Just thought this needed some highlighting
Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs, Calif., explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes — subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups.
That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.
[snip]
The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces — evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.
“Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president,” said Banaji, “but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice.“
It’s science, kids.
UPDATE: Predictably, Michelle Malkin is pulling a “look over here” complaining that the scientists that conducted the study donated to Kerry. It’s as if the Bush people have a history of not being pro-science or something. Look, 2+2 equals four - even when a Democrat is adding it up. Similarly the knuckle dragging bias pimps at Newsbusters (where they still can’t come up with funny comic strips) swear that merely reporting the results of a scientific study is clear evidence of liberal bias.
You’re bound to see two responses to this:
1. The ad hominem argument that sociologists in general, and/or these researchers in particular tend to be liberal, so we can ignore what they say regardless of how sound their data and methodology are.
2. The idea that racist tendencies do not necessarily correlate to racist action or support of racist policy in the public sphere. Of course surveys showing personal liberal leanings among reporters mean that the media always has a liberal bias regardless of how many GOP talking points they parrot, but this is different.
These tactics are implicit in the response of the repub spokesman quoted in the article. Look for variations of them in the comments of our trollish friends below
We’ll certainly see examples of another finding that was reported in the article…
partisans stubbornly discount any information that challenges their preexisting beliefs.
The same study revealed that teenaged girls spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about boys and fashion.
Seriously, this is news? The Republican Party has been actively campaigning to keep the racists voting Republican since 1972. Reagan in Philadelphia, Mississippi, Bush I and Willie Horton, Bush II at Bob Jones and the University of Michigan case. They don’t really have to do anything, just let the boys know, from time to time, hey, we think like you do but you know we can’t really come out and say it or the liberal media will be all over our asses. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
I’m waiting for the “What about the racist Dems?” to start.
IMO many people suffer from a ‘broad brush’ approach to groups they have never met. This happens to all races and religions, and seems usually based on the very worst things that someone from a particular race and creed does: “See that (place of worship) in (the next town), they probably go there to learn to (insert outrage here)”
“See those (insert ethnic background here), they hate us.”
This research seems to indicate a perception, but just because you perceive something, it doesn’t necessarily make it true. I’m sure both parties have their share of bigots and racists. Broad brush means for every bigot, another ten are painted that way too.
Science. It’s not in Kansas. There, God himself deliberately designed blacks to be more negative.
I wonder if the same group would ever commission a study to see if Democrats are appealing as leaders to those people who harbor greater anti-American prejudice. Probably not, because they already know the results.
All this tells us what, exactly?!?
I’m puzzled as to what this study ‘proves’ other than to serve as more fodder for partisans.
Ok, but that doesn’t explain why, yet the assumption by people here is that its because of policies and efforts made to keep them voting GOP.
So that beg’s the question: What exactly has Bush done since he became President that would satisfy such people? The reason I ask is because of a paragraph that Oliver didn’t highlight which says:
This is to be expected. In states like Utah for example, where the population is like 95% white, those bias levels will undoubtedly be higher. But that doesn’t mean Bush is exploiting those biases to gain votes. Chances are, most of the people voting for him would vote for him anyway.
It is way too simplistic to make a blanket correlation between race and voting preference. I pointed out above how this study revealed what they say are “substantial majorites” of both liberals and conservatives who have inherent biases against blacks.
Change the subject, spin, deflect.
Ferris,
Define “anti-American” or “pro-American”. If your definition of “pro-American” means “In any international context you always believe the United States acted appropriately” then you are probably correct to say that people answering in the affirmative are more likely to be Republican. But if your definition were to be “You hold the values and principles inherent in the United States Constitution as the best in the world” Then I bet the answer would be even for both Democrats and Republicans.
Jay,
You could compare the results in Utah and Vermont and have your answer. Both are 95% white. Do people in those regions have the same views on race? Who knows?
