pr4quegkn/Capture.png) From the exit polls, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-pollsThis kind've bothered me. It's one thing to argue that a president deserves votes because of good PR, and because he sold himself well, even if that has nothing to do with the issues. It's another thing to be comfortable with the fact that people voted for Obama because he was black (Correlation---->Causation). Not that I'm terribly surprised, but still... Beeing black is not the only characteristic of obama. If he was exactly the same, but white instead of black , near the same percentage of black people would have voted for him i think. correlation =/= causation You can find correlations realy everywhere btw, just pick anny 2 statistics and i can show you a correlation between them. It's 93% though. Something is definitely wrong. If you select 100 people from the same social-economic background, it is unlikely that as many as 93 of them would vote for the same candidate. It's no lie, some people do vote for Obama because he is black. But 88% of blacks voted for Kerry. How many blacks are actually voting for Obama just because he is black? Then ask yourself, how many whites are voting against Obama because he is black? Might be closer than you think.
Think about it: half of the black people who voted for a republican in a white/white race switched to voting for a Democrat when he's black.
Now imagine that happening with the white population. If the white people were as racially motivated with their vote as the black people have been for Obama, it would feel like 1957.
I'm not saying there is no reason for them to vote Democrat, or even that it was sincerely a racial vote. But I do not doubt that a greater percentage of black people support him because of his skin color and not because of his policies.
|
Blacks historically vote Dem. It is more blacks actually went to vote because Obama is black.
They voted for one of their own. And dont tell me Dems arnt as racist as Reps. Dems always bring up race first, ALWAYS.
|
On November 08 2012 10:00 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 09:50 hzflank wrote:On November 08 2012 09:37 TrickyGilligan wrote:On November 08 2012 09:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 09:24 soon.Cloak wrote:![[image loading]](http://s5.postimage.org/pr4quegkn/Capture.png) From the exit polls, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-pollsThis kind've bothered me. It's one thing to argue that a president deserves votes because of good PR, and because he sold himself well, even if that has nothing to do with the issues. It's another thing to be comfortable with the fact that people voted for Obama because he was black (Correlation---->Causation). Not that I'm terribly surprised, but still... Look up the name "Stacy Dash." A black woman came out in favor of Romney publicly, and she was torn to shreds by people. My wife was attacked by her family for voting Romney, "Hispanics don't vote Republican, you aren't a real hispanic." This is the herd mentality at work. Flaw #362 of Democracy. Some of the tweets: + Show Spoiler +"Trill Nye," for example, said the actress should "drink bleach and die."
"Kill yo self B***H (sic)," demanded "DJ."
One user, ironically using the name "iloveme," said she "shld go kill herself and take @realDonaldTrump to hell with her (sic)."
"Stacey Dash must die," another person said.
User "Cinnybee" said that Dash "needs to die."
Twitchy noted that many "vile" tweets were "mixed with misogyny, repulsive racial slurs and epithets."
Some called her a "house slave," and worse, while others expressed their hate using sexist, misogynistic slurs.
One person posted a picture of a smiling black woman surrounded by characters dressed in KKK-style robes and hoods. Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 04. I agree that any demographic voting that much in sync is weird, but it has very little to do with the race of the candidate. The difference between 88% and 93% is massive, though. 41% of the black people who did not vote for Kerry in 2004 then voted for Obama in 2012. Believe me I am not racist. But that kind of increase is not down to chance. Whether it is due to Obama being black or not is debatable but something big must have happened to cause such a big shift. your 41% is um meaningless compared to the 5% increase in black vote %.
I do not believe so. Going from 50% to 55% is very different than going from 88% to 93%. If you cannot see why then I do not have the capacity to make you see it, as I can only deal with logic data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt=""
----Edit:
I can fully accept that the shift was due to Romney and had nothing to do with Obama or race. However, I cannot accept that there was no massive shift because the numbers are right there.
|
On November 08 2012 09:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 09:12 KungKras wrote:On November 08 2012 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!? It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing. It's not about making it harder for GMO's or denying the science of it. It's about people's rights to know what they eat. People being more informed is always preferable. Depends how they got informed and how well informed they are. If you started printing contains dihydrogen monoxide, dangerous in excessive quantities on pretty much everything then while they are more informed than they were before (they may not have looked closely at the ingredients to see water before) they're not sufficiently informed to go "that's water". More informed is not the same thing as informed enough.
You're right about that. But as I understand it there is a clarity problem. People who want to know what food is gene modified can't readily see it. I see nothing wrong with improving clarity. Especially since there is already regulations for other stuff that is requiring labels, and they don't drive the costs up.
|
On November 08 2012 09:58 FeUerFlieGe wrote:I always thought it was nothing new that large amounts of african americans voted democrat. Why are people so surprised?
Because we never had a Black President to blame this on before.
