95%

[Eraserhead]

McCain will win well over 80% of the white vote in states like MS and AL. I suppose we should call them out for being sheep as well, right?

BIG difference between 80% and 95% don't you think?

Also a big difference between 80% in a few states, and 90-95% in every state.  The nationwide white vote for McCain probably won't reach 60%

Still to call out blacks out on this, you must also call out southern whites. That is if you're being even handed about it anyway.

That really has to do religious ideals rather than race though.  There is a difference between voting in large masses because of a set of beliefs, and voting in large mass simply because you want someone who looks like you.

Haha, nice try Down but that's just silly. Whites tend to be more secular than blacks anyway.

If blacks just wanted someone who looks like them then 3/4 of Maryland blacks wouldn't have voted for Ben Cardin.

Most blacks vote on the issues and their economic survival is usually on the top of their respective lists.

[Stranger in a strange land]

McCain will win well over 80% of the white vote in states like MS and AL. I suppose we should call them out for being sheep as well, right?

BIG difference between 80% and 95% don't you think?

Uh... no. Both are massive majorites. He'll get around 86% or 87% anyway. I said "well over 80%".

Perhaps, but it won't be at a national level as compared to the black vote.

So? Blacks would still vote for Obama as a white Democrat so it doesn't matter. Do you think if Obama was a conservative that he would be doing good among Blacks? Hell no...

You're not disproving my point. The majority of black white evangelical voters aren't thinking for themselves and they are being led around by the nose by their leaders.

works both ways my friend. Identity politics and bloc voting are facts of life in a democracy, and you can't choose selective examples to get angry at. If Blacks really displayed racist voting behavior, why is Cynthia McKinney doing so poorly in the black vote? If anything, I think she'd appeal to black rage much more than a soft-spoken mulatto like Obama would.

[??????????]

Sorry dude, though evangelicals come out in large numbers for one side no other group comes out 90+% reliably for one party.

[Хahar 🤔]

Sorry dude, though evangelicals come out in large numbers for one side no other group comes out 90+% reliably for one party.

Blacks just vote like that. Until the 1930s, they voted solidly Republican. Emancipation made them Republican, the New Deal made them Democratic. The Republicans have to do something to win them back.

[Eraserhead]

Sorry dude, though evangelicals come out in large numbers for one side no other group comes out 90+% reliably for one party.

Plenty of groups come out at 80%+ plus though (like Deep South whites and Mormons). I really fail to see a huge difference there.

[dead0man]

A 10% swing in a vote isn't a huge difference?

[Gustaf]

Sorry dude, though evangelicals come out in large numbers for one side no other group comes out 90+% reliably for one party.

Plenty of groups come out at 80%+ plus though (like Deep South whites and Mormons). I really fail to see a huge difference there.

You can't seriously think being a Mormon is comparable to being a black. As I've said before...that, if anything, I would consider to be pretty racist.

[Beet]

I think the point is being a little bit lost here...which is that blacks vote alike to an extreme degree that is weird given how it's a racial group, not bound together by beliefs or socio-economic position. But yes, Southern whites are almost as bad, even though that isn't really much of an excuse for blacks outside of the South.

I think part of the explanatino is that blacks, being a long-persecuted group, still has a group mentality where they want to band together against percieved enemies, preferably behind a leader of some sort. This leads to bloc voting for the "black" candidate, "black" here meaning whatever candidate is said by the leaders of the black community to be favourable to their community (or perhaps, gasp, themselves). This is perfectly understandable but I doubt it is a very fruitful or constructive approach for the black community in the long term.

Thank you Gustaf (the normal voice of reason here), you're the first one to finally give me an answer that's somewhere close.

Wow I actually agree with States, although it was phrased by Gustaf. It should be noted though, that blacks overwhelmingly supported the white over the black in 2006's Senatorial and Gubernatorial races in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland or the racially tinted 2008 Cohen-Tinker primary; and blacks' support of Obama is little greater than Catholics' support of Smith in '28 or Kennedy in '60. Ironically, if Obama wins, it will cause blacks to vote less monolithically next time.

[Person Man]

What about Mormons and Cubans?

[bgwah]

If there's one thing we'll learn from 2008, it's that black people are very good at voting and very good at track & field.

[ottermax]

My goodness Americans need to get over all these race issues. I'm so tired of the ignorance of Americans. Gosh we are such a stupid country.

[Person Man]

If there's one thing we'll learn from 2008, it's that black people are very good at voting and very good at track & field.

Are we being racist, even in terms of positive attributes? Though, this could be attributed to slavery.

[Ronnie]

They generally believe that Democrats give them more benefits than Republicans do.

[??????????]

They generally believe that Democrats give them more benefits than Republicans do.

And they do because their philosophy is now "slavery through economic measures". I'm not always sure if it's intentional but it certainly is a result.

[??????????]

My goodness Americans need to get over all these race issues. I'm so tired of the ignorance of Americans. Gosh we are such a stupid country.

Race is as real as gender. Sorry but it's not an "issue" you can really get over.

[JohnFKennedy]

My goodness Americans need to get over all these race issues. I'm so tired of the ignorance of Americans. Gosh we are such a stupid country.

Race is as real as gender. Sorry but it's not an "issue" you can really get over.

