Why is it that when a large % of black voters vote for a candidate, it's "bloc voting"

[EffieBlack]

and is analyzed as if something is wrong with those voters, but when large % of white voters vote for a candidate, it means that that the opposing candidate is not doing enough to attract those voters?

I find it very odd, and extremely troubling, that the media is treating the fact that a significant portion of white Pennsylvania voters within a certain income bracket say they are not voting for Obama as if Obama is doing something wrong or that there is a deficit in his message, campaign or persona. Yet whenever the media notes that large percentages of black voters are not voting for Hillary Clinton, they dismiss it as "bloc" voting by black voters voting for a black candidate - and rarely treat it as a sign of anything amiss in the Clinton message, campaign or persona.

And, of course, they NEVER mention, much less analyze, the fact that hardly any black voters at all are even considering voting for John McCain - he's getting a completely free ride on this issue.

I think I already know the answer. Just wondering if there's another rational explanation for this disparate approach.

[jaysunb]

1. Let me see here...

what is it called when 90+ % of the Black vote goes to Democrats ? Oh yeah, it's then called " loyalty ? " :evilgrin:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Institutionalized racism......

Folks don't realize that they are doing this.......since they believe themselves to be superior, they don't see the problem with it. :shrug:

[buff2]

4. Who thinks they are "superior"?

Now a person can't vote for who they want without being branded as SUPERIOR? :wtf:

[Life Long Dem]

32. It couldn't possibly mean a broad brush, so easy does it there.

[Clintonista2]

14. Hey whitey- everything is racism to you.

Pointing out the fact that certain demographics vote certain ways, is not racism.

[EffieBlack]

20. You've missed the entire point

No one is criticizing the press for "pointing out the fact that certain demographics vote certain ways." The problem is that the press characterizes the voting patterns differently depending upon the demographic they're analyzing.

[jackson_dem]

33. Wrong. Jewish voters, who are white, are considered a bloc

They vote 80% for Democrats. The difference is blacks are doing this in a primary. Lieberman didn't get 85-90% Jewish support in the primaries. The two analogues are religious, Romney and JFK. The only candidate other than Obama to get 85-90% support during primaries from one racial group while having the same positions as his opponents is Jesse Jackson.

[EffieBlack]

48. Your implication that Obama and Jackson are getting large #s of black voters because they're black

might be rational if Alan Keyes, Carol Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton and Doug Wilder also got overwhelming support from black voters. But they didn't.

So, there goes your argument.

[DemVet]

60. Maybe, but....

...every case is different. Are African-Americans voting for Obama because he's black? I don't know.

I do think it would be entirely natural if they did, and wouldn't have a problem with it.

I also think it's entirely natural for women to vote for Hillary. Again, this election could possibly see the first African-American or the first woman in the White House. I can understand people voting for either candidate just for that reason, although both have a wealth of other qualifications.

[redstate_democrat]

30. Thank you.

You're dead on

[buff2]

3. I've noticed that from the time Obama started to run

now it's all of a sudden a black and white issue. Why is that? A person's race shouldn't have a thing to do with it,but here in DU I see a lot of it. This is only flame bait......nothing else. :thumbsdown:

[EffieBlack]

5. So if I ask why the press analyzes black v. white voting as they do, I'm posting "flamebait?"

I see. Thank you for your input.

[buff2]

9. You're welcome.

:popcorn:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. What was Ignored babbling about?

I see he/she/they are rather chatty in this thread.

[Life Long Dem]

35. That's funny, because I have this one on ignore too.

[JVS]

10. "now it's all of a sudden a black and white issue. Why is that?"

Because Hillary needs it to be a black on white issue in order to win. That's why. It's also why Bill Clinton tried to brand Obama as a BLACK candidate in the tradition of Jesse Jackson.

