October 28, 2012

Obama defeat excuses are currently being auditioned

From Minnesota Public Radio:
Poll: Majority of Americans are racist 
Posted at 9:11 AM on October 27, 2012 by Bob Collins  
It's a stunning poll that the Associated Press released today on one of the most invisible news days of the week. More than half of all Americans have negative attitudes toward African Americans, it says. 
Though it's within the margin of error of a similar poll in 2008, it confirms there is no such thing as post-racial America. 
"As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor, told the AP. He worked with the news organization to develop the survey. 
Fifty-one percent of Americans express explicit anti-black attitudes, it says. About 52 percent have anti-Hispanic attitudes.

Professor Krosnick (who, as commenter points out, lives in the whitopia of Portola Valley, California, which has a total black population of twelve) measures "anti-black attitudes" by asking people if they agree with statements such as:
“It’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.”

If you are white, the correct to this question is ... well, there is no correct answer.

For example, only 5% of respondents agree that the term "law-abiding" describes blacks "extremely well" compared to 7% who agree "law-abiding" describes whites "extremely well. 

That's racist!

In these lengthy reports, the racial breakdowns on racial attitudes are not broken out, unsurprisingly.

128 comments:

Xiao Kang said...

I love Obama

vegetarian said...

as a vegetarian, i support Obama.

CJ said...

"As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor, told the AP.

That's the same as four years ago when the country, ahh, elected a black president, amirite?

Anonymous said...

Consider the following question, which has an unambiguous, factual answer: If you were to select an Asian American and a black American at random, which would be more likely to be gainfully employed?

Consider the following questions, which allow us to sniff out the most evil people in the world: Does the term "hard-working" more accurately describe blacks or Asians? Who contributes more to society, blacks or Asians?

Sometimes, it seems nearly impossible to me that our elites would ever shift away from our extreme, anti-nativist form of multiculturalism, much less adopt any kind of race realism. But then, I am reminded that just seventy years ago the progressives were race realists (and eugenicists!), and I re-read Derbyshire's speech on the future of elites' attitudes toward race, and I look at the fact that the gap has never come remotely close to being closed, and I wonder...

Anonymous said...

Link to the Derbyshire speech?

Anonymous said...

Derbyshire speech: http://www.vdare.com/print/23557

irishman said...

This will have real consequences though. The more racist the republicans win, the worse they are when elected. GHW Bush ran against Willie Horton and as penance nominated a clearly unqualified Clarence Thomas to the supreme court, passed a civil rights bill which was really just a quota bill and wussed out when it came to the LA riots.

Yet Romney makes GHWB look like He-man. I'm guessing you'll get an amnesty (remember he's for "permanent" immigration reform), nothing done about affirmative action and I suspect that special black only jobs bill the NAACP and the rest of them have been hankering for for the last four years.

Anonymous said...

don't worry, steve, after obama ends his second term, the Dems are going to nominate a white male for president, one who is anti-affirmative action, anti-immigration, and anti-warmongering....then you can vote Dem just like me....right? Right, Steve?

Simon in London said...

So, the test seems designed to classify classical-Liberal race blindness as anti-black racism. The questions seem designed to avoid asking people whether they like blacks or would vote for them.

"“It’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.”

Per their methodology this has the ironic result that the race-realist and anti-black racist will disagree with the statement and thus score as pro-black, whereas the colour-blind liberal who believes in 'Head Start' will agree with it and measure as anti-black.

The politically correct view is that blacks have the same aptitude but are held back by pervasive anti-black racism, but the test does not measure whether you actually hold that view.

Anonymous said...

Certainly couldn't break things down by race. Would be horrible, if say, Blacks resented whites more than whites feared blacks. Or if Asians and Hispanics hated blacks most of all. After all, how could something as wonderful as Diversity(TM) lead to more of the worst thing in the world?

-Hank The Plant

Brendan said...

Of course, it it's the case that the attitudes described are "the same as it was four years ago", when Obama won, it isn't much of an excuse if he doesn't win in '12.

BrokenSymmetry said...

"Fifty-one percent of Americans express explicit anti-black attitudes, it says"

At least 49% of Americans are liars

Assistant Village Idiot said...

From which we conclude that Obama was not black in 2008.

LiberalHammer said...

I think its not defeat excuses (though could be used for that if it happens), I think it is a desperate attempt to shame Americans into voting for Obama, just like they were supposed to feel bad if they voted for the white guy who was captain of the Varsity soccer team with a 4.0 GPA for class president instead of the random black kid with no credentials.

Of course it depends on whether you think at the National level it may be just a little more important whether you should vote based on credentials and against liberal insanity than to worry that your progressive next-door neighbor will give you a cold stare and won't give a slice of fruitcake this Christmas.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I think the first two postings are ads.

Anonymous said...

Did the professor look into anti-Asian and anti-White racist attitudes among Black people?

Reg Cæsar said...

The most common slur thrown at blacks these days is "homophobe". (Whatever that is.) Especially in Minnesota.

Superman said...

According to his Wikipedia profile, Krosnick lives in Portola Valley, which is 0.3% black. Not 3 in 100, but 3 in 1000. Obviously he didn't stumble onto this neighborhood, but rather he sacrificed considerable capital to live there, as "Portola Valley is one of the top forty wealthiest towns in America".

Reg Cæsar said...

Perhaps Truth could inform us why the NAACP is abandoning black preachers for white perverts. That ain't Daddy's Oldsmobile.

Steve Sailer said...

"Steve, I think the first two postings are ads."

Yes, but "as a vegetarian, i support Obama" is a funny ad. It would have driven Orwell into a rage.

Steve Sailer said...

Portola Valley? This guy makes Ken Burns, who lives in New Hampshire, sound like Albino Red in Charlie Parker's band.

Reg Cæsar said...

Some adopted Californian named Steve- no, the other one- isn't letting me link this morning, so here's the broken one from above:

minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/26/politics/democrat-black-voters-marriage-amendment/

This Steve is up early-- or late?

stari_momak said...

Imagine if the National Crime Victimization Survey was written up from a similar perspective

Blacks Far More Violent, Study Shows

Steve Sailer said...

Portola Valley's slogan: Vinod Khosla supplies our diversity.

Chicago said...

Guaranteed, should Obama lose it'll be claimed the election was stolen. The legitimacy of the election will be questioned and they'll keep stoking the embers of resentment. The legend of the stolen election will be sold for years to come just to have something that can be used to exacerbate race relations. Instilling and keeping racial animosities fresh in the minds of blacks is a regular industry in this country with a lot of people doing their part for their own reasons.

Anonymous said...

Par for the course. The only surprise is that the MSM broke out the race card BEFORE the ONE's defeat. My guess is it's their attempt to shame gullible whites into voting for the ONE, although I doubt it is going to work now. Drudge has a link to a poll showing Romney within the margin of error in Minnesota. If that's the case, he's going to crush the ONE in the election.

sunbeam said...

I'm never going to understand the hatred of Obama here. You guys act like he wears a beret and channels Che Guevara.

In actuality he doesn't appear to do much of anything unless Wall Street and the assorted FIRE sectors wants it done. Either that or it's a log he can roll pretty easily, and a lot of people will approve of that log being rolled.

To his credit he doesn't seem totally assimilated by the Borg like Romney is, he just knows where the bread is buttered like Tony Blair.

The only difference I think I can discern between the two is that Romney appears to actually believe a lot of the shit he spouts ("Corporations are people my friend!"), as opposed to Obama who might just know it's all a con.

In a choice between someone who is maybe a cynic, and someone who'll sell this country to China and think it was the best thing to do based on an idiotic ideology...

I'll take the cynic every time. I'd feel more comfortable if Obama had some ladies on the side, but he just doesn't seem the type. Really he doesn't fit that job at all. He really would have been happiest and best suited to just stay a law professor. He could have smoked cigarettes, wrote books, hung out in a cool environment, had killer vacations.