The better indicator is the fact that more than 85% of white Mississippians voted for Bush. That’s a significantly higher rate than Utah or Idaho. Why do you think white Mississippians voted for Bush at such a high rate? The state is about 30% black. The Democratic Party has a very long history in the state; unlike Utah or Idaho there is no long-time habit of voting GOP in all elections. Both houses of the state legislature are controlled by Democrats, which shows, again, that the state has an actual, functioning Democratic Party, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. Yet, the whites in the state voted almost unanimously for George Bush. What is it about the NATIONAL GOP that appeals so much to white Mississippians? Their pro-investor, pro-business economic polices, for one of the poorest states in the Union? Not likely. Or those pesky “cultural” questions? What apologists for the modern Southern strategy say is that white Southerners vote Republican not because of race but because of gender/sexual/religion issues like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school, etc. The problem with that argument is that African Americans in the South often take equally conservative positions on these questions, yet they vote almost unanimously Democratic. The only statistical determinant between Mississippi Democrats and Republicans - on national elections, at least - is race.
Wilbur, they’re setting ‘em up and you’re knocking ‘em down. Beautiful.
Nice example of my #2 above, Jay. I’m sure you’ll be exhibiting the same scientific scrupulousness in future discussions of “liberal media” surveys.
It would be interesting to see the data for this study broken down by state. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Utah somewhere other than near the top.
I guess it was some other presidential candidate that appeared at Bob Jones University (BJU). Or did the push poll about the black baby to the McCain campaign.
As Rosalyn Carter said about Raygun, and it’s also true of Bush II, “He makes people comfortable with their prejudices”.
I guess it was some other presidential candidate that appeared at Bob Jones University (BJU).
Leave it to factcheck to go stupid on us. Yes, I’m sure racists all across the country went running to the polls for Bush because he appeared at BJU.
Both houses of the state legislature are controlled by Democrats, which shows, again, that the state has an actual, functioning Democratic Party, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. Yet, the whites in the state voted almost unanimously for George Bush.
So what? Both houses of the state legislature in New Jersey are controlled by Republicans. Yet at the national level, Gore and Kerry easily won the state and the two Senators are both Democrats. You cannot compare local political results to the statewide elections for national office. It’s two different animals.
The problem with that argument is that African Americans in the South often take equally conservative positions on these questions, yet they vote almost unanimously Democratic.
Yes because the Democrats in those states hold the same or close to the same conservative social positions. Look at Harold Ford. He has a chance of winning a Senate seat in Tennessee. He’s voted with the GOP on issues such as abortion, guns and gay marriage.
“But that doesn t mean Bush is exploiting those biases to gain votes.”
No, but it circumstantially shows that the southern strategy and all its more recent incarnations work.
And how does the fact that the study showed majorities of both parties harbor inherent biases invalidate the point that the “study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did”?
Nice example of my #2 above, Jay.
Your number 2 is worth about as much as me going number two. You write as if the correlation is established fact, and it is not.
Farris, I bet they would do the study if there were any objective, acceptable standard of anti-americanness. But since most people just define it as whatever they’re against at the moment, it would be worthless. You know, the kind of “studies” that MRC/Bozell do all the time. If one did a study which defined anti-american as supporting policies, and those who support the policies, which run counter to long established constitutional principles, I think we know which side would be the anti-americans.
Here’s the map for state legislatures.
Jay,
You prove my point. The Dems in the South hold similar positions on “culture” questions as the GOP. Where they differ is race.
You are wrong about New Jersey. According to this site, the Democrats hold both houses of the New Jersey legislature. A better example is Michigan, where Republicans control both state houses, but the Dems have the Governor, both Senators and took the Presidential vote in each of the last four elections. Click over to the map on the site and you can see where the local control really is. Republican local control is in the Great Lakes, far Southeast, Plains and western Rockies. Democratic control is on the West Coast, lower Mississippi Valley, New England and Mid-Atlantic. The anomalous regions are the Great Lakes and the Lower Mississippi Valley, where local legislature control runs opposite to national trends.
Jay c, again you are fact-challenged. What a moron. You live in NJ and don’t know that BOTH the state legislative bodies are Democratic?