[buff2]

12. You pay to much attention to the media whores

You are falling in line with what they want us to do. Anything to divide us so the repukes can win. I am voting for Obama if he gets the nomination. I am liking him more and more everyday.He seems like a nice guy to me and he is very,very intelligent. I love the way he handles all situations and I love his sense of humor. I will back him 100% and with a donation too.

[sniffa]

29. I swear, Ignored gets more attention than warranted

Is this like a feeding the destitute program? :shrug:

[jackson_dem]

34. Obama and Jackson are the only two candidates to get 85-90% support in primaries from a racial group

Is it racist to point that out? Romney won Utah with 91%. Want to make a guess why? Or is that anti-Mormon?

[EffieBlack]

49. Until this year, 90-95% of white voters have voted for white candidates in the primaries

Funny - you never seem to look at the numbers through that prism.

[butterfly77]

64. Yes, there were and still are a lot of black voters who are ...

supporting Hillary. Blacks at first thought that Hillary was the best choice until they began to look at Obama more closely and they knew that he could win but I do believe if there would have been another candidate that blacks thought was a good choice for this time I believe they would support him or her. A lot of blacks really supported Edwards before they supported Obama or Hillary.

[Willo]

6. I've thought about that too Effie

but I had to step back when I found myself thinking along the same lines when it came to the hispanic vote.

Jay, that 90% was also a reflection of the truth coming out, after Texas/Ohio voted but before Mississippi voted.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. The demographics breakdown is bullshit.

It's meant to fragment the electorate.

Vote your conscience.

[Eurobabe]

70. I am: OBAMA

And I don't feel like a traitor to my sex. :hi:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

76. Woohoo!

:woohoo:

[woolldog]

8. Spot on analysis.

There's a double standard. It's just that simple.

[2rth2pwr]

11. It looks like race based voting on both sides.

[buff2]

15. It's what the media wants

Divide and conquer. It's what they do best.

[2rth2pwr]

17. Oh yeah, I forgot the big media plot.

[butterfly77]

65. Yes so that McCain can slip in...

David Gregory on msnbc is on McCains team, he even does the talking points for him...

[jody]

13. When voters say race is important, is that not bigotry? Browse exit polls from state primaries at

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

A question asked "Was Race of Candidate Important to You?" produces interesting results.

For example, in Mississippi, 31% of the voters answered "Yes" and they were divided into 36% that voted for Clinton and 62% that voted for Obama.

I've browsed exit polls from other states and found similar results.

[buff2]

19. They shouldn't even ask that question

It's the person and the issues we should be worried about.....and who is going to kick McSame's ass in Nov. And he WILL get a good ass kickin! I'm sure about that! :hi:

[jody]

24. See #23. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

21. The problem is

the media introducing the subject of race by explicitly doing these types of polls that seek to focus on race as an "issue" and they insist on measuring it, and continuing to over-analyze it.

It's interesting that when people happen to be drawn to a particular person - whether politically or for sports or some hobby or entertainment, often the race of that person disappears from their consciousness... Until someone brings it up and then all the old earlier buried stereotypes start kicking back in. THAT is the strategy that the Clintons are relying on. :eyes:

[jody]

23. Unlike lots of poll questions, "Was Race of Candidate Important to You?" is unambiguous. Is it the

question that bothers you are the answers?

[BumRushDaShow]

27. The problem is why the question is necessary at all?

Because I believe that most people aren't initially judging people or making decisions in this election based on race. One can't have seen those HUGE rallies for Obama in states with <1% black population and assume that these people were attending them because he was the "black candidate". They came because he had something to say that they agreed with.

The fact that the white population in the U.S. are by far the biggest buyers of black rap music is a case in point. The black population was not what made Michael Jackson a billionaire. Fans of Tiger Woods, who are mostly white, see a masterful golf player as he plays and when he wins a green jacket.

But keep bringing the subject up and all those old ugly stereotypes will surface in people's minds because this country, with the help of the media, has conditioned people's minds to react so - whether the person is the one who gets asked the poll question or is a reader of the results of a poll with that as a subject.