Maybe a few talking head gigs, and a vineyard somewhere. Sky's the limit.

And a heck of a lot more fun than dealing with congress.

Anonymous said...

Sunbeam, you missed the main reason to prefer Obama: he's less likely to start a war with Iran.

NOTA said...

A couple fun observations from the survey:

a. The majority of respondents prefer Obama to Romney --42% said they planned to vote for Obama, 33% for Romney. So whatever negative attitudes wrt race exist, they're not an obvious barrier for Obama getting votes. I'm a little curious why these numbers look different from most polling numbers--maybe because they're incuding everyone instead of likely voters?

b. A couple questions give us a chance to compare syrvey answers to truth: Blacks are much less law-abiding (from crime rates, arrest and incarceration rates, and crime victim surveys) than other groups, and are less intelligent in school (IQ scores, SAT/ACT scores, the gaps in grades and graduation, the need for ongoing AA programs are all hard evidence of this) than whites.

For blacks, law abiding got 22% above the middle choice, and 31% below. For whites, 34 above, 12 below.

Inteligent in school got 22% above and 28% below for blacks, and 36 above / 9 below for whites. So there is a slight bias toward responding correctly on these two, but it's not all that strong.

Aaron Gross said...

The news reports significantly misrepresent the study results. No surprise there.

From what I read in the analysis (I didn't read the whole thing), they're talking about "anti-black attitudes," not about racism. According to the methodology, explicit racial attitudes - not racism - are measured based on answers to questions.

It's not the case (Simon) that the "racism" is really classic-liberal color blindness. You have to click through the links to get to the actual questions and analysis, but the questions do include some like this: "RAC7. How much do you like or dislike each of the following groups?" If you go over the questions, very few of them would get "anti-black" answers from a liberal circa 1965.

"Implicit racial attitudes" - again, it's not called racism - are measured by the AMP (Affect Misattribution Procedure), which is that thing with the Chinese characters.

I think it's kinda sorta reasonable to use "anti-black" to describe, for example, agreement that "Irish, Italians, Jews, and other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors." That's a broad meaning of "anti-black," but OK. But definitely not "racist."

Anonymous said...

Nope. They are trying to scare voters into voting for Obama.

Clearly you are a secret racissssss if you don't.

Anonymous said...

"it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago"

How about anti-white sentiment ?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

"Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men."

Anonymous said...

Did the professor look into anti-Asian and anti-White racist attitudes among Black people?

Even more importantly, did they examine anti-BLACK racist attitudes among Black people?

Questions like: Your child is very sick this morning, and there are two different pediatricians who could fit him into their schedules by 11:00AM. One of the pediatricians is named Cleevon Latrell Washington, the other is named Kensington Vanderbilt Hawthorne. Which pediatrician would you take your child to see?

And for the handful of blacks who might even understand what you're talking about, you could be even more specific: Cleevon Latrell Washington had his pediatrics residency training at Harvard, whereas Kensington Vanderbilt Hawthorne had his pediatrics residency training at Podunk State Teachers & Nurses College.

Now whom do you choose?

Silver said...

According to his Wikipedia profile, Krosnick lives in Portola Valley, which is 0.3% black. Not 3 in 100, but 3 in 1000. Obviously he didn't stumble onto this neighborhood, but rather he sacrificed considerable capital to live there, as "Portola Valley is one of the top forty wealthiest towns in America".

Wow, this community really lacks diversity and low-income housing. That will have to be remedied ASAP. I bet Krosnick's working on that as we speak, though -- after all, he wouldn't want to sound like a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the elites will become more realistic about racial issues now that their women have come face to face with race reality

Silver said...

I think it's kinda sorta reasonable to use "anti-black" to describe, for example, agreement that "Irish, Italians, Jews, and other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors." That's a broad meaning of "anti-black," but OK. But definitely not "racist."

No, I disagree completely that it's kinda sort reasonable to call denying blacks special favors "anti-black." What planet are you on?

As for whether something is "racist" or not, the fact is the vast majority of "anti-racism" is based on straight out reality-denial, so a great deal of knowledge about human beings and human affairs that simply has the property of being "true" is going to seem "racist" from this perspective. Is that perspective helping or hurting? I say hurting.

Hacienda said...

"According to his Wikipedia profile, Krosnick lives in Portola Valley, which is 0.3% black. Not 3 in 100, but 3 in 1000. Obviously he didn't stumble onto this neighborhood, but rather he sacrificed considerable capital to live there, as "Portola Valley is one of the top forty wealthiest towns in America"."

IOW, a sadist, hypocrite, and a traitor to his race.

As a Korean and American, I hate that.

Glaivester said...

irishman - in GHW Bush's defense, Clarence Thomas has made some pretty good decisions and is probably the closest to an exemplar of originalism that we have (I think he is more likely to say, "the conservative position on this is against origianl intent than, e.g. Scalia).

As for amnesty, I think that like GW Bush, Romney can be stopped if we stop Congress, unlike Barack "we refuse to enforce laws we don't like" Obama.

The Legendary Linda said...

I'll take the cynic every time. I'd feel more comfortable if Obama had some ladies on the side, but he just doesn't seem the type. Really he doesn't fit that job at all. He really would have been happiest and best suited to just stay a law professor. He could have smoked cigarettes, wrote books, hung out in a cool environment, had killer vacations.

Law professors can't afford killer vacations. They can't even afford private jets.

Anonymous said...

My greatest disappointment with Obama is that he had a unique opportunity to actually move our society beyond race as the dominating aspect of every public policy conversation. Instead of frankly addressing the pathologies that maintain a dependent and unproductive black underclass, every 'discussion on race' within his administration and party have demonstrated he's perfectly happy increasing the largesse and watching them drag their hapless and hopeless butts to the polls every two years to yank the 'D' lever.

Anonymous said...

"Did the professor look into anti-Asian and anti-White racist attitudes among Black people?"

That's a joke, right?

stari_momak said...

" He really would have been happiest and best suited to just stay a law professor."

I think even Obama would have been expected to produce at least one law review article had he wanted to remain in academia. Probably didn't have it in him.

Anonymous said...

In the run-up the election in 2008, there was something exactly like this released by the AP to activate some extra white guilt. It was sponsored by Yahoo and and was based on the implicit Association Test.

pat said...

The term is racial prejudice, meaning to pre-judge someone based on their race. But we now have postjudice - a neologism I just made up that means to judge based on past performance.

Most Americans really did believe that Barrack Obama's race didn't predict bad behavior. The first and most fundamental racial prejudice is the belief that blacks are stupid. Yet Obama the individual isn't stupid. Indeed there was a lot of silly talk about how he was uniquely brilliant.

So in 2008 many Americans were prepared to believe that this part black man would be just fine in the highest office.

But we've learned better now.

On reflection (postjudice) no one should vote for black candidates for office. In Congress blacks have about three times as many ethics violations as whites. There are many Amrican cities that have black mayors. Most black mayors are failures and most are corrupt. If you knew nothing about a political candidate except his race, it would be rational to never vote for a black man. This attitude is slowly growing based on the records of black politicians.

Obama has accelerated this trend. If he had been white with his record he would already be recognized as a disaster. But his race immunizes him from a lot of just criticism. But facts erode fanatasies in the long run. Forty years from now people will refer to Obama as a shorthand way of expressing political incompetance, in the same way we use now use Biden as shorthand for a political buffoon.

Albertosaurus


Anonymous said...

Anonymous @7:29AM, trick question. You do some extra legwork and take your kid to Joshua Weinberg-Chang.

Anonymous said...

So, because my community--neighborhood and schools-- have experienced the violence and sloth of blacks and that of Mexicans gangs, I'm not to feel any negativity toward the groups to which they belong?

That would be stupid of me.

Anonymous said...

Racism is a lame excuse for Obama losing. The same implicit racism tests find that %80 of Hispanics are prejudiced against blacks and 65% are openly bigoted against them, yet they prefer Obama over Romney by a ratio of seven to three.