What do you mean by 'real'? Both race and gender are ultimately social constructs. They are 'real' only in the sense that we take and understand them to be 'real'.

[??????????]

My goodness Americans need to get over all these race issues. I'm so tired of the ignorance of Americans. Gosh we are such a stupid country.

Race is as real as gender. Sorry but it's not an "issue" you can really get over.

What do you mean by 'real'? Both race and gender are ultimately social constructs. They are 'real' only in the sense that we take and understand them to be 'real'.

No, the difference are nature. Their ARE specific differences between Male, female, whites, blacks, asians etc. Physical differences, both in brain capacity, muscle strength, etc. And that has been well known and accepted. So even if you say its a "social construction" it's existed since the beginning of time and it won't end.

[dead0man]

What do you mean by 'real'? Both race and gender are ultimately social constructs. They are 'real' only in the sense that we take and understand them to be 'real'.

WHAT THE HELL?  There are some people around here that I would expect to say something as stupid as this, but not you.  Race and gender are social constucts?  That's crazy talk.  I can almost see an argument for "race", but that's only because "race" might not be the best word to describe the differences in genetical makeup of the various "breeds" of homosapiens.  It's not "social constructs" that make my dog a female Lab, it's scienctific constructs.  There is a difference between a female Lab and a male Poodle just as there is a differnce between a male Pygmy and a female Armenian.  There is more than a social difference between those two people.

(I guess you can backpedal and say EVERYTHING is a social construct.  2 + 2 = 4 only because we all agree it does, thus it's a social construct.  But if that's your point...yippee..you might as well have said the sky is blue and water is wet.)

[??????????]

Dead0man,

That's actually a pretty solid stance that he's held in the past IIRC. I think in the past he defended unisex restrooms.

[dead0man]

I'd defend unisex bathrooms.  That's neither here nor there.  Science* tells us there is a differnce between male and female, it's NOT a social construct.  Period.  Anybody that says otherwise doesn't know what the words "science" and "social" mean.



*along with common sense

[??????????]

I'd defend unisex bathrooms. 

Even in sports arenas?

[dead0man]

Sure, if the sports arena was willing to lose the business of people that don't want to put up with unisex bathrooms. 

I guess if the sports arena was paid for by local tax dollars and the locals really didn't want unisex bathrooms....they could vote the idiots out of office that decided unisex bathrooms would be a good idea.  Where is this a problem?

[dead0man]

I should clarify, I don't think unisex bathrooms are a good idea all the time everywhere, I just think the people supplying the facilities should be able to make the choice as they see fit.  I would vote against any law that forced private entities to provide separate male and female toilet rooms.  That's a bad idea.

[JohnFKennedy]

Sorry, perhaps I should clarify my statements; there are specific genetic differences between men and women, but that relates to sex rather than gender. The two words are not perfect synonyms. Sex is that which defines the physical and genetic differences between men and women, whereas gender is a term with a more cultural and social implication. Hence many languages have 'genders' - in French, for instance, nouns are masculine, feminine or neuter. One's gender can be different from one's sex. Here's the OED definition:

In mod. (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes.

My point was one of linguistics, rather than a scientific one. Dead0Man sort-of touched on my point regarding 'race' in his post. When scientists discuss subgroups of homosapiens they tend to use the term 'population' rather than race. Genetic differences between these 'populations' have emerged not simply because they are of a different 'race' but because of the different pattern of breeding which is in turn conditioned by their geography. Take, for instance, the prevalence of sickle-cell anaemia in the sub-Saharan African population; it stems from a common ancestry.

By contrast, race is a term that is primarily used in a physiognomical sense to describe one's appearance. What is really interesting is that it is possible for white parents to have a black child (and I think vice versa also) by virtue of a long dormant genetic trait. I say that race is a social construct because it is the significance that we have applied to this genetic differences and in some cases invented ourselves. Take, for instance, the Hutus and Tutsis. Tutsis were generally thought to be tall and slender while Hutus of a medium and more muscular build, but these supposedly genetic differences are far from concrete and it is generally difficult to tell the two apart. Of course, the problem lies not with different genetic characteristics, but with the significance that the Belgian authorities attached. In fact, many specialists have viewed the historic difference between Tutsi, Hutu and Twa as primarily socio-economic: Tutsi were those with a sizeable herd of cattle, farmers were Hutu, and hunters and artisans were Twa. The problem was that when the Belgian colonialists arrived they created these new racial taxonomies and created a hierarchy from them. Cards were issued to the indigenous population informing them of their 'race' and they were told of their differences. It is from this colonial policy that the origins of the Rwandan genocide can be seen, because not only did they emphasise these racial differences, but they also used them to create a racial hierarchy. The Tutsi were seen as the most 'westernised' of these races and thus the most fit to rule.

EDIT: On unisex bathrooms, I don't fully recall arguing for them - although I do remember a discussion of them a long time ago - but my opinion on the matter would be similar to dead0man's.

[dead0man]

That makes more sense.  Sorry for calling your initial post stupid, it was just short on info

I agree that race is often misused and doesn't "fit" with the actual science.  Pull a random guy out of Sub-Sahara Africa and another out of the Amazon and they'd both be "black" but they would be more genetically different from each other than I (german/english) would be from the Dali Lama.

I also concur on the sex/gender thing.  I thought you were saying there was no scientific difference between men and women, and that's just crazy.