[jody]

37. I don't know why the question was asked but it's possible to find out if voters would vote for or

against BO or HC because of their race.

Apparently that is true in some states. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

42. You don't want to get it. That's why you are going round and round.....

The question is not normally asked, and shouldn't have been asked this time either. If we are to judge based on character and not the color of one's skin, why would pollers want to promote us thinking about the color of skin so much. It really isn't complicated what has happened. And certainly it doesn't escape Black folks at all, as well as many folks of all races. That's why, if Hillary does anything crazy that gets her tne nomination, her ass is grass come the GE. She will not win. period.

[jody]

46. Are you disturbed that people vote for or against BO and HC because of their race? The answers

suggest that is true.

Four follow up questions:
- do the answers suggest
- - white people vote against BO because of his race and
- - black people vote for BO because of his race, and

- do the answers suggest
- - black people vote against HC because of her race and
- - white people vote for HC because of her race?

It's quite possible the answers are "Yes" to all four of those questions.

Would those results frighten you knowing that if they are correct, Republican campaign strategists will use that knowledge in the General Election?

Perhaps you feel more comfortable ignoring such inconvenient truths. :shrug:

[BumRushDaShow]

63. I am again disturbed that you insist that race should be considered important

as you, like most race-baiters, continue to focus on it for some benefit. It's a foregone conclusion that a large chunk of America is prejudiced (whether with regards to race, gender, orientation, religion, or ethnic affiliation), but the times are slowly changing.

For example, in modern times, black candidates could often muster up to 20% of the white vote in an election if they were lucky. Within the past 20 or so years, that number has increased to about 30% and this year, it has actually broached that number and in some cases, actually hit 50 - 60% when a black candidate ran against a white candidate (see states like Wyoming, Idaho, Maine, Vermont, etc).

But your post is essentially nonsense in terms of trying to bring out the "haints" and "spooks" to try "frighten" AAs like myself, who have immediate ancestors who have experienced TRULY frightful and sickening things from whites in this country.

Perhaps you should be frightened or perhaps saddened that not all of the land of the free and home of the brave has got the memo. :shrug:

[jody]

69. I did not "insist that race should be considered important". I simply reported facts that disturb

you and now you disparage me with ad hominem attacks.

If you refuse to recognize that race did play an important role in Democratic primaries in some states, you need to give yourself a stern lecture on real politics.

I've enjoyed the exchange.

Have a good day and goodbye. :hi:

[BumRushDaShow]

74. Sorry that you entirely missed the gist of my post

that points out the dangers of methods that focus on measuring racial preference in elections, and then you flee when confronted with my point of view. No disparaging of you personally was intended but disagreement with your arguments. I.e., to demand that one "fear" something that has been part and parcel of this country from the time of its founding and then continue to justify the use of delving into one's racial preferences as reported in a "poll" as somehow being legitimate criteria for who a voter should or should not vote for. This when the country has claimed attempts to look beyond such superficial criteria for evaluating candidates. And thus your "fear" argument only highlights the hypocracy of the claim that the U.S. is a "color blind society". One would either support being "color blind" or not. You never addressed the issue but I wouldn't have expected it anyway.

In any case, I will agree to disagree. Ciao! :bye:

[Willo]

39. And being drawn to a person you identify with is not

in and of itself a negative thing. You see that particularly in sports..rooting for the player/team representing your country, state, gender or race. The problem as you said, is when those things are used to polarize.

To "remind" people which side they are "supposed" to be on. That kind of loyalty-thinking works best when combined with fear, that doing otherwise is harmful for the group.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. It's just like when only

a handful of black kids attend a majority-white school and happen to sit together at lunch, they are "segregating themselves" and are being "anti-social". But the whites who are all sitting together are "just sitting with their friends". :eyes:

[EffieBlack]

22. "Why don't those black kids make more of an effort to get along with the rest of the kids?"

"Well, why don't the white kids make more of an effort to sit with the black kids?"