Next excuse...

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 8:32AM who said,

"My greatest disappointment with Obama is that he had a unique opportunity to actually move our society beyond race as the dominating aspect of every public policy conversation. Instead of frankly addressing the pathologies that maintain a dependent and unproductive black underclass, every 'discussion on race' within his administration and party have demonstrated he's perfectly happy increasing the largesse and watching them drag their hapless and hopeless butts to the polls every two years to yank the 'D' lever."

Being black has been an advantage for Barry. Think if he'd been white his "resume" would have landed him in the Oval? Hell, no. As being black was the extent of his resume, I'd imagine he'd never risk that voting block by doing a Cosby. Further, I'm not at all sure that he sees things as Cosby does, for it appears Barry really believes that Marxist shit he studied.

Lastly, I have seen in him no evidence that he is a man of character, his campaign this season demonstrating that. He sprung from Chicago. Enough said.

JI said...

I wonder how many black respondents indicated anti-black attitudes.

irishman said...

"Anonymous said...
My greatest disappointment with Obama is that he had a unique opportunity to actually move our society beyond race as the dominating aspect of every public policy conversation. Instead of frankly addressing the pathologies that maintain a dependent and unproductive black underclass, every 'discussion on race' within his administration and party have demonstrated he's perfectly happy increasing the largesse and watching them drag their hapless and hopeless butts to the polls every two years to yank the 'D' lever.

10/28/12 8:32 AM"

Firstly, he couldn't have done that even if he wanted to, and secondly where's the money in it? No money no action.

"Glaivester said...
irishman - in GHW Bush's defense, Clarence Thomas has made some pretty good decisions and is probably the closest to an exemplar of originalism that we have (I think he is more likely to say, "the conservative position on this is against origianl intent than, e.g. Scalia).

As for amnesty, I think that like GW Bush, Romney can be stopped if we stop Congress, unlike Barack "we refuse to enforce laws we don't like" Obama.

10/28/12 8:00 AM"
That Clarence Thomas makes good ruling from a conservative point of view doesn't mean he is qualified for the job, which he clearly isn't. Nor should any credit accrue to GHWB for appointing a conservative. Bush appointed the most senior black Republican, which happened to be Thomas. He didn't have the balls to appoint a non-black to replace Thurgood Marshal. He could have had the same politics as David Souter for all Bush knew.

beowulf said...

Whoever loses will blame Hurricane Sandy.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/28/hurricane-sandy-upends-the-presidential-campaign.html

Truth said...

"IOW, a sadist, hypocrite, and a traitor to his race.

As a Korean and American, I hate that."

If you go back to Seoul, you won't be a traitor to yours.

David said...

>which would be more likely to be gainfully employed?[...] Does the term "hard-working" more accurately describe[...]<

"Gainfully employed" and "hard-working" seems to be a necessary component of your definition of the Moral Good. But what about independently wealthy people, or, for that matter, people who are happy getting by on little? The world isn't divided solely into wage slaves and welfare moochers. This is the mistake made too often by the political right: it sanctifies the narrow problems of the lower middle-class into a worldview, i.e., a hammer for all issues. Either yer working 60 hours per week or yer a no-good bum who probably drinks and doesn't go to church enough.

That anything exists outside of this view is inconceivable to the people who buy it. Its most baleful aspect is that it becomes (perhaps was intended as?) an excuse for oppression. For example, if a traditional society is getting along fine, but International Conglomerate wants to steal its land and drill baby drill, then IC propounds "these people are garbage: they are not gainfully employed 8 to 8 / 6 days per week." The few natives who can conform to the hustling model are, perhaps, retained as "good workers," i.e., as "human" (or human-like). The rest are simply burned out of their homes and sent packing. They were lazy. Hell, they weren't even good Methodists.

neil craig said...

The overwhelmingly largest effect of racism on the election must be the 100% (to the nearest % point) vote polls show Obama is going to get from blacks. I don't care how much poorer or less middle class blacks are on average there is no way that anything close to 100% would vote for 1 party on any non-racial agenda.

Nor, in the long term, does this do anything for blacks as a community. What sensible Republican is going to take notice of them, knowing that nothing whatsoever is going to earn their votes nor what sensible Democrat, knowing that nothing he can do will have any worse effect than seeing them stay home? A community that has no support to offer has no leverage.

Anonymous said...

My greatest disappointment with Obama is that he had a unique opportunity to actually move our society beyond race as the dominating aspect of every public policy conversation."

But he would never have been re-nominated by the Democratic party if he showed any inclination to do this. The Democratic Party is banking on ruling forever as the arbiters of a racial spoils system with blacks standing first in line and unwed Mexican mothers second. That is why they encourage voter fraud by immigrants and refuse to deport illegal aliens.

"Instead of frankly addressing the pathologies that maintain a dependent and unproductive black underclass, every 'discussion on race' within his administration and party have demonstrated he's perfectly happy increasing the largesse and watching them drag their hapless and hopeless butts to the polls every two years to yank the 'D' lever."

Black politics has always been about the proverbial 40 acres and a mule the white man owes him for bringing him in chains from Africa. Latino politics will always be about how the white man stole their land. Chinese politics will always be about how Auntie Ching died on Angel Island from typhus. Japanese-American politics will always be about what whites owe them for taking Grampa Aito's hardware store and putting Grandma Aino in a WWII internment camp. It's all about a debt owed by white posterity to all other races of the globe for their ancestors' bigotry and racism.

Anonymous said...

OT, here is an article from The Telegraph about a potential immigration wave from Bulgaria and Romania to the UK in 2014.

This is a textbook example of how immigration can only be critiqued in today's media so long as the targets are Eastern Europeans and not third worlders.

From the article, we are told more immigrants could affect the labor market.

Twenty nine million Bulgarians and Romanians will gain the right to live and work unrestricted in Britain in 2014 under European “freedom of movement” rules.
...
And a Government report was disclosed to show concern among official advisers that the British labour market will suffer “adverse effects” as a result.


I don't think I've ever seen those words used in the MSM to describe third world immigration.

Auntie Analogue said...

The comical and pathetic thing about all of these "put a number on Racism" schemes is that their results seem never to move left-liberals to question their vacant rationale for insisting upon imposed-from-above Multiculturalism/Diversity as THE only "morally correct" and optimal "social justice" panacea for all of America's and Whole World's ills. THE panacea except, of course, for their left-lib selves who reveal by their choice of residence location, location, location that they themselves choose not to heed their own sanctimonious public Pharisaical two-faced pleas for forced Diversity.

Anonymous said...

Apaprently if you are a white person, if you don't think blacks are just the salt of the earth, then you are a "racist".

Anonymous said...

Krosnick is one of the USA's top experts in applied statistics and surveys and charges $800 an hour as a consultant. If he just consults 25% of a full time at 500 hours a year, that is a cool $400k a year side gig.

Semi-Employed White Guy said...

Perhaps the elites will become more realistic about racial issues now that their women have come face to face with race reality

I don't think so. They will probably just try out Somali nannies.

Baloo said...

That's true about Obama being less likely to start a war with Iran. Oh, he will start one, but he will have been less likely to.

Steve's always ahead of the crowd on these things. Commented on and linked here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/10/racism-explains-everything.html

Anonymous said...

I thought everyone might want to know that the big controversy in Portolo Valley the last few months has been whether to install their first stoplight:


"The public works department made its unfortunate choice without even informing the town government of Portola Valley...

Town government, in emergency mode, persuaded ..."


A stop-light is so gauche and, well, plebian, don't you agree? Ruins the entire character...

I, for one, am sure these folks know all about what's best for the rest of us.

Mr. Anon said...

"Simon in London said...

Per their methodology this has the ironic result that the race-realist and anti-black racist will disagree with the statement and thus score as pro-black, whereas the colour-blind liberal who believes in 'Head Start' will agree with it and measure as anti-black."

