IF YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA (OR DEMOCRATS IN GENERAL), YOU'RE RACIST!!! -Timothy Noah

Leave it to Timothy Noah of Slate to argue that you are racist if you didn't vote for Obama, while trying to make it sound like he isn't.

Quote :

"Although Obama beat John McCain in the popular vote by an impressive seven-point margin, McCain beat Obama among white voters by an even more impressive 12-point margin...The sad reality is that no Democratic candidate for president since Lyndon Johnson has won a majority of white votes. Am I saying that any white vote against Obama must be counted as racist? Of course not...But in a more complex and indirect way, the stubborn refusal of a majority of whites to vote Democratic is all about race. It's no puzzler why Johnson was the last Democrat to win a majority of the white vote. He signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law, observing as he signed the former that "we have lost the South for a generation." What Johnson didn't allow himself to think was, "We have lost the white vote for a generation." Were LBJ transported to the year 2008...he would find it very depressing to learn that none of his Democratic successors ever won a white majority. Surely, he'd think, it's harder for Democrats to elect a black man president than to win forgiveness from the white majority for abolishing Jim Crow. "

http://www.slate.com/id/2204251/

IOW: White's don't vote for Democrats today because they abolished Jim Crow 40 years ago.

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 9:21 AM. Reason : Democratic policies must have nothing at all to do with it.]

11/12/2008 9:03:22 AM

awesome.....
the misinformation runs deep. according to exit polls, 100% of Obama voters think McCain is actually George Bush in disguise

11/12/2008 9:05:13 AM

^^ Looking at some of his other writings as well he seems borderline retarded

11/12/2008 9:11:03 AM

http://www.obamaimpeachment.org/

Haha, the crazy runs deep in the Right this election cycle.

11/12/2008 9:58:18 AM

^^,^^^^Did you actually read it? All he did was point out that a lot of white people turned Republican when President Johnson, a Democrat, came out for civil rights.

Y'all tryna deny it?

11/12/2008 10:00:13 PM

^ It also just so happened to be the same time that LBJ and the Democrats embarked on the one of the biggest expansions of the social safety net in US history (during an economic boom no less).

And it just so happens that every Democratic President that succeeded LBJ were economic moderates (Carter and Clinton). Obama may be an exception, but he was also running when the sitting President of the opposite party has one of the lowest approval ratings of any President in 60 years.

But apparently none of that really matters. White folks don't really care about the taxes they pay today (or who benefits from those taxes). NO! They just REALLY care about what big-ears did for blacks 40 fucking years ago.

Honestly, does Timothy Noah read his own columns? That's the better question.

PS* Noah's analysis also seems to ignore the fact that the Senate and House have been controlled by Democrats much longer over the past 40 years than they have been controlled by Republicans, even though the Presidency tended to be held by Republicans. Personally I think this supports my contention that on average the American people prefer divided governments and the moderate economic policies they generate. I don't how you or Noah would explain it. Did everyone forget to be racist half-way through the ballot????

[Edited on November 12, 2008 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ``]

11/12/2008 10:24:23 PM

^People do prefer a divided government, that's true.

But, no, they don't forget to be racist halfway through the ballot. Local and state representatives, Democrats and Republicans, could avoid the topic of race so it hasn't played as large a role as it has in presidential races.

Also, you should keep in mind that we're talking about the past in the present. Voting patterns you see now are due in part to the legacy of racism, not out-and-out, get-the-noose! racism. And there are people who just vote like their parents without realizing that their parents were manipulated by racially-charged rhetoric forty years ago.

Quote :

"But apparently none of that really matters. White folks don't really care about the taxes they pay today (or who benefits from those taxes)."

You just made my case. They do care about who benefits from taxes. They've expressed their concerns eloquently :

I don't want my taxes going to Tyrone's BMW!

I can't believe I gotta pay taxes so some hoochie can get her hair did!

Fucking Laquanda can't keep her legs shut so I gotta pay more taxes!


In short, a lot of "fiscal conservatives" don't even know what "fiscal" means.

11/13/2008 1:00:53 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/one.party.poll/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker#cnnSTCText

11/13/2008 1:09:49 AM

OMG LIBERAL MEDIA

11/13/2008 2:37:13 AM

Bridget,

Quote :

"But, no, they don't forget to be racist halfway through the ballot. Local and state representatives, Democrats and Republicans, could avoid the topic of race so it hasn't played as large a role as it has in presidential races."

