I found this article pretty interesting. To me, the methodology is pretty sound, although as a layman, I think it would be better if he came up with other ways to measure the racism in a given area. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/?ref=opinion He uses Google searches for racially loaded terms to discern which areas of the country are highly "racially charged." He notes how far Obama ran ahead of Kerry generally, and then figures out if there's a confluence between regions which are highly racially charged and areas where Obama underperformed. There was. He figures it totaled up to McCain gaining 3-5 points. (The way the he wrote the article, I think he's saying it cost Obama that many votes, NOT that much of a margin. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.) Remembering that Obama walloped him pretty good, by 7 points IIRC, well, he would have doubled that margin without racism. I think this would have had a very, very significant impact on how GOPers and the media would have perceived Obama's win. I think he would have had far, far more clout over Congress and the national conversation with a 14 point win vs. a 7 point win. Reading the article, I was thinking, OK, but Obama gained some by being black, too. The author addresses that. "Increased support and turnout from African-Americans added only about one percentage point to Mr. Obama’s totals." (The article doesn't explain where he got this number.) Thoughts?
But I type it this way too! A huge proportion of the searches I looked at were for jokes about African-Americans. (I did not include searches that included the word “n#gga” because these searches were mostly for rap lyrics.)
This reminds me of the research being done by Michael Tesler about how racial views toward Obama have affected long-established policy debates that until Obama's presidency have had pretty stable opposing sides. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ical_positions_come_down_to_racial_bias_.html Tesler was on Chris Hayes' show on Saturday and I thought the most interesting thing he mentioned was that his research showed racial animus played a greater role in the primary voters voting for Clinton over Obama than in the general election. Or at least it was easier to demonstrate the effect of racial view vs. other ideological differences. Here's a link to that segment... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/47750206
Glad to see someone putting in print what I (and, I suspect, a few other voters) have believed for some time. That role became quite clear during the last few weeks of Mrs. Clinton's campaign. The PUMAs, for example, certainly picked a weird time in their individual and collective lives to stand up for... well, whatever it was they thought they were standing up for. Clinton herself didn't do anything to stem the tide of ugliness, and it could be argued that she helped it along early in the race with her poor reply to a question about President Obama's faith.
How many votes did McCain lose because he was tied to GW when he was nothing like GW he was a moderate.
So you pick one as President. Biden would have made a better President now he is just going along for the ride.
You would only have legitimate grounds for comparing Obama to Palin if he quits his office in order to make money as a paid iseologue.
In the last election if both palin and barry were running for the vp spot. Palin had far more experience then Barry, and that is the truth. Then you voted for Barry as president. Do something good for your country don't vote anymore.
It's peer-reviewed. Consult the literature review. Just because it doesn't fit your preconceived narrative does not mean it's false. Again, I have to say it's peer-reviewed. That means at least three other people have read it and come to the same conclusion.
I don't have any links with fancy stats, but I do know a few white people who claimed to have voted for Obama for the historical aspect of his being half-black. I also know a few black moderates and conservatives who voted for Obama, too. I would think his blackness helped him more than it hurt. Even though it was pretty clear back then that electing Obama was a huge mistake, I can see how some people got swept up in the "Yes We Can!" and "Hope and Change" garbage. Plus, McCain wasn't much competition. I think McCain was one of those guys who was just happy to be in the championship game.
Actually, it's not "the truth." Far from it. In fact, your half-assed assertion that Palin "had more experience" is total bullshit. He was a Senator longer than she served as Governor. They both held elected office at the State level (and Obama did so for longer than Palin). And you could have been elected mayor of Wasilla. It's not saying much.
"Links with fancy stats." Hoo boy. We know that our country's education system has indeed collapsed when 'statistics' become 'elitist.'
AB, it's not so amazing that he thinks that. (Or maybe I'm just getting more cynical.) What IS amazing, to me, is that he vomits that shit up here and expects us to do something other than point and laugh. He's completely unaware of how stupid he sounds!!! A few years back, I think it was Steve Gilliard who wrote he couldn't watch the Colbert Report because it was too accurate in its portrayal of a numbskulled conservative wallowing in his little cocoon of stupid. Just sayin'. This sentence has a couple of meanings. I know which one I'm going with.