I Wonder If They Will Be Labeled Racists
by Big Dog on Mar 27, 2010 at 22:35 Political
Barack Obama had it all going for him in the last election. The economic collapse could not have come at a better time for him as John McCain was tied or leading in the polls. Then the collapse hit. McCain, who had a lackluster campaign (which would have been dead if not for Sarah Palin), did some strange things that gave little confidence in his leadership or decision making abilities.
Obama went on to win the election with 41% of the white male vote. Obama needed that demographic to win the election. Despite the claims of a racist country, Obama could not have won without millions upon millions of whites voting for him. He particularly needed the white male vote.
Now it appears as if he has lost that segment of the population.
Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they’ll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994. Times Union
Polling indicates that the reason for the huge support in 2008 was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown (how convenient for it to occur then). White males are affected the most by the loss of jobs accounting for 70% of the losses. This block of voters does not see things getting better and has been disillusioned by the way Obama is handling things.
The percentage of support for Democrats among whites (both sexes) is three points lower than it was in 1994 so things could be really ugly for Democrats in November. Back then Democrats tried to marginalize this demographic by calling them angry white men. This backfired on them and one would think they have learned but I still have to wonder if the Democrats will call them racists for not continuing to support Obama or the Democrats.
Calling people racist is the buzz word for Democrats though it seems to be losing its effect as more and more people are seeing that race is not involved and that good people are being painted with the racism brush in the name of politics.
We have to keep the pressure on them. We cannot let them spin things and fool another block of voters.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 1994 midterm, Obama, support, white males
According to Obama, the difference between 1994 and 2010 is that the Democrats now have him. At this rate, ’94 is gonna look like a drop in the bucket.
I cannot wait for November to get here!
My family is struggling. We can’t find work, We are living on unemployment checks, which barely pays for groceries, the jobs are being given to minorities, and today we found out that congress left us hanging. Now we are going to be late on our rent. At 50 bucks a day late fee, it is going to take all our money. I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore! They can ruin this country and go on vacation? What is wrong with this picture? They will pay for these shenanigans in the voting booth, mark my words!
Yes, jobs to minorities. How dare they try and work in a recession when honest white people sit unemployed. I can’t imagine why somebody might mistake lack of support for Obama as racist.
Obama even took his job from a white man. The nerve…
No, Obama was GIVEN his job by white men…
Don’t make this mistake. Government is there at the consent of the governed.
“No, Obama was GIVEN his job by white men…”
Nope. About 85% of Obama’s votes were by women or minorities. White man thinks to much of himself. Obama took a job away from a white person which is why at times you’ve stooped so low as to say he was an affirmative action candidate.
I’m sure Realamerican could find work somewhere if he or she tried. Tom Delay says that people are unemployed because they want to be. So, go get with it Realamerican. Don’t be a bum and disappoint Delay and his ilk…
And how could Obama take a job from anyone? Bush had to relinquish it because of term limits so Obama took it from no one.
But you should learn the math of the situation. I don’t think too much of myself. I only know that my demographic allowed him to win. Could NOT have done it without. November will be that wake-up call.
There are many people who are unemployed because they want to be. I see them every day. There are a number who said as long as unemployment keeps getting extended they are not getting jobs. I think we should make every person receiving unemployment work 2 days a week for the state cleaning roads, sorting recyclables, cleaning parks, washing graffiti off walls, all kinds of stuff, to earn the pay. There are too many people who game the system.
The longer you pay someone not working the less likely you are to get them back. Injured workers who are out for more than 4-6 months and getting paid are about 75% less likely to ever return to work. Same goes with continuing to pay unemployment. Make people at least work for it so they will feel they are earning it and they will not lose the desire to actually work.
I know this concept is hard for you to understand.
No, the nerve was that Owebamma took his job from a man smarter than him- how lucky can you be?
Obama received about the same percentage of white women and minorities as any Democrat. As the link points out, he received a lot more white men than in the past.
If the white men did not vote for him he could not win.
No, Obama took nothing. No politician takes an office unless you are now admitting that he used illegal tactics to win.
We give them the job and we can take the job away. You will see that in November.
And he is the affirmative action candidate. If a white person with as little experience as Obama had been running as a Democrat you all would have selected Hillary and said the other person did not have enough experience.
He won because he is black.
“If the white men did not vote for him he could not win.”
Meaningless. Any portion of race or gender would have swung the election another way. But white men just have to take credit for everything…
“And he is the affirmative action candidate.”
As if affirmative action means you give a less qualified black person a job over a more qualified white person?
“He won because he is black.”
Wrong again. He won the primary because he ran a better campaign in the caucus states. He beat McCain because he ran a strong campaign, Republicans were on the decline, and the GOP backed a train wreck called McCain/Palin.
