Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is odd that people would be defensive about this.
As has been pointed out, historically, there was rarely any other choice regardless of the color of the voter.
Of course there are exceptions, for example, that poster from San Antonio would be more likely to vote for someone of color simply because San Antonio is a majority-minority city and has always been.
It is likely that color is less of an issue there and in similar places because it is inherent in the nature of the city itself.
For the rest of the country however, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find it otherwise.
But, I suppose the defensiveness is perhaps due to this:
"White people don't like to believe that they practice identity politics. The defining part of being white in America is the assumption that, as a white person, you are a regular, individual human being.
...
Yet Mitt Romney's election strategy depends on the notion that the white vote is separate from the rest of the vote, and can be captured as such.
...
Romney’s camp is focused intently on capturing at least 61 percent of white voters..."
The article goes on to note that minority voters were treated as a bloc, in much the same way that the OP and others have illustrated. I guess the assumption was that there was no point in trying to woo those voters because they couldn't be wooed away from the candidate of color. They were treated as a monolith, incapable of independent thought, an untruth well dispelled by the OP.
White identity politics is rightly associated with white supremacy and racism, so white politicians do the dog whistle thing which I guess obscures that they are making a white racial appeal.
Yeah and I don't get why this upsets them either. This nation has elected what 4 or 5 black people to the Senate EVER.
This nation has elected what 2 or 3 black governors EVER. Look at Asians, Look at Latinos who aren't white dudes. White people do not vote for non white people very frequently and that is why those groups have an extremely difficult time winning state wide elections.
This is such basic reality type stuff that it is always surprising when people get defensive.
Talk about hypocricy (just change the words a little)...."Still doesn't change reality. That black Americans generally and black men specifically overwhelmingly would only vote for black candidates if given the choice and they were a Democrat." Obama got 94% of the black vote. Not so in the past with a white Democrat candidate. Same thing goes for Hispanics if they had a choice between a Hispanic candidate and a non-Hispanic one and they were a Democrat. Pot, kettle, black.
White identity politics is rightly associated with white supremacy and racism, so white politicians do the dog whistle thing which I guess obscures that they are making a white racial appeal.
Yeah and I don't get why this upsets them either. This nation has elected what 4 or 5 black people to the Senate EVER.
This nation has elected what 2 or 3 black governors EVER. Look at Asians, Look at Latinos who aren't white dudes. White people do not vote for non white people very frequently and that is why those groups have an extremely difficult time winning state wide elections.
This is such basic reality type stuff that it is always surprising when people get defensive.
All that means is whites generally win elections.
Let me give an example. A state that is 80% white and 20% black has a black man and a white man running for governor. Both groups vote 80/20 in favor of the member of their race. White man wins. The racial bias is equal in percentage between the two groups.
Simple math.
I believe TEd Cruz and Marco Rubio both won the white male vote.
I hope that the guy who was elected was the most qualified option to be the Mayor of Detroit. That said, this might very well be good in terms of having the U.S. gradually become a post-racial society.
Talk about hypocricy (just change the words a little)...."Still doesn't change reality. That black Americans generally and black men specifically overwhelmingly would only vote for black candidates if given the choice and they were a Democrat." Obama got 94% of the black vote. Not so in the past with a white Democrat candidate. Same thing goes for Hispanics if they had a choice between a Hispanic candidate and a non-Hispanic one and they were a Democrat. Pot, kettle, black.
"If only there was just some history of black voters casting ballots for presidential candidates who weren’t black! That 88 percent of black voters who sided with John Kerry in the 2004 general? A fluke. The 90 percent of black voters who cast ballots for Al Gore in 2000? Outliers, prolly. The 83 and 84 percent of black voters who voted for Bill Clinton, the 89 percent who favored Michael Dukakis in 1988, the 91 percent who rode with Mondale in 1984, or the 83 percent that voted for Carter in 1980 and 1976?"
Depending on the number of people voting each time, it is quite possible that there are little to no statistical differences between the earlier percentages and the percentage that voted for Obama.
The only "story" here is that, yes, they were all Democrats and it would seem, based on this trend, that the GOP has done little-to-nothing to improve their chances with that particularly demographic.
The largest majority black city in America, The City of Detroit, also overwhelmingly voted for Barak Obama.......I guess this throws a wrench in the "black will only elect blacks" mantra that came to birth after Obama was elected. The truth is that Detroit could have elected a white mayor 20 years ago. Maryann Mahaffey, a white women, could have become Detroit Mayor in the 90's if she wanted.
Blacks have always voted for white candidates.....because that is the only choice they had through most of this countries history.....when they were allowed to vote. I do not know where the idea came from that blacks only support blacks. Blacks do not want to be denied opportunities and they support "Firsts" for blacks, but the idea that blacks are averse to electing whites is pure BS.
That having said, I have mixed views on the election in Detroit. Detroit has hit bottom and is actually on the rebound and bankruptcy creates the rubber for the rebound after hitting bottom. The reinvestment in the city has been underway for the last 8 years or more. Black leadership, hence, will be associated with Decline while white leadership will be associated with the rebound of the city.....which perpetuates an old stereotype.
"If only there was just some history of black voters casting ballots for presidential candidates who weren’t black! That 88 percent of black voters who sided with John Kerry in the 2004 general? A fluke. The 90 percent of black voters who cast ballots for Al Gore in 2000? Outliers, prolly. The 83 and 84 percent of black voters who voted for Bill Clinton, the 89 percent who favored Michael Dukakis in 1988, the 91 percent who rode with Mondale in 1984, or the 83 percent that voted for Carter in 1980 and 1976?"
Depending on the number of people voting each time, it is quite possible that there are little to no statistical differences between the earlier percentages and the percentage that voted for Obama.
The only "story" here is that, yes, they were all Democrats and it would seem, based on this trend, that the GOP has done little-to-nothing to improve their chances with that particularly demographic.
Explain why blacks overwhelmingly picked Barack over Hillary.
Mathguy, the issue is that emotionally, white people are racists, the only racists. The facts are irrelevant.
You could blindfold a white person and have him reach into a bag to retrieve a ball. In the bag, there are 10 balls, 5 white and 5 black. If the blindfolded guy reaches into the bag and retrieves a white ball, to many race baiters, this would prove he is racist.
Uhhh....actually I did. I looked at the US total and not the Iowa total. My bad....I stand corrected. That link still does not show that the majority of whites voted for Obama in Iowa, however. Iowa is about 90+ percent white, so with such a wide margin one would think it required a white majority, however, that is not proven, as Obama likely got about 95 of the black vote and 80% of the Hispanic vote in Iowa.
The burden of proof lies with the original claimant, not those refuting the unsourced claim as doubtful in the face of the data which I bothered to source.
Why do I have to post what independent white male voters did in 2008 and 2012? When I am discussing the voting behavior of white people nationwide? What sense does that make?
No, what I wrote is 100% accurate, white Americans overwhelmingly vote for white candidates and white men overwhelmingly vote for white men.
Every other group of American voters doesn't vote like that.
^^^^^Hey indentured, good thing nobody around here is making blanket statements about white people eh?
I'd ask for proof but you keep refusing to and then just start making excuses.
Obama got 90% of the black vote, McCain and Romney got <60% of the white vote and you run around claiming that only whites votes racially and you don't want to look at independents either. Bwah hah hah hah.....you've got your klan hood on today....but it's ok because you are wearing it inside out. It makes it acceptable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
