Racism by Political Party

 It is undeniably the case that racist Americans are almost entirely in one political coalition and not the other.

Chris Hayes, Up w/ Chris Hayes, August 18, 2012.

Here is data asking whites the question Do you Favor Laws Against Interracial Marriage (this is from 2002, the latest year available for this question).

Favor Laws Against Interracial Marriage
Democrat Ind Repub Other TOTAL
YES 11.9 9.6 11.5 5 10.8
NO 88.1 90.4 88.5 95 89.2


Here is data asking whites whether they agree with the sentiment that Blacks Shouldn’t be Pushy.

Blacks Shouldn’t Be Pushy
Democrat Ind Republican
AGREE STRONGLY 14.9 14.2 15.8
AGREE SLIGHTLY 20.4 20.6 26.6
DISAGREE STRONGLY 34.5 37.2 31.7


Finally from 2008 here is data asking whites whether they would vote for a black for President.  (Row: racpres, column partyid, filter: race(1) year(2008)).

Would Vote for Black President
YES 92.4 94 93.9 94.7
No 7.6 6 6.1 5.3


It is true that there are more differences across party lines on policy questions such as on affirmative action, again with a mix in both parties but with more Republicans than Democrats opposing. I don’t consider these types of policy preferences to be grounds for calling someone a racist, however.

It is undeniable that some Americans are racist but racists split about evenly across the parties. No party has a monopoly on racists.

Addendum: John SidesReihan Salam and Razib Khan offer further comment.


It seems to me that the people who want to discriminate against Asians in things like college admissions are the racists, but what do I know.

Since you mentioned college admissions, there's very interesting (race-neutral) trends in that data-set that might make for a good (expensive?) argument in favor of why we need to subsidize more higher education:

e.g. Here are some plots about how views change (drastically) with education.




Is it education or IQ?

The implication that only whites can be racist or that only racism against blacks is bad is a pretty common trope.

Proponents of race-based preferences enjoy the ad hominem of branding those opposed to AA as bitter white folk, but AA effectively subsidizes the under-achievement of blacks by punishing the success of Asians when it comes to college admissions and white-collar jobs. Whites are less afflicted. For blue collar jobs, however, it is indeed whites that bear the brunt of racial preferences.

It sucks so bad to be white in this country. Thanks for keeping us informed on that, so often.

your logic has devastated Miley's argument. Bravo!

Because pointing out one inequality that hurts whites is exactly the same as saying it "sux 2 B white".

There are very few overt racists these days.

Indeed, survey responses are probably among the worst ways to measure the truth of this matter. Racism in America today is a very complex topic, and many people don't have the emotional awareness or an adequate lexicon to understand or express their feelings about the subject. Most people I know, regardless of their political persuasion, believe that a predominantly black neighborhood is less safe than a predominantly white one, but I don't believe any of them would say so on a survey.

That said, I took Chris Hayes's comment to be less about generic racism and more about a specific flavor of racism that delegitimizes non-whites' claims to economic or political power. I have a strong bias towards data and evidence, but there are times when you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Many people don't have an adequate lexicon to discuss racism? WTF are rou talking about?

I think you just proved his point. :-/

Excellent play, Tummler. Excellent play.

Most people I know, regardless of their political persuasion, believe that a predominantly black neighborhood is less safe than a predominantly white one, but I don’t believe any of them would say so on a survey.

Does it make one racist to believe that? Does it matter if that belief is true?

Why would thinking one neighborhood is more dangerous than another be racist (regardless of the race of the occupants)? It could only be so if the 'black'' neighborhood were in fact not as dangerous as the 'predominately white' one, is that the case? If not, they are simply observing that the fact is that one neighborhood is not as safe as another, and I don't think any sane person denies that it's so.

Most people aren't afraid of blacks in suits carrying bibles walking down the street, they're afraid of blacks in gang inspired fashions walking down the street. Perhaps we ought to get on the fashion industry for promoting gang inspired fashion as it perpetuates supposedly racist fears.

Your notion that racism now is 'subconscious' is another of these silly tropes thought up by university sociology professors looking for study grants and activists looking for a grievance claim.

As an aside, I wonder if by some intervention one succeeds in converting an overt racist into a covert racist. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

That's actually the story of progress. Overt racism is a pretty rare these days compared to the past, but I would think there's almost as many racists they are just more quiet about it.

Anything covert that people think deep down takes decades if not centuries to change.

Nonsense. People don't live for centuries. These things can be overcome within a single generation.

Montaigne's Travel Journal was written in 1580, but the national characters he describes, of the Italians and the Swiss, seem accurate today. Why is that?

And most of the ones who are left are clustered in academia pushing Affirmative Action programs.

Some day justice will be done in the admissions offices as it was done on the buses and lunch counters of old. The last bastion of institutional racism, Affirmative Action, will inevitably fall.

Paul Sniderman and others showed long ago that racism was more prevalent on the left than on the right.


Support for voter ID laws is probably a better proxy.

In every organization that I am aware of, one has to be a member in order to vote. Why shouldn't we be required to verify our membership as US citizens in order to vote? It's actually quite simple to do. How is this racist?

There are 10 documented cases of in-person fraud in the US since the year 2000. It is not rational to solve that "problem" with a massive and expensive new initiative. So it must either be racism or rank opportunism.

There is no evidence of either. The only opportunism I see is Democrats continuing to call Republicans racist for absolutely zero reason.

Explain the cost/benefit analysis which supports voter ID as a rational, and non-discriminatory, plan. Do not neglect that it is all to fix 10 cases, nationally, over 10 years.

You are lying. There were hundreds of illegally cast votes in the Minnesota election that the Democrats stole fro Al Franken.

Voter fraud is a rampant problem. Only liars and thieves claim otherwise. Oh, and Democrats (but I repeat myself).

I provided a link, a study, showing 10 cases. A "lie" would be something I made up.

We make no effort to look for voter fraud and we find virtually none. Big surprise. Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if P(evidence | existence) is high. In this case, P(evidence | existence) is close to zero.

Similarly, if we stopped investigating securities fraud and relaxed auditing requirements, the number of documented cases of securities fraud would go way down. Should we shut down the SEC since securities fraud isn't a real problem?

People report far more than 1 per year cases (nationally) to the SEC for investigation. There is much more of a smoking gun there, making that a false comparison.

@Chris Stucchio

Assuming voter fraud is really a concern how come there aren't more studies to drive up the P(evidence | existence) number.

I'd especially expect more conservative funding since from the comments it seems clear that if fraud does exist it seems to be a Democrat favoring phenomenon.

...and how many undocumented cases?

Is there a link that shows how many voters don't have an suitable ID for voting?

So how about advocating for better investigations into potential voter fraud? Probably a fairer solution than telling people they aren't citizen enough to exercise one of their most fundamental rights, because they don't have the right ID.

I'll call your 10meeting documented cases and raise you 117 convictions ( http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163)

Is this not voter fraud?

Think about it, Sport. Your "study" necessarily underreports the problem. First, in any election where voter ID is required, fraudulent voters are extremely unlikely to show up thus under-representing the faction of voters who attempt or would attempt to vote fraudulently. Second, and more importantly, in elections where voter ID is not required, there's virtually no way to verify that the fraudulent voter voted fraudulently, thus underreporting virtually all of the actual fraudulent voters. Besides, requiring voter ID would NOT require some new initiative that would be either massive or expensive. The overwhelming majority of voters already have a state issued driver's license. The remainder could easily submit the same documentation required to get a driver's license and obtain a picture ID that virtually every state's driver's license offices provide.

Only 10 documented cases?

Dead people voting.
Unenfranchised felons voting
104% voter turnout on Indian reservations
Voting in multiple states
Voting in multiple precincts
Voting on behalf of homeless people

How about millions of undocumented cases over the last 200 year's?

What is the cost of someone getting an ID? In the most expensive state, it's less than a penny a day. In most states it is virtually free, and those people supposedly "too poor" to afford an ID for voting have no problem producing ID for government benefits.

The benefit is jealously guarding the ballot boxes - the keys to our democracy. With secret balloting, once a ballot is in the pile, it is impossible to remove it once illegal voters are identified later.

There are few "documented" cases because people like you have no interest in looking for them.

There is widespread fraud in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, foodststamps, and every other social benefit, but ballot boxes? No, everyone is perfectly above board on that. Nobody would ever try to vote illegally. Why would they?

Your disingenuous "in-person" qualifier marks you as a mendacious partisan that will not debate the facts...you resort to omissions and straw men to make your facile, false points. MR mostly leftist readers will likely appreciate the tactic, but it is still just that: a thoroughly dishonest ploy. Pfft.


The (partisan) link claims that a those people convicted did it knowingly, but I wasn't able to find any independent verification of that fact.

Either way it's irrelevant since even if the link is accurate those felons registered as themselves and voted as themselves, and if they had a government issued ID, they still would have registered as themselves and voted as themselves. The voter ID law would have done nothing.

It's also worthwhile noting that there are court documents where Republicans admit that they have no evidence of impersonation fraud. And Republicans have a very well established record of voter suppression including felon lists that disenfranchise a lot of people with false positives, restrictions on registration drives, removing advance polling when it's used mostly by minorities, etc.

@Chris Stucchio

Then they should find some evidence before writing laws making it harder for people to vote.

@Mike M

The most common government photo ID is a drivers license, therefore the people most likely to lack a license is people who don't drive, ie urban minorities. There is a clear burden being added to these voters.

I don't claim this to be racist, merely very cynical. A certain subset of the population, that correlates strongly with race, votes predominantly Democrat, therefore the Republicans are doing everything they can to make it harder for that population to vote. Maybe the Democrats would do the same if they had the opportunity, but they don't and they aren't.