Feel free to chime in any time with evidence to back up the idea that blackness contributed anything to his success in the campaign.
I guess you missed the piece where it indicated that the increase in white male voters was the difference because the other demographics stayed the same. Since they stayed the same and white male voters increased, it was they that made the difference. Not meaningless but let us pursue. Not every demographic could change a vote. The overwhelming percentage of people in this country are white and white males are at least half of that demographic.
You see, if the whites did not vote for him he could not win but if all blacks did not vote for him he could still win because of numbers. 12% of population vs about 52%.
He did not run a better campaign than Hillary. He had the advantage of the MSM and his race. They were his cheerleaders and ignored his problems while pounding Hillary (the media wanted a black guy) and she was slammed as a racist every time she passed gas.
He beat McCain because the economic collapse and only because of that. If it had not happened he would have lost. That swayed the electorate.
If any white with similar experience ran you would say they were not qualified and had no experience. Oh wait, Palin was the VP candidate and had more experience than Obama and you guys said she was not qualified to be a heartbeat away (while saying Obama was qualified to be the heartbeat).
She is a white woman and you woman hating people on the left needed to vote for a black guy to ease your conscience over your racist and slave owning ways.
I am more qualified to be president and have a hell of a lot more leadership experience than he does. Hell, most privates in the Army have more leadership experience.
“I guess you missed the piece where it indicated that the increase in white male voters was the difference because the other demographics stayed the same.”
Not true. Obama won by 7%. He only gained 4% more of the white male vote than Kerry for instance so he needed gains in other areas still to win such as white women which he gained 2% more of than Kerry. It’s not as cut and dry as you’re making it.
My point is simply that because of the gap any demographic that is 7% or more could have changed the results.
Women: 53%
Men: 47%
White Women Alone: 39%
White Men 36%
Blacks: 13%
Latino: 9%
Black women alone: 7%
White Men aren’t topping that list so suggesting they are the reason Obama won is not all that meaningful. Women in general or White women in specific had a bigger impact on the race than White Men. A switch in black or latino votes makes the difference as well. You take away any one of those 6 groups I list and Obama loses. It’s not just all about the white vote because there’s so many whities running around…
“He did not run a better campaign than Hillary.”
Hogwash. The reason Hillary lost was a pretty simple one: Her campaign had no strategy to win caucus states and Obama’s did.
“She is a white woman and you woman hating people on the left needed to vote for a black guy to ease your conscience over your racist and slave owning ways.”
You’ll say some pretty outrageous things and then you won’t have an ounce of evidence to back it up. Funny.
And once again you rewrite history and pretend it was liberals that owned slaves. Maybe it’s time for some continuing education college courses in history to get you back up to speed on reality. This made up history you write about is pretty sad and off base…
I said you on the left, not liberals. It was you Democrats that owned slaves. Some were liberal some were not. The history is with your party.
I do not need any continuing ed at the colleges you go to. They rewrite history.
I do not know how many arguments I had with liberal professors about some nonsense they spewed.
“It was you Democrats that owned slaves.”
It was conservative Democrats. Just remember there’s a reason most conservatives left the Democratic party and it wasn’t because they liked Elephants.
“Some were liberal some were not.”
Feel free to list liberals that owned slaves and we can talk about them. I’m sure there’s one or two around you can find but I don’t think it will be a very long conversation as opposed to listing conservatives that hated the civil rights movement and switched to the GOP because of it.
Republican progressives freed the slaves while conservative Democrats worked against them. If you think the party name matters you’re just kidding yourself. Your political ideology is almost always on the wrong side of history…
Well Adam, you seem to have this concept that liberals have been the same all along.
Liberalism has been around for a long time and the people who were part of our history consisted of classic liberals and progressive liberals. The classic were more moderate in their beliefs while progressive were much like those of our recent history. WWI and II brought us a big change in liberalism.
“Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”
Each has plenty of varieties so our early history was filled with all kinds of both.
Claiming that one or the other is this or that and became whatever is not necessarily helpful given all the differences.
The modern day parties are much different than those of the past and labeling either with one particular ideology based on what they were in the past is difficult at best.
So then we agree that saying Democrats opposed civil rights and Republicans freed the slaves is meaningless since as you put it “The modern day parties are much different than those of the past…”
It is meaningless in the context of ideology, not party.
And you love to suggest that liberals are racists because conservative Democrats from a century ago opposed civil rights, do you not? Meaningless.
Liberal Democrats from a century ago (under that definition of liberal) opposed civil rights. It is meaningless except when we discuss party. Ideologies change and it is complex. However, you have no trouble attributing racism to any conservative when the history is not there to support it.
