Can someone explain to me why Newsweek thought this was somehow revelatory?
In the NEWSWEEK Poll, participants were asked to answer questions on a variety of race-related topics including racial preferences, interracial marriage, attitudes toward social welfare and general attitudes toward African-Americans. Respondents were grouped according to their answers on a “Racial Resentment Index.” Among white Democrats with a low Racial Resentment Index rating, Obama beat McCain in a hypothetical match-up 78 percent to 17 percent. That is virtually identical to Clinton’s margin in the category, 79 percent to 13 percent. But among white Democrats with high scores on the Racial Resentment Index, the picture was very different: Obama led McCain by only 18 points (51 to 33) while Clinton maintained a much larger 59-point lead (78 to 18).
Who exactly are these high Racial Resentment Index voters? A majority, 61 percent, have less than a four-year college education, many are older (44 percent were over the age of 60 compared to just 18 percent under the age of 40) and nearly half (46 percent) live in the South.
Lucky for us, we live in the 21st century, and while they are still around racists – especially in the south – are no longer in any serious majority. We should never be deciding elections based on these people, and especially not now.
If something is distasteful to a racist, my guess is usually that it’s a good thing!
Using that scale, Barack Obama is off the charts.
At a certain point, after you perhaps bend to the prevailing winds of the electorate, you have to stand firm on some things. To paraphrase the early 21st century philosopher William O’Reilly: “Fuck it! We’ll do it live!”
African Americans and other members of ethnic/minority groups have been the only groups of Americans that have not voted based on race or ethnicity because members of their groups have never been on the ballot for President of the United States. Yet, Newsweek doesn’t care if they have racial resentment against the majority group because their resentments are irrelevant, they are the minority and they are black.
The motive of Newsweek is more important than the respond to Newsweek’s survey. Newsweek’s motives to identify Whites racial resentment against African- Americans and equate White voting patterns in an election with a White candidate and an African-American candidate is not reporting news but an attempt to create news and possibly, a White Presidential 2008 winner.
Is Newsweek trying to tell African-American and other minority citizens that they will have to shoulder the historical and current racial resentments against their ethnic/minority group? (As if they didn’t know this already) Or is Newsweek telling minorities that they can’t do anything without the permission of racists? Or is Newsweek telling African Americans that the majority of racist White Americans are not ready to see a Black American President and they will let the news media know when they are ready?
Why isn’t Newsweek doing an article on why African-American citizens, with resentment against Whites for historical and current discriminations, have fought for the right to vote for White candidates that they hoped would keep campaign promises for justice, fairness and issues that impacted the lives of African Americans, minorities and the poor.
Historically, African Americans have been voting for White presidential candidates from both parties and now the first African-American candidate appears on the ballot – Large numbers of African Americans vote for him in the primaries – and now Whites are telling African Americans they shouldn’t vote because of race. Are they to vote against their race and issues that affect their lives?
Is Newsweek attempting to make this 2008 presidential election about Whites choosing a White candidate regardless of the abilities, qualifications and policies of the African-American candidate?
Republican strategists have said when the discussion is about race – Obama loses – So says Newsweek.
But this brings up another key question: how does Sen. Clinton fare among serial rapists and wife murderers?
Speaking of gaffes…
The key word missing from my first post: electorally, as in “how does Sen. Clinton fare electorally among serial rapists and wife murderers?”
my bad.
And of course, the Taylor Marsh crowd thinks this is a reason that we should nominate Hillary. Let’s not try to overcome these old attitudes, let’s just give rascists a veto over our politicians.
Very enlightened.
Racial Resentment Index, my shiny metal ass. What a load.
I’m actually wondering how Clinton polls among assassains and sleep-deprived people
durablend:
There are a lot of other places we could take that, if we wanted to be cruel to Clinton, but we are better than that.
Something new here among the MSM, in my memory at least: a matter-of-fact attitude toward racism that LEGITIMIZES it, like, say, one’s preference in movies. Chris Matthews, that nerf-ball playing “commentator,” keeps referring to people who wouldn’t be “comfortable” voting for a black candidate. What the f**k does THAT mean? The media have found terminology vague enough as not to delve into motives or values, an offshoot of the “feelings” yardstick by which all views are equal. Polling as so much values-neutral anthropology. But WHY are you “uncomfortable” voting for a black man? Feel he’s inferior? Afraid he’d give preferential treatment to his own group? What, exactly? Try getting beneath your “discomfort,” dumbass.
My parents were racists. My mother once said if I married a black woman (never a prospect), it would break her heart. She was never able to explain to me exactly why. I respect the fact that some people have been victimized by their upbringing and don’t have the intellectual wherewithall to get beneath it. But the press today seems to be encouraging them not to.
Au contraire, the media, where racism is concerned, are becoming enablers, maybe fanning flames which otherwise show signs of dying out. Slowly, anyway.