The Republican Hopefuls and their Irish Roots

Fr Tod Umptious

southsiderosie wrote: »

White ethnics until the mid 20th century were seen as distinct groups: Irish, Poles, Italians, etc. These groups were traditionally excluded from national institutions of power which were traditionally the provence of white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS). Although you could really say the same for any minority group: women and Catholics, for example. Italians were proud when Fiorello La Guardia was elected mayor of New York, Catholics were proud of Al Smith and later JFK, etc., largely because when these men were elected to office, there was a living memory of those ethnic/religious groups being excluded from power.



That report notes that the bump in black turnout was in Southern regions with large black populations - i.e. Blacks who would be inclined to vote Democratic, but who generally may not vote because they live in Republican-dominated areas. So, yes, I would think that there would be a significant increase in black voter turnout in the Deep South, given that a) blacks in this region only got the right to vote within living memory, and b) no black person who grew up in the Deep South in the Jim Crow era could ever imagine that they would live to see the day when a black man would be elected president of the United States. Obama wasn't 'just' a black man they could vote for, he was a black man who had a broad base of support and could plausibly win the election (i.e. he wasn't Al Sharpton, someone running just to raise their media profile).

I still don't get what the issue is with more blacks turning out to elect a black man who was at the top of the ticket for the party they would usually vote for anyway, especially given the political and social history of blacks in the U.S.




Oh, I was assuming that the previous poster was correct about there being a swing. I didn't know the presidential figures, but until recently, WV had two Democrats for their Senators.

The other poster mentioned Appalachia, you specified West Virginia.

From your earlier post

southsiderosie wrote: »

'The only black Republican that would give blacks pause to consider voting GOP is Colin Powell'.

Why would they have given pause to vote for him, because he was black ?

I recall that he was a consideration for Bush's running mate in 2000 and the opinion at the time in the US was that if he was selected then Bush would have won hands down, becasue he would have got a huge black vote because Powell was black.

southsiderosie

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The other poster mentioned Appalachia, you specified West Virginia.

Because WV is an Appalachian state which has reliably sent Democrats to Washington, which is why if there was a true shift to the GOP in 2008 it would have been interesting. But I think the Senate issues are more about political dynasties than anything else, especially given the polling data you posted.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

From your earlier post


Why would they have given pause to vote for him, because he was black ?

I recall that he was a consideration for Bush's running mate in 2000 and the opinion at the time in the US was that if he was selected then Bush would have won hands down, becasue he would have got a huge black vote because Powell was black.

Black and a moderate - that's key. A lot of blacks are actually quite socially conservative, and blacks are over-represented in the military, so Colin Powell is quite respected in the black community. Alan Keyes, who also ran in 2000, had no appreciable effect on black crossover to the GOP. And while some of McCain's staff thought they would get some crossover from disgruntled Hillary voters by putting Palin on the ticket, at the end of the day, policies do matter, even if the identity politics pull is strong.

Yahew

What exactly is wrong with voting by identity anyway? I understand why Irish Americans voted Kennedy, for instance. Inter-marriage and integration possibly means those days are gone - except in Boston South and other enclaves, but the Irish Catholic block was there then

Fr Tod Umptious

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because WV is an Appalachian state which has reliably sent Democrats to Washington, which is why if there was a true shift to the GOP in 2008 it would have been interesting. But I think the Senate issues are more about political dynasties than anything else, especially given the polling data you posted.

But there was no shift to the GOP in the presidential election in 2008, so the assertion that rural poor white voters are in some way less intelligent than black voter is pathetic.

Get yer facts right next time guys

southsiderosie

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But there was no shift to the GOP in the presidential election in 2008, so the assertion that rural poor white voters are in some way less intelligent than black voter is pathetic.

Get yer facts right next time guys

Well, the claim that rural poor white voters have consistently and inexplicably voted against their economic interests isn't new - that was the central thesis of Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?". While the findings of that book are contested, I do find it interesting that poor rural whites - i.e. people who are highly dependent on government social programs - consistently vote for a party that is adamantly anti-government spending (when it comes to social programs anyway).

Fr Tod Umptious

Yahew wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with voting by identity anyway? I understand why Irish Americans voted Kennedy, for instance. Inter-marriage and integration possibly means those days are gone - except in Boston South and other enclaves, but the Irish Catholic block was there then

I have no problem with it, but don't accuse white people of being racist for voting for whites while at the same time applauding black people for having 'ethic pride' or ' political awareness' by voting for blacks.

southsiderosie

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I have no problem with it, but don't accuse white people of being racist for voting for whites while at the same time applauding black people for having 'ethic pride' or ' political awareness' by voting for blacks.

Who said white people were being racist? Pretty much everyone on here bar the ones looking to be insulted have said they understand why people engage in ethnic pride - or perhaps more accurately, identity politics voting - based on the fact that these were previously excluded groups in American society. Hence why the connotations of pro-'white' versus pro-'ethnic' political behavior are so different: one generally is seen as action that is a result of a perceived threat to historic privilege, while the other is seen as action that is a result of historic exclusion.