Um. How? LBJ didn't pass the Civil Rights Act on his own. It kinda took an act of congress (literally).

Quote :

" You just made my case. They do care about who benefits from taxes. They've expressed their concerns eloquently : I don't want my taxes going to Tyrone's BMW!"

Wait. So now the only reason anyone would oppose The Great Society is also racism????? Even though such programs don't benefit exclusively blacks??? Jeez. How am I supposed to argue with this crap?? I mean, you and many other Obama voters white, yet you apparently don't think this. Why should I think the majority of voting whites do?

PS* moron, Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that a single poll taken during one of the worst financial crisis in 70 years on how people will feel about events that have not happened yet (people's opinion of the actual sitting Democratic congress are pretty low) is supposed to over turn 40 years of actual voting behavior???? haha.

We've had one-party rule a couple of times in the past 40 years, my friend. And it never lasts very long. You need to quit pretending that by voting for Obama you just legalized Utopia. The world isn't going to change over night and all signs point to Obama actually not changing much at all. After all this talk about changing Washington, he's picking up cabinet and staff members from the former Clinton admin (I hope he picks Summers as Sec of Tres). And that's totally fine with me. I just feel sorry for all you progressives when you finally figure that out (Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1993). It actually fills me with....hope.

[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 8:01 AM. Reason : ``]

11/13/2008 7:51:06 AM

Quote :

"Um. How? LBJ didn't pass the Civil Rights Act on his own. It kinda took an act of congress (literally)."

Are you denying that there are obvious differences between the obligations of the president, the state senate, and local officials?

Quote :

"Wait. So now the only reason anyone would oppose The Great Society is also racism????? Even though such programs don't benefit exclusively blacks??? Jeez. How am I supposed to argue with this crap?? I mean, you and many other Obama voters white, yet you apparently don't think this. Why should I think the majority of voting whites do?"

This isn't crap, and I didn't say the "only reason." I simply pointed out that one of the reasons people object to social welfare is racism. Don't get me wrong...some racists toss in a remark about trailer parks every once in a while in order to avoid the appearance of racism.

Again, are you denying it?




The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. A lot of people, including Democrats, were racist in 1964. How can you suggest that Johnson's signing of the act didn't have a tremendous effect on voting patterns among white people? And why are you so unwilling to admit that maybe the legacy of racism still resonates a little bit? Political strategists have been trying to regain the white vote since Johnson, and they are slowly succeeding without radically reversing social welfare. Anyway, I think they'd love to hear your theory about how racism doesn't play a huge part in the loss of white votes after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

11/13/2008 9:23:54 AM

Bridget,

Did you seriously just ask if I was denying that racism exists????? Let me make this more clear...
1) Am I denying that some people are racist? No.
2) Am I denying that "stubborn refusal of a majority of whites to vote Democratic is all about race" as Noah contends? YES!

Trying to say that Democrats have had difficulty gaining the Presidency because of the racism of others (sparked by a bill that passed 40 years ago) is at best disingenuous and at worst a shameful lie.

As I have pointed out, there are other reasons that could explain the poor political fortune of Democrats. And the only "evidence" you or Noah have offered to back your opinion is that " white racists do exist!!!" Well, except for you two tolerant and enlightened whities, right?

This type of self-congratulation among so many Obama supporters is the most annoying parts of this election season. "Every other white person is racist except for us. We brave few who stood up for the black man against violent opposition social ostracization rioting McCain supporters no threats, social pressure, or obstacles at all because even our opponents were tolerant of (though disappointed by) our decision." GET OVER YOURSELF!

PS* And please don't bring any shit in hear about how you were afraid for your life because someone booed at a Palin ralley. For all the media's trumping up of video tapes and white noise, not a single person was harmed or threatened harm after Obama won. There was no riots, no race-justice killings, NOTHING. Hey, maybe those cornballs they talked about on TV really WERE lone idiots and not an indication of growing racial tensiosn!?!?!? Nahhhh, everyone else is clearly racist by me. Ug!!!