And if you don’t know that Bob Jones U. has long been known for its racist policies, and that other pols have shunned BJU because of that, than you are either ignorant or stupid.
The appearance was a big signal to say “Don’t worry, he’s one of us” to the Republican racist base.
mjb: No, but it circumstantially shows that the southern strategy and all its more recent incarnations work.
Biiiiiig stretch — evidence, please.
If I remember correctly, this is called “inductive reasoning”:
From: Grolier’s 1994 Multimedia Encyclopedia
You prove my point. The Dems in the South hold similar positions on culture questions as the GOP. Where they differ is race.
Uh, not exactly. They also differ on public policy issues like health care, taxes, education, etc. The way you put it, you’re saying Black people vote Democrat simply because of race. That’s your inherent biases coming out.
My comments about New Jersey shows how long I’ve not followed New Jersey politics.
It would have been right in 2002! But my point still stands and Michigan makes that clear.
Heck, even here in Florida, up until 2004 had a Republican Governor, GOP statehouses, but 2 Democratic Senators and well we know what happened in 2000 with the Presidential election….
I m sure you will agree that the same is true on the liberal media issue.
I don’t subscribe to the whole “liberal media” outlook and don’t even use the term. POW!! Another stereotype down the drain!
With regard to the media I just happen to think the reporters own biases are revealed in their reporting. The fact that most journalists and reporters are ideologically to the left of center simply means you’ll find more biased reporting in that regard. But I don’t agree with terms like the “liberal media” or “conservative media” because it assumes some kind of coordinated effort to put forth a particular point of view.
If all racists are Republican and the Republican party is the party of racists, then is it better to fight racism by joining and reforming the Republican party or stand in the other party and use it as a foil to deflect criticism?
Democrats are so incompetent at fighting real racism that all they can do is play nyah nhah games with any random newsbite that floats to their attention.
Your number 2 is worth about as much as me going number two. You write as if the correlation is established fact, and it is not.
No I don’t, actually. I simply predicted that you would argue that it is not established fact. I agree that it is not established fact. I’m sure you will agree that the same is true on the “liberal media” issue.
factcheck: Check your facts. What racist policie(s)? Before you have us imagining a campus of white - sheeted underclassmen and burning crosses, to the best of my knowledge, BJU is known for banning interracial dating. To speak there is not to advocate a return to the days of Plessy v Ferguson.
[…] ll get a hold of the Klan and find out where they want me to send my membership dues. (via Oliver Willis)
Related Posts:
Why Hollywood SucksNY Mayor Bloomber […]
I have to laugh…it’s not an accident that in an election year, 90% of the black population votes Democratic.
Why? For one, the GOP message isn’t meant to appeal to them. If you’re concerned about health care, and social security, and prescription drugs (Bush’s plan has proved to be a failure), then you most certainly are NOT going to vote Republican. Those are tradionally democratic issues.
Republicans on the one hand say they have an “open arms” policy with regard to race. On the other hand, they strut out advertising campaigns like Willie Horton. (Has Pappy Bush ever apologized for that one?)
The GOP/Conservatives have NO credibility on issues of race. Why even listen to people like Jay? They think the same thing they thought 10 years ago.
JK
JK
Frank, of course that alone does not prove it, but you’d have to be ignorant of all the scholarship on the subject to say that this is the only evidence out there for the republican appeal to southern racists to come to the opposite conclusion.
I don t subscribe to the whole liberal media outlook and don t even use the term. POW!! Another stereotype down the drain!
Before you pat yourself on the back too hard, Jay, go back and read the thread and tell me where, alongside your scatological stereotyping of my remarks, I ever said that you subscribed to the whole “liberal media” outlook. I admit that I suspected that you might, but always left open the possibility that you didn’t, and I’m glad to hear that you don’t.
Perhaps in the future I will have the pleasure of reading your response when one of your conservative comrades parrots the “liberal media” meme.