The thought that deliberate impersonation voter fraud is happening is ludicrous. You really think some felon or illegal so badly wants to sway the election by 0% that they're willing to commit a felony?

@Aaron Luchko: They were convicted. This means that it was found, in a court trial, that these individuals knowingly misrepresented the fact that they were eligible to vote. Partisan or not, 117 convictions is hardly something that can be swept under the rug.

Plus it's better to not undermine your own argument. Why worry about false positives on felon lists when showing a legitimate ID will clear up any sort of confusion about you being a felon!

In related news, the US AG found no cases of criminal wrongdoing amoungst any of his friends running the big banks in relation to the economic bubble in 2009. Additionally, the former governor of New Jersey was fund by the US AG to be blameless for the loss of almost $1 Billion of investor funds.
It's hard for a report to be objective if you don't know the objective.

Some people above don't like the "10 documented cases of in-person fraud" number, and think we should look at something else. It was my impression that voter ID only corrected "in-person" fraud, making that the most applicable measurement.

Because the demonstrated, practical effect will be disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of minority voters, while doing literally nothing to improve the integrity of elections. This is in a country that has a very long and accomplished history of finding ways to suppress the votes of minorities. And, you know, it's not like the people engineering these laws have even been that vigorous about denying what they're up to.

By the way, one does in fact have to be a "member" of the US to vote in our elections, and current enforcement mechanisms are working splendidly. Given libertarian objections to overweening and burdensome regulations, I'm sure you're in favor of maintaining the effective status quo, right?

It's "burdensome" to have a photo ID, really?

"There are 10 documented cases of in-person fraud in the US since the year 2000"

Not finding is not a justification to not start looking. So, my question would be are we looking?

Please propose some ways we can have actual vote legitimacy without that ideal being racist.

I already have. You vote on-line (or not). You get a unique ID #. The votes are hard-copied. Everyone can check their vote at the polling place via their unique ID #.

This "voting DAY" concept is pretty anachronistic.

Isn't most documented fraud with absentee ballots? (link) Why don't you start there, if you are fraud-oriented?

@maguro It’s definitely “burdensome” if you have to go get a copy of your birth certificate first, which many ID-less people must. And then there is the cost issue. How many millions should we spend making IDs to solve a non-problem? It's funny, because the people who are pro-ID are also commonly anti-waste.

Personally, I am utterly disgusted at people who are so cavalier with the democratic process that they would open the gates for any fraud whatsoever. Since democratic elections are the basis and justification of the current form of government, it should be the number one priority to make sure that they are entirely legitimate. 10 invalid votes in 12 years is 10 invalid elections. Accepting that as OK is like accepting politicians lying as OK. It is despicable, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

"Isn’t most documented fraud with absentee ballots? (link) Why don’t you start there, if you are fraud-oriented?"

Yeah, I can fix that too. But my first question is whether more fraud shows up there because we are already looking harder there assuming it is easier because it doesn't require a physical presence at the voting booth?

I can't speak for Republican operatives, but when you ask the typical person if they think it is reasonable to ask for ID in a setting where people are already required to ID themselves (would you suggest we stop checking people off the name list?) I think most people think that is reasonable and not racist.

Now the left yells "racist" and opposes it, which makes the right push harder because it makes the left look like they are full of crap to some moderates. Now the left pushes harder because they think it makes the right look like racists to other moderates.

@john persona - Ordering a replacement birth certificate isn't what I would call "burdensome", and I've done it myself. As for the cost, how many legitimate voters are there out there without any kind of photo ID? There can't be all that many. Without ID, you can't do much of anything these days - hold a job, collect welfare benefits, drive a car or motorcycle, buy beer or cigarettes, use a credit card, get into an Obama campaign rally, etc. I have to think that the number of US citizens living a photo ID-free lifestyle these days is vanishingly small.

As for the cost, how many legitimate voters are there out there without any kind of photo ID? There can’t be all that many.

Because you say so?

Personally, I am utterly disgusted at people who are so cavalier with the democratic process that they would open the gates for any fraud whatsoever. Since democratic elections are the basis and justification of the current form of government, it should be the number one priority to make sure that they are entirely legitimate. 10 invalid votes in 12 years is 10 invalid elections.

Ridiculous. Are you familiar with the terms false positive and false negative? Suppose there are zero cases of ID fraud in an election, which is pretty common, but some legitimate voters are prevented from voting by various means. That's OK with you?

Not finding is not a justification to not start looking. So, my question would be are we looking?

Well, the PA GOP couldn't find a single case. And sometimes when you don't find any, it's because there aren't any.

And leaving ID fraud aside, how about taking steps, as is being done in Ohio, to restrict voting hours much more tightly in urban areas than in the suburbs? If that's not voter suppression what is it?

Re: It’s “burdensome” to have a photo ID, really?

Depends on the ID. It's any sort of photo ID, that's OK.But if it's limited only to drivers licenses and passports that can be a burden for people sue to the RealID Act, under which as something like 10%of the population will not qualify for a drivers license without jumping through a large and expensive number of bureaucratic hoops. I'm OK with Voter ID in principle-- as long as those IDs are not hard to get. So either repeal RealID, or find another work around, like maybe taking people pictures and sticking them on their voters cards when they register.

Look, I understand the harmful effects of asking for I.D are likely to fall on minority voters. And I understand that when people think "voter fraud" they don't think blue eyed Aryans. But just because something disproportionally affects minorities does not mean that it is a bad idea. Laws against murder disproportionally cause minorities to get locked up, but that does not mean that laws against murder are bad. Rather, there are other problems and causes of problems that need to be addressed.

Second, you have two different standards of evidence. You say it is demonstrated that hundreds of thousands of minority voters will be disenfranchises. But as far as I know, the evidence for that is more flimsy then the idea that there is lots of voter fraud going on. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Having said all that, I am not convinced that required voter I.D is worth doing. On one hand, it is a little ridiculous that I have to show more I.D if I want to buy beer than I do to vote. On the other hand, I know very well how effective the requirement to show I.D. is when it comes to keeping kids from getting beer. I believe that voter fraud is rampant in some areas based on a variety of evidence (including first hand testimony of what goes on in Philadelphia). But I think that voter fraud usually happens because a particular party machine is corrupt. In such a case, I don't think that better voter identification is really going to fix anything.

But arguments like "supporting voter I.D requirements is a good proxy for racism" just makes me want to support voter I.D. requirements. It is a rank attempt at slandering your intellectual opponents.

Without ID, you can’t do much of anything these days – hold a job, collect welfare benefits, drive a car or motorcycle, buy beer or cigarettes, use a credit card,

Some people are retired, or may have never worked for an employer who checked. Not everyone drives. You can buy beer or cigarettes most places if you look old enough (and lots of other places if your money is green), and it's trivial to both get and use a credit card without any sort of ID.

These ludicrously bad arguments in favor of voter ID laws mostly make me think, Jesus, can we drop the pretense that this isn't primarily about race? At least this guy is up-front about it:

“I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine…Let’s be fair and reasonable.”

–Doug Preisse, chairman of the [Franklin] county Republican Party and elections board member who voted against weekend hours, in an email to The Dispatch.

Pretty laughable to say it's about race when obviously it's about party. All the people saying it is somehow racist are the racist ones- they are saying minorities are incapable of getting photo IDs!

Are you assuming that minorities don't carry an ID? Or that every white person has an ID? Where did that stereotype come from?

Low-income people are less likely to have state-issued ID. Minority low-income people are twice as unlikely.

Here's a survey conducted in 2006: http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

Among the survey's findings:
Eighteen percent of American citizens age 65 and above do not have current government-issued
photo ID

Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no
current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age

ten percent of voting-age citizens who have current photo ID do not have photo ID with both their current address and their current legal name

Not at all. I'm in favor of voter ID laws, but that's because I want to lessen the electoral influence of the _poor_. Their skin color is utterly irrelevant, "Panem et Circensus" is not.

You don't get that right, honey. We are equal, in case you are unfamiliar with founding documents and current jurisprudence of our country.

I'm for keeping a-holes from voting, but the Constitution and laws of the US indicate every citizen gets to vote. Looks you get to vote this November

Didn't founding documents limit voting to white, land-holding men?

By your own logic, voter ID laws would not make a good proxy for non-overt (concealed?) racism. For sake of argument, let's say that the studies you mention make a strong case that voter ID laws have a disproportionate (discouraging) effect on African-American voter turnout. If that were the case, hardcore GOP partisans might wish to promote such laws whether they were hidden racists or not. If the presence of a dependent variable (support for voter ID laws) can signify multiple independent variables (GOP partisanship, hidden racism, etc.), it's not a very good proxy for just one of those variables.

People have believed a lot of things were not possible because of race. Flying a fighter plane, winning the 100m sprint, winning a Presidential election. The doubters were all proven wrong. Their outmoded beliefs are self-evidently racist.

In modern America anyone can get an ID if they're willing to make the effort. I passed a driver's test to get mine, but not everyone has to be an overachiever like me. A trip to a government office, a little bit of paperwork, and anyone regardless of race can get an ID. To believe some people because of their race are incapable of that is self-evidently racist.

Race-based opposition to voter ID laws, then, would be the true proxy for racism.

What drivel. Why in the world should supporting voter id, to help prevent vote fraud, be racist. In fact, since no person can really be properly integrated into modern society unless they have an id (how do you cash a check, travel, get a beer, enter many public offices, etc, without one), and voterid laws all offer a way for a person without an id to get one for free, I would consider that to be a big help to the poor.

Sniderman in 1991 was not the end of the story on that topic. What he showed long ago didn't settle the issue.