[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 10:17 AM. Reason : ``]

11/13/2008 10:08:12 AM

Quote :

"This type of self-congratulation among so many Obama supporters is the most annoying parts of this election season. "Every other white person is racist except for us. We brave few who stood up for the black man against violent opposition social ostracization rioting McCain supporters no threats, social pressure, or obstacles at all because even our opponents were tolerant of (though disappointed by) our decision." GET OVER YOURSELF! PS* And please don't bring any shit in hear about how you were afraid for your life because someone booed at a Palin ralley. For all the media's trumping up of video tapes and white noise, not a single person was harmed or threatened harm after Obama won. There was no riots, no race-justice killings, NOTHING. Hey, maybe those cornballs they talked about on TV really WERE lone idiots and not an indication of growing racial tensiosn!?!?!? Nahhhh, everyone else is clearly racist by me. Ug!!!"

If this nonsense is what motivates you, then you are a fool.

11/13/2008 12:40:49 PM

^ The right has depended on the message of a persecution complex for the past 8 years, they aren't going to ditch it that easily.

11/13/2008 1:02:00 PM

Well, there's finally one thing that may happen as a result of Obama's presidency that I'm happy about.

Quote :

"Barack Obama's election could derail England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup, according to a "high-placed" Fifa official. The unnamed source told Yahoo Sports that Obama's popularity will be "a huge factor" in deciding whether the USA is selected to host either the 2018 or 2022 tournaments. "How can it not make a difference," said the source. "Now when you think of America, you don't think George W Bush or war, you think of this man, Obama, who has made history and given hope to millions. The men who vote on World Cup hosts are not immune to those same feelings. If the US bid stacks up in terms of infrastructure and organization, then Obama could be a huge factor.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/nov/12/worldcup2018-englandfootballteam

Note: not sarcastic, I'm actually a soccer fan

11/13/2008 1:23:36 PM

Bridget,

You just spent 4 posts trying to tell me that whites don't vote Democrat because they're racist (not all whites of course, you seem to consider yourself an enlightened exception), without any proof at all beyond resorting to popular stereotypes.

If you honestly think that YOU calling me a fool is going to bother me, you got another thing coming.

Now I suggest you work harder on trying to come up with rationales for defending your partisan and insulting views.

[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM. Reason : ``]

11/13/2008 2:21:36 PM

"if you think ____, you've got another THINK coming."


fool

11/13/2008 3:04:25 PM

^

Quote :

""if you think ____, you've got another THINK [??] coming.""

What does that sentence even mean, schmoe?

Quote :

"fool "

agreed.

[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM. Reason : rocks and glass houses]

11/13/2008 3:11:58 PM

hey, i didn't make it up. im just telling you what it is.

"you got another think coming"

that's the phrase.

if you dont like it, go move to Dubai, already.

11/13/2008 3:27:15 PM

^ Take it up with Judas Priest, my friend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU7sBgjKDCI

[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ``]

11/13/2008 3:48:53 PM

If you think Judas Priest is the authority on english language, then you've got another think coming, my friend.

Furthermore, if you have any ability to understand rules of grammar, you'll see theres no sense to have "thing" in the main clause and "think" in the subordinate clause.

Quote :

""If you think that, you have another think coming" means "You are mistaken and will soon have to alter your opinion". This is now sometimes heard with "thing" in place of "think", but "think" is the older version. Eric Partridge, in A Dictionary of Catch Phrases, gives the phrase as "you have another guess coming", "US: since the 1920s, if not a decade or two earlier". Clearly "think" is closer to "guess" than "thing" is. The OED gives a citation with "think" from 1937, and no evidence for "thing". Merriam-Webster Editorial Department writes: "When an informal poll was conducted here at Merriam-Webster, about 60% of our editors favored 'thing' over 'think,' a result that runs counter to our written evidence.""

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxyouhav.html
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/another-think-coming.html
http://grammartips.homestead.com/anotherthink.html




[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : ]

11/13/2008 4:06:00 PM

^ hahah I was hoping you would go googling, so I could dismiss all your sources with a single question.....

How many records have they sold?


PWNT!

PS*

Quote :

"Merriam-Webster Editorial Department writes: "When an informal poll was conducted here at Merriam-Webster, about 60% of our editors favored 'thing' over 'think,' a result that runs counter to our written evidence."""

If it's good enough for M-W editors, then it's good enough for me!!!!!