With regard to the media I just happen to think the reporters own biases are revealed in their reporting. The fact that most journalists and reporters are ideologically to the left of center simply means you ll find more biased reporting in that regard.
That’s extremely debatable. I think one could easily argue that years of constant harping of the “liberal media” meme has made many journalists bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of liberal bias their reportage. There is no such check on conservative media bias. For every (questionable) allegation of liberal bias found by rightwing watchdogs, you’ll find at least on (questionable) allegation of conservative bias in mmfa and other liberal sources.
you d have to be ignorant of all the scholarship on the subject
First of all, if Oliver chooses an article because a point “needed some highlighting”, then that point should be highlighted. It wasn’t.
Second, let’s see some of that “scholarship on the subject.”
You live in NJ and don t know that BOTH the state legislative bodies are Democratic?
No dummy, I live in Florida. Like I said, I haven’t kept up on Jersey politics for some time. I honestly had not realized control had shifted back to the Democrats.
And if you don t know that Bob Jones U. has long been known for its racist policies, and that other pols have shunned BJU because of that, than you are either ignorant or stupid.
And I’m saying to that anybody who voted for Bush simply because he spoke at BJU is an idiot. Contrary to your foolish notion, that is not the reason why the overwhelmingly majority of conservative voters support Republicans. But go ahead and continue to mentally masturbate believing there’s millions upon millions of voters who go to the polls thinking, “I hate niggers so I’m votin Publican!”
Twit.
I admit that I suspected that you might, but always left open the possibility that you didn t, and I m glad to hear that you don t.
Actually, you just assumed. You shouldn’t. I may be a pain in the ass, but I’m not a parrot. But we cleared it up, so no biggie.
I think one could easily argue that years of constant harping of the liberal media meme has made many journalists bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of liberal bias their reportage.
If there’s anything debatable, it’s your point. Journalists are an arrogant bunch and there’s nothing I’ve seen from several large media outlets that would suggest this is the case. I do agree however that conservatives have been able to make people more skeptical of what they see in the news because of the constant “liberal media” chants.
There is no such check on conservative media bias.
That’s starting to change with organizations like Media Matters, though they need to be a little more serious in their criticisms. For instance, here they harp on John Kerry getting tagged with the ‘elitist’ label because he called for a filibuster while in Switzerland. MM complains nobody said the same thing about Saxby Chambliss who was also there and talked about the filibuster. Problem is, Chambliss was merely responding to what Senator Kerry said. He wasn’t making an announcement.
For every (questionable) allegation of liberal bias found by rightwing watchdogs, you ll find at least on (questionable) allegation of conservative bias in mmfa and other liberal sources.
I agree. It’s part of the reason why I don’t watch cable or network news anymore.
If you don’t know then you shouldn’t be commenting on it. Start here with an explicit admission by the RNC chair. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html
“It was called “the southern strategy,” started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue — on matters such as desegregation and busing — to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was “wrong.”
“By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,” Mehlman says in his prepared text. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
Mehlman, a Baltimore native who managed President Bush’s reelection campaign, goes on to discuss current overtures to minorities, calling it “not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized.” The party lists century-old outreach efforts in a new feature on its Web site, GOP.com, which was relaunched yesterday with new interactive features and a history section called “Lincoln’s Legacy.”
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean spoke to the NAACP yesterday and said through an aide: “It’s no coincidence that 43 out of 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus are Democrats. The Democratic Party is the real party of opportunity for African Americans.”"
A couple of decades late and still does nothing to address the current abuses, but it’s something. Even if you were to say that the slate has been wiped clean (which it clearly isn’t as the party continues to this day to use racially/culturally divisive rhetoric), it takes a long time for a party to recover from something like that.
Seems Factcheck could use a little reading comprehension.
Factcheck:
“Jay c, again you are fact-challenged. What a moron. You live in NJ and don t know that BOTH the state legislative bodies are Democratic?”
Jay C:
My comments about New Jersey shows how long I ve not followed New Jersey politics.