Try sorting the results by liberal/conservative, rather than party identification (White Southern Democrats, perhaps?). The trend there is quite clear.

Also, there's no ambiguity in the relationship if you look at "black" or "other", whether by party or by lib/con.

A little late for cherry picking season in Virginia, isn't it?

The numbers, for those who can't bother looking for themselves:

Agree with Don't be pushy (whites):

Liberal: 28.3
Moderate: 42.3
Conservative: 44

Against Interracial Marriage (whites)

Liberal: 7.7
Moderate: 9.8
Conservative: 13.1

Other, Party Numbers (Ideology Numbers)


Democrat (Liberal): 37.6 (36.6)
Independent (Moderate): 40.4 (37.1)
Republican (Conservative): 51.9 (48.2)


Dem (Lib): 5 (4.2)
Indep (Mod): 3.3 (4.9)
Repub (Con): 14.8 (10.1)

Finally, the numbers for white southerners, as a hypothetical explanation for the discrepancy in numbers for whites nationally by party:


South Atlantic: 14.1
East South Central: 33.1
West South Central: 11.4
Total: 10.8


South Atlantic: 49.3
East South Central: 58.4
West South Central: 42.1
Total: 39.7

Well, apparently 36.6 percent of liberals don't like pushy blacks, and 4.2 percent are against interracial marriage.

Talk about your big tent.

I'm confused... does "other" exclude black people? So you're saying the racist democrats are all black?

Why would you infer that?

Black is a third category. If you want the numbers you can look them up yourself. Whatever happened to good old conservative self-reliance?

The trend is the same as the "other" group, but the magnitudes are lower across the board. I have no idea how you get to "racist democrats are all black."

Thought the original post was numbers for all respondents and could not understand how the numbers could come out the way you posted. I am not a conservative FYI

Alex's post was to counter the claim by Chris Hayes that racism exists only in one of the two "political coalitions." Hayes's two coalitions must refer to the two parties, not to the three ideological positions that cut across party lines.

So blacks should be pushy?


The only way to cut the data that matters is to what degree and at what degrees do people have day-to-day contact with different races.

If you don't think anybody should be pushy, then obviously you don't think "blacks" should be. Does that make you racist?

exactly! "blacks should not be pushy?" -- I would answer that they shouldn't, noone should be pushy, and would answer the same if it were whites or even greens. If anything that question is who is politically correct, not who is racist.
the other two questions above show democrats as having the more unfavorable view of blacks, which again is given a pass by saying they are equal... the only thing showing is the obvious bias of these media people.
the other links end up showing another media bias: the democrats calling blacks uninteligent are given a pass, saying it is suspect, unlike anything they twist against the republicans.

Alex cherry picked a claim that best fit the one piece of data which supports his position. If he had found a quote which said "conservatives are racist", he would not be able to make his point. So he used a quote that implied "republicans," not "conservatives."

(THis is to set aside whether or not we should simply think of political coalition as being reducible to party. One could plausibly argue that political coalitions should be defined by ideology or voting record, not party membership. (There are 16 Democrats with net-negative congress scores, compared with 3 net positive Republicans. The 3 Republicans are all ranked moderates, half the democrats are weakly to moderately conservative).)

In any case, ideology and party are reasonably correlated, and the correlation between ideology and party holds for blacks and others, but not whites. The question, then, is why are whites different than blacks and others on the party measure? Why are there white democratic racists, when both general party ideology, and the trends in non-white groups of democrats, reflect the hypothesis that racists are typically conservative Republicans?

A plausible answer, as suggested by the regional data, is "the South" and "white Southern Democrats." Of course, to really know we'd want to look at data for Southern Dems vs. Non Southern Dems, but that's not available with the resources given.

How would this bear upon the traditional Democratic stronghold of Cook County, Illinois, home to Chicago, still one of the most segregated cities in the United States?

It doesn't bear on urban segregation. But then, your cherry picked example doesn't bear on much of anything. Nice non-sequitur though.

(How segregated is rural america? How segregated are suburbs compared to urban cores? Does segregation correlate with overall party affiliation? How does segregation relate to diversity? You can't segregate a locale that is not at all diverse.)

So in an imaginary world where Alex was commenting on a different statement, he should have written a different blog post, maybe?

Well spotted.

"Political coalition" =/= Republican Party/Democratic Party

GiT, that's wrong. And even using your numbers, Alex is right. Racists in both parties.

Oh, ok. Coalition and party mean the same thing. That's why the Conservative Coalition was composed of both Republicans and Democrats. That's why those on the left generally see themselves as arrayed against Republicans, LIbertarians, and Blue Dog Democrats (whom they regularly attempt to unseat in primary elections).

More tips:

"evenly distributed across parties" =/= "in both parties"

If "racists are almost entirely in one political coalition and not the other", then racists are "in both parties."

Consistency. Give it a try.

Well, it is kind of useless to say "Basically you can divide the political spectrum up into racists and non-racists, amongst other equally valid sets of divisions". Like, duh. Fucking tautology at best mate (equivalent to saying "pro-gun control Americans are almost entirely in one political coalition (the gun control coalition) and not the other.") Not really saying anything useful.

When people talk about "coalitions", in a political context, it has to be assumed that they mean politically effective units (like parties, or something else for which we have evidence of acting as a group), not "some theoretical way of dividing up the political spectrum based on some arbitrary set of issues that may or may not actually matter as a cohesive politically effective unit".

I have no idea what you are talking about GiT. In what way have I been inconsistent? Racists do split evenly across the parties, which is the topic of discussion.

Alex cherry picked a claim that best fit the one piece of data which supports his position. If he had found a quote which said “conservatives are racist”, he would not be able to make his point. So he used a quote that implied “republicans,” not “conservatives.”

Nonsense. Alex heard Hayes claim that almost all racists are Republicans and then countered it with data. He did not cherry-pick anything. He was addressing that particular claim, not any other claim. You cannot prove him wrong by shifting the goalposts.

Hayes did not say "Republican." He said "coalition". Generally, coalitions are composed of multiple parties. Like, say, Republicans, right Libertarians, and Southern Democrats.

Alex set his own goalposts, and gave himself a gimme.

LOL. If it helps to shield your fragile ego, then go ahead and believe whatever you want. Perhaps Hayes was really talking about Martians.

Or perhaps Hayes was talking about "the right" or "conservatives."


GiT, the only idiot here is you. The meaning is plain and your interpretation is absurd. Not to mention your own conclusion is wrong by the date you cite.

What, exactly, do you think my conclusions are? I'll state them for you.

The prevalence of racist attitudes among White Democrats is at least partially explained by the presence of white Southern Democrats.

Among non-white Democrats, racism (as specified) is clearly maximized among Republicans.

Conservatism positively correlates with racism, regardless of race.

"Political coalition" is not a simple substitute for political party.

Alex's presentation of the data is misleading and encourages an inaccurate interpretation of reality.

Some of us think things like affirmative action are racist. And yet others define those as the anti-racist position. Saying minorities can't be expected to prove they can vote but whites can is a bit racist. Coddling people because of their race is kind of racist. So, where will the racists go? If one side goes out of its way to make fools of themselves promoting multiculturalism then the racists will go to the place where they think is anti or at least race-neutral.

It doesn't mean the one side is racists. it could mean the other side is idiots. I simply don't care what people from, for example the Southern Poverty Law Center call me or anyone else anymore. If they weren't founded on the wrong side of the shark, then they jumped the shark a long time ago.

Btw, for people who can't juggle 2 thoughts, let me be clear:

I am not for voter ID laws. It's just funny to say this is racist when you have to present ID for almost everything. Are those things not racist?

But where the rubber meets the road has to do with winning elections. It's telling.

Let's just fault the Yankee overlords of 1865ff: if instead of launching their genocidal campaign against the Plains Indians they simply had adminstered PTSD counseling to traumatized Southern whites during Reconstruction, I'm sure none of this would be an issue today.

"Conservatives are racists" is easily refuted by producing one non-racist conservative, what you mean to say is that racists are more likely to be conservative. Maybe that is the case, but I'm not sure how liberalism/conservatism explains racial tensions between African American and Latino communities.

In any event almost all the questions asked deal primarily with whites prejudiced against African Americans, they say almost nothing about prejudices held by or against other racial and ethnic groups. If only white racists count and whites are more likely to be conservative, then of course one is going to find a correlation.

Whats this? Mr. "Criticizing Sub Prime Lending in 2007 is racist" Tabarok is using selective data to push his agenda? No way! I

Brings up an interesting point. Do we know that predominately black people can't get IDs for a fact?

Let's get these poor people some IDs!

Maybe Republicans really just think dumb 18 years don't have IDs. Maybe their evil isn't quite as sexy as full-blown racism.

Noticing that the surveys poll only whites (understandably) aren't the conditional probabilities of {White | Republican} and {White | Democrat} quite important to have?

What are those numbers and shouldn't they color the interpretations very differently?

The polls aren't only of whites. You can bring up 'black' or 'other'.

My point is, Alex is using what white Republicans and white Democrats said, to then infer something about Republicans and Democrats as a party.

That is fallacious in general and even more so if the fraction of Whites is not similar across the two parties.

Yes, sure, there are all sorts of risks in composition here. But the trends without respect for race are dominated by the outcomes for whites. As I noted, "blacks" and "others" show the expected pattern - as far as racism goes, non-white Democrats are less racist than independents, who are less racist than Republicans.

As I noted, white Southerners may explain why whites behave differently with respect to party ID than non-whites do.

So what you are saying it, there are racists in both parties. Glad we all agree.

I know this is hard for you Cliff, but racists being almost entirely in one party logically requires that racists be in both parties.

But the data is plain that racists are not almost entirely in one party.

