Will Racism Hinder Obama’s Re-Election?

Donald R. Kinder, Washington Post, February 3, 2012

{snip}

In “The End of Race?,” we show that Obama prevailed in 2008 in spite of his race. Obama suffered substantial loss of support among white voters that, race aside, he would have been expected to win—in much the same way that John Kennedy’s Catholicism cost him support among Protestants in 1960. This was so despite the best efforts of the Obama campaign to neutralize race.

By and large, Obama did not talk about race; did not go out of his way to seek the endorsement of prominent black leaders; spent most of his time in front of white audiences; and avoided the rhetoric of racial grievance. Nevertheless, because Obama embodied blackness, race, as David Remnick put it, “was the thing always present, the thing so rarely mentioned.” Inevitably and inescapably, Obama’s presence activated feelings of racial resentment, and this cost him votes.

At the same time, Obama also gained votes by virtue of his race. Turnout among African Americans was up dramatically in 2008, and since African Americans supported Obama nearly unanimously, this produced a rich harvest of votes for the Democrat.

Taking both the loss of support among whites and the gain in support among blacks into account, we calculate that Obama received roughly 5 percentage points less than he would have on account of his race. Obama should have won nearly 59 percent of the vote. His victory over Sen. McCain should have resembled Ronald Reagan’s landslide defeat of Walter Mondale in 1984.

Obama was elected, of course, but his victory had mostly to do with the electorate’s broad unhappiness with the Bush Administration. {snip}

{snip}

What does this analysis say about 2012? First of all, it is conceivable that prejudice will play a smaller role in 2012 than it did in 2008. Obama is better known, and the country did not turn upside down under his leadership.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that prejudice itself has diminished. White voters have not forgotten that the president is black. And the president’s record—on health care or financial regulation or Iraq—supplies the public with justifications for opposition that some voters may use to camouflage resentments that are actually rooted in race. Prejudice will no doubt work against the president in 2012.

A second implication has to do with turnout. In 2008, Obama profited by a surge in voting among African Americans. Will the Obama campaign be able to duplicate this effort in 2012? Perhaps. But it may prove more difficult to mobilize African Americans on behalf of retaining the first black president in office than it was in placing him in office in the first place. From this point of view, Obama may pay an even steeper race penalty in 2012 than he did in 2008.

{snip}

{snip} If Barack Obama’s election in 2008 demonstrates how far we have come as a nation, it also reveals, when examined closely, how far we have yet to go.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Obama was elected, of course, but his victory had mostly to do with the electorate’s broad unhappiness with the Bush Administration.

    That and the fact McCain is nuts. Between calling his wife a c*** in front of reporters and campaigning steadily on a “we need more war platform” he handed Obama the win.

    • That, and he totally wimped out in the face of the race card.  “Took the high road,” all that stuff.  That’s why he was always the media’s darling RINO – he proved many times over, long before the election, that he was more loyal to the media elite than to anyone else.  He chose to lose the election, rather than fight for it.

      • Anonymous

        Well actually he stated quite clearly that he “hates the gooks and will as long as he lives”.  Yet he backed down from playing the race card when Obama was begging for it and it could have been a win.

        McCain is crazy. His forte is apparently insulting his wife in public, he can’t manage to handle a broader audience.

  • Anonymous

    BLACK “FEMALES” MOB BEATS WHITE SERVER RED LOBSTER BREAKS NOSE THROWS DRINK IN FACE BECAUSE WRONG ORDER

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQeyTzq7fVE

  • By and large, Obama did not talk about race; did not go out of his way to seek the endorsement of prominent black leaders

    He didn’t have to.  He had the right natural uniform.

    Taking both the loss of support among whites and the gain in support
    among blacks into account, we calculate that Obama received roughly 5
    percentage points less than he would have on account of his race. Obama
    should have won nearly 59 percent of the vote. His victory over Sen.
    McCain should have resembled Ronald Reagan’s landslide defeat of Walter
    Mondale in 1984.

    Now they’re admitting there was a Bradley Effect, only not enough of one to cost him the election.