It would have been right in 2002! But my point still stands and Michigan makes that clear.
Heck, even here in Florida, up until 2004 had a Republican Governor, GOP statehouses, but 2 Democratic Senators and well we know what happened in 2000 with the Presidential election& .
More Comedy, Oliver?
From Oliver’s immediate previous post, President Bush supports building a Museum of African American history on the Mall in Washington.
In the immortal word of Oliver…”Racist.”
(By the way, Oliver- it’s not too late to delete that post. Only a couple people have noticed that you linked an article that showed the President in what you would normally consider a good light. )
Frank, do you really think the burden of proof as to whether Bob Jones U. is racist has not been met with the fact that they don’t allow people of different races to date? Seriously? You need more?
I’ll help a little here:
http://www.neshobacountyfair.org/
You can continue to believe “Raygun” was a closet or even unrepentant racist, and you may even have other examples to prove it. This example, though, is not apt. The Neshoba County fair is an event where the who’s who of Mississippi regarless of party get together, drink too much, and on election years listen to political speeches. Your conclusion that “Raygun” is a racist is not supported by your premise, which seems to be that politicians who choose to speak at the Neshoba County Fair are racists. I can accept your “state’s rights” site from within the speech (though I do disagree with your clonclusion there as well, I like the warmth having my head up my butt provides I guess), but the fact that he showed up there proves nothing. Check your facts.
It should be noted that those who conducted this research are Democrats:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004410.htm
And so there was nowhere else he could have spoken? And in such a racially charged tinderbox, is a speech talking about “states rights” just an innocent reference?
Please, get your head out of the sand.
I suppose his visit to Bitburg was ok too, right?
Republican National Committee, sponsors a GOP SOTU house party, which will feature a Jesse Jackson piñata.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/30/133213/670
Holy shit!
Republican National Committee, to sponsor a GOP SOTU house party, which will feature a Jesse Jackson piñata.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/30/133213/670
Holy shit!
It should be noted that those who conducted this research are Democrats
You do know that 2+2 = 4, even when one of those evil Democrats is doing the math, right?
Know much about what goes on in Philadelphia, Mississippi in late July? Ever heard of the Neshoba County Fair? Look it up sometime, and you will notice that politicians of all stripes stump there. Are we to assume then that all who do are racist, based soley on the fact? Or is it just the republicans? Because the assumptions you are making here lead me in one of two directions, all politicians who speak at the Fair are racist because the fair is in Mississippi, or its just the republicans are courting racists when speaking at the Fair.
From Malkin:
In other words, “We haven’t read it, but if it wasn’t done by OUR people, it’s wrong.”
Actually, you just assumed. You shouldn t.
Suspicion /= assumption. It’s a pretty big assumption on your part to assume that my suspicion implied an assumption.
If there s anything debatable, it s your point. Journalists are an arrogant bunch and there s nothing I ve seen from several large media outlets that would suggest this is the case.
That’s because you have a very biased view of things.
Oliver, don’t forget those whitey haters like you
The bottom line is that the belief that Republicans are racists is untenable and unprovable, and, as such, cannot be refuted. Apparently, I don’t know any Republicans who are racists, or who attempt to appeal to them. Apparently, you lefties do. End of story
Let’s see…..
The GOP gets close to single digit support from the black community. Scientific study shows GOPers are more inclined toward racism.
Coincidence?
Only if you believe coincidence explains why it gets lighter when the sun rises.
pparently, I don t know any Republicans who are racists, or who attempt to appeal to them. Apparently, you lefties do. End of story
Well, let’s see, I can cite a few folks in my wife’s family. Her father, who once said, “When the blacks and the Hispanics lay down their guns, I’ll lay down mine.” That’s an exact quote of a dinner table conversation. Then there’s my wife’s sister, who used to refer to the Roger’s Park neighborhood of Chicago as Roger’s Dark (Rogers Park is not actually very black, but the area around the Howard “El” station is, and that’s what most people associate with Rogers Park). Oh, and they’re the only Republicans in her family. Coincidence? Probably not. If we’re talking anecdote, there’s mine.