It's certainly sufficient to show thast what he was responding to was stupid and wrong.

Alex hasn't shown anything about "political coalitions" (the statement to which he was responding).

It's a bit unfair to say Chris Hayes' statement was stupid and wrong based on this survey, don't you think? First, Hayes was talking about political coalitions, not necessarily political parties. Second, you can't identify all racists with survey data because racism is frowned upon nowadays, so there will be racists who won't admit to their views.

On the other hand, the statement is almost certainly wrong because racism is far more widespread than Hayes' thinks (especially because of minorities who are racist.) No matter how you draw coalition lines, you'll find racists on both sides. Unless you draw the lines as racists vs. non-racists.

Racism aside, liberals are far worse bigots. My grandparents were forcibly kicked out of their homes in Gaza in 1929, but according to liberals, we're not entitled to our land because we're Jewish.

Funnily enough, some Muslims have very similar complaints.

Don't destroy the narrative. If you are against President Obama's policies, it is because deep down you are racist.

The democrats I know see differences of opinion entirely in moral terms.

How did these surveys correct for false responses? Most of these studies are methodologically flawed.

When I spent some time in the deep south some decades ago, the whites claimed not to be racist any longer. However, once the schools were integrated (and it took much longer to fully accomplish than thought) one saw the rise of the private school system leaving the blacks to a public school system that quickly became underfunded and second rate (as any visitor to Mississippi and parts of Alabama will quickly find out today). LBJ's acknowledgement that the Democratic party would quickly lose the South with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights law was prescient and you can see from that time the birth of the "modern" Republican party. Certainly this 'birther and Muslim' nonsense about Obama is just plain racist in character and there is some percentage of votes against him that are just that. What the exact % is I don't know.

"Certainly this ‘birther and Muslim’ nonsense about Obama is just plain racist in character and there is some percentage of votes against him that are just that. What the exact % is I don’t know."

This book likely speaks to your question:


The methodology is superior than Chris Hayes implicitly telling his MSNBC "intelligentsia" that Republicans are racist.

He rather clearly said that racists almost entirely belong to one political coalition. This may mean that he said most racists are Republicans (though it is also equivalent to saying most racists vote for conservatives). It emphatically does not mean all Republicans are racist, or that Republicans are almost always racists.

Yes, and what he clearly said is quite plainly wrong, right? Even your numbers show that.

Okay, fine, GiT, where is Chris's DATA on which he bases his conclusion? Alex has shown where his data came from ... where is Chris's??

Framing is important. Painting with broad strokes often miss the real dynamics. Certainly, the re-segregation could have been racially motivated, but I'll provide my own to demonstrate why I take such claims with skepticism.

I'm not from the deep south, however, my parents moved us away from a school district that was desegregating because the school district was becoming more focused on carrying out social experiments while my parents were more interested in their kids attending a district that had education as its primary priority.

Are you saying that public schools in the South became second-rate due to the exodus of whites or the influx of blacks, or both?

The exodus of the white students coupled with the lack of funding to the public schools were the keys. It wasn't an influx of blacks as that was taken care of in the Brown v Brd of Education decision. When you have largely two separate systems one private and one public and the electorate send their kids to the private system do you think they want to see adequate funding of the public one? Of course not.

I guess that explains why D.C. schools are doing so great. Funding = success!

It is unpopular for anyone to hold clearly racist opinions these days. Republicans may actually be especially wary of implying they are racist precisely because of the public's perception of them as the party of white.

That said, conservatives clearly have more "racist" views than liberals. How do self-identified conservatives and liberals vote? Does their lack of party identification matter? What about how the different parties' policies impact minorities? Is that a more relevant measure?

Say that there is a party with a stated goal to explicitly defend interests of whites. Would that party be racist?

It obviously depends what the context is. One would need additional information to answer the question. Are you talking about a party in Zimbabwe that has a goal to keep the government and others from violently extracting white farmers' land, without infringing on the rights of any other race? Clearly not racist.

Is it a party that is focused on defending the interests of whites here in this country now--a place where they are not being systematically threatened? Based on that information alone, not explicitly racist. But you'd have to ask yourself how members of this party would answer the questions from the survey Alex posted. They would certainly be perceived as racist and that is probably what matters most.

it's the same as if there is a party with a stated goal to explicitly defend interests of *only* (i assume you mean?) whites, blacks, or greens for all i care -- the party is racist by dictionary definition: having a policy based on race.

Just checked a few dictionaries and none has a definition like this.

That party would just be unelectable.

Could you please answer the question?

Why is it that only white persons are asked questions about race?

Are hispanics and blacks somehow immune to racism? Are we afraid to find those groups are probably more racist then whites today? Or are those groups just politically irrelevant, so no need to ask?

Also: A far better question (to a person of any skin color would be "Do you wish your child to marry an asian/black/hispanic/white partner".
- that would weed out all the bigots (you know the kind who sends their own children to catholic schools but argues publicly that one shouldn't say bad things about public schools).
- sadly though people wouldn't answer honestly...

Just an addendum:

What would define racism is probably a matter of debate between American parties?
It would seem to me that there is an advantage to being less racist than your opponent in the public view so there should be a strong incentive to define racism in a way that maximizes the difference in racism-levels between oneself and the competitor?

They weren't (and aren't) the only persons asked about race. You can pull up numbers for blacks and other non-whites.

Now, if you'd like to stop making up arguments out of whole cloth...

Also, insofar as no one would answer your question honestly, it is a far inferior question, not a far better one.

I know that from a psychology research perspective, it's a lot easier to conduct race research/analysis on whites. There's just a lot less variables that you need to keep track of; since they're the "default race" of America, you generally don't have to worry as much about which racial groups they consider themselves to be. Many people of hispanic/asian descent consider their "group" to be whites. Blacks are a different situation, but there's still a lot more background variables that can affect how you view your in-group/out-group.

It's similar to how a lot of labor economics research is done on white males. They're just the simplest case, where you don't have to worry as much about a lot of variables.

That proposition in California failed to support gay marriage only because two thirds of blacks and Hispanics opposed gay marriage.

What GiT said. Sorting these results by party affiliation or political ID is incredibly more revealing.

Democrats support racist affirmative action laws.
Democrats support racist hate speech laws.
The Democrats have been hijacked by the vile Progressive left, as best exemplified by the soulless scoamf Obama.

Those who voted for Obama once are fools. Those who vote for him twice are dangerous.

"Here is data asking whites whether they agree with the sentiment that Blacks Shouldn’t be Pushy."

100% of respondents deemed racist for answering such a silly question.

Actually, it's worse than dumb. Having actual experience with blacks, they are (perceived as) pushy when they act en bloc. That is to say, racism is very nearly justified when people act as racial blocks rather than as individuals. One black woman never blocks a walkway but two can "stick it to whitey." I'm only ever irritated by someone's race when I sense they are acting out in the name of their race.

Jews do this in slightly more sophisticated ways, still funny ways. They want legal societies to protect their race block interests against any defamation or too much praise (if you praise Jews as a people that could cause resentment). So, it's fine to think well of Jews, just not too well. It's fine to think of Jews as a block in their defense, but not in other ways that they decide.

So, the question boils down to "do you have personal experience in how things actually work?" "If 'Yes' here is your racist card." And the great thing about denying reality is that it is job security. So we'll continue to believe that race block affiliation only works one way as long as doing so earns mood affiliation votes. So, I'd word the question a little differently: should people act like jerks when they are using their racial block as cover or should they act just like they would normally act individually and bearing individual responsibility for their actions?

"if you praise Jews as a people that could cause resentment"

Interesting thought; do you have any evidence for this?

Hard to prove a negative, especially if you don't feel like trying too hard, but after 10 seconds of Googling...


[quote]And, of course, the extraordinarily high proportion of Jews in such fields as medicine, law, finance, literature, science, creative arts and the media is as obvious as it is astonishing. To some, these facts are awkward and even embarrassing, feeding stereotypes of “crafty” and “clever” Jews good at making money and flaunting their superiority to non-Jews. Indeed, the subject – the fact, if you will now allow -- of Jewish intellectual superiority is rarely if ever discussed in Jewish publications.
To explain this, we have a self-described “Scots-Irish gentile from Iowa,” Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, author of the solidly documented “The Bell Curve”, which in 1994 stirred up a storm of controversy by discussing in not always politically correct language “differences in intellectual capacity among people and groups, and what those differences mean for America’s future.”
Murray has recently written a brilliant and convincing essay for the respected Jewish publication “Commentary,” on “Jewish Genius,” citing many of the above facts and material on which this article is based . This is the first time the magazine has systematically discussed this normally taboo topic that so many Jews are reluctant publicly to acknowledge.[endquote]

I wonder about this question as well. Though a good amount of work often goes in to designing these questions, so there might be reasons for picking it.

In any case, it would be nice to know how they responded to "Whites shouldn't be pushy". Maybe some people don't think anyone should be pushy. They could still be racists, but you won't find out from that question.

Interestingly 18% of all blacks agreed strongly to "Blacks Shouldn’t be Pushy".

That's to me more evidence of it being a bad / weak question. I'm open to other interpretations.......

Higher than any other group, too, for "agreed strongly."

Yep, I'd noticed that too. But adding in the "Agreed Slightly" category changes the analysis.

It'd be funny indeed if Blacks agreed with "Blacks Shouldn’t be Pushy" more strongly than whites.

I dunno. Im white and if u asked me if black people should be pushy I would say no. If u asked me if white people should be pushy I would say no. I guess according to ATs reading I sm racist.

If you support policies that have disproportionately larger deleterious effect on the welfare of African Americans and their ability to participate in the democratic process, you are a racists.