    A second implication has to do with turnout. In 2008, Obama profited by a
    surge in voting among African Americans. Will the Obama campaign be
    able to duplicate this effort in 2012? Perhaps. But it may prove more
    difficult to mobilize African Americans on behalf of retaining the first
    black president in office than it was in placing him in office in the
    first place. From this point of view, Obama may pay an even steeper race
    penalty in 2012 than he did in 2008.

    Curiously, the Obama re-elect campaign has started a group called “African Americans for Obama.”  I would think that as redundant as “Fish for Water.”  My only guess is that his number crunchers and pollsters fear that while blacks will vote almost monolithically for Obama this year as they did four years ago, it might not be the ultra-jazzed turnout.  The fear might be that black voters don’t feel the need to elect the first black President in 2012 because they already did it in 2008.  I think those fears are unfounded on their part — I think black turnout will be just as jazzed and as high, a la “once you go black, you can never go back.”  Are black voters just going to sit there and let some pasty generic white Republican take the Presidency away from the first black President?

    • Anonymous

      The black turnout was also in large part because they thought once a black came into power they would all be RICH like ‘dem white folk. Since the ghetto dwellers didn’t miraculously become rich they aren’t likely to bother to vote next time around.

  • So more White Democrats voted against obama just  because he is black than blacks voted for him because he is black? (you have to assume white republicans would have voted against him no matter what) Did they count the guilt-ridden Whites who voted for obama because they did not want to appear racist? The only thing racist about the 2008 election is obama’s  capturing 99% of  the black vote,

  • Whiteman

    “Taking both the loss of support among whites and the gain in support among blacks into account”
    Where does he prove that Obama lost support among whites because of his race, other than by saying Obama should have got 60% of the vote or something? I would hazard a guess many whites voted For Obama because of his race too just as the author claims african americans did.

    • No clue for sure, but my guess is that someone has polling data that closely matches what turned out to be electoral reality, that asked people if instead of Obama-McCain, it were HRC-McCain or maybe Generic White Democrat-McCain, and the data are broken down by race.  And the results are that HRC or GWD vs McCain gets 59% instead of the 53% Obama really got.

      • Anonymous

        The problem with that analytical method of theirs is that it is based on the assumption that white candidates aren’t actually better than black candidates. In real life, you could use any number of non-racial criteria to judge candidates, and the white candidates would still win fairly on those criteria.
        Not that I have anything against people who want a white country to have a white leader just because they are white. That’s entirely reasonable. Every non-white country does that. But white people don’t do that much.

  • Anonymous

    So if Obama loses we already know what the narrative will be.  Cue slavery, Jim Crow, and “hidden white racism” as the reasons for his loss.  Neglected are his history with a church where the black minister decried the US, his comments about working-class whites being “bitter,” or his executive accomplishments that include Obamacare, bailouts, Solyndra, and Libya.

    Does the author not understand that one can claim the reason McCain *lost* was due to black racism?  If McCain would have gotten in black votes what Obama got in white votes–43%–he probably wins N. Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, and maybe Pennsylvania.  A self-defeating argument if I’ve ever seen one, unless the author is willing to decry black racism–something I highly doubt.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve been wondering if we’re going to see a return of Obama’s adopted uncle pastor in this election or if they’ve swept him far enough under the rug this time that he won’t be a problem.

      • Anonymous

        Yes the McCain camp really blew it on that one. When Cheney visited a hunting club that had a confederate flag covering the garage door of one domicile it made national news.

        The Republicans need to understand the phrase “fight to win”.

  • Anonymous

    I’m watching the US Presidential election ufold with interest  – it’s so much more interesting than the politics we have here. Like watching a football match (I hope the winning side is a sensible Republican).

    I have a Question: Does anybody know what Herman Cain’s views were on questions of race and immigration?. I ask this because he is a Republican – and therefore, presumably, possessed of at least some intelligence and sense of living in the real world. I know that PJTV generally supported Cain, but they don’t really dwell on things as Race – at least not the way we do.

    • His immigration plan was called 9-9-9…

      Plain words, he said almost nothing about immigration.  He didn’t need to say anything about race, either, for I could look at him to know what he was all about.  The only reason his candidacy was once taken seriously was because of racial pandering, so would you expect an affirmative action beneficiary to eliminate affirmative action as President?  That goes for almost all other black “Republicans.”