I noticed that too. In future, if someone accuses me of being a racist, I will tell them I have been certified "not-racist" by the Associated Press and Minnesota Public Radio.

Hapalong Cassidy said...

Of course, you can't say that blacks are racist for voting 95% for Obama. Actually, figure that 80% of blacks would vote for a white Democrat for President. That means that 15% of blacks are straight up racist. Actually probably a little higher than that since black turnout would be higher for a black candidate.

Anonymous said...

“It’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.”

This question is the ultimate in doublethink. The brilliance of multicultural "anti-racist" ideology is how it has forced everyone to second-guess themselves constantly, or to "question their basic assumptions" as the diversocrats would have it.

There is nothing wrong with "critical thinking," but what the left-liberals mean by thinking critically isn't what we used to mean...its present actual meaning is "getting your words in line with received opinion before speaking them."

Anonymous said...

From recent surveys I read at least a few percentage points of blacks who voted for Obama last time (app. 95%) won't vote for him this time because of his stand on gay marriage.

Similarly, the surveys indicate at least a few percentaage points of Jews who voted for Obama last time (app. 80%) will not vote for him this time because of his alleged snub of BiBi Netanyahoo.

Isn't this at least some evidence that "Anit-White" racism is in decline this election cycle?

Svigor said...

Yeah, they've got the "Americans be raciss!" thing lined up. They've also got the "it's Bill Clinton's fault" thing lined up, the "Romney's brother owns vote machines" thing lined up, and they are no doubt currently scribbling away furiously to line up the "it's Sandy's fault" thing, too. If all else fails, they'll blame the media (seriously, hard core Dems really don't think the media hangs left).

I just hope a Dem mob doesn't tear Nate Silver apart on Nov. 7th. Nah, he'll be okay. He'll limp along with a diminished cult. I'm just wondering if he'll pull a late move to sanity before the election to try and save his rep.

I'm never going to understand the hatred of Obama here. You guys act like he wears a beret and channels Che Guevara.

1) Understand that disagreeing with you does not constitute hatred (I don't feel that strongly about the man, I reserve hatred for the worthy).
2) He's an empty suit.

Does that help?

a. The majority of respondents prefer Obama to Romney --42% said they planned to vote for Obama, 33% for Romney. So whatever negative attitudes wrt race exist, they're not an obvious barrier for Obama getting votes. I'm a little curious why these numbers look different from most polling numbers--maybe because they're incuding everyone instead of likely voters?

1) Repubs are statistically less likely to respond to pollsters (at least, that's what Republican poll-watchers keep saying, and it makes perfect sense to me: more hardass, more independent, less chatty, more hostile to the regime).
2) If you're in (or want to be in) a union, it doesn't pay to respond to Republican pollsters positively; it could get you intimidated, beat up, or fired (at least, that's what I hear from a few quarters).
3) Bradley effect; I know libtards think it's a myth, but in America it obviously pays to boost the black guy, whether that means voting for him, or at least, not openly opposing him, so I think it's real.

This is all aside from the sampling issues.

Anonymous said...

More than half of all Americans have negative attitudes toward African Americans

And?

Whiskey said...

The Hatred for Obama stems from his siding with elites and non-Whites in favor of stasis rather than economic growth. Elite Whites and non-Whites want a declining economy where non-Elite Whites are taxed to death, basically. In a pure power grab.

Romney is not a man on a White horse, for better and worse, but he's been pro-economic growth his whole life which benefits middle class Whites who by definition have no trust funds or connections to prosper in a rent-driven monopoly economy. Romney as a turn-around-capitalism guy, is aligned with our economic interests: GROWTH. Obama, representing the hereditary elites and non-Whites, is against GROWTH.

White guys benefit from an oil and gas boom, the return of manufacturing, labor shortages, and leveraging cheap energy to American advantage. Non-Whites for the most part lose (as Whites gain relative to them) and growth forms an existential threat to elites who have pulled up the ladder to political and social power. Globally across the West.

Once you imagine the West as a variant of China's Red Princes, it makes sense. And explains the admiration our hereditary elites have for China. Romney, as a Mormon outsider not accepted by the hereditary elites is the opposite of the elite-embraced Obama who is the grandson of a bank vice President and the son of Kenya's answer to Ted Kennedy. That explains the hatred. It is class based as much as anything else.

Svigor said...

And yes, the wider you make your nets, the more Dems (who won't show up to vote) you get.

at least alert said...

In actuality he doesn't appear to do much of anything unless Wall Street and the assorted FIRE sectors wants it done.

You're an idiot. He allows Holder to license black violence against whites.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Glaivester writes: As for amnesty, I think that like GW Bush, Romney can be stopped if we stop Congress, unlike Barack "we refuse to enforce laws we don't like" Obama.

Who's the first "we"?

There was little opposition to the Dems' first two pushes for the DA amnesty. There was little opposition to his third (and successful) push, and there's been little opposition to it after it happened. And, by "little", I mean "almost none".

I come up with plans that could have blocked amnesty or exacted a price after it happened, but I can't find anyone else to help out.

The TPers could and should help block amnesty, but they lack various abilities. One example of that lack of abilities is that they're led around by those who support amnesty.

As I said 2.5+ years ago, if you want to block amnesty (and noxious cultural issues in general) you have two fronts: its leftwing supporters, and rightwing leaders who support amnesty or who want to ignore it in favor of focusing with a laser beam on helping the rich get richer.

Matthew said...

"GHW Bush ran against Willie Horton and as penance nominated a clearly unqualified Clarence Thomas to the supreme court."

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas comes down on the right side of almost every case. In what way does that make him unqualified?

"According to his Wikipedia profile, Krosnick lives in Portola Valley, which is 0.3% black. Not 3 in 100, but 3 in 1000."

OMG, that's brilliant. Yep.

According to Wikipedia: "The racial makeup of Portola Valley was 3,960 (91.0%) White, 12 (0.3%) African American, 5 (0.1%) Native American, 242 (5.6%) Asian, 1 (0.0%) Pacific Islander, 29 (0.7%) from other races, and 104 (2.4%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 175 persons (4.0%)."

Please continue to lecture me about my racism, Professor Krosnick.

"As for amnesty, I think that like GW Bush, Romney can be stopped if we stop Congress."

The two pushes for amnesty helped ruin the Bush Administration, and cost him the Republican majority (which may or may not have been his goal). Romney's not approaching amnesty with a fifty foot small varmint gun.

Matthew said...

"Law professors can't afford killer vacations. They can't even afford private jets."

My biggest disappointment with the Romney campaign is that, when they've bitched about his wealth, he's never shot back questioning Obama's post-presidential career. Romney should mention how much Bill Clinton is making fom speaking gigs each year ($13.7 million in 2011) and ask Obama if he plans to do the same.

Anonymous said...

"Civil Rights" "activists" are complaining that the Minnesota Timberwolves are "too white"

http://www.startribune.com/sports/wolves/176071391.html

via Deadspin

http://deadspin.com/5955596/this-years-minnesota-timberwolves-roster-is-the-whitest-since-the-larry-bird+era-celtics

Mike Steinberg said...

1. I'm pretty sure that Hispanic attitudes towards african americans are even worse than euro attitudes.

2. As Half Sigma points out:

I presume that agreeing with this statement makes one racist, which makes me not a racist because I would disagree. The IQ gap between whites and blacks is such that no amount of trying harder will ever enable blacks to be as well off as whites, not in a country in which those with IQs below 100 aren’t qualified for decent career tracks.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/10/how-to-know-if-youre-a-racist.html

Horace G. said...

"My greatest disappointment with Obama is that he had a unique opportunity to actually move our society beyond race as the dominating aspect of every public policy conversation. Instead of frankly addressing the pathologies that maintain a dependent and unproductive black underclass, every 'discussion on race' within his administration and party have demonstrated he's perfectly happy increasing the largesse and watching them drag their hapless and hopeless butts to the polls every two years to yank the 'D' lever."