Republican officials not only support such policies but actively fight for them to become law.

I decided that the modern Republicans are at their core racists when in the early nineties all Bush Sr. could say against the white supremacist - the self avowed racist - David Duke that he was a charlatan.

"If you support policies that have disproportionately larger deleterious effect on the welfare of African Americans and their ability to participate in the democratic process, you are a racists."

I don't think so, not unless this is the only effect they have. Sometimes policies have many effects and you can choose based on them doing, on balance, more good than harm. I'm sure for most policies one proportion of the population suffers more harm than another, so if that were the only criterion for supporting policies, then you could only support pareto optimal ones. Though even then some would be more advantaged than others, so you could argue along similar lines. Note, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat, I am not even an American.

It's this kind of nonsense that kills any debate about this subject.

Believe it or not many of the policies that are claimed to be beneficial to blacks are not seen as actually beneficial by everyone. Just because you think affirmative action or less stringent voter ID laws are beneficial to blacks does not mean it actually helps them in the long run. So automatically calling everyone racist who does not support those policy positions is just partisan hackery.

Try engaging in an argument instead of claiming knowledge of secret motivations of your political opponents.

'..policies that are claimed to be beneficial to blacks are not seen as actually beneficial by everyone.'

'Just because you think affirmative action or less stringent voter ID laws are beneficial to blacks does not mean it actually helps them in the long run'

Yes, in the long run, the blacks are better off being in USA.

Perfect, airtight, logical, rational, and un-bigoted argument.

Who cares if a few hundred thousand blacks will not be able to vote in Philly due to the voter id laws enacted by republicans. In the long run blacks will be better off.

Who cares if thousands of black voters were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000. In the long run blacks will be better off.

The party that gave us the Chief Justice who used to go around challenging blacks' rights to vote in the polling places is not racist at all.

" Who cares if a few hundred thousand blacks will not be able to vote in Philly due to the voter id laws enacted by republicans"

About 650k blacks in Philly. Say, 150k under 18, and another 7% are convicted felons, if they're convicted at the average rate. That leaves 400k. Less than half of them will choose to vote, probably. Apparently about a quarter nationally don't have ID, so we're talking a maximum of tens of thousands of people who couldn't be bothered to go down the road and get an ID so they could vote.

Suddenly I don't feel bad about making up outrageous claims about the certain-to-be enormous amounts of voter fraud in the country. (But I won't actually do that)

Maybe it should be much easier/more convenient to get an ID card. Seems like it should be easy to argue. But let's cut out the nonsense.

You against laws against murder, stealing, and rape then? Minorities are put in jail for those things at greater rates then whites. Should the law be changed? Or should other factors be addressed.

As for the David Duke thing, I could say the same thing about democratic responses to the Nation of Islam.

I wouldn't claim that politicians supporting voter ID laws are racist, but they are willing to discriminate for electoral benefit.

"You against laws against murder, stealing, and rape then? Minorities are put in jail for those things at greater rates then whites. Should the law be changed?"

Irrelevant. Murder, stealing, and rape are intrinsically bad, voting without an ID is not. The hypothetical bad part is impersonating someone else when you're voting, but no one has presented any evidence this is happening.

This is very slick, and unusually partisan for this site. I'm surprised the comments didn't spin out of control more than they did.

GIT explains this very well. First, most people when they say "racists support Republicans" mean "racists vote for Republicans" not "racists register Republican". If you know anything about American politics, particularly about the shift in American politics post 1965, you know that there is a big difference between the two. Bringing up party registration data is a complete misdirection. Self-identification as "liberal" or "conservative", as GIT uses, is an OK proxy. I prefer exit polls or looking at the patterns of where the actual votes are cast, since the issue is actual votes.

And if people contend that "Republicans are racists", they are in fact talking about registered Republicans but only the subset that are Republican politicians. They are talking about dog-whistle campaign tactics to get white racist voters on their side -Republican politicians and consultants have admitted to this- and efforts to keep black voters from voting.

(Also they are talking about white racists, not black racists. Bringing up black racists is an interesting and valid counterpoint, but the discussion is usually about white racists because well, there are more of them and they are usually more powerful. They can do more damage)

Fortunately there are signs that as the generations who were around in the 1960s die off, so are these voting habits, but it looks like we are going to go through four more presidential elections of this nonsense.

" And if people contend that “Republicans are racists”, they are in fact talking about registered Republicans but only the subset that are Republican politician"

... hahahaha

The next sentence makes Ed's sentiment quite clear. His point was that only Republican politicians actively appeal to the white racist vote. (white Southern Democrats did too, but they have nearly died out a the federal level).

Wow, a post that says neither party has a monopoly on racists is called slick and "partisan."

How else would you describe a finding that contradicts the trends evidenced by other ways of attempting to measure the same underlying phenomena, with no discussion of how to explain or otherwise account for the discrepancy?

Alex wanted to accuse Chris Hayes of a gaffe and deny that there is anything especially racist about the Republican party, and he did it through shoddy use of data. Slick and partisan sounds about right.

You realize Alex voted for Obama and probably will do so again, right? What "other ways of measuring" the phenomena are you referring to?

Liberal/Conservative rather than Democrat/Republican is the obvious and available one.

Presumably Alex needs a new slug of funding and so is just doing his part.

Neither party has a monopoly on racists, but one party sure has a monopoly on calling the other party racist.

And it must be working for them, because they will not stop. Ever.

In my country being "pushy" has a negative connotation. Is it the case in the U.S too? If so is it not strange to ask if one approves of a group being pushy? Is it not like asking if we would like blacks being violent?

I've been asked this question and it didn't make sense. I see it now and am pretty sure I went down as racist...but why should people be pushy? I don't understand how it's a valid question.

Seems like, if you were trying to give the other party a monopoly on racists, you'd nominate a black man for president.

It's hard to find any tolerable news analysis on MSNBC anymore, let alone plain news.

The pop-up I just got on this website is racist. OK, not really, but still.

Well, this is the dumbest thing I've read on here in a while. As others have noted, overt racism is not looked well upon anymore. And having Republicans generally being racist is not the same as "as a Republican, you personally are racist," so chill, Republicans.

Isn't it totally clear by now that many domestic Republican policies beginning in the 60s became synonymous with southern racists? President Ronald Reagan opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1965 based on regional pride (called it “humiliating to the South”), GOP opposing the Fair Housing Act based on market principles, GOP opposing anti-apartheid legislation based on his preference to engage South Africa, etc, etc

Yes, not racist on its face but the positions have an added value of attracting people who fear and loathe African Americans. And, the general attitude is sometimes based in something much grosser: "welfare queens," Willie Horton, etc.

This is not something that can be denied. I can imagine a Rubio or someone else saying (especially as white males become less important in the electorate) "the GOP has supported many, many racist policies in the past. Sometimes, they were argued in good faith under other principles, such as the free market. Sometimes, they were not." The sooner that sort of thing happens, the sooner the GOP will swoop in and totally destroy Dems by taking away huge swathes of pretty conservative southern Blacks, conservative Cubans, etc. The Dem coalition is being held together merely because GOP don't take seriously charges it tends to have a pattern of policies that are viewed as racist. Once it takes those voters protests seriously, there won't be a Democratic Party left to speak of.

So, in other words, both parties have racists. Got it.

I imagine it's also the tails that matter. Who do people actively participating in the extreme anti-arab, anti-black, etc groups vote for? Republicans or Democrats?

I agree with the claim that there are plenty of racists on each side of the aisle. However, Alex's argument is so spurious that i can't help but wonder if he's trying to troll partisan commenters. If so, mission accomplished!

At the risk of taking the trollbait myself, i need to mention that showing that people from both parties won't admit to being racist against blacks doesn't prove that they aren't racist at all. Whitey can be racist against people other than blacks, y'know? Those of you who notice my pseudonym can guess where this comment is going: racial animus has been reflected in America's barbaric immigration policy for over a century. Both parties have endorsed this policy, the practical effect of which is to deprive brown (and before that, yellow) people of opportunities to make better lives for themselves in America.

So it's wrong to oppose immigration because it hurts "brown" people (I guess I shouldn't get too tan) even if (you think) it hurts you and your family? Do you think people oppose open immigration because it hurts brown people?

john personna

Example 1:

Yes, vote fraud’s real
Likely gave us Sen. Franken

Coleman led on election night, but a series of recounts lasting eight months eventually gave the seat to the former Saturday Night Live star.

Later, a conservative watchdog group matched criminal records with the voting rolls and discovered that 1,099 felons had illegally cast ballots. State law mandates prosecutions in such cases; 177 have been convicted so far, with 66 more awaiting trial.

Franken’s eventual margin of “victory”? A mere 312 votes.

Felons always vote D?

Racism in America is greatest among blacks. This is an observation from personal experience, indeed my liberal friends don't bother to argue when I bring it up - they justify it. And if we just look at simple bigotry, the most open form of that is against conservatives, something my liberal friends also justify
rather than deny. My conservative friends mostly seem to be bigoted against gays and Muslims.

Yes, vote fraud’s real
Likely gave us Sen. Franken

Coleman led on election night, but a series of recounts lasting eight months eventually gave the seat to the former Saturday Night Live star.

Later, a conservative watchdog group matched criminal records with the voting rolls and discovered that 1,099 felons had illegally cast ballots. State law mandates prosecutions in such cases; 177 have been convicted so far, with 66 more awaiting trial.

Franken’s eventual margin of “victory”? A mere 312 votes.

John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky?? Really?

Didn't von Spakovsky virtually invent the whole voter fraud business?