"Because they wouldn't feel comfortable!"

Yeah - I hear you. Your point is an excellent one.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. I have been there, done that some 30 years ago.

400 black kids on a campus of 25,000 white kids. You can only "dilute" but so much. That's about 1 black student per 63 white students. And ironically, I would rarely hear comments asking "why all the asian kids were sitting together". It's all nonsense.

Alot of the problem is because the majority of the AA community have long since been able to identify with any specific ethnic group. So we are all lumped together. In many cases, African diaspora from the African, South American, and European continents and from the Caribbean seem to have a better time at it because they are immediately identified as "others", with some identifiable ethnic group, just by their accents.

[goletian]

26. because the media is made up of a bunch of jackasses that think they know what theyre talking about

most of them do not.

[stillcool]

28. because race is being used..

to win an election. Perception is everything..winning is losing, states don't matter, white people will not vote for Obama in the general election because the country is 80% racist...blah, blah, blah... In the meantime, when the 'media' isn't watching...

[jackson_dem]

36. Good point. Race is being used to win--by Obama

That photo doesn't change the fact.

[Willo]

45. Exactly. I didn't get what the "rock star" remarks were about

until I started seeing it online.

"Good Lord, look at all of those people!"
No, correction, "Look at all of those WHITE people!"
"Hah!"


Way Cool!!!

[stillcool]

47. God I love the Internets!

[jackson_dem]

31. It would be called bloc voting if whites in every state voted 85-90% for a candidate

You are asking about something that has never happened. When Catholics voted 80% for JFK or Smith that was considered bloc voting and almost all Catholics then were white. Similarly, Mormons bloc voted for Romney. Romney is the better analogue to Obama. Romney and Obama have basically the same policies as their opponents. So how do they get 80-90% support? There is only one variable.

[reflection]

38. I'm one of those kinds of people

who generally dismisses these kinds of theories, but I have to say that I believe you are spot on with that one, at least as it pertains to elections within the Democratic Party. However, I also think that it is pretty much a given that John McCain, like any other Repub, is not likely to garner any black votes, so he's not getting a "free ride" per se, just that the possibility is virtually nil, so it is not worth analyzing.

(I'm rather tired as I type this, so I probably didn't articulate myself properly, and VMMV)

[Life Long Dem]

40. What it comes down to is the message you hear and want.

[reflection]

41. I don't follow, can you elaborate?

Disclaimer: I am working my night job at my computer and am toggling back and forth between AutoCAD and DU. My brain is completely fried. Sorry to be obtuse. :)

[Life Long Dem]

44. Just saying, you look at what is being said and make a choice on that alone..

You listen to the message and make a choice. The media would rather you not do that, so they can control the race.

[EffieBlack]

50. Interesting that the media (and some DUers, as well) who are so obsessed over the fact that

in this cycle, black voters are voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, never mention or acknowledge that:

1) Until this year, white voters have voted 90-95% for white candidates and AGAINST black candidates (this is masked by the fact that there is usually more than one white candidate in the race, thus enabling white voters to spread out their votes between multiple candidates - nevertheless, their votes go overwhelmingly to white candidates);

2) Until this year, black voters have consistently voted for white candidates in large numbers, even when black candidates were in the race. Interestingly, those who try to argue that blacks vote in "blocs" conveniently point only to those rare instances in which black voters have voted in large numbers for black candidates, completely ignoring the more common occurrence of black voters voting for black candidates (which completely contradicts their point.)

[NashVegas]

43. Where Did Anyone Ever Say It Was *Wrong* for Overwhelming Black Voter %s for Obama?

My recollection is that many people noted it, but no one - at least, no one on the left and mainstream press - said it was wrong.

Is it racism? I don't know. But I do know that even you, Effie, made Obama's campaign about race the night of the Iowa caucus.