  • “White voters have not forgotten that the president is black.”  That about sums up the LIBERAL MEDIA in a nutshell.  Race is just a social construct UNLESS white people notice it, and this Use of the Eyes, Ears, Nose and Brain can be used against us as proof of our RACISM.  Disregard the fact that McCain/Palin received less than 1.5% of the black vote and Obama who is of course BLACK in the eyes of the Liberal Media, received over 98% of the Black vote.  It would be funny, if not for the fact that you know our entire civilization is being bulldozed into the ground…….

  • Anonymous

    Not only that, but he self-identifies as black, married a black woman, fights almost exclusively for causes that benefit blacks, and attended a racist black church for over 20 years.  Although he may be biologically a mulatto he’s turned his back on his White half completely.

    • Right; a self-hating mulatto.

  • Anonymous

    This is a no win situation for White people. The fact of the matter is, in their eyes there is not a good enough reason for the White man NOT to vote for Obama….. If you don’t vote for him you are a RACIST, and that’s the end of the story. Object to higher taxes…? You don’t really, you’re just a racist. Object to bigger government…? you don’t really, you’re just a racist. Object to Obamacare…? you don’t really, you’re just a racist. Object to ANYthing Obama does…? you don’t really, White people just hate him because he is black and you’re a racist.  Only White Republican candidates…? they don’t really want to be president, they just can’t stand that a black man is, and they’re all racists! It will never end, and their excuses for calling us racists will get more outrageous as the election draws closer.

  • Well, it’s election year so expect a heavy dose of race-baiting again on behalf of Obama along with the “economy is finally turning around” nonsense.

  • Anonymous

    By and large, Obama did not talk about race

    He didn’t have to.  His proxies in the media and on the political left did it for him.  I still recall the almost daily aticles I saw on my internet news feed back in ’08 that asked questions like “Is America too racist to elect Obama”?  Obama is clearly a racist of the “hate Whitey” variety with a chip on his shoulder.  But he’s intelligent enough to try to mask that trait in his public persona. 

    Many, many Whites voted for Obama just because he was black out of White guilt.  (a sort of “reverse Bradley effect” if you will…)  Hopefully many of those will hav gotten the urge to vote for the black guy to prove to themselves they are not “racist” and to whole “making history with the first black president” thing out of their system this time around.

    • Justt say “If you voted for obama last time to show you’re not a racist, vote against him this time to show you’re not an  idiot.”

  • Lets face the facts. Obama is the best friend whites have ever had in America. In his short time in office, Obama has done more to unite whites in this country than anyone in history. For whites to advance and prosper things must get much worse before they get better. For this reason I whole heartedly support Obama in 2012. A re-elected Obama will united whites behind a future candidate that will have the best interests of whites as his first concern. That person is not Mitt Romney.

    • We Whites still have a long way to go Ling….

    • Anonymous

      Most here aren’t going to like this but I thought for a long time if Ron Paul doesn’t get the Republican nod I’m going to vote for Obama, for precisely the reason you stated, Ling.  My own little effort to just quit messing around and push the teetering car over the cliff and get it over with.

      Hear me out now….America in my opinion has passed the tipping point, and that’s less a race thing than it is an out-of-control government thing.  Our dollar is trash, our government is hostile to us, and there’s not a candidate vying for the job even talking about this but Paul. 

      But Obama, he’s like cold water on the sleeping White identity, and without another reelection to worry about we’re going to REALLY see his scales.  It cannot be denied that it’s in our best interest for some White awareness to coalesce and solidify before Bon and QD’s “it” comes to pass.  And “it” WILL HAPPEN, even if Obama packs up and moves in January 2013.  

      Maybe this is how we get a little bit of our collective pride back before the horde drops the pretense that they’re not robbing us blind and just comes straight to our pantries to do it.

      Just mull it over a bit.   

      • Worse is Better doesn’t work on the demographic front, or the judicial nominations front.  We need to stop the browning of America, hold the line on demographics, while giving American-Americans the chance to wake up to what’s going on.

        I like “worse is better” in some areas, but on issues as permanent and important as demographics, no sir.  We need to close the borders, end immigration (legal & illegal), and give Whites some time come to their senses.