And of course we know that respondents answer these questions honestly.

john personna,

Another example for you

Serial Fraud Kept Congressman in Office

A new Washington Post poll found that 74 percent of Americans support having voters show ID at the polls, and a full 81 percent think voter fraud is a problem.

They have reason to be concerned. This month, four staffers for former Michigan congressman Thad McCotter were indicted for forging signatures on petitions to place him on the ballot..

Now, the Detroit Free Press reports that McCotter, Inc. had apparently been forging petitions for years, and he didn’t actually qualify for the ballot in at least the 2008, 2010, and 2012 elections.

In 2012, the scheme had evolved to the point that of the 1,800 signatures submitted by the McCotter campaign, only 244 were valid.

Forging signatures on a petition is not vote fraud and would not be prevented by a voter ID law.


Here is a case where forging signatures could clearly be used for vote fraud. This fraud would be prevented by voter ID requirements.

Thousands of voter registration forms faked, officials say

CROWN POINT, Indiana (CNN) -- More than 2,000 voter registration forms filed in northern Indiana's Lake County by a liberal activist group this week have turned out to be bogus, election officials said Thursday.

And in Lake County, home to the long-depressed steel town of Gary, the bipartisan Elections Board has stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony.

The forms included registrations submitted in the names of the dead -- and in one case, the name of a fast-food restaurant, Jimmy Johns. Sally LaSota, a Democrat on the board, called the forms fraudulent and said whoever filed them broke the law.

Do you not understand how prepositional phrases work?

"Forging signatures on a petition"

Voter registration forms are not petitions.

Figure it out.

Yes he knows. That is why he responded with the voter registration form example.

I suspect a voter ID law wouldn't apply at the registration level.

Besides, fraudulent registration forms do not translate into fraudulent votes. Every registration fraud case I've heard of is a worker getting paid by the form, so they made a bunch of fake forms to bilk their employer out of extra cash. This was the great irony of the ACORN witch hunt since ACORN was the one being defrauded!

Again, I don't see how this relates to voter ID.

It relates because without a voter ID requirement folks who turned in fraudulent voter registration forms can fraudulently vote multiple times using names that were on the fraudulent registration forms.


Assuming those fake registration forms were successful. Besides, we already have a clear motive for the fraudulent registration forms, defrauding the organization doing the registration drive, you have no evidence that someone has ever tried to use these fake forms to cast fake votes which is what the ID requirement would suggest.

74 percent of Americans support having voters show ID at the polls, and a full 81 percent think voter fraud is a problem

But, since we live in a free and democratic country, our elected officials have absolutely no intention to do what voters want.

This post was written by a man who has NO familiarity with Timur Kuran. It's embarrassingly bad.

This thread proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Americans are anal retentively stupid. You are getting your collective asses handed to you by overtly racist and zenophopic societies one after another and you parse the tea leaves for racism amongst yourselves.

Someone from Mars showing up in the US would find that the poorest most backwards of jurisdictions by race are almost all administered by the party that cries Racism the most. Maybe there is a direct correlation.

I think words like "racist" and "racism" obfuscate debate. A better word is prejudice. It's entirely possible to be prejudiced without believing your race is superior.

'I think words like “racist” and “racism” obfuscate debate.'

Feature, not a bug.

Those words are used to poison the well and/or silence discourse.

You know what actually poisoned wells and silenced discourse?


Calling people racist just proliferates discourse - specifically, the victimization discourse of whiny conservatives.

"Calling people racist just proliferates discourse – specifically, the victimization discourse of whiny conservatives."

Sounds like abandoning pantie-twisted shrieks of "racist!" is a win-win all around then. Liberals can save their vocal chords for other indignant forms of name-calling, conservatives have one fewer perceived grievance to whine about, and liberals can whine less about perceived conservative victimization complex.

Hey GiT,

I know what what prejudice means. It's when you pre-judge someone or something based on superficial, general evidence.

Can you supply a succinct definition of racism for purposes of clarifying this discussion? Thanks.

Also, black is white. Day is night. Up is down.

The data in this post rely on people's willingness to report their own socially stigmatized attitudes, to self-identify as racists. There is also no attempt to account for the non-zero number of older Southern whites who maintain a historical nominal affiliation with the Democratic party, have racist attitudes, and vote for Republicans for federal offices.

OK chris hayes should have said that the Republican governors and other elected representative are racists.

All that this survey proves is that the elected Republican officials do not represent the will of the Republicans at large, for the elected Republican officials tend to support and propose and enact policies that are not good for the Africans Americans.

It's splitting hairs to say that when I say that these officials are racists I am divining these officials' motives. It does not matter that their hearts are pure. What matters is the effect taht their policies have.

The hearts of 90% of the colonialists were very pure.

It's obviously wrong to argue there are virtually no racist Democrats...the more relevant question, and what Hayes is probably trying to say, is the Republican party has more racists or more policies which pander to racists. However, just because we can reject the n. h. that all racists are Republicans doesn't imply racists are split evenly between the two parties as Alex asserts with his three surveys spread over ten years.

Basically we have a likely false assertion (virtually no Democrats are racist) met with a likely false rebuttal (there are just as many racist Democrats as Republicans).

There is something really, really wrong with an electoral/pundit system in which the major question is whether someone is racist or not. This kind of character assassination via Newspeak practiced by leftists is indeed tremendously stupid. Better try to address the arguments of your opponents than using ad hominem - the former is somehow productive while the latter is plain dumb.

I personally am openly racist and everybody who has a problem with that and is unwilling to consider my arguments on behalf of logical merit will receive only two words from me.

"will receive only two words from me."

Fuck you? Definitely fuck you.

So glad you prove my point. Now, the words...

Very funny to find someone whining about an ad hominem attack in the very same comment where they admit to being openly racist.

Racism is a collective ad hominem attack. Hilarious unintended irony there.

Racism is an expression of personal preference. Even if it turns out to be a preference based on incorrect assumptions, it remains strictly a subjective judgement. Subjective tastes and judgements ad hominem arguments.

Besides, there is a significant intellectual/scientific component behind racism and the rise of Big Data in genetics will make it more and more difficult for you equalists to deny the reality of race differences.

Todd Fletcher says that racism in America is greatest among blacks. You forget that by definition the hatred blacks exhibit against whites is not racism, however vicious the language they use . Just as by definition the animosity some of the so-called "lower" caste intellectuals in India exhibit against the so-called "upper" caste people, using the most offensive language in their books, is not "casteism", which is to India what racism is to the west . You can't argue with tastes. I wonder if you can argue with definitions.

Again, there's a difference between racism towards one-another and supporting policies of political parties that use racist appeals.

Those who have power and money typically are not minorities. The GOP has used racist appeals to drive voter turnout among people who already have power, against those who don't. While, yes, some individual folks of any race can be racist, it's pretty dang clear that the GOP has typically supported policies that draw support from Southern racists. In politics, that can be expected -- and it's done all over the world.

It still doesn't make it right, and similar attitudes by minorities doesn't excuse those policies, either. This is simple stuff; it's amazing to me that this sort of excuse-making is persuasive to people.

What racist appeals are we talking about? I would think any racist appeals would be excoriated in the media?

"You forget that by definition the hatred blacks exhibit against whites is not racism"

And whose definition is that, besides yours? I take racism to be assumptions about a person's worth based solely on their race and not themselves as individuals. Your fancy "definition'" plays into your own bias, and supports it, not by coincidence. You are in fact doing exactly what I said my liberal friends do: you don't deny the hatred, you simply explain it away & justify it. Therefore you are facilitating racism while claiming to fight it, as does much of the left in the US.

Thanks for a textbook example of white privilege. I bet you're really hurt by someone calling you a "cracker" as well.

Nate, you're going to have to expand on that, if you expect it to have some meaning. So where's the white privilege? If it's a "textbook" case it should be easy enough to state it plainly. Why didn't you just do that with your post to begin with? Do you think it's more effective to make obscure and meaningless comments? Words don't cost anything here.

Just as by definition the animosity some of the so-called “lower” caste intellectuals in India exhibit against the so-called “upper” caste people, using the most offensive language in their books, is not “casteism”

Says who? That's absurd.

Rahul and Todd , I thought you would see that I was being sarcastic. I was commenting on the fact that the term "racism" in the U.S seems to be restricted to the prejudice whites have against blacks but not vice versa. For example if a store owned by a black has the policy of employing only black employees, it is not racism. If a store has a policy of employing only whites, that's racism . So it appears that by definition blacks cannot be racist . I had in mind a Marxist British economist, I think it was Morris Dobb, who held that by definition a communist state cannot be imperialist.

Rahul, you must be of Indian origin. Are you aware of the hatred expressed by Dalit intellectuals against the so-called upper castes ? Just read the stuff written by Kancha ILaiah, a Dalit writer. The vicious language used against upper castes is so offensive. The Hindu organizations are described by Dalit writers as Nazis. Now, I agree with them that the RSS and Viswa Hindu Parishad do behave towards Muslims like Nazis . My objection is that similar language is not permitted against the Dalit groups and those who do use it can be arrested. By definition, Dalits cannot be casteist and so can get away with the most uncivilized language against non-dalits while those who dare to criticize Dalits even in very mild manner are branded casteist.

Might want to review Nate Silvers TED talk on this issue



Do Politicians Racially Discriminate against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators

We use a field experiment to investigate whether race affects how responsive state legislators are to requests for help with registering to vote. In an email sent to each legislator, we randomized whether a putatively black or white alias was used and whether the email signaled the sender’s partisan preference. Overall, we find that putatively black requests receive fewer replies. We explore two potential explanations for this discrimination: strategic partisan behavior and the legislators’ own race. We find that the putatively black alias continues to be differentially treated even when the emails signal partisanship, indicating that strategic considerations cannot completely explain the observed differential treatment. Further analysis reveals that white legislators of both parties exhibit similar levels of discrimination against the black alias. Minority legislators do the opposite, responding more frequently to the black alias. Implications for the study of race and politics in the United States are discussed.