[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : fag]

11/13/2008 4:15:43 PM

well, at least i can console myself with the smug superiority of someone who knows he is right.





hey.... i got an idea.

we can ask our resident grammarian, hooksaw

11/13/2008 4:20:17 PM

Quote :

"THE THINK YOU'RE THINKING IS WRONG! AND THE THING YOU GOT COMING IS MY FIST, SON!!"

- SaabTurbo as English Major

11/13/2008 5:07:15 PM

A Republican soccer fan, that's almost a paradox.

11/13/2008 5:13:40 PM

Quote :

"Bridget, You just spent 4 posts trying to tell me that whites don't vote Democrat because they're racist (not all whites of course, you seem to consider yourself an enlightened exception), without any proof at all beyond resorting to popular stereotypes."

Lyndon Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act has contributed to the inability of Democratic presidential candidates to gain a majority of the white vote. I don't consider myself an enlightened exception.

You asked earlier how it was that whites continued to vote in Democrats for offices other than president after Johnson. I tried to explain to you that local and state politics are different than national politics. Go look it up. You'll see that the national party supported the Civil Rights Act, but Democratic politicians, particularly in the South, were able to oppose it. Robert Byrd was an outspoken racist Democrat for decades! And those Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act were re-elected despite their liberal fiscal policies...hmmm...but that doesn't make any sense, I thought it was all about how white people wanted fiscal conservatism? Maybe, just maybe, voters are influenced by racism as well as a concern for economic issues...?

Anyway, I just can't let you dismiss the entire "Southern strategy" and its counterparts with some tired rhetoric about how I think I'm enlightened. If racism doesn't affect white voters, then Bush never woulda push polled South Carolina about John McCain having black bastard children...in 2000.

[Edited on November 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM. Reason : sss]

11/13/2008 11:24:17 PM

^ Bridget,

It's a simple fact that the bill would not have been passed along for LBJ to sign unless the majority of the Democratically controlled congress voted for it.

And I'm not talking razor thin margins here. This was a popular fucking bill. According to Wikipedia, the version that was signed into law received support from 69% of Democrats in the Senate and 63% of Democrats in the House. And it received even more support from Republicans--82% in the Senate and 80% in the House.

Now you're right that politics are different at the congressional district and state level, but I don't see how you make the leap to assume that "different" means that a Senator's or Congressman's vote on these issues totally doesn't matter to voters. If this bill ended the Dems chance at the Presidency for 40 years, it should have at least ended the careers of those Congressmen that voted for it (meaning they were very very stupid).

Really, the only way this vote could not have had huge ramifications for the political foturne of Democrats in the Senate/House (assuming that it really turned the majority of whites against Dems like you say) is if all 46 Democratic Senators and all 153 Democratic Congressmen were from states/districts where losing the majority of white voters would not effect the likelihood of their party getting re-elected.

So that means at least 23 states with small/politically irrelevant white populations????? That's just nuts.

11/14/2008 1:46:29 AM

90% of mccains supporters were white


23% of obamas supporters were blk, 61% white


those are the only figure i know off the top of my head

11/14/2008 1:53:32 AM

^ DNL,

But that doesn't prove that those votes were cast for race driven reasons, as Noah contends.

But I don't think I want to discuss this any more. I mean, it just isn't worth my time to try and preach to a bunch of partisans that "Hey! You need to back up assertions like that with evidence!!!!" and "People can disagree with you without being racist or evil."

These are both just basic rules of civil discussion that most people understand. If you can't back up your argument with evidence, it's probably best not to make it all. But obviously Bridget and Tim Noah don't care that much about making good arguments. And I don't think their real motives are hard to guess.

So I'm off to another topic. Cheerio!

[Edited on November 14, 2008 at 2:20 AM. Reason : ``]

11/14/2008 2:19:39 AM

so, what you're REALLY saying is that DNL just pwnt you with statistical evidence, so now you're going to run away.

okay.

see ya.

11/14/2008 3:28:44 AM

Quote :

"90% of mccains supporters were white 23% of obamas supporters were blk, 61% white"

Utterly meaningless until compared with past election statistics... say, bush/kerry or bush/gore. Hell, even statistics from the clinton years.

Of course, I'm too lazy to go dig up those numbers, just thought I'd raise the point in the interest of fairness... these statistics indicate nothing about racism until they are compared with a recent presidential election involving two white men.