    • I’ve thought the matter over, and I want 0bama to lose in 2012.  It’ll be nice to put that down in the history books.  A nice big black eye for their “historic first Black president.”  Elect an R in 2012 and he won’t get his 2nd term, where he’ll have no incentive to please the voters and will really get to stick it to us.  And he won’t get to make any more Supreme Court nominations.

      I think “America woke up after 4 years of this nut and voted him out of office” reads much better than “of COURSE America kissed BRA *** and re-elected the total loser because they were afraid of the race card,” or, “of COURSE America re-elected Dear Leader, he’s perfection on toast and they know it!”

  • Sincerely Concerned

    To me, this article was a slathering of white guilt on top of a mountain of white guilt.  If anything, many people voted for him just BECAUSE he is black in order to “prove” they’re not racist.  This time around, if he loses votes from the white bloc it’s not because of his color.  It’s because he has been a grossly negligent, socialist, money-wasting leader who needs never to be given a high post again in his life.  I also love how the article completely ignores the fact that he is more than happy to talk about race now.  I think he feels invincible which goes to show what an imperialistic and delusional person he is.

    It is hard to tell so far but I wouldn’t be surprised if he is re-elected since the media have done such a magnificent job bashing the Republican candidates.  The buzz among my acquaintances is that they’re voting for Obama, despite saying the opposite just a few months ago.  It doesn’t seem to matter how bad Obama is with this country but if Newt was unfaithful to his wife, well, that gets a vote for Obama.  Never mind Clinton’s infidelity–he was completely untouchable.  Basically, immorality is expected of Dems and absolute purity is expected of Reps.  

    Also, Obama stands a bigger chance of re-election because so many people ARE on the dole now and they love the fact that he keeps extending their benefits.  The brains have been washed. 

    • Anonymous

      Grudgingly, I agree with you. I predict that slick, well-guarded, well-insulated and well- rehearsed cretin and his Amazonian white-hating shrew of a wife will occupy the White House  another 4 years. Lord, I hope I’m wrong.

  • Anonymous

    They never point out in these articles that of the eligible voters, scarcely more than 60 percent turned out, in an election in which the Black vote came out in record-breaking numbers.  And that had far more to do with McCain than Obama.

    Staunch conservatives, you know those gun-and-religion clinging backward ingrates, stayed home rather than hold their nose and vote for McCain.  The bonafide redneck racist hillbillies of which this article tries to evoke images would have voted for anyone this side of Tim Wise to keep Obama out of the White House, but this did not happen.

    Everything that happens to Blacks, win or lose, is in their minds simply because they’re Black, as this is the alpha and omega of their entire identities.  If they score with White women, it’s because they’re better-endowed, as all Black men are (cough).  If rejected, racism. 

    It’s the same if they’re elected president.

  • Anonymous

    “In “The End of Race?,” we show that Obama prevailed in 2008 in spite of his race.”

    Is this a joke or are these people really that clueless? Obama won because of his race.

  • Anonymous

    Whites are racist for not voting for the man because he is black.

    Blacks are not racist for voting for him because he is black.

    “Obama suffered substantial loss of support among white voters that, race aside, he would have been expected to win”. The white voters that he “would have been expected to win” were Democrats since they were, well, Democrats. Ergo, the people who didn’t vote for him because of his race who otherwise would have WERE ALL DEMOCRATS. Where is the extensive media coverage of this fact????

  • Anonymous

    In 1992 Thomas and Mary Edsall published “Chain Reaction: the Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics.” A year earlier they published in the Atlantic an article on the same theme, that unfortunately I cannot find on the internet.
     
    The basic argument of the book and article is that during the late 1960s and the 1970s the Democratic Party lost the dominance it achieved during the New Deal because it accurately became associated with the defense of black interests, and because blacks are accurately associated with social pathology. 
     
    I agree with that argument. Since the Republican Party became the party of the white majority of all income levels the Republican Party has had the wind at its back; the Democratic Party has had the wind in its face. 
     
    Racial politics explains the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994. I cannot think of any other explanation. The unemployment rate was declining. The rate of violent crime, which had increased since 1960, was finally beginning to go down.
     
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
     
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm 
     
    Racial politics explains the election of George W. Bush in 2000 after the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. 
            
    Most Americans lost ground economically during the Bush administration. Bush started two expensive wars he could not win. The 2008 election should not have been close. 
     