“Liberal Democrats from a century ago (under that definition of liberal) opposed civil rights.”
False. I have no idea what you’re talking about or how you justify that thinking. It makes no sense.
“However, you have no trouble attributing racism to any conservative when the history is not there to support it.”
When conservatives are racists I’m going to call them on it. Your side has been and continues to be on the wrong side of history on many many things, not the least of which is civil rights.
You pretend that because conservatives fled the Democratic party into the GOP that you somehow get to claim that it wasn’t conservatism that opposed civil rights but really liberals? Get real. You’re butchering history big time.
Ok Adam where is your proof of all you say?
“My neighbors lost their jobs, houses and cars and do we need the government to take care of us? Hell no! Yet the minorities are getting, food, clothes, housing, electricity and if they have children, free healthcare, WIC, need I go on?”
And “the minorities” are getting something you can’t get?
It is not a matter of getting or not getting what others are, it is a matter of being responsible for themselves.
Some folks are big into redistribution and dependence and others are not.
No you still do not get it Adam!
I do not want the government to take care of anyone!
How about we all take responsibility for ourselves and our lives?
Have you ever been to Cabrini Green in Chicago before it was shut down?
The government’s treatment of those people is deplorable!
All they did was sit on the butts all night and get high, or shoot their own neighbors, or join gangs. The government with the treatment of these people, shacking them in cracker box type housing and allowing them to never gain full potential on their own merits is doing more harm than good.
Feed a lab rat pellet after pellet and it will get fat and lazy. Make it work for the pellet and it will keep working for the pellet.
I am not a racist. I just see more people dependent on the government and it is not working out in the best interests of this country and it’s prosperity.
Unemployment is 50% higher with minorities than whites and the largest group of people on welfare are whites. I hardly see how you justify your positions on this subject and pretend you aren’t racist…
More white people as a raw number but what percent of the white population? It is only logical that more whites will be on welfare because they are the largest part of the population.
I’m simply stating the obvious here. Realamerican has only mentioned welfare in relation to minorities when clearly it is not a minority only concern.
He has complained about not getting jobs when minorities have them despite the fact that minorities are suffering worse unemployment. Large numbers of whites aren’t unemployed because of affirmative action. It’s just not true.
Realamerican wraps his prejudices up in a nice ribbon and bow he calls concern for our country. I’m not trying to sound hateful or judgmental as he is reading me but I’m just saying that I wish he would step back and re-examine his thoughts on this subject because I think they are off base and uninformed.
Well I agree with the point that a lot of people are on welfare regardless of demographic. I almost wrote that in a comment but got sidetracked.
But the reality is that minorities have been held on the Democrat plantation by the welfare chains for a long time.
And I keep hoping Realamerican will grace us with some more Realracism. It really strengthens your blog post…
Isn’t it funny when people keep calling you a racist and a woman hater without any evidence other than their assertion? Now you know how it feels.
The black vote and the woman vote was pretty much the same as past Democrat support. A 7% change in the white male vote is a hell of a lot more people than a 7% change in black votes and the change there was +4 or so to 95%. Shocker, 95% of blacks supported the black guy.
If 95% of whites had voted for McCain you would call this a racist country.
In any event, the swing in each demographic was small except for one. White males. And the white vote in general. He could not have won without it but he could win without the black vote (Republicans do it all the time) but he could not win at all without the white vote. It is a major deal and he will lose lots of it.
And you will say it is racist.
“And you will say it is racist.”
You know better but you always try to downplay the racists on your side by making it seem like we don’t know racism or that we overuse the term. You’re kidding yourself of course…
“Isn’t it funny when people keep calling you a racist and a woman hater without any evidence other than their assertion? Now you know how it feels.”
Sorry, but I don’t have a history of sexism and racially charged language like you do but if you feel better projecting that on to me then be my guest.
Well, you do the “kneejerk” racist card real well- it must have been your first word in the crib.
I am glad you feel good about yourself- after all, SOMEONE should feel good about you, even if it is just your momma.
Having controversial language does not make one a racist. No, that history of racism you are looking at is on your side but there is a difference.
If a conservative uses the N word or disparages any particular group it is proof positive that he is a racist and the MSM will go with it 24 hours a day (Macaca).
Let a liberal do the same and it was a joke, or a misunderstanding and it is ignored by the media. Joe Biden about Indians, a clean Obama, Hillary about the plantation and about Pakistanis, there are plenty of remarks but they are ignored.
It does not matter to me what you think. All I care about is the people who know me and they know better. That includes people of all colors and all backgrounds.
But Adam can make that judgment based on a blog post and little else. His own racist remarks and misogynist ways he fails to see.
“Having controversial language does not make one a racist.”