Why on earth would he do that? He would be branded a traitor by other blacks and his own party. All of his support would disappear. The best money, jobs and power for black men who have talent in the game of politics is in the racial grievance and shakedown game.

tommy said...

Professor Krosnick measures "anti-black attitudes" by asking people if they agree with statements such as:
“It’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.”
If you are white, the correct to this question is ... well, there is no correct answer.


This illustrates one of the big problems in the social sciences today: there is a constant flow of studies on how people perceive reality and its potential impact on events (with the political leanings of the researchers jarringly obvious). Social scientists seem to have abandoned the quest of studying actual reality.

I'd prefer researchers go back to investigating reality again or, at least, investigating whether or not perceptions reflect reality and determining why there are so often rifts between perceptions and realities. They might be able to develop testable results and lasting theories that way rather than leave political science and sociology a pile of unrelated and dubious results whose shelf-life doesn't usually extend beyond the next election cycle.

Simon in London said...

sunbeam:
"He really would have been happiest and best suited to just stay a law professor. He could have smoked cigarettes, wrote books..."

No, he was never a real professor, and he wouldn't have been good at it: he's not interested in the Law, in writing (except about himself), or in teaching.

Anonymous said...

As a Canadian, I don't follow US any closer than necessary, but do commenters here really feel Obama will lose? He seems to still have an edge in the polls (and the Iowa election market). From what I've seen (not all that much) the last few weeks have seen Romney recover from a threatened collapse, but haven't really seen Obama collapse.

Cennbeorc

Mr. Anon said...

"Glaivester said...

irishman - in GHW Bush's defense, Clarence Thomas has made some pretty good decisions and is probably the closest to an exemplar of originalism that we have..."

Indeed. I would prefer to have a clone of Clarence Thomas join the court than just about anyone else. However, that said, he isn't perfect - he is too indulgent of police powers.

Anonymous said...

Sunbeam, you missed the main reason to prefer Obama: he's less likely to start a war with Iran.

As a traditional conservative (i.e. not Pat Buchanan's The Nation-style conservatism on foreign policy), my only hope is that the president who finally acts against Iran simply imposes a no-fly zone and flattens all nascent labs on an ongoing basis. It cost us a few billion a year when Saddam was in power, which is peanuts compared to having to deal with a nuclear Iran (or any other Middle Eastern country).

Suburban_elk said...

Thanks for the link, that is Minnesota Public Radio, which i suffer occasionally. This following comment i left in two pieces at their link, and will see if it is left up:

Race is biological, and is an extended kin group. A race has its own interests. If a race does not look out for itself, it will be overtaken by those which do. White Americans who advocate for multiculturalism (multi-racialism) do so at the expense of future generations of white children.

"Racism" is part of the struggle for life - it is the expression of self-interest of an extended kinship group. Jews are admired for looking out for each other, for looking out first for their own; but they are not charged with racism; that charge is reserved for white people.

It is up to White Americans to represent their own interests; if they decide not to, no one else is going to do it for them. It seems that many white Americans do not see or feel the need to represent their own interests specifically, at the present time; it seems to them, apparently, that it is a better way to go, to advocate for universal interests.

There is that old saying, You don't know what you got until it's gone. When will White Americans appreciate (having) their own living space.

Perhaps there will be medals awarded, for service rendered, sustenance forked over, to the diverse world. Here is California, here is Arizona; here is New York, here is Toronto. Neighborhood by neighborhood the conversion of white living space, continues. Maybe the reward is in the next life; it seems the quality of life is lessened in these places, that were once white - well, the quality is lessened for the white people, who mostly flee. Oh yes there are the gentry in their tony neighborhoods, but otherwise, good luck to the losers who cannot rise above, who needs them anyways.

irishman said...

"Mr. Anon said...
"Glaivester said...

irishman - in GHW Bush's defense, Clarence Thomas has made some pretty good decisions and is probably the closest to an exemplar of originalism that we have..."

Indeed. I would prefer to have a clone of Clarence Thomas join the court than just about anyone else. However, that said, he isn't perfect - he is too indulgent of police powers.

10/28/12 4:24 PM"
Just because he rules with your political preferences doesn't make him qualified to be president. He hasn't asked a question in six years FFS. His political philosophy is little more than an autistic and simplistic libertarianism which surprise, surprise(virginia v black) doesn't apply when it suits him.

ben tillman said...

Fifty-one percent of Americans express explicit anti-black attitudes, it says. About 52 percent have anti-Hispanic attitudes.

And how many Americans have anti-White attitudes? Oh, the survey didn't bother to ask? We can surely presume Mr. Krosnick is one of them.

Anonymous said...

"they are no doubt currently scribbling away furiously to line up the 'it's Sandy's fault' thing."

Now wishing "Shanee'quwa" had been in the lineup for hurricane names, then the Democrats could be blaming Shanee'quwa for Obama's defeat.

Anonymous said...

"Civil Rights" "activists" are complaining that the Minnesota Timberwolves are "too white"

They should just reply that Minnesota doesn't have as big a budget because of their smaller market and these are the only players they could afford.

Svigor said...

As a Canadian, I don't follow US any closer than necessary, but do commenters here really feel Obama will lose? He seems to still have an edge in the polls (and the Iowa election market). From what I've seen (not all that much) the last few weeks have seen Romney recover from a threatened collapse, but haven't really seen Obama collapse.

Cennbeorc


In a nutshell: Rs are ignoring most of the polls other than Gallup and Rasmussen. If you look at the polls' internals, you can't blame them. The assumption that the zero will meet or exceed his 2008 turnout seems to be baked into their collective cake, which bears neither simple scrutiny or common sense.

There's also the popular vote margins, and what they tend to say about state elections (i.e., the zero is around 47, and Romney is above 50, in Gallup and Rasmussen's national polls, while ABC had Romney leading by a point IIRC). AFAICT it would be unprecedented for an incumbent to be under 50 and down 3-5 pts in national polls and still win the election.

Check this out if you want the R take:
battlegroundwatch.com

If you want the D version, check out Nate Silver's Rube Goldberg election blog.

But yes, if the polls are right, the zero is in the lead and the Rs are thinking wishfully. If it's garbage in - garbage out for Nate Silver and company, Romney is in the lead.

Svigor said...

And how many Americans have anti-White attitudes? Oh, the survey didn't bother to ask? We can surely presume Mr. Krosnick is one of them.

Indeed. Let's have a few decades of studies about Jewish professors living in 99.9% black-free areas, and their implicit and explicit racial attitudes about Whites.

ben tillman said...

The term is racial prejudice, meaning to pre-judge someone based on their race. But we now have postjudice - a neologism I just made up that means to judge based on past performance.

This term has been used quite a bit already. In fact, Steve had a blog post titled "Postjudice" on 7/14/09.

Harvey D. said...

"[The] Majority of Americans are racist..."

Not really, at least not yet (its still about 2/3 white). But if the demographic trends continue, the majority will be soon...

Svigor said...

On undecideds breaking for the challenger, the Nate Silver/Rube Goldberg cult agree that Nate has abjured this Republican conjuration, but to me it's just common sense. First, if you're still undecided after 4 years of the 0, then you aren't much of a fan. You're shopping around. Second, if you're probably going to vote for Romney you've had 4 years to vet the 0, and not as long to take a close look at the new guy (remember, you're "undecided" for a reason), so you want to wait until the last minute to make your final call; you've only been paying attention to this guy for a month or two now, and leader of the free world is a big deal. The zero may suck, but he's not going to go nuts and nuke the world on Jan 21st.

But if you could really be sold on the zero for 4 more, you would've just joined the Ds by now. You wouldn't still be saying you haven't decided yet; you've decided, you just haven't told the host "yes, that's my final answer" yet.

Gangnam said...

