Race and Voting Preferences
Think about the white people you know for a minute. Are they friendly? Determined? Law abiding? Hard working? Do you think they are intelligent at school and smart at everyday things? Do you find them good neighbors and dependable? Or do you find white people violent, boastful, and complaining? Are the white people you know lazy? Are they irresponsible?
Oh, readers, you are too smart to fall for this one! By the time you got to characterization three or four, you probably said "Wait a minute!" How could I possibly characterize all the white people I know into a lump and generalize about them?" What kind of hooey is that anyway?
AP-Yahoo news actually put these questions to Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. They didn't ask the question about white people, though, they asked them about black people. No matter. The idea that a theoretically responsible news organization would be asking such stupid race-based questions is amazing. Even more amazing is that people answered these questions without laughing at the pollster. If someone were to ask me whether both these pollsters and their respondents are idiots, the answer would be "Yes!" in both cases.
The goal of the pollsters was ostensibly to figure out why Barack Obama is not the overwhelming favorite in this election. Their attempt to find some racial reason is regrettable. One insight from the poll: Republicans won't be voting against Barack Obama because of his race; they won't be voting for him because he's a Democrat. Brilliant.
Oh, readers, you are too smart to fall for this one! By the time you got to characterization three or four, you probably said "Wait a minute!" How could I possibly characterize all the white people I know into a lump and generalize about them?" What kind of hooey is that anyway?
AP-Yahoo news actually put these questions to Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. They didn't ask the question about white people, though, they asked them about black people. No matter. The idea that a theoretically responsible news organization would be asking such stupid race-based questions is amazing. Even more amazing is that people answered these questions without laughing at the pollster. If someone were to ask me whether both these pollsters and their respondents are idiots, the answer would be "Yes!" in both cases.
The goal of the pollsters was ostensibly to figure out why Barack Obama is not the overwhelming favorite in this election. Their attempt to find some racial reason is regrettable. One insight from the poll: Republicans won't be voting against Barack Obama because of his race; they won't be voting for him because he's a Democrat. Brilliant.
posted by Publia at 8:15 AM
4 Comments:
So when asked explicitly about race, those who chose to respond indicated that they would not be voting on the basis of race? What a surprise! I would have guessed that when a stranger from a national polling organization asks if you are profoundly biased in considering your vote that you would say "Why yes, I am biased. You have hit the nail on the head!"
The conclusion that if you do not care for a candidate, it is due to his/her positions rather than irrelevant considerations is certainly clear to me!
My only question is:
Why does your previous post suggests that those who attack Governor Palin are doing so because they are sexist and not because they believe her to be an extremely poor choice as a candidate due to her positions, her lack of experience, the ample evidence that suggest the possibility for corruption in her administration?
Why does your analysis apply to those with whom you agree and not to those with whom you disagree?
There is substantial sexism afoot in the way Gov. Palin is being treated, and some genuine filth, too. Personally, I would think that people could decide on her positions--likely no one is neutral on those! This should be an easy election for anyone to decide who they are backing, based strictly on their political viewpoint. No one can aruge that there is little difference between the candidates, While I don't questions that they are, I find it hard to believe that so many are undecided.
Just trying to keep up with the lies concerning Palin is exhausting. In that previous post Publia commented on Charlie Rangel's description of Sarah Palin of being "disabled." Now beyond the glaring issue of projection on Rep. Rangel's part, just look at those two, who do you think would be closer to being considered "disabled," Charlie Rangel or Sarah Palin?
I think its time for this election to be over. I am exhausted but obsessed.
Post a Comment
<< Home