    In 2008 the Democratic Party needed a straight arrow. He could have been liberal on economic issues. On culture issues he needed to be someone a white filling station attendant in rural Georgia could feel comfortable with.  The ideal candidate would have been a Southern white combat veteran of humble origins who attended church regularly, and was faithful to his wife. 

    • Anonymous

      OK I feel like a real idiot now for defending you the other day just for you to come out with something like this.

      Except for a small blip during the Clinton years that corresponded with then end of 5 decades of Cold War, the American people have been losing ground economically for 40 years.  It didn’t just start with Reagan or Bush like liberals would have you believe.  The groundwork for the housing bubble was laid during the Clinton administration.  There was very little “peace” during the Clinton years as that man sent US combat units to more places than any president before him.  The Republican sweep in ’94 dragged Clinton kicking and screaming off of the edge of the Red cliff.  The man is nothing but a shrewd politician, perhaps THE shrewd politician.  Nobody is better at reading the tea leaves. 

      I don’t find it shocking in the least that the leftist propaganda penned by a liberal reporter and his wife finds racialist shenanigans behind Democrat electoral losses.  They’ll never entertain that maybe its because their ideas are garbage and the only thing that gets them in office is Republican whiplash, and it never takes the American people very long to remember why they sent the Democrats packing the last time.  You saw this in 2010 and I still believe you’re going to see in in 2012 as well.

      Bill Clinton would never have been president if not for Ross Perot.  He never would have won a second term if the Republicans had a stronger candidate than the cadaver named Bob Dole in ’96.

      Here’s an explanation for the continued Republican success that puzzles you: most Americans don’t care for the barely-cloaked socialist bent of the progressives that control the Democratic party, the people who make no effort to hide their desire to make us more like Europe with their perpetual economic malaise so we can give things away to everyone that doesn’t want to work for them. 

      How did the same country that booted the Democrats for all these racial reasons put a Black Democrat in the White House?  That small fact blows your whole thesis out of the water.  It still takes White support to make things happen in the US.  41 percent of White men and 46 percent of White women voted for Obama, and of the bare majority of Whites that did not it’s far more likely that they didn’t like his politics than his skin.

      You cannot have it both ways, John.  I still would never call you anti-White but I just don’t know how you square your liberalism with your race-realism.  The two things are anathema. 

      • Anonymous

        This_Name_Doesn_Exist,
         
        I fear I will no longer be able to rely on your defense. Pity.
         
        You are correct that most Americans have been losing ground economically for 40 years. The Republican ascendancy which began with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968 has made it difficult for the Democratic Party to address this.
         
        Nevertheless, during the Clinton administration an average of 2,900,000 jobs were created per year. That was more than the 2,000,000 created under Ronald Reagan. It was far more than the 375,000 created under George W. Bush.
         
        http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
         
        When Bill Clinton was president unemployment declined from 7.3 percent to 3.9 percent.
         
        http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt  
         
        My race realism consists of a belief that racial differences in average intelligence and typical behavior are primarily due to genetic differences. I believe these can be explained in terms of different population pressures during the past 10,000 years.
         
        The evolution of racial differences is plausibly explained in “The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution,” by  Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending.
         
        http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/05/index.html 
         
        My liberalism includes pessimism about human nature, and human potential, as well as a certain amount of respect for tradition. 

        • Anonymous

          Liberalism is respect for tradition….ok whatever you say guy. 

          The reason it’s difficult for the Democrats to address the economic malaise is because they can’t without pointing out their century of wars, New Deal and Great Society have been the biggest offenders.  The liberal academics who are the only ones asked for their opinions routinely name the base defilers Wilson, FDR and Johnson as some of the greatest presidents of our history.  The only things they were great at were warmongering, consolidating power at the federal level and spending other people’s money.  They’d rate Wilson higher were he not a horrible Southern racist.

          The scumbag Nixon killed the gold standard and opened the door for our jobs to be shipped to China.  But all the average liberal can tell you about Nixon is Watergate.  I bet most of them blame him for the Vietnam War. 

