Critical race theory social sciences

You have it backward yet again. Obama is blatantly anti-America. Opposing him has nothing to do with racism, except for his own. Obama is also blatantly racist as is his wife.

People opposing Obama's policies is a sign of their patriotism. People disliking his racism is a sign of their anti-racism.

 

Don't twist my words. I said a combination of the two.

 

The question is, what is the demonstrable evidence that any of them voted against him or his policies in part "because he was half black"? Without demonstrable evidence that this was part of their reason to oppose him, your assessment sounds racist.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3qo0UGmnz2yN2NZYxDN4Ip&cshid=1625624657311

This study shows that race was a factor in whites voting against Obama. Now provide support that it didn't. But my saying that race was a factor for some people does not make me a racist. Arguing that it didn't makes YOU a RACIST.

 

Of course, proving the negative is essentially impossible. Out of millions of voters that didn't vote for Obama, I'm confident that there were significant numbers who did so due to racism. In other news, water is wet.
Even trying to prove non-racist motives for congressional votes is impossible. However, the GOP appears to be treating many of Biden's initiatives in similar fashion as they did with Obama's. (Which may not prove anything, either way.)

 

LOL. Nope, not gonna respond to a nebulous “statistics” paper on this. Present your argument. Quote or state the salient facts that demonstrate that they—"white Republicans" and "Mitch McConnell"—opposed his policies in part because he is black.

The track record for your posts containing pertinent factual information is virtually nil. Your nonsensical personal attack accusing me of being a racist in lieu of answering the question is only making your posts look ever more racist.

 

Yes, that may be its most salient feature. I read the paper and am dubious of any positive salience. My dare is to cite and defend it. It looks like topnotch Mark Twain material for mendacity.

But it was also chock full of racist assumptions that the more discerning might find off-putting if not downright offensive.

I’ll leave it at laughable and in conclusion vote for the following as the favorite statement of clear neutrality (or should that be neutral clarity?):

“This analysis provided evidence that the ranking instrument was at least as unobtrusive as the ranking instrument.”

 

I've seen nothing from you except insults. Not a strong argument. Try some "salient facts. "

 

IMO, given those choices the best answer would be "None of the above." Of course that would undoubtedly exclude me and others like me from the "study", thus increasing the chances that answers would slant toward the desired result.

 

LOL. You are one to talk of insults. The question still remains unanswered. Show your "salient facts." Quote them or state them. The article you posted appears to be as my post described. Make your case--defend it, if you really think it has anything bona fide to support your racist accusation.

 

That stat is reported, but respondents were not informed that opting out was allowed. Still some 11% of whites refused to take the bait, whereas only a few percent of blacks or Hispanics opted out.

 

Taking this tack may be rather hard on his claims, as the paper he linked, if its "ranking instrument" can be trusted at least rudimentarily, indicates that black respondents were the most “racist” voters of all, while whites were by far the least racist—the ratio being as much as 6:1.

 

Though that statement is problematic and doesn’t speak to the actual contention, the study does not support your claim, which may be why you haven’t bothered to quote or cite it.

Here’s a quote from the article (bold emphasis added):

I introduce a relatively unobtrusive observational measure of racial salience—a ranking instrument—that was included on a battery of the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Responses to this item suggest that race lacked salience for most white Americans in 2008.​

Much more accurate would be the conclusion that “race lacked salience for practically all white Americans in 2008.” There is really nothing more than speculation to support the contrary, especially in the case of Obama.

Still, you are welcome to explain why you believe the article actually does support your racism claims.

 

Taken out of context and the "much more accurate claim is yours not the author's.
"Responses to this item suggest that race lacked salience for most white Americans in 2008. However, even after controlling for demographic and political variables, whites for whom race was salient were substantially less likely to vote for Obama, particularly if they also held racially conservative views."

 

Yes, the alternative but far more accurate conclusion was clearly my own. Sorry if the “would be” didn’t make that clear enough. The actual citation was not taken out of context. The problem is that the study does not demonstrate, but rather speculates that a few whites voted for someone other than Obama in part because of race. If you think there is actual evidence otherwise in the study, then cite it and explain why.

Having said that, the point of taking up this discussion was to find out who was opposing Obama’s policies because of his race rather than his policies. Just what policy of his was so great yet greatly opposed by Reps in part because of his race? You have zero proof that McConnell or any other Rep was acting in such a way.

 

whites for whom race was salient were substantially less likely to vote for Obama