[bain_sidhe]

51. Same thing happens with gender

when a majority of women vote for a woman, it's "identity politics" or "bloc voting" but when a majority of men vote for a man, that's just normal. :eyes:

I know what you're getting at, though, and it all comes down to the "out" (of power) group (whether that's race or gender) being considered "abnormal" for voting for the candidate that is him-or-herself considered "abnormal" (i.e., not a white male).

[EffieBlack]

52. Exactly!

When the "out" group votes for candidates who happen to look like them, they are improperly voting race or gender and the candidate they support is unfairly benefitting from their race/gender. Yet when white males vote for white males, it is not only normal, but a sign that the female/minority candidate did not do enough to "earn" the support of the "regular" voters.

[bain_sidhe]

54. Very GRR inducing, no matter which candidate you support

I'm leaning Obama, but, as a woman, I still love Hillary's candidacy. Call me doubly abnormal, I guess.

**edited to say I'm white, so I'm not sure what supporting Obama makes me... I'm not voting my race OR my gender, but I'm still supporting (or at least, leaning toward) an abnormal candidate.

[CitizenLeft]

53. bugs me too...

You're right. Everything is seen through a white prism. It would be nice if someone on the air would point out that there IS another way of describing it... just to add a little perspective.

[crankychatter]

55. The assumption that Black People vote in a bloc based on Race

is derogatory and erroneous

[IsItJustMe]

56. Built in racism in our media. Yep, it's that simple.

[Beacool]

57. It is bloc voting.

Are you telling us that when 91% of African Americans voted for Obama in MS it was solely due to the issues??? Since SC, where 76% of the black vote went for Obama, he has garnered the overwhelming majority of the black vote.

Please................


:eyes:

[EffieBlack]

59. 98% of white voters voted for white candidates in the 2004 primaries

Do you assume that THEIR votes weren't solely on the issues or that they voted overwhelmingly against the black candidates who running because of their race?

It is obnoxious and insulting - and, yes, in some cases, outright bigoted - to assume that black voters are any more likely to vote based on race than white voters are. And since black voters have consistently demonstrated considerably more willingness to vote for candidates of a different race than white votes have demonstrated over the years, such an assumption cannot be supported in any respect.

There are any number of reasons for voters to vote for or against candidates. Black voters obviously are perfectly comfortable voting for white candidates. Sadly, some white people treat voting for white candidates as the "default" selection, which is the norm for voters of either race. They seem to expect - in fact, take it as a given - that black voters will support white candidates by large majorities. And, by the same token, they also think it's perfectly normal for white voters to consistently, year after year, to vote in overwhelming numbers for white candidates against black candidates. Funny, I can't seem to recall much analysis of why white voters were voting 98-99% against Carol Mosely-Braun and Al Sharpton and Doug Wilder. Of course, there was no NEED for any analysis since EVERYONE KNOWS why white voters didn't support them - they just weren't QUALIFIED, right? And they also didn't wring their hands wondering why so many black voters were voting for Howard Dean and John Edwards and Paul Tsongas and Michael Dukakis. Why would anyone wonder? THOSE people were QUALIFIED and black voters were voting purely on qualifications and not letting race get in their way!

This year, however, voters are shifting, yet the backward-thinkers haven't budged. Instead, they continue to try to isolate voters, hemming them into boxes that no longer exist. So when a majority of black voters this time around have decided that Barack Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, suddenly, they are no longer voting qualifications - they MUST be voting race! And, even though Obama is getting a significant number of white votes, they love carving and parsing the white vote to try to suggest that he's not doing enough to reach the "right" white voters. First, they just looked at white voters in general. Then, after he began making headway there, they broke that vote down into smaller categories. They are now laughably analyzing "white male voters who make less than $55,000 per year." Pretty soon, they're going to boil it all down to just "Earl."

[NashVegas]

61. 2004

Carol Mosely Braun dropped out after Iowa, where Wes Clark and Joe Lieberman joined her and Al Sharpton in getting 0% of the vote.