          As far as jobs are concerned, yes Clinton reaped all the rewards and none of the consequences of the Greenspan easy-money policy and end of “redlining” that were the beginning of the housing bubble.  He also happened to be president during the greatest period of productivity gain in history with the first widespread availability of the personal computer.  He also happened to be president at the end of five decades of Cold War and opening of Eastern European economies that had stagnated under 50 years or more of communism.  Bill Clinton was far more lucky than he was effective.

          The only thing government can do to create jobs is get out of the way.  Private investment and unemployment have an inverse relationship.  Clinton signed a number of pieces from Congress that made it easier for capital to flow.  They were not his ideas and without the Republican sweep in ’94 would never have happened.

          You have nothing to say about the Democrat warmongers of the 20th century from Wilson to Clinton.  It’s not enough to post the numbers John, you have to understand the circumstances behind them.

          • Anonymous

            I do not regret American participation in the Second World War and the Korean War. 

            The Geneva Agreement of 1954 ended the war between the French and the Vietminh. It scheduled elections to be held in July 1956 to unify Vietnam, forbade the entry of foreign troops into Vietnam, and the creation of foreign bases there. 
             
            http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954-geneva-indochina.html
             
            The United States refused to sign and honor that agreement because President Eisenhower knew that as many as eighty percent of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh.
             
            http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm
             
            When President Eisenhower made that decision he guaranteed there would be a war in Vietnam during the 1960s.  John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson escalated the conflict because they feared a Republican backlash if they did not.

          • Anonymous

            We’ll have to just agree to disagree on WWII and Korea.  Between the two of us we’d probably have to start a new website to hash that one out.

            I don’t dispute anything here, except your last bit.
             
            Kennedy’s experience with Cuban intervention left a sour taste in his mouth and he was trying to get out of Vietnam.  Many think that’s what earned him acute lead poisoning (shamelessly stole that from someone here).
             
            Note that Lyndon Johnson, Bell Helicopters, and General Dynamics all hail from Texas.  The same Bell Helicopters that built the 7500 Huey helicopters that flew in Vietnam and an additional 1100 Cobra helicopters during the same period, and the same General Dynamics that built the F-111 Aardvark that got its baptism of fire there in early 1968.
             
            But you claim Johnson had no choice.  That’s just patently false.  He carried water for his benefactors, as all politicians do, Democrat or Republican. 

          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            Excellent comment! (especially the line about Wilson) –yeah, no kidding.

            And you remembered to include the FACT that Clinton happened to be president during the high tech boom — of course, he took full credit for it, shamelessly.

            I have been in many discussions as to WHO was THE worst president ever — LBJ? Nixon? FDR?  ALL are in the running!!  

            But Wilson–WILSON, he may arguably be THE worst. 

            Wilson won the presidential election by promising to keep us out of the war in Europe — while scheming to get us involved. (Ditto FDR).  The Lusitania False Flag gave him the excuse he needed. (Ditto Pearl Harbor for FDR and The Gulf of Tonkin for LBJ).  Wilson was also responsible for signing the Federal Reserve Act, the results of which we are paying for today.

            Millions of people died in Wilson’s war to “make the world safe for democracy.”   We can thank Wilson for the League of Nations, which lead directly to the odious United Nations.

            But, most of all, you can thank Wilson for introducing the progressive income tax, a plank straight from the Communist Manifesto.Bon

          • People talk about Woodrow Wilson’s “racism.”  Maybe he was, and maybe he did re-segregate a lunch room in D.C. after Teddy Roosevelt desegregated it, or something like that.  But most of the rest of his actions were indicative of a globalist-universalist attitude.

            Many more white people died because Wilson intervened on Britain’s side in WWI.  If he didn’t, the Allies and the Centrals would have eventually negotiated a truce, Germany wouldn’t have been saddled with crippling reparations, its economy wouldn’t have gone into the toilet, no Hitler, no WWII, no Holocaust.

    • Anonymous

      Great link.  My god, I didn’t realize we had gone over 300 million in the US.

      Maybe crime rates are going down because:

      1.  Technology, cell phones and security cameras, leading to number 2.
      2.  A lot of bad people are locked up
      3.  Police agencies lie (in my opinion) about crime rates in their areas to make themselves look better than they really are.