Yahew

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I have no problem with it, but don't accuse white people of being racist for voting for whites while at the same time applauding black people for having 'ethic pride' or ' political awareness' by voting for blacks.

I would say "tribal" in both cases. I wonder though, given what SouthSideRosie has just said, whether blacks would vote against their economic interests as much as poor whites i.e. would a black republican candidate take votes in such an over-whelming fashion as poor whites vote for Republicans.

Fr Tod Umptious

southsiderosie wrote: »

Who said white people were being racist? Pretty much everyone on here bar the ones looking to be insulted have said they understand why people engage in ethnic pride - or perhaps more accurately, identity politics voting - based on the fact that these were previously excluded groups in American society. Hence why the connotations of pro-'white' versus pro-'ethnic' political behavior are so different: one generally is seen as action that is a result of a perceived threat to historic privilege, while the other is seen as action that is a result of historic exclusion.

Back at the time of the 2008 election there was a lot of hot air being spouted that if the US did not elect Obama then it would prove it was a racist country.
It's was probably on the back off all the US hatred you had at the time because of Bush etc, but since Obama was election.

I counter that the election of Obama proved that the US was racist, ie. blacks turned out in record number to vote for a black candidate.

southsiderosie

Yahew wrote: »

I would say "tribal" in both cases. I wonder though, given what SouthSideRosie has just said, whether blacks would vote against their economic interests as much as poor whites i.e. would a black republican candidate take votes in such an over-whelming fashion as poor whites vote for Republicans.

I don't think it is just economic interests. Blacks have the same problem with the GOP that Latinos are increasingly having: they resent being denigrated in the name of serving up political red meat. Regardless of the situation with local candidates, or even the likability of individual candidates, when the national party apparatus seems ok with presidential candidates continually painting your community as criminals or border hoppers, it is really hard to pull the level for them, even if there is a co-ethnic on the ballot.

On the flip side, in perhaps the most ethnically balkanized city in the U.S. (Chicago), ethnic minorities don't simply vote for candidates because they are co-ethnics, they vote for who serves their interests - hence why many savvy politicians from 'old' ethnic groups (in this case, Irish, Polish and Serbian), have been able to hang onto their seats, despite the fact that the demographics of their wards have shifted dramatically over the last decade.

So I guess the moral of the story is that people do to a certain extent engage in 'tribal' voting...unless you insult the tribe. And if you bring home the bacon - or at least come across as sympathetic - regardless of your ethnicity, I suppose you are one of the family, lol...hence the deep support in the black community for Bill Clinton (the first black president, according to Toni Morrison).

southsiderosie

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Back at the time of the 2008 election there was a lot of hot air being spouted that if the US did not elect Obama then it would prove it was a racist country.
It's was probably on the back off all the US hatred you had at the time because of Bush etc, but since Obama was election.

I counter that the election of Obama proved that the US was racist, ie. blacks turned out in record number to vote for a black candidate.

Well I think both of those sentiments are wrong.

Obama's loss wouldn't have proved that the U.S. was racist, it would have proved that it was conservative. The flip side to that is, his election also does not prove that the US is no longer racist, or is in some way 'post-racial', which a lot of people tried to claim.

Also, I still do not understand how an increase in black turnout for a black democrat somehow proves that the US is racist. I don't think identity politics are necessarily driven by racism, and I highly doubt that just throwing any old black (or Italian or woman or Catholic) on the top of a political ticket automatically will win you support from their peers, especially if that group tends to reliably vote one way or the other. To flip this around a bit, do you really think that Evangelical Christians would defect to the Democrats en masse of one of their own was put on the top of the ticket? Doubtful.

steelcityblues

You are clueless if you don't think a fair percentage voted either for or against Obama, primarily because of his skin colour.

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are clueless if you don't think a fair percentage voted either for or against Obama, primarily because of his skin colour.

My point is, the Obama 'race effect' primarily impacted voters who would have voted for the same party candidate for president anyway. Blacks generally vote Democrat and right-wing racists tend to vote Republican these days (having abandoned the Dems after passage of the Civil Rights Act), if they bother to vote at all. Ultimately, I think we learned that while America isn't as racist as a lot of people (in particular, self-identified liberals) make it out to be, but we aren't in a post-racial world either.

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

My point is, the Obama 'race effect' primarily impacted voters who would have voted for the same party candidate for president anyway. Blacks generally vote Democrat and right-wing racists tend to vote Republican these days (having abandoned the Dems after passage of the Civil Rights Act), if they bother to vote at all. Ultimately, I think we learned that while America isn't as racist as a lot of people (in particular, self-identified liberals) make it out to be, but we aren't in a post-racial world either.

Plenty of vox pops around 2008 interviewed a lot of dimwits who could not give acceptable reasons why they were voting either for Obama or McCain, leading to the obvious conclusions. Still plenty with that mindset in the country, so of course it comes into play when voting.