I’ve said before you’re not a racist so much as you’ll say whatever you can to attack a liberal which sometimes means crossing the line into racially charged language. Now, I do have serious questions about the sexist things you’ve said in the past though…
“His own racist remarks and misogynist ways he fails to see.”
Feel free to list any racist or misogynist thing I’ve said. I’d love to have that conversation…
What did I say that was racist, Adam?
That minorities are getting the jobs?
They are. My friends and I have gone for interviews, only to be told that the job was taken by a minority and that they have to give the job to a minority or risk getting sued by the government. It’s the absolute truth. Affirmative action is the most evil thing to ever come along for this country. People with dark skin can accomplish the same as the white man with a little determination.
Anyway Adam, thanks for the “tolerance, good wishes and understanding” that liberals are known for.
And by the way, that was sarcasm. May you never know what it is like to struggle day to day just to eat.
“My friends and I have gone for interviews, only to be told that the job was taken by a minority and that they have to give the job to a minority or risk getting sued by the government.”
Secretly I hoped that had been a typo and you meant “illegals” instead of “minority” and you didn’t really think it was a bad thing that minorities had jobs. But no, you confirmed it.
“Affirmative action is the most evil thing to ever come along for this country.”
Really? You mean more evil than slavery, segregation, or an inability for most of the country to vote? Then opening of career fields to those whom it was previously closed is the most evil thing ever for the country?
Granted affirmative action isn’t perfect but you’re railing against minorities preventing your employment when for instance that African American unemployment rate is almost 16%. They don’t deserve to work as much as you do? Or should they just get at the back of the line and wait until you and your friends have jobs? I don’t get it.
“…thanks for the ‘tolerance, good wishes and understanding’…”
Sorry. I don’t extend tolerance, good wishes, or understanding to all people, and especially not to racists who complain about minorities having jobs when you and your (apparently) white friends do not.
“May you never know what it is like to struggle day to day just to eat.”
Too late. Already been there.
Affirmative action is always a bad thing, especially when a minority (who might not be as well qualified) gets the job over anyone else- if the person was truly qualified, they would get the job regardless of color, but to give preferential treatment just because of the color of one’s skin, is to demean the job, the person, and even MLK’s own words- something you progressives do not mind doing, as you love to rewrite history in order to eliminate that with which you do not agree.
“…if the person was truly qualified, they would get the job regardless of color…”
Of course they would, and bad things don’t happen to good people and there’s free puppies and kittens for every child that wants one. Get real.
Adam you are the epitome of hate and ignorance.
Calling someone a minority is not racist.
I pity you.
“Calling someone a minority is not racist.”
Of course not. Who said it was? Being upset because you have no job while jobs are going to minorities? Racist. How can you see that as somehow OK?
Epitome of hate and ignorance? Considering you think affirmative action is the most evil thing ever in America I’d say your judgment is a little off. Save the pity.
Adam you are just smug and filled with hate. It is going to come back and bite you in the rear one day.
Just because I call you on your ignorant thinking does not mean I am smug or filled with hate. I feel bad for those who are out of work but minorities have as much right to work as you. The sooner you realize that the better. Calling me hateful doesn’t change your own attitude.
I have no dog in this fight and believe that the best qualified should get the job but if 70% of the unemployed are white males then they should be affirmative actioned ahead of others.
Isn’t that the premise when Adam says that X percent of this group or that is out of work in an area and should get the job, blah, blah.
If 70% of black men were unemployed and all the work was going to white guys Al Sharpton would be having seizures.
How about we hire the best qualified (all the time).
If everyone has as much right to work as each other, why support affirmative action?
It would appear as if that gives someone a little more right to work…
Exactly my point! Thank you Dog! Why not hire the best person for the job, rather than the one with the darkest skin?
Don’t give me any of that crap about minorities, boohoo poor minorities need more entitlements, Adam! Enough already! My neighbors lost their jobs, houses and cars and do we need the government to take care of us? Hell no! Yet the minorities are getting, food, clothes, housing, electricity and if they have children, free healthcare, WIC, need I go on?
We need government to stay out of our lives!
And you and your mindset is exactly why all our industries were taken over. I know that the conservatives have done their fair share of damage too, but it is the double standards that floor me. If Bush were doing all this, would you be so content? Most likely not.
Wrong side of history? That is a laugh. There were opponents and proponents from each side with a higher majority of Republicans supporting Civil Rights (look that up and tell me which side had the highest percentage of support in the Congress).
It was a Republican president who introduced it and Republicans voted FOR it in higher numbers. Why southern Democrats would flee the left and go to the Republicans is beyond me since more Republicans supported it. Perhaps they wanted to be on the side that had fewer racists.
You keep floating this idea about being on the wrong side but history says otherwise.