Jay,
I somehow doubt that black and white people in Mississippi have radically different ideas about health care, education, Social Security, etc. In fact, on those issues, especially health care and Social Security, white Bush voters tend to side with the Democrats. That’s the reason why Gene Taylor (D-southern MS) and Bud Cramer (D-northern AL) keep winning election. They go hard right on social and national security issues, and occasionally on taxes, but they are staunch supporters of keeping Social Security as is, and a broader health care program for the poor. But on national races - Senate and President - it’s well understood in Mississippi that most white people vote Republican and most black people vote Democratic in national elections.
Oliver,
You really outdid yourself this time. The part where districts that “registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush” is just another example of so-called “scientists” manipulating statistics to say whatever they want. The study itself is biased, by its own admission. It donated to Kerry’s campaign…that’s bias if I’ve ever seen it. And here’s your explanation of your “statistical” findings:
I’ll put it simply so that I don’t lose you here…
Conservative Bush voters are statistically what??? Caucasian men. Districts that have larger minority and “Black” constituents historically are overwhelmingly Democrat.
So is it a real stretch that Black men and women would find it easier to associate Black faces with positive concepts??? And that districts that vote Democrat that have higher numbers of Black constituents would find it easier to associate Black faces with positive concepts?
Is this really science??? I’m disappointed, but not really surprised. I know all about statistics and how it is often manipulated to try to prove one thing or another, but really has little statistical value, let alone scientific. I suppose you missed that lecture in college.
Now do you see how ridiculous your sweeping generalizations that Bush voters are a bunch of anti-black bigots are? If you go to a predominantly Black Democratically-voting disctrict, they will almost certainly be able to better associate Black faces with positive role models, etc.
The real coup de grace was at the end of the article where you said that the “scientists” later donated to Kerry…now that is enough to discredit the whole “scientific” report. Scientists should remove their sentiments and own bias from the study.
Lecture over. Did you learn anything?
Next week, I will use statistics to prove that drinking Mountain Dew cures baldness.
Is this really science??? I m disappointed, but not really surprised. I know all about statistics and how it is often manipulated to try to prove one thing or another, but really has little statistical value, let alone scientific. I suppose you missed that lecture in college.
That would be nice, and you do make an interesting point, but you are also guilty of assumption, LeaderoftheFreeWorld, which you base your argument on. Actually, you are absolutely wrong when you state that liberal voters - blue states - have higher percentage of blacks, and this is what accounts for the bias.
You do not know which states they pulled the participants from, and there are also states that are opposite to what you are saying, that is that there are many red states that have higher proportion of blacks than many blue states.
Your rebuttal is flawed.
I will add this quote from the article, (which indicates not only an independant review of the study, but another view that there is evidence that republicans are indeed more biased. Something that is common knowledge, in my view, however I am biased as well. Does my bias come from observation, or rejudice? Yet another piece of the puzzle, you fail to address the question ‘do racist people becomre republican, or does being republican create racist beliefs’?)
Wow, a scientific study donated to a Democratic campaign fund? It musta been convicted briber and Republican fundraiser Bob Abramoff who directed them to do it!
elrod: Apparently, you lefties do. Your point was?