  • Anonymous

    Isn’t it infuriating? I’ve argued with enough liberals about Obama’s policies, and made my points very well as to why I object to them, yet in the end I’m ALWAYS called a racist. Even life long staunch Rebuplicans are somehow racists if they don’t switch sides and vote for Obama. I’ve seen some of the most outrageous accusations from liberals, it really does lead me to believe they are mentally ill.

    • Anonymous

      I get much the same as well.
       
      When you approach politics as a matter of faith rather than reason, it’s easier to claim that people like you, Alexandra, and myself are the problem rather than accept that your policies that have failed everywhere they’ve been tried are the problem.
       
      Liberalism is a secular religion, it’s for people that feel and believe rather than think and reason.  Obama has made it easier than ever for liberals to ignore their failure by giving them the racist brush they can use to tar anyone who disagrees with their policies; to safely label and then disregard them as kooks.

      • Anonymous

        Liberalism is a secular religion, it’s for people that feel and believe rather than think and reason. 

        That is a perfect description for liberals. They always argue with emotion rather than logic. I guess there is a reason for the term “bleeding heart liberal” after all.

    • Fight fire with fire.  When people call you a racist, fling the charge back at them.  If you can’t make it stick, you’re probably too much of a newb to be arguing with liberals.  The definition of racism has become so broad, and so vague, that everyone is guilty.  Hint: AA is racist, blaming Whites for “Black failure” is racist, accusing Whites generally of systemic unconscious racism is racist, hurling “White privilege” at Whites is racist, etc.

  • Anonymous

    If Obama loses (and considering the Republican challengers, that’s not a sure thing), it will be attributed to racism.

    If he loses, the conspiracy theories will proliferate like mushrooms in a pasture of cows after a spring rain. Blacks won’t take the loss of their first black president lightly. If there aren’t racuse confrontations, I will be surprised.

  • “…the country did not turn upside-down under his leadership…”

    ROFLMAO

    Best joke I’ve heard all week.

  • In “The End of Race?,” we show that Obama prevailed in 2008 in spite of
    his race. Obama suffered substantial loss of support among white voters
    that, race aside, he would have been expected to win—in much the same
    way that John Kennedy’s Catholicism cost him support among Protestants
    in 1960. This was so despite the best efforts of the Obama campaign to
    neutralize race.

    One of the positives of Obama’s election has been how it’s compelled the left to show its utter dishonesty.  According to them, his half-Black nobody from nowhere should have won as many White voters as more qualified White Democrat candidates, and the fact that he didn’t proves American-Americans are “racist.”

    “He won in spite of his race.”  “He suffered” because of his race.  Never mind that his half-Blackness is the only reason non-White voters all jumped into the tank for him, the only reason he got the nomination, etc.

    Leftists act like nobody actually listens to what they say or reads what they put into print, or remembers anything.  They’re embarrassing themselves, exposing themselves, and there are a great many American-Americans who will never let them live this down.

  • He looks mulatto to me.

    • Then there’s that tricky question of how much is back African blood and how much is Arab blood….

  • Fling it back at her: “mom, sorry to say, but you’re the racist.  You’ve convinced yourself no one could possibly dislike Obama – a nobody from nowhere – unless they’re motivated by racism; in other words, you’re a racist.  Pull the beam from your own eye, mom.  By the way, only a racist could vote Democrat in the 21st century.”

  • madd mike

    Well, I got past the first line and say, pfft. This administration has used race for everyone who does not agree! New voting laws requiring a photo I’d, racist, looking into 2000 guns going illegally into Mexico and killing at least one American and at least 200 Mexicans, racist. Should I continue? What a crock! Now I’ll finish the article, if I can stomach it.

  • madd mike

    Don’t forget the voter intimidation in Philly, voter fraud, and dead ppl voting. Some of which was recorded and should have been prosecuted, but Holder swept under the non racial rug.

  • “…the loss of support among whites and the gain in support among blacks…” 

    Re the above quote” I think they forgot something. :Like the fact that obama gained many thousands more votes from whites than he lost. let’s take THAT figure and then add in the black votes….suddenly, it doesn’t come out even anymore, does it? Now he definitely gains, and big, from his skin color.  Pretty sloppy thinking for a supposedly acclaimed newspaper…but typical. 

    (And tho’ it’s hard, I won’t go into the part about his not playing up his race…)

  • Before “let there be light,” there was nothing.