I'm sure there are racists out there who continue to vote for Democrats, don't be so blinkered there.

Exile 1798

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I counter that the election of Obama proved that the US was racist, ie. blacks turned out in record number to vote for a black candidate.

Your original claim was that 95% of black electors voted for Obama because he was black. I pointed out that 90% of Blacks voted for Gore - a 5% up swing in vote that is rendered even more minor considering the overall swing in whole country towards the Democrats in 08, not to mention that the overall trend of blacks voting Democratic has been steadily upwards across for the past 20 years. So your claim was dubious.

Now you're claiming that because blacks turned out in record numbers in an election in which all Americans - black, white, latino - turned out in record numbers for makes them racist.

So basically, for you not to consider blacks racist for voting for Obama, they would have had to have buck all national trends, not to mention their own group trend and not swung Democratic, and not turned out in record numbers in 08. This is of-course an absurd standard.

And yet, yet - you don't think poor, white, rural Appalchia* bucking all national trends and voting in greater percentages and numbers for McCain then they did for Bush 4 years earlier is motivated by race at all.

*County by county is what I mean. Appalchia is huge and Obama did well in most Appalchian states and especially in the urban centres within those states - however the poorest, whitest and most rural counties, running right down the spine of America defied all national trends.

Exile 1798

matthew8 wrote: »

The poster was basically called white people idiots for swinging towards the republicans, compared to the black geniuses who vote democrat.

I didn't say that, not "basically" or otherwise. And white people as a whole didn't swing towards Republicans in 08.

Attacking strawmen you yourself have set up is of-course a very easy exercise. Not so easy is perhaps addressing someone else's actual argument.

matthew8

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I didn't say that, not "basically" or otherwise. And white people as a whole didn't swing towards Republicans in 08.

Attacking strawmen you yourself have set up is of-course a very easy exercise. Not so easy is perhaps addressing someone else's actual argument.

It's clear what you were saying, that white appalachians don't vote in their interests, and that black people do.

Fr Tod Umptious

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Your original claim was that 95% of black electors voted for Obama because he was black. I pointed out that 90% of Blacks voted for Gore - a 5% up swing in vote that is rendered even more minor considering the overall swing in whole country towards the Democrats in 08, not to mention that the overall trend of blacks voting Democratic has been steadily upwards across for the past 20 years. So your claim was dubious.

Now you're claiming that because blacks turned out in record numbers in an election in which all Americans - black, white, latino - turned out in record numbers for makes them racist.

So basically, for you not to consider blacks racist for voting for Obama, they would have had to have buck all national trends, not to mention their own group trend and not swung Democratic, and not turned out in record numbers in 08. This is of-course an absurd standard.

I have never disputed that blacks vote overwhelming for Dems.

Another poster mentioned that you cannot fault black people for voting for Obama.
I merely suggested that there was also a racist element in blacks voting for Obama, and the almost 5% increases in voter turnout among blacks would indicate to me that some blacks voted for Obama just because he was black.

And if you cared to do a bit of research yourself (or even look at the link I provided on a previous post) you would see the not all Americans turned out in record numbers in 2008.
There was a drop of 1.1% in white turnout and actually a drop of 0.2% in overall turnout, so it was not an election in which all Americans - black, white, latino - turned out in record numbers

Exile 1798 wrote: »

And yet, yet - you don't think poor, white, rural Appalchia* bucking all national trends and voting in greater percentages and numbers for McCain then they did for Bush 4 years earlier is motivated by race at all.

*County by county is what I mean. Appalchia is huge and Obama did well in most Appalchian states and especially in the urban centres within those states - however the poorest, whitest and most rural counties, running right down the spine of America defied all national trends.

You have yet to provide any evidence of this bucking of the national trend.

Another poster supported you on this by referencing WV but that was show to be a bad decision on their part as a quick google search showed that WV did not swing towards the GOP in 2008.

Exile 1798

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

yes you can.

It's racist.

They voted for Obaman beacuse he , like them, is black.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I have never disputed that blacks vote overwhelming for Dems.

Another poster mentioned that you cannot fault black people for voting for Obama.
I merely suggested that there was also a racist element in blacks voting for Obama, and the almost 5% increases in voter turnout among blacks would indicate to me that some blacks voted for Obama just because he was black.

Good, that's progress of sorts. The statement "some blacks voted for Obama just because he was black" is ofcourse both true and completely banal.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And if you cared to do a bit of research yourself (or even look at the link I provided on a previous post) you would see the not all Americans turned out in record numbers in 2008.
There was a drop of 1.1% in white turnout and actually a drop of 0.2% in overall turnout, so it was not an election in which all Americans - black, white, latino - turned out in record numbers

Yes, it was. You are not understanding the data you are reading.

From your link:



http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnicvoters-presidential-election

The white turn out did not drop by 1.1%, it increased by 400 000 from 2004 to a record 100 million. The percentage of white voters fell in the overall electorate fell by 1.1%.