"Truth said...

"IOW, a sadist, hypocrite, and a traitor to his race.

As a Korean and American, I hate that."

If you go back to Seoul, you won't be a traitor to yours."

- So by the same token, you are a traitor to yours if you aren't going back to Africa?

Anonymous said...

As a Canadian, I don't follow US any closer than necessary

People who get their information about the US from watching American TV programs know a lot about the world view of Hollywood scriptwriters and producers and very little about what makes the average American tick.

Anonymous said...

The term is racial prejudice, meaning to pre-judge someone based on their race. But we now have postjudice - a neologism I just made up that means to judge based on past performance.

This term has been used quite a bit already. In fact, Steve had a blog post titled "Postjudice" on 7/14/09.

To the original poster, don't feel bad. When I was in high school I thought I was oh so clever when I would tell my mother that, "should and is are not related" only to find out later that David Hume had beat me to the punch by more than 200 years.

Anonymous said...


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas comes down on the right side of almost every case. In what way does that make him unqualified?


My surmise is that while Thomas does come down on the right side, he is lead there by the other Justices. Basically, you can't have an entire court made up of Thomas types. Some of them have to be sharp like Alito and Ginsburg. Now Ginsburg strikes me as a little brighter but far less ethical than Alito.

Anonymous said...

"But yes, if the polls are right, the zero is in the lead and the Rs are thinking wishfully. If it's garbage in - garbage out for Nate Silver and company, Romney is in the lead."

I nervously watch the Rasmussen polls. When they flat line for both candidates, the results tend to be eerily predictive of election outcomes. Indeed, they are flat lining now with Romney ahead by 3%. Not ready to break out the Champagne yet but the Benghazi mess is starting to look really bad, with two generals being dismissed for attempting to save the Libyan diplomatic mission. It's looking like Obama and Hill let four men die for political expedience. I think this information will start to push the split wider after it percolates for a week.

Mr. Anon said...

"irishman said...

Just because he rules with your political preferences doesn't make him qualified to be president. He hasn't asked a question in six years FFS. His political philosophy is little more than an autistic and simplistic libertarianism which surprise, surprise(virginia v black) doesn't apply when it suits him."

Who cares if he's qualified to be President? He isn't one. He's a supreme court justice. Anyway, most people who become President are not qualified to be so, not in the ways that matter.

I don't care if Thomas asks questions or plays tiddly-winks on the bench. He is (often) a vote in my favor - that's all that's important anymore. The Republic is dead; niceties such as you describe no longer signify. It's all Who/Whom now.

Hacienda said...


"If you go back to Seoul, you won't be a traitor to yours."

I'm not expecting a sensible answer, but just for the sake of the forum, how do you figure that?

Silver said...

Let's have a few decades of studies about Jewish professors living in 99.9% black-free areas, and their implicit and explicit racial attitudes about Whites.

One of the best race cartoons I've seen (I dislike most of them) is about a Jewish professor. In the first panel he is visibly pleased as he evaluates a black girl selecting a black doll as psychologically sound. In the second panel his hair stands on end and his face contorts in horror as a white girl selects a white doll.

NOTA said...

The critical thing to keep in mind about the polls is that the only thing that counts for deciding who gets to be president is the electoral college vote. So national polls are only interesting to the extent that they may give some hint about ongoing large scale changes in opinion that will shift the critical states' outcomes.

If you base your prediction on the most recent polls from each state, you get a map like this one. Unlike Nate Silver, this guy just takes the most recent poll (or averages them together, if there are multiple polls in the last week) as the state prediction. This map shows that right now, the election is extremely close--Obama looks to have a small advantage, but these polling numbers are consistent with either side winning, thanks to a small shift in voter senitment or enthusiasm of one side or the other right before election day.

Also, this map and others of its kind assume that pollsters are broadly trying to get the election right, and aren't doing something dumb. There's always the possibility that the pollsters are skewing their models somehow, and there is a definite possibiltiy of feedback loops between pollsters, where I see that my predictions are off from everyone else's, and so I tweak my model to agree with theirs. On the other hand, proposed tweaks to the models by partisans that just happen to predict their side winning sort-of peg my skepticism meter.

NOTA said...

tommy 3:16:

Isn't that missing the point of social sciences? I mean, they are explicitly trying to learn about how people perceive the world or think about the world, both correctly and incorrectly. That's their area of study, and it's quite important. Anyone who wants to do anything very big has to work out how to get lots of people pointed in the same direction, anyone who wants peace and prosperity needs to work out how to get the basic functions of government handled (defense, police, courts, roads) done. If you want to sell something, or resist someome else's sales tactics, knowing how humans like you think is very worthwhile. And so on.

ben tillman said...

As a Canadian, I don't follow US any closer than necessary, but do commenters here really feel Obama will lose? He seems to still have an edge in the polls (and the Iowa election market).

And at the sportsbooks. Obama is now at -195 (i.e., you must risk $195 to win $100 if you bet on Obama to win).

Truth said...

"I'm not expecting a sensible answer, but just for the sake of the forum, how do you figure that?"

Do you see any Koreans in those oil paintings of the founding fathers?

I thought not, so why slap the founding fathers of the Hangul empire in the face by living here?

If some anti-racist Jew is a race-traitor, so are you.

tommy said...

Isn't that missing the point of social sciences? I mean, they are explicitly trying to learn about how people perceive the world or think about the world, both correctly and incorrectly. That's their area of study, and it's quite important.

Well, for example, I'd prefer more studies of why blacks commit more crimes than whites, what has driven the increase in black crime rates since the 1960's, why black crime is intractable in some communities, or why blacks are perceived by many voters as being not much more violent than whites in spite of statistical evidence to the contrary.

Instead, we get more and more Orwellian political horse-race studies like this one where an accurate perception of black crime is translated into being racist by the arbitrary standards adopted by the researcher with the implication that this unfairly hurts the researcher's preferred candidate and that something must be done about these entirely accurate racist perceptions!

Reg Cæsar said...

"Civil Rights" "activists" are complaining that the Minnesota Timberwolves are "too white" --anon

Back when the team was first formed and given the name, local comic Jeff Gerbino snorted, "'Timberwolves'? That sounds like five short, slow white guys!"

Anonymous said...

@ Silver,

One of the best race cartoons I've seen (I dislike most of them) is about a Jewish professor. In the first panel he is visibly pleased as he evaluates a black girl selecting a black doll as psychologically sound. In the second panel his hair stands on end and his face contorts in horror as a white girl selects a white doll.

In the same vein.

Big Bill said...

Simon:"sunbeam:
"He really would have been happiest and best suited to just stay a law professor. He could have smoked cigarettes, wrote books..."

No, he was never a real professor, and he wouldn't have been good at it: he's not interested in the Law, in writing (except about himself), or in teaching."

You aren't Simon the LLM are you? Or the redheaded Orthodox Jew in Section 1? You speak with such ... familiarity.

Glaivester said...

I come up with plans that could have blocked amnesty or exacted a price after it happened, but I can't find anyone else to help out.

Can you give me a link to these plans?

unix said...

"Big Bill said...
Simon:"sunbeam:
"He really would have been happiest and best suited to just stay a law professor. He could have smoked cigarettes, wrote books..."

No, he was never a real professor, and he wouldn't have been good at it: he's not interested in the Law, in writing (except about himself), or in teaching."


I agree Big Bill. Obama has no writings to speak of except for a ghost-written autobio that does qualify as fiction perhaps. Maybe he could ghost-write novels. But not law. Can't imagine him engaging students in any sort of lively debate. Debate doesn't seem to suit him. And since professors can't use teleprompters for their lectures (yet), I can't see him in the classroom. Can you?
He might be ok teaching narcs though.

cicero said...

"I'll never understand the hatred of Obama on this board."
says Sunbeam.

Really? Then you aren't reading closely enough, and garner your news from CNN and NPR. btw, a recent defector from CNN admitted they were a bought and paid for propaganda piece for this Adminstration.