It’s unfortunate that you take this use of statistics at face value. You…or the psychologist you are quoting…is mixing different reports/research together to try to make a correlation, and that itself has its own problems in terms of scientific rigor in the study. So many people are duped by statistics…it’s as if it is the magic bullet, beyond reproach or doubt. I would like to see the data that you vigorously defend…and it’s not States that they are referring to, it’s districts…much, much different. And here is where my point may reach you. There is this term called Gerrymandering, where in the 1800’s til now, politicians from both Democratic and Republican parties used their influence to draw up district boundaries in order to isolate certain demographic groups, namely whites, blacks, hispanics, Catholics, Protestants, etc. based on the historical voting patterns of these individual groups. So, regardless of Red State/Blue State, from the outset, we are talking about politically separated districts. So it is much easier to separate different ethnic/racial groups based on voting preference into separate voting DISTRICTS, which the study DOES refer to. I could go on, but it’s really futile. You can go on believing what you will, that’s fine. All I am trying to convey is that the study IS 1) flawed; 2) not scientific; and 3) politically-motivated. Please tell me I am not the only person here that recognizes this, am I??? You can get all three of these things just from the excerpt Oliver put in his original article. Ask your old statistics professor what he thinks about the abuse of statistics in this situation, and regardless of his political party, I’m sure he will agree. Or….you can just ask me
And by the way, I believe whether or not one is a Republican or Democrat has more to do with socioeconomic status than it does race. In addition, I believe positive or negative attitudes of pictures of a black or white face depends on the racial diversity of the neighborhood in which one lives. Many, many affluent neighborhoods that can be characterized as Republican-leaning are practically devoid of black residents. In this instance, you could argue that this “de facto” segregation where there are few if any black faces for many Republicans to associate with, positively or negatively, can in turn make it more “difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces.”–quoting Oliver’s original article. But does that mean everyone in those neighborhoods, especially the Republicans, are racist??? So that’s why you call all Republicans racist? Interesting…I think someone else here has a few prejudices of his/her own???
And yes…I am aware of my jumping to conclusions, twisting your words, or making assumptions about you…it’s just to prove a point…Prejudice:
1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
Could you be? Or the so-called scientists that paid donations to Kerry. Just think about it…What percentage of Democrats actually pay donations to a campaign? You’ve got to be a pretty staunch supporter to do that…even biased perhaps.
…one nation, under God, indivisible, with justice and liberty for all…that means Republicans too, I think
Yours truly,
LeaderoftheFreeWorld
You ramble on as much as the real “Leader of the Free World”. Make as much sense, too.
I suppose the truth is only important to FactCheck when it works in your favor. As far as bias in segregated neighborhoods and voting districts, the same holds true for predominantly black neighborhoods. Do you think an all-black neighborhood would find it more difficult to associate white faces with positive concepts than black faces when compared to a more racially-diverse neighborhood? Really think for a moment of the examples of white faces a black individual in a nearly all-black neighborhood would have? Do you think they would be positive??? Or based on a few negative interactions or subject to stereotypes from others with no real-life examples to draw from? However, I believe education is necessary to guide one’s own will to look beyond these stereotypes instead of taking them at face value. If education is the key, then one can possibly conclude that Republicans, who as a whole have higher educational achievement than Democrats, would be less susceptible to prejudice and racism…what do you think about that???
Higher levels of education have been shown in REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES to have a direct correlation with lower levels of prejudice and racism in all of its forms.
…or just type “EDUCATION LEVELS DECREASE PREJUDICE” in GOOGLE and find articles that state “Education Level is the Most Significant Predictor of Anti-Semitism Among Blacks,” “college attendance has been shown to decrease prejudice, enhance knowledge,” etc, etc. But take all of this with a grain of salt…these studies may have their own political agendas as well if you see who sponsored/published the studies…for one, the ADL (which has its own political agenda, as do all of these groups), states:
“African-Americans continue to be significantly more likely than white Americans to hold anti-Jewish beliefs. As with whites, education level is the most important factor affecting the attitudes of blacks toward Jews.
The most anti-Semitic Americans tend to have less day-to-day contact with Jews than does the rest of the population.”
This is inline with what I was saying about interaction with people of a different race in a homogenized neighborhood with few examples of the other race to make positive references for. Not to mention, also congruent with my statements on how higher educational achievement lowers prejudice/bias.
You see, science/statistics can be manipulated to prove anything you set out to. A layperson then may, incorrectly, assume that Democrats are thus more racist than Republicans.
I am, the one…the only…the
LeaderoftheFreeWorld
[…] ds, but, next week, I promise. To edutain, amucate, and infose: Bush country. Perhaps related. The chain of command. Plame for Dummies. The Big Bang Theor […]