  • His formative years were spent in muslim Indonesia, actually the largest muslim country in the world (altho’ obama once tried, in a roundabout way, to suggest it might bbe America). He does not share the American black or the American black experience. He was formed by the Third World, Muslim experience.

  • jeffaral

    People forget who the real anti-White racists are:  Richard Nixon was the one who enforced school busing to destroy White children, while Ronald Reagan granted citizenship to millions of illegals.  If Romney is elected he will in a eyelash batting legalize plus twenty million Mexicans.

    • Zorro

      Vote for Ron Paul and he will end the Unconstitutional Departments and Agencies, stop foreign aid, end foreign entanglements, and stop all the funding to the States that prop up the Illegal Aliens and their “culture” in Schools, etc.

      Most States would benefit right away, by enacting laws that are similar to that of Arizona and Alabama, where Police Officers can ask to establish the Citizenship of those people they stop for traffic violations.

      It would be nice to have our Constitution back again.

  • Anonymous

    In reply to This_Name_Does_Not_Exist, you are correct in your assessment of the Vietnam war being largely influenced by the “military-indistrial establishment” that Eisenhower warned us about.  Take it a step further . . . In Vietnam, there was a consortium of civil engineering firms, RMK-BRJ which handles large projects within Vietnam.  The RMK was “Robertson-Morrison-Knudsen”  Robertson was Pat Robertson’s daddy, the politician.  The BRJ was “Brown-Root-Johnson” Yes THAT lyndon johnson . . . war is indeed “big business” and “business is good”.
    Best regards

    • Anonymous

      That’s just disgusting.  I don’t see how it’s possible for politicians to profit directly from wars over which they preside.  Well I guess it comes down to, who’s going to stop them?
       
      Must point out that I learn things every day from the so-called backward, low-IQ people here that according to so much liberal scholarship are the only ones that could espouse conservative, race-realist views.

  • Anonymous

    He is not white.  End of story.

  • Funny you should mention
    the “teacher” angle SC. Both my father and stepmother are retired
    teachers in So Cal. They both gleefully voted for Obama! They even went so far
    as to put one of those maddening Obama / Bidden stickers on a refrigerator in
    the garage. When I first saw it, I was furious and wanted to rip it off
    immediately!  Suffice to say, there has
    been plenty of “lively” debate over the past few years when he get
    together as a family. In the beginning, (although they never said it outright)
    there defense of Obama included hints that the reason I (and many others) did
    not like Obama was that I was a “racist.” My stepmother is such a
    liberal that I cannot discuss anything political with her without losing it.
    She simply lives in a world of denial, surrounded by the mantra “hope and
    change.”

    If there were a positive aspect,
    it would have to be the last time I went over to the house, the Obama / Biden
    sticker was removed from the refrigerator! Even the most hardened Democrat
    liberal cannot deny what a disaster Obama is for this country and White
    Americans.

  • Anonymous

    [In 2008, Obama profited by a surge in voting among African Americans.]

    What a mendacious piece! Maybe Obama didn’t get more White votes because so many Whites were delirious and fainted and thus couldn’t pull the lever.

  • Will racism be an obstacle for Obama in the upcoming election? I think so; his racism- his malice towards White Americans which form a main pillar of his executive policy- has alienated him from quite a large part of the White population which had supported him in ’08.

    B.H.O. and the Democrats are not fools though. They understand that their anti-white and anti-producer class(-es) platform make it prudent to simply abandon the White working-class and focus increasing attention to mobilizing the major non-white voting blocks to the maximum extent possible. Expect to see them put vigorous effort into increasing the Black voter turnout by 25-50% and the poor Hispanic vote by similar levels- by shady means, if need be. I further predict an effort to bring Asians and East-Indians more strongly into the Democrat fold.

    The Dems suspect that they can maintain the support of “college educated” whites (i.e., the brainwashed and the ideologically-committed) and white immigrants for the next several election cycles before White Americans start voting as a block. By then though the non-white vote will have swelled.

  • To Everyone here:
     Regardless how you view him, Obama is going to get re-elected again, possibly by a landslide.
    The reason for this prediction is because his opponents are quite inept if i say so myself. Sorry
    but true. Have a good evening.