The reasons are too numerous to go into here, and include "my people" Eric Holder. But most recently and egregiously, we have Benghazi. Obama was the only one who could have made the final decision about that and the childish lies about videos inflaming the Muslims fell apart immediately. The father of one dead Navy Seal, said Obama did not look him in the eyes (I can see that distant cold stare now) and had a handshake like a dead fish. I don't want Obama dead, either as a fish or otherwise. I just want him to go away back to the lagoon he came from. He & the Mrs. have done enough vacations and entertaining on the taxpayers' dime. Mrs. O (who was debarred from practicing law in th 90s) said publically she was never proud of being American. Yet she spent more of other Americans' money on herself than almost anybody. Pure parasite of a huge variety. What's not to hate?
I mean, really, Sunbeam.
For a realists like most of us, there is just no reason not to "hate" him, although that word used against a politician has a different meaning than towards someone you know personally. A politician of that level has lives in his hands. And I do not want my life, or the life of anyone I care about, in his hands.
That he doesn't identify as American is fine with me. But do not desire to be President of a people and country you hate. Because that's is freaking weird; but not as weird as most reasons people voted for him.
2008 will be looked back upon as the year of delusional thinking, like a populace hit with St. Vitus dance.

For all I know, Romney could be just as loathsome (as Bush was imo). But at least we won't have him and his Mrs. diss Americans (particuarly white ones) behind their backs (Secret Sevice information) while partying on our dime and ignoring those 3:00 am m'aider phone calls.

Anonymous said...

Okay, yesterday evening there were 19 comments. Now there are 16 and the one pointing out that Krosnick lives in whitopia is one of the MIA comments. Also, you can no longer post comments.

Hmm.

Free speech on the Minnesota public radio blog?
Not so much.

Hacienda said...

"I'm not expecting a sensible answer, but just for the sake of the forum, how do you figure that?"

Do you see any Koreans in those oil paintings of the founding fathers?

I thought not, so why slap the founding fathers of the Hangul empire in the face by living here?

If some anti-racist Jew is a race-traitor, so are you.------------------------------------------------------

Truth,

Jump to conclusions, much? You don't know why I'm here, what I do. I may be a Korean spy for all you know. Maybe, I see myself as a pioneer. Maybe I see myself as a conciliator. Etc.

What I don't do is from a position of authority, mislead Koreans (or Asians) into a false "consciousnees" or lay some destructive guilt upon them. BTW, I live in a very mixed racial area of California. Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and blacks. I do so willingly, because I've got "better" options. I don't do the real estate/crime calculus
of blacks to whites etc. Not gonna second guess the motivations of the Stanford prof for living in a 100% (rounded up) non-black enclave. But, that makes him a hypocrite at a minimum. But thanks for pointing out he's Jewish. If so, possibly he doesn't see the hypocrisy or the race traitorous nature of his ways, because he doesn't see himself as white. Maybe, he doesn't "see" race anymore. He see's DEEP into the stars, beyond our ken.

paradigmo said...

A funny thing about the poll is that 64 percent implicit bias against Blacks for Republicans and 55 percent for Democrats suggest that there is slightly more nonblack implicit bias against Blacks among democrats, assuming most of them are not biased against themselves.

Truth said...

"- So by the same token, you are a traitor to yours if you aren't going back to Africa?"

I have never called anyone a "race traitor."

Simon in London said...

Big Bill:
"You aren't Simon the LLM are you? Or the redheaded Orthodox Jew in Section 1? You speak with such ... familiarity."

I teach LLMs for a living; I know about legal academia.

Svigor said...

The critical thing to keep in mind about the polls is that the only thing that counts for deciding who gets to be president is the electoral college vote. So national polls are only interesting to the extent that they may give some hint about ongoing large scale changes in opinion that will shift the critical states' outcomes.

Uhm, I'd think their statistical relationship between national polls and state and national electoral outcomes would be far more interesting than any hints they give about large-scale changes. As I said:

There's also the popular vote margins, and what they tend to say about state elections (i.e., the zero is around 47, and Romney is above 50, in Gallup and Rasmussen's national polls, while ABC had Romney leading by a point IIRC). AFAICT it would be unprecedented for an incumbent to be under 50 and down 3-5 pts in national polls and still win the election.

Svigor said...

Also, this map and others of its kind assume that pollsters are broadly trying to get the election right, and aren't doing something dumb. There's always the possibility that the pollsters are skewing their models somehow, and there is a definite possibiltiy of feedback loops between pollsters, where I see that my predictions are off from everyone else's, and so I tweak my model to agree with theirs. On the other hand, proposed tweaks to the models by partisans that just happen to predict their side winning sort-of peg my skepticism meter.

If you go to battlegroundwatch.com and read the articles for the last two weeks, and the comments, you'll come away with several plausible theories on how pollsters could easily get it wrong (in the direction we're seeing from the polls currently) without any conscious bias. Nutshell: the polls sway this way and that based on genuine and legitimate opinions about how best to poll the electorate. Polling is not even remotely an exact science. Also, a lot of the failings come down to money; it's MUCH more expensive to run a good poll than a sloppy one. The less rigorously you screen voters, the more a poll will screen Dem. A lot of these polls are good for predicting a race with 90% turnout. Problem is, 90% turnout never happens. 60-65% turnouts happen (and it's much easier to model 90% turnout than real-world turnout).

Svigor said...

As for ACTUAL hints as to where the race is going, well, just look at the campaigns. They're moving into several states that were solid blue territory, and out of "RCP tossups." Acting as if their lying eyes (campaign polls, which are reputedly much more accurate and detailed than public polls, and kept private) are telling them something the public polls aren't. And every day rams home more clearly the idea that the zero has left indies for dead and is appealing solely to his base because he knows the only way he can win is by exceeding his 2008 turnout with his base (I'm not really interested in collecting all the headlines that drive this home, but they constitute a litany at this point).

sunbeam said...

Simon in London said:

"I teach LLMs for a living; I know about legal academia."

I have a couple of questions for you.

First about this statement. I'm curious, how intelligent do you need to be to teach law? I mean do you have to be as intelligent as a Mathematics Professor? And if you do, or if you have to be smarter, is that a good thing?

Or perhaps more importantly a useful thing? I mean if society somehow managed to arrange that only people of average intelligence were allowed to practice law, do we lose anything?

Secondly, you also stated:

"No, he was never a real professor, and he wouldn't have been good at it: he's not interested in the Law, in writing (except about himself), or in teaching."

From Wikipedia, presumably true:

"He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004."

Ok, look uhh the University of Chicago has a rep over here, y'know? I mean the undergrads there once held a protest because the University wanted to LIGHTEN their homework load.

That place can get just about anyone, just about any black anyone to teach there.

And they chose this guy. I mean how badly can he suck?

Assuming you were qualified to teach American Law, do you think you are better qualified? Do you think you could do a better job than he did?

I am a cynic. Even if you have a faculty spot at a top tier school, that isn't necessarily impressive in my eyes. I've kind of been assuming Obama was kind of an Omega-Prole, toting his lunchbox and a pack of Winstons (Newports? I bet he smokes regular cigarettes.) into the U of C everyday. Just another faceless automaton, beating the dogma into the heads of another generation of kids privileged in one way or another to become movers and shakers. Just another man trying to make it to the weekend, and a flight to Aspen.

I had no reason to think he was any worse an Omega-Prole than anyone else in the job.

And I was wrong? Tell me why I was wrong.

I just gotta know. Is there some cute English way to say that, "I just gotta know?" I mean with bollocks or something?

Eric said...

This will have real consequences though. The more racist the republicans win, the worse they are when elected. GHW Bush ran against Willie Horton and as penance nominated a clearly unqualified Clarence Thomas to the supreme court, passed a civil rights bill which was really just a quota bill and wussed out when it came to the LA riots.