Lee Atwater on the Republican's southern strategey:
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N----r, n----r, n----r." By 1968 you can't say "n----r"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N----r, n----r"."

Republicans knew 30 years ago that it had to cater to racists in abstractions and dog whistles. That's even more true today, to the point where all but the dumbest foot soldiers know they can't say things like "whites shouldn't marry blacks." Today we get "food stamp president" and birthers instead of flaming crosses, but the intentions are the same as they were in 1954.

+1, and it's also worth noting that Geoffrey Kabaservice's recently published history of the evolution of the Republican party after WWII is a worthwhile summary of how things radically changed.

"...all but the dumbest foot soldiers know they can’t say..."

Then both parties have an equal number of dumb foot soldiers and Alex' point stands.

Strangely, liberals are the only ones able to actually hear this mythical dog whistle. This makes the mechanics behind the metaphor rather amusing.

No surprises here - support for voter ID laws are clearly driven by racial resentment:


What difference does it make? The motivation does not matter. What matters is this: If you cannot prove that you have the right to vote, why should you be allowed to vote? How come showing voter ID is acceptable in my Eastern European country of origin (and in most parts of Europe as well) and not in the States?

Because your country of origin has a national ID card and ours does not. Do you support a national ID card for all US citizens (not counting a SS card which is not supposed to be used for general ID even though it is for a variety of purposes). Your country of origin probably also has nationally run elections and ours does not. Do you support nationally run elections? Two simple question to answer.

Again, this does not matter. The national ID that I have from my homecountry is not free to me - I paid 30 dollars for it the last time I renewed it, which is a bit more than 5% of the average monthly salary in the country. Unless you can prove to me that the average sum you have to pay in order to obtain a voter ID (and that is provided you have all the relevant documentation at hand) in the US is more than 150 dollars (proportionally calculated, will probably vary by state), this is absolutely irrelevant.

Nationally run elections are also irrelevant.

Pure BS! Why should you have to pay anything for an ID card; that's the same as a poll tax which has been ruled illegal in this country. I don't have to pay for my SS card; I don't have to pay for my Medicare card; I don't have to pay for my driver's license, etc. $150 may be quite a bit of money to someone who is 18 years old and working at a minimum wage job. Get serious!

Nationally run elections are not irrelevant. States and localities have a long and storied history in this country of totally botching things. Do you seriously think that if in 2000 there was a uniform national ballot that we would have lived through the past 12 years in the manner that we have?

I am somehow flabbergasted by your inability to follow the argument you yourself started.

I asked why is requiring voter ID OK for several countries in EU (including my own) and not for the US. You presented two differences that according to you make that the case. Then I presented a counter point to one of those differences. And you somehow decided that the fact that poll taxes are verboten by the Supreme Court is relevant to the discussion of why my points are valid or not. Fascinating! Need I remind you that there is a difference between a conceptual argument and a practical one?

"150 may be quite a bit of money to someone who is 18 years old and working at a minimum wage job"

150 dollars is the amount of money an US citizen has to pay for an ID in order for the sum to be equivalent to the Bulgarian ID tax adjusting for average gross wages. The actual cost would be much smaller. In Ohio it was estimated to be 13 dollars. Is that too much?

"States and localities have a long and storied history in this country of totally botching things."

Federal government does too. This is the reason your point is irrelevant.

Poll taxes are illegal in the US and charging for a voter ID card constitutes a poll tax. Maybe recent immigrants to the US do not have a full understanding of this topic but maybe you don't yet have citizenship and have not studied the long history of Jim Crow laws.

Your final statement on nationally run elections belies again your own ignorance of this country and its history. I suggest that you enroll in a remedial American history class to remedy each of these personal failings.

"Poll taxes are illegal in the US and charging for a voter ID card constitutes a poll tax."

That is only one interpretation of it. The fact that once the Supreme Court rules this does not make it a final, absolute truth.

"Your final statement on nationally run elections belies again your own ignorance of this country and its history. "

Absolutely, 100% irrelevant and not true. The federal government has abused its authority during the history of this country far more (probably by a factor above 100) than any local government. The Civil War is just one example of that. Affirmative action laws and any other type of anti-discrimination legislation that was pushed by federal bureaucrats (and that are the most obvious legislation violating the Constitution) are another example. No state or local government has ever abused its authority to such an extent.

And, again, all these points are absolutely not relevant. The argument was conceptual (why is it OK for (at least) 9 EU countries to have voter IDs and it is not for the US). This quesion has nothing to do with legal precedents or curent legislation. It has everything to do with rational calculation and rational interests of US citizens and these are the only factors that are relevant for a conceptual discussion of this issue.

I guess I am a glutton for Internet punishment for trying to be rational with a know-nothing. But here is one final try!

"That is only one interpretation of it. The fact that once the Supreme Court rules this does not make it a final, absolute truth."

Now if I get you right here then any Supreme Court ruling is suspect and can be overruled. Perhaps you would prefer that we go back to 'Separate but Equal' or eliminate some of the privacy rights that Griswold v Connecticut conferred or maybe even do away with the Miranda rights that those arrested by the police enjoy regardless of whether they are guilty or not. Fortunately we cannot go back and revisit Dred Scott v Sandford since the Constitution was amended to correct for that 'little' misfortune (there certainly are lots of other court decisions that can be raised to point out your strange sense of Constitutionality). I think you even go way beyond Justice Scalia's thinking on this matter.

"Absolutely, 100% irrelevant and not true. The federal government has abused its authority during the history of this country far more (probably by a factor above 100) than any local government. The Civil War is just one example of that."

Quite an interesting statement and puzzling as well. I take it that you believe that the southern states had the full right to nullify laws passed in Washington and that their secession was a legitimate exercise of power. Wow!!! Were we to accept your imputed view of this, there would be a lot of folks (the topic of this blog post) who would still be in bondage! Remember if the secession were allowed to stand to the present day, I doubt that we would consider Governor Romney any shot at winning election since a disproportion of the electoral votes that he will need come from the states of the old Confederacy. Be careful what you wish for.

"And, again, all these points are absolutely not relevant. The argument was conceptual (why is it OK for (at least) 9 EU countries to have voter IDs and it is not for the US). This quesion has nothing to do with legal precedents or curent legislation. It has everything to do with rational calculation and rational interests of US citizens and these are the only factors that are relevant for a conceptual discussion of this issue."

Did you ever see me advocating AGAINST a voter ID requirement here in America? No, of course you did not because I never said this!! I'm agnostic about it and really don't care as long as there is sufficient time for prospective voters to comply. I stand by my statement about the charge for an ID card being a poll tax. If the states that have enacted this law want to spend taxpayer money to fund the cost of the picture ID cards, that's fine with me. Anyway, it's always up to the political parties to get their side out to vote. Of course we could become an enlightened country like Australia and some others and require all citizens to vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting) but I think you Republican fan boys & girls see where that one would get you.

It's always fun discussing things on this blog; one sees the whole span of intelligent and non-intelligent lifeforms.

It is fascinating how you can write such a long comment thinking you addressed any of my points without actually doing it. Glad I am not a product of the American school system, apparently reading comprehension is not one of its strong sides. I could try to explain to you again why nothing you said answers the conceptual argument you yourself started, but I fear it will be poinless. Have a nice day.

Except that a strong majority supports it regardless and the difference between "low resentment" and "high resentment" is relatively small.

The interesting case is the democrat case, not the republican one. The republican/conservative data renders it impossible to distinguish whether ideology, race, or both are guiding someone's view when they are both conservative and racially resentful, but the liberal data suggests that race is at least one influence in a large number of cases.

So black are either naive or fools for voting for Democrats in droves?

Saying that they fall for the Democratic propaganda raises the same question as above.

Saying that blacks do not understand their self interests again raises the same question as above.

Substitute 'white men' for blacks and 'Republicans' for Democrats and you pretty much make a fool of yourself all over again.


What does that prove?

That you will go to any length to prove that you are not a racist?

"What does that prove?"

Simple, it proves that you can say something idiotic by merely substituting two words and nothing more.

The wording of the questions guarantees the answers. What about *revealed* preferences? But any poll that gives the answers you wanted is credible.

Racism is the one evil in this country, the one thing most people are supposedly against. Therefore the worst thing that you can can do to someone is call them racist. Far worse than denying them the right to vote, or shooting them in the back of a police car, or in their gurdwara. Far worse than a justice system which to a first approximation is primarily a means for disenfranchising black men, and where death penalty outcomes are ridiculously racially lopsided. Where racial stereotypes are used tacitly in political campaigns.

But you see if someone supports every racially lopsided thing in this country but says they aren't a racist, we should believe them. Because for some reason it's about what's in their heart rather than what they actually do.

But Chris Hayes is wrong. The two major political coalitions here in the US include a moderately racist one with a biracial elected official as its head and an extremely racist one.

"I don’t consider these types of policy preferences to be grounds for calling someone a racist, however."

Careful, you might offend the powers that be.


Have you ever heard of the "Bradley Effect"?

You are a fucking idiot....and this poll was stupid.

Boo-hoo crybaby.

Of course all people who vote for Obama and support open borders are secretly racist because they put up a blog post refuting that ALL racists are Republicans.

This is absolutely absurd. These questions are a joke. Of course their are some people who are racist that vote Democrat - maybe they belong to a union - but to suggest attitudes towards blacks are spread evenly is absolutely absurd. Have the authors ever been down South? Where the whites gerrymander the districts to prevent blacks from being able to get proportionate representatiion in political bodies? Go to the major universities in the South and it will seem that almost all the blacks on campus are student athletes - these SEC schools need them to beat the North at sports.