Al Sharpton never stood a chance because of the Tawana Brawley episode, and his continued exploits. Even in the Southern states, black voters stayed away from Sharpton - if for no other reason than because they knew he wasn't a serious contender.

Effie, I'll ask you a second time - please show proof of a trend where black voters are being criticized for voting heavily in favor of the first viable black candidate in US history in Democratic / liberal / progressive circles.

You can't because there is no such criticism.

[EffieBlack]

62. Interesting - you're doing exactly what I pointed out

You are finding all sorts of reasons that white voters have not voted for black candidates - none of which have to do with race. Yet you seem all too willing to assume that black voters are voting for Obama because of race. Thanks for helping me make my point.

FYI - I do not have to show you proof that blacks "are being criticized for voting heavily in favor of the first viable black candidate" because I have not made such a claim, your attempts to throw a red herring into the discussion notwithstanding. But if you have not seen the phenomenon I and others are discussing here, you just aren't paying attention.

[NashVegas]

75. I Did Nothing of the Sort - You Made the Claim - You Set the Premise

These are YOUR words, Effie, in YOUR OP:

'Why is it that when a large % of black voters vote for a candidate, it's "bloc voting" and is analyzed as if something is wrong with those voters'

That's the foundation of your OP.

I was pointing out that for many white AND black people, Al Sharpton will always go down being known for a hoax that he helped perpetrate, wherein white NYers were accused of a heinous, race-related crime. I have no doubt there are and were a number of people - black and white - who agree with Sharpton on many issues, but as a candidate for POTUS, he's a joke.

[Beacool]

67. Bush and Kerry aren't white?

Who else would the white voters vote for in vast numbers when BOTH major candidates were also white. What black candidate did we have in 2004????? I don't understand your point.

[EffieBlack]

68. You might want to actually read my post before you try to get smart with me- I referred to PRIMARIES

explicitly. There were two black candidates in the 2004 primaries.

[Beacool]

73. But they had no traction whatsoever. n/t

[loyalsister]

58. You nailed it

Even if you set aside the "bloc voting" characterization, I have noticed that when Blacks vote for Democrats in the GE Democrats have argued that it is because their interests are better represented. And of course there is the unfortunate conventional wisdom that it is just normal and expected for white voters to vote for white candidates.

Now today, actual party representatives and members say that black voters are voting for Obama because he is black. Why not because he is a candidate who happens to have captured the imagination of many black voters just as we say about young voters?

Of course, you are correct. We know the answer. It is the divisivness as a weapons, stupid- among other things.

I don't know how to solve it exactly, but I think that allowing it to fester unchallenged below the surface is to be complicit. It is something that we need to keep above board and make sure it is a part of the discussion while looking for solutions.

[Zynx]

66. What I find fascinating is how casually people say this sort of thing.

I have a friend who supports Obama, but I remember him saying a few months ago when Obama's support among blacks was not that strong yet "Why haven't they come around yet? I would have thought they were 90% behind him."

[Writer]

71. There is a term I think we need to start exericising more when discussing this issue: "Homophily."

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Homophily

Homophily (i.e., love of the same) is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others. The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of network studies. Within their extensive review paper, McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) cite over one hundred studies that have observed homophily in some form or another. These include age, gender, class, organizational role, and so forth.

In their original formulation of homophily, Lazarsfeld and Merton (1954) distinguished between status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily means that individuals with similar social status characteristics are more likely to associate with each other than by chance. By contrast, value homophily refers to a tendency to associate with others who think in similar ways, regardless of differences in status.



We can be politically correct about this and deny that sociology plays a role, or we can accept the reality that, yes indeed, people tend to gravitate toward other people who are like them.

I think this doesn't work as often with women and Hillary Clinton, because I think many women do not identify with her representation of "woman."

[sudopod]

72. No one cared

about 80% of black people pulling the lever for the Old White Guy with a (D) next to his name...until he wasn't an Old White Guy any more.