I don't know where you got the idea Clarence Thomas was "clearly unqualified". That's wasn't the case at all, which is why the Democrats went with Anita Hill when it came time to attack. Attacking his qualifications would have been a lot safer, politically.

He's probably the best justice on the court. He doesn't spend a lot of time divining emanations of penumbras like the leftists, and unlike Scalia and Roberts his decisions are consistent. How the hell Scalia got to where he ended up on Raich baffles me to this day. And the less said about Roberts and ACA the better.

Truth said...

"Jump to conclusions, much? You don't know why I'm here, what I do. I may be a Korean spy for all you know. Maybe, I see myself as a pioneer. Maybe I see myself as a conciliator. Etc."

Good, Hacienda-San; you have now felt the pain involved with one having his reputation and good name besmirched by hurtful and careless insults such as "race-traitor." Please keep this in mind the next time you call someone names!

This reminds me of a great Seon/Zen story:

A wealthy and powerful king encounters a poor, pauper monk on the road, feeling his obvious sense of superiority he gathers his soldiers close and says "watch me tounge tie this old man."

"Hey old man, if you are a Seon monk explain to me the difference between heaven and hell."

The old monk straightens his back, looks and the king, and replies, calmly; "I would love to, but in my years as a monk I have become quite accomplished at discerning the mental abilities of men at first glance; I do not believe you to have the mental facility to understand such a profound concept."

The King turns Red! He unsheathes his sword and says; "YOU PATHETIC BEGGAR INFIDEL, I COULD EASILY SMITE YOU FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT OF MY MEN RIGHT NOW! I COULD LOP OF YOUR HEAD FOR CALLING ME STUPID WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT WILL PREVENT ME FROM TAKING YOUR LIFE?!?!?!"

The hold man looks and him calm, smiles and says; "That your Excellency, is Hell."

The King realizes what just happens, places his sword back in the scabbard and says starts smiling at his men which leads all to start laughing. At which point the old man says;

"And that, your Excellency, is heaven!"

Matthew said...

"My surmise is that while Thomas does come down on the right side, he is lead there by the other Justices. Basically, you can't have an entire court made up of Thomas types."

OK but..we don't have a SCOTUS made up of "Thomas types." We have leaders and we have followers. Thomas is no slouch for reliably choosing the right justice to follow. A Court comprised of one Scalia and 8 Thomases would be a fine Court indeed.

Cail Corishev said...

"[The University of Chicago] can get just about anyone, just about any black anyone to teach there.

"And they chose this guy. I mean how badly can he suck?"


The USA could get just about anyone to accept the job of president. And the voters chose this guy. How badly can he suck?

Pretty badly, it turns out.

Svigor said...

Nate Silver defeat excuses are currently being auditioned, too:

Nate Silver: One-term celebrity?

"We can debate how much of a favorite Obama is; Romney, clearly, could still win. But this is not wizardry or rocket science," Silver told POLITICO. "All you have to do is take an average, and count to 270. It's a pretty simple set of facts. I'm sorry that Joe is math-challenged."

Nate, tell that to your Rube Goldberg model with the "magic happens here" right around your "weighting" of polls. You're the one who can't use simple math; that's why your model uses "magic happens here," and complex math that none of your acolytes even understands.

Hacienda said...

Good, Hacienda-San;

--------------

Gee Gee Truth.

Koans are deadly if not handled by the right people.

Confucious is on black people's side. You're made.

The Stanford prof is still a hypocrite. A master of the dirty lie- the thing Jews purport to hate so much. But just can't seem to ever do anything about. Too bad for them.

NOTA said...

Svigor:

The way I understand it, events that shift the voters' opinions in a few states usually shift them in other states, too. So if you see a nationwide shift of a percentage point toward Romney, it's reasonable to expect that all the battleground states are going to see a comparable shift, even if you don't have polls from Ohio showing that shift yet. Most places, a 1% shift doesn't matter--Obama will win California and Romney will win Texas either way. But for Ohio and Virginia and Florida and Nevada, that 1% shift can make a real difference, and that will change the electoral votes.

The problem here is similar to those papers where they combine the results of a bunch of other papers to try to conclude something more than what the older papers could conclude (called meta-analyses)--there are a lot of ways to combine the results of the different polls, a lot of ways to decide which polls are worth including, what influence on my estimate of OH voters I should take from new polling results from PA or the whole country, etc. So you can end up with a whole lot of choices in your model parameters, whose consequences even you don't fully understand, and which give you plausible-looking predictions. There is a tradeoff here--if you want to make the best possible prediction, you should incorporate all that data into your prediction somehow. But doing so leaves you vulnerable to either cooking the parameter choices to give a desired prediction, or simply having an overly complex model that will give really dumb predictions in some circumstances, but that was highly tuned to fit some historical data. That's one reason to want to see models like the one at electoral-vote.com (I linked to it earlier) that bases its state predictions on a really simple model (take the most recent poll, or average them if there are multiple polls within a week of each other).

The other problem, I think, is controlling your own biases. You want to see a particular outcome, and expect to see it. Nate Silver presumably wants and expects the opposite. It is uncomfortably easy to fool yourself into finding reasons to reject models that predict what you don't want to see. That's as true of Republicans or Democrats looking at polls as it is of liberals looking at IQ differences between blacks and whites. IQ testing is also not an exact science, the definition of race is inherently a little fuzzy, there are partisan biases among the major figures in the science, etc.--and yet, it sure looks to me like most liberals who reject IQ scores and racial IQ differences out of hand are using those reasons for support, rather than illumination. That's always a danger to guard against--looking for reasons you are right instead of reasons you are wrong.

I don't know who will win this election. Frankly, I don't much care--the differences on issues I care about are hard to predict, but seem likely to me to be quite small. Like watching Saddam fight the Ayatollahs, or Assad fight the local opposition over who will be on top and whose ethnic group will be massacred, there arent any good guys to root for here.




Svigor said...

The problem here is similar to those papers where they combine the results of a bunch of other papers to try to conclude something more than what the older papers could conclude (called meta-analyses)--there are a lot of ways to combine the results of the different polls, a lot of ways to decide which polls are worth including, what influence on my estimate of OH voters I should take from new polling results from PA or the whole country, etc.

When you're always weighting the "right" polls a certain way, and the "wrong" polls another, and keeping push-pollers like PPP, and garbage "polls" like the RAND study in your analysis, you've got more than a minor problem. When you won't really address the common-sense criticisms being leveled at your model, that's not very good either.

But Silver isn't the problem, so much as it is his cult, which has raised him on its shoulders.

So you can end up with a whole lot of choices in your model parameters, whose consequences even you don't fully understand, and which give you plausible-looking predictions. There is a tradeoff here--if you want to make the best possible prediction, you should incorporate all that data into your prediction somehow. But doing so leaves you vulnerable to either cooking the parameter choices to give a desired prediction, or simply having an overly complex model that will give really dumb predictions in some circumstances, but that was highly tuned to fit some historical data. That's one reason to want to see models like the one at electoral-vote.com (I linked to it earlier) that bases its state predictions on a really simple model (take the most recent poll, or average them if there are multiple polls within a week of each other).

I'll take a transparent & complex model over an opaque and simple one, but yeah, I'm not going to sit there and trust a model that I can't even understand.

I don't know who will win this election. Frankly, I don't much care--the differences on issues I care about are hard to predict, but seem likely to me to be quite small. Like watching Saddam fight the Ayatollahs, or Assad fight the local opposition over who will be on top and whose ethnic group will be massacred, there arent any good guys to root for here.

I suspect I care a lot less about the outcome than Silver does. I'll have forgotten about the whole thing a week later. Yes, I would like to see Romney win, but you don't see me investing myself in the outcome the way Republicans and Dems are. They think this thing's about the fate of America, whereas I think the fork's just waiting to be stuck in her either way.

I really would like to see 0bama go, though, for a couple of reasons.