Huge tl;dr argumentfest in the comments above over voter ID laws.

Do you guys even realize that in Soviet Canuckistan, where the undiluted left-wing social democratic NDP became the official opposition in last year's election, you need to present a photo ID to vote. It's been that way as long as anyone can remember, and there is no ongoing debate or controversy. It's a complete non-issue.

There's a loophole in the law whereby you can vote without ID if you make a sworn statement and some other rigamarole, but that's meant to help out granny if she forgot her purse at home and doesn't have enough time to go fetch it before the polls close. The expectation is that nearly everyone will present an ID. I doubt very much that polling stations are equipped to handle a large percentage of voters availing themselves of the sworn-statement process.

Brouhaha over voter-ID requirements, like the quaint insistence on monochromatic paper money, non-metric measures, a fleet of aircraft carriers and a drinking age of 21, is just one of those elements of American exceptionalism that make the rest of the world go hmmmm....

Another thing exceptional about America is our particular long and sordid history of suppression of minority voting.

Yes, some countries do have photo ID requirements without the intent or effect of minority voter suppression. That does not prove a benign intent and effect here.

Interesting that racial attitudes are pretty much independent of political orientation; this suggests we need to look somewhere else besides politics to see what's going on.

Thanks for the pointer to the QuickTables--I like the easy access to the highly-regarded GSS data.

Unfortunately, the data doesn't demonstrate that racial attitudes are pretty much independent of political orientation.

One more thing that makes America different from Canada and much of the rest of the world is a long and sordid history of voter suppression here targeting minorities.

Yes, some countries require photo ID without the intent or effect of targeting minorities. That does not necessarily prove a benign intent here. The specific history matters.

"No party has a monopoly on racism" makes Alex sound like Rush Limbaugh? Clearly, your worldview has been threatened by data.


What are we going to do around here without the people who find accusations of racism useful around elections and election season.

We must rethink ourselves.

All lefties are racists by definition. You can't believe in both identity politics and equality.

(1) Jason said " Most people I know, regardless of their political persuasion, believe that a predominantly black neighborhood is less safe than a predominantly white one, but I don’t believe any of them would say so on a survey."

This raises two questions: is this belief in fact true? And, if it is true, is it "racist" to believe that it is true?

(2) There are no doubt people on the Right who by any definition are anti-Black racists. Almost by defintion, there are no racists of that sort on the Left. (It's not legitimate to equate support for pro-Black racial discrimination in hiring and college admissions as racism, because the motivation is completely different, wrong as these policies may be.) But the overwhelming sentiment on the Right is one that welcomes Black economic and political advancement, if it comes in the same way that every other ethnic group in the United States has advanced. The resentment is when this "advancement" is by becoming a dependent client-group of the state. Note the huge burst of sentiment for the Presidential bid of (the manifestly unqualified) Herman Cain, or the warm reception given to Black conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Alan West.

(3) Liberals and others on the Left are not racists in the traditional sense. But many of them act as if they believe that Blacks as a group are inherently incapable of meeting civilized norms. They just put the "blame" for this on past or present discrimination, and apologize and excuse criminal and irresponsible behavior when it is done by Blacks.

(4) Black racism takes the form of anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitism among Blacks is far greater than it is among whites.

"According to Anti-Defamation League surveys begun in 1964, African Americans are significantly more likely than white Americans to hold antisemitic beliefs, black Americans of all education levels are significantly more likely than whites of the same education level to be antisemitic. In the 1998 survey, blacks (34%) were nearly four times as likely as whites (9%) to fall into the most antisemitic category (those agreeing with at least 6 of 11 statements that were potentially or clearly antisemitic). Among blacks with no college education, 43% fell into the most antisemitic group (vs. 18% for the general population), which fell to 27% among blacks with some college education, and 18% among blacks with a four-year college degree (vs. 5% for the general population)."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#African-American_community]

I am against intermarriage. I don't believe Red Sox fans should ever be allowed to marry Yankee fans.


I thought you said 'rapist.'

For what it's worth, I am extremely liberal by this blogs standards, and I picked up the belief that there are large discrepencies in racial attitudes during the gop primaries in the south. But I didn't realize that public policy poling was only surveying voting republicans. They said that more than half were opposed to interacial marraige. But they did not compare across political affiliations. So I picked up an error and I thank Tyler for bringing this to my attention.

Maybe Republicans have all the racists, I don't know. But what if it is simply this:

What if 90+% of blacks voted for one party. Wouldn't racists not go to that party and simply choose the other party by default?

Then you could say "that other party is the racist party!" even though what you might actually mean is "that party has all of the very small, inconsequential number of racists which doesn't really reflect on the racism of the party logically but is very helpful if I prefer the other party that nearly all the blacks vote for." And then, when you have policies that "look out for" the interests of blacks (or illegal immigrants, see below) sometimes in ways that are bound to be a little over-the-top it becomes problematic as the "racist" party is suddenly justified by some of your rhetoric.

Also, it's my sense, and again I can't read minds, that the voter ID justification in the mind of the moderate unaware Republican voter is more about illegal immigrants.

This poll only looks at racism against blacks. If you expand the poll to look for clear racism against others, like asians, jews, hispanics, or even whites (like saying all whites are devils,or white cracker babies should be killed), and you ask every group, not just whites, I suspect the figures for dems would be much worse. Perhaps repubs would be worse on anti hispanic racism (although you should not count hostility to illegal immigrants as racism, since that could be based on rule of law, only hostility to legal immigrants should count), but on all the others I cited here, I suspect the dems are worse.

No surprises here:

“I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine,” said Doug Preisse, chairman of the county Republican Party and elections board member who voted against weekend hours, in an email to The Dispatch. “Let’s be fair and reasonable.”


What the fuck does "Blacks Shouldn’t Be Pushy" even mean?!?

Someone who thinks no one should be "pushy" will say yes, and someone who thinks anyone is allowed to be "pushy" will say no, without any racist implications...

Also, people who favor laws against interracial marriage should be kicked out of any country ASAP, since such laws have no effect on them (except perhaps for reducing mating competition, which is obviously not a legitimate thing to want), while they are detrimental for others.

Our voting laws say one vote, per each free living person (not in prison), per person 18+, per state (with valid address), per US citizen. Voting is voluntary not required. If a person doesn not register to vote, they can't vote. This is the primary way that US citizens have to participate in the selection of government officials and laws. The voting laws are very specific and they are designed to prevent voter fraud. Other countries have revolutions to change things in government, we have free democratic elections. So ,why should we not have to prove our qualifications before voting. We have to prove our ID qualifications to get a drivers licence or state ID, a passport, to get married, to join the military, to get into college, to get medicare or any other government assistance. If some people don't have ID's or transportation, find ways to solve those problems such as state issued IDs, vote by mail, absentee voting and others. This is better than to weaken the voter laws making it easier to fraudulently vote. These voter rules/laws are not racist by design, nor excessively hard or burdensome. Don't make it easy for people or groups of partisans to vote more than once, vote from the grave or in prison, when not a citizen or not of age. The idea is to make it easy to participate in voting, but not so easy as to invite voter fraud. Having ID requirements to vote is above racial prejudice or partisan politics. This is the best way to eliminate any and all voter fraud, period. So, stop debating this point and help people to qualify to vote in their local communities.

The history of the United States is one of duality. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, our nation was founded on the principles of equality in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “Persuasive racism” refers to the issue of racial discrimination. There are two explanations for the racial discrimination. First it places racism at the level of the individual and collective individuals. White prejudice produces disadvantages and poverty for minorities, further creating prejudice by creating whites’ opinions of blacks. Also, throughout time the white business owners have discriminated against blacks and minorities by paying them less and placing them in the lowest positions. The second explanation states that today’s governments and markets are constantly biased. Minorities could never “catch up” to white society no matter what they do because there is continual racism. It is believed that business persons feel they can repress the minority due to the continual racism in our nation’s history and that our Capitalistic economy would benefit if minorities had more money to spend and dispense in the economy. Only if the government would set the example, then other businesses would feel the same about minorities.

We all know blacks have low IQ's therefore cant be expected to have IDs.

1. if a white voter doesn't vote for a black candidate because he is black, is that racism?
2. if a black voter doesn't vote for a white candidate because he is white, is that racism?
3. 96% of blacks voted for obama in '08.
4. obama received 51% of the vote in aggregate.
5. either approx 45% of blacks are racist (ignoring other variables correlated or not with race) or the answers to 1 and 2 are both "no".
6. i'd say the answers to 1 and 2 are both "no".
7. so if you vote for a candidate based on race, that does not make you a racist.

I'd be curious about party identification in this survey. Self-described "Democrats" are very often southern or Appalachian whites who overwhelmingly vote Republican in national elections, but continue to identify as Democrats out of heritage and habit. This was even more true in 2002, the date of this survey, than it is in 2012. States like West Virginia and Arkansas are full of these nominal Democrats.

In 2008, Obama outperformed Kerry's 2004 performance in nearly every county in the country, as you'd expect given a strong Democratic year. The only exceptions were Massachusetts (he lacked Kerry's home state advantage), Arizona (McCain's home state), and every Appalachian/Ozark county across a dozen or so states, where he actually underperformed relative to Kerry. He also performed dismally in those areas during the primaries. There's pretty abundant evidence that race played a role, because this was a candidate every other part of the country was swinging towards.

If this survey had been of self-described "liberals" and "conservatives rather than "Democrats" and "Republicans", I bet we'd see more of a disparity.

Comments for this post are closed