Less facetiously, it should be noted that every Democratic president since 1964 has been from the South until Obama. It's been an old truism that Black voters aren't enough to propel a Democrat to office, it takes an old Southern boy (like say a preacher - Carter, governor - Clinton, ect) to turn some of those states from Red to Blue.
Of course, Obama would still win this election without Virginia / Florida (the only two Southern states not called for Romney atm) so that points more towards shifting populations than he won b/c he's Black and Black voters bring the southern states (because again, they don't).
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 10:09 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 10:00 oneofthem wrote:On November 08 2012 09:50 hzflank wrote:On November 08 2012 09:37 TrickyGilligan wrote:On November 08 2012 09:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 08 2012 09:24 soon.Cloak wrote:![[image loading]](http://s5.postimage.org/pr4quegkn/Capture.png) From the exit polls, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-pollsThis kind've bothered me. It's one thing to argue that a president deserves votes because of good PR, and because he sold himself well, even if that has nothing to do with the issues. It's another thing to be comfortable with the fact that people voted for Obama because he was black (Correlation---->Causation). Not that I'm terribly surprised, but still... Look up the name "Stacy Dash." A black woman came out in favor of Romney publicly, and she was torn to shreds by people. My wife was attacked by her family for voting Romney, "Hispanics don't vote Republican, you aren't a real hispanic." This is the herd mentality at work. Flaw #362 of Democracy. Some of the tweets: + Show Spoiler +"Trill Nye," for example, said the actress should "drink bleach and die."
"Kill yo self B***H (sic)," demanded "DJ."
One user, ironically using the name "iloveme," said she "shld go kill herself and take @realDonaldTrump to hell with her (sic)."
"Stacey Dash must die," another person said.
User "Cinnybee" said that Dash "needs to die."
Twitchy noted that many "vile" tweets were "mixed with misogyny, repulsive racial slurs and epithets."
Some called her a "house slave," and worse, while others expressed their hate using sexist, misogynistic slurs.
One person posted a picture of a smiling black woman surrounded by characters dressed in KKK-style robes and hoods. Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 04. I agree that any demographic voting that much in sync is weird, but it has very little to do with the race of the candidate. The difference between 88% and 93% is massive, though. 41% of the black people who did not vote for Kerry in 2004 then voted for Obama in 2012. Believe me I am not racist. But that kind of increase is not down to chance. Whether it is due to Obama being black or not is debatable but something big must have happened to cause such a big shift. your 41% is um meaningless compared to the 5% increase in black vote %. I do not believe so. Going from 50% to 55% is very different than going from 88% to 93%. If you cannot see why then I do not have the capacity to make you see it, as I can only deal with logic data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" ----Edit: I can fully accept that the shift was due to Romney and had nothing to do with Obama or race. However, I cannot accept that there was no massive shift because the numbers are right there. not sure what you are trying to get at. if 95% instead of 90% voted for obama, let's say, that makes 1/19th of obama black voters accountable, in most favorable assumptions of noncolinearity, by race of the candidate.
your way of presenting the numbers is simply silly
|
Ok lets turn the situation around. Romney is black and obama is white, would romney have gotten 84% of the black votes? No off course not. Obama got the votes , first because he was a democrat, and 2nd because he was black. Off course there is some causation, denying that would be verry naive but the amount of people who actually changed their vote to democrat, only because obama is black is extremely small, the vast majority would have voted democratic annyway. I think the amount of white people , who would have voted democratic but voted republican because obama is black and romney is white is probably the same if not bigger.
Now i dont know bluepanters research on this off course, but this is just a feeling
|
On November 08 2012 08:23 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 08:10 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 08 2012 07:53 coverpunch wrote:The labeling law was poorly written. I personally voted against it. To avoid confusion, here is the summary of the law: - Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. - Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” - Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages. It's just a bad law because if you're going to harp on "natural", farming is by definition an unnatural activity and there's no proof that GMO foods are at all harmful. And it's always a bad sign when the list of exemptions is longer than the law itself. No proof? + Show Spoiler +sure about that? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" This video is a terrible waste of time... The rate of food-allergy is rising in every country, even in those where GMOs aren't used. So is cancer. People refuse to accept the fact that their poor way of living is the cause for all of this. Blaming it on random stuff won't help. It's just dumb. This video's only goal is to scare people. If they had any intention on teaching people about GMOs, they would have sent a scientist who explains how these work, and what makes them different. No, they send an unkown woman who starts out by saying how many children she has and how afraid she is that they might get hurt.
You've obviously never seen a Ted Talk before... And if you have, you haven't seen many to understand how they work.
|
BTW, a thought that just occurred to me.
All our information of Black voting data is self-reported, not the actual voter records (cuz you know, we have a secret ballot system).