11/14/2008 7:38:57 AM

schmoe,

Um. You do realize that the entire discussion was about trying to explain WHY the majority of whites vote Republican (Bridget and Timothy Noah say it's racism, I say they have no evidence), yes????? No.

Well scroll up. 'Cause I've done said my piece on the matter and no one has actually justified Noah's or Bridget's claim that it boils down to 40 year old racist sentiments.

11/14/2008 8:54:52 AM

Quote :

"Haha, the crazy runs deep in the Right this election cycle."

11/14/2008 10:58:29 AM

I didn't check page 98 but given the dates I'm pretty sure its not on there.

I can't believe nobody's mentioned anything the story regarding Palin thinking Africa is a country recently. Its been proven to be entirely false. Of course, it did its damage and the election's over so I guess nobody cares

chalk another one up for the liberal media +1

11/14/2008 11:12:15 AM

yeah I'm surprised we haven't heard something like

"okay it was fake but that doesn't change the fact that it COULD be true"

let's criticize her for things that could or might be true... isn't that what Obama supporters were so outraged about the NEO-CON RIGHT MOONBATS?

11/14/2008 11:21:52 AM

wow, almost 100 pages...

11/14/2008 11:24:59 AM

^^^ you do realize that it was FOX NEWS that reported on the "Africa is a country" story, right?

11/14/2008 11:37:36 AM

i didn't even hear about the Africa thing until after the election. didn't matter. palin gave america enough reasons to not vote for her and mccain.

11/14/2008 12:38:08 PM

yeah, that Africa story wasn't released til after the election.

11/14/2008 1:05:21 PM

the Africa story didn't come out until after the election. nice try on rewriting history. cheese?

11/14/2008 5:10:11 PM

Quote :

"I can't believe nobody's mentioned anything the story regarding Palin thinking Africa is a country recently. Its been proven to be entirely false. Of course, it did its damage and the election's over so I guess nobody cares "

Where was it proven to be false?

11/14/2008 5:22:59 PM

Did you know... the Africa story was released till after the election?

11/14/2008 5:27:30 PM

ibp100

11/14/2008 6:40:16 PM

Quote :

"Where was it proven to be false?"

Palin says it was false.
That's proof enough for me!!

11/14/2008 10:06:59 PM

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/your_weekly_address_from_the_president_elect/

Obama plans on releasing weekly Youtube addresses from the White House. This is a welcome step forward from archaic radio addresses that few people listen to.

11/16/2008 3:01:48 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8f9Zqap6U

He already has done his first of the weekly addresses.

I wonder if anyone is concerned about a gov. entity using a private business like this... can ANYONE get a raw video file to syndicate on their site, or is it just YouTube?

I like how this was a related video from the official Change.gov youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=DfnfCxD5pyw

[Edited on November 16, 2008 at 3:11 AM. Reason : ]

11/16/2008 3:10:26 AM

I also think this is a great step forward from the radio addresses (or maybe he'll continue to do those, or they'll simulcast). It will truly be a giant step forward in governmental communication when a weekly video of the President speaking to the nation will be saved and archived on the Internet forever.

Quote :

"I wonder if anyone is concerned about a gov. entity using a private business like this... can ANYONE get a raw video file to syndicate on their site, or is it just YouTube?"

.... what's the problem here?
Are you calling Obama's transition team a "private business"?
and what do you mean "can anyone get ...."? Yeah, pretty much anyone can post videos on any of the dozen video sharing websites, then embed them into their own site.

11/16/2008 9:32:17 AM

^ Uhh... YouTube is a private entity, and YouTube gets ad revenue every time the president decides to speak to the public. And I haven't seen the video uploaded for the original source to any other video sites either.

11/16/2008 1:07:54 PM

there are business-government relationships all the time that are mutually beneficial. YouTube/Google has been involved in this election since the beginning, with both campaigns having their own channels, and youtube even sponsoring some of the Primary debates.

I mean, up to now, all the TV and radio stations have gotten ad revenue whenever they broadcast Presidential addresses. I don't see why it would be any different now just because the videos are on the Internet instead of private broadcast stations.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing a new government-only video sharing site a'la youtube, but hey - might as well go where the audience is for now.

11/16/2008 1:34:04 PM

^ They could reach more people by releasing it as a podcast on iTunes (so it can automatically synch with peoples' ipods).

11/16/2008 1:35:05 PM