Which means there's a lot of statistical noise as well as bias when it comes to these numbers (statistical bias in the sample size that is). So a change of a few percentage points isn't all that meaningful.
|
On November 08 2012 10:13 semantics wrote: Black vote % given to democrat 2008 95% 2004 88% 2000 90% 1996 84% 1992 83% Here you are friend, no 2008 or 2012 though, but not hard to place them.
|
Dear America,
Thank you.
Yours Sincerely, The Rest of the World.
|
And honestly, I doubt that any blacks would vote for someone like Thomas Sowell.
|
On November 08 2012 10:13 semantics wrote: Black vote % given to democrat 2012 93% 2008 95% 2004 88% 2000 90% 1996 84% 1992 83%
Ok i am somewhat convinced. Though i also see a general trend in the republican party becoming less atractive for black voters during the past 2 decades...
Do you have the same numbers for % of white vote going to the republicans? then we could solve this interesting isuedata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
XoXiDe United States. November 08 2012 10:17. Posts 595 O this is even more data, its still verry difficult to draw conclusions from this though, as not only the colour of the candidate did change, the partys themselves also changed in a huge way over all these years.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2012 09:48 Souma wrote:On November 08 2012 09:45 hzflank wrote:On November 08 2012 09:30 Rassy wrote:On November 08 2012 09:24 soon.Cloak wrote:![[image loading]](http://s5.postimage.org/pr4quegkn/Capture.png) From the exit polls, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-pollsThis kind've bothered me. It's one thing to argue that a president deserves votes because of good PR, and because he sold himself well, even if that has nothing to do with the issues. It's another thing to be comfortable with the fact that people voted for Obama because he was black (Correlation---->Causation). Not that I'm terribly surprised, but still... Beeing black is not the only characteristic of obama. If he was exactly the same, but white instead of black , near the same percentage of black people would have voted for him i think. correlation =/= causation You can find correlations realy everywhere btw, just pick anny 2 statistics and i can show you a correlation between them. It's 93% though. Something is definitely wrong. If you select 100 people from the same social-economic background, it is unlikely that as many as 93 of them would vote for the same candidate. It's no lie, some people do vote for Obama because he is black. But 88% of blacks voted for Kerry. How many blacks are actually voting for Obama just because he is black? Then ask yourself, how many whites are voting against Obama because he is black? Might be closer than you think. Think about it: half of the black people who voted for a republican in a white/white race switched to voting for a Democrat when he's black. Now imagine that happening with the white population. If the white people were as racially motivated with their vote as the black people have been for Obama, it would feel like 1957. I'm not saying there is no reason for them to vote Democrat, or even that it was sincerely a racial vote. But I do not doubt that a greater percentage of black people support him because of his skin color and not because of his policies.
How can you even say that a greater percentage of black people support him because of his skin color when 88% of blacks voted for Kerry? Blacks have been overwhelmingly Democrat since FDR and more significantly so under LBJ. Obviously some people voted for Obama because he is black but a greater percentage? I call bullshit.
|
Personally, I find it incredibly sad that race is still a talking point. I don't doubt the validity of the argument, but at what point will both sides tire of having it? Voting black or white because you yourself are black or white is just one of the many examples I was alluding to in my support of voter education requirements.
If you care enough to cast a ballot that is going to have consequences affecting the world around you, then you should care enough to take the time to educate yourself. If you have ever seen Jay Leno's "Jay-Walking" segment then you know what I'm talking about. Its painful to know that the same people who can't tell you what countries border the United States are the same people deciding the fate of our nation.
Civic responsibility is not just about exercising your personal freedoms, its about making responsible choices that are for the betterment of those around you (hint: you're not proving anything by casting your ballot just for the sake of doing so). Whether you voted for Romney or Obama is irrelevant in this discussion. What does matter is that the decisions we make are based on a factual understanding of the positions each candidate represent.
If you say you're voting for Obama because immigration reform matters to you, then at the very least you should show some basic understanding of Obama and Romney's respective positions on the matter. Understanding based on facts, not what you heard on your favorite biased new station or your favorite celebrity say is paramount here.
P.S. Calling it now, Marco Rubio 2016.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's like, lysol kills 99.9999% of bacteria, soap kills 99.9%. lysol is 1000 times more effective at eliminating bacteria.
since teh goal is eliminating, like u know, eliminating black republican voters.
|
Didn't over 70% of Asians also vote for Obama? That seems kinda surprising given that in 2004 only 56% of Asians voted for Kerry. And I never got the impression that Asians are particularly fond of African-Americans as opposed to Caucasians. By the way 62% of Asians voted for Obama over McCain in 2008. So unless Obama got blacker in four years I think there is something more going on here than just Obama being black.
I think Mitt Romney failed in his campaign to appeal to minorities, even more so than McCain. But then again McCain was seen as less of the good ol' boy type and Romney's image in that regard this election was . . . yeah